I'm getting my haiku in just under the wire this year. But maybe that's okay since it's supposed to be from the babe's point of view and he didn't arrive until Christmas day too. It's been a pretty confusing year for us. But I can say I feel God's presence now, like in the poem. That's reassuring.
(Here are some previous years' haikus.)
I want to add this quote by Simone Weil to the ones from last week:
That action is good which we are able to accomplish while keeping our attention and intention totally directed towards pure and impossible goodness, without veiling from ourselves by any falsehood either the attraction or the impossibility of pure goodness.
I just sent out this retreat update letter...
Friends,
Like much of the country, we experienced a severe drought this summer. The cornfields around us seemed to suffer the worst, but our crops also required continual watering, fruits and vegetables were fewer and smaller (though sometimes noticeably sweeter), and even the trees struggled. We also saw fewer retreat guests this year. Staffing and personal difficulties caused some of our usual visitors to stay home this summer, so they were spared the sight of our browning grass and drooping leaves.
But God cared for us during this dry season. Last winter Heather felt inspired to move away from the heavy commercial gardening she had been doing for the farm and develop a smaller community garden instead. Everything she grew was then given away to neighbors and friends here (and also some to friends in Chicago). A smaller garden patch turned out to be much, much better when the rain stopped coming. And some out-of-town friends ended up spending much of the summer here, giving Heather lots of help. The harvest was good. And then, at the end of the season, the gratitude of our community was expressed by generous donations for a rototiller that Heather had been dreaming about. So her work will be a little easier next summer (and hopefully graced with a little more water from on high).
One of our elderly neighbors faced some new struggles this year as well. After a couple falls, he found himself in need of regular assistance. I happened to be more available than usual, so I offered to start helping with much of his daily care. With the support of many others in the community also, he's able to continue to live here at home.
This month we were glad to have a group from Su Casa Catholic Worker come for a retreat, to support their work with immigrant families in need in Chicago. And we expect to host an Emmaus Ministries retreat again this winter. We keep praying for all who have come to share with us, and for those who will come.
That God will stay close and sustain us all through the dry seasons.
I was reminded this morning of some quotes that have meant a lot to me in the past, and now they speak well to my current thoughts and concerns. The first is from a letter by Thomas Merton (written in 1966, three years before his death):
Do not depend on the hope of results. When you are doing the sort of work you have taken on, essentially an apostolic work, you may have to face the fact that your work will be apparently worthless and even achieve no result at all, if not perhaps results opposite to what you expect. As you get used to this idea, you start more and more to concentrate not on the results but on the value, the rightness, the truth of the work itself.The second is from John Howard Yoder's The Politics of Jesus:
The key to the obedience of God’s people is not their effectiveness but their patience. The triumph of the right is assured not by the might that comes to the aid of the right, which is of course the justification of the use of violence and the other kinds of power in every human conflict; the triumph of the right, although it is assured, is sure because of the power of the resurrection and not because of any calculation of causes and effects, nor because of the inherently greater strength of the good guys.
The relationship between the obedience of God’s people and the triumph of God’s cause is not a relationship of cause and effect but one of cross and resurrection.
I heard Dave Brubeck just died. So I took another listen to "Take Five." Pretty great. I remember my dad playing that song on the record player when I was a kid. It's the only jazz song I can play on the recorder, too.
Some folks from the Su Casa Catholic Worker house in Chicago are with us for a retreat this weekend, taking a break from the city...
A song to go with my last entry...
by Alanis Morissette
dear dar(lin') your mom (my friend)
left a message on my machine
she was frantic
saying you were talking crazy
that you wanted to do away with yourself
I guess she thought i'd be a perfect resort
because we've had this inexplicable connection since our youth
and yes they're in shock
they are panicked
you and your chronic
them and their drama
you this embarrassment
us in the middle of this delusion
if we were our bodies
if we were our futures
if we were our defenses i'd be joining you
if we were our culture
if we were our leaders
if we were our denials i'd be joining you
I remember vividly a day years ago
we were camping, you knew more than you thought you should know
you said "I don't want ever to be brainwashed"
and you were mindboggling
you were intense
you were uncomfortable in your own skin
you were thirsty
but mostly you were beautiful
if we were our nametags
if we were our rejections
if we were our outcomes i'd be joining you
if we were our indignities
if we were our successes
if we were our emotions i'd be joining you
you and I we're like four year olds
we want to know why and how come about everything
we want to reveal ourselves at will and speak our minds
and never talk small and be intuitive
and question mightily and find god
my tortured beacon
we need to find like-minded companions
if we were their condemnations
if we were their projections
if we were our paranoias i'd be joining you
if we were our incomes
if we were our obsessions
if we were our afflictions i'd be joining you
we need reflection
we need a really good memory
feel free to call me
a little more often
It may be mid-life, or reviewing my life with friends over the holiday, but I've been contemplating these words of Jesus recently:
For what benefit is it, to gain the whole world and forfeit your life? (Mk 8.36)I usually think of these words as a challenge for those who are doing well, who "have the world." But the context is Jesus' telling his disciples of his imminent death, and telling them to "take up your cross" and follow. He's not talking to people who are doing well. Jesus is talking to people who are about to experience great loss and go from being celebrities to being outcasts.
Whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ.It's not so easy for those who have gained much to come to see it all as rubbish. But how do those words look if our pathetic gains already look like rubbish?
Every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult
and every garment rolled in blood
will be burned as fuel for the fire.
