Aquinas' Decalogue

Dr Matthew Levering from Ave Maria University presented his paper "Aquinas on the Decalogue" as we moved forward into the second millennium after Christ. Like many of the earlier church fathers, Aquinas saw the Decalogue as the Natural Law revealed to man. He argued, interestingly, that God delayed in its revelation in order to show man the futility in his own reason and its inability to grasp universal law. Whereas Irenaeus believed one purpose of the Decalogue was to prepare man for friendship with God, Aquinas said that part of its purpose was to establish man's relationship to God. However, I'm not sure how significant this difference is.

Dr Levering prepared 4 parts in his paper. The first, already mentioned, looked at the Decalogue as revealed natural law. Then, the second looked at the Sabbath commandment, a seemingly out-of-place command better suited to the ceremonial law. Next, he considered Aquinas' view on whether obedience to the law was meritorious, justifying the sinner before God. Finally, he intended to examine the question of whether God had violated his own Decalogue with a case like the sacrifice of Isaac. This fourth part was the primary "cargo" that was thrown overboard due to time constraints. Dr Levering promised to his dismay that this was indeed the most compelling part of the paper.

With the first part, Aquinas argued that the Decalogue was made up of such principles as would be ready for the mind of man to apprehend immediately. This is because, for Aquinas, not even sin can remove from man the natural law in its first principles. (This seems to me to arise from the idea in places like Jeremiah and Ezekiel where God says he will write his law on men's hearts.) On the other hand, Aquinas believed that sin could remove from man the ability to apply via reason those first principles in specific situations. Dr Levering was sure to point out that the Natural Law for Aquinas was not autonomous morality.

With the second part, on the Sabbath command, Aquinas reasoned that not every Word of the Decalogue belonged to Natural Law "in the same way." As far as I could discern, this meant that certain precepts are not accessible to natural human reason. I assume this takes us back to the first few statements made here: Man's thinking is futile and unable to grasp universal law on his own; but when revealed to him, man sees these precepts as though they were quite reasonable and sensible. In the case of the Sabbath, Dr Levering explained that worship is a reasonable activity since all men worship something, someway, somehow. The Sabbath command sanctifies this reasonable impulse by calling us to it. This line of thinking though doesn't explain another piece of the revealed Decalogue: the name of Yahweh. Dr Levering did not sort out this conundrum, nor was the issue raised.

Going further on the topic of the Sabbath, Dr Levering said that Aquinas follows Augustine and Origen in his understanding of the Sabbath's presence in the Decalogue. It is not primarily a ceremonial precept or an application of the Decalogue. Instead it captures a universal of creation, but at the same time functions within the covenant in particular. It is both universal and particular. It also serves to point backward to Creation in the 7th day, and forward to the elevation of Creation in Christ himself. So in the Sabbath command we see a function, for Aquinas, of the Decalogue--to elevate the Natural Law through the revealed law and bring out of Creation a covenant community.

The third and, unfortunately, final part of Dr Levering's paper dealt with the Decalogue and justification. Here he cited Matt 19:17 as an important text. For Aquinas, justification happened through the Decalogue only for those already in covenantal union with God. Hebrews 11:6 points more specifically to argue that full obedience to the Decalogue requires charity (love). Finally, the Law functions to draw man to God, while grace assists man in movement toward Him. Similar to Tertullian and the Liber Graduum, Aquinas conceived of individuals as finding two ways in the Christian life: "possessing" justice (character) or doing works of justice (action).

The Decalogue for the Early Church

The sessions at the Wheaton Theological Conference are broken into dual lectures. The second pairing combined the church fathers and the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas. Dr Alison Salveson from the Oriental Institute at University of Oxford spoke on Origen and the Church Fathers. Then Dr Matthew Levering of Ave Maria University presented Aquinas’ perspective on the Decalogue. Due to technical problems, both lectures were a bit rushed. In the case of Dr Levering, the joke became that of “throwing cargo overboard.” As a result, what is an already heady topic for me became harder to follow, but I will do my best to outline their presentations.

In Dr Salveson’s examination, the treatment of the Decalogue was considered in various Greek, Latin, and Syriac works, with their authors where available. The first four from Greek were the Didache, the Letter of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus. I’m sorry to have failed to grasp the central points on the first two.

In Justin Martyr though we see Decalogue equated with the Natural Law as a universal. However it is also conceived as being embodied somehow by Jesus. This sort of equation is something we will see throughout the church fathers. In a variety of ways they will connect Jesus to the Decalogue.

In his analysis of the Decalogue, Irenaeus didn’t make such a strong correlation with the Natural Law. Instead he said that the Decalogue is a reminder of the Natural Law. He argued that God “prepares man for His friendship through the Decalogue.” As for the rest of the Jewish Law, Irenaeus saw it as bondage.

Moving on to some Latin writers, Dr Salveson looked at the Decalogue in Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. For Tertullian the Decalogue is the written form of a preMosaic, unwritten, natural, and universal law that was applicable from Adam to the present. He rejected it as a “yoke of works”—or action—but maintained that it was a “yoke of moral discipline”—or restraint. The seems to portend later ideas about works and temperance, in my very humble analysis.

Clement argued that the Mosaic Decalogue “defines sins in a way conducive to salvation” and “must be observed.” He also offers his equation connecting the Decalogue with Jesus: Decalogue = iota (jot) = Name of Jesus. This, he says, is the “jot that will not pass away.” However, Clement refused that the higher meaning (Jesus as the embodiment) eliminated the literal meaning (Decalogue as law) but instead affirmed both to be true.

Next, Origen posited that Moses himself embodied the Law of God. He believed that the Decalogue was necessary for human discipline in a way much like the 10 Plagues of Exodus. They both served to chastise the disobedient.

Finally, Dr Salveson reviewed some Syriac documents (please forgive my gloss over of the geographic nuances of these texts). Specifically, she discusses the Didiscalia Apostolorum, Aphrahat, Ephrem, and Liber Graduum. Here I recognized what appeared to my perception as some interesting previews for later beliefs.

The Didascalia Apostolorum interpreted the Law of Moses as coming from Jesus, having spoken through Moses, followed later by Jesus himself speaking directly to us. Thus, this grants Jesus’ the authority to state, “You have heard it said…, but I say….” The D.A. offered a “simple law”: “Do not do to others what you don’t want done to you.” This was primary, followed then by the “second law” of ceremonial observances. And again, another equation: Yod = Ten = Decalogue = Jesus. While this logic may seem irrational to our sensibilities, I thought of similarly confusing--but apparently esteemed--logic in the Gospels (Matt 22:31-32).

Aphrahat picks up the ideas of Tertullian in dividing the Decalogue from the other laws of Moses, considering the 10 Words to be the life-giving light yoke while the other laws function as punishments. The 2 Greatest Commandments (to love God and love others) stand above the law according to the Aphrahat. This leans toward answering Dr Block's question about the prioritization of the Decalogue beside the Law. And similar to commonly held ideas today, the Aphrahat argued that observance of the Decalogue functioned as proof of faith.

Next, Ephrem weighs in on the relationship between the Decalogue and Natural Law saying they are identical. The remainder of the Mosaic Law, he says is instead meant to address the Decalogue in contingent circumstances, that is, in application. This seems to be similar to our own practices, allowing us to set aside the various portions of the Law as culturally bound. Again, this is one way the problem is answered that Dr Block raised on the prioritizing of the Decalogue in relation to the Law. Ephrem begins to set the stage for more modern interpretations like Luther and Calvin (to come) by distinguishing a Covenant of Justice and Covenant of Grace in the functions of the Decalogue and Law.

