John 9:1-3
“And as He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?” Jesus answered, ‘It was neither that this man sinned nor his parents; but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him.’
The presence of Christ in Africa:
*Widows caring for orphaned children in Malawi - the undesirable caring for the unwanted – those who were abandoned to die being offered life by those who were abandoned by death – the least valued loving the lost valuables
*First feeding center visit (in the middle of nowhere) – so scarce, so sparse – very little shelter, very short supplies – an impossible task facing an overwhelming need
*Second feeding center visit – long drive, long day, long road to find unwanted answers – seemingly so hopeless, constantly being asked; “sponsor” me, take me with you, pick me, choose me, save me – given an uncomfortable amount of misplaced honor and worth – making me painfully aware of my unworthiness – Save me too, Jesus
*Then the singing began – perfect pitch, perfect harmony, perfect acoustics – unbelievable joy in their faces and voices – physically poor but spiritually rich – I want what they have, they want what I have – each must give up what they have to receive the other – God help me for I am poor in spirit
*The longest day, the final feeding center, a lasting impression – 5 widows at a well working together; a common burden, retrieving a plastic bucket from the bottom of the well; a common need, drawing the water; a common daily task, preparing a meal for 200 plus people; this is how they have built their friendship – joy permeates from every pore of their bodies – laughter while they work to recover the bucket – dancing and celebrating when it is brought up full – No sense of entitlement or reward for their work - I am humbled, I build my friendships on; a common enemy, a common fear, a common complaint – I rarely sing with joy while I am toiling under a burdensome task – I demand payment or accolades for my efforts – Get away from me Lord, for I am sinful
*Celebration and dedication of the YL Training Center in Dar – lots of singing, dancing, crying – much more comfort here; comfort in lifestyle, comfort in similar vocabulary, comfort in the familiar, comfort in feeling known – I am safe here – I am home
*Most surreal day – starts with a national press conference – lunch overlooking the Indian Ocean – then a drive into/through utter poverty – visit a Sister of Mercy orphanage/convalescent home/sanitarium for the mentally and physically impaired – touch, play with and hold, you Jesus? – and end the day sitting on the beach at a resort – are you present here as well?
*An epiphany; in my economy changing, cleaning feeding the babies would be the least stretching “job” while changing and cleaning the mentally ill or dieing would be beyond my abilities; yet, Irene sees it differently; she says, ‘Once the adults are cleaned and feed they are happy, but the babies take constant care and are sometimes very fussy.’ So Irene begins praying for the Sister’s who care for the babies, because they need more patience and energy – Oh God I often pay a much higher cost trying to avoid what is the greater gain because I depend on; what my eyes see, my abilities are, my economy is
*Arusha – Surrounded by jobless men, orphaned and homeless, endless needs everywhere – Alexis says “God’s favor falls on some” – causing me to start searching desperately for an answer/a middle ground to live in – one where I do not under use my potential because I am overwhelmed with a deep sense of unworthiness, or where I lose perspective and begin to think; I am worthy, I deserve more, I have “the” answers – I don’t want to get stuck here in the sin of self-absorption – Lord let me hear the words of truth and help me to believe
“…I again saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift, and the battle is not to the warriors, and neither is bread to the wise, nor wealth to the discerning, nor favor to men of ability; for time and chance overtake them all.” Ecclesiastes 9:11
3 weeks of daily opportunities to learn again, Who God is and who I am not.
That my life is not the measure of; success or comfort or spiritual depth but it is God alone who measures a man’s worth.
All of creation, all things living have value and purpose because all things are created by God for His glory, His good pleasure; this includes the broken, the unwanted, the ones who are blind in sight and the ones who are blind in spirit. (John 9:1-3)
Man’s (my) wisdom is always folly
I infect more than I affect life around me…and still God’s love for me is full of mercy and grace. I am humbled and thankful to receive God’s favor, for such a time as this…
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Saturday, February 24, 2007
My Undeserved Gifts by Susan Caldwell
An African proverb; “You don’t kiss your children so they will kiss you, you kiss your children so they will kiss their children.”
I had the privilege of sitting with my youngest daughter this past Thursday night and listen to Maya Angelou speak. I deeply appreciate the opportunity to hear words of wisdom from such a gracious icon of courage and womanhood; words of gentle conviction both poetic and prophetic, about the value of each human life. But the real treasure was spending the evening with my daughter and observing her; seeing life and light flow through her eyes and soul, this I will never deserve and not soon forget.
I cannot stop thinking about the gift of healing my children have brought me: Healing with my self-image and worth and my sins of the past. It has been through their lives…from their birth…to the continued invitation into their daily lives that redemption has come to my soul. To be loved unconditionally and forgiven (even my continued shortcoming)…to be included in their laughter, joy, pain, hurt, dreams and disappointments…this is life giving and life inspiring for me.
