I wonder if I'll ever get to the point where writing about these kinds of things doesn't stir the emotions. If you're upset by something I say, take heart, I'm probably upset about it too haha. I think Joni Mitchell might see that as a good thing though, turbulent indigo she called it, in reference to van Gogh. Maybe it's the turbulent indigo that gets you writing and thinking about things, and maybe that's good, if it inspires reflection or communication. I just ask anyone who might be reading my blog to think of my posts more in the way of questions or reflections rather than necessarily statements or assertions, although occasionally an opinion might slip in here or there, being human and all, but reflective is generally truer to my personality than assertive.
But things do get me going sometimes too, and this might be one of them. When you just feel like saying humph, as my husband would say. Humph! I had a bit of a humph moment earlier today when I read a response to an article about the crusades where a Muslim responder basically said that we in the west should be thankful to Muslims, because they were such a wonderful sophisticated people and we were a backward filthy people, yes she said that we were a dirty backward filthy people. I know, I know, it was in the comment section. Sometimes I find comment sections helpful for added perspective, and sometimes...well sometimes...but the funny thing is that her view, is not all that far off the standard academic or mainstream view of the crusades. Like she said, that we in the west were a backward over zealous band of brigands attacking this wonderful sophisticated dove-inspired culture, mostly unprovoked. Isn't that the common view from the tower?
Well, down here on the ground, and knowing as I do, a bit about the early development of Christianity before the time of Muhammad, I'd like to take a closer look at that, through a dirty Christian lens you might say. As for the backward part, I'll mostly save that discussion for another time, but I will say in passing that even when I was in university, I remember my history professor saying that medieval historians question the idea of the dark ages. Yes, Europe was plagued by plague after plague, of plagues and barbarians, which was worse, the Vikings or the plagues? Yes, these were dark times, but there were also great strides and contributions, the high middle ages, being of great note. Isn't it interesting, if you stop to think about it, modern cliches about the crusades, how we were both conniving imperialists and backward at the same time. Makes you wonder how the depraved and the debauched found time for Imperialist contrivances, you'd think either would be a full-time occupation. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/our-voices/battle-of-ideas/the-dark-ages-were-a-lot-brighter-than-we-give-them-credit-for-8215395.html
But anyway, if you start with this outdated assumption that Europe was a backwater of backward religious (though ambitious) fanatics, and you begin the story at the beginning of the crusades and ignore the greater context or centuries of militant Islamic conquest and atrocities http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRXRvcfzAsU that lead up to 1096, are you really seeing the whole picture? In other words, if you were to begin the story of the second world war, with the allied invasions and ignore the rise of Hitler, would you be getting a accurate view of modern history? That's why I'd like to go back a bit, to the earliest centuries of Christianity, and trace the historic bounds of "Christendom."
The apostle Paul did a lot of walking, and presumably a lot of talking, and with the help of Roman roads, Christianity...
Before the Muslim conquest, Christians could look back confidently on six hundred years of steady growth and expansion. By the year 300, churches were found in all the cities of the Roman Empire, from Spain and North Africa in the west to Egypt and Syria in the east, as well as in Asia Minor and the Balkans. In the fourth century the Armenians embraced the new religion, and on the eastern shore of the Black Sea the preaching of St. Nino led to the conversion of the Iberian royal house and the adoption of the Christian faith by the Georgians. To the south, Christianity reached Ethiopia in the fourth century and Nubia a century later. And there were Christian communities in Roman Gaul already in the second century and in Britain by the third century.
No less impressive was the spread of Christianity eastward. Accustomed to the colorful maps of Paul's missionary journeys printed in study Bibles, we are inclined to think that the initial expansion took place in the Mediterranean world. But in the vast region east of Jerusalem—Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, where Aramaic was the lingua franca—the majority of people had become Christian by the seventh century. The Christian gospel was carried even farther east to ancient Persia, and from there it traveled along the Silk Road into Central Asia: Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan. At some point during the first six centuries it reached the western shore of India and even China. In the seventh century, the global center of Christianity lay not in Europe but to the east of Jerusalem. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/12/001-christianity-face-to-face-with-islam-12
Wow, did they say Afghanistan? That's the one that hit me, along with the thought that countries such as Iraq or Syria, were once Christian majority populated regions, can you believe that? I find that very surprising, especially in light of modern geography and politics. So what happened? (Here's a map that shows in part what happened http://explorethemed.com/RiseIslam.asp), but Islam happened, in short. Beginning in Arabia in the seventh century, and for the next four hundred years, Islam would be banging on Christianity's door, and entering oft without an invitation. http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/islamchron.html.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests
So Islam would replace Christianity in much of what is today North Africa and the middle east, but it wasn't always so, and without being an expert on anything, I have no trouble believing that not everything that the crusaders did was good or glorious or right. But when people drop, like plates at a rousing Greek dinner party, you know those nasty crusaders and the nasty things they did, as if that was the whole story... I almost feel like asking them, would you rather be speaking Arabic today? How about women's rights, you like those, or equal treatment of minorities? How do you feel about that? Because that's the way it was going folks, we were all on our way to a choice, between speaking Arabic and praying five times a day, or living as second class citizens, slowly asphyxiated, as Christian communities continue to be in Muslim dominated countries to this day. Sorry for the reality check. Now you might say, well it's fine and dandy what Charles Martel did, that was defensive, but the crusades, well that was offensive. They were traveling to distant lands to possess -formerly Christian territories? Exactly. Let me remind everyone that the Christian Byzantine empire had been fighting off the Muslims for centuries and the crusades were a response to a cry for help from the once glorious Constantinople. It's a modern western assumption that Christianity is western. It's roots are proudly eastern.
So, it was the empire strikes back, and that's all I'm asking for here, that the crusades and Christian resistance more generally be seen for what it was, a two sided long standing conflict that Islam started. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/First_Muslim_War_%28Byzantine_Glory%29 Thanks, and while I'm at it, I think it's also fair to ask, would the crusades have even happened, if Islam or Muhammad in his early days had had the same interest in discussion or teaching or debate, as Jesus or the apostle Paul? For instance if Mohammad had taken the time to understand what the Trinity actually was before condemning it and building an army...makes you wonder doesn't it, how history could have been very different. And it grieves me, to think of the scars that are there between Christians and Muslims to this day, or between us and Jews, or between western and eastern Christians, treacherous as that turning was, or the killing of innocents of any religion.
I'll leave it at that, because I really don't want to be inflammatory here, I really don't, but it just frustrates me, even in researching this, how easy it is to find material that defames the west, and how difficult it is to find even the most basic information supporting what seems to me, should be common knowledge, like a decent map showing the loss of Christian territories, or the specific locations of battles where Muslims were meeting Christians, etc.
So in summary, did the crusaders do nasty nasty things? Probably. Were they disorganized, undisciplined, desperate often untrained people? Probably, many of them were simple pilgrims after all. Did they eat people to keep from starving to death in a desert -wouldn't surprise me. Did they order the deaths of Muslims soldiers to keep from being outwitted and entrenched? Let's just say that I'm sure my little blog will leave many unanswered questions. (sigh). I don't know, but I have no trouble meeting people half way here. I have no interest in defending war crimes or genocide, if that is in fact what happened. I might just suggest that people pay attention to details as well though, such as that the Pope himself condemned the killing of civilian Jews on the first crusade. That's just an example. http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/leaflets/the-crusades.htm
But the thing that is so interesting to me in all this, is the peculiar phenomenon of western guilt. May I just ask, in closing, why is it that Muslims (generally speaking) seem to recall the vastness of their early empire with nostalgia, with pride, with remembrances of the good ol' days, while we in the west recall our advances and grand expeditions with shame, with dejection and self-flagellation (not that the crusades amounted to much, we being the underdog and all)? But it's interesting, isn't it? Why such a marked difference, especially from a culture that talks about guilt being a bad thing, and quaint notions of Sunday school sin confining? Why would it even matter from a naturalistic perspective if we feel shame or not, if the strong survive and everyone gets stronger, while trodding through the muck and mire of human misery?
It reminds me of something Ravi Zacharias said, that he was surprised to find, in visiting Gandhi's home, presumably now a museum, in the front veranda a banner on
which was written a quote from Bertrand Russell: "It is doubtful that
the efforts of the Mahatma would have succeeded except that he was
appealing to the conscience of a Christianized people." Dr. Zacharias
was amused that the home of Gandhi, the pantheist, displayed a banner
quoting Russell, the atheist, who said the former's efforts would not
have succeeded save for the theists. http://www.britsattheirbest.com/archives/004227.php Hmmn, and I remember the question that Murphy Brown asked Gandhi in the movie, would pacifism have stopped Hitler? The question rings in the ears doesn't it, because that might be the question that the crusades brings us to as Christians, the question of pacifism, to act or not to act, in the face of brutality. Could Gandhi have stopped Mohammad? And could it be that there is a connection between the historic bounds of "Christendom," ebbing, flowing, reaching, retreating, with the bounds of Christian conscience?
Thanks for listening,
M.A. Harvey
Here's a few starting points for anyone who may be interested:
http://www.catholic.com/node/5330/4775
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/220747/crusade-propaganda/thomas-f-madden
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/mayweb-only/52.0.html?paging=off
http://www.homilia.org/cruzadas/CruzTheDefensGest.htm
http://explorethemed.com/Christian.asp?c=1
http://explorethemed.com/RiseIslam.asp
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/islamchron.html
http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/history-of-religion.html
https://sites.google.com/site/islamicthreatsimplified/a-religion-or-political-ideology/islam-has-done-it-before
http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320Hist&Civ/chapters/15CRUSAD.htm
http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/leaflets/the-crusades.htm
.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Heroes and ashes
Well, that was enough for me, having just read a few excerpts from "The Jews and their Lies." I've had this lingering question in my mind for some time, one of those questions that takes a bit of gumption to ask even, but at some point you realize that you must. Was Luther an anti-Semite? Sure seems like it, based on some of the stuff I just read. I don't care to repeat it; I'll let you do your own google search for that reason. I had heard a while back, that sometimes when people read Luther's writing, that they come away with less respect for him than when they started, in short. This professor was asserting that Luther's style of writing was well, to the point we might say. Yet, we have to keep in mind, the professor had continued, that he was trying to get at the truth, that this was a style at the time, and not to be too put off by some of the stuff that he said against his opponents.