Finally, the Liber Graduum brings about an early, rather blunt, formulation of ideas that seem to crop up later. It presents a two-tiered concept of the Christian life: those who are Christians and those who are serious Christians. In the terms of the Liber Graduum, these two tiers are the Just and the Perfect. The Just follow the Golden Rule, the Decalogue, and the “minor” Law of Justice. Meanwhile, the Perfect are more serious and follow the “major” Law of the Perfect, the 2 Greatest Commands, and imitate Christ by taking up their crosses and forsaking all. The Just do the minimum amount necessary to be acceptable to God. The Perfect go above and beyond in their commitments to Christ and the Decalogue. Even in this later theological development, the equation inclincation hangs on: Yod = 10 = Decalogue (and Jesus represents the higher Perfection of the Decalogue). This equation corresponds in some way to the two-tiered system of the Liber Graduum.

The 10 Words in the New Testament

In our examination of the Decalogue through the centuries, Dr Evans moves us from the Old Testament into the New Testament and gives us a review and analysis of the use of the 10 Words in the world and writings of the New Testament. He outlined where in the NT the 10 Words appear, being alluded too, presupposed, or directly quoted. A few major texts include Jesus' conversations in places like Matthew 5, Mark 10, Luke 16, and John 9; Paul's rhetoric in Romans 7 and 13, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians 4 and 6, Colossians 3, and 2 Timothy; and James’ discussion in James 2 and 4.

He then reviewed how the Decalogue appeared implicitly and explicitly in the teachings of various people: John the Baptist, Jesus and his half-brother James, and Paul. In summary, the first 3 of the 10 Words are never subject to a controversy in the conversations of the New Testament. Rather Yahweh's existence, monotheism, and an anti-idolatry sentiment were accepted and assumed in Jewish culture and writing of the day. It was commands 4-7 that became subjects of major controversies among the Jewish religious leaders and with Jesus, especially Sabbath observance, adultery, and honoring parents.

The divorce controversy appears in Matt 10:2-9, where Jesus’ interpretation of Deut 24:1-4 differs strongly from the Pharisees’. He ties his interpretation to Gen 1:27 and 2:24. The Sabbath controversy (healing and plucking heads of grain) is one in which Jesus argues that the Sabbath is meant “to benefit, not burden, humanity.”

Evans makes an interesting connection from James 4:3, 8 to Matthew 7. He argues that James seems to root his statement that “you do not have because you do not ask” in Jesus’ teaching to “ask and you will receive.” This, it seems, is Jesus’ answer to the sin of coveting. Thus Jesus is saying, “Instead of coveting, ask in prayer for what you desire.” This certainly hit home for me.

This covetousness, Evans goes on, is in some views the root of all sins: the desire, or lust, for the illicit. Philo and The Life of Adam and Eve have this sort of outlook.

Evans then posed for us a seeming contradiction between Jesus and Paul. In Mark 10:17-22, Jesus seems to say obey the Law and you will live. But Paul says in Romans 7, the Law brings death and that men can agree with the law but cannot comply by their own strength. But, Evans points out, the rich young ruler goes away sad after his conversation with Jesus, and his real sin is only implied but never addressed: covetousness. Thus, this story actually affirms Paul’s argument: The rich young ruler could not follow the Law under his own power, and was still guilty of coveting.

In the Q&A time, a few more interesting bits came out. There was a discussion of the references to the Decalogue in Mark, where “defrauding” is placed beside “adultery, false witness, theft” and the like, even though it does not appear with them in the Decalogue. Dr Block noted that “defrauding” is a major theme in Deuteronomy so that Mark seems to be interpreting Deuteronomy by adding “defrauding” to his own list. This was an area for further study.

Dr Block argued that the Decalogue is separate from the Natural Law specifically because of its “vertical elements.” That is, the first three commands are revealed to men, not apprehended through reason, to enable men to relate vertically to God. This, he argued, is the distinguishing mark of the Decalogue from other ancient Near East suzerain-vassal treaties, which have stipulations similar to the Decalogue’s latter 7 commandments.

Both Dr Block and Dr Evans agreed that the Gospels seem to rely primarily on the Decalogue in Deuteronomy instead of the one in Exodus, given the distinctives between them and how they are reflected in the Gospels.

Finally, in considering the function of the Law according to the New Testament, James 2:10 was considered, and the question was asked, “What does it mean to ‘obey the Law’?” The answer: The Law reveals man’s imperfection and inability to follow the Law. Dr Block stated then, “The Law is made for the righteous man.” That is, “it is not a way out of Egypt. It is a way after Egypt.”

Big Questions about the 10 Commandments

I'm on the rainy campus of Wheaton College today and tomorrow for the Wheaton Theology Conference. This year's conference is "Reading the Decalogue through the Centuries." It is primarily about the interpretation of the 10 Commandments in the Christian Tradition since Jesus.

This morning we had lectures by Dr Daniel Block and Dr Craig Evans, followed by a Chapel talk from Dr Cornelius Plantinga. Dr Block's paper was titled, "Reading the Decalogue Right to Left: The Ten Principles of Covenant Relationship in the Old Testament." In Hebrew, text is read from right to left in contrast to English. This title was somewhat reactionary to a deconstructionist interpretation by David Clines in a paper titled "Reading the Decalogue Left to Right."

Both Dr Block and Dr Evans required much of their listeners, as, I think, is expected in a scholarly conference of this sort. Their focus is on content, not presentation, and I immediately recognized that this conference would exceed my basic exposure to and knowledge of the 10 Commandments.

Dr Block's paper meant to give us an understanding of the 10 Commandments in the context of the Old Testament. Here are some highlights. First, "commandments" is not the best designation for the Decalogue. They are first and foremost the "Words of Yahweh." Secondly, they would be better designated as the "10 Words" or the "10 Principles" than as the "10 Commandments." His point here was that the Decalogue is primarily communicative before it is legislative. In other words, God is in conversation with us his people before he is a law giver handing down obligations to be obeyed. The 10 Words are not so much "enforceable law" as they are "covenant policies," a "framework within which we live."

Dr Block investigated a few questions in his paper: "Is the Decalogue a summary of the Torah?" He also asked, "Who is the Decalogue for?" He argued that the 10 Words are for the "heads of household." Thus, the Decalogue outlines the responsibilities that he (head of household) had to care for and lead his household. The Decalogue wasn't intended to empower the man to govern (patriarchy) but to limit the power with which he lead (patricentrism). The 10 Words were meant to prevent the head of household from abusing his power, thus protecting the covenant community and, more immediately, the head's family and neighbors.

This is a profound interpretation. Patriarchal rule is a charge that antagonists level against much of the Christian activity in society. But in actuality, the 10 Words were meant to prevent such abuses of power and control. This view has implications for concepts like adultery, divorce, and property, all of which we see later in Jesus' conversations in the Gospels. On this subject, Dr Block summarized it with a powerful statement: "Leadership exists for the sake of the led, not the interests of the leader."

A final question Dr Block addressed is, "Does the Decalogue have greater authority than the rest of the Torah (the Law)?" Along with a corresponding question: "Is the Decalogue permanent and unalterable in contrast to the rest of the Torah?" In essence, his answer, as I understood it, was "no."

The follow-up question we're faced with is whether we treat the 10 Words in the same way we have treated the rest of the Law (as temporary [cultural] and alterable), or whether we extend to the Law the same permanent and unalterable status we give to the 10 Words? There is not an easy answer.

That is why, then, we have a "Reading of the Decalogue through the Centuries." Men and women have answered this question in different ways throughout the centuries. Dr Block set up the problem well. I'm looking forward to hearing the answers that have been offered throughout history.

The President-Reflect

I've been saying for 9 months that Obama would be our next president. One reason I believed this was that his story fulfills our desire for a movie-script presidency. He rises from humble obscurity to national glory. Movies influence American culture and ideals in deep, powerful ways. We want our president to embody all that. Obama did. We voted for his movie.

Last night, after Obama's victory speech, my roommate and I sat watching, and listening to the music. "I feel like I'm watching a movie," he said.

I agreed. In unison, we both pointed to the television and directed, "And...roll credits."

It seems we weren't the only ones experiencing movie-quality history. The Suburban Christian points to the MTV Movies Blog, regarding the soundtracks that captured the moments of McCain's concession and Obama's ascendancy:

Movie lovers might have noticed that each man chose music from a Washington movie to play while walking offstage after their respective speeches. And, not for nothing, but we think they both made the perfect choice.

