I've been out of the loop on Friday Five's lately, but thought I'd jump in on this one since it's a pretty slow morning here at Habitat Kansas City.
Mother Laura asks:
1. Did you celebrate Mardi Gras and/or Ash Wednesday this week? How?
Not really, no. I totally forgot that Lent was starting so soon and, like most of the media, got caught up in the election stuff instead. I guess you could say I celebrated Mardi Gras by voting on Super Tuesday
2. What was your most memorable Mardi Gras/Ash Wednesday/Lent?
I don't know if memorable is the term I'd put to it, but the year I gave up chocolate was very hard for me. It was one of the years I was in college and it seemed like there was chocolate everywhere! A former Catholic, my Protestant friends kept informing me that Sundays don't count in the 40 days of Lent, so it was okay to indulge that one day a week, but that seemed to defeat the purpose so I didn't give in. It did make Easter that much more of a big deal when I got to make myself sick on chocolate bunnies.
3. Did you/your church/your family celebrate Lent as a child? If not, when and how did you discover it? Yes, my family always did the Lent thing. We were Catholic, although not too terribly hard core. My parents fasted for Ash Wednesday and Good Friday (but were told that wasn't appropriate for us kids) and we always had meatless Fridays for Lent. Even my school always served pizza on Fridays and during Lent there would always be a cheese only option (although many people ate pepperoni without thinking about it) - and this was PUBLIC school.
4. Are you more in the give-up camp, or the take-on camp, or somewhere in between? I guess I'd have to say the give-up camp - force of habit. I have taken things on a few years to try something different, and one year it went REALLY well. I wrote a note to a member of my family or a close friend each day to tell them why they were important to me. Several people called me when they received theirs and thanked me for bringing joy to their day.
5. How do you plan to keep Lent this year? Well, like I said before, I was sucked in to the political stuff this week and totally forgot it was coming. Then it snowed on Ash Wednesday cancelling the morning church service I was going to attend so it's really all out the window. I've been staying away from my church lately (for a variety of reasons), so I don't really know what to do with it this year. Maybe I'm giving up Lent this year.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Friday, February 01, 2008
Who does the tax rebate benefit?
There's been a lot of talk lately about the economy and ways that the govt. is working to stimulate us out of a possible recession. I'm not an economics expert by any means, but I can't help wondering exactly how this rebate thing is supposed to help in the long run. I know that I have credit card debt (from buying a new house and Christmas) that I need to pay off and when I get my rebate check, that's where it will be going. How does that help the economy? The credit card company isn't racking up more interest and I didn't spend that money on more crap I don't need from WalMart (not that I EVER shop at WalMart if I can help it). I know most people are probably going to use that money like they do their tax refunds - go buy that big screen tv they've been eyeing or go out to that new restaurant that's been getting so much attention or whatever, but I can't help wondering if that's the best thing to do with it.
I've really been trying to apply a theory of moderation to lots of things in my life - eating in moderation, tv in moderation, etc. and spending is one of those big areas where I know there's room for impovement. I found a website on Simple Living that I really like. It talks about the idea that we can all get by on less than we think we can and how it's responsible (to the environment and to each other) to not buy everything we're told we should have. I think it's great concept but one that isn't easy to live out. They have books they recommend reading, local groups that meet, shopping practices, etc. They also have a particular campaign right now - Don't Buy It - about the ways in which your rebate can be used in ways that are beneficial but not what the government is banking on. If we all continue to go out and buy that SUV, big screen tv, and the latest DVD's, sooner or later we run out of money, space and natural resources. There has to be a limit to our voracious consumption, and that limit could be our own fatality.
I've really been trying to apply a theory of moderation to lots of things in my life - eating in moderation, tv in moderation, etc. and spending is one of those big areas where I know there's room for impovement. I found a website on Simple Living that I really like. It talks about the idea that we can all get by on less than we think we can and how it's responsible (to the environment and to each other) to not buy everything we're told we should have. I think it's great concept but one that isn't easy to live out. They have books they recommend reading, local groups that meet, shopping practices, etc. They also have a particular campaign right now - Don't Buy It - about the ways in which your rebate can be used in ways that are beneficial but not what the government is banking on. If we all continue to go out and buy that SUV, big screen tv, and the latest DVD's, sooner or later we run out of money, space and natural resources. There has to be a limit to our voracious consumption, and that limit could be our own fatality.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Newsworthy News?
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?
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 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)