While on vacation this week, I got a refresh on my most recent item of "body art", as they call it. (By the way, this one is entirely theological in nature, as befits a Seminarian). As it dried following the first application earlier this year, there were a couple of spots where the ink didn't cover quite all the way. The artist warranted the work, so it was just a matter of screwing up the courage to go "under the needle" again, in what is admittedly a pretty sensitive spot. So I figured that a few days of vacation spent at home, with no serious agenda other than writing a research paper and winterizing a screened porch, might be the best time I'll have to deal with it.
Ow.
I had forgotten the intensity of the pain. But, I rationalized that since there was really not much in terms of monetary cost spent on the thing, and since you don't usually value something that doesn't cost you something... a little more pain would give it real value. :)
Ow.
More than a little. But now it should be good for about 10 years. And I can't picture wanting to do this again anytime soon.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Sunday, November 20, 2011
The Last Imperialists
In one of my recent Seminary classes, I studied the nature of imperialism and what it might look like today. The Roman Empire was certainly one historical example, as were the Ottoman, Spanish and British versions later on, followed by German and Japanese attempts, as well as one by the former Soviet Union. The authors in my class argued that the empire du jour is not one nation gobbling up a bunch of others as colonies, but Global Consumerism, facilitated by the advance forces of American Democracy and the internet.
An argument could be made that the American desire to advance our interests (and Democracy) around the world is a type of imperialism. We here see it as benign, even benevolent, but it could also be seen as imperial, for it involves us deciding what is right and what is best for everyone else. And... it does involve establishing a military presence in the territories of our allies (who may at one point have been enemies, but once conquered, became our friends).
The news this week was that our "progressive" President, Mr. Obama, has joined the long tradition of making strategic deals with allies to establish military outposts far from our shores (much like the Romans did... before they fell from neglect of the empire's internal health). This time it was the Australians who get to have our Marines in situ (in exchange, no doubt, for some unspecified amount of foreign aid and favorable trade treatment) - 2,500 of them in fact.
I wonder: why is it that we are the only nation who can do this at will? Why can we freely rest our hand on the neck of our "friends" as we walk along (like I used to do with my son when I wanted to get him to do what I thought would be best for him...and me)?
Why is it that England doesn't have a base for their Marines along Cape Cod? Why doesn't Japan have troops and planes in Honolulu? Why doesn't Germany have a forward air base near Columbus? I mean... they're our allies now, right? Just because we defeated them once doesn't mean we can't share space, especially since we have plenty of it, and they don't. Why not lease them some of our Federal lands, receive a little foreign aid to help offset our deficit, and let them put some troops here?
I believe that the doctrine of "American Exceptionalism" is the reason. Only we can be in charge of the world, because... we're specially suited to do so. Called to the task by God, even.
Newt Gingrich is an ardent supporter of this idea, as are some Christian Fundamentalists (which Newt... is definitely not). Both can be military hawks for this very reason. Our troops around the world are an extension of who we are as a country. They perform humanitarian functions, and keep the peace (after we knock out the bad guys). We exert a generous spirit, provide moral influence and give benevolent direction. We are born to rule, we are fit for the throne (oops.. excuse me.. I mean "take a leadership role").
Of all the GOP candidates running for President, there is one who sees things differently on this subject - different than the GOP establishment, and different from President Obama. Guess who?
See you on caucus night. :)
An argument could be made that the American desire to advance our interests (and Democracy) around the world is a type of imperialism. We here see it as benign, even benevolent, but it could also be seen as imperial, for it involves us deciding what is right and what is best for everyone else. And... it does involve establishing a military presence in the territories of our allies (who may at one point have been enemies, but once conquered, became our friends).
The news this week was that our "progressive" President, Mr. Obama, has joined the long tradition of making strategic deals with allies to establish military outposts far from our shores (much like the Romans did... before they fell from neglect of the empire's internal health). This time it was the Australians who get to have our Marines in situ (in exchange, no doubt, for some unspecified amount of foreign aid and favorable trade treatment) - 2,500 of them in fact.
I wonder: why is it that we are the only nation who can do this at will? Why can we freely rest our hand on the neck of our "friends" as we walk along (like I used to do with my son when I wanted to get him to do what I thought would be best for him...and me)?
Why is it that England doesn't have a base for their Marines along Cape Cod? Why doesn't Japan have troops and planes in Honolulu? Why doesn't Germany have a forward air base near Columbus? I mean... they're our allies now, right? Just because we defeated them once doesn't mean we can't share space, especially since we have plenty of it, and they don't. Why not lease them some of our Federal lands, receive a little foreign aid to help offset our deficit, and let them put some troops here?
I believe that the doctrine of "American Exceptionalism" is the reason. Only we can be in charge of the world, because... we're specially suited to do so. Called to the task by God, even.
Newt Gingrich is an ardent supporter of this idea, as are some Christian Fundamentalists (which Newt... is definitely not). Both can be military hawks for this very reason. Our troops around the world are an extension of who we are as a country. They perform humanitarian functions, and keep the peace (after we knock out the bad guys). We exert a generous spirit, provide moral influence and give benevolent direction. We are born to rule, we are fit for the throne (oops.. excuse me.. I mean "take a leadership role").
