When you look at the Bible, God seems to be presented in one of two ways, abundant noise, great light, complete vastness, such as how Moses tended to experience God, a God that is too awesome to behold. On the other side of the coin is the God of Elijah, the still small voice, the God that exists not in great fire or earthquake but in the silence behind the wind. That still small voice can be seen in other religious texts as well, such as the Tao Te Ching, which talks about how the Tao is found in the emptiness, the silence, the void. The bottom line is God does not tend to be found in the middle or maybe in the middle we find Jesus, but that sounds like a different topic so I am going to ignore it for the purposes of this blog.
Do we tend to find God in the noise or do we find God in the silence? I imagine it is different for different people. I know people who have heard or seen God in a visual or audible way, others I think find God the most in the midst of noise, hymns of praises, songs that rock with the beat of the spirit.
In general I find God in the silence. When I talk to God I do not hear the answers, but I do get a reply. I find my heart being turned, my mind pushing against something that redirects me, that leads me to look at it in a different way, to me that is the silent prompting of God, a way that God communicates even in the silence, even just in my mind. These last few days I have found God over and over again in streets of glistening white, trees silvered by the frost. In the still and the silence of that beauty, my heart is enlarged with the presence of God.
Where do you find God? Does God appear in noise and in brilliant fashion, or in stillness, silence, peace? Or fine, does God appear in that middle form, that balance of silence and noise that is Christ? Where do you find God? When do you seek for the divine?
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Insert profound thoughts here
I have been staring at this blank page for about ten minutes ... clicking over to Facebook or email in hopes of a distraction thinking "what can I say today." I have wanted to get back to blogging for a while so I am trying to build back up good habits, but the challenge I face now is what in the world do I say. What I think makes it hard for me when it comes to all social media sites, blogs, facebook, etc, is the need to feel profound. Maybe I take Mark Twain's comments about opening your mouth and proving you are a fool to seriously. Maybe its the fact that I hear to many criticisms from others about the inane nature of these new forms of communication and want to make sure I am not feeding into that. Maybe it is just that I want everyone to think/realize how smart I am, so I only want to say something if it is really profoudn. Whatever the reason it tends to create a certain amount of writer's block when it comes to things like blogging.
I know that I am not the only who struggles with this either. Often I am at the other end of, people not wanting to say to much to me because they do not want me to know how much they know, or do not know about the Bible or faith. I think we have all heard the expression "there are no dumb questions" or "no wrong questions." Do we take this to heart?
Maybe the real question is are we better off with the information deluge we are currently faced with, having to sort out the nuggets of useful information from the vast sea of stuff that is just not helpful or relevant to us. Or are we better off losing some of that information, because people like me are unsure we have somehting to contribute or do not think what we do have is worth offering up. Given the interesting "rabbit holes" I have followed by clicking on links and reading blogs and posts, I would say more is better than less. So whay do I always air on the side of less?
I know that I am not the only who struggles with this either. Often I am at the other end of, people not wanting to say to much to me because they do not want me to know how much they know, or do not know about the Bible or faith. I think we have all heard the expression "there are no dumb questions" or "no wrong questions." Do we take this to heart?
Maybe the real question is are we better off with the information deluge we are currently faced with, having to sort out the nuggets of useful information from the vast sea of stuff that is just not helpful or relevant to us. Or are we better off losing some of that information, because people like me are unsure we have somehting to contribute or do not think what we do have is worth offering up. Given the interesting "rabbit holes" I have followed by clicking on links and reading blogs and posts, I would say more is better than less. So whay do I always air on the side of less?
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Two Sides Not So Far Apart
I grew up in a family passionate about issues of peace and justice. As such I a grew up listening to people like Peter, Paul and Mary, Tom Paxton, and other less known folk singers like Charlie King. We did not really listen to pop music and certainly did not listen to country. Our music focused on causes of social justice at home and abroad, and the plight of workers and the everyday guys kept down by governments and corporations.
When my older brother graduated high school he worked for a couple of summers at my aunt and uncle's business and while there he picked up some country music habits from our cousins. What he brought back proved my "worst" fears that it really was all about drinking and women and pickup trucks. (okay, not really, but enough to at least confirm my own stereotypes.) I continued in my own preferences for "better" music and neer really gave country much more thought ... except I still associate Garth Brooks with playing Golden Eye 007 on the Nintendo 64, which my brother and I did a lot that year.