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government will be upon his shoulder,
and his name will be called
"Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
Isaiah 9.5-6
I've been contemplating that Jacques Ellul quote in the last entry, and I want to add to my thoughts on insignificant ministry from last month. In "ministry," there's a tendency to think that organizational success (people served, money raised, etc) benefits God, or makes God look good, and is therefore the best witness. People admire successful ministries, and give more money to ministries that can demonstrate effectiveness. Which then enables more service to the needy. And doesn't this all serve God's purposes better?
It would seem so. But is God really taking the same approach as all other human organizations and businesses? Success sells? Impress people and they will support and join you? Is God really trying to gather our support?
Maybe that interpretation could be applied to Jesus' early ministry. The gathering the crowds and calling disciples part. But not the later part, the lamb to the slaughter, degrading execution as a criminal part.
Jesus left behind what could be called a successful ministry and went, not to the head of a crowd storming Jerusalem, but to the lonely confusion of Gethsemane and the apparent final failure of Golgatha. We may make it look climactic and heroic with our theology, but the reaction of the disciples show how it looked to them: Like a fiasco. A horrible catastrophe. The end.
The relevance to me right now is that what is considered success in ministry, people served, donations gathered, plans accomplished, supporters impressed, impact made, none of these things look like what Jesus was after. Jesus was certainly trying to be a witness for God, but not by impressing people in the usual ways. If anything, Jesus' witness is that he didn't try to impress people in the usual ways. He wasn't trying to gather their support. It's Jesus' glaring disinterest in this that is impressive. It says that God doesn't need our support. God is offering us something, but does not need us to take it. God doesn't need to impress us. God doesn't need to sell us on it. What God is offering is what we desperately need and what we can get nowhere else.
As I wrote in "insignificant ministry," successful ministries always end up endlessly fundraising and giving media interviews. Maybe that kind of publicity does make God more attractive to some people. But it also makes God look very much like a politician.
I think it's very important not to try to succeed like every other human organization tries to succeed. Focus only on faithfulness, on following Jesus, even when it looks like a fiasco, like certain failure (and it will). Learn to live with confusion and failed plans and frequent rejections. And don't be dismayed by the lack of success, or that your failure is making God look bad. It is not by your plans and hard work that God's cause will be victorious. It is when your plans collapse and your work falls pitifully short and failure is certain, it is then that God will save you. You will not make God look good. God will glorify himself by rescuing you in your utter helplessness. Just like he did with Jesus.
What other human organization wants salesmen like that?
I was reminded today of this passage from Jacques Ellul's The Politics of God and the Politics of Man (my italics):
The action we attempt will always be regarded by the world as a failure, and the more so the more it is authentically faithful. We cannot be successful or show the church to be effective in the world unless we adopt the world's criterion of efficacy, which means adopting its means as well.
As the world sees it, action which is faithful to God will always fail, just as Jesus Christ necessarily went to the cross. Such action always leads to a dead end. It is always a fiasco from the standpoint of worldly power. But this should not worry us. It does not mean that our action is in truth ineffectual. Efficacy measured in terms of faithfulness cannot be compared at any point with efficacy measured in terms of success.
...These successes, this efficacy as it would be called from man's standpoint, and especially in our own society, will never amount to anything more than the approval given by the world, by society, to certain acts and means. It is the stamp of a group of men, a social body. But if we do not believe that society is good and right, this approval proves nothing except that the action is in conformity with the world. It does not mean that the world has changed; quite the contrary. Each time the people of God becomes effective according to the world's criteria, this only implies that society has absorbed our action and is using it for its own ends and for its own profit. ...The efficacy we think we have is simply a power in the world's service, for the perfecting of its own being, for its better organization....
There can be no question of securing the approval of the world or its conformity to us. ...We have simply to be, and we can only be a question put within the world, a question invincibly confronting it. This is our efficacy. It is the efficacy of the question, a question which society and sociological movements cannot assimilate. Israel and the church have never been efficacious except to the degree that the world has been unable to assimilate them. This is the vocation of the people of God incomparably more authentic than "service" or "works."
It is not at the level of works and their results that this efficacy may be seen; it is at the level of inassimilability.
My friend Jason recently reminded me of a series of entries from eight years ago, and as I was rereading them I found this passage. It seems to me to be the answer to the "hard question" I wrote about a couple weeks ago:
One unique aspect of human life is our complete helplessness for a long time after birth. Other animals quickly become mobile and independent, but human beings need constant care for several years. Our first, most formative experience is one of complete vulnerability and dependence on others. And we usually end life much the way we began it. As we age, we become more and more dependent and vulnerable. I think there is a powerful meaning in this.
If it is true that the purpose of our lives is to impose our own will, then our human dependency and vulnerability can only be seen as an impediment to be overcome. Childhood would then be seen as something to be quickly grown out of, and old age something to be dreaded. And this does seem to be the view of many people.
On the other hand, if it is true that the real purpose of our lives is union with God, and that this comes not through imposing our own will but by surrendering to God’s will in faith, then the natural human experience looks much different. If our aim is complete dependence on God in faith, then childhood is a very good model for human life. As the child is dependent on the parents for care and protection and, though vulnerable and helpless, lives free and happy under the parents’ care, so we are to live under God’s care. Of course childhood is not voluntary. But as we mature and take control of our free will, we then have the choice whether to continue to follow the way of life we were born into, or leave childlike ways of dependence and pursue independence and power to take control of our environment. The choice is ours. And what we choose will shape our experience of life and also how we face the vulnerability of old age (if we don’t face it sooner through disease, injury, loss, etc). But it seems to me that childhood dependence reveals something of the meaning and ideal for our lives, and the similar vulnerability that slowly intensifies as we age calls us back to this and tests what we have learned.