Of all the GOP candidates running for President, there is one who sees things differently on this subject - different than the GOP establishment, and different from President Obama. Guess who?
See you on caucus night. :)
Monday, November 14, 2011
The Newtster
More evidence that politics in Iowa is unlike that of any other state.
One of the GOP contenders dropped in for lunch today.
It may well be the beginning of a parade of them, who knows?
I'm certainly going to see if Ron Paul will come for lunch, too. :)
He shared a few thoughts on the Debt Super Committee, took a few questions, posed for some pics and signed some autographs. Nice little 45 minute visit.
I have to say that Mr. Gingrich did a credible job today. He is a serious political rainmaker. In fact, I think that of all the candidates, Newt has the potential to have the greatest impact on the country. I'm just not sure it's the right impact.
It was a closed event (the public was not invited), but the media was sure there in force. All sorts of them, from Iowa Public Radio, to local network affiliates, to the lady in the left foreground:
She works for the Swedish News Service or some such organization. And had the accent to match. Fascinated with American politics, apparently, is posted in the US to report on it, but had never been outside Washington, DC before. This ain't the big city, hon. This here is farm country.
I suppose she would be fascinated, given that her country has one of the last Kings on the planet as a leader. I would bet that King Whateversen of Sweden doesn't drop in for lunch with the commoners very much.
One of the GOP contenders dropped in for lunch today.
It may well be the beginning of a parade of them, who knows?
I'm certainly going to see if Ron Paul will come for lunch, too. :)
He shared a few thoughts on the Debt Super Committee, took a few questions, posed for some pics and signed some autographs. Nice little 45 minute visit.
I have to say that Mr. Gingrich did a credible job today. He is a serious political rainmaker. In fact, I think that of all the candidates, Newt has the potential to have the greatest impact on the country. I'm just not sure it's the right impact.
It was a closed event (the public was not invited), but the media was sure there in force. All sorts of them, from Iowa Public Radio, to local network affiliates, to the lady in the left foreground:
She works for the Swedish News Service or some such organization. And had the accent to match. Fascinated with American politics, apparently, is posted in the US to report on it, but had never been outside Washington, DC before. This ain't the big city, hon. This here is farm country.
I suppose she would be fascinated, given that her country has one of the last Kings on the planet as a leader. I would bet that King Whateversen of Sweden doesn't drop in for lunch with the commoners very much.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Join the Club
The church club. Or not. Suit yourself.
Apparently church membership is becoming passe' for Gen Xers and younger. Or so this article states. I can sort of relate. With church membership today, particularly in Protestant circles, there is an expectation of committment with no real benefits other than sort of... feeling committed.
Really, today's churches are so eager to have people in the pews (or folding chairs, in the circles I run in) that you can have all the "benefits" that members have if you simply show up mostly regularly. You can get to know people, you can come to group activities, bring a dish to pass at the potlucks, volunteer in different ministry areas, listen to the preaching/teaching, join in the singing, stay for coffee and cookies, take a class, etc., all without joining.
I mean, it's not like it used to be when church and state were joined at the hip and you essentially needed church membership to be a citizen in good standing in the community. Heck, they kept all the birth/death/marriage records on behalf of the government! It's like they were the Census Department - just outsourced. Today, what do you get if you join a church?
The stock answer is: "you get to be part of a community." Okay, well, you get to be that as a regular attender, too. Nobody will stop you from diving in and making friends. "Oh. Well, you get to hold a leadership position, lead a ministry area." Guess what? Lots of churches let you do that, too, without membership. They need volunteers, so they're not all that picky! Right now I am up on the platform, helping lead, once a month in two different churches, both without signing any kind of membership agreement.
The only real privilege that is withheld from the non-member is... voting rights. You can't vote on church business without being a member. However, you CAN usually come to congregational meetings, and normally you can speak. It's just that when they call the question, you have to hold your peace.
Now, to achieve voting rights, you have to go through classes, be interviewed by leadership, agree to the doctrinal statement, promise to financially support the church, to have and to hold, for richer for poorer, etc. Seems to me like the reward (voting rights, and maybe a round of applause in welcome) is not commensurate with the effort and scrutiny needed to obtain it. Especially since everything but voting rights (including affirmation by others) is yours just for showing up.
I think the Gen Xers and younger have figured this one out. Being part of a church today is like living together without benefit of marriage. In a consumerist society, where churches compete in the marketplace of programs and services... and when they are eager for the financial support of regular attenders... and when regular attenders have lots of other options... they are likely not going to withhold anything of benefit from the attender.
In other words, when it comes to what attendees really want, the church is not "saving anything for marriage". Plus, since there are no real consequences to leaving and going to another church (at least no consequences with any teeth), nothing will stop a "member" from leaving if they are hurt or disillusioned, except maybe their own internal level of committment (which is not likely to be due simply to their signature on the form). Divorce from your local church is easy.