Since marrying a woman who was born in Tennesse, sister lives in Texas, and parents live an hour north of Nashville, I have obviously had more occasions to once again encounter the genre that is Country. This Christmas I went to a concert at the Rymen (home of the Grand Old Opry). I have to admit I cannot remember the name of the group we listened to but they again went a long ways to confirming my concerns about the message of country ... which at its worst seems to be about drinking, the glorification of alcoholism, some questionable treatment of women, and jingoism. Now that is not to say I did not hear some great songs, some funny songs, or some talent musicans as well, but some of the negatives did stand out as well. Buried in those "negatives" was something else as well, a great respect for the blue collar, hard working, individuals. What surprised me the most was that late in their set they began singing a song "I Shall Be Released" by Bob Dylan ... a song I knew from listening to Peter, Paul and Mary.
There are a lot of differences between folk singers and country singers ... especially when it comes to politics and such, but deep down at the bottom both them hold this same fundamental passion for the everyday person. It gets approached in different ways, we have different ideas of what is right and good and all, but in the end we all want the same thing, we all want freedom. It is easy to get stuck on our differences, the "negatives" we see in each other. What I was reminded of at the country music concert was that we also have the a lot fo the same values at heart as well.
I was also reminded that next time I go to a country music concert I am sitting in the non-alchohlic section.
When my older brother graduated high school he worked for a couple of summers at my aunt and uncle's business and while there he picked up some country music habits from our cousins. What he brought back proved my "worst" fears that it really was all about drinking and women and pickup trucks. (okay, not really, but enough to at least confirm my own stereotypes.) I continued in my own preferences for "better" music and neer really gave country much more thought ... except I still associate Garth Brooks with playing Golden Eye 007 on the Nintendo 64, which my brother and I did a lot that year.
Since marrying a woman who was born in Tennesse, sister lives in Texas, and parents live an hour north of Nashville, I have obviously had more occasions to once again encounter the genre that is Country. This Christmas I went to a concert at the Rymen (home of the Grand Old Opry). I have to admit I cannot remember the name of the group we listened to but they again went a long ways to confirming my concerns about the message of country ... which at its worst seems to be about drinking, the glorification of alcoholism, some questionable treatment of women, and jingoism. Now that is not to say I did not hear some great songs, some funny songs, or some talent musicans as well, but some of the negatives did stand out as well. Buried in those "negatives" was something else as well, a great respect for the blue collar, hard working, individuals. What surprised me the most was that late in their set they began singing a song "I Shall Be Released" by Bob Dylan ... a song I knew from listening to Peter, Paul and Mary.
There are a lot of differences between folk singers and country singers ... especially when it comes to politics and such, but deep down at the bottom both them hold this same fundamental passion for the everyday person. It gets approached in different ways, we have different ideas of what is right and good and all, but in the end we all want the same thing, we all want freedom. It is easy to get stuck on our differences, the "negatives" we see in each other. What I was reminded of at the country music concert was that we also have the a lot fo the same values at heart as well.
I was also reminded that next time I go to a country music concert I am sitting in the non-alchohlic section.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Election Day tribute?
While it is perhaps a couple of days delayed I wanted to take a moment to reflect on our practice of elections in the United States. First of all, this year we are given a powerful reminder, that despite issues and concerns, Florida in 2000, Ohio 2004, Minnesota senate race in 2008, we have a strong election system. Looking at the challenges that places like Afghanistan face in holding their elections and keeping them fair, I think we have a lot as a country to celebrate. I am a huge fan of democracy and all that it does to help all of us.
That being said, on the eve of election night I feel like I saw a "still better way" to quote Paul. As a part of the Long Range Planning process at Park, the committee was asked to help select a track, or direction for our church to take. The conversation was started by everyone placing their vote or preference and then we tallied the votes. Of the 41 cast, the leading track had 18, while the others had 11, 11, and 1 respectively. While not a full majority, since everyone could cast two votes, it was reasonable to assume that of the 21 people voting, a majority cast at least one of their votes for this direction. In our election system that would seem to imply a win and time to move on. One of the values we have as a part of the process is the consensus model which means while the vote told us how people were feeling in GENERAL we also care what people are feeling SPECIFICALLY. The question was then asked of everyone in the group is this a track that you can get behind. The question was not, did you vote for it, or was it your first, or even second choice but instead, can you get behind this track. Obviously if it was your first choice that would be a yes, but even if it was your last choice you could still look at it and say "yes, I can live with that." This is not the first time I have worked with a consensus model but it reminds me of a key difference that exists between it and our current political process: on a national level everything is about winning.