Then our natural human vulnerability and dependence becomes, not a curse or impediment, but a gift. It is not meant to be conquered, but embraced. We are not meant to “outgrow” our childhood, but rather mature and see that our true dependence is meant to be directed towards God rather than other human beings. As children we completely trusted our parents, though this trust was sometimes misplaced. But it symbolized the true desire and goal of human life: To be completely dependent and trusting on God for care and protection and live in the joy and freedom of God’s love. And to help others do so as well.
When I started caring for our elderly neighbor, I soon realized that one of my personal articles of faith was going to be tested. I remember writing about it earlier this year:
I believe what Jesus demonstrated is that we can trust God to always provide all that we need to be free to love and do good. So even in times where we must go through pain or loss, or afflictions and oppressions from other people, God will bring whatever is needed to give us freedom in those situations. It may be financial resources or the help of a friend or a spiritual experience. But we can trust God for real help, real things, real intervention to free us. Not simply to spare our suffering but to allow us to be our good self, a unique loving presence, the presence of God in the world. In all situations, at all times, throughout our whole life. That's what living in the kingdom of God means.Situations of care-giving, like perhaps for an infant or a very elderly relative, frequently test this belief. Because the needs in these situations can often escalate beyond our capabilities. And we don't usually feel like we have much choice in the matter, the person is helpless, and they're our responsibility, and their needs come first. It's easy to conclude that the demands on us could very well keep increasing, regardless of the toll it takes on us. That's scary.
The changing of the seasons reminded me of this Onion article...
God Diagnosed With Bipolar Disorder
NEW HAVEN, CT–In a diagnosis that helps explain the confusing and contradictory aspects of the cosmos that have baffled philosophers, theologians, and other students of the human condition for millennia, God, creator of the universe and longtime deity to billions of followers, was found Monday to suffer from bipolar disorder.
Rev. Dr. J. Henry Jurgens, a practicing psychiatrist and doctor of divinity at Yale University Divinity School, announced the historic diagnosis at a press conference.
"I always knew there had to be some explanation," Jurgens said. "And, after several years of patient research and long sessions with God Almighty through the intercessionary medium of prayer, I was able to pinpoint the specific nature of His problem."
Bipolar, or manic-depressive, disorder is a condition that afflicts millions. Characterized by cycles of elation followed by bouts of profound depression and despair, the disorder can wreak havoc on both the sufferer and his or her loved ones, particularly if it goes undetected and untreated for an extended period. Though the condition is estimated to affect, in one form or another, 5 percent of the world's population, Monday marks the first time it has been diagnosed in a major deity.
Evidence of God's manic-depression can be found throughout the Universe, from the white-hot explosiveness of quasars to the cold, lifeless vacuum of space. However, theologians note, humanity's exposure to God's affliction comes primarily through His confusing propensity to alternately reward and punish His creations with little rhyme or reason.
"Last week, I lost my dear husband Walter to the flood," said housewife and devout churchgoer Elaine Froman of Davenport, IA. "I asked myself, 'Why? Why would God do something like this, especially when He had just helped Walter overcome a long battle with colon cancer, and we were so happy that we finally had a chance to start our lives anew?'"
New York attorney Ruth Kanner also gained firsthand knowledge of God's wild mood swings.
"Last Saturday, on a gorgeous spring afternoon, I was jogging in Central Park with my daughter. We were marveling at the beauty and majesty of nature, and I remember thinking what a wonderful world we live in. Then, out of nowhere, I heard the gunfire," said Kanner, speaking from her hospital bed at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center. "All they took was a measly $17, and for that, the doctors say my daughter will never walk again. If only Our Holy Father didn't have those mental problems, my precious Katie might not be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of her life."
Jurgens said he believes God's essential condition is seasonal, as evidenced by the bursts of energy and elation associated with springtime and summer, followed by the decay and bleak despair of fall and winter. Sometimes, however, the condition cycles even faster.
"The average person with bipolar disorder may go through as many as 10 or 12 cycles of mania and subsequent depression in a lifetime. In severe cases, a sufferer may experience four or more per year, which is known as 'rapid cycling,'" Jurgens said. "We believe God suffers from the even rarer 'ultra-rapid cycling,' which would account for the many documented cases in which He alternates between benevolence and rage toward humanity within a matter of seconds. For example, last week, He brought desperately needed, life-giving rain to southern Mali while simultaneously leveling Turkey with a devastating earthquake."
The Book of Job, Jurgens noted, marks the best example of His condition. The book begins with the bleak lamentations of Job and ends with a full-blown manic episode by God, complete with such classic bipolar symptoms as the illusion of omnipotence and delusions of grandeur.
"One of the major 'heresies' of Christian history is the Gnostic belief that the Creator, or 'demiurge,' of this troubled world is a blind, idiot god who is insane," Jurgens said. "This idea surfaces in many religious traditions around the globe. As it turns out, they were only half right: God has His problems like anyone else, but He is essentially trying His best. He just has a condition that makes His emotions fly out of control at times."
"So it's up to us to make the best of God's emotional problems," Jurgens continued. "Thus, mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upward."