The church today needs a different model than the "friends with benefits" one they use now. The "retail sales model" of having as many as possible experience our programs, attend regularly (and thereby become repeat buyers, loyal customers) isn't so great either; you're always persuading. Maybe the church should instead adopt more of a "beta testing" model, and cautiously extend invitations to join this little not-quite-perfect experiment: an alternative community that actually tries to model the Kingdom of God the way Jesus taught it.
Apparently church membership is becoming passe' for Gen Xers and younger. Or so this article states. I can sort of relate. With church membership today, particularly in Protestant circles, there is an expectation of committment with no real benefits other than sort of... feeling committed.
Really, today's churches are so eager to have people in the pews (or folding chairs, in the circles I run in) that you can have all the "benefits" that members have if you simply show up mostly regularly. You can get to know people, you can come to group activities, bring a dish to pass at the potlucks, volunteer in different ministry areas, listen to the preaching/teaching, join in the singing, stay for coffee and cookies, take a class, etc., all without joining.
I mean, it's not like it used to be when church and state were joined at the hip and you essentially needed church membership to be a citizen in good standing in the community. Heck, they kept all the birth/death/marriage records on behalf of the government! It's like they were the Census Department - just outsourced. Today, what do you get if you join a church?
The stock answer is: "you get to be part of a community." Okay, well, you get to be that as a regular attender, too. Nobody will stop you from diving in and making friends. "Oh. Well, you get to hold a leadership position, lead a ministry area." Guess what? Lots of churches let you do that, too, without membership. They need volunteers, so they're not all that picky! Right now I am up on the platform, helping lead, once a month in two different churches, both without signing any kind of membership agreement.
The only real privilege that is withheld from the non-member is... voting rights. You can't vote on church business without being a member. However, you CAN usually come to congregational meetings, and normally you can speak. It's just that when they call the question, you have to hold your peace.
Now, to achieve voting rights, you have to go through classes, be interviewed by leadership, agree to the doctrinal statement, promise to financially support the church, to have and to hold, for richer for poorer, etc. Seems to me like the reward (voting rights, and maybe a round of applause in welcome) is not commensurate with the effort and scrutiny needed to obtain it. Especially since everything but voting rights (including affirmation by others) is yours just for showing up.
I think the Gen Xers and younger have figured this one out. Being part of a church today is like living together without benefit of marriage. In a consumerist society, where churches compete in the marketplace of programs and services... and when they are eager for the financial support of regular attenders... and when regular attenders have lots of other options... they are likely not going to withhold anything of benefit from the attender.
In other words, when it comes to what attendees really want, the church is not "saving anything for marriage". Plus, since there are no real consequences to leaving and going to another church (at least no consequences with any teeth), nothing will stop a "member" from leaving if they are hurt or disillusioned, except maybe their own internal level of committment (which is not likely to be due simply to their signature on the form). Divorce from your local church is easy.
The church today needs a different model than the "friends with benefits" one they use now. The "retail sales model" of having as many as possible experience our programs, attend regularly (and thereby become repeat buyers, loyal customers) isn't so great either; you're always persuading. Maybe the church should instead adopt more of a "beta testing" model, and cautiously extend invitations to join this little not-quite-perfect experiment: an alternative community that actually tries to model the Kingdom of God the way Jesus taught it.
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Fall Formation
This last weekend it was retreat time again. My annual excursion into the wilderness and isolation that is my own mysterious and willful heart. :) It's always a time of reflection and contemplation, and often a time of communion, too - with nature and the God who made it.
A Franciscan retreat center was the site this time. The accomodations were plain, as usual, but perfectly adequate for my needs.
Smallish, but comfortable.
And in the midst of some beautiful grounds, bursting with Fall color.
At this center there was a very nice labyrinth, which I walked twice.. once on the first day and once on the last. The first time in holy fear, and the second in an openness to listen. My current Seminary class is all about integrative formation, bringing multiple disciplines to bear on my becoming whole and holy. This tactile experience of meditating while walking in an ancient pattern from many centuries before me was but one such discipline.
There was a simple old chapel house on the grounds, with the altar lovingly restored. Beautiful.
And besides the human-crafted beauty, there was that magnificent beauty crafted by the Creator. Exquisite.
I love the Autumn. And the chance to be formed in the midst of it.
A Franciscan retreat center was the site this time. The accomodations were plain, as usual, but perfectly adequate for my needs.
Smallish, but comfortable.
And in the midst of some beautiful grounds, bursting with Fall color.
At this center there was a very nice labyrinth, which I walked twice.. once on the first day and once on the last. The first time in holy fear, and the second in an openness to listen. My current Seminary class is all about integrative formation, bringing multiple disciplines to bear on my becoming whole and holy. This tactile experience of meditating while walking in an ancient pattern from many centuries before me was but one such discipline.
There was a simple old chapel house on the grounds, with the altar lovingly restored. Beautiful.
And besides the human-crafted beauty, there was that magnificent beauty crafted by the Creator. Exquisite.
I love the Autumn. And the chance to be formed in the midst of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)