As my children grew, the desires I had for them grew as well. When they were very little, holding, hugging, kissing and coddling them was what felt right and good to me and doing that was easy. In the toddler years the times of coddling were intermingled with some teaching and some discipline, mostly for their safety. The need to instruct and discipline increased as the world around them expanded…but the desire to hold them and love on them never decreased…but the reason why became clearer. I love them, not so they will love me back…but so that they would know they were loved…and thus were free to love others.
And now once again, I find myself being taught by my children. Becoming more aware of how much God loves me…and what His love of me feels like. When my children include me in their lives because they want to and not because they have to, this tells me they understand the power of love. To have love received is one thing…but to be loved in return…amazing. I rest knowing they will “kiss their children, not so that they will be kissed back, but so that their children will kiss their children.”
So now loving them is mingled with letting them go and I do this so that one day they too will release their children into the world and in so doing, hopefully, give them the gift of being believed in by others, giving them the ability to believe in a God who loves them unconditionally; Who desires to be included in their laughter and joy, pain, hurt, dreams and disappointments…who will continue to forgive them, even their continued shortcomings.
“Behold what manner of love the Father has given unto us, that we should be called the children of God.”
I had the privilege of sitting with my youngest daughter this past Thursday night and listen to Maya Angelou speak. I deeply appreciate the opportunity to hear words of wisdom from such a gracious icon of courage and womanhood; words of gentle conviction both poetic and prophetic, about the value of each human life. But the real treasure was spending the evening with my daughter and observing her; seeing life and light flow through her eyes and soul, this I will never deserve and not soon forget.
I cannot stop thinking about the gift of healing my children have brought me: Healing with my self-image and worth and my sins of the past. It has been through their lives…from their birth…to the continued invitation into their daily lives that redemption has come to my soul. To be loved unconditionally and forgiven (even my continued shortcoming)…to be included in their laughter, joy, pain, hurt, dreams and disappointments…this is life giving and life inspiring for me.
As my children grew, the desires I had for them grew as well. When they were very little, holding, hugging, kissing and coddling them was what felt right and good to me and doing that was easy. In the toddler years the times of coddling were intermingled with some teaching and some discipline, mostly for their safety. The need to instruct and discipline increased as the world around them expanded…but the desire to hold them and love on them never decreased…but the reason why became clearer. I love them, not so they will love me back…but so that they would know they were loved…and thus were free to love others.
And now once again, I find myself being taught by my children. Becoming more aware of how much God loves me…and what His love of me feels like. When my children include me in their lives because they want to and not because they have to, this tells me they understand the power of love. To have love received is one thing…but to be loved in return…amazing. I rest knowing they will “kiss their children, not so that they will be kissed back, but so that their children will kiss their children.”
So now loving them is mingled with letting them go and I do this so that one day they too will release their children into the world and in so doing, hopefully, give them the gift of being believed in by others, giving them the ability to believe in a God who loves them unconditionally; Who desires to be included in their laughter and joy, pain, hurt, dreams and disappointments…who will continue to forgive them, even their continued shortcomings.
“Behold what manner of love the Father has given unto us, that we should be called the children of God.”
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Identifying Mark by susan caldwell
“He who troubles his own house will inherit the wind.” Proverbs 11:29
The play, “Inherit the Wind” was written to show how McCarthyism was stirring up tension, distrust and hatred, by making irrational appeals to people's deepest fears. It is a common enough ploy, and greatly favored by dictatorial leaders who have no better means of appealing for support. It is interesting to note how often, in the 20th century, this has been proven true: Stalin (Russia), Hitler (Germany), Pol Pot (Cambodia).
Sadly in the play it is the Rev. Brown who symbolizes the McCarthyite "witch hunters"
BROWN. (Deliberately shattering the rhythm to go into a frenzied prayer, hands clasped together and lifted heavenward.)O Lord of the Tempest and of the Thunder! O Lord of Righteousness and Wrath! We pray that Thou wilt make a sign unto us! Strike down this sinner [Cates], as Thou didst Thine enemies of old, in the days of the Pharoahs!(All lean forward, almost expecting the heavens to open with a thunderbolt. Rachel [Brown's daughter/Cates' fiancee] is white. Brady shifts uncomfortably in his chair, this is pretty strong stuff, even for him.)Let him feel the terror of Thy sword! For all eternity, let his soul writhe in anguish and damnation -
By the end of the play, Brown has totally alienated his daughter - in other words, he has literally "stirred up trouble in his own house", and as a consequence "inherits the wind" - is left with nothing when Rachel leaves home with Cates.
At the end of the play the protagonist, speaks these final words. “You never push a noun against a verb without trying to blow up something.”
I must say, I have become intrigued by this idea. (And that is not just because I really like the idea of pushing anything against something in the hope of blowing it up…most especially complacency.) Actually what I was really thinking of was how often the church gets involved in foolish battles against our own “house” which when won leaves us empty…holding on to nothing. And the battle I am thinking about here is; the need to control. (The noun is need and the verb is control.)