Some encouraging news lately. This spring Heather shifted to working on a community garden, growing vegetables to give to the families here, and also to friends nearby and in Evanston. I thought that was a great idea. And many people appreciated the produce this summer. One drawback, though, was that Heather no longer grew vegetables for the farm business, so we wouldn't receive much of a farm donation. That meant over a third of our income would go away. But we felt like she was making the right choice, and that God would find another way to provide.
One encouragement was a unexpected donation from a friend. And now we just found out that we've been offered a large rent reduction, in gratitude for the care-giving I volunteered for our elderly neighbor. A very generous surprise. One that more than makes up for the shortfall in our income. We couldn't have imagined such an arrangement a month ago, but now it meets our current needs very well. With a little extra, too, in case we do manage to add a child to our family in the not too distant future.
We also recently heard from a Catholic Worker house that I contacted over a year ago. I didn't get any reply then, but now they're coming for a retreat in a month. Emmaus is coming about a month after that. So our winter looks a little more interesting than usual.
Spending more time with our elderly neighbor has raised at least one important question for me already:
Whatever it is you live for, whatever gives you hope and inspiration, guidance in your choices, meaning for your actions... would it still be there for you, giving hope and guidance and meaning, if you were 90 years old, confined to a recliner or a bed, your spouse and the friends of your youth all deceased, your children moved away living their own lives, too frail to work and dependent on someone else to help you with even the most basic physical needs?
That situation is not uncommon, and for many people, their purpose for living can't endure that hard question. But shouldn't it be important to make sure ours can? And shouldn't that impact how we live now?
The recent discussion on voting, along with the upcoming election constantly in the news, got me thinking about voting in the context of communities. The intentional Christian communities we've lived with have attempted to make decisions by consensus rather than majority vote. That does seems more in keeping with the desire to come to "one mind" in Christ. And it also avoids perhaps the most obvious drawback to "majority rules," which is that the minority gets decisions forced on them against their will. This is the impetus for political power struggles, trying to gather a majority on your side of the issue. Because the majority clearly has power over the minority. Consensus decision-making seeks to avoid this.
Of course there are drawbacks to consensus decision-making as well. One big one is the pressure that is felt when only one or two people disagree and hold back the group from proceeding. Often people can feel forced to give in in those situations. But the main drawback, which has caused most communities (including the ones we've lived among) to give up on consensus decision-making, is that it's too hard to get everyone to agree. Decisions are made too slowly or not at all. Too much gridlock, and not enough gets done. So, for example, the community here has moved to a 75% majority vote for decision-making. Which gets us back to the power dynamics mentioned above.
What I've noticed, though, is that consensus is not as hard to achieve in smaller groups. It's easier to understand each other when you can talk freely among a few people, and often people in these smaller gatherings are initially closer to "one mind" when they come together for a project, a common interest having drawn them to it. "Majority rule" is unnecessary in small groups, and usually even feels inappropriate in these more intimate settings.
So it seems to me that many of the problems of group decision-making could be avoided if the groups in which decisions were made were smaller. That's not to suggest oligarchy instead of democracy, but that decisions be made on a lower level, by the few people involved in the work. That fits with my other recent thoughts on work and getting things done with minimal low-level organization. When we gather the power of bigger groups of people, we also get ourselves into the power struggles or gridlock of big group decision-making.
Of course our communities are not going to reorganize themselves into smaller groups. But in whatever situation we find ourselves, we can look for and cooperate with the smaller gatherings of people that are coming to "one mind" around something God is doing.
"Where two or three are gathered in my name," Jesus said. And very often that's all that's needed to get the job done.
We've been meaning to try Celtic evening prayer with some friends, and may actually manage it this weekend. They use a liturgy put together by the Northumbria community in England.
Here's a nice piece of it, using Psalm 27:
In the shadow of Your wings
I will sing Your praises, O Lord.
The Lord is my light, my salvation;
whom shall I fear?
The Lord is the refuge of my life;
of whom shall I be afraid?
In the shadow of Your wings
I will sing Your praises, O Lord.
One thing I ask of the Lord,
one thing I seek;
to dwell in the presence of my God,
to gaze on Your holy place.
In the shadow of Your wings
I will sing Your praises, O Lord.
I believe I shall see the goodness
of the Lord in the land of the living.
O wait for the Lord!
Have courage and wait,
wait for the Lord.
In the shadow of Your wings
I will sing Your praises, O Lord.
George W. Bush Returns To America After Spending Four Years In The Himalayas
JACKSONVILLE, FL—Garbed in unwashed robes and wearing a long, gray, whispy beard, former president George W. Bush returned to the United States this morning after four years on a spiritual journey in the Himalayas.
Sources said Bush, who hasn’t been seen in America since abandoning his Crawford, TX ranch and Secret Service detail at the end of his presidency, appeared on the shore in Jacksonville, FL, emerging from what appeared to be a crude self-built wooden boat and exhibiting a gentle, placid countenance as he addressed surprised onlookers.
“I am but a gently falling leaf, buoyed by mountain winds,” the 66-year-old former Texas governor said. “To see the way forward is to be connected to your own reality and be one with your consciousness—complete and pure, unburdened and without want."
Throughout the makeshift press conference, the former president refused to respond to the name George Bush, repeatedly reminding onlookers that he now preferred to be called “Gomtesh.” Sources reported the famed Republican is missing three toes from frostbite he suffered during his travels before mastering the ability to raise and lower his body temperature at will.
(from The Onion)
Some pieces from a recent discussion...
