I listened to a bit on NPR’s Morning Edition this morning. There is a new documentary that will be appearing on PBS stations this evening by Judy Woodruff entitled “Generation Next.”
Morning Edition played a small portion of one woman’s story, a senior at Davis College. She grew up in one of the Carolinas to college professor parents and in the local Presbyterian Church. She is a religion major a Davis.
She took a semester of foreign study, which isn’t unusual for many American students. Her experience was, however. She took a semester (if I remember the time span correctly) and spent it in China, Thailand, and India. She spent the time studying and experiencing other religions – Buddhist, Hindu, and others that I don’t remember at this time. She and her fellow students lived in ashrams, in temples, and participated in the religious activities, worship, and meditation with the monks and other religious people.
She told the story of returning home before heading out on her journey and talking to a Sunday School teacher at the church of her youth. She said he asked her, “Why do you want to travel all over the world and learn about all these other religions when you can sit in my class and I can tell you why they are all wrong?” At which point she said, “That is exactly why I want to do this!”
Her faith was shaken. She had profound experiencing meditating with the Buddhist monks. She had never experienced such things before. Waking at 4:00 am and dragging her pray mat with her, she found something and it shook the foundations of her own Christian faith.
She returned home and went though a faith crisis. Now, she is back in the denomination of her youth back at Davis, but she has become a Christian “pluralist.” She believes that there is not just “one way,” but there can be many ways to God.
She also talked about going and spending time at the Taize community in France, an ecumenical Christian monastic community that attracts a lot of young people. The aspect of her Taize experience that seemed to affect her most occurred during a worship service in the chapel when the singing ended and there was an extended time of silence – 10-15 minutes of silence. She was floored, amazed, astounded over the experience. “The brothers didn’t tell you what to do in that time of silence…,†she said. You can to experience it in your own way. She said she couldn’t believe the experience of sitting with a 1,000, 2,000 young people in silent worship.
Finally, she said that for her generation, that is what they are crying out for. They are crying out for spiritual experience where they are not told what they have to believe or told answers to questions they are not asking, but they want a place where they can discover their faith and question and experience.
For too long American Christianity has failed our young people. We have failed young people and youth because of the attempt to indoctrinate them with the “facts” as the faith sees them (or, rather, as the different sectarian groups see the “facts”). We have failed them for the most part by not being adequate examples for them. We have failed them through our own insecurity, laziness, and ignorance. Our experience of God may well be genuine and our love of God sincere, but that only goes so far as we attempt to pass on the faith to the next generation.
There is little attempt to education young people and youth about how to investigate, how to navigation through, and how to explore their own faith in relation to other religions. There is little explanation of other religions other then saying how false or horrible they are. There is little determination to be examples (do as I say, not as I do seems to rule the day – hypocrisy!). There is a profound fear and mistrust among too many Christian adults concerning the intelligence of their kids. I think there is also a profound lacking of trust that God can woe effectively and draw kids, youth, and young people on His own without the all wise and discerning adults shoving the stuff down their throats.
There is also a profound lacking in the telling of the full story of Christianity. Why in the world did this woman not know about Benedictine spirituality where monks and nuns rise at 4:00 am to pray (not all, of course, and not all at that time)? Why was this woman not told of the Desert Father’s and Mother’s and mediation and contemplation? Why was she not educated effectively in her own faith, first? Probably because of a fear that she might just become a Roman Catholic (gasp), probably because of the fear that if you give kids too much information they might make a wrong decision, probably because adults just don’t do a very good job themselves, and probably because too many adults are too ignorant of their own faith’s traditions.
I applaud what this woman did, but if there had been better instruction in her own faith as she was growing up – not the kind of instruction this Sunday School teaching attempted – she may have been able to avoid her own faith crisis. Maybe she needed the faith crisis, I don’t know. But, I see too many, far too many, young people who simply jettison their faith because when they encounter so many other things via the Internet or TV or the wider world of friends and teachers through college or other information channels now open to them, they realize what has been “kept from them†in many cases. What am I trying to say?
Teach, trust, and be an example. Encourage, support, guide, and direct. Patience, trust, hope, and faith. Carefully listen, strongly challenge, and above all show how much you truly do care. Be full of integrity, honestly, and vulnerability. Just love them through their terrible times, lost times, lonely times, screw-up times, and profound times of discovery. Be an adult and don’t try to be their best-friend, but a mentor, confidant, confessor, coach.