And so I had remained hopeful, that this was a kind of rhetoric, that he was attacking his adversaries on theological grounds, that it was an ideological rather than a personal difference. He had had plenty to say about the Catholic church after all, and he was a Catholic himself. Maybe it was the same with the Jews, he was having a good ol' theological debate. Hey it's Luther, right? But then there's only so much you can excuse, especially from a spiritual leader. So, I'm always open to new information; please feel free if anyone out there can offer me some insight, but I suspect that for me, it will remain as just another example.
Because it seems that anytime I've ever put a human being up on a pedestal, I've always gotten the same reminder, that people are fallen. They may have their strengths but...good ol' debates don't usually include admonitions to burn and to confiscate and to expel.
It saddens me, in short, the acceptance that Christians, some as Christian as they come, have undeniably played a serpentine role in the degradation of any group of people, but especially the family of our Lord. All the more so because for me, having read the Old Testament scriptures as I have from the time I was a child, that remembrance of which has given me a love of the Jewish people, their history and heritage is our acquired heritage as Christians. So, I always hoped that the unacceptable treatment of Jews by Christians throughout history, must have been a product of Biblical ignorance, when people couldn't read, etc. But not Luther, one of the fathers of modern education and German Biblical translator.
So, we're left with the ashes aren't we, with the theological or emotional and spiritual divisions that remain until this day? In other words, the reluctance of many Jews to consider Jesus as the messiah, could at least in part be the product of our treatment of them over the centuries. How could that guy be the source of a messianic peace, Jesus, that is? It's not like things got better for his people when he came, after all, at least not after the fall of Jerusalem and the centuries of dispersion and persecution that followed. Listening to talks by a couple of rabbis in the last couple of months, I've gotten the sense that there could be something to that source of disinclination.
It's too bad really, because Luther might have been a great hero of mine. The courage, the fortitude, the desire for truth, and yet...lies too great to begin to imagine.
It's too bad,
thanks for listening,
M.A. Harvey
This might be a good starting point.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1993/issue39/3938.html
And so I had remained hopeful, that this was a kind of rhetoric, that he was attacking his adversaries on theological grounds, that it was an ideological rather than a personal difference. He had had plenty to say about the Catholic church after all, and he was a Catholic himself. Maybe it was the same with the Jews, he was having a good ol' theological debate. Hey it's Luther, right? But then there's only so much you can excuse, especially from a spiritual leader. So, I'm always open to new information; please feel free if anyone out there can offer me some insight, but I suspect that for me, it will remain as just another example.
Because it seems that anytime I've ever put a human being up on a pedestal, I've always gotten the same reminder, that people are fallen. They may have their strengths but...good ol' debates don't usually include admonitions to burn and to confiscate and to expel.
It saddens me, in short, the acceptance that Christians, some as Christian as they come, have undeniably played a serpentine role in the degradation of any group of people, but especially the family of our Lord. All the more so because for me, having read the Old Testament scriptures as I have from the time I was a child, that remembrance of which has given me a love of the Jewish people, their history and heritage is our acquired heritage as Christians. So, I always hoped that the unacceptable treatment of Jews by Christians throughout history, must have been a product of Biblical ignorance, when people couldn't read, etc. But not Luther, one of the fathers of modern education and German Biblical translator.
So, we're left with the ashes aren't we, with the theological or emotional and spiritual divisions that remain until this day? In other words, the reluctance of many Jews to consider Jesus as the messiah, could at least in part be the product of our treatment of them over the centuries. How could that guy be the source of a messianic peace, Jesus, that is? It's not like things got better for his people when he came, after all, at least not after the fall of Jerusalem and the centuries of dispersion and persecution that followed. Listening to talks by a couple of rabbis in the last couple of months, I've gotten the sense that there could be something to that source of disinclination.
It's too bad really, because Luther might have been a great hero of mine. The courage, the fortitude, the desire for truth, and yet...lies too great to begin to imagine.
It's too bad,
thanks for listening,
M.A. Harvey
This might be a good starting point.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1993/issue39/3938.html
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Recovering fundamentals
Well, it's a good part of the way through this lenten season, and I just ate another oatmeal raisin cookie, but I kinda' needed to, to get the taste of the bologna sandwich I had for lunch out of my mouth, or at least that's what I told myself. I was doing so well for a couple of weeks there, warding off the sweets. What I can tell you though, is that it tends to be my failures more than my successes during lent that give me the greater appreciation for what I believe Jesus did for me on that first Good Friday.
Because I can remember a time, when sitting in the back seat of that independent bible believing Baptist pastor's car, when he casually suggested that we (the tiny youth group in found myself in) go to an ice cream parlor sometime. I had paused, and hesitatingly asked what we might do there. He had said jokingly that we might stop and stare at the sign. Well, I felt dumb of course. But the thought that we might just be kids and well, enjoy ice cream on a summer's day, seemed so carefree, so fleeting, when so many other simple pleasures like listening to my favorite songs on the radio...well, I was going to hell for that.
So, I know about fundamentalism, and I don't care to revisit it. For me, by the time someone finally told me about grace, it was almost too good to be true! But you know the funny thing, is that I don't hold any ill feelings toward the Baptists in my background, honestly, because as sincerely as they put the fear of God into me, they also gave me a foundation. And as a kid from the wrong side of the tracks, where there were dangers in all directions, they kept me on the right track. And they obviously cared enough to take time for a kid, whom very few people did.
So I wonder where they're at sometimes. And I wonder how they're doing. I imagine if we met again we would disagree on a lot, but I think we might find some common ground too, and here's why I say that. Because I've noticed a big change in the church over the last few decades. It's almost as if the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, and the larger church doesn't know which end is up anymore. Anything goes, or almost anything it seems. What is the world, and what is the church? Is there a difference? At some point you have to ask, what do you HAVE to believe to be a Christian?
Everybody seems to find a Jesus that suits their own personal preferences. What's that old quote, the deists found a deistic Christ, the feminists found a feminist Christ, the communists found a communist Christ etc. Everyone seems to want to create God in their own image. Most recently, the secularists seem to be finding a secular humanist Christ in the Da Vinci code. I wonder if Jesus saw it all coming when he asked, "who do you say that I am?" Here's my question. Which of those identities gets you killed for blasphemy?
Some time back, I remember hearing someone I respect describe himself as a recovering fundamentalist. I liked it so much I decided to steal it. I'm a recovering fundamentalist too. And for me, my Christian journey has been about trying to balance those fundamentals, those essentials of the traditional Christian faith: belief in Jesus as he died for life itself, for ice cream and rock and roll, for summer days and beautiful people. To avoid the shallowness of the marshmallow Jesus of our present culture, and instead choosing to know and present a relevant Jesus, just as he has always been, relevant.
Thanks for listening,
M.A. Harvey
Because I can remember a time, when sitting in the back seat of that independent bible believing Baptist pastor's car, when he casually suggested that we (the tiny youth group in found myself in) go to an ice cream parlor sometime. I had paused, and hesitatingly asked what we might do there. He had said jokingly that we might stop and stare at the sign. Well, I felt dumb of course. But the thought that we might just be kids and well, enjoy ice cream on a summer's day, seemed so carefree, so fleeting, when so many other simple pleasures like listening to my favorite songs on the radio...well, I was going to hell for that.
So, I know about fundamentalism, and I don't care to revisit it. For me, by the time someone finally told me about grace, it was almost too good to be true! But you know the funny thing, is that I don't hold any ill feelings toward the Baptists in my background, honestly, because as sincerely as they put the fear of God into me, they also gave me a foundation. And as a kid from the wrong side of the tracks, where there were dangers in all directions, they kept me on the right track. And they obviously cared enough to take time for a kid, whom very few people did.
So I wonder where they're at sometimes. And I wonder how they're doing. I imagine if we met again we would disagree on a lot, but I think we might find some common ground too, and here's why I say that. Because I've noticed a big change in the church over the last few decades. It's almost as if the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, and the larger church doesn't know which end is up anymore. Anything goes, or almost anything it seems. What is the world, and what is the church? Is there a difference? At some point you have to ask, what do you HAVE to believe to be a Christian?
Everybody seems to find a Jesus that suits their own personal preferences. What's that old quote, the deists found a deistic Christ, the feminists found a feminist Christ, the communists found a communist Christ etc. Everyone seems to want to create God in their own image. Most recently, the secularists seem to be finding a secular humanist Christ in the Da Vinci code. I wonder if Jesus saw it all coming when he asked, "who do you say that I am?" Here's my question. Which of those identities gets you killed for blasphemy?
Some time back, I remember hearing someone I respect describe himself as a recovering fundamentalist. I liked it so much I decided to steal it. I'm a recovering fundamentalist too. And for me, my Christian journey has been about trying to balance those fundamentals, those essentials of the traditional Christian faith: belief in Jesus as he died for life itself, for ice cream and rock and roll, for summer days and beautiful people. To avoid the shallowness of the marshmallow Jesus of our present culture, and instead choosing to know and present a relevant Jesus, just as he has always been, relevant.
Thanks for listening,
M.A. Harvey
Stop lights and parking meters
Have you ever driven through a stop sign? Uh, I have, definitely a couple of times and maybe one other time, but the truth is, is that I was afraid to go back and check after I heard that blaring horn behind me. Oops? So, after that I tried to watch for stop signs. Good idea, eh? I never took driver's ed as a teenager, so I learned a few things the hard way.
I remember someone saying that they have found that in their experience there are two kinds of people in the world, rule keepers and rule breakers. I must confess I'm probably in the latter category, lol, but you might not guess it immediately to look at me. I guess I grew up taking care of myself a lot from a young age, and I had to question things. I honestly don't know if I'd be here today, or be a grounded person if I hadn't. I am reasonably grounded, teenage driving experiences aside.
But I have struggled with knowing where to put the lines as an adult. I'm one of those people that has a hard time saying no, or at least I always did, and life can be hard on people that either don't know how to take no for an answer, or people who don't know how to protect themselves, as has sometimes been true for me. But I'm learning.
But you know something else I'm also learning, as I'm learning that boundaries are healthy, is that there is a similar dialogue that is ongoing in the public square. Where to put that stop sign, should there be a stop sign? Do we really need parking meters or speeding limits even, or is it all a tax grab?
I remember having this discussion with a secular friend of mine years ago, where he was saying that nothing is absolute, that everything breaks down. I think the question he was asking, was if someone had to steal a loaf of bread because their kids were hungry, would that be wrong? The answer that I've been given to that question is a scenario of that person being in court, and the judge looks at the man and says you're guilty, and fines him. But the story doesn't end there. The judge then reaches into his own pocket, pays the fine and continues to look around the court room, while pointing his finger, towards people representing segments of society and telling them that they are all guilty, for putting that person in that position in the first place.