If you are like me, at some point you have gone to the polls and voted for someone, but really what you probably wanted to do was to vote against the other person. You may have agreed with the person your were voting for, but your real issues was what the other person stood for. Unfortunately our political system is based not on what is best for EVERYONE but instead what is best for a majority, or even simply what is best for a majority of those who actually vote. Ironically I think our country was founded as a democracy but with specific measures put in place not support majority rule, but to protect minority rule from it. As it was explained to me, one of the reasons for the Free of Religion clause in the Constitution was because most denominations were worried about what would happen if someone else got the majority. Europe had been torn about with religious wars based around majority rule, the US, which actually had a clear system of determining it, wanted to prevent that from happening.
What would it look like if we had a more consensus model of elections? What if our politicians were worried not about what is best for some people but what is best for all people. Are we even geared to think that way anymore? Everyone can think about what they do not like and block that from happening, suddenly there would be tax cuts for everyone, since no one would want to raise their own taxes, but is that really the solution? I am not saying our current tax code is fair or good for everyone BUT I can also say that while no tax code would be fair it would not be good, since if we want government we kinda need to support it somehow. It challenges all of us to think beyond what we want in the moment to what is really important for all of us.
So once again, I love our country, I love the right to vote, but I sometimes wonder if maybe we need to rethink what we are voting for ... or who else is affected by our vote.
That being said, on the eve of election night I feel like I saw a "still better way" to quote Paul. As a part of the Long Range Planning process at Park, the committee was asked to help select a track, or direction for our church to take. The conversation was started by everyone placing their vote or preference and then we tallied the votes. Of the 41 cast, the leading track had 18, while the others had 11, 11, and 1 respectively. While not a full majority, since everyone could cast two votes, it was reasonable to assume that of the 21 people voting, a majority cast at least one of their votes for this direction. In our election system that would seem to imply a win and time to move on. One of the values we have as a part of the process is the consensus model which means while the vote told us how people were feeling in GENERAL we also care what people are feeling SPECIFICALLY. The question was then asked of everyone in the group is this a track that you can get behind. The question was not, did you vote for it, or was it your first, or even second choice but instead, can you get behind this track. Obviously if it was your first choice that would be a yes, but even if it was your last choice you could still look at it and say "yes, I can live with that." This is not the first time I have worked with a consensus model but it reminds me of a key difference that exists between it and our current political process: on a national level everything is about winning.
If you are like me, at some point you have gone to the polls and voted for someone, but really what you probably wanted to do was to vote against the other person. You may have agreed with the person your were voting for, but your real issues was what the other person stood for. Unfortunately our political system is based not on what is best for EVERYONE but instead what is best for a majority, or even simply what is best for a majority of those who actually vote. Ironically I think our country was founded as a democracy but with specific measures put in place not support majority rule, but to protect minority rule from it. As it was explained to me, one of the reasons for the Free of Religion clause in the Constitution was because most denominations were worried about what would happen if someone else got the majority. Europe had been torn about with religious wars based around majority rule, the US, which actually had a clear system of determining it, wanted to prevent that from happening.
What would it look like if we had a more consensus model of elections? What if our politicians were worried not about what is best for some people but what is best for all people. Are we even geared to think that way anymore? Everyone can think about what they do not like and block that from happening, suddenly there would be tax cuts for everyone, since no one would want to raise their own taxes, but is that really the solution? I am not saying our current tax code is fair or good for everyone BUT I can also say that while no tax code would be fair it would not be good, since if we want government we kinda need to support it somehow. It challenges all of us to think beyond what we want in the moment to what is really important for all of us.
So once again, I love our country, I love the right to vote, but I sometimes wonder if maybe we need to rethink what we are voting for ... or who else is affected by our vote.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
The real value of money
I am reading an interesting book at the moment called "More Sex is Safer Sex: the Unconventional Wisdom of Economics" by Steven Landsburg. Landsburg looks at a variety of different statistical situations or dilemmas and examines the economical side of them, often then offering his own take on the cost/benefit analysis and what that means the "right" answer is. It is an interesting read for a couple of reasons: one he occasionally gets sidetracked onto his own issues and beliefs (fairly conservative with a strong belief in a lack of government involvement) but also because he presents some intriguing arguments into why some people should be having more sex, or why Scrouge before he gives his money away is helping more people than after he gives it away. For someone like me with little economic background I end up mostly having to trust his economic arguments because I do not have the expertise to refute him. It is good to occasionally be forced to trust what other people are saying reather than consistently trying to assert your own opinion. I also think it is a good exercise to look for flaws based on what another person thinks and not refute them simply by saying what you think instead.
