The culmination of the inauguration has left me thinking a lot about freedom. We live in a country that boasts about its access to freedom for all. But we talk about freedom typically as a means to an end, rather than the end itself. We say "you are free to speak, to defend yourself, to have a speedy trial, to pursue prosperity" and more. We never say, you are free to be free.
It is certainly true that the people of America are more free, in many ways, than the people of other nations. Even with the presence of inequality, racism, and prejudices of all kinds, a certain degree of freedom does exist. But the funny thing about freedom is that no one really has it unless everyone has it. If I am rich and my friend is poor, what is my freedom? Should it be said that I am free to help my friend, or free to ignore him. I guess both are technically options, but I want to suggest that feeling "free to ignore" is not actually freedom at all, it is bondage to my status, wealth, and position, rather than freedom to love and serve without worry or anxiety about what I am losing and what someone else is gaining. Is it freedom that allows some to give sub-prime mortgage loans, and is it freedom that allows for landlords and health insurance companies to refuse service to people with AIDS? These are choices freely made, that is true, but they are not made out of a spirit of freedom but rather out of a spirit of bondage. And is it freedom to say to the over-worked inner city single mom with four kids, whose father is in jail, and who continue to pass each grade level despite learning almost nothing that all of her children are free to graduate high school, dream big dreams, go to college, and live the american dream? That is the problem when freedom is the means to the end, rather than an end in itself.
America may be a nation that boasts of freedom, but we are not people who act as though we are free. We have not yet learned that the freedom to consume one another is really just slavery wrapped up in some fancy language.
From Galatians 5
1For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery...13For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 15But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another...
18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
No law will ever say that you want these fruits of the Spirits too much, that it is wrong to desire them, or that having more of them is bad. It is living in the full knowledge of the freedom we've been given that produces these fruits of the Spirit.
There are a lot of important, and in some sense, timeless questions that have floated around as we entered a New Year and a new presidential era. My question is this: How will America define or re-define the purpose of being "the land of the free" in an era where it has become acceptable for freedom and massive inequality to co-exist.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
Micro or Macro?
More free time than usual and two 15 hour car rides led to a good amount of reading in the last week and a half. Two books stand out as reflective of a tension I often feel. Jeffrey Sachs' "The End of Poverty;" I finally finished Jonathan's copy of it, and "Finding Calcutta," a quick read about a woman's experience wtih Mother Teresa in Calcutta and what she learned about work and service while there (a Christmas gift from a friend). While the tension is personally relevant, I believe it is one that also inhibits much collaboration and potential for good work in the world.
Jeffrey Sachs is a macro, or big picture, kind of guy. He thinks and talks in terms of systems, structures, societies, markets, and global communities. Yes, he can identify value in one-on-one interactions and even talks about how it is important for policy makers to have face-to-face encounters with the people the policies are for. Still, his mindset is always one of "big picture" work, and clearly, he is pretty great at what he does. (side note- the book was great. Agreed with most of it, and looking forward to reading his next one...ie. Jonathan, hurry up and finish it).
Mother Teresa is very different. She is a micro person. She never (and made a point not to) involve herself in politics and policies, or social systems and structures. She is known for calling herself and her work "a drop in the ocean" or a "little pencil in the hand of a writing God." Momma T writes about herself that she "doesn't agree with the big way of doing things. To us what matters is an individual. To get to love the person we must come in close contact with him. If we wait until we get the numbers, then we will be lost in the numbers. And we will never be able to show that love and respect for the person. I believe in person to person; every person is Christ for me, and since there is only one Jesus, that person is only one person in the world for me at that moment."
Politically minded intellectuals often criticized Mother Teresa for not getting involved in the politics of poverty, for speaking out against abortion and for feeding the poor directly rather than "teaching them to fish." Her response was: "If there are people who feel God wants them to change the structures of society, that is something between them and God. We must serve Him in whatever way we are called. I am called to help the individual; to love each poor person. Not to deal with institutions. I am in no position to judge...All of us are but His instruments, who do our little bit and pass by."