And with that said I am either about to inherit nothing or by my sticking my foot into the fire and making an awful stink, stir us out of complacency and fear and into a battle whose victory will bring real freedom: The battle to fight for the courage to live without the need to control.
We (the church) must stop using shame and guilt and fear as a means to control those around us. Love and the response to love must be free, given freely and received freely. This is the entire message of Christ. All condemnation, all fear and all need to control is cast out by Perfect Love.
Brokenness scars and wounds are the only marks that identify us with Christ.
“Hast thou no scar?
No hidden scar on foot, or side or hand/
I hear thee sun as mighty in the land,
I hear them hail thy bright, ascendant star,
Hast thou no scar?
Hast thou no wound?
Yet I was wounded by the archers, spent,
Leaded Me against a tree to die, and rent
By ravening beasts that compassed me, I swooned;
Hast thou no wound?
No wound? No scar?
Yet , as the Master shall the servant be,
And pierced are the feet that follow Me;
But thine are whole; can he have followed far
Who has no wound nor scar? "
Amy Carmichael
The play, “Inherit the Wind” was written to show how McCarthyism was stirring up tension, distrust and hatred, by making irrational appeals to people's deepest fears. It is a common enough ploy, and greatly favored by dictatorial leaders who have no better means of appealing for support. It is interesting to note how often, in the 20th century, this has been proven true: Stalin (Russia), Hitler (Germany), Pol Pot (Cambodia).
Sadly in the play it is the Rev. Brown who symbolizes the McCarthyite "witch hunters"
BROWN. (Deliberately shattering the rhythm to go into a frenzied prayer, hands clasped together and lifted heavenward.)O Lord of the Tempest and of the Thunder! O Lord of Righteousness and Wrath! We pray that Thou wilt make a sign unto us! Strike down this sinner [Cates], as Thou didst Thine enemies of old, in the days of the Pharoahs!(All lean forward, almost expecting the heavens to open with a thunderbolt. Rachel [Brown's daughter/Cates' fiancee] is white. Brady shifts uncomfortably in his chair, this is pretty strong stuff, even for him.)Let him feel the terror of Thy sword! For all eternity, let his soul writhe in anguish and damnation -
By the end of the play, Brown has totally alienated his daughter - in other words, he has literally "stirred up trouble in his own house", and as a consequence "inherits the wind" - is left with nothing when Rachel leaves home with Cates.
At the end of the play the protagonist, speaks these final words. “You never push a noun against a verb without trying to blow up something.”
I must say, I have become intrigued by this idea. (And that is not just because I really like the idea of pushing anything against something in the hope of blowing it up…most especially complacency.) Actually what I was really thinking of was how often the church gets involved in foolish battles against our own “house” which when won leaves us empty…holding on to nothing. And the battle I am thinking about here is; the need to control. (The noun is need and the verb is control.)
And with that said I am either about to inherit nothing or by my sticking my foot into the fire and making an awful stink, stir us out of complacency and fear and into a battle whose victory will bring real freedom: The battle to fight for the courage to live without the need to control.
We (the church) must stop using shame and guilt and fear as a means to control those around us. Love and the response to love must be free, given freely and received freely. This is the entire message of Christ. All condemnation, all fear and all need to control is cast out by Perfect Love.
Brokenness scars and wounds are the only marks that identify us with Christ.
“Hast thou no scar?
No hidden scar on foot, or side or hand/
I hear thee sun as mighty in the land,
I hear them hail thy bright, ascendant star,
Hast thou no scar?
Hast thou no wound?
Yet I was wounded by the archers, spent,
Leaded Me against a tree to die, and rent
By ravening beasts that compassed me, I swooned;
Hast thou no wound?
No wound? No scar?
Yet , as the Master shall the servant be,
And pierced are the feet that follow Me;
But thine are whole; can he have followed far
Who has no wound nor scar? "
Amy Carmichael
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Entitled to Chose by susan caldwell
I have often thought that the depth of my compassion is equal to the depth of the pain I’ve experienced in life. But perhaps it would be more accurate to say that out of this pain is born the opportunity to choose compassion or indifference (apathy). To choose the first will give way to mercy and hope and with time it will bring healing. While choosing indifference leads to hate and despair and most probably death to any hope of redeeming the pain.
"Everything can be taken from a man but ...the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way." p.104Victor Frankle “Man’s Search for Meaning”
Victor Frankle observed, after surviving two-and-a-half years in four different Nazi concentration camps, that there were three fundamental experiences which threatened to damage the character of the liberated prisoner: bitterness, disillusionment and when he returned to his former life, a belief that surviving suffering gave permission to do wrong.