It raises an interesting question to me though ... does money really determine the value of things as much as we think it does. Landsburg is seemingly aware of outside values ... he points to the fact that a person has a child inspite of all the negative economic effects of it and in fact rejoices in the birth of the baby. He is also aware that people marry for more reasons that simply economic gain or beauty of the potential partner. I think he struggles how to fully quantify that for his analysis. For the child he is simple ignores it, focusing instead on the cost/benefit to the rest of the community, assuming that the parent is already coming out ahead. But is money really the best measure of value? Or maybe the real question are there some moral absolutes that are more superceding the econmic value of something.
One argument that Landsburg looks at is child labor in third world countries. He seems to make the point that child labor is helping the families, that no one would willing subject their child to such work unless it was the only way to make enough for the family. He feels that those of us in the first world can afford luxuries like not having our children work, but that even in our own past it was necessary for children to work, and work a lot to make enough to thrive. By prohibiting child labor we are actually further impoverishing these countries by further limiting their means of production and thus ability to get richer, like we got richer. He points to the fact as wealth increases, child labor decreases, and seems to feel this will be a self-correcting system. I mean, the arugment could be made and in some ways has been made that slavery was a response of the south to remain economically competitive with the north during th 1850s, was it wrong of people to say that work should not be done by slaves? Is it possible to take some ethical values and impoes them on an economic system, for some of us to say we do not believe such a practice is moral right and we are not willing to be a part of it. Now, Landsburg is right that if we take such a stance we need to be aware of its effects ... if we are decreasing the potential of a country in some ways maybe there are other ways we need to work to improve it. At the same time, that does not mean we should feel that a simply economic analysis tells the whole story.
What I love about Landsburg's book is that he challenges me to think and pushes me with some hard "facts" that in the end remind me, my faith is not about facts, or simply things we can measure in real world dollars or units, it is tied to something greater, it is connected to a God that goes beyond money to offer us something of real value. We as Christians are challenged to look at the world as it is, and decide what ways our faith calls us to act differently, or live differently, regardless of what the economic pressures tell us.
It raises an interesting question to me though ... does money really determine the value of things as much as we think it does. Landsburg is seemingly aware of outside values ... he points to the fact that a person has a child inspite of all the negative economic effects of it and in fact rejoices in the birth of the baby. He is also aware that people marry for more reasons that simply economic gain or beauty of the potential partner. I think he struggles how to fully quantify that for his analysis. For the child he is simple ignores it, focusing instead on the cost/benefit to the rest of the community, assuming that the parent is already coming out ahead. But is money really the best measure of value? Or maybe the real question are there some moral absolutes that are more superceding the econmic value of something.
One argument that Landsburg looks at is child labor in third world countries. He seems to make the point that child labor is helping the families, that no one would willing subject their child to such work unless it was the only way to make enough for the family. He feels that those of us in the first world can afford luxuries like not having our children work, but that even in our own past it was necessary for children to work, and work a lot to make enough to thrive. By prohibiting child labor we are actually further impoverishing these countries by further limiting their means of production and thus ability to get richer, like we got richer. He points to the fact as wealth increases, child labor decreases, and seems to feel this will be a self-correcting system. I mean, the arugment could be made and in some ways has been made that slavery was a response of the south to remain economically competitive with the north during th 1850s, was it wrong of people to say that work should not be done by slaves? Is it possible to take some ethical values and impoes them on an economic system, for some of us to say we do not believe such a practice is moral right and we are not willing to be a part of it. Now, Landsburg is right that if we take such a stance we need to be aware of its effects ... if we are decreasing the potential of a country in some ways maybe there are other ways we need to work to improve it. At the same time, that does not mean we should feel that a simply economic analysis tells the whole story.
What I love about Landsburg's book is that he challenges me to think and pushes me with some hard "facts" that in the end remind me, my faith is not about facts, or simply things we can measure in real world dollars or units, it is tied to something greater, it is connected to a God that goes beyond money to offer us something of real value. We as Christians are challenged to look at the world as it is, and decide what ways our faith calls us to act differently, or live differently, regardless of what the economic pressures tell us.
Monday, October 12, 2009
There is a season ...