You're right, "not voting" doesn't do anything. The critique is that voting does do something, which is help empower someone who will use that power lethally (perhaps more, perhaps less) as every president has done, and every presidential candidate assures us he (or she) will do.
But, yes, "not voting" is no great accomplishment. The question should be, how to address the problems around us in a better way than voting, without helping empower politicians who will do so much damage in their attempts to solve problems with the power of the gun and the tax man. For example, instead of supporting a politician we hope will only engage this nation's armies in a few wars, maybe we could support individuals and groups that work directly to reduce the causes of conflict (like ministries to gang members, or groups that offer aid in areas where great need leads to political unrest). Or instead of empowering a politician who will take money by force from taxpayers to fund poverty relief programs (which then make the poor jump through some pretty humiliating hoops to get help), maybe we could support direct voluntary aid to help the poor. Or, better yet, get involved with such work ourselves. Those are the kind of things we could do, instead of voting.
Jesus certainly threatened the basis of the empire's power, but not the way activists do. Jesus pointed people to a power that was not the power of empire (or "the power of the people"), which could free them from dependence on empire. He showed that they could find real food and freedom without bowing to or begging empire for it. That does threaten the power of empire, but more importantly for the people involved, it offers real help now. Not when governments get around to granting any help (which, to paraphrase you, is always help mixed with hurt).
The activist approach, and voting with it, just reinforces the message that "the U.S. [or 'empire'] is the only one who has the power to influence anything." Which is the same message that empire is always preaching.
No one's saying we should "avoid any choice that might put my virtue at risk." We're saying that real love never puts our virtue at risk, but is the embodiment of true virtue. "Being perfect" is loving our enemies, as Jesus said. The president you vote for (either one) is not campaigning on anything like that message. We're saying that encouraging anyone to look to him for the solution is not the loving thing to do.
The political bodies that give you a vote in this matter are not guided by "demands for justice" but by the demands of the majority. And it is those very demands that make it impossible for a president (like Obama) to stop sending weapons to the Israelis. The same system that gives you "a voice" is the one that prevents any elected official from offering a truly good response. It's not just that Obama isn't Jesus. It's that the only way he can get into that position of power (or keep it) is if he sets aside the enemy-loving way of Jesus.
That's why I think love calls us to point people to a different power, a power that is not in conflict with goodness but is one with it. Jesus was offered political power (on more than one occasion, as I recall) and he rejected it. He chose to demonstrate a very different power, encouraging people to trust in God's power instead. A power that can deliver now, and without compromise.
I'm not trying to contrast personal and political. I'm trying to focus on Jesus' response as opposed to what we see all around us, in politicians and activists alike: the constant struggle to control and use the power of empire. Voting is part of that struggle.
It seems to always be when I'm feeling a bit insecure and ineffective that I hear about another guy with an amazing, successful ministry to the poor. Someone I can respect, because of the people he's dedicated himself to. But also someone who makes me feel incredibly insignificant and even more unsure of myself.
Usually, though, if I read a little more about him, a familiar pattern emerges. He's promoting a book he wrote. He's speaking at colleges and conferences. He's giving interviews. And, underlying all of this, he's fundraising. His ministry has been successful and grown big and now millions are needed every year to support it, so he's always fundraising.
Why is it always like that? Even those who focus on "being with" and "being like" the poor seem to end up doing these same things that the poor will never be found doing.
And those are things I don't want to be doing either. I don't know if successful ministry, like any successful organization, necessarily pushes us in the direction of publicity and money. It does look like that. Even Jesus seemed to have to fight against it, a fight that put a quick end to his successful ministry.
I'm grateful for all God does to help needy and broken people through the successful ministries in the world. And I'm grateful to be insignificant enough to be spared the temptation.
I've been rolling some thoughts around in my head the past few days, trying to come up with a good way to write about them, but it's not coming together neatly. Maybe because it's more a practical issue than a neat theoretical one. I was spurred by recent attempts to get jobs done around here, less-than-successful attempts. A story about the dissolution of the Occupy movement also caught my eye. They never could get organized enough to get anything significant done. And my resistance to joining the new committees being formed here, and the likelihood that they will not be very effective. I mean, ideology aside, things need to get done. So what organization is needed, and how can we work together in ways that are effective but that don't institutionalize us?
My limited experience working on projects around here, and my five years of observation, lead me to believe that the focus needs to be on the work rather than the leader, and on the workers rather than the organizational structure. I've seen the best work when people gather together around an important task, a problem that we all see needs to be fixed. It's practical, and unity and motivation seem to come easier. I've also noticed that decisions made in committee are often left by the wayside when the practical work starts and the real problems can be seen. So I think the best way to get things done is to focus on the work at hand, not looking to some community ideals or to the leader of the group, but to what the work asks of us. The leader shouldn't pick the work, the work should pick the leader. What skills are required for this task? Who is most knowledgeable and most motivated to see it done well? This means the leader probably will keep changing based on the work at hand, which is good, because one person can't always be best qualified to lead, and it's better for each of us to step up when we're the one with the needed knowledge and ability.
And then the worker should always be treated as a person, not a job description. In other words, if we want another person's help, we need to ask for help. Workers are not just cogs in an organizational machine, but free persons who can choose what work they want to give themselves to. So again, the work is the initial focus, then it is presented to people to see if workers will step up to solve the problem. Their response helps gauge the importance of the work, and decides if it will get worked on. Perhaps the only organizational assistance needed is for someone to pass the information around; here's what problems have arisen, and here's the people who have offered to help. Then the workers who have volunteered gather around the work and organize themselves, much easier with a small group and a concrete practical task.