I don't think Jeffrey Sachs and Mother Teresa are complete opposites. They are/were clearly gifted in their respective types of work. Jeffrey Sachs does see value in the individual and reminds his readers that the market/community is made of individual people and it is their interactions, in homes, shops, fields, and street corners, that reflect the effects of policy. Similarly, Mother Teresa certainly had an impact on many people she never met. While she didn't advize any policy or network organizations, her work is known world-wide- it is quoted in speeches and books, and inspires (though often cliched and skin deep) world leaders and common folk alike.
I am tempted to ask the question: which is better? Big picture or little picture thought and work. I can make cases, even biblical cases, for both, and in the end I do think both are necessary and it is unfair to rank them. I don't think the work of big picture policy people lacks emotion, heart, and genuine care for the people they are writing policy for (though this, of course, is not universally true). And I don't think that "little picture" work always makes you more aware of real issues and genuine in heart and care.
So which am I wired for? I am not as extreme as either Jeffrey Sachs or Mother Teresa. Do I have to pick? Can I do both? Am I allowed to want to do some kind of great work in the world?*
The first fear seems pretty legitimate; the second, untrusting of God and prideful. I have certainly seen how very small words or actions have made large impacts on people and even whole communities and I believe that God magifies our feeblest attempts at serving others. I'm comforted by the fact that we are saved by grace through faith, and not by works, and yet I easily become frustrated when I feel like what I do or say doesn't have any or a big enough impact.
Like with so many questions and tensions, I end up with a need for greater trust and humility. Wanting me/my work to be more than a "drop in the ocean" diminishes the size of the ocean. To do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly, that is the call.
It is a New Year, and so these verses from Psalm 7 come to mind as I think back on the year and as I think more about what it looks like to have humility as I ponder the tension between big picture and little picture. **
3O LORD my God, if I have done this, if there is wrong in my hands,4if I have repaid my friend with evil or plundered my enemy without cause,5let the enemy pursue my soul and overtake it, and let him trample my life to the ground and lay my glory in the dust.
6Arise, O LORD, in your anger; lift yourself up against the fury of my enemies; awake for me; you have appointed a judgment.7Let the assembly of the peoples be gathered about you; over it return on high.
8The LORD judges the peoples; judge me, O LORD, according to my righteousness and according to the integrity that is in me.9Oh, let the evil of the wicked come to an end, and may you establish the righteous—you who test the minds and hearts, O righteous God!10My shield is with God, who saves the upright in heart.11God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day.
*sorry friends, no straighforward answers to these. I do think God works through people to do great things, but it seems rarely seems to be the people you would expect, and often the 'great work' isn't what you would expect either. We are saints, not saviors.
**by little picture, I don't mean "little" as inconsequential or un-important
Jeffrey Sachs is a macro, or big picture, kind of guy. He thinks and talks in terms of systems, structures, societies, markets, and global communities. Yes, he can identify value in one-on-one interactions and even talks about how it is important for policy makers to have face-to-face encounters with the people the policies are for. Still, his mindset is always one of "big picture" work, and clearly, he is pretty great at what he does. (side note- the book was great. Agreed with most of it, and looking forward to reading his next one...ie. Jonathan, hurry up and finish it).
Mother Teresa is very different. She is a micro person. She never (and made a point not to) involve herself in politics and policies, or social systems and structures. She is known for calling herself and her work "a drop in the ocean" or a "little pencil in the hand of a writing God." Momma T writes about herself that she "doesn't agree with the big way of doing things. To us what matters is an individual. To get to love the person we must come in close contact with him. If we wait until we get the numbers, then we will be lost in the numbers. And we will never be able to show that love and respect for the person. I believe in person to person; every person is Christ for me, and since there is only one Jesus, that person is only one person in the world for me at that moment."
Politically minded intellectuals often criticized Mother Teresa for not getting involved in the politics of poverty, for speaking out against abortion and for feeding the poor directly rather than "teaching them to fish." Her response was: "If there are people who feel God wants them to change the structures of society, that is something between them and God. We must serve Him in whatever way we are called. I am called to help the individual; to love each poor person. Not to deal with institutions. I am in no position to judge...All of us are but His instruments, who do our little bit and pass by."