Bitterness festers in old wounds, which only increases when restitution is dependent upon others seeing us as the victim by entering into our sorrow and loss or expressing great remorse for not rescuing us. Disillusionment (cynicism) overtakes us when a desperately anticipated reward or outcome, after enduring injustice or underserved pain, fails to materialize. However, I believe, it is the act of choosing one’s attitude about entitlement or the right to do wrong that will most determine direction, future actions and ultimately the character of all emancipated men/women.
I wonder if this why most freedom fighters after having won their battle over an oppressive, unjust and inhuman ruling force quickly begin to reflect the very same characteristics? Ida Amin in Uganda, Mobutu in Zaire and Joseph Stalin in Russia are examples of men who practiced indifference (lack of sympathy) over selflessness (compassion and benevolence) when exercising their freedoms to chose.
And then there is Nelson Mandela. In the book “Leading like Madiba” Martin Kalungu-Banda recounts how the moral character shaped by the choices Mandela made following his release from prison continually reflected grace, compassion and the desire to do justice.
Okay, so now I am thinking that compassion has to be a choice and it is born out of, not simply a product of, pain…and its depth is determined solely on continued selfless choices. This brings me back to aforementioned idea…and a confession that I don’t often choose compassion…
Okay, really how usually I demand justice and want grace, making me look a lot more like a freedom fighter turned indifferent dictator than a liberated survivor who choices bring redemption rather than revenge.
"Everything can be taken from a man but ...the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way." p.104Victor Frankle “Man’s Search for Meaning”
Victor Frankle observed, after surviving two-and-a-half years in four different Nazi concentration camps, that there were three fundamental experiences which threatened to damage the character of the liberated prisoner: bitterness, disillusionment and when he returned to his former life, a belief that surviving suffering gave permission to do wrong.
Bitterness festers in old wounds, which only increases when restitution is dependent upon others seeing us as the victim by entering into our sorrow and loss or expressing great remorse for not rescuing us. Disillusionment (cynicism) overtakes us when a desperately anticipated reward or outcome, after enduring injustice or underserved pain, fails to materialize. However, I believe, it is the act of choosing one’s attitude about entitlement or the right to do wrong that will most determine direction, future actions and ultimately the character of all emancipated men/women.
I wonder if this why most freedom fighters after having won their battle over an oppressive, unjust and inhuman ruling force quickly begin to reflect the very same characteristics? Ida Amin in Uganda, Mobutu in Zaire and Joseph Stalin in Russia are examples of men who practiced indifference (lack of sympathy) over selflessness (compassion and benevolence) when exercising their freedoms to chose.
And then there is Nelson Mandela. In the book “Leading like Madiba” Martin Kalungu-Banda recounts how the moral character shaped by the choices Mandela made following his release from prison continually reflected grace, compassion and the desire to do justice.
Okay, so now I am thinking that compassion has to be a choice and it is born out of, not simply a product of, pain…and its depth is determined solely on continued selfless choices. This brings me back to aforementioned idea…and a confession that I don’t often choose compassion…
Okay, really how usually I demand justice and want grace, making me look a lot more like a freedom fighter turned indifferent dictator than a liberated survivor who choices bring redemption rather than revenge.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Cognitive Dissonance of the Religious Right (and Left) by Susan Caldwell
"If you have two propositions in conflict, it's human nature to disregard one of them."
Lionel Festinger
During the recent mid-term elections my husband and I were "discussing" our sometimes opposing views on American politics, with strong convictions and passion our most common topic is political party lines and which one aligns with our foundational faith- beliefs best. I tend to be a quick emotional responder (reactor) and he is a slow deep analytical thinker, which at times can feel like a disadvantage, I think to us both.
At one point my husband made this observation/comment in regard to how the two political parties see each other. He said, "The Democrats think the Republicans are stupid and the Republicans think the Democrats are wrong." And I am pretty sure we quickly went on to prove his statement true, because wrapped in my argument(s) I may have indicated something like, "Well, that's just stupid." To which he may have responded, "No, you're just wrong."
Which then got me to thinking about why do we defend our beliefs so adamantly? Is the reason an allegiance to a belief or perspective that one holds to be absolutely true? Or is it simply that the fear of looking stupid or being wrong drives one to remain opposed to any information that might possibly expose the fact that they may not have all the right answers or correct perspective? Then I thought, no one ever argues absolutes like gravity or the need for oxygen. These are simply not issues for discussion. Sure there have been those who have invented ways to defy gravity or to regulate the flow of oxygen...but these discoveries do not make one look stupid or wrong for believing oxygen and gravity to be staples of their daily life.
So now I am wondering if cognitive dissonance only occurs when non-absolute truths are challenged; even if at one time the non-absolutes were believed to be absolute. Although people claim to know absolute truth, I believe absolute truth can only be assigned to God alone because any or all of our learned knowledge is subject to fallibility. Like Galileo's discovering that the Earth was not the center of the universe, causing the "infallible" Church's interpretation of Holy Scripture to be wrong. Or how ignorant would we appear today if we supported the belief that one man had the right to enslave another? Yet there was a time in this country when that belief was so strongly held, a civil war was fought over it.