We can teach the faith, even the exclusive claims of Jesus, without trying to withhold from them all this other stuff in the vast and wonderful world so that they don’t think we are just trying to indoctrinate them. What…what…???
I think Anglicanism and The Episcopal Church is a prime vehicular for transmitting and teaching the faith to so many unchurched young people today, if only we will realize it and actually stand for something other than eating ourselves alive through controversy “sectarian warfare.â€
Category Archives: politics/culture
Oh, the changes
I have a new co-worker who is working as the administrative assistant for our project team. We have been pushed into a single cubical until someone figures out how to made new ones. It is a good thing that I don’t feel the need to “piss on my territory.”
She is young and lively. I like her. Since the backs of our chairs practically touch each other, we’ve gotten into some nice conversations, and it isn’t very difficult to know what’s going on “over there.”
Right now, our project is just ramping-up so there is some definite downtime. I read a blogs, particularly those blogs from Anglicans I tend to disagree with – it’s good to understand how the other side thinks and what there are doing, after all. There’s no point in reading the stuff of those who you already agree with. Where’s the fun in that? I don’t do that so much with politics. I don’t know why. Maybe I think I know enough about the other side to not have to bother.
Anyway, I’ve noticed that what she does more than anything is watch YouTube. As plenty of people have said before, YouTube is a phenomenon. I can well understand the contention that YouTube has the potential to strike at the heart of our current understanding of what “TV” is and how we center ourselves around a screen to watch other people and things – entertain ourselves, distract ourselves, hide from reality, or innocently do something mindless. Old media, if they don’t change, will be in as much trouble as are the old American car companies that can’t seem to change rightly and are being put out of business by foreign companies that do. Okay, not a good analogue, that it’s the point that counts, right? Old media has been struggling for a long time and recognizes the need to do something, but they simply can’t get themselves out of their old ways. Just look at the old record companies. It’s everyone else’s fault that their revenues are down and they aren’t selling CD’s.
I just read somewhere that some company is going to produce “TV” shows only for cell-phones.
Speaking of cell-phones: iPhone! I NEEEEEEEED one. Apple Computer, Inc. just does it right. (Well, they do design right, except for when Jobs was away, maybe.) Sometimes, something does come along that is worth the money. Of course, it’s all relative – send money to feed a starving family of nine for a year or buy an iPhone???? What would Jesus do?
I know when my current cell-phone contract ends in August, well, I’m goin’ after the iPhone, I am. I really doubt Jesus would do that. Of course, I don’t think Jesus would necessarily be sitting on his Ikea lounge chair, feet up, in a multicolored striped bathrobe at 6:00 am, drinking home made hot chocolate, and typing on his new black MacBook (clergy-black, that is!), writing drivel on his weblog instead of spending time with the Father in his “Quiet-Time.” Yup, I’m not exactly living up to the image of what the “What Would Jesus Do” crowd might think I should be doing.
Of course, I know that I’m not living up to what Jesus would really rather I (is “I” the right word, or should it be “me”?) be doing or who Jesus would really rather me be. With God’s help, I’m tryin’. I will change. I know if I were, all things will be well, as Julian might have said. The question is: change into what? Now that I’ve squandered away the time I have for a quiet-time, it may be the kind of change that old media or the old car companies attempt to do, rather than the YouTube or Apple kind of change. In short, for the better. Who the heck knows?
Anyway, YouTube and iPhones. The world is a changin’.
Really, what would Jesus do?
Bear with one another
I’m thinking that a primary aspect of a peaceable life has been lost to us through however many years passing up to this year of 2007. We have lost our ability to be patient and to bear with one another through times of trouble and disagreement.
This post is very wordy, I know. Just don’t have the time to tighten it up.
We have also lost our perspective concerning time. All things must be resolved, NOW. We must defeat our enemies, NOW. We must force through our pet legislation, NOW. We must purge from our churches those people and their beliefs that we perceive as apostate and heretical, NOW. We must make everyone Westernized and love democracy NOW. No compromise.