The thing is, is that with relativism, if we were to get rid of standards altogether, then where do we begin? Where's the anchor? Where are the stars to guide us, if there is no fixed point?
So here's what I see. We have a culture, that looks at some people and says, you guys are backward, because you are insisting on putting stop signs where there is no need for a stop sign. Morality is relative, don't you know? While at the same time, those friendly folks insist that there should be stop signs where they demand stop signs. Like on beautiful, life sustaining old trees for example. But I thought you said that morality is relative? Which is it?
It's ancient history now I know, but when the whole thing with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was going on, and people were saying, hey it's no big deal. I'm not commenting on what should have happened there politically, but the question I was left with, was why would people expect that someone would be honest with them, strangers, if obviously that person wasn't being honest with the people who were closest to him?
In other words, I don't buy the argument that morality is relative in some ways and objective in other ways. Where do we put the stop signs and the parking meters and the speeding limits, or do we put them there at all? I don't know. Should some things be personal rather than societal concerns or responsibilities? I might be inclined to think so. I don't have all the answers, I'm just saying that before we take away a stop sign as an individual or as a society, we might do well to consider the car crashes that could be happening behind us, that we don't stop to consider because we never turn around, and so we never see.
thanks for listening,
M.A. Harvey
I remember someone saying that they have found that in their experience there are two kinds of people in the world, rule keepers and rule breakers. I must confess I'm probably in the latter category, lol, but you might not guess it immediately to look at me. I guess I grew up taking care of myself a lot from a young age, and I had to question things. I honestly don't know if I'd be here today, or be a grounded person if I hadn't. I am reasonably grounded, teenage driving experiences aside.
But I have struggled with knowing where to put the lines as an adult. I'm one of those people that has a hard time saying no, or at least I always did, and life can be hard on people that either don't know how to take no for an answer, or people who don't know how to protect themselves, as has sometimes been true for me. But I'm learning.
But you know something else I'm also learning, as I'm learning that boundaries are healthy, is that there is a similar dialogue that is ongoing in the public square. Where to put that stop sign, should there be a stop sign? Do we really need parking meters or speeding limits even, or is it all a tax grab?
I remember having this discussion with a secular friend of mine years ago, where he was saying that nothing is absolute, that everything breaks down. I think the question he was asking, was if someone had to steal a loaf of bread because their kids were hungry, would that be wrong? The answer that I've been given to that question is a scenario of that person being in court, and the judge looks at the man and says you're guilty, and fines him. But the story doesn't end there. The judge then reaches into his own pocket, pays the fine and continues to look around the court room, while pointing his finger, towards people representing segments of society and telling them that they are all guilty, for putting that person in that position in the first place.
The thing is, is that with relativism, if we were to get rid of standards altogether, then where do we begin? Where's the anchor? Where are the stars to guide us, if there is no fixed point?
So here's what I see. We have a culture, that looks at some people and says, you guys are backward, because you are insisting on putting stop signs where there is no need for a stop sign. Morality is relative, don't you know? While at the same time, those friendly folks insist that there should be stop signs where they demand stop signs. Like on beautiful, life sustaining old trees for example. But I thought you said that morality is relative? Which is it?
It's ancient history now I know, but when the whole thing with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was going on, and people were saying, hey it's no big deal. I'm not commenting on what should have happened there politically, but the question I was left with, was why would people expect that someone would be honest with them, strangers, if obviously that person wasn't being honest with the people who were closest to him?
In other words, I don't buy the argument that morality is relative in some ways and objective in other ways. Where do we put the stop signs and the parking meters and the speeding limits, or do we put them there at all? I don't know. Should some things be personal rather than societal concerns or responsibilities? I might be inclined to think so. I don't have all the answers, I'm just saying that before we take away a stop sign as an individual or as a society, we might do well to consider the car crashes that could be happening behind us, that we don't stop to consider because we never turn around, and so we never see.
thanks for listening,
M.A. Harvey
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Compassion for bears
I remember hearing this story once, about a man who had gone to this party, and was having a good time, it was a nice get together, and in stumbled this really obnoxious drunk guy. He was so obnoxious that the speaker in the story said he felt like decking him. And as he was thinking about it, he was humbled by an older gentleman who approached the slovering drunk guy gently, and began to talk to him. And as he talked to him, he was able to say, "ah, you've lost your wife, that must be hard," and before long the obnoxious guy was in tears.
I had what felt like a similar reprimand a number of years ago. I was seeing a counselor at the time. I'd never really been into that sort of thing much to be honest, but I went to someone for a while at a friend's suggestion. Around that time, I had come across a term, "rage-aholic," and I thought it was great, having this diagnosis of sorts. I say this because someone was finally putting a name to something I had experienced, having known stormy personalities who would well fit the description. Maybe I was looking for a bit of affirmation, in mentioning this term to my then counselor, having lived with people like that for a long long time, but she just smiled and said "Margaret, that's a pop psychology term." Oh, I thought, deflated. And then she said, Margaret, anger is like the tip of the iceberg. It's everything beneath the anger, that you have to try to understand. Like that's going to happen, I thought to myself. lol. So, it wasn't what I wanted to hear at the time, and I was disappointed, but I never forgot what she said, to look beneath the surface, and to try to understand where a person's anger is coming from.
Fast forward a few years, and to the issues that seem to be on my heart. I was online earlier today, and a famous entertainer was being rebuked for "homophobic" remarks that she had apparently said at a concert. I hesitate to say the name, because I can't seem to find a recording of the statement, so I don't want to comment on it directly. Until I've heard something in context, I wouldn't want to do that. But it just made me wonder...what's going on there?
Let me explain what I mean. See, when same sex marriage was being put through in Canada I was dead set against it. I may be repeating myself here, for anyone who knows me, but as this is an ongoing issue, I'm trying to shed some light. At the time however, I personally could not have felt more strongly that same sex marriage was a really really bad idea. Why, you may ask. Because I think that SSM proponents fail to understand that for a lot of people, marriage is about as elemental of an institution as you can find. Mama bear, papa bear, baby bear. Does it get any more basic than that? So, if you were to go into a forest, and tell those bears, that you were going to change basic bear relationships, how do you think they would respond? To people who are younger, or more liberal, they may not understand that, but to a lot of people marriage is well -sacred. And for me, the thought of changing that, or that that was THREATENED somehow, made me feel like the whole forest that surrounded me was burning, and me with it.
So, here's my question, where is the compassion for the bears among us? What I see, is whenever someone expresses concern or anxiety over these HUGE social changes: they are intimidated, they are ostracized, they are labelled and frankly they are harassed. Why not instead go to that person and say...this is a big change isn't it? It seems like the whole world is falling down sometimes doesn't it? Rather than assume that traditional marriage folks hate gay people (why does everyone assume that), why not try talking to them? Is that such a crazy idea? Try understanding where they are really coming from. It's not where you think, trust me on that. I know because that's how I felt, and it may surprise you to know that in my mind and heart of hearts, it had nothing to do with gay people. But that's how I felt, like the world was ending. It didn't. Could there be some issues down the road? Maybe. I don't know, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the question. For me though, years later, and having worked through my own emotional turbulence, I'm still here, I'm happy to report. I've given a little, you might say a lot, changed my mind in some respects and held firm in others. But I'm trying to dialogue, most importantly. Unfortunately though, I'm not sure where anything I'm saying would fit into a very polarized mainstream.
but thanks for listening,
M.A. Harvey
I had what felt like a similar reprimand a number of years ago. I was seeing a counselor at the time. I'd never really been into that sort of thing much to be honest, but I went to someone for a while at a friend's suggestion. Around that time, I had come across a term, "rage-aholic," and I thought it was great, having this diagnosis of sorts. I say this because someone was finally putting a name to something I had experienced, having known stormy personalities who would well fit the description. Maybe I was looking for a bit of affirmation, in mentioning this term to my then counselor, having lived with people like that for a long long time, but she just smiled and said "Margaret, that's a pop psychology term." Oh, I thought, deflated. And then she said, Margaret, anger is like the tip of the iceberg. It's everything beneath the anger, that you have to try to understand. Like that's going to happen, I thought to myself. lol. So, it wasn't what I wanted to hear at the time, and I was disappointed, but I never forgot what she said, to look beneath the surface, and to try to understand where a person's anger is coming from.
Fast forward a few years, and to the issues that seem to be on my heart. I was online earlier today, and a famous entertainer was being rebuked for "homophobic" remarks that she had apparently said at a concert. I hesitate to say the name, because I can't seem to find a recording of the statement, so I don't want to comment on it directly. Until I've heard something in context, I wouldn't want to do that. But it just made me wonder...what's going on there?
Let me explain what I mean. See, when same sex marriage was being put through in Canada I was dead set against it. I may be repeating myself here, for anyone who knows me, but as this is an ongoing issue, I'm trying to shed some light. At the time however, I personally could not have felt more strongly that same sex marriage was a really really bad idea. Why, you may ask. Because I think that SSM proponents fail to understand that for a lot of people, marriage is about as elemental of an institution as you can find. Mama bear, papa bear, baby bear. Does it get any more basic than that? So, if you were to go into a forest, and tell those bears, that you were going to change basic bear relationships, how do you think they would respond? To people who are younger, or more liberal, they may not understand that, but to a lot of people marriage is well -sacred. And for me, the thought of changing that, or that that was THREATENED somehow, made me feel like the whole forest that surrounded me was burning, and me with it.
So, here's my question, where is the compassion for the bears among us? What I see, is whenever someone expresses concern or anxiety over these HUGE social changes: they are intimidated, they are ostracized, they are labelled and frankly they are harassed. Why not instead go to that person and say...this is a big change isn't it? It seems like the whole world is falling down sometimes doesn't it? Rather than assume that traditional marriage folks hate gay people (why does everyone assume that), why not try talking to them? Is that such a crazy idea? Try understanding where they are really coming from. It's not where you think, trust me on that. I know because that's how I felt, and it may surprise you to know that in my mind and heart of hearts, it had nothing to do with gay people. But that's how I felt, like the world was ending. It didn't. Could there be some issues down the road? Maybe. I don't know, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the question. For me though, years later, and having worked through my own emotional turbulence, I'm still here, I'm happy to report. I've given a little, you might say a lot, changed my mind in some respects and held firm in others. But I'm trying to dialogue, most importantly. Unfortunately though, I'm not sure where anything I'm saying would fit into a very polarized mainstream.
but thanks for listening,
M.A. Harvey
Both sides now
I remember one time I was talking to a friend and I can't remember what the conversation was about even, I just remember my friend looking right at me and saying Marg, "Canada may have been a Christian country once, but it isn't now!" Man, that used to bug me, how it seemed like my secular friends had no fear of offending, but heaven forbid you say something, anything that was politically incorrect. Like it was an absolute, in a world of relatives.