And then it hit me. What means will we go to in order to keep from having our non-absolute truths disproved? The Church brought those who opposed their beliefs before a court to be tried for heresy with death, imprisonment or banishment being the penalties imposed. Those who choose to hold tightly to ignorant beliefs, like the white "God fearing" men and women in the south in the 1960's who supported segregation, will be overcome with fear and ultimately driven by need to silence those who are challenging their beliefs. I have often wondered how humankind has survived considering the torture it has inflicted on those whom we need to oppress in order to keep our perceptions of truth in tact. Sadly to our discredit as humans, our response to cognitive dissonance has honed our dexterity to oppress or exploit others.
Festinger says that this psychological phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance is as strong a human response as hunger and thirst. Which leads me to the conclusion that when one is experiencing conflicting information it is not simply that one does not want to know, it is that one believes their very life depends on not assimilating to it. The worst example of this is when a Mother chooses to live in an altered state of reality denying the truth that her children are being abused, thereby not protecting them.
I am not sure I can control when this human response mechanism kicks in, but I am thinking maybe I can choose to not hold on to as many non-absolutes. So, now I find myself asking the questions, "What absolutes do I hold?" "What absolute does my faith depend on?" If, 'perfect love casts out all fear', then holding to a belief in God should not result in my responding to conflicting information, discoveries or opinions with the fear of looking stupid or being wrong. More importantly to me though is this hope; that if I truly believe there is a God, I do not have to worry about defending his existence or any truths he has decided on. My faith-beliefs should fall into the category with oxygen and gravity. No need to fear, no need to argue, no need to prove their existence. Their own nature is their proof.
I wonder if the need for me to prove; my perspective, support the right (or left), have my candidate win, my party in control, my ideas, ideals or rights supported by the majority of voters will be less now that I understand cognitive dissonance? Probably not...
But maybe replacing my faith-based-belief on God himself and not on political views, biblical interpretations, actions, experiences or momentary culturally accepted doctrine or any other non-absolute truths my life will be a bit more congruent with the mercy of God.
"The standard by which we measure our obedience is therefore Jesus Christ himself; from Him we learn that brokenness, not success, is the normal path of faithfulness to the servanthood of God. This is not to glorify failure or some sort of heroic uselessness, but to claim, as a confession that can be only made in faith, that true "success" in Christian obedience is not to be measured by changing the world in a given direction with a given length of time, but by the congruence between our path and the triumph of Christ.
Every kind of brutal pragmatism has justified itself by the good results; so has every idealistic glorification of whatever anyone is currently doing to save the world. We must relearn the humility of measuring our obedience not by our claims to get something done, which really does not lie in our hands, but rather by its faithfulness to the word which God has spoken to man in the Man of his choice." John Howard Yoder
Lionel Festinger
During the recent mid-term elections my husband and I were "discussing" our sometimes opposing views on American politics, with strong convictions and passion our most common topic is political party lines and which one aligns with our foundational faith- beliefs best. I tend to be a quick emotional responder (reactor) and he is a slow deep analytical thinker, which at times can feel like a disadvantage, I think to us both.
At one point my husband made this observation/comment in regard to how the two political parties see each other. He said, "The Democrats think the Republicans are stupid and the Republicans think the Democrats are wrong." And I am pretty sure we quickly went on to prove his statement true, because wrapped in my argument(s) I may have indicated something like, "Well, that's just stupid." To which he may have responded, "No, you're just wrong."
Which then got me to thinking about why do we defend our beliefs so adamantly? Is the reason an allegiance to a belief or perspective that one holds to be absolutely true? Or is it simply that the fear of looking stupid or being wrong drives one to remain opposed to any information that might possibly expose the fact that they may not have all the right answers or correct perspective? Then I thought, no one ever argues absolutes like gravity or the need for oxygen. These are simply not issues for discussion. Sure there have been those who have invented ways to defy gravity or to regulate the flow of oxygen...but these discoveries do not make one look stupid or wrong for believing oxygen and gravity to be staples of their daily life.
So now I am wondering if cognitive dissonance only occurs when non-absolute truths are challenged; even if at one time the non-absolutes were believed to be absolute. Although people claim to know absolute truth, I believe absolute truth can only be assigned to God alone because any or all of our learned knowledge is subject to fallibility. Like Galileo's discovering that the Earth was not the center of the universe, causing the "infallible" Church's interpretation of Holy Scripture to be wrong. Or how ignorant would we appear today if we supported the belief that one man had the right to enslave another? Yet there was a time in this country when that belief was so strongly held, a civil war was fought over it.