I made a comment on TItusonenine yesterday about realizing that God’s truth will be realized in time, particularly concerning the whole gay issue within Anglicanism that we’ve been fighting over for the past three years and whether this “innovation” is of God or just apostasy. This can be applied to all the theological “innovations” that are sweeping through The Episcopal Church right now. I read in Acts yesterday morning about Gamilial and his recommendation to the Sanhedrin that they should just wait and see what happens to these followers of Jesus and the “troubles” they were causing. Gamilial gave two examples of earlier men and their movements and how once the leader was killed, the movement died. He said that the leaders of Israel should just wait – if this man Jesus is like the others, then his movement will die now that he is dead. If this is truly a move of God, then the members of the Sanhedrin will find themselves fighting against God and will surely lose. Being this way, taking this attitude, is risking and impatient and fearful people cannot do it. The leaders of Israel did not head Gamilial’s advice.
A women responded and said that if these theological and practical “innovations” were the work of the Holy Spirit then all the controversy should have died down by now. Since it hasn’t, then it can’t be a move of the Holy Spirit. Three years? Her perspective and her allowance of time for consideration and resolution have been shrunk to three years. What can be said?
We no longer want to use persuasion to convince others of the supposed superiority of our position or argument, because that takes to much time. We revert to coercion to get our way.
When the time frame for change shrinks from centuries or decades or years to NOW, we loose perspective and we begin to see other human beings only as obstacles to achieving our wants or goals. We lose the ability to be patient, kind, and generous. We are no longer willing to bear with one another as we work through problems together, so we lose the whole concept of iron-sharpens-iron and instead seek to simply impose our will on all others because that way is more expedient. This dynamic is born out in all our perspectives – liberal or conservative – it is a problem of our time, period.
What this also means is that the challenges to our arguments are ignored or put down and the veracity of our arguments is impoverished. There is no longer any need to think through our ideas, to consider possible problems with our thought processes or our plans. Our perspective shrinks to the now, to achieving our end goal now and the means are of little consideration.
That which is truly significant is worthy of taking the time to persuade, to bear with those who disagree, to listen and consider problems in our own thoughts and goals, and to see that the end of our efforts may well be realized far beyond our lifetimes. As much as we want resolution and satisfaction NOW, possibly because we are so overwhelmed with daily life and cannot take the effort needed to persuade and bear with one another, true and honest solutions to our problems will only come with time, patience, and forbearance. A peaceable life only comes after honest peace is achieved.
We do not take the time to understand the Arab cultures and Islamic religious followers. We do not take the time for careful diplomacy and persuasion. We do not take the time for careful planning nor listening to those with differing opinions concerning things like, well, what happens after we topple a dictator. We would rather coerce nations and states to do as we see fit, because of course we know best.
We don’t take the time to persuade those who disagree with our biblical interpretation or understanding of tradition or our reasoning behind our position. We do not take the time to bear with the weaker brother, or to pray and allow God to work out His will, or to allow for the fact that our perspectives could be wrong. It takes too much time to understand the position of our “enemy” to where we could argue their point as well as our own, to walk in their shoes, if you will. It all takes too much time and effort. Just do as I say, NOW! I’m right and don’t challenge me!
All this does is bread contempt, hubris, and oppression. We need to bear with one another in love. Our time perspective needs to be elongated. We need to heed to the process of time and make every effort to persuade, not coercive. If the veracity of our argument is true and deep and sure, it will prevail. It will prevail over time, even if not NOW.
As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” (Ephesians 4:1-3)
Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. Colossians 3:12-14
So, most of us have sex before we are married, eh?
There is a new study released yesterday that suggests that most all people have sex before they are married. Is this really new news? No, but it does suggest that abstinence programs have not had their desired effect.
So, I’ve commented a couple times on Titusonenine over this report. A lot of people want to suggest that the report is meaningless because it matters not what the “world” does, but what Christians are called to do and what we are to call society to do. Yes, but the study report does suggest that our methods have failed. Several people want to once again bring in the evil of homosexuality, which must always be brought into any discussion of sex and The Episcopal Church, it seems. After all, the satanically inspired homosexuals are the reason for the present problems within the Church (and really society all together – particular in their attempts to destroy heterosexual marriage!). Right!?
I don’t think it is so much a forcing to focus on the homosexual issue, but it is easier to focus on “them†than to deal with “our†own failings. These kinds of statistics simply point out our hypocrisy and selective adherence to Scriptural norms. We all fail, and I think that should generate within us a sense of humility. It doesn’t seem to have that effect, however. Who wants to be humble when it feels so much better when we can extol our own vision of who we imagine ourselves to be and condemn everyone else who we like to think does not live up to our own self-selected, but failed, standards.