I don't think Jeffrey Sachs and Mother Teresa are complete opposites. They are/were clearly gifted in their respective types of work. Jeffrey Sachs does see value in the individual and reminds his readers that the market/community is made of individual people and it is their interactions, in homes, shops, fields, and street corners, that reflect the effects of policy. Similarly, Mother Teresa certainly had an impact on many people she never met. While she didn't advize any policy or network organizations, her work is known world-wide- it is quoted in speeches and books, and inspires (though often cliched and skin deep) world leaders and common folk alike.
I am tempted to ask the question: which is better? Big picture or little picture thought and work. I can make cases, even biblical cases, for both, and in the end I do think both are necessary and it is unfair to rank them. I don't think the work of big picture policy people lacks emotion, heart, and genuine care for the people they are writing policy for (though this, of course, is not universally true). And I don't think that "little picture" work always makes you more aware of real issues and genuine in heart and care.
So which am I wired for? I am not as extreme as either Jeffrey Sachs or Mother Teresa. Do I have to pick? Can I do both? Am I allowed to want to do some kind of great work in the world?*
The tension between the two brings up a fear of mine. I am afraid of forgetting the personal, intimate, and unique person-to-person value when I think/work in a "big picture" setting. And I am afriad of not having any kind of sustainable or lasting impact through my work if I work for and serve only on a person-to-person level.
The first fear seems pretty legitimate; the second, untrusting of God and prideful. I have certainly seen how very small words or actions have made large impacts on people and even whole communities and I believe that God magifies our feeblest attempts at serving others. I'm comforted by the fact that we are saved by grace through faith, and not by works, and yet I easily become frustrated when I feel like what I do or say doesn't have any or a big enough impact.
Like with so many questions and tensions, I end up with a need for greater trust and humility. Wanting me/my work to be more than a "drop in the ocean" diminishes the size of the ocean. To do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly, that is the call.
It is a New Year, and so these verses from Psalm 7 come to mind as I think back on the year and as I think more about what it looks like to have humility as I ponder the tension between big picture and little picture. **
3O LORD my God, if I have done this, if there is wrong in my hands,4if I have repaid my friend with evil or plundered my enemy without cause,5let the enemy pursue my soul and overtake it, and let him trample my life to the ground and lay my glory in the dust.
6Arise, O LORD, in your anger; lift yourself up against the fury of my enemies; awake for me; you have appointed a judgment.7Let the assembly of the peoples be gathered about you; over it return on high.
8The LORD judges the peoples; judge me, O LORD, according to my righteousness and according to the integrity that is in me.9Oh, let the evil of the wicked come to an end, and may you establish the righteous—you who test the minds and hearts, O righteous God!10My shield is with God, who saves the upright in heart.11God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day.
*sorry friends, no straighforward answers to these. I do think God works through people to do great things, but it seems rarely seems to be the people you would expect, and often the 'great work' isn't what you would expect either. We are saints, not saviors.
**by little picture, I don't mean "little" as inconsequential or un-important
Sunday, January 4, 2009
The Body
I went to my church in San Diego today for the first time in about six months. I've never really gotten to know anyone there since I am in SD so infrequently, but I love this church a lot. Every time I go I'm newly amazed at how strongly I feel and see God though I'm away from friends, a home church, and a supportive community.
I went a few minutes early this evening and sat in the parking lot in my car, not in the best of moods. I hate being the perpetual new person at this church since I've never really gotten to know anyone. I prayed really briefly but strongly, "God, I need to feel welcomed tonight. I need to feel the church really and actually be the church for me tonight." Then I rushed out of the car because I thought I saw someone I knew- turned out it wasn' them.
I was confused when the main sanctuary was closed, but saw the fellowship hall open instead. I went in, and the room was set up with round dinner tables, chairs, and a cup of wine and loaf of bread on each table. I didn't see anyone I knew so I stood awkwardly near the side twirling my hair and hoping someone would come talk to me. It is strange, that even though I am in church and Christian settings all the time, I still feel intimidated and awkward and shy as the new person.