But I've gotten over it, or at least I hope I have. And he was right, as painful as it was at the time to see, he was right. If Canada or other western nations were ever Christian, they surely aren't now. So, what do we do now, people like me, people who believe in the sanctity of human life, or the sanctity of marriage, or even that a child needs a mom and dad. Do we have the right to our values, privately even?
I'm not sure. Because every time I hear my deepest core values referred to as anti-choice or anti-gay, I'm not sure I have the right to exist. I feel a little bit smaller every time, and then I feel frustrated. Why is that, that everyone seems to want to cheer for their team, and noone seems to want to admit that maybe we could learn from other people, from our differences even?
I was listening to a lecture the other day, as is my hobby, and the lecturer articulated something that's been brewing in my mind for a while now. He said that we, as Christian apologists, should be able to articulate the other sides position to their satisfaction, before we begin to say anything. What if we all tried that? I'll go first.
Allow me to do this in my own way please. Pro-choice, what does that mean? Well, I work with mentally disabled people, have for years, and what I have learned is that as hard as it is sometimes, I have to respect the people I support, their right to make choices for themselves. Even if it's a choice that I don't think is in their best interest. Even if it's a choice that I personally think is morally wrong. And so I ask, painfully, why would it be any different with abortion? It's about individual autonomy. It's about that person's right to be seen as a whole person, with the ability to make choices for themselves, to be fully human. Have I got it? Now I'll just go keel over lol.
So, there you have it, my subordination. Oh, I forgot gay marriage, different verse same chorus. Sigh, your right to disagree with me. Two people's right to be happily buried, lol, whether I like it or not. So, may I ask, can we please go back to me being called pro-life and traditional please? I like that much better, being seen for what I am as a human being, rather than being defined by other people's views of me. Until then, I'll just go on hoping that one day, someone who is pro-choice will tell me what the sanctity of human life means to them.
Thanks for listening,
M.A. Harvey
Here's Joni:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcrEqIpi6sg
But I've gotten over it, or at least I hope I have. And he was right, as painful as it was at the time to see, he was right. If Canada or other western nations were ever Christian, they surely aren't now. So, what do we do now, people like me, people who believe in the sanctity of human life, or the sanctity of marriage, or even that a child needs a mom and dad. Do we have the right to our values, privately even?
I'm not sure. Because every time I hear my deepest core values referred to as anti-choice or anti-gay, I'm not sure I have the right to exist. I feel a little bit smaller every time, and then I feel frustrated. Why is that, that everyone seems to want to cheer for their team, and noone seems to want to admit that maybe we could learn from other people, from our differences even?
I was listening to a lecture the other day, as is my hobby, and the lecturer articulated something that's been brewing in my mind for a while now. He said that we, as Christian apologists, should be able to articulate the other sides position to their satisfaction, before we begin to say anything. What if we all tried that? I'll go first.
Allow me to do this in my own way please. Pro-choice, what does that mean? Well, I work with mentally disabled people, have for years, and what I have learned is that as hard as it is sometimes, I have to respect the people I support, their right to make choices for themselves. Even if it's a choice that I don't think is in their best interest. Even if it's a choice that I personally think is morally wrong. And so I ask, painfully, why would it be any different with abortion? It's about individual autonomy. It's about that person's right to be seen as a whole person, with the ability to make choices for themselves, to be fully human. Have I got it? Now I'll just go keel over lol.
So, there you have it, my subordination. Oh, I forgot gay marriage, different verse same chorus. Sigh, your right to disagree with me. Two people's right to be happily buried, lol, whether I like it or not. So, may I ask, can we please go back to me being called pro-life and traditional please? I like that much better, being seen for what I am as a human being, rather than being defined by other people's views of me. Until then, I'll just go on hoping that one day, someone who is pro-choice will tell me what the sanctity of human life means to them.
Thanks for listening,
M.A. Harvey
Here's Joni:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcrEqIpi6sg
Monday, March 18, 2013
til' the cows come home
Well that's new, I thought to myself, at the sight of Madonna in a boy scouts uniform. From a woman who's made a career out of challenging other people's moral standards, now wants everyone to conform to hers. Apparently she has some, who knew? Not that I disagree with what she's saying, that gay people should be treated as equal human beings, it's just new! lol. It might take a little getting used to, Madonna with a cause that is. But it does kind of go with something I've been thinking about of late, how a crowd of people who on one hand are always telling us that morality is evolving, and we must, absolutely must, adapt, seem to be the same gang of people that are offended if you disagree with them. Go figure.
But I'm not interested in arguing, been there done that, got the grey hair. So, when I was scrolling down my facebook page this morning and noticed a huff post article, where they were arguing about Sodom, and trying, as Huff Post always seems to be trying to do, to change people's perceptions of reality, I just sighed. What do I mean by that? Well, I'm not a Muslim, but one thing that Muhammad got right, was referring to Jews and Christians as people of the book. Because that's what we do, at least that's what serious Jews or Christians do, we know our own history and our own religious texts. In short, the only minds that Huff Post is going to change, I suspect, are people who don't read the Bible in the first place. That's not to say we can't have a discussion, personally I'm happy to have a discussion about the Bible anytime. What I'm saying, is that we can argue about the Bible til' the cows come home, and we're not going to be any farther ahead. Trust me on that, we protestants have been doing it for centuries. It doesn't work haha.
So what does work? Church splits work haha. Oh gosh did I just say that? But that's what we've done isn't it? Rather than kill each other over transsubstantiation or infant baptism or circumcision, we've learned to put up our own four walls, with or without idols, or is that art? Sigh. I've an ecumenical heart, I really do, as a kid who grew up, being told I was going to hell in either direction, I don't say what I'm saying lightly. But I really do think that that's where we're at here. There are going to be churches, speaking as a Christian, that are conservative on this issue, supporting the person through their temptations, and there are going to be churches who are liberal on this issue, supporting the person towards monogamous relationships. And there are going to be A LOT of church splits. That's what I expect. I've accepted that.
Where I'm hoping we can find agreement as Christians and Jews, is that members of the gay community are equal human beings, created in the image of God, just as we are. And as a humble way of supporting people who have been oppressed, just as we as religious minorities have known oppression, can find a way of supporting another community's differences with us, as we hope they will support our differences with them, and not force their values on us. My friends, that's what I think has worked historically, agreeing to disagree, and saving some discussions for another time or place.
thanks for listening,
M.A. Harvey
But I'm not interested in arguing, been there done that, got the grey hair. So, when I was scrolling down my facebook page this morning and noticed a huff post article, where they were arguing about Sodom, and trying, as Huff Post always seems to be trying to do, to change people's perceptions of reality, I just sighed. What do I mean by that? Well, I'm not a Muslim, but one thing that Muhammad got right, was referring to Jews and Christians as people of the book. Because that's what we do, at least that's what serious Jews or Christians do, we know our own history and our own religious texts. In short, the only minds that Huff Post is going to change, I suspect, are people who don't read the Bible in the first place. That's not to say we can't have a discussion, personally I'm happy to have a discussion about the Bible anytime. What I'm saying, is that we can argue about the Bible til' the cows come home, and we're not going to be any farther ahead. Trust me on that, we protestants have been doing it for centuries. It doesn't work haha.
So what does work? Church splits work haha. Oh gosh did I just say that? But that's what we've done isn't it? Rather than kill each other over transsubstantiation or infant baptism or circumcision, we've learned to put up our own four walls, with or without idols, or is that art? Sigh. I've an ecumenical heart, I really do, as a kid who grew up, being told I was going to hell in either direction, I don't say what I'm saying lightly. But I really do think that that's where we're at here. There are going to be churches, speaking as a Christian, that are conservative on this issue, supporting the person through their temptations, and there are going to be churches who are liberal on this issue, supporting the person towards monogamous relationships. And there are going to be A LOT of church splits. That's what I expect. I've accepted that.
Where I'm hoping we can find agreement as Christians and Jews, is that members of the gay community are equal human beings, created in the image of God, just as we are. And as a humble way of supporting people who have been oppressed, just as we as religious minorities have known oppression, can find a way of supporting another community's differences with us, as we hope they will support our differences with them, and not force their values on us. My friends, that's what I think has worked historically, agreeing to disagree, and saving some discussions for another time or place.
thanks for listening,
M.A. Harvey
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Destructionalism
Have you ever found yourself writing a paper or answering an exam question or worse, walking to a podium, and having absolutely no idea what you're going to say? I think I've done all three. There was one time I can think of where I was doing this music thing and I realized that night that the expectation was that I was doing the singing. I thought I was doing the playing. That was fun. lol. I can laugh about it now. I've heard it said that the trick is, is to know what you're doing well, and then the public performance part is much easier. Which is why I feel for celebrities sometimes, because most of us will never know the added pressure of being caught by the cameras on a bad day in our underwear. But I digress...
I don't really come from the sort of background that had me growing up with wonderful enriching conversations around the dinner table. I don't remember a dinner table at all much actually. And so when I got to university, I remember feeling so humbled and having such a sense of awe, that all this stuff had always been there, and I'd never known about it. A lot of people seem to recall their university days as a great beer bash, especially the school I went to, haha. Not me. I'm just happy to have gotten through...
Because I remember sitting in the university library and thinking, I know my name. I know my name, but I wasn't sure of much else. And right smack dab in the middle of my descent into nihilism somebody told me to write a paper on deconstructionism. Yeah that's right, deconstructionism. What's that you say? Well that's what I said. The only thing that I remember, umpteen years later is how hard is is to write a paper when you have no idea what you're talking about...or maybe I did, instinctively, and that's why I was struggling.
The other day, I was listening to this lecture and lo and behold, the professor explained this movement in literary criticism called, you guessed it, deconstructionism. It was my lucky day! And I got it! lol. It's not so hard actually, especially when you've had some time to think about our present postmodern culture as an adult. It's basically looking at works of art and literature, etc., and analyzing the agenda or so-called agenda of the writer(s) in question. The story beneath the story so to speak, or training to be suspicious of truth claims that result in "oppressive" grand narratives such as Christianity or Marxism. At least that's what I think it is haha, but that could just be my agenda. Regardless, I'm going to write about it, but I'm not going to spend three weeks in a pit, like I did then, because I don't think it's worth that...and here's why.