We should have very high standards, but realize and acknowledge our own failings first. This will save us the embarrassment of trying to explain our hypocrisy to a jaundiced and unbelieving world.
We could pass laws in the U.S. that mirror those up for consideration in Nigeria, which the good Archbishop publicly advocates for, but even if we pass such laws the ability to negate heterosexual sexual adventures and the bringing about of the salvation of marriage will not be advanced.
The Pharisees had lots and lots of laws they tried to obey and tried to force all of the Hebrews to obey to prove their devotion to God, and it didn’t work for them or for the people. It will not work for us, either.
Jesus made clear a change must first happen within the heart of the individual – only in that change will an honest change occur in the behavior of our citizens – homosexual and heterosexual. We focus far too much time on legalisms and less time on aiding the change of human hearts.
These statistics make clear that laws and even social pressure have not worked in this instance. Regardless of what we hope(d) will (would) happen, we are shown that our approaches to encouraging and realizing marital fidelity and sexual abstinence have simply not worked. So now what? Our attempts at scapegoating will not help.
René Girard: Anthropologist Foresees a Christian Renaissance
Anthropologist Foresees a Christian Renaissance
“Ideologies Are Virtually Deceased,” Says René Girard
In the book, the French professor states that “religion conquers philosophy and surpasses it. Philosophies in fact are almost dead. Ideologies are virtually deceased; political theories are almost altogether spent. Confidence in the fact that science can replace religion has already been surmounted. There is in the world a new need for religion.”
In regard to moral relativism, defended by Vattimo, René Girard writes: “I cannot be a relativist” because “I think the relativism of our time is the product of the failure of modern anthropology, of the attempt to resolve problems linked to the diversity of human cultures.
“Anthropology has failed because it has not succeeded in explaining the different human cultures as a unitary phenomenon, and that is why we are bogged down in relativism.
“In my opinion, Christianity proposes a solution to these problems precisely because it demonstrates that the obstacles, the limits that individuals put on one another serve to avoid a certain type of conflicts.”
The French academic continues: “If it was really understood that Jesus is the universal victim who came precisely to surmount these conflicts, the problem would be solved.”
According to the anthropologist, “Christianity is a revelation of love” but also “a revelation of truth” because “in Christianity, truth and love coincide and are one and the same.”
The “concept of love,” which in Christianity is “the rehabilitation of the unjustly accused victim, is truth itself; it is the anthropological truth and the Christian truth,” explains Girard.
I think this is an interesting example of how consideration of the great and divisive issues of our day and their resolution will occur over time. Regrettably, we are at the point where we expect solutions and results and action NOW, not even tomorrow, but NOW. We can see this dynamic at play in the Anglican Communion right now, if we want to consider Christianity as the example, as Girard in fact does.
Solutions to truly significant human problems will not be realized in the immediate, in the urgent. In time flaws and weaknesses will be made plain and strengths will be clear.
As a Christian, I see our human endeavor outside of the immediate. My American 21st Century self wants to be subsumed by the tyranny of the urgent, but I need to see the human endeavor as something that has been, is, and will come – an eternal perspective of life ever after. The resolutions of the significant issues of our time will be resolved beyond my lifetime, but working for solutions and Truth is an everyday affair.
If I honestly want to know Truth, I have to be willing to admit in humility that everything I’ve believed up to this point could be wrong. If I don’t, then what I am really after is something that supports my already determined opinions, or at least in the general direction my thinking is going. Over arching Truth comes over time. Our Lord said that there is more truth to be made plain.
If we all can step back for a moment and consider that we could very well be wrong, all of us would be so much further ahead as we try to live with one another, respect one another in our differences, and we might truly have an idea of diversity without relinquishing the quest for Truth and the worth of our own systems and positions – if, in fact, time proves that these systems and positions bear up. The Anglican expression of Christianity has such a tradition, but this tradition is under a great strain right now. I don’t know whether we will survive intact, frankly due to people who want solutions and resolutions NOW. The demand for NOW comes from both the left and the right.
The homosexual issue that seems to be the flash-point of so much angst and consternation among American society and Christians worldwide today will be resolved not right NOW, but over time. Change is hard and too many resist it (of course, not all change is good and change for change sake is rarely all that great!).