It is October 12th and I am sitting in a coffee shop watching large fluffy white flakes of snow fall on the ground. It is a beautiful picturesque scene ... other than the date on the calendar. I know from living in Minnesota most of my life that getting snow snow in October is not out of line. What is surprising to me is that the snow falling now is not the first snow. In fact it is landing in places on existing snow. We got our first snow on Friday night and somehow it is still around. I love snow, probably leftover from not making enough snow forts as a kid. Even now that snow is more of a hassle for driving and shoveling than it is something I play in I still enjoy the beauty it adds to the world. By the same token I love the cold, I find it invigorating and refreshing. Maybe my competitive nature enjoys something that challenges me, who knows, the bottom line colder whether just forces me to think harder about whether or not I should be going outside barefoot, or maybe it is time to retire the sandals for a bit. In the end I really just like winter.
So I find it odd that I am sitting here, in the middle of October loving the snow that is coming down but also feeling very much like now is not the time. I really feel like we missed the fall up here. Some of it was that I was gone for a week to the South and while I was gone the temp went from the 70s to the 50s and now into the 30s and 40s. Even adding that week into the occasion we really did not have a fall around here. Trees still have their leaves, many of them have not even fully turned yet. As much as I love the weather that winter brings, even I think there is a time for everything, and I am struggling to feel like now is the time for snow, now is the time for winter to start. I think we all need our rhythms, Ecclesiastes really does understand it, there is a time for everything. I guess my question is whether now is really the time for snow.
So I find it odd that I am sitting here, in the middle of October loving the snow that is coming down but also feeling very much like now is not the time. I really feel like we missed the fall up here. Some of it was that I was gone for a week to the South and while I was gone the temp went from the 70s to the 50s and now into the 30s and 40s. Even adding that week into the occasion we really did not have a fall around here. Trees still have their leaves, many of them have not even fully turned yet. As much as I love the weather that winter brings, even I think there is a time for everything, and I am struggling to feel like now is the time for snow, now is the time for winter to start. I think we all need our rhythms, Ecclesiastes really does understand it, there is a time for everything. I guess my question is whether now is really the time for snow.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Vacation
I was able to travel to South Carolina last week for a much needed vacation. It was also the kind of vacation I needed, one with few schedules or expectations, but instead filled with rest and relaxation. It was a good time with family in a beautiful rented condo by the ocean.
While there were a lot of things to enjoy during the week, perhaps one of the ones I enjoyed most was swimming in the ocean. In particular on our last day there the waves were finally reaching a decent height. Having little experience with the ocean I have not sense of what is normal or not, but I do know that I enjoy more waves to less, and these waves where finally getting to a size that was appealing to me. As the waves grew in size they began to provide a humbling reminder to me. Between my height and weight, I am a big guy, but those waves reminded me of something, in the grand scheme of things I am rather little.
The lectionary text for the month is Job, and I am reminded of God, speaking to Job from the whirlwind, reminded Job just how human he is, and just what that means in the grand scheme of creation. I think it is easy to forget this. To get the South Carolina I flew in a plane that soared through the sky at close to 500 mph. I saw an aircraft carrier and a submarine, reminders of how we seek to be masters of land, sea, and sky. We can do so much as humans that it is easy to lose our place, lose our perspective. Standing in the ocean, being pushed around by the never ending line of waves, I was reminded just how small we all are. For someone like me that was a good thing, it is good to remember our place in the world, one of God's children, but just one, and just a child of God.
While there were a lot of things to enjoy during the week, perhaps one of the ones I enjoyed most was swimming in the ocean. In particular on our last day there the waves were finally reaching a decent height. Having little experience with the ocean I have not sense of what is normal or not, but I do know that I enjoy more waves to less, and these waves where finally getting to a size that was appealing to me. As the waves grew in size they began to provide a humbling reminder to me. Between my height and weight, I am a big guy, but those waves reminded me of something, in the grand scheme of things I am rather little.
The lectionary text for the month is Job, and I am reminded of God, speaking to Job from the whirlwind, reminded Job just how human he is, and just what that means in the grand scheme of creation. I think it is easy to forget this. To get the South Carolina I flew in a plane that soared through the sky at close to 500 mph. I saw an aircraft carrier and a submarine, reminders of how we seek to be masters of land, sea, and sky. We can do so much as humans that it is easy to lose our place, lose our perspective. Standing in the ocean, being pushed around by the never ending line of waves, I was reminded just how small we all are. For someone like me that was a good thing, it is good to remember our place in the world, one of God's children, but just one, and just a child of God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)