This approach seems natural, and meets most practical needs. I think it could completely replace committees and leadership structures in most small communities. I know that probably won't happen, but it's an approach that can be used wherever things need to get done, or whenever the more complex organizational structures start to break down. Which is a process we've been seeing here for some time. But that may just be making an opening for something much better.
The drought seems to be over. Tropical storm Isaac brought heavy rains, and now everything is green again. I prayed these lines from Psalm 104 this morning:
From your lofty abode you water the mountains;
the earth is satisfied with the fruit of your work.
You cause the grass to grow for the cattle,
and plants for people to use, to bring forth food from the earth,
and wine to gladden the human heart, oil to make the face shine,
and bread to strengthen the human heart.
The trees of the Lord are watered abundantly,
the cedars of Lebanon that he planted.
In them the birds build their nests;
the stork has its home in the fir trees.
The high mountains are for the wild goats;
the rocks are a refuge for the badgers.
You have made the moon to mark the seasons;
the sun knows its time for setting.
You make darkness, and it is night,
when all the animals of the forest come creeping out.
The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God.
When the sun rises, they withdraw and lie down in their dens.
People go out to their work
and to their labor until the evening.
These all look to you
to give them their food in due season;
when you give to them, they gather it up;
when you open your hand, they are filled with good things.
When you hide your face, they are dismayed;
when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust.
When you send forth your spirit, they are created;
and you renew the face of the ground.
I recently found out a little more about Maria Montessori, and am starting to read her famous book The Absorbent Mind. Turns out her first school was a day care for kids from low-income families. For several years now, I've been drawn to ideas like hers about cooperating with a child's natural drive to learn. And Heather has become more and more focused on the learning process of children, as we contemplate having our own.
These thoughts also made me think again about questions I've had about how to help others learn and grow in the spiritual life. I've noticed that I tend to focus on the goal, the result, where we want to end up, but I'm usually at a loss to know how to help someone get there. Is it a matter of technique? Do we need to try to cooperate with some natural desire or innate drive? Do I need to have some special gift in this area in order to be of much help? Because I feel clueless.
I suspect there are people with better gifts than me in this area. But I'm also seeing that the process of conversion (many conversions throughout life) and growth is much more complicated than a child's normal development process. It's not just teaching knowledge and skills. It's the guiding of a human will, one usually not inclined to be guided along such a path, not at all inclined to surrender itself completely. I can attest that my own path has been a twisted and tortuous one, with countless necessary experiences and influences. How gifted would you have to be to manage that kind of guidance?
Not long ago I was dreading a meeting with a friend, who seemed to be set on pushing an issue to the point of conflict. I was just hoping to minimize the relational damage. But then we started talking and the initial issue was dropped almost immediately. The underlying motivations were completely different than I expected, and my friend seemed to actually be in the midst of a significant personal change of direction. I ended up not defending myself at all but just listening and encouraging what was happening in his life. How did we get there? I had no idea, though I liked what I was seeing. Obviously, there had been circumstances and various influences working on his life that I didn't understand. And who could understand such complexity, much less orchestrate it? Who could know all that another person needs in order to get their spirit one more step closer to God?
Only God, of course. And only God can bring together the circumstances and people and experiences (material and spiritual) that can guide us effectively and reliably. It is not my place to be the shepherd for another. There is only one Shepherd.
But I can perhaps play a role in what the Shepherd is doing, and I myself will be guided when I am used in the guidance of another. But it is never my doing, my ability, my technique. Only in submission to the Shepherd will I do any good, and much of that good I may not even understand. But I can trust that, with or without me, the Shepherd is guiding his flock.
For labor day, I thought it would be worth rereading this entry from five years ago:
The report went abroad concerning Jesus; and great multitudes gathered to hear and to be healed of their infirmities. But he withdrew to the wilderness and prayed. (Lk 5.15-16)That last line resonated with me, because I was still tired from clearing brush the day before, hours of hacking with machete and chainsaw. I really don't like the feeling of exhaustion. It makes me feel off-center, confused, unable to focus. And working to exhaustion certainly does not feel like the life of the kingdom of God to me—but is this an unavoidable necessity? Jesus' withdrawing from the demanding crowd gives me hope.
This Sunday, highlighting a lesser known passage of scripture, from LarkNews.com:
‘Proverbs 31 husband’ justifies beer habit
MINOT, N.D. — Jack Crocker, a beer-loving machinist and “part-time Christian,” finally agreed to read Proverbs with wife Reanna. He’s glad he did.
“I’m a Proverbs 31 husband all right,” says Jack, then quotes Proverbs 31:6-7: “Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more.”
“That’s my permission to crack open a cold one,” Jack says, having a Coors after dinner.
But Reanna, a new church member, is pushing Jack hard to stop drinking. She insists he is neither “perishing” nor “in anguish.” But Jack researched the Bible on the Internet and found 2 Corinthians 4:16 and 5:2 which say, “Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day,” and “Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling.”
“Everyone is perishing and in anguish,” Jack says. “Until we’re delivered from these bodies, the Bible says to drink up.”
As part of the escalating family tension he created a “Proverbs 31″ category on their weekly budget and listed “beer” under it. He also wants to start a Proverbs 31 Men’s Group with his buddies.
“We’re trying to find where the Bible talks about buffalo wings,” he says.