Consider: McCain left the Arizona stage to part of Hans Zimmer’s score from “Crimson Tide.” (This part, actually.) The 1995 Tony Scott film focused on a career Navy man (Gene Hackman), labeled a maverick by some, who is stripped of his authority and ultimately beaten by a young black guy, somewhat new to the scene (Washington).

Then there was Obama, who left the stage to the strings of Trevor Rabin’s score from “Remember the Titans.” The 2000 Disney/Bruckheimer joint? It followed an African-American coach who brought together whites and blacks to win a championship.

The music was appropriate for these national moments because those movies do embody something of this national story.

At the outset I said that movies influence American culture and ideals. Perhaps its not the movies that influence our ideals but that our ideals that are embodied by our movies. Perhaps it is not a vision given to us but a mirror held up to show us what we hope for. Perhaps both our movies and our president are reflections of who we are as a people.

Ultimately, it works both ways. Our movies and presidents mirror us, but those mirrors also change us. We look into the mirror to know ourselves better, and what we see and learn there changes how we live and what we choose.

Today, now that we see ourselves a bit more clearly, we need not gaze like Narcissus forever at our own reflection. Rather, we should go and live and choose as we ought in light of those reflections. The mirror can only show us who we are, but we must choose who we will become. We must choose and act, not just watch and wait.

Otherwise, to remain gazing at our own reflection will change us. And it is not the kind of change we can believe in. Whether we stand and admire or stand and despise, we will not simply see a reflection anymore. We will have become the reflection in the mirror. Then there will be nothing left of the people standing in front of the mirror. We will be false fronts and green-screen images of ourselves. And when the mirror shatters, as they all do in the end, we will find that we have broken with it.

I'm Voting. I'm Voting For...

I'm going to vote this election. Even if I think the system has it faults it still is a way to be political. It might not be the most ethical method of engagement but within these confines there is an opportunity to engage the world. For some that is a non-vote, for me it is a vote.

So who am I voting for? I debated whether or not to post this. I thought about my future work in the ministry and how this post could haunt me for years, etc, etc. But that is the problem. Who we vote for has become so individual. So I am going to open it up because I want to be challenged, positively criticized and engaged on these issues. I am very limited and these are just my views. I'm open to others. So let me hear it.

The past 3 days I've done meticulous research. I stupidly put this off until the last minute so my homework has taken a back seat! I am voting third party because the two party system is defunct. Obama and McCain are both good candidates but I don't like this form of "democracy."

So I have been debating between Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and Bob Barr. I love Nader and McKinney's (Green Party) focus on social issues. But the trump for me is Barr's focus on a smaller government (Libertarian Party) that provides an opportunity for people, not the government to intervene.

I think social issues are incredibly important but believe the people (more Libertarian/Barr), not the government (more Green/McKinney and Independent/Nader), should lead the way. (Specifically, the people should be the church).

Here is what I feel on the issues. Maybe this can help you if you are up in the air or ignorant (like I admittedly am).

What I like (for the most part)
Health Care- I like the idea of universal health care (Nader/McKinney) but I don't know if single payer health care is the best method. We all pay money to the government who then in turn regulates how that is distributed. I think Bob Barr's proposal to largely remove the government out of the health care industry makes better universal health care more possible. Especially because they encourage charitable organizations to step in and fill the void.

Social Security- Again I like the idea that elderly people are provided for, which has become the function of social security (Nader/McKinney support). Barr supports privatizing social security which worries me about those who can't personal provide. But what I like is that it encourages personal stewardship and (like Barr says) it encourages charities and people to help one another out.

Education- Barr wants to let local agencies and state governments have control of education. This would reform No Child Left Behind and place the power in the hands of the parents. I don't know if child vouchers would necessarily solve the problem of the inequality of education but I don't think that letting a centralized government distribute the resources is going to solve the crisis. Smaller scale is more effective and I think states should work with existing public schools/teachers unions to make education more effective.

Environment- Barr says that global warming is a myth. I don't know if it is a myth or not but I do know that we need to clean up the environment. He is right in saying that global warming has been abused as a platform for both Democrats and Republicans. Barr doesn't want the government to invest money into alternative forms of energy. Instead he wants people to invest into alternative forms of energy and to use the resources we have here. That's cool.

Oil- He believes that we should use the oil that is here in the United States. I suppose this is an option but what I like better is that the government, according to Barr, shouldn't be as controlling about our oil use/production. He instead wants to let the states impose regulations.

Iraq- He wants the U.S. out of Iraq. I agree. He wants us to cooperate with the U.N. in being invovled in the Middle East. I agree.

Foreign Policy- He believes that humanitarian aid is our best foreign policy. Not military intervention. I agree.

Abortion- From what i have read he is personally against it. But he recognizes that it is difficult to legislate morality so the answer isn't as simple as pro-life or pro-choice.

Social Justice Issues- They want to eliminate welfare, government subsidized housing, food stamps, etc. Instead they want to rely on " supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap." I like that .

My Concerns
Guns-He doesn't want gun owners to register their weapons and is fairly lax about any regulations around weapons. For me, I think the less guns the better.

Crime-Barr is pushing for more jails and capital punishment. We have a lot of people in jail right now and instead of putting money for more bars I think we need to put more money into making bars uncessary. They want to eliminate over crowding of the prisons by lessening the laws on drug trafficking/use. I'm up in the air but I like that they are focused on eliminating the root causes of crime. As for capital punishment I'm not a big fan.

Flip-Floper- He was once a Republican but now a Libertarian. He has flipped on a lot of issues and I question why he is even registered as a Libertarian. But the diversity of the party is nice. It includes a lot of independents, ex-Republicans/Democrats and they work hand in hand with the Green Party.

I'm Probably Republican/Democrat/Libertarian/Green/Indpendent
The Libertarian Party is notorious for having people of opposite extremes in the party. I like that. I'm not the biggest fan of Bob Barr but I support the movement of the party's position. I really feel like I could vote for McKinney, Nader, even Obama and McCain and be comfrotable with a lot of their policies.

Conclusion
I don't think this party is anti-community. Yes, it wants to put the power back in the hands of the people. But I don't see "people" as being individuals, but as a whole. People worry that without the government intervening to distribute wealth, provide for social needs, and regulate our spending than we become more individualistic. For me, I see less government as opening up the doors for us to use our resources to bless people. That means it's up to me, not the government, to legislate how my money, resources, and time provide for the well-being of everyone.

Links
All the Canditates on all the Issues. Un-Biased Websites...

-www.votesmart.org
-www.glassbooth.org (great website)
-http://www.procon.org/

Libertarian Party
-www.lp.org

Stock Market Spirituality

I'm an introvert by nature. Recently though, I've been wondering if I'm becoming more of an extrovert. When I compare myself to who I was 4 years ago, there seems to be some evidence that this could be.

One quality of extroverts is the tendency to talk before thinking. They sort of learn what they think along with everyone else, as they hear themselves saying it. This happened to me Thursday.

Before I go into that though: I've claimed in the past that I'm terrible at coming up with metaphors. I would love to be good at drawing analogies to explain my ideas or argue my viewpoint, but I'm just not good at coming up with analogies in the moment. This is frustrating because if I pause to brainstorm one, it's too late. Someone else jumps in and the conversation runs in another direction. Anticipating this, I'll panic and blurt out, "Well, it's sort of like...," hoping something will come in the meantime. Invariably, I end up sounding foolish ("'Seems,' madam? Nay, it is. I know not 'seems'"), filling in the blank with the first thing that comes to mind, which turns out to be something like "a kitten" or "cerebral palsy." Exactly.

So, carpooling home yesterday, I found myself talking like an extrovert and sounding like an analogy microwave.