I don’t know, Modernism is passing by and Post-Modernism seems to have the day. The “next big thing” is in play somewhere. As for me and my house (if I had one), I will look to the beginning of Wisdom and Truth as my source. I believe that to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of Sarah, Ruth, and Mary. (That does mean that I think others do not understand many aspects of the Truth, or in fact that others very often example that Truth more clearly and faithfully than those who claim the name).
“All truth passes through 3 stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as self-evident.”
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Soy is why you’re gay!
Some things just don’t need comment. Here is an article on a Religious Right website describing the new theory of why some males are homosexual – soy is “feminizing,” so says Jim Rutz on WorldNetDaily.
An excerpt:
“Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That’s why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today’s rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because “I can’t remember a time when I wasn’t homosexual.” No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can’t remember a time when excess estrogen wasn’t influencing them.”
The funny thing is, I remember a report coming out of one of the Religious Right anti-gay groups (Focus-on-the-Family, perhaps???) a few years ago. They were reporting that “research” demonstrated that gay men have above-average penis size, and that the result was embarrassment and fear over the “deformity.” This pushed them to avoid women and heterosexual relationships and to be with “like” people. Okay, well, I suppose their “research” and the conclusions drawn could be debated. Now, we see the new most current “research” showing small penile size and homosexuality result from the same source – soy products. Who is right, hum? I suspect neither.
Read all about it here.
I suggest all of us now boycott all soy products until God changes the formula so that it stops making heterosexual guys gay!
Via: Dappled Things
Behavior
I was listening to Condoleezza Rice this morning. She was commenting on, actually criticizing, some of the conclusions and suggestions of the Baker-Hamilton Report.
She commented specifically on Baker’s suggestion that we talk to our enemies – like Iran and Syria.
Baker and Hamilton have compared the current situation with the former policy of talking to are enemies, like our former arch-enemy the Soviet Union. Rice believes the comparison is invalid, for various reasons. One thing she suggested about former policies of engagement with the Soviet Union was that our goal concerning the Soviets was centered on changing their behavior. Likewise, she suggests that the refusal to talk to countries like Iran or Syria is intended to illicit the same result – a change in their behavior.
I was struck by her repeated use of the word “behavior.” The goal of the present administration is to force these countries to change their behavior. The next thought that came to mind was the intent of the Religious Right to change the behavior of American citizens. Their intent is to change “homosexual behavior” into “heterosexual behavior” or at least no sexual behavior, to change “pro-environment behavior” to “pro-business behavior”, to change abortion behavior, fornication behavior, and adultery behavior – lots of other kinds of behaviors, too.
All laws are for the purpose of changing behavior for the well ordering of society. All law is morally determined in some way or another. However, this present administration, supported and encouraged by the Religious Right, is intent on changing (or forcing the change of) the behavior of our citizenry. They are intent on changing the behavior of whole other countries.
The question that doesn’t seem to come up a lot, or at least in public, is WHY people or countries behave in certain ways. To understand why, it seems, would go a long in better understanding how to respond and react. To understand necessitates talking and LISTENING to the other person or country. There are reasons why people and countries behave in certain ways. Some of those reasons of legitimate and some aren’t. In the development of foreign policy, or even domestic laws that emphasize one moral position over another, to talk to the “enemy” will only benefit the cause a peaceful existence. I think Baker and Hamilton are right. We need to talk to even our enemies.
The problem is that those with their hands on the levers of power do not believe talk and listening are appropriate with some. There is no reason to talk to domestic or foreign “enemies.” They already know how people and nations aught to behave, so there is no point in listening to why or how or to think that they might misunderstand or be wrong. How about changing our behavior – why do we not ask why, talk and listen? It seems a wiser course of action and behavior than to bomb and invade and demean others. In the long run, this may be our best course of action against international terrorism!
Liberal-tarianism
Ever since college, I have been enamored by the political and social philosophy of Libertarianism. I might even say that I tend to be a Libertarian, but in a qualified way.
The Libertarian Party, the largest third-party and only other national party besides the Democrats and Republicans, is an interesting mix of people. During the 1980 presidential election, the Libertarian Party decided to field a national campaign on par with the Republican and Democratic parties. They had a large national convention and poured a lot of money into national advertising. Ed Clarke, their presidential candidate, was a telegenic and competent speaker. The party steered clear of the more controversial issues that fringe Libertarian Party members champion – like the legalization of drugs – and really did mount a solid national campaign. If my memory is correct, the party garnered 5% of the national vote. It was quite a good showing for a third party, particularly during an election year when John Anderson conducted a very successful independent presidential bid. The party hasn’t done nearly as well since, although they still field a large number of candidates and do win some local elections (I think they have one member in the Congress).