And then it hit me. What means will we go to in order to keep from having our non-absolute truths disproved? The Church brought those who opposed their beliefs before a court to be tried for heresy with death, imprisonment or banishment being the penalties imposed. Those who choose to hold tightly to ignorant beliefs, like the white "God fearing" men and women in the south in the 1960's who supported segregation, will be overcome with fear and ultimately driven by need to silence those who are challenging their beliefs. I have often wondered how humankind has survived considering the torture it has inflicted on those whom we need to oppress in order to keep our perceptions of truth in tact. Sadly to our discredit as humans, our response to cognitive dissonance has honed our dexterity to oppress or exploit others.
Festinger says that this psychological phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance is as strong a human response as hunger and thirst. Which leads me to the conclusion that when one is experiencing conflicting information it is not simply that one does not want to know, it is that one believes their very life depends on not assimilating to it. The worst example of this is when a Mother chooses to live in an altered state of reality denying the truth that her children are being abused, thereby not protecting them.
I am not sure I can control when this human response mechanism kicks in, but I am thinking maybe I can choose to not hold on to as many non-absolutes. So, now I find myself asking the questions, "What absolutes do I hold?" "What absolute does my faith depend on?" If, 'perfect love casts out all fear', then holding to a belief in God should not result in my responding to conflicting information, discoveries or opinions with the fear of looking stupid or being wrong. More importantly to me though is this hope; that if I truly believe there is a God, I do not have to worry about defending his existence or any truths he has decided on. My faith-beliefs should fall into the category with oxygen and gravity. No need to fear, no need to argue, no need to prove their existence. Their own nature is their proof.
I wonder if the need for me to prove; my perspective, support the right (or left), have my candidate win, my party in control, my ideas, ideals or rights supported by the majority of voters will be less now that I understand cognitive dissonance? Probably not...
But maybe replacing my faith-based-belief on God himself and not on political views, biblical interpretations, actions, experiences or momentary culturally accepted doctrine or any other non-absolute truths my life will be a bit more congruent with the mercy of God.
"The standard by which we measure our obedience is therefore Jesus Christ himself; from Him we learn that brokenness, not success, is the normal path of faithfulness to the servanthood of God. This is not to glorify failure or some sort of heroic uselessness, but to claim, as a confession that can be only made in faith, that true "success" in Christian obedience is not to be measured by changing the world in a given direction with a given length of time, but by the congruence between our path and the triumph of Christ.
Every kind of brutal pragmatism has justified itself by the good results; so has every idealistic glorification of whatever anyone is currently doing to save the world. We must relearn the humility of measuring our obedience not by our claims to get something done, which really does not lie in our hands, but rather by its faithfulness to the word which God has spoken to man in the Man of his choice." John Howard Yoder
Thursday, October 05, 2006
The Truth about Tragedy by Susan Caldwell
"What makes a tragedy so tragic is not that the noble individual falls into ruin, but that
his fall causes so much suffering in others."
--Charmezel Dudt.
When I read this quote I can’t help but think about Shakespeare and how this idea must have been the foundation upon which all of his tragedies were based. When King Lear’s pride and ego drive him to choose unwisely, it is his honest and devoted daughter Cordelia who pays with her life. As Romeo and Juliet’s lives end tragically because of their choices, Tibalt and Mercutio lose their lives as well. Perhaps the hardest part of a tragedy is trying to make sense out of the carnage left behind. And in Shakespeare’s plays as in real world tragedies, like Rwanda and the Republic of Congo, carnage really means loss of life.
Someone once said that there is very little tragedy in American theater because America’s ideal is; man is captain of his own fate and that justice will prevail for all men. And if tragedy by definition is an event or action that carries no resolve in itself, then justice will never triumph out of tragedy. At least not on its own; it must be brought into the tragedy by those who are willing to enter into the suffering. This can be by the very one who fell into ruin and caused the tragedy…or by those left standing, the living "carnage".
In Shakespeare’s tragedies, those who could have brought justice fell victim to the suffering that surrounded them and were unable to bear the guilt or shame or responsibility of their actions; King Lear dies of a heart attack after watching his daughter hanged, Macbeth goes crazy, Othello can only cry and Hamlet’s (re) actions come too late.
The truth is that we will all experience tragedy in our lives. Sometimes we will be the “noble individual” (or not so noble) who brings the tragedy and sometimes we will be the innocent one suffering.
When Nelson Mandela stood before his accusers during his trial for sabotage, he gave this response to the tragedy that he found himself in.
“Having said this, I must deal immediately and at some length with the question of violence. Some of the things so far told to the Court are true and some are untrue. I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites.”
I believe when one takes responsibility for their life and actions, as Mandela did, it is in that moment they are able to accept whatever consequences have incurred as a result of their choices. It is in this place where we embrace both our innocence and guilt that the hope for redemption is born and justice reign.
his fall causes so much suffering in others."
--Charmezel Dudt.