"I think that a lot of people my age approach spirituality the way investors approach the stock market. Everyone's wondering what the next big bubble will be that will help them stay on top. But that's the exact reason we're faced with this financial crisis. We're so concerned with the next big thing that we don't have a long-term strategy for investing toward growth. We have this idea that spirituality is about getting to the next big high before too long. Too long and we'll find ourselves in a desert. We can't endure any sort of sustained downturn or valley. We need to be worried about planting and growing, not uncovering the next spiritual moment."

I was already mixing my metaphors.

My carpooling compadre said, "I think our faith might be better off if more of us had gardens. We need to think about spirituality less in terms of commerce and more in terms of cultivation."

I agreed. I think that's a transition that we struggle to make in our 20s. We've experienced a lot of bubbles in our spirituality so far, bolstered mostly by hormones and broadening experience. Now, we're into a sustained pattern of adulthood, and figuring out what a faithful spirituality looks like by contrast is something we're forced to explore or abandon. Exploring what faith will look like over the next 50-60 years is daunting. But it's especially daunting if we believe we have to keep boiling up a zeal and fervor of spiritual bubbles.

When we shop around for the best bubble, it becomes a spree that's dictated, seemingly, by luck. We have no active role in making the big find for our spirituality except to search, sometimes desperately. But when we think of it like a garden, we can be much more proactive. A lifetime's worth of activity in fact. And yet there's also much that is out of our control as well. The apostle of analogies captured it this way. "One person plants the seed. Another waters it. But God makes it grow." I think that says it all.

Defining the Decade

Certain images and events capture the spirit of a decade. "The Roaring Twenties" had it flappers. The 60s had Woodstock. The 70s had "Saturday Night Fever". The 80s had RunDMC, ratted hair, and rolled jeans. The 90s had Nirvana and The Matrix.

So last night I was thinking about what would capture this our first decade in the 21st century. These were a few things that came to mind.

My sister and brother-in-law love this show. And we agreed that "American Idol" will definitely have a part in defining the decade.

No doubt. The iPod changed, well, everything.

9/11. Those numbers will never mean the same thing again.

Facebook is the quintessence of Web 2.0. I don't know yet if Facebook has been around long enough to be a defining element of the decade. But its pervasiveness, the way it's changed how we think and talk ("Adam can't quit thinking in Facebook status updates."), makes a strong case for it.

"Google might take over our lives. And I think I'm okay with that," I heard someone say. Some think they're changing how we think. They're organizing the world's information. It would be hard to exclude them from this list.

We're in a huge political season, so I'm not going to explore that realm except to say that President Bush certainly was hugely influential on this decade, but I think Barack Obama will be more of an icon for the decade in our memories.

What about music or television or movies? Have they been overshadowed by these other giants?

Things Worth Remembering

A few weekends ago I had the chance to visit my maternal grandmother. The last time I saw her, she was in an apartment at a Presbyterian Manor living semi-independently. She had been living there since before my grandfather’s passing four years earlier. The apartment was an end unit with a private entrance, a patio and a few plants and, inside, wall hangings from the home they’d first retired to before I was born. The familiar smells of that house were gone. They were replaced with the smells of medication and industrial-strength cleaning solvents. The framed cross-stitch, family photographs, and ceramic lamps fit like laughter at a gravesite.

This time, we parked along the half-circle drive, and entered through the main doors. To the left, the receptionist desk was empty. I followed my parents to the elevator. We filled it as best we could, equidistant from each other, leaning against the walls the way you do in an elevator. “I always have to prepare myself for this,” my mother said looking at my father as we rode to the second floor. I realized I should perhaps prepare myself as well.

The door opened. My mother turned down a long hallway. In a dim commons area with couches and a large television, cluttered with wheelchairs and walkers, a Nicholas Sparks movie was playing, and those not watching it outnumbered those who were. We passed to the left a small nurses’ station. A door on the right was open and a Notre Dame football game was just under way, the announcer’s voice blaring on the television.

Dad and I stood in the hall while Mom knocked on the door. “Let me make sure that Grandma’s dressed,” she said to us. It was four in the afternoon.

Each morning in my real life, I charge out the door, dressed for the day with work or women on my mind. I navigate erratic traffic patterns and at work make dozens of decisions based on a variety of considerations. I coordinate my social calendar via emails and Facebook, update my status with something witty and vague, and cross off line items from my to-do lists. After work I grab some food, find some friends or a good book, surf the Internet or the TV channels, or fulfill some obligation I’ve committed to.

Here, in this assisted living facility, real life isn’t defined by what they do. Real life here requires assistance. Not unlike the rest of the world, only more obviously.

The hallway is wide and clear of any obstacles. There’s a handrail along both walls, for stability. I stood thinking how depressed this place was. Clean, orderly, and blandly decorated. It lacked anything like what we call life. Yet the people there represented long lives of experiences, and perhaps even a hard-earned wisdom that comes with those lives. I wonder if wisdom is perhaps blandly decorated.

But wisdom it seems has left my grandmother. “They’re moving her to the Alzheimer’s unit,” my mother had written me the week before. “It's sad, because it's the very place she never wanted to go.” That’s where my grandfather was at the end. “Just pray that the Lord will take her home,” mom instructed me.

Now, we were visiting her the weekend before they moved her. She was in good spirits and in a bit of clarity. When we walked in, she was sitting in a folding chair talking on her rotary-dial telephone. I looked around her small room. The narrow single bed sat in the middle with a soft-colored quilt tucked in neatly around the edges. On it, I noticed faded stains that reminded me of a coastline on a map. A small dresser and vanity mirror stood in the corner next to a recliner and a lamp, and the telephone. There were pictures of all her children and their families. Even outdated photos, but memories nonetheless.

To the person on the other end, she was saying, “Well, it’s Sharon and Brad, and…” she looked at me with a look that could’ve been mistaken for fear but I think was simply complete unknowing.

I smiled, “Adam. Sharon’s son.”

“What? Oh,” and then to the telephone, “Adam. Yes.”

She talked for a few minutes then handed the phone to my mother. It was Mom’s younger brother. “Yes, it’s us,” she said to him, affirming that we indeed were here in the room. It wasn’t my grandmother’s brain playing tricks on her.

“You have a nice room here,” I said.

“Oh, yes. It’s okay. I wish Daddy could stay in here too, but he stays in another room.” Pause. “I don’t think I’ve ever been in his room though.” She’d raised nine children. She’d referred to her husband more often as “Daddy” than anything else in all those years.

Mom hung up the phone and turned to her mother. “How are you mom? You look good.”

“Well, I’m good, probably better than I look,” the wrinkles at the corners of her eyes were like parentheses, letting us in on the subtext. We laughed. Her good sense of humor had not changed.

She touched her hair with a fragile, discolored hand. She always did that when attention was directed toward her. Her other hand lay in her lap clutching a folded tissue. She was sure to use and reuse the same tissue, a habit started out of harder times. She folded her hands around it again and placed them in her lap.

“Are you in school then?” she asked, looking at me.

“Nope. I’m working full time. I live in Chicago.” I explained what I did, and she listened politely.

My parents explained that my other grandmother’s birthday had brought us to Kansas this weekend and that we were only visiting for an hour or so. Grandma asked if we were staying to have supper with her, but we already had plans, my mother explained.

For a bit, our conversation turned to her shoes. Typically, she wore small, neutral-colored flats. But she was wearing forest green Crocs.

“I don’t suppose they’re the kind I like,” she said as though she were drawing that conclusion about someone else based on what she had learned about them. She looked at them more closely and seeing the holes in them. “I couldn’t even wear these outside if it were raining. My feet would get all wet!”

She was certainly correct, ever the pragmatist. How could one explain to someone so disengaged that these shoes were “cool,” and that for that reason they were worth having? We resorted instead to more pragmatism: “They are quite light weight, aren’t they?” But the absurdity of the shoes remained. It amazed me how quickly we can see things from a new perspective and recognize how misguided our own perspective seems in that light.

She turned to me again and asked about school. I explained that I had a full time job and lived in Chicago. She was attentive. When I explained exactly what I did, she pondered it to herself for a few moments.