Most people who know anything about Libertarianism consider them to be “Conservatives,” but frankly the political philosophy is something in-and-of itself – different and distinct from conservative and liberal philosophical traditions. Most philosophical-Libertarians situate themselves within the Republican Party primarily because of general agreement on governance issues – they are opposed to government intrusion into citizen’s lives, they favor small government, federalism, free-enterprise, and most fundamentally individual liberty. These points have been traditionally shared by Republican conservatives, although the Republican Party right now is controlled by a cadre of people who I don’t think are truly “conservative.” I don’t know what they are, but some have termed them “neo-con’s.” In today’s political and social climate, Barry Goldwater might well have described himself as a Libertarian rather than a Conservative.
The thing that generally separates most Libertarians from run-of-the-mill Republicans is a more live-and-let-live mentality when it comes to social or moral issues. This belief gets them into trouble with current-day Culture-War Republicans who have replaced economic issues with morality issues as the party’s primary focus (aside from the “War on Terror”). A lot of philosophical-Libertarians who do not belong to the Libertarian Party (because of the traditional problems with all third-parties – lots of kooks as members) have become more and more frustrated with Republican Party leaders and the neo-con rank-n-file who are determined to impose a very narrow and sectarian view of morality upon the rest of the citizenry.
I was listening to NPR the other day and a fellow from the CATO Institute (a Libertarian thank-tank) wrote a piece in the current issue of The New Republic musing over that fact that philosophical-Libertarians are beginning to look to the Democratic Party as a viable alternative to the Republican Party, which they view as having rejected traditional conservative ideals of limited government, economic freedom, and personal liberty – thus, the “Liberal-tarian” moniker.
When it comes to social and moral issues, I think Libertarians will find themselves more comfortable in the more moderate Democratic Party (strongly liberal-minded Democrats have become the minority in the party). The problem many Libertarians will have with many Democrats will be over personal responsibility and liberty issues. Libertarians are far more likely to take a strong stand on person responsibility over life decisions and livelihood then some more “democratic-socialist” minded Democrats. Really, if the Republican Party still stood of solidly Conservative principals, Libertarians would still be right there in the midst of the party.
It will be interesting to see where Libertarians end up. It all depends, I think, on whether traditional conservatives will take back the Republican Party from the Religious Right and Neo-Conservatives. It also depends on whether more leftist-minded Democrats begin to exert more influence once again on the Democratic Party. The country is far more conservative than it was back in the ’60’s and ’70’s. While most Republicans askew Libertarianism, it is still a constituency with enough Republican members to make or break some elections. Perhaps, perhaps the Libertarian Party could take advantage of all this and become a true third-party alternative. I think we need a strong alternative, but that party has a long way to go to be an honest option for most Americans.
Waiting
Stephen Tomkins, of the Guardian newspaper in England, wrote a commentary in their online version, Guardian Unlimited. Read the whole thing. The title of the piece goes something like, “We need to fast a little to truly enjoy our feasts.” Yes, we do.
The commentary touches on a couple different things – commercialization of Christmas and Easter, Christians becoming upset that secular society is “paganizing” religious holidays, and the thing that really stuck me – the concept of waiting.
But what really interests me is how thoroughly our jumping the gun has inverted the shape of both Easter and Christmas. Both these feasts are traditionally preceded by fasts: the 40 days of Lent and the 24 of Advent. After such lengthy feats of abstinence – enforced by law in the Middle Ages – our ancestors were ready for some serious partying, which is why the Christmas holiday lasted 12 whole days till Epiphany. Easter, while shorter, could also be a riot of food and drink, music and dancing, drama and sport, and egg-related fun.
We, however, do it the other way round. We buy enough chocolate eggs and hot cross buns in Lent for there to be little special about Easter weekend. As for Advent, children get chocolate every morning in their calendars, and for adults December is the booziest month of the year. The fast has become the feast, and by the time we get to the 25th we’re about ready to call it a day.