Just finished rereading All The King's Men, by Robert Penn Warren. And decided it's my favorite novel. Warren was an accomplished poet, so the writing is terrific, plus it's got lots of dirty politics, a love story that's messy and complicated enough to seem real, a towering central character that makes it hard to decide whether he's the hero or the villain, and even a voluntarily poor saintly figure floating in the background. Inspired by a true story, too. Here's a taste:
He called me in and said: "I told you to dig on Irwin. What did you get?"
"I got something," I said.
"What?"
"Boss," I said, "I'm going to give Irwin a break. If he can prove to me it isn't true, I won't spill it."
"God damn it," he began, "I told you—"
"I'm giving Irwin a break," I said. "I promised two people I would do it."
"Who?"
"Well, I promised myself, for one. The other one doesn't matter."
"You promised yourself, huh?" He looked hard at me.
"Yeah, I did."
"O.K.," he said. "Do it your way. If it'll stick, you know what I want." He surveyed me glumly, then added: "And it better stick."
"Boss," I said, "I'm afraid it will."
"Afraid?" he said.
"Yeah."
"Who you working for? Him or me?"
"Well, I'm not framing Judge Irwin."
He kept on studying me. "Boy," he said then, "I'm not asking you to frame him. I never asked you to frame anybody. Did I?"
"No."
"I never did ask you to frame anybody. And you know why?"
"No."
"Because it ain't ever necessary. You don't ever have to frame anybody, because the truth is always sufficient."
"You sure take a high view of human nature," I said.
"Boy," he said," I went to a Presbyterian Sunday School back in the days when they still had some theology, and that much of it stuck. And—" he grinned suddenly, "—I have found it very valuable."
From a recent discussion...
Great examples [Francis of Assisi, Ignatius of Loyola, Martin Luther]. So what do you see them doing? Were they preaching their revolutionary ideas to others before they tried them and experienced real liberation? Other people followed their example, because they saw actual human lives that embodied the message, and people admired that example, saw that it was good and possible, and wanted the same for themselves (and their communities). They saw Francis abandon his wealth and influence, saw Ignatius renounce the power of violence for the sake of a greater power, saw Luther risk his life standing up to the oppressive religious power structure. And they saw all these things in Jesus' life, too. They saw evidence of real liberation.
Putting an idea into practice is a test of its truth: does it lead to liberation, or more disillusionment? The prophets and leaders you mention (and many others) didn't ask others to believe them if they didn't believe it themselves enough to put it into practice and test it, sometimes at the risk of their lives. They didn't tell people "this is the way forward" until they had some solid evidence, evidence they got through living it. Then they had something to preach that was worth listening to.
I keep hearing bold (and loudly critical) ideas from primitivist and anti-civ folks, but when it comes to putting it into practice and evidence gained from experience, I just hear excuses about why this isn't possible. Why not try this stuff first and see how it turns out in real life, then tell us what's true and possible, and what's not? I have a feeling the message would look quite different after actually attempting to live by it.
Against School: How public education cripples our kids, and why
by John Taylor Gatto
We have been taught in this country to think of "success" as synonymous with, or at least dependent upon, "schooling," but historically that isn't true in either an intellectual or a financial sense. And plenty of people throughout the world today find a way to educate themselves without resorting to a system of compulsory secondary schools that all too often resemble prisons. Why, then, do Americans confuse education with just such a system? What exactly is the purpose of our public schools?
And the devil took him up, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory; for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it shall all be yours.”
And Jesus answered him, “It is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.'”
Continuing "Are We the People?"...
What is this great beast? What is the monster that Steinbeck describes? An institution, a social structure created by human beings. With no actual reality, except in the minds of the people who believe in it. Yet, as more and more people gather, believing in and submitting themselves to its order and purposes, it gains power in men's minds, great power, seeming to become something much greater than ourselves. Those who believe and serve it become dependent on it, dependent for their very lives. And it grows in complexity and influence until it eventually reaches the point where no human leadership seems to be in control of it; it seems to have taken on a life of its own.
“Men made it but they can't control it …it can make men do what it wants.”
Isn't this what an idol is? The work of men's hands, yet with the apparent power of a god, that people depend on, and fear, and serve. With no reality in itself, yet very real in the minds of those who believe in it. Wielding great power through those people.
And wasn't that always the nature of idols? They represented local gods, wielding power over the inhabitants of a city or region. Where they were believed in they truly seemed to have power, and their power was precisely the power of their united, organized believers. When the people were defeated by another people, their god either disappeared or took its place with the defeated people, submitting to the victorious people's god. The power of the idol was and always is the power of the people.
But that power can seem very great. We, the People—the monster, the Great Beast—even appears to have the power to define good and evil. Weil borrowed the image of a great beast from this passage of Plato's Republic (where Plato critiques those who are “wise” through their study of collective society):
I might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is fed by him—he would learn how to approach and handle him, also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries, and by what sounds, when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated; and you may suppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honorable and that dishonorable, or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute. Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast delights and evil to be that which he dislikes…To Plato's observation, Weil adds this insight: “The power of the social element. Agreement between several men brings with it a feeling of reality. It brings with it also a sense of duty. Divergence, where this agreement is concerned, appears as a sin. Hence all returns to the fold are possible. The state of conformity is an imitation of grace.”
The owner men explained the workings and the thinkings of the monster that was stronger than they were…. “You see, a bank or company… those creatures don't breathe air, don't eat side-meat. They breathe profits; they eat interest on money. If they don't get it, they die the way you die without air, without side-meat. It is a sad thing, but it is so. It is just so…. The bank—the monster has to have profits all the time. It can't wait. It'll die. When the monster stops growing it dies. It can't stay one size….”