When I was a kid sitting in that library, I'd had everything I believed in fall apart, and so I was struggling to find meaning to begin with, at that time of my life, and so to be handed an assignment that basically tears down all writing as agenda driven...where do you begin with that? How does a feminist begin? How does a minority begin? How does one who is oppressed begin? If everything has an agenda, and we all have an agenda, or more fairly perhaps, we all have a perspective. And that's why that project, though I couldn't articulate it then, was resulting in a kind of paralysis, because I knew somehow that to write a paper on the agenda of writing, with an agenda of seeing an agenda would have been an agenda. And how could I possibly do that?
But maybe it only matters when it's someone else's agenda... It's funny because I was watching this news clip, maybe you've seen it, of a pro-choice audience shutting down a pro-life speaker in a Canadian university, again, this time in Waterloo. I can't seem to get that image of a talking, or was it a shouting vagina out of my head. This, on the same day that someone else put up clips of famous atheists saying that stuff like incest or infanticide or rape, hey maybe it's not so bad. Sigh. And yet these young people, God bless them, stirred up enough to wear a vagina costume, seem to believe in objective reality and objective morals. Good on them! They must, because on what other basis would you base objections to abortion or environmental degradation or demands for animal welfare- in every case? It just amazes me that they don't see that it's only a matter of time before their bluff is called, that they cannot defend anything that they are arguing for on the basis of a relativistic postmodern worldview, fully suspended in mid air. Will it be scientism or materialistic naturalism that comes to their rescue? Apparently not, because reason doesn't lead you to morality, as the new atheists are beginning to demonstrate. Where will fired up young people turn, to continue to defend their ill-evolving primordial slurpee, otherwise known as a cause? They have nowhere to turn, nowhere they want to turn (oppressive grand narratives successfully excluded), and that's why they shout and shut down discussions. I'm not saying anything here about the relevance or the importance of the above issues. I'm simply pointing out, that in the end, to see through everything is to see nothing. One man's truth claim is another man's power grab. One man's cause is another kid's commodity. But don't you believe it. That's just the leveling of destructionalism.
thanks for listening, have a great night,
M. A. Harvey
Here's that wonderful lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhfhUBg85qY
I don't really come from the sort of background that had me growing up with wonderful enriching conversations around the dinner table. I don't remember a dinner table at all much actually. And so when I got to university, I remember feeling so humbled and having such a sense of awe, that all this stuff had always been there, and I'd never known about it. A lot of people seem to recall their university days as a great beer bash, especially the school I went to, haha. Not me. I'm just happy to have gotten through...
Because I remember sitting in the university library and thinking, I know my name. I know my name, but I wasn't sure of much else. And right smack dab in the middle of my descent into nihilism somebody told me to write a paper on deconstructionism. Yeah that's right, deconstructionism. What's that you say? Well that's what I said. The only thing that I remember, umpteen years later is how hard is is to write a paper when you have no idea what you're talking about...or maybe I did, instinctively, and that's why I was struggling.
The other day, I was listening to this lecture and lo and behold, the professor explained this movement in literary criticism called, you guessed it, deconstructionism. It was my lucky day! And I got it! lol. It's not so hard actually, especially when you've had some time to think about our present postmodern culture as an adult. It's basically looking at works of art and literature, etc., and analyzing the agenda or so-called agenda of the writer(s) in question. The story beneath the story so to speak, or training to be suspicious of truth claims that result in "oppressive" grand narratives such as Christianity or Marxism. At least that's what I think it is haha, but that could just be my agenda. Regardless, I'm going to write about it, but I'm not going to spend three weeks in a pit, like I did then, because I don't think it's worth that...and here's why.
When I was a kid sitting in that library, I'd had everything I believed in fall apart, and so I was struggling to find meaning to begin with, at that time of my life, and so to be handed an assignment that basically tears down all writing as agenda driven...where do you begin with that? How does a feminist begin? How does a minority begin? How does one who is oppressed begin? If everything has an agenda, and we all have an agenda, or more fairly perhaps, we all have a perspective. And that's why that project, though I couldn't articulate it then, was resulting in a kind of paralysis, because I knew somehow that to write a paper on the agenda of writing, with an agenda of seeing an agenda would have been an agenda. And how could I possibly do that?
But maybe it only matters when it's someone else's agenda... It's funny because I was watching this news clip, maybe you've seen it, of a pro-choice audience shutting down a pro-life speaker in a Canadian university, again, this time in Waterloo. I can't seem to get that image of a talking, or was it a shouting vagina out of my head. This, on the same day that someone else put up clips of famous atheists saying that stuff like incest or infanticide or rape, hey maybe it's not so bad. Sigh. And yet these young people, God bless them, stirred up enough to wear a vagina costume, seem to believe in objective reality and objective morals. Good on them! They must, because on what other basis would you base objections to abortion or environmental degradation or demands for animal welfare- in every case? It just amazes me that they don't see that it's only a matter of time before their bluff is called, that they cannot defend anything that they are arguing for on the basis of a relativistic postmodern worldview, fully suspended in mid air. Will it be scientism or materialistic naturalism that comes to their rescue? Apparently not, because reason doesn't lead you to morality, as the new atheists are beginning to demonstrate. Where will fired up young people turn, to continue to defend their ill-evolving primordial slurpee, otherwise known as a cause? They have nowhere to turn, nowhere they want to turn (oppressive grand narratives successfully excluded), and that's why they shout and shut down discussions. I'm not saying anything here about the relevance or the importance of the above issues. I'm simply pointing out, that in the end, to see through everything is to see nothing. One man's truth claim is another man's power grab. One man's cause is another kid's commodity. But don't you believe it. That's just the leveling of destructionalism.
thanks for listening, have a great night,
M. A. Harvey
Here's that wonderful lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhfhUBg85qY
Thursday, March 14, 2013
What's in a Building?
I'm sitting here asking myself what I'm allowed to say, or what I'm supposed to say, and after several days of wondering...I'm still hesitating. So, why don't I just say what I'm thinking and you can feel free to contribute if you think you can help me understand things better. How does that sound? Here's what I'm thinking...I'm thinking about Islam and Christianity, comparing history and geography, in terms of getting to the intent of the respective founders. I feel quite confident in saying that Jesus did not teach violence as a constructive means to an end, not so sure about Mohammad. I know there are many moderate Muslims, I'm not saying otherwise. I'm just wondering why it seems that as you get farther from Mecca and Medina, Islam seems to soften, but as you get closer to it's origins, to the practice of it's founder and present day political factions...hmmn. Why does it seem that when I hear moderate Muslims speak, often they seem to be westerners, or influenced by the west? Just a question I have, if anyone can help me out. Are they re-interpreting Islam through western eyes, or are there older traditions there that I'm not aware of? Having said that, or rather asked that, I think the thing to keep in mind, the conclusion that I'm coming to, is that it's not up to me/ or us (non-Muslims) in the west to define Islam, it's up to Muslims to interpret or define Islam. We Christians have our own problems... so on to our problems. What I hear is that the church is doing amazingly well in other parts of the world. That's what I hear. If if ever get a bit of cash I'll have to travel and see a bit of that for myself, for pure encouragement, because that's not what I see here. I live in the west, have all my life, and I keep hearing about empty churches, aging denominations, church scandals, sexual abuse, it's enough to make the uninitiated, or the initiated, run in the other direction. I guess it's like the news in general, you tend to hear the bad more than the good.
As for me, I grew up in the Catholic church, sort of. I got a lot of mixed messages about religion. It was more of a cultural thing, like having a citizenship for burial, as morbid as that sounds haha. To make a long story short though, I've had a trans-denominational Christian experience over the years. I'm at a point where as long as it's within orthodoxy, it's tomato tomata to me. I'm just a Christian. But I will say that the church that I attend presently, I really love and never want to leave. It's an evangelical church (Wesleyan), one of the segment that seems to be doing better. And that's another question I have. Why is it that in the media, evangelical churches seem to be viewed negatively, but those are the ones that seem to be growing? Why is that? Why is it that the more liberal or politically correct churches aren't doing so well, generally speaking at least, the progressives aren't progressing, while the more conservative or charismatic churches are flourishing? I myself feel like I understand, when I hear that people aren't attending church. I get that, because I think that if I had stayed in the sort of church I grew up in -dead, in a word, I wouldn't go to church either. What would be the point? What's the point of going to church if you're not going to get anything out of it? And yet it seems that people still believe in God, they just don't believe in church. I can't say I blame them.
So where am I going with this? What's in a building? A while back I was listening to Tim Keller, not sure if I could find it, but I think what he was getting at was that Christianity has tended to do well when it's not institutionalized. My words, but I think that's what he was saying. That's what my opening comments were getting at too, in thinking about historic Christianity in contrast to Islam. We lost our way, arguably, when Christianity became institutionalized and politicized, but that's not how it started! And so it seems to me, that if we want to get back to our roots, is it not a fair question to ask, what did the early church look like? The early church started in homes. It was small. It was personal. The people lived together, formed close relationships, shared property, and then came Constantine, and a bloody history. I hesitate to say it was all bad, because I suspect it wasn't (stability and gradual social reform of the west being important to balance in that assesment), but we all know that it wasn't all good either. And the U.S. had this wonderful idea, separation of church and state-oh, did I say that? I must be being brainwashed by secularists haha. ("My kingdom is not of this world, give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's," sound familiar)? But as that idea is threatened, and as the lines between church and state are blurred, we have a new cultural movement that rejects religion, all religion outright. Surprise surprise, Europe saw it coming. That's my confused way of saying that I'm inspired by the early church. I know it's not simple, nothing's simple, with Islam or Christianity or any religion, but I think the church would do well to remember it's origins, to reflect on the practices of it's founder and of the early church.
Maybe I'm naive, maybe this is a very optimistic thing to suggest even, but what if we were to get back to that? What if we in the western world were to let the institutional church fall and start meeting in homes again? What if the Catholic church voluntarily sold some of those empty churches as a way of compensating victims of abuse? Is that such a crazy idea? How about an even crazier idea? What if when secularists demand taxes, we give them double, and offer them lunch -at our place? What do you think about that? Crazy, I know. I'm a little crazy, but I figure I'm in good company. Or, what if the leadership of some of those empty churches were to begin again by asking, what are the needs of the community that surrounds this building? How can these old four walls and a choir be put to better use? How can we reach out here? How can we make a difference? Childcare? Services to the poor? Care of the larger community? That's why the early church grew, because it stood in such sharp contrast to the surrounding culture? Do we?
