I listen to NPR quite a bit. Since I'm driving to/from work roughly the same time each day Tuesday thru Saturday, I'm usually listening to Morning Edition and All Things Considered, two of NPR's flagship programs that mainly deal with news stories. They're longer than a 30 minute TV newscast so they usually go into a little more detail than just a teaser and a couple of sentences, but it always amazes me to hear the types of stories they have - not just how long they are. Of course they, like everyone else, are covering the presidential primaries and the crazy weather across the US, but they also have other stories that I hardly hear mentioned elsewhere. They talked about the situation in Sudan (Darfur) before it made headlines with famous people taking up the cause. This morning I heard another story that caused me to think about a different region of Africa.
The story is about Congo and talks about the number of deaths that have gone on there since the civil war in 1998. That war has been over since 2002 but people continue to die in large numbers that now total well over 5 million. The genocide in Rwanda and the recent political conflicts in Kenya are things we've heard more about in this country, but there's been little, if any, coverage of Congo. Why?
The story talks about some of the reasons - these people are dying slower, quiet deaths from things like malaria and malnutrition - the results of the fall out from the war as opposed to direct, traumatic deaths. When the tsunami hit, it was massive and sudden and got headlines all over the world. The situation in Congo is drawn out and lacks powerful photographs that grab your attention. Another reason is simple economics; the US doesn't have any economic or political interest in Congo. I'd imagine another reason is simply that tv newscasts are looking for ratings and only have so much time to tell the stories that are going to draw in viewers.
Why do you watch the news? Are there certain stories that you want to or don't want to see? Have you changed the channel to see a newscast that was telling a story you cared about more than the previous channel's?
I always think that I'm watching the news (or listening to the news) to learn more about what's going on in the world. But when I tune in to a newscast or a radio news show, I'm trusting the people who put that show together to decide on my behalf which stories are worth being included. Can I trust them to show me the stories that are truly important? As a Christian and a humanitarian I can't bear to hear stories of en masse suffering, and I know that if I really knew about what was going on everywhere, it would be overwhelming. A person can only take so much in before you either get desensitized or you shut down (which was part of the reason I could work 911 only 4.5 years), so how do we determine when something becomes newsworthy? When is it too big to ignore?
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Saturday, January 05, 2008
To be or not to be commissioned
Well, I missed the first Friday Five of the new year, but I'm not much for New Year's resolutions - I rarely keep them and they're usually the same things every year anyway. This is the end of the first week of the New Year and I'm in a bit of a quandry about getting commissioned as a Deaconess. This is something I started working on several years ago, but now that it may finally be completed, I'm not feeling so sure.
Over the last 4 years as I've been in seminary, I've constantly had to explain the path I was on - who the deaconesses are and what kind of work I thought my call was leading me to do. When I went to my discernment event, there was a moment where things just clicked - I felt like I had found my niche, a place where I fit in within the institutional church (just on the fringe of that institution because nobody really knows what to do with them). I had women telling about their roles in various wars, and tips on things to do when protesting the govt (don't bring ID and make up and a name so it can't come back to haunt you later) - they were amazing!
Yet now that I've had to answer more questions in print and sign my name on the definite "yes" line, I'm having second thoughts. I still have total respect for what deaconesses and home missioners do and I'd still be working in the non-profit world no matter what else I did. I'm not really sure where the uncertainty comes from. I think part of it is questioning whether to become a part of the institution at all. And if I get commissioned, that means I'm forever turning my back on ordination. Just because the church won't ordain me now, doesn't mean they won't 15 years from now. But do I want to be ordained? I know I don't want to be a pastor, but I think the role of a Deacon would be a real possibility. Still, the differences between Deacon and deaconess are up for debate. How much different is commissioning than ordination as a Deacon? In the end I think the only difference is how it gets seen in the hierarchy - a hierachy I don't really want any part of anyway! There's much more respect in the church for someone who is ordained than commissioned, and regardless of what they say for the record, deacons are seen and treated as a secondary level of ordination (they don't get appointments, health care benefits, pensions, etc.). I want respect. I have an MDiv and think I've earned the right to be respected on the same level as my peers who have simply chosen to become pastors. But that title makes a lot of difference. I don't want it to be that way and I don't want to care. I wish I could just do what I feel like I need to do and leave everyone else's opinions out of it.
Over the last 4 years as I've been in seminary, I've constantly had to explain the path I was on - who the deaconesses are and what kind of work I thought my call was leading me to do. When I went to my discernment event, there was a moment where things just clicked - I felt like I had found my niche, a place where I fit in within the institutional church (just on the fringe of that institution because nobody really knows what to do with them). I had women telling about their roles in various wars, and tips on things to do when protesting the govt (don't bring ID and make up and a name so it can't come back to haunt you later) - they were amazing!
Yet now that I've had to answer more questions in print and sign my name on the definite "yes" line, I'm having second thoughts. I still have total respect for what deaconesses and home missioners do and I'd still be working in the non-profit world no matter what else I did. I'm not really sure where the uncertainty comes from. I think part of it is questioning whether to become a part of the institution at all. And if I get commissioned, that means I'm forever turning my back on ordination. Just because the church won't ordain me now, doesn't mean they won't 15 years from now. But do I want to be ordained? I know I don't want to be a pastor, but I think the role of a Deacon would be a real possibility. Still, the differences between Deacon and deaconess are up for debate. How much different is commissioning than ordination as a Deacon? In the end I think the only difference is how it gets seen in the hierarchy - a hierachy I don't really want any part of anyway! There's much more respect in the church for someone who is ordained than commissioned, and regardless of what they say for the record, deacons are seen and treated as a secondary level of ordination (they don't get appointments, health care benefits, pensions, etc.). I want respect. I have an MDiv and think I've earned the right to be respected on the same level as my peers who have simply chosen to become pastors. But that title makes a lot of difference. I don't want it to be that way and I don't want to care. I wish I could just do what I feel like I need to do and leave everyone else's opinions out of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)