Isn’t that so us? It’s an emblem of the contemporary west – we don’t do waiting. Where our parents used to save up for a big purchase, we buy first and save later. For our grandparents, a wedding night might well have been a first; it may find us in triple figures. Technology from microwaves to the internet and cashpoint machines encourages us to expect instant everything. So why leave decorations and cards till Christmas Eve (postal service aside) as they did?
(Emphasis mine)
Waiting. I am struck by this idea. I’ve said for a long time now that we need to be doin’ some more waitin’. NOW. Tomkins is right, I do think, we in the West can no longer wait for much of anything – relationships, wisdom, attention, rewards, material things, even God. We become impoverished, because perhaps the most significant things in life requiring waiting, patience, and sometimes silence. I can see this dynamic well entrenched in my own life, but part of my problem is over-commitment, being overly busy, and not being able to find the time to wait, to think, to listen for the still small voice of God in periods of silence.
Some examples of waiting from the Psalms:
Psalm 5:3
In the morning, O LORD, you hear my voice; in the morning I lay my requests before you and wait in expectation.
Psalm 27:14
Wait for the LORD; be strong and take heart and wait for the LORD.
Psalm 33:20
We wait in hope for the LORD; he is our help and our shield.
Psalm 37:7
Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; do not fret when men succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes.
Psalm 40:1
I waited patiently for the LORD; he turned to me and heard my cry.
Psalm 119:166
I wait for your salvation, O LORD, and I follow your commands.
Psalm 130:5
I wait for the LORD, my soul waits, and in his word I put my hope.
Psalm 130:6
My soul waits for the Lord more than watchmen wait for the morning, more than watchmen wait for the morning.
It is to fight against our culture to wait. Waiting is a cultivated virtue – it doesn’t come quickly no matter how fast we want it. God’s way of things is not dependent on our time-tables or even linear time, and our perspective should be eternal.
Our children are drugged because they have learned well the lesson of immediacy. They cannot wait for anything, and because parents have bought into the cultural zeit-geist they are unwilling or unable to teach the virtue of waiting. It is easier to drug kids than to teach them self-discipline and to help them understand the advantages of holding off for a bit in order to gain the truly helpful, useful, and rewarding thing.
We carry cell-phones with us everywhere because we can no longer wait to contact someone over even the most trivial things. An adult was text-messaging during the sermon a few weeks ago.
Even within the Church – particularly now in the Episcopal Church – we expect things to happen yesterday. Our Church finds itself stuck in a “Cult of Change” were we cannot simply wait any longer. If anything is of great worth, change should occur only after a good period of consideration, deliberation, and the concerted seeking of the vision and will of God. We don’t seem to want to do the very difficult work necessary that requires times of waiting. When we demand change NOW, we loose all perspective and we jump blindly into a future where the consequences will be understood too late.
Wait. Wait. Simple wait upon the Lord. An eternal perspective. There is a time and place for everything.
Original Guardian link Via: Father Jakes Stops the World
Fr. Jake writes about Advent:
The word “Advent” comes from the Latin word for “coming.” We speak of the return of Christ in three ways; past, present, and future. First, Advent refers to Christ coming as a child in a manger. Second, Advent refers to Christ repeatedly coming to us in Word and Sacrament and in the fellowship of the Church. Third, Advent is a time to prepare for Christ coming again at the end of time, the Second Coming. In many ways, we can see Advent as a season of darkness, as we wait for the light.
oops, I forgot..
So, I’m at the Sursum Corda. I get through the first two statements thinking that I really need to do something more constructive with my hands. The congregation responds and it’s my turn once again to say the concluding sentence. You know, the one that does something like this, “Let us give thanks unto our Lord God.”
Oops. What am I supposed to say here? As I stand there facing everyone, arms extended, going through my mind is something like this: “Giving. Doesn’t it have something to do with giving?” Fr. Cullen, acting as my deacon, is standing beside me whispering, “give…give…give…” Okay, so after a VERY long pause, I remember and sing something. Was it right? I have no clue but began “Let us give thanks…”
I am very glad that this congregation is very forgiving! Of course, I had no book in front of me. I have never needed one. Perhaps, it is smart to always have a book ready for just such occurrences. Do ya think?
Things were a bit different since we did the Great Litany procession rather than the normal beginning of Mass. Perhaps that threw me, although I doubt it. I just forgot. I remembered with no problem the long “The Gifts of God for the people of God, taken them….” with no problem. Thank goodness. And, my chanting wasn’t half bad.