Over the years I've found that God often meets me in the place of my own poverty. I seem to have to learn this over and over again, because I expect myself to have everything together, and it never happens, trust me. But when I allow God to meet me where I'm at, good things happen. He leads me by a path I couldn't see. What's in a building? Whatever we bring to it. Whatever we allow the holy spirit to give to us. We are the church. We are the building. We are the hands and feet of Christ, to never again be broken, regardless of how many bricks seem to be falling on our heads. On this rock..from a Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, Pentecostal Wesleyan,
thanks for listening,
M.A. Harvey
this is a song I've always liked, and I highly recommend it, but not the video, but then there's not many videos I would recommend. Haha, have a great day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgYguIi7fMI
As for me, I grew up in the Catholic church, sort of. I got a lot of mixed messages about religion. It was more of a cultural thing, like having a citizenship for burial, as morbid as that sounds haha. To make a long story short though, I've had a trans-denominational Christian experience over the years. I'm at a point where as long as it's within orthodoxy, it's tomato tomata to me. I'm just a Christian. But I will say that the church that I attend presently, I really love and never want to leave. It's an evangelical church (Wesleyan), one of the segment that seems to be doing better. And that's another question I have. Why is it that in the media, evangelical churches seem to be viewed negatively, but those are the ones that seem to be growing? Why is that? Why is it that the more liberal or politically correct churches aren't doing so well, generally speaking at least, the progressives aren't progressing, while the more conservative or charismatic churches are flourishing? I myself feel like I understand, when I hear that people aren't attending church. I get that, because I think that if I had stayed in the sort of church I grew up in -dead, in a word, I wouldn't go to church either. What would be the point? What's the point of going to church if you're not going to get anything out of it? And yet it seems that people still believe in God, they just don't believe in church. I can't say I blame them.
So where am I going with this? What's in a building? A while back I was listening to Tim Keller, not sure if I could find it, but I think what he was getting at was that Christianity has tended to do well when it's not institutionalized. My words, but I think that's what he was saying. That's what my opening comments were getting at too, in thinking about historic Christianity in contrast to Islam. We lost our way, arguably, when Christianity became institutionalized and politicized, but that's not how it started! And so it seems to me, that if we want to get back to our roots, is it not a fair question to ask, what did the early church look like? The early church started in homes. It was small. It was personal. The people lived together, formed close relationships, shared property, and then came Constantine, and a bloody history. I hesitate to say it was all bad, because I suspect it wasn't (stability and gradual social reform of the west being important to balance in that assesment), but we all know that it wasn't all good either. And the U.S. had this wonderful idea, separation of church and state-oh, did I say that? I must be being brainwashed by secularists haha. ("My kingdom is not of this world, give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's," sound familiar)? But as that idea is threatened, and as the lines between church and state are blurred, we have a new cultural movement that rejects religion, all religion outright. Surprise surprise, Europe saw it coming. That's my confused way of saying that I'm inspired by the early church. I know it's not simple, nothing's simple, with Islam or Christianity or any religion, but I think the church would do well to remember it's origins, to reflect on the practices of it's founder and of the early church.
Maybe I'm naive, maybe this is a very optimistic thing to suggest even, but what if we were to get back to that? What if we in the western world were to let the institutional church fall and start meeting in homes again? What if the Catholic church voluntarily sold some of those empty churches as a way of compensating victims of abuse? Is that such a crazy idea? How about an even crazier idea? What if when secularists demand taxes, we give them double, and offer them lunch -at our place? What do you think about that? Crazy, I know. I'm a little crazy, but I figure I'm in good company. Or, what if the leadership of some of those empty churches were to begin again by asking, what are the needs of the community that surrounds this building? How can these old four walls and a choir be put to better use? How can we reach out here? How can we make a difference? Childcare? Services to the poor? Care of the larger community? That's why the early church grew, because it stood in such sharp contrast to the surrounding culture? Do we?
Over the years I've found that God often meets me in the place of my own poverty. I seem to have to learn this over and over again, because I expect myself to have everything together, and it never happens, trust me. But when I allow God to meet me where I'm at, good things happen. He leads me by a path I couldn't see. What's in a building? Whatever we bring to it. Whatever we allow the holy spirit to give to us. We are the church. We are the building. We are the hands and feet of Christ, to never again be broken, regardless of how many bricks seem to be falling on our heads. On this rock..from a Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, Pentecostal Wesleyan,
thanks for listening,
M.A. Harvey
this is a song I've always liked, and I highly recommend it, but not the video, but then there's not many videos I would recommend. Haha, have a great day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgYguIi7fMI
Sunday, March 10, 2013
towards a new pro-life movement
towards a pro-life culture:
I've never had all that much luck forcing my views on other people, not that I tend to do that, but I guess I've had my days, where I've found myself in arguments. Maybe it was my upbringing though, more characteristically, being the youngest and the smallest in a family that couldn't communicate, how I learned to stay out of the way, that was how I survived. And so as a kid, when you go to school, you learn to stay out of the way there too, and then you get a job, or find yourself in another not so great relationship (that would have been much of my twenties), you realize that you're falling into the same old pattern. Stay out of the way, no one gets hurt. So, I was always a quiet Christian, a quiet pro-lifer, and there's nowhere where you get that, stay out of the way message, more in our culture than with the topic of abortion. Just stay out of the way, or so we tell ourselves, again and again. Don't talk about it. Pretend it isn't there. It's none of your business. Yet I feel compelled by the things I find myself writing about in mid-life because I can't help myself. I figure I either have really bad judgement, or God has a sense of humour, or maybe it's a bit of both. But if God works in mysterious ways, maybe He is healing that little four year old that was always looking for a place to hide. I think sometimes this is getting a bit easier, saying what I think that is, or maybe it isn't, depends on the day...
So, I don't like conflict. I really really don't. I don't like to offend people. I try to be positive as I'm looking at a culture, where what I believe is mud, Christianity, and telling people what they can and can't do with their own bodies is seen as unforgivable. In short, we have an image problem, Christians and pro-lifers. Yes, we do. And I guess that was what got me started doing this sort of thing, the realization that my secular minded friends wanted nothing to do with what I believed, and it had nothing to do with having love for your neighbor, or treating others the way you wish to be treated. And then I would go to church, feeling like I had been in a submarine all week, submerged in the depths of a dying culture, and find myself in a different world for a couple of hours, and then I would be back in my submarine, trying to breathe against an ocean that was gushing in. And so I find myself treading water, sinking sometimes, while trying to build a bridge between the two worlds that I find myself in.
I was listening to a little blurb a while back on You Tube with Os Guinness, where he was reflecting on a conversation that he had had with the founder of MTV, where this media giant had apparently said that if the pro-life movement were to focus on persuasion, rather than pronouncements (or legality I would add), that we would have won the abortion debate long ago. I've been thinking about this, persuasion, contrasting the typical mental images in my mind of the pro-life movement: slogans, placards, with Anne Geddes, baby photographer extraordinaire, yes that Anne Geddes. Anne Geddes knows how to market babies, lots and lots of babies, and she's done very well for herself selling stylized images of babies. Every bathroom I go into it seems, at least if it's in the house of a woman, there's Anne Geddes, selling babies again haha. I don't go gaga over babies in flower pots myself, doesn't do much for me at all actually, haha. I usually just think-that's a baby-in a flower pot, and then flush haha. Time to wash my hands. But seriously, if Anne Geddes can sell babies, why can't we? Why is it that Anne Geddes can "sell" babies, and the pro-life movement can't sell babies to save our lives, -or theirs? Just something to think about.
Something I remember learning in sociology class, about advertising or messaging, is that if it's too difficult of a message, or hits people too hard, that we tend to tune out. That was a long time ago now that I remember hearing that, but it makes sense to me, that people can only take so much emotionally, and images especially are very powerful. I know that's true with me, I have to balance how much I take in, make sure I have a couple of good sized cups of tea in me in the morning before I turn on the news, for example. So, it seems reasonable to me (that a good part of our problem as pro-lifers), that when people see images of broken children, it's too much for them, and that anger gets turned on the messenger. Why not instead show images of mothers with children, happy healthy little kids, tiny babies in utero with their little bums up, sleeping with their thumbs in their mouth? How cute is that? I just remember a friend describing her ultrasound like that haha. Or, newly adoptive parents? I'm in the final stages of what has been a difficult adoptive process, but I wouldn't change it. And I feel very humbled, knowing that I wouldn't have my little boy, if not for his mom and dad. I know it wasn't easy, but it is an option, an option that we can promote with compassion, as I know many pro-lifers do graciously, giving of their personal time and resources, to help people in crisis pregnancies. We could do all this while accepting, I'm suggesting, that we're not going to change every mind. I think that's just reality, please forgive me. But I am hoping, that if we were to focus on positives, rather than seeing this as a battle ground, that people might begin to be more open to what we're trying to say. I can dream, right?
In short, I'm not in marketing, but I always thought that if I was a business person, if I believed in a product, I could sell it. I believe in the sanctity of life, what could be more precious, what could be of greater value to safeguard, to treasure, to uphold as a culture? Life: the sanctity of human life, and the unborn potential of a tiny human being, formed in the grace of God. I don't see how you have a foundation for any other value or human right, without a culture that values life itself firstly, as an end in itself. I want to be part of creating that culture, a culture of life, a culture that inspires, that seeks to cultivate meaning and purpose, joyfully, beautifully.
I was listening to a lecture about C.S Lewis the other day, and the professor commented that C.S. Lewis remains a very influential and inspiriting writer, probably because he was very good at combining ideas or reason with imagination. It brought to mind the words of an adult friend reminiscing about his childhood and how at 11 years of age he would read and reread the Narnia books, as he expressed, recalling longingly, "I want to go to Narnia!" I don't remember hearing about the Narnia books until I was grown, but I want to meet Aslan too, and that's coming from a middle aged woman haha. Wouldn't that be great, to meet Aslan, face to face? Hmmn. I've had enough of this angst filled misery of dejection that they call art these days, the pop songs say it all about where our culture is at. How long can a society go on, tearing itself down, turning in on itself, questioning everything, while building nothing? I've had enough of the teeming white noise, the pulsating rhythms that go nowhere, the posturing without harmony, the words without melody, the screams without meaning. I want to be part of creating a culture that inspires rather than repulses, that motivates and uplifts. But how do you do that, and where do you find that, when it seems like everything is broken, with no handbook in sight? Well, one final thought from Guinness about how interesting it is, that while we in the west are cutting ourselves off from our Christian roots, that many parts of the world are embracing that very foundation, our historic foundation. I don't know if the west will ever reclaim it's Judeo-Christian heritage, but I would hope that the church itself could have a new awakening, and maybe that's all that matters, that we awake from our slumber, and that Aslan is on the move.
thanks for listening,
M.A. Harvey
C.S. Lewis quote:
“They say Aslan is on the move - perhaps has already landed.”