When I read this quote I can’t help but think about Shakespeare and how this idea must have been the foundation upon which all of his tragedies were based. When King Lear’s pride and ego drive him to choose unwisely, it is his honest and devoted daughter Cordelia who pays with her life. As Romeo and Juliet’s lives end tragically because of their choices, Tibalt and Mercutio lose their lives as well. Perhaps the hardest part of a tragedy is trying to make sense out of the carnage left behind. And in Shakespeare’s plays as in real world tragedies, like Rwanda and the Republic of Congo, carnage really means loss of life.
Someone once said that there is very little tragedy in American theater because America’s ideal is; man is captain of his own fate and that justice will prevail for all men. And if tragedy by definition is an event or action that carries no resolve in itself, then justice will never triumph out of tragedy. At least not on its own; it must be brought into the tragedy by those who are willing to enter into the suffering. This can be by the very one who fell into ruin and caused the tragedy…or by those left standing, the living "carnage".
In Shakespeare’s tragedies, those who could have brought justice fell victim to the suffering that surrounded them and were unable to bear the guilt or shame or responsibility of their actions; King Lear dies of a heart attack after watching his daughter hanged, Macbeth goes crazy, Othello can only cry and Hamlet’s (re) actions come too late.
The truth is that we will all experience tragedy in our lives. Sometimes we will be the “noble individual” (or not so noble) who brings the tragedy and sometimes we will be the innocent one suffering.
When Nelson Mandela stood before his accusers during his trial for sabotage, he gave this response to the tragedy that he found himself in.
“Having said this, I must deal immediately and at some length with the question of violence. Some of the things so far told to the Court are true and some are untrue. I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites.”
I believe when one takes responsibility for their life and actions, as Mandela did, it is in that moment they are able to accept whatever consequences have incurred as a result of their choices. It is in this place where we embrace both our innocence and guilt that the hope for redemption is born and justice reign.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
"I 'not me' you" by Susan Caldwell
Most of us know that love is an action not just a word and to love and care for someone is exhausting. When I remember this I become acutely aware of my limitations and abilities to love all those who are in my life. It is much easy to say I love someone, than to prove my love. I must admit I have chosen the easy way more times than not. Knowing myself and how selfish I am…I realize how different my life would look if I truly loved all those I said, “I love you” to. This has led me to rethink the words “I love you.” Maybe what we should really say is, “I ‘not me’ you.” (Meaning, I will choose to serve you not me first, your needs and not mine, your best interests and not mine…etc.)
I remember thinking that motherhood was the opportunity to choose to die to myself every day. This I do believe is true...the real challenge is now before me, when there are not three little ones demanding my time...I will face the reality of my true character...when I do not have to choose to serve someone else's needs first. If the choices I made to serve my children reflected my values and desires thereby defining me during the child rearing years...how will the choices I am now making affect what I become in the future.
Eric Erickson's study on the stages of development say "we determine our virtues or our malignancies by the either/or choices we make throughout our lives." He said there are 3 stages of life where a person is completely self-absorbed; Infancy, adolescence and old age. I can give total grace to the infant and even the adolescent, because in my mind they are still in development...learning how to make the choices that will bring them the virtues earned by making the "right" choice. But the adult...the one who has lived long enough to pass through these two stages, who knows what is right to do, but does not do it...that is the one I struggle with. Erickson says in old age we have but two heart/mind sets to live out of; wisdom and gratefulness which leads to selflessness, or presumption, despair and ultimately bitterness leading only to self-absorption.
I am now the adult (okay, maybe I have been for a while, but I am now admitting to it)...and the enormous task of choosing what is right is so much harder when it is not demanded. It is far easier to tell myself what I want to hear...to feed my ego...to wait for others to come to me, to serve me, to give me what I deserve...I now see that just desiring to grow old with wisdom and gratefulness is not enough...just as saying I love you is not enough. No, I must act on my words...and it is as humbling to admit as it is hard to do.
Three goals I am reaching for:
Learning to live by indifference (one of St. Igneous Loyola's exercises)
Learning to love 9and live) by action not (just) words
Learning to examine myself daily in relation to the choices I am making and my desired outcomes.
I remember thinking that motherhood was the opportunity to choose to die to myself every day. This I do believe is true...the real challenge is now before me, when there are not three little ones demanding my time...I will face the reality of my true character...when I do not have to choose to serve someone else's needs first. If the choices I made to serve my children reflected my values and desires thereby defining me during the child rearing years...how will the choices I am now making affect what I become in the future.
Eric Erickson's study on the stages of development say "we determine our virtues or our malignancies by the either/or choices we make throughout our lives." He said there are 3 stages of life where a person is completely self-absorbed; Infancy, adolescence and old age. I can give total grace to the infant and even the adolescent, because in my mind they are still in development...learning how to make the choices that will bring them the virtues earned by making the "right" choice. But the adult...the one who has lived long enough to pass through these two stages, who knows what is right to do, but does not do it...that is the one I struggle with. Erickson says in old age we have but two heart/mind sets to live out of; wisdom and gratefulness which leads to selflessness, or presumption, despair and ultimately bitterness leading only to self-absorption.