And at last the owner men came to the point. “The tenant system won't work, any more. One man on a tractor can take the place of twelve or fourteen families. Pay him a wage and take all the crop. We have to do it. We don't like to do it. But the monster's sick. Something's happened to the monster….”
“Sure,” cried the tenant men, “but it's our land. We measured it and broke it up. We were born on it, and we got killed on it, died on it. Even if it's no good, it's still ours….”
“We're sorry. It's not us. It's the monster. The bank isn't like a man.”
“Yes, but the bank is made up of men.”
“No. You're wrong there—quite wrong there. The bank is something else than men. It happens that every man in a bank hates what the bank does, and yet the bank does it. The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It's the monster. Men made it but they can't control it.
“…The monster isn't men, but it can make men do what it wants.”
The Great Beast is the only object of idolatry, the only ersatz of God, the only imitation of something which is infinitely far from me and which is I myself.
It is impossible for me to take myself as an end or, in consequence, my fellow man as an end, since he is my fellow. Nor can I take a material thing, because matter is still less capable of having finality conferred upon it than [individual] human beings are.
Only one thing can be taken as an end, for in relation to the human person it possesses a kind of transcendence: this is the collective.
I've been in Chicago most of this week, visiting some of the ministries that send retreatants to us. I notice I'm not as comfortable in the city as I used to be. Seems noisier, puts me on edge.
The experience reminded me of a conversation about wilderness trips and the importance of nature in spiritual awakenings. I can certainly see how it's often easier to focus and listen to the "still, small voice" when we're in a wilderness (or more natural) setting. That's part of what we offer to the retreat guests who come out to the farm.
But I don't think that natural setting is crucial. God can get through to us anywhere, if we're at all willing. Which is good, because lots of us can't afford or manage to get out to the wilderness very often. I noticed a pretty good observation from one of the organizations that offer guided wilderness "quests": "People experience genuine and profound soul encounter only under the most extraordinary of circumstances. And it turns out there are only a few categories of such circumstances." Such as:
Jason asked about the new community garden, if I had any pictures. So here's one I took as the sun was setting behind the trees. We're in the middle of a serious drought, but Heather has managed to keep things growing pretty well.
Our friends Dan and Camille are here for the summer, and they've been helping a lot too. They did all the watering and picking and weeding while Heather was gone this past week, and had enough produce for everyone with lots left over to take to other friends in Chicago.
Pretty big sunflowers, eh? Here's another shot of them.
Heather got invited to go wilderness camping on Isle Royale this week, so I'm taking a bit of a vacation as well. Not going anywhere. Just relaxing a bit, cooking a little special, watching some movies that Heather's probably not interested in, and enjoying having the place all to myself.
I've generally been dissatisfied with vacationing. It seemed to me that if we really enjoyed and got deep satisfaction from our daily work and normal life, then vacations shouldn't be necessary. What I usually saw was people taking a much-needed break so that they didn't break—but then they had to go right back to the grind. Heather likes the idea of taking "sabbaths" of various kinds regularly. I guess I can't argue with that. But (here I go anyway) I see Jesus taking the God-given sabbath a step further. When he was caught "breaking" the sabbath Jesus, echoing passages like Isaiah 58, said that the kind of "work" he was doing was exactly what we are supposed to be doing on the sabbath. "It is lawful to do good on the sabbath." And that's what he did every day, sabbath or no. It seems to me that every day was sabbath-holy to Jesus, both in the rest from relentlessly "pursuing your own interests" and in the good, freely giving, deeply fulfilling work he did with all his time, every day. So that's what I've wanted to do too.
But I have to admit, it is nice to have a change of pace once in a while.
And you, creatures of the sea, O bless the Lord.
And you, every bird in the sky, O bless the Lord.
And you, wild beasts and tame, O bless the Lord.
To him be highest glory and praise for ever.
I remembered this quote yesterday, by William James:
I am against bigness and greatness in all their forms, and with the invisible molecular moral forces that work from individual to individual, stealing in through the crannies of the world like so many soft rootlets, or like the capillary oozing of water, and yet rending the hardest monuments of man’s pride, if you give them time. The bigger the unit you deal with, the hollower, the more brutal, the more mendacious is the life displayed. So I am against all big organizations as such, national ones first and foremost; against all big successes and big results; and in favor of the eternal forces of truth which always work in the individual and immediately unsuccessful way, under-dogs always, till history comes, after they are long dead, and puts them on top.
"It is to fulfill the word that is written in their law, 'They hated me without a cause.'" (Jn 15.25)
I don't hear Christians talk too often about being hated in society. They're so much in the majority in our society that it's usually pretty confortable for Christians; actually, I more often hear of people complaining about being hated by Christians.
But Jesus often warned his small band of followers that they would be hated by the wider society. He even blessed them in it:
"Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets." (Lk 6.22-23)This is not mentioned often, but there are times when Christians do turn to these words of Jesus. Like when Christian colonizers were hated and attacked by native peoples. Situations like that, though, raise the question: Were those Christians hated (as Jesus was) "without a cause"? Were they hated simply for their beliefs, as some claim? And now, do many in the Middle East hate Christians "without a cause"? Or do they hate Christians for stealing their land and resources and killing their family members, some very reasonable causes for hating?
subscribe