And now a very curious thing happened. None of the children knew who Aslan was any more than you do; but the moment the Beaver had spoken these words everyone felt quite different. Perhaps it has sometimes happened to you in a dream that someone says something which you don't understand but in the dream it feels as if it had some enormous meaning - either a terrifying one which turns the whole dream into a nightmare or else a lovely meaning too lovely to put into words, which makes the dream so beautiful that you remember it all your life and are always wishing you could get into that dream again. It was like that now. At the name of Aslan each one of the children felt something jump in its inside. Edmund felt a sensation of mysterious horror. Peter felt suddenly brave and adventurous. Susan felt as if some delicious smell or some delightful strain of music had just floated by her. And Lucy got the feeling you have when you wake up in the morning and realize that it is the beginning of the holidays or the beginning of summer.
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe – Chapter 7
Sources:
Art Linsley on C.S. Lewis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07kivp6EuqM
Os Guinness: The Christian church and the western world
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3-qimjJC3E
Os Guinness on apologetics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlzFa8YeN40
I've never had all that much luck forcing my views on other people, not that I tend to do that, but I guess I've had my days, where I've found myself in arguments. Maybe it was my upbringing though, more characteristically, being the youngest and the smallest in a family that couldn't communicate, how I learned to stay out of the way, that was how I survived. And so as a kid, when you go to school, you learn to stay out of the way there too, and then you get a job, or find yourself in another not so great relationship (that would have been much of my twenties), you realize that you're falling into the same old pattern. Stay out of the way, no one gets hurt. So, I was always a quiet Christian, a quiet pro-lifer, and there's nowhere where you get that, stay out of the way message, more in our culture than with the topic of abortion. Just stay out of the way, or so we tell ourselves, again and again. Don't talk about it. Pretend it isn't there. It's none of your business. Yet I feel compelled by the things I find myself writing about in mid-life because I can't help myself. I figure I either have really bad judgement, or God has a sense of humour, or maybe it's a bit of both. But if God works in mysterious ways, maybe He is healing that little four year old that was always looking for a place to hide. I think sometimes this is getting a bit easier, saying what I think that is, or maybe it isn't, depends on the day...
So, I don't like conflict. I really really don't. I don't like to offend people. I try to be positive as I'm looking at a culture, where what I believe is mud, Christianity, and telling people what they can and can't do with their own bodies is seen as unforgivable. In short, we have an image problem, Christians and pro-lifers. Yes, we do. And I guess that was what got me started doing this sort of thing, the realization that my secular minded friends wanted nothing to do with what I believed, and it had nothing to do with having love for your neighbor, or treating others the way you wish to be treated. And then I would go to church, feeling like I had been in a submarine all week, submerged in the depths of a dying culture, and find myself in a different world for a couple of hours, and then I would be back in my submarine, trying to breathe against an ocean that was gushing in. And so I find myself treading water, sinking sometimes, while trying to build a bridge between the two worlds that I find myself in.
I was listening to a little blurb a while back on You Tube with Os Guinness, where he was reflecting on a conversation that he had had with the founder of MTV, where this media giant had apparently said that if the pro-life movement were to focus on persuasion, rather than pronouncements (or legality I would add), that we would have won the abortion debate long ago. I've been thinking about this, persuasion, contrasting the typical mental images in my mind of the pro-life movement: slogans, placards, with Anne Geddes, baby photographer extraordinaire, yes that Anne Geddes. Anne Geddes knows how to market babies, lots and lots of babies, and she's done very well for herself selling stylized images of babies. Every bathroom I go into it seems, at least if it's in the house of a woman, there's Anne Geddes, selling babies again haha. I don't go gaga over babies in flower pots myself, doesn't do much for me at all actually, haha. I usually just think-that's a baby-in a flower pot, and then flush haha. Time to wash my hands. But seriously, if Anne Geddes can sell babies, why can't we? Why is it that Anne Geddes can "sell" babies, and the pro-life movement can't sell babies to save our lives, -or theirs? Just something to think about.
Something I remember learning in sociology class, about advertising or messaging, is that if it's too difficult of a message, or hits people too hard, that we tend to tune out. That was a long time ago now that I remember hearing that, but it makes sense to me, that people can only take so much emotionally, and images especially are very powerful. I know that's true with me, I have to balance how much I take in, make sure I have a couple of good sized cups of tea in me in the morning before I turn on the news, for example. So, it seems reasonable to me (that a good part of our problem as pro-lifers), that when people see images of broken children, it's too much for them, and that anger gets turned on the messenger. Why not instead show images of mothers with children, happy healthy little kids, tiny babies in utero with their little bums up, sleeping with their thumbs in their mouth? How cute is that? I just remember a friend describing her ultrasound like that haha. Or, newly adoptive parents? I'm in the final stages of what has been a difficult adoptive process, but I wouldn't change it. And I feel very humbled, knowing that I wouldn't have my little boy, if not for his mom and dad. I know it wasn't easy, but it is an option, an option that we can promote with compassion, as I know many pro-lifers do graciously, giving of their personal time and resources, to help people in crisis pregnancies. We could do all this while accepting, I'm suggesting, that we're not going to change every mind. I think that's just reality, please forgive me. But I am hoping, that if we were to focus on positives, rather than seeing this as a battle ground, that people might begin to be more open to what we're trying to say. I can dream, right?
In short, I'm not in marketing, but I always thought that if I was a business person, if I believed in a product, I could sell it. I believe in the sanctity of life, what could be more precious, what could be of greater value to safeguard, to treasure, to uphold as a culture? Life: the sanctity of human life, and the unborn potential of a tiny human being, formed in the grace of God. I don't see how you have a foundation for any other value or human right, without a culture that values life itself firstly, as an end in itself. I want to be part of creating that culture, a culture of life, a culture that inspires, that seeks to cultivate meaning and purpose, joyfully, beautifully.
I was listening to a lecture about C.S Lewis the other day, and the professor commented that C.S. Lewis remains a very influential and inspiriting writer, probably because he was very good at combining ideas or reason with imagination. It brought to mind the words of an adult friend reminiscing about his childhood and how at 11 years of age he would read and reread the Narnia books, as he expressed, recalling longingly, "I want to go to Narnia!" I don't remember hearing about the Narnia books until I was grown, but I want to meet Aslan too, and that's coming from a middle aged woman haha. Wouldn't that be great, to meet Aslan, face to face? Hmmn. I've had enough of this angst filled misery of dejection that they call art these days, the pop songs say it all about where our culture is at. How long can a society go on, tearing itself down, turning in on itself, questioning everything, while building nothing? I've had enough of the teeming white noise, the pulsating rhythms that go nowhere, the posturing without harmony, the words without melody, the screams without meaning. I want to be part of creating a culture that inspires rather than repulses, that motivates and uplifts. But how do you do that, and where do you find that, when it seems like everything is broken, with no handbook in sight? Well, one final thought from Guinness about how interesting it is, that while we in the west are cutting ourselves off from our Christian roots, that many parts of the world are embracing that very foundation, our historic foundation. I don't know if the west will ever reclaim it's Judeo-Christian heritage, but I would hope that the church itself could have a new awakening, and maybe that's all that matters, that we awake from our slumber, and that Aslan is on the move.
thanks for listening,
M.A. Harvey
C.S. Lewis quote:
“They say Aslan is on the move - perhaps has already landed.”
And now a very curious thing happened. None of the children knew who Aslan was any more than you do; but the moment the Beaver had spoken these words everyone felt quite different. Perhaps it has sometimes happened to you in a dream that someone says something which you don't understand but in the dream it feels as if it had some enormous meaning - either a terrifying one which turns the whole dream into a nightmare or else a lovely meaning too lovely to put into words, which makes the dream so beautiful that you remember it all your life and are always wishing you could get into that dream again. It was like that now. At the name of Aslan each one of the children felt something jump in its inside. Edmund felt a sensation of mysterious horror. Peter felt suddenly brave and adventurous. Susan felt as if some delicious smell or some delightful strain of music had just floated by her. And Lucy got the feeling you have when you wake up in the morning and realize that it is the beginning of the holidays or the beginning of summer.
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe – Chapter 7
Sources:
Art Linsley on C.S. Lewis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07kivp6EuqM
Os Guinness: The Christian church and the western world
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3-qimjJC3E
Os Guinness on apologetics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlzFa8YeN40
Thursday, March 7, 2013
The desanctification of Mother Teresa
I'm inspired, like so many others by the life of Mother Teresa. The thought that a young woman would leave everything she had, both relationally and materially, to go to a distant foreign part of the world to serve the poorest of the poor. I couldn't do it. I know I couldn't do it. I was leaving the house the other day and glanced at my front closet and I remembered the words of Jesus, to give that second coat to the poor, and did I? No. Will I? Not likely. I struggle as a Christian, to reconcile living in a modern age with modern comforts, a consumer culture, with the teachings of Christ. How radical they are. How uncomfortable they make me. Gandhi understood this. A Hindu, in many ways he lived up to the teachings of Christ, better than I ever will, and I know it. What I have heard is that when Mother Teresa died, all that she had in terms of her personal belongings...was so little. All that she had, this tiny person, when she picked up that first broken dying body were her own hands, her own body, her own life. And so I struggle to understand why it is that modern comfortable academics and writers would seek to subject a woman who gave everything she had to help the poorest of the poor, to such scathing ridicule and criticism.