“He loves to read just like Daddy did,” Mom said to Grandma.

“Oh. Yes,” Grandma recalled. Her words were always simple and stark. “We should go visit Daddy while you are here too. But,”—a moment’s pause—“I guess Daddy’s not living anymore, is he?”

I wondered how many times a day Grandma realized that. The blunt sadness for her seemed only diminished by a sort of vague familiarity. It was like the coat rack in the room. When she was not looking at it she did not think about it, but whenever her attention fell upon it, she recognized it for what it was.

“Well, mom, we need to be going,” my mother began wrapping up our visit. “I’m planning to come back tomorrow to see you again, okay?”

We all stood, and my mother hugged her. Then my father. With a fragile hand she hugged his neck and pecked his cheek, her glasses askew in doing so. It was very labored and mindful.

When she hugged me I was surprised by her strength. It was not frail or weak or half-hearted. With a hand near my face, she pecked me on the cheek with her parched lips.

“It was good to see you again,” I told her.

She gathered her cane and shawl, then her purse.

“Are you going to go out with us?” Mom inquired.

“Yes. I’m hungry. I think supper should be shortly. Will you be staying for supper?”

“No, mom, we have to leave, but you’re welcome to walk out to the elevator with us.”

In the hallway, she took hold of the rail and put her hand in my arm. We made our way slowly, past the nursing station. The TV volume of the football game had been turned down considerably, if not off. In the commons, slumped on the couch was a women my grandmother wanted us to meet, “Tantelisean.” We said it was very nice to meet her. The conversation lulled.

“Here. You stay here, Mom,” my mother directed her to seat on the couch. “We need to leave now.”

Grandma accepted this. She gave each of us a hug again, in the same order, with pecks on the cheeks for Dad and me. It was with the same meaning and care that she hugged and kissed us, glasses askew. I laughed to myself at the adsurdity, but it spoke of something else: wisdom. It was wisdom not built on a sound mind. The Alzheimer’s had claimed that. It was wisdom woven into a habit of character. It was in the shabby repetition of goodbyes that I witnessed a wisdom built upon years of choosing. Now with all those memories cut out from underneath, what remained was this expression of love.

We eased ourselves toward the elevator, waving again.

“Tantelisean,” my mother informed me on the elevator, “was her aunt who she was close to when she was a little girl. She thinks that woman is her Tantelisean.” Then to my father, “She was in many places today, wasn’t she? In different moments she was in her childhood, then at home with Daddy, then in school, then here. She lives always in the present moment though.”

Running with a Name

I have to share the bad with the good. Today I ran a 5k. I was so excited about my last race I decided to do one more. If that race was titled "Joyful Surprises," this race is titled "A Disappointing Effort."

I still managed 4th place but added a whopping 2:25 onto my time! It was cold and there were about 20 more turns on the course and I have never felt my body lock up like it did during the race and all the guys I talked to said their times were a bit slower too.

But, excuses aside, 2:25 more! Come on.

My previous race time would have placed me 1:30 before the guy who won today. Even when I ran a 5k last week to train I beat today's time (18:30).

What was the difference? Honestly, I ran the race with the goal to win. That was my motivation and I knew I could do it. But about halfway through the race the guys who finished 1 and 2 pulled away from me and I ran ran the last 1.5 miles all by myself.

The previous race I ran with/beside somebody at all times. I moved from pack to pack, individual to individual. They gave me a goal to shoot for, a purpose, a challenge. But today there was nobody there to spur me on. Today with about 400 yards to go another guy overtook me and I just let him go. The drive wasn't there. My body didn't have it. I finished and wanted to re-run the race.

But, really, what was the difference? Purpose. My goal was to win the race, which I probably should have done. The previous race all I wanted was to beat 18:00, and did! That morning I just wanted to run, I just wanted to finish strong, to do my best, to have pleasure.

Last night I watched Chariots of Fire, and this quote kept bouncing around in my head today, "I run in God's name, let the world stand back and wonder."

Warning and Notice: Public Blog Confession: Winning became about my name, not God's.

This isn't about me being "real," or "authentic" or gaining sympathy, or getting more attention through a blog. (It does feels good to share my frustrations and failures, Catholics are on to something with confession).

This is a prayerful reminder for myself and for you to live in God's name.

Vote, Unless You Are A Moron.

You'll know my view on this image when you are done reading.

O.k. here it goes. I'm laying it out there. This post is months overdue and been going for months in my head. Being that it is really late and I feel an obligation to post I apologize about the lack of scholarship involved.

This year the issue for me isn't who to vote for. The issue is am I even going to vote in the first place. Why? Well Dave Fitch and Mark Van Steenwyk tell it better. I can give gobs of reasons why I am dismayed with the American political system. I truly think to even get into a position where someone could be elected the President of the United States requires an ethics and perspective that is counter to Christ. Plainly put, I think the system is corrupt. (But even though it is corrupt it is better than most and I am grateful for that) Just because voting is my right as a citizen does not make it my responsibility. (I have the right to carry arms but it isn't my responsibility). Having the right to vote gives me the luxury (an amazing luxury only available because of what others have done) to choose whether or not I want to participate. I have not forgotten that my forefathers were spurred on by a vision for democracy. Their actions are so close to my heart but those actions do not obligate me to vote. Rather, they give me the opportunity to do so, and for that I say "thank-you."

This is my concern. Voting has become too big. There are countless ways to be political. There are countless ways that you are political everyday without realizing it. Where do you shop? Where do you buy gas? Did you support a cause? Did you share your views on the elections today? What kind of music did you listen to today? Did you recycle? Did you give to the poor? Did you carpool today? Check out this creative list.

My concern is that voting has become the way to be political. instead of being a spoke on the wheel it is the wheel. As a result we have decreased and neglected the other ways to be involved in the political process. I can write a blog, ride my bike, shop locally, preach at church, read about current issues, pray, BUT if I don't vote than I'm neglecting my duty. I think going into the polls on November 4th, voting, and getting a sticker doesn't make you political. What makes you political is how you live your life, even if that means being a moron.

How Not to Vote

It’s a tough decision this election. A lot of the friends I’ve asked still haven’t decided. I’ve shared their frustration. I find my inclinations to be “gut feelings” instead of informed opinions. I wonder if gut feelings are typically the voter’s guide.

There is plenty of discussion about not voting too. Al Hsu reviews a book about it at The Suburban Christian. Dave Fitch is arguing for it at Reclaiming the Mission, but he’s been challenged on it. Stanley Hauerwas entertained the idea in a recent interview with The Other Journal. But others believe voting to be a God-given civic (even sacred) duty.

The Economist published a series of articles on the major election issues, and it seems even-handed and without an obvious bias (i.e., “fair and balanced”). The Economist is a British magazine, so it’s less entrenched in U.S. political biasism. Its conclusion is a good, brief summary. If you don’t read anything else, read that, but each of the articles in the series is also very readable and worthwhile. If you’re like me in the gut feelings predicament, I encourage you to feed your brain from The Economist’s menu.

The Economist neatly layed out for me the major issues of this election: economic plans for the economy, health care, energy and the environment, values, foreign policy (including Iraq and Afghanistan), regulation and trade, education, crime, immigration, and the candidates themselves.

These categories they had given me were, according to them, the most important election issues I should consider. But I realized that I should be receiving my priorities from elsewhere: What priorities does Jesus expect me to vote for, and would his priorities be achieved through these platforms?

Essentially, what I’m saying is, before I can form an opinion about any election issue or political platform, I need to understand what Jesus promotes.

As one example, someone asks Jesus what the most important command is from the Law of Moses. Jesus responds, “Love God. Love people.” Okay, so how does that priority inform my stances on, say, foreign policy or on immigration? Does it at all? Maybe Jesus’ priorities can’t be achieved by a governmental body at all. Can a governing body relate to God or to people and love them? If not, then what does it matter who I vote for or what the government does?