I am now the adult (okay, maybe I have been for a while, but I am now admitting to it)...and the enormous task of choosing what is right is so much harder when it is not demanded. It is far easier to tell myself what I want to hear...to feed my ego...to wait for others to come to me, to serve me, to give me what I deserve...I now see that just desiring to grow old with wisdom and gratefulness is not enough...just as saying I love you is not enough. No, I must act on my words...and it is as humbling to admit as it is hard to do.
Three goals I am reaching for:
Learning to live by indifference (one of St. Igneous Loyola's exercises)
Learning to love 9and live) by action not (just) words
Learning to examine myself daily in relation to the choices I am making and my desired outcomes.
I 'not me' you... by Susan Caldwell
Most of us know that love is an action not just a word and to love and care for someone is exhausting. When I remember this I become acutely aware of my limitations and abilities to love all those who are in my life. It is much easy to say I love someone, than to prove my love. I must admit I have chosen the easy way more times than not. Knowing myself and how selfish I am…I realize how different my life would look if I truly loved all those I said, “I love you” to. This has led me to rethink the words “I love you.” Maybe what we should really say is, “I ‘not me’ you.” (Meaning, I will choose to serve you not me first, your needs and not mine, your best interests and not mine…etc.)
I remember thinking that motherhood was the opportunity to choose to die to myself every day. This I do believe is true...the real challenge is now before me, when there are not three little ones demanding my time...I will face the reality of my true character...when I do not have to choose to serve someone else's needs first. If the choices I made to serve my children reflected my values and desires thereby defining me during the child rearing years...how will the choices I am now making affect what I become in the future.
Eric Erickson's study on the stages of development say "we determine our virtues or our malignancies by the either/or choices we make throughout our lives." He said there are 3 stages of life where a person is completely self-absorbed; Infancy, adolescence and old age. I can give total grace to the infant and even the adolescent, because in my mind they are still in development...learning how to make the choices that will bring them the virtues earned by making the "right" choice. But the adult...the one who has lived long enough to pass through these two stages, who knows what is right to do, but does not do it...that is the one I struggle with. Erickson says in old age we have but two heart/mind sets to live out of; wisdom and gratefulness which leads to selflessness, or presumption, despair and ultimately bitterness leading only to self-absorption.
I am now the adult (okay, maybe I have been for a while, but I am now admitting to it)...and the enormous task of choosing what is right is so much harder when it is not demanded. It is far easier to tell myself what I want to hear...to feed my ego...to wait for others to come to me, to serve me, to give me what I deserve...I now see that just desiring to grow old with wisdom and gratefulness is not enough...just as saying I love you is not enough. No, I must act on my words...and it is as humbling to admit as it is hard to do.
Three goals I am reaching for:
Learning to live by indifference (one of St. Igneous Loyola's exercises)
Learning to love (and live) by action not (just) words.
Learning to examine myself daily in relation to the choices I am making and my desired outcomes.
I remember thinking that motherhood was the opportunity to choose to die to myself every day. This I do believe is true...the real challenge is now before me, when there are not three little ones demanding my time...I will face the reality of my true character...when I do not have to choose to serve someone else's needs first. If the choices I made to serve my children reflected my values and desires thereby defining me during the child rearing years...how will the choices I am now making affect what I become in the future.
Eric Erickson's study on the stages of development say "we determine our virtues or our malignancies by the either/or choices we make throughout our lives." He said there are 3 stages of life where a person is completely self-absorbed; Infancy, adolescence and old age. I can give total grace to the infant and even the adolescent, because in my mind they are still in development...learning how to make the choices that will bring them the virtues earned by making the "right" choice. But the adult...the one who has lived long enough to pass through these two stages, who knows what is right to do, but does not do it...that is the one I struggle with. Erickson says in old age we have but two heart/mind sets to live out of; wisdom and gratefulness which leads to selflessness, or presumption, despair and ultimately bitterness leading only to self-absorption.
I am now the adult (okay, maybe I have been for a while, but I am now admitting to it)...and the enormous task of choosing what is right is so much harder when it is not demanded. It is far easier to tell myself what I want to hear...to feed my ego...to wait for others to come to me, to serve me, to give me what I deserve...I now see that just desiring to grow old with wisdom and gratefulness is not enough...just as saying I love you is not enough. No, I must act on my words...and it is as humbling to admit as it is hard to do.
Three goals I am reaching for:
Learning to live by indifference (one of St. Igneous Loyola's exercises)
Learning to love (and live) by action not (just) words.
Learning to examine myself daily in relation to the choices I am making and my desired outcomes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)