Could she have done some things differently? Probably. Could there be some legitimate criticisms there? It sounds like there is. Denying people pain medication, I'd be inclined to agree there, because I know I would want them. Lack of medical training? I can believe that. Could she have had some blind spots or character weaknesses even? Sure, don't we all? I know I do. Took money from not so nice people? Okay, but isn't it better that money was then being used to help people? Isn't it? Opposition to birth control, abortion, divorce, does a Catholic or a Catholic organization have the right to operate according to their own beliefs? A lack of supplies or medicines or unsanitary conditions? Okay, but is it possible that here you have a western or generational or cultural expectation of a woman who began caring for the poor in India in 1948! Here's my question. Who else was doing it? Who else was offering palliative care to the poorest of the poor in that part of the world at that time? And that's where it seems so disproportionate to me, and so obvious that these people are not interested in looking at the whole picture. I can't speak for the writers of this more recent study, but in the case of the late Christopher Hitchens, who described himself as an "anti-theist," he was interested in tearing down her public image. That bias must be acknowledged. As someone who's self stated personal agenda is to demonstrate that religion itself is the source of the world's troubles: Mother Teresa is a problem in what she represents. A great symbol of the good of religion, how it appeals to our better angels, our higher voices, how it inspires the good in us, makes us want to be better people, better than we are. In short, I'm not saying that Mother Teresa couldn't have learned from some of her critics, but I think that both they and our own decadent culture could stand to learn a lot more from her example. And it saddens me, that young people may not have that opportunity as that image is torn down. Failings considered, Mother Teresa remains a great role model, who in her own doubts and uncertainty, pain and suffering, limitations and failings, continued to endure and to serve. Her's is great story of faith, of selflessness and devotion, of courage and of hope.
I remember when the student protests over tuition hikes were ongoing in the province of Quebec, which has the lowest tuition costs in Canada, possibly North America, and a friend of mine who is also from Quebec said " I wonder if you were to ask those students, now shutting down a province, how many of them have a smart phone...that would be the approximate cost of the tuition hikes." Interesting question, isn't it, the same province that at least some of this study is coming out of. Sigh. Better question, how many of those young people would leave their families, knowing that they will never see them again, to go to India, to pick up the broken body of a stranger, so that that person can die with dignity? Where would they find the inspiration to do that? Virgin Mobile? Telus? Rogers? Bell mobility?
Thanks for listening,
M.A. Harvey
Here's the recent study I was referring to.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/mother-teresa-was-anything-but-a-saint-new-canadian-study-claims/article9317551/
and a basic bio outline of Mother Teresa's life.
http://history1900s.about.com/od/people/a/motherteresa.htm
Could she have done some things differently? Probably. Could there be some legitimate criticisms there? It sounds like there is. Denying people pain medication, I'd be inclined to agree there, because I know I would want them. Lack of medical training? I can believe that. Could she have had some blind spots or character weaknesses even? Sure, don't we all? I know I do. Took money from not so nice people? Okay, but isn't it better that money was then being used to help people? Isn't it? Opposition to birth control, abortion, divorce, does a Catholic or a Catholic organization have the right to operate according to their own beliefs? A lack of supplies or medicines or unsanitary conditions? Okay, but is it possible that here you have a western or generational or cultural expectation of a woman who began caring for the poor in India in 1948! Here's my question. Who else was doing it? Who else was offering palliative care to the poorest of the poor in that part of the world at that time? And that's where it seems so disproportionate to me, and so obvious that these people are not interested in looking at the whole picture. I can't speak for the writers of this more recent study, but in the case of the late Christopher Hitchens, who described himself as an "anti-theist," he was interested in tearing down her public image. That bias must be acknowledged. As someone who's self stated personal agenda is to demonstrate that religion itself is the source of the world's troubles: Mother Teresa is a problem in what she represents. A great symbol of the good of religion, how it appeals to our better angels, our higher voices, how it inspires the good in us, makes us want to be better people, better than we are. In short, I'm not saying that Mother Teresa couldn't have learned from some of her critics, but I think that both they and our own decadent culture could stand to learn a lot more from her example. And it saddens me, that young people may not have that opportunity as that image is torn down. Failings considered, Mother Teresa remains a great role model, who in her own doubts and uncertainty, pain and suffering, limitations and failings, continued to endure and to serve. Her's is great story of faith, of selflessness and devotion, of courage and of hope.
I remember when the student protests over tuition hikes were ongoing in the province of Quebec, which has the lowest tuition costs in Canada, possibly North America, and a friend of mine who is also from Quebec said " I wonder if you were to ask those students, now shutting down a province, how many of them have a smart phone...that would be the approximate cost of the tuition hikes." Interesting question, isn't it, the same province that at least some of this study is coming out of. Sigh. Better question, how many of those young people would leave their families, knowing that they will never see them again, to go to India, to pick up the broken body of a stranger, so that that person can die with dignity? Where would they find the inspiration to do that? Virgin Mobile? Telus? Rogers? Bell mobility?
Thanks for listening,
M.A. Harvey
Here's the recent study I was referring to.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/mother-teresa-was-anything-but-a-saint-new-canadian-study-claims/article9317551/
and a basic bio outline of Mother Teresa's life.
http://history1900s.about.com/od/people/a/motherteresa.htm
Friday, March 1, 2013
A Caregiver's Prayer
I'm a support worker, that's what I do for a living. I've worked in care pretty much all of my adult life, with children for a while, and now with my own children, as well as having worked in long-term care facilities with persons with mental disabilities. Very simple work, nothing glamorous. I help people get their breakfast, help people with their personal care, help people take their medications. If I'm being honest, I've often wondered if I should be doing something more with my life, trying to climb that golden ladder so to speak. Maybe I'm a slacker, or maybe I was influenced by Jean Vanier in my early twenties, who talked about going down the ladder, so I never bothered going up the ladder in the first place haha. So here I am, on the bottom, approaching 40, staring at the ladder occasionally and wondering. But whenever a college flyer comes by I find I skim through it, through the bulk of IT programs or business courses and I think yuck, I don't want to do that! And I find myself drawn as usual to the little artsy sections, and the social service programs, that I seem to have learned the hard way anyway. So here I am, with my heart in the same place, a caregiver at home and at work, 24/ 7, and I probably wouldn't change all that much.
Over the years, many of the people who I've gotten close to in my work have been getting older. Most of them have passed away now. My middle daughter Susie, is named for one of those little down syndrome people who have a way of stealing my heart. My goodness Susie (the first) was stubborn, just like my kids, just like me. There was no way I was going to get Susie (the first) to do anything that she did not want to do, and that was the end of it. She would sit down, cross her legs, begin to ever so slowly shake her head, say no once, firmly, and begin to rock back and forth, back and forth while she stared off into space... and then she would ignore me haha. Maybe she taught me something, because when I was younger I think I had this idea that I could change people, and I was wrong. Boy was I wrong haha. I remember one day getting heck from a medical secretary for not getting Susie to an appointment, and being young I had no idea what to say. Now I might suggest she come on over and try herself haha. Or better yet, the day another individual was refusing her oxygen, while her oxygen levels were going through the floor, so you call an ambulance at a doctor's insistence, and then you get heck from the paramedics. Whaddaya' do?
Anyway, but you know over the years I've developed a little motto," I do my best, and God does the rest." Because I've found that when I try to do everything, when I try to be everything to other people, even thinking about expectations sometimes I get overwhelmed, because I can't do it all. Sigh. I can't do it all. I can't be all things to all people, I can't be everything for my kids. I can't be everything at work. I get tired, and then I get cranky. But as a mother, I tell my kids all the time, your mom's not perfect, but your mom loves you, and hope it's enough. And here's where my little apologetic comes in, when I hear people say, religion is a crutch, religion is a crutch for weak people, I say right on! It most definitely is, because people need support, people have emotional and spiritual needs that a neck-up ideology doesn't begin to acknowledge let alone begin to offer comfort for a dying child. People who work in care know that any strength that human beings have is temporary, we are born weak needing care and we will die weak, if we're lucky, in the arms of someone who cares for us. And some people need life long care. Heck, we all need life long care, from doctors, from nurses, from friends, from loved ones, from our grocer, to our banker, to our plumber to a farmer for our mechanic. Few of us could survive completely on our own. There's nothing wrong with having spiritual needs, emotional needs, it's what makes us human. I was driving by a church in my neighborhood a few weeks ago and there on their little billboard was my slogan, or one very similar and I thought hey, they stole my motto haha. I smiled and nodded, repeating "I do my best, God does the rest," quietly as a little prayer for all the caregivers among us.
This one's for you,
Margaret Ann Harvey
Over the years, many of the people who I've gotten close to in my work have been getting older. Most of them have passed away now. My middle daughter Susie, is named for one of those little down syndrome people who have a way of stealing my heart. My goodness Susie (the first) was stubborn, just like my kids, just like me. There was no way I was going to get Susie (the first) to do anything that she did not want to do, and that was the end of it. She would sit down, cross her legs, begin to ever so slowly shake her head, say no once, firmly, and begin to rock back and forth, back and forth while she stared off into space... and then she would ignore me haha. Maybe she taught me something, because when I was younger I think I had this idea that I could change people, and I was wrong. Boy was I wrong haha. I remember one day getting heck from a medical secretary for not getting Susie to an appointment, and being young I had no idea what to say. Now I might suggest she come on over and try herself haha. Or better yet, the day another individual was refusing her oxygen, while her oxygen levels were going through the floor, so you call an ambulance at a doctor's insistence, and then you get heck from the paramedics. Whaddaya' do?
Anyway, but you know over the years I've developed a little motto," I do my best, and God does the rest." Because I've found that when I try to do everything, when I try to be everything to other people, even thinking about expectations sometimes I get overwhelmed, because I can't do it all. Sigh. I can't do it all. I can't be all things to all people, I can't be everything for my kids. I can't be everything at work. I get tired, and then I get cranky. But as a mother, I tell my kids all the time, your mom's not perfect, but your mom loves you, and hope it's enough. And here's where my little apologetic comes in, when I hear people say, religion is a crutch, religion is a crutch for weak people, I say right on! It most definitely is, because people need support, people have emotional and spiritual needs that a neck-up ideology doesn't begin to acknowledge let alone begin to offer comfort for a dying child. People who work in care know that any strength that human beings have is temporary, we are born weak needing care and we will die weak, if we're lucky, in the arms of someone who cares for us. And some people need life long care. Heck, we all need life long care, from doctors, from nurses, from friends, from loved ones, from our grocer, to our banker, to our plumber to a farmer for our mechanic. Few of us could survive completely on our own. There's nothing wrong with having spiritual needs, emotional needs, it's what makes us human. I was driving by a church in my neighborhood a few weeks ago and there on their little billboard was my slogan, or one very similar and I thought hey, they stole my motto haha. I smiled and nodded, repeating "I do my best, God does the rest," quietly as a little prayer for all the caregivers among us.
This one's for you,
Margaret Ann Harvey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)