Well, I think most would agree that government action does affect the individual and how the individual relates to others and even to God (consider China). But the translation from “Love God. Love people.” to my stance on tax cuts for the rich versus the poor may not be so clear cut.

Loving God and people is something I can get my arms around and act on. Meanwhile, figuring out how to accomplish it with my vote seems much more complex, and less certain to succeed. Yet, having been bombarded by an election that has lasted nearly 2 years on the 24-hour news stations, it’s easy to misalign my priorities with the pundits and believe that when I exit that polling booth on November 4 I can go home and wait for the results.

Manning Up

Props to Chaka for taking up my challenge and coming clean about his man crush.

“He lives in fame that died in virtue's cause.”

from Men's Journal's "It Ain't Easy Being This Mellow"


"The standard musician motivation," says Johnson's agent Tom Chauncey, "is 'I want to be big, I want to be famous,' and that is so not Jack. He stays who he is, how he lives. He doesn't lose his priorities. He will not tour from November to January, when the waves are good."

"I'm a pretty unlikely celebrity," Johnson says. "I'm a pretty normal guy. I never really had dreams of being famous."

It's a suspect claim for a guy who has been organizing his own bands since high school, but it's consistent with the Hawaiian surf-culture ethic of humility: Never show even the slightest ambition, lest you be ridiculed. But the remark also reveals some genuine discomfort he feels toward the loss of privacy and control that has come with his increasing fame. "At some point," he says, steering the conversation toward a subject he's more eager to discuss — his environmentalism — "I realized you can either talk about all these personal things and let people into your life, or you can try to direct all that attention onto things that you're interested in. Not just pushing the attention away from me, although that's positive, too."


from Conde Nast Traveler's "Matt Damon's Good Work Hunting"

[Matt] Damon also feels that celebrity brings with it an opportunity to do good. "You start to feel a level of responsibility to direct attention to things that actually matter more than to silly things like who you're dating." ...

Damon talks about Africa with a passion that comes from spending time there. Never once during our conversation does he plug or even talk about a movie project. The actor says that his trips have made the solutions real to him, brought them to life. In Tanzania, for instance, he visited a clinic and spoke with a 21-year-old mother with a baby in her arms. The child was slack-jawed, his head lolling back and forth. "I thought he was going to die right in front of me," Damon says. When he asked if there was something he could do, the child's doctor said the baby was going to be fine: He had already received life-saving anti-malarial medicine. Damon spoke with the mother, who lived on less than a dollar a day in a village that was a two-hour walk away from the clinic, and learned that her other child had died from malaria. "Then I realized that because of President Bush's malaria initiative, this baby had survived," says Damon, referring to Bush's 2005 pledge to increase malaria funding by $1.5 billion over five years. "American taxpayer money saved this baby's life."

...

Damon says he hopes the next president will urge a new era of service in America. He is encouraged that both John McCain and Barack Obama have promised to travel to Africa and step up aid to the continent. "We are about to turn a wonderful corner and close this chapter of aggression, where the only American face that people see on foreign soil is the face of a soldier," Damon says. "As well-meaning as that soldier is, that sends a certain message. But when you go to a country and see your fellow Americans feeding people or getting clean water or saving their lives, you are really seeing the best of us. We are exporting the best of who we are—and who we should be."

In the News

Never before have I posted on current issues in society. I tend to avoid these conversations because my lack of knowledge. But a larger reason is that it tends to aggressively divide people. You agree with me and we are on a "team." You disagree and we are on competing or opposite "teams." I don't write this stuff to argue or divide but to share. Feel free to share back at me or feel free to wait until I post again.

These thoughts aren't exhaustive...

Gas prices- I paid $3.25 a gallon today and felt proud. The receipt is taped to my windshield and I took a photo of the price with my phone (not true). Of course I am glad to see gas prices go down but what I appreciated about the increase was that it caused people to re-evaluate their lives. More carpooling, more efficient cars, less pollution, etc. When you drive around look at how many people are driving by themselves. Over 90% of the time it is just me in my car with my bike in the backseat. I know $4.00 is a lot for a gallon of gas but what about the value of people and the environment? If you want to know where I stand on the whole global warming issue it is...I don't know. I saw Gore's documentary and have read the counter arguments. Was it good propoganda? Was it a hot button issue to swing votes? Maybe. But what it comes down to is that a lot (not all) of the suggestions for stopping global warming are just good. Whether or not global warminig is actually happening the choices to burn less fuel and cut back on consumption are part of being good stewards of God's earth.

The United States Economy- So 2 months ago I opened up an IRA. (Yeah, I don't have a career and am thinking about retirement :) ) One of my friends casually called this "conservative." I called it being a good steward of what is given to me. If that makes me conservative than o.k. I'm not hoarding money to have a nice nest egg so I can retire early and live in Florida. This isn't a control move based on worry and anxiety. Rather, I want to make practical steps to better my future. Just like I made practical steps by going to college, traveling to Scotland, going to Seminary, taking a shower this morning, brushing my teeth, and by not eating hotdogs. Back to the IRA...I haven't looked but know my money is disappearing. The economy is in shambles but what I love is that the economy of God isn't.

Voting- I have wanted to write a post on voting for a long time. Hopefully it will happen before the election. All I'm going to ask is, "what are you hoping for?" "What are your expectations?" I strongly believe that we need to consider how much we have invested into the United States political process.

Going to Church in Congo

Another post about my trip is up at Hope for Congo. Here's an excerpt:

Inside, there were wood benches mostly, but we were sat in the second and third rows, in mismatched plastic, patio chairs. The pastor and other church leaders greeted us with handshakes. As they shook our hands they touched their forearms with their opposite hands, a gesture of respect. I took my seat in a baby blue armchair. The floor was dirt. I studied the ants climbing up and down the wall near a beam supporting the tin roof overhead. The sunlight slipped between the top of the wall and the roof.

I thought about the sanctuary of my church back home. It is a new building, and I had heard it once described as a “fully controlled sound and light environment.” Here, muffler-less cars grumbled past in the street behind us. Drums and cymbals carried across the street from what I presumed to be another church. The bed sheets looked like sails as the air pressure vacillated in and out of this space.

Read more at Hope for Congo blog.

Get Some Fresh Air

I am spoiled because my job requires me to work outside. I just want to challenge you to go outside today because it is beautiful. Don't go into your house right away when you get back from work. Take a walk around the block. Or spend a few moments extra in creation before you hunker down this evening.

If you don't live in the Chicago area you won't get to enjoy our great weather. But nevertheless, go outside today, and enjoy.

My Love Life

Let's get personal, shall we? I went to a wedding this weekend and the conversation at the reception turned to relationships and dating. After some jokes and general ribbing I was asked about my "love life." So here is an update on love in my life.

I love family, friends, good health, school, soccer, laughter, sleeping, quietness, the country, the city, books, used books, church, music, bananas, cereal, reunions, comebacks, free music, shared meals, Denison Witmer, Mr. Potato Head, worship, dreams, suspenders, concerts, conversation, bicycles, monkeys, pens that write smooth, brown sweaters, the smell of rain, running, sports, God, photography, my blanket on my bed, big trees with lots of leaves, jokes, stories, light blue tuxedos, hiking, talcum powder, Mom's Sunday roast, comics, caramel candy, Necco wafers, traveling, phone calls from friends and family, Sleeping at Last, warm showers, drinking water, good music, long yawns, candles, Sunday afternoon naps, orchestras, plays, gardens, the Pittsburgh Pirates, change, stability, good ol Baptist hymns, Scotland, fireflies, miracles, testimonies, the Bible, red circles, kids, old people, good beverages, Cool Hand Luke, memories, Jesus, Pittsburgh Steelers,

and people who read this entire list.