The assistant pastor, Josh, whom I had met before, came over and talked to me briefly, asked about how IV was going, and introduced me to a couple who then asked if I wanted to join them at a table. Josh said that the first Sunday of the month they have been setting up the room with these dinner tables and chairs in order for a more family-like atmosphere. We were to listen to the sermon, worship, serve communion to one another around the table, and then enjoy a pot-luck dinner together. Even before sitting down I could tell God was answering my prayer....it doesn't get anymore welcoming and community-church like then that.
Before the service began, another couple came to sit at the our table, Ramiro and Wendy. After a few minutes of conversation, I discovered that they were the IV staff for UCSD and Cal State San Marcos. We talked and clicked immediatly, and that feeing of being the new person no one knows felt a couple light years away.
Worship was great. The sermon was the second half of Mark 1. We talked about leadership, and how it is leaders are called to commit, risk, and follow together, and never alone. And that leadership is not defined only by what you do, but by what you have left behind in order to pursue that leadership. I was struck by Peter, still called Simon in Mark 1, and how chances are that never in a million years he would have imagined himself as the Peter of Acts 2.
Service came to a close and it was time for communion. We passed the bread and wine around the table, saying to one another "the body of Christ, broken for you," and "the blood of Christ, shed for you." It was really powerful to say those words and to have them said to me in such an intimate setting yet among people I didn't know at all. I was not just partaking of the body of Christ, but was in it as well.
I couldn't stay for the pot-luck because mom wanted me home for dinner. I left feeling so uplifted and amazed at how perfectly and immediatly God had answered my prayer in the car before church.
I went a few minutes early this evening and sat in the parking lot in my car, not in the best of moods. I hate being the perpetual new person at this church since I've never really gotten to know anyone. I prayed really briefly but strongly, "God, I need to feel welcomed tonight. I need to feel the church really and actually be the church for me tonight." Then I rushed out of the car because I thought I saw someone I knew- turned out it wasn' them.
I was confused when the main sanctuary was closed, but saw the fellowship hall open instead. I went in, and the room was set up with round dinner tables, chairs, and a cup of wine and loaf of bread on each table. I didn't see anyone I knew so I stood awkwardly near the side twirling my hair and hoping someone would come talk to me. It is strange, that even though I am in church and Christian settings all the time, I still feel intimidated and awkward and shy as the new person.
The assistant pastor, Josh, whom I had met before, came over and talked to me briefly, asked about how IV was going, and introduced me to a couple who then asked if I wanted to join them at a table. Josh said that the first Sunday of the month they have been setting up the room with these dinner tables and chairs in order for a more family-like atmosphere. We were to listen to the sermon, worship, serve communion to one another around the table, and then enjoy a pot-luck dinner together. Even before sitting down I could tell God was answering my prayer....it doesn't get anymore welcoming and community-church like then that.
Before the service began, another couple came to sit at the our table, Ramiro and Wendy. After a few minutes of conversation, I discovered that they were the IV staff for UCSD and Cal State San Marcos. We talked and clicked immediatly, and that feeing of being the new person no one knows felt a couple light years away.
Worship was great. The sermon was the second half of Mark 1. We talked about leadership, and how it is leaders are called to commit, risk, and follow together, and never alone. And that leadership is not defined only by what you do, but by what you have left behind in order to pursue that leadership. I was struck by Peter, still called Simon in Mark 1, and how chances are that never in a million years he would have imagined himself as the Peter of Acts 2.
Service came to a close and it was time for communion. We passed the bread and wine around the table, saying to one another "the body of Christ, broken for you," and "the blood of Christ, shed for you." It was really powerful to say those words and to have them said to me in such an intimate setting yet among people I didn't know at all. I was not just partaking of the body of Christ, but was in it as well.
I couldn't stay for the pot-luck because mom wanted me home for dinner. I left feeling so uplifted and amazed at how perfectly and immediatly God had answered my prayer in the car before church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)