In Congo for the First Time

I'm blogging about my first-time experience in Congo over at Hope for Congo. Thanks for clicking through to read it there. Here's a teaser:

Debarking the plane at the airport in Kinshasa spilled us onto the tarmac. The sun was hot here, just south of the equator. The concrete was brown with oil and grease. I wondered if it was sticking to the bottom of my sandals. We followed the other passengers toward a building marked “Aeroport de Ndjili.” We formed two lines at the doors. Uniformed officer were reviewing passports and yellow cards. Unlike the States, diseases like malaria, yellow fever, and typhoid are realistic dangers. We had to show that we had taken precautions. They handed our papers back and stepped aside to allow us up the three steps into the building. Inside out of the sun, we stood in a second line in front of what looked like an old-fashioned theater box office, wooden with a plate of glass and a slot for papers (and cash, if it came to that). Behind it were the immigration officers. At that point, the first set of officers seemed to have no clear purpose, quite unnecessary in fact.

Read more.

Whoops

The title of this post is the first word to my mind when I finished the 5k. I think a combination of adrenaline, rest, and good preparation helped me beat my goal time.

Thanks to Adam for doing the bragging that I don't feel comfortable doing (see post below). Which got me thinking about my difficulty accepting praise. We place a high value on receiving a compliment and shrugging it off like it was no big thing. Whenever we receive praise instead of affirming it for what it is we like to skirt the matter and move on. It is like there is added value in being able to say "thank-you for the recognition but it's not necessary." So with that in mind thanks to all those people who affirmed my race. I appreciate it.

4th Place

Forget 18:00 minutes. Forget 6-minute miles. How about

16:05, Baby!!

Props to Mike!

A Friend(ly) Man Crush

Tell me if you get the logic behind the photo after reading the post. It is a deep and random connection in my head. (Hint:think music)

Months back Adam wrote a post about man crushes. I don't quite have a list (or at least one that I am willing to share publicly) but will jump off the definition he made.

man crush \man krəsh\ n. 1. a feeling of excessive admiration or nonsexual attraction toward a fellow male who embodies many of one’s ideals 2. a desire to imitate the character, skills, or beliefs of another male 3. a strong identification with the values, priorities, or public image of a male figure. The object of a man crush is usually not personally known by the subject.

My man crushes are on anyone who I admire and enjoy being with (I shouldn’t end a sentence with a preposition). So truth told I have man crushes on all of my friends. That’s right; I wrote it.

My friends all have characteristics, skills, and beliefs I identify with. The people significant and close are the ones I value the most. We spend time together not out of obligation but because I want to hang out with them. We spend time together because they have an ethos and personality that compels me to giving my self back to them in friendship.

I’m not trying to make a philosophy or hard and fast rule out of friendship. In the 4^th grade when my sister had friends who couldn’t get a long. So she had to spend one recess with one group of friends and the other recess with the other group of friends. (It sounds goofy and it is, but if you knew my sister you would want to hang out with her that bad too!) Any contract takes the joy and authenticity out of life.

This isn't a contract but a truth; I love hanging out with people who bring me closer to God.

This doesn’t mean they are talking 24/7 about Jesus, the church, and theology. Instead just by being in their presence I’m reminded that God works through people to bring glory.

It might be a friend with a lot of energy that reminds me how God is active.

Or a friend who is always empathetic that reminds me how God feels our pain.

Or a friend who sings to remind me that God places a song in our heart.

Or a friend who is challenging my cemented convictions to remind me that God is always radical and new.

Or a friend who loves the homeless to remind me that God cares for the poor.

It’s just good to have friends!

My Math is Bad

Photo's aren't uploading today so use your imagination!

This is an update on an earlier post regarding my 5k happening this Saturday. My cousin kindly reminded me that if I plan on running a 18:00 I need to average a 5:48 mile pace. So I'm not necessarily changing my goal but I won't be too hard on myself if I run closer to 18:38 (which is a six minute pace). Still 18:00 would be pretty nice!

9 things I learned in Congo

More later. For now, briefly.

1. The Simpsons don't lie. The toilet does flush in the opposite direction south of the equator.

2. Mistrust drains more time, more energy, and more resources than trust does.

3. The Graber family inherited its loud conversations and love for life from the Congolese.

4. The Congolese dress well.

5. I love efficiency, order, and getting things done. It's modern, it's American, and I'm okay with that.

6. I don't care who the next president will be, I'm thankful to live in the U.S.

7. Chaos is not beautiful.

8. Skol is made in Kananga, Congo.

9. There are others out there taking good into their own hands.

Writing Just Because

Sorry about the hiatus, it gets hard to write consistently. I'm honestly just sitting here looking at this screen trying to think of something to write about.

Well I could tell you what going on in my life (see photo). That is easy because it is just information and I don't have to reflect on anything.

I'm getting ready to do a canoe trip tomorrow and I'm looking forward to that.

A friend has a pig roast tomorrow night too, should be fun. Yep.

There's a pretty kicking concert in Wheaton tonight with Derek Webb, Sara Groves, Charlie Peacock. If you have the evening free I would suggest that.

If anyone wants to watch some soccer on Sunday I'm playing in Naperville. We would love to have some fans.

Ummm....football season is into full swing and my fantasy teams stink, like always.

What else is going on? Thanks for asking. My phone was dead the last two days and I powerwashed a deck.

I'm getting ready for that 5k next Saturday if anyone wants to come and run with me.

Classes are starting up soon. Last year, sweeeeet!

Work at the Ropes Course is still keeping me on my toes. It's a pretty random but fun job.

I have found a new passion for oatmeal with honey.

And that's all I got. Peace

New Poll

Since Adam is gone in the Congo I put up a new poll just for when he gets back. He returns in 7 days so vote often!

101 Goals in 1001 Days

My brother-in-law Eric is writing a blog about his task to complete 101 goal in 1001 days! On Labor Day we went canoeing together and ran into a bit of trouble. It is all prep for our big canoe trip next summer when we are going from Aurora to St. Louis.

Why I'm Going to Congo

Shortly after my dad returned from Congo last year, we met up at Qdoba on our lunch hours. He’d spent two weeks in Congo, after leaving when he was 13. He told me stories about their trip. The old, six-passenger Land Cruiser that carried 10 and broke down after traversing a temporary lagoon that had covered the rutted dirt “road.” They’d slept overnight in bandit territory. My mother and aunt had felt like they were Princess Di, surrounded as they were by African children reaching out to touch them. They’d been given Tshiluban names by the Congolese the same way my father had received one when he was born. On this trip, my father had met the son of his own namesake, Chief Baditu. The runways were made of dirt, and those that weren’t had no lines painted on them. The stories went on.

I added these to the stories I heard growing up. Between two tribes, ready to do battle, spears, bows, and shields in hand, my grandfather walked out and called them to make peace. Along with my grandmother and their youngest daughter, he’d been captured by the revolutionary Simbas and later evacuated in a U.N. helicopter.

“When are you going back?” I asked. My dad’s eyes sparkled, the way they do when he’s consumed with the idea at hand. The way he talked, I knew this trip was the first, not the last.

“Maybe a year from now. We saw too much not to be involved, not to invest and provide them with resources. It gives them hope.”

“I’m going with you.” I said. I’d resolved in my own mind that if he went again, I would not be left out.

“Okay,” he laughed. “I’m ready. I’d go back tomorrow.”

A now tomorrow is here.

There are a lot of reasons I’m going on this trip, selfish and unselfish, small and big. I’m going because I want to travel and see the world. I’m going to experience a foreign culture, and to experience the culture shock of returning to the United States. I’m going to see the remnants of the place where my father grew up, a place that shaped him. I’m going to understand him a little bit more, and maybe, so also, myself. There are other reasons too.

Changing others: I’m a dreamer and an idealist, which go together, I suppose. Because of that, I bought into a very grand plan. It was called “changing the world.” It’s a noble idea, but I’ve decided that it’s also a sham. No one can change the world. I don’t think anyone ever has (there may be one exception). The pressure of changing the world, the blurriness of it, and the unbearable burden it is is all too much. It’s paralyzing. But I’m still a dreamer, so I can’t simply give up the dream. Instead, I’ve traded one dream for another.

Instead of “somewhere out there,” it’s right there, or maybe it’s right here. It’s not changing the world but changing one person, whoever it might be, whatever it might look like, wherever it might crop up. I think that can be done. It can be touched and pointed at. It’s a story I can tell and a name that I can say. Maybe that’s in Congo, or maybe Congo will simply send me back to accomplish that here.

When we leave, we’ll be taking hand tools we bought, with ease, at our local Home Depot. We’ve packed carpentry and masonry tools in our bags among our clothes. I hid mine inside the pants of my jeans, hoping to fend off luggage-handling theives. When we arrive in Kinshasa, Congo’s capital, we will spend a day finding a hardware store and purchasing more tools. We will also be buying medical supplies: a new kerosene-powered sterilizing unit to replace the cast iron kettle that they heat over an open fire. We already provided them a power generator to light their surgery room.

These are practical necessities, physical goods that will meet basic needs. They will empower local doctors to do surgery sooner. They will empower students to actually practice their carpentry and masonry skills, not just talk about them. These are not spiritual needs. But they have a spiritual impact. Saving a life by having cleaner instruments or safer shelter is a spiritual matter.

Providing lights and sterile instruments allows doctors to perform surgery immediately instead of waiting until daylight to break. That saves lives. And Life is a spiritual matter.

Being changed: This is my first foray off of North America. I do not expect to come back with the same beliefs, same worldview, same expectations, same pride, same humility.

Experiences are ephemeral, but you carry the remnants of those images and feelings in you for the rest of your life. The things you see and experience can change you subtly or dramatically, and those changes can persist. This is my hope and fear.

Finding a bigger God: Who is this God who is at work in Congo? How is he working? What does he look like when you see him from Africa? What does his kingdom look like in a country corrupted by power? Who is this God who sees the way these people live? Is this the God I worship here?
I hope to come back with stories about all these things and share them with you. (My dad is hoping to post on his blog while we are in Kinshasa. Check back at “Hope for Congo” for an update. You can find our itinerary there right now. Likewise, if I can here at Watching Gravity, I will.) As you’re reading this, please say a quick prayer for our group’s health; our travels; that the tools we’ve purchased will not be stolen in transit; and for us to be aware of where, when, and how God is working so that we can be a part of it. Thanks.

Get Creative

I love being around artist because of their creativity. Unfortunately being an "artist," has become a professional title. So the arts have been relegated to the standard fare of visual mediums, music, plays, etc.

I believe everyone is an artist. I don't mean this in some wishy-washy-hippie-inclusiveness. In Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost's book The Shaping of Things to Come, they refer to "the death of art," being the absence of creativity. From an organizational position these authors argue to embrace the imagination. But I want to bring it to a personal level.

In Marva Dawn's book, A Royal Waste of Time, she describes everyone as being an artist. Everyone in the church helps with worship because we are all artist. The Holy Spirit gifts everyone in unique ways and when we exercise those gifts, passions, talents, we are really worshing God. Our acts of creativity are ways to celebrate our created self. The act of creating/creativity is our particpation with God, our ability to play along with the Trinity. (Eugene Peterson, Christ Plays in 10,000 places). When I am most creative I am most faithful to God.

Here are some ways that I have seen people be creative...

Cooking
Telling Stories
Writing a Blog Doodling
Asking Questions
Repairing cars
Reading. Reading taps into your imagination and as Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
Having conversation. Some conversations are the typical, where are you from? what do you do? But beyond that a lot of conversations are just fun to listen to as people exchange stories, ideas, suggestions.
Organizing social events. Again this is all about the imagination.
Taking photos. Obviously that is a standard "art," but with the increase of digital cameras photography has become a more accessible art form.
Dressing. Ok, I know everyone wears clothes but everyone exhibits their creativity with how they dress.
Traveling
Gardening
Styling hair/facial hair

Leave a comment and tell me some more if you think of them

"Imperfectly, as in a cloudy mirror"

As our departure nears, my anticipation rises for our trip to Congo. I spent the weekend reading a few short books on Congo, mostly by missionaries who’d been there prior to 1963: Congo Wayside Reflections, An Unfinished Revolution*, and some others. I have more on my short list. I’m reading about a place I have not been and have yet to see. Reading others’ accounts has helped nurture the excitement in me.

I’ve been wanting to record what expectations I have of what it will be like. Until I truly experience Congo first hand, articulating my own preconceived ideas is like telling a story based on the title of a novel I haven’t read. My expectations will be held in sharp relief against the story Congo has to tell.

Nonetheless, I wanted to try, like a child, my hand at telling the story as best I know. Once I’m there I know, in the same moment that my misconceptions are most clear before me, Congo will be shattering and replacing them. It’s the curse of knowledge: We forget what it’s like not to know the story. We can’t even remember the story we’d believed before, and some of us fool ourselves into believing that we’d always known this.

So, this is my attempt to articulate my foolishness so that I may later laugh at my confident naïveté. When I started to write this, I had listed a few categories in which I wanted to record some expectations, but I find those categories inadequate. I had written out, “economic,” “political,” “infrastructure,” and “spiritual.” Those categories could outline some thoughts and perhaps might still be useful, but they wouldn’t be sufficient. I could list some second-hand facts I have, but they wouldn’t capture the meaning. I could wrack my brain looking for a way to articulate ideas and beliefs. Instead I find myself retelling the stories I've heard and approximating experiences. So, here are two stories.

Three weeks after Hurricane Katrina, I drove to Mississippi and then Louisiana to serve the evacuees and victims of the disaster there. Everything I saw there was simply in the wrong order. Where you expected cars to be parked along the roadside, you saw boats leaning over on one side. When you looked in the front window expecting to see a chandelier, you instead saw the blue sky. There was dried mud and garbage that only weeks before were living rooms and playgrounds. I kept asking myself, “What was it like before?” and “How was this supposed to be?” I couldn’t really tell. I’d never seen it the way it was supposed to be.

I expect Congo to be a bit like that. I expect to see things out of order. And grasping the depth of disorder will mean first imagining how it was meant to be. Then, after that, the depth will go deeper than I thought. I will look again and understand.

I asked my dad this weekend, “How can we, as over-fed U.S. citizens, accept food prepared by people who have barely enough to eat themselves?” My dad recounted a meal he’d had last year: chicken prepared and presented by his host. When it was served, he looked at it. There was no meat.

Where am I going?

This post started out as something entirely different. Originally it was suppose to be a reflection on theological training. Instead it has turned into me musing about my future...

Seminaries change. In the past when you graduated students were mostly fed into a system to find a job. Denominations would assign pastors their positions (which is still done in many Lutheran and Catholic schools) or students would go through an interview process with the proper denomination leaders (like many "free church" schools, Baptist, Brethren, Mennonite)

Since I've been at Northern I've noticed a change. There are fewer and fewer students getting jobs after graduation through a formal interview process. A lot of my friends are already connected to a church before they graduate. Instead of looking for a job when they graduate they are laying to foundation while in Seminary.

I have my doubts about a formal/traditional interview system. The process seems quite outdated and impersonal. I graduate next May and feasibly I could get interviewed by any church anywhere in the United States (or the world for that manner). That is still a big possibility for me. God definitely uses that process and method for many men and women. I'm not saying it is wrong.

However, in thinking about my own call I am drawn to finding a place to minister based on relationships. My relationships here in the Chicagoland have been built from the last two years of living here (and the 4 years of summer dwelling while in college). For me to uproot myself next year and go to a new city is maybe what God is calling me to do. However, to gain the depth of relationships I have here, and the networks, and the knowledge of the community will take at least another 2 years.

When I was talking to my professor a couple of months ago he humbled me.

He asked, "Where do you want be next year?"

I answered, "I've always wanted to go to Seattle. I've always wanted to minister to really secular areas."

"Oh yeah? Who do you know there?"

"Umm...really...nobody."

"So what makes you think that you can go there and be fruitful all by yourself? You need to start to look for people if you are going there."


I'll have my degree but I'll still need people.