Stelle, rhymes with bell
Friends, Tasha and Ryan, came to visit last weekend thanks to Amtrak. They were the most gracious guests. Visiting during the week, they entertained themselves while spouse and I worked. Pleasant interactions came naturally as we shared time between talking, shopping, cooking, dining, washing what seemed to be endless dishes, and walking around the property, dodging poison ivy in my sandals. Friday evening we rendezvoused in Monmouth and all rode together to the city, home for them (for the moment) and a weekend visit for us.
For some reason, I was surprised at how unforced it felt to have other people around. When we spend any time with the aunt and uncle next door, it always seems awkward. I think I wind up avoiding them as much as possible just because the tension feels so unpleasant. Maybe it’s because T&R are old friends, none of the four of us are particularly shy and our senses of propriety are in sync, and we know each other’s idiosyncrasies enough to function together effectively.
It really makes me miss friends. I really don’t have any friends around. My coworkers are great. The in-laws are wonderful. There’s something about peers though that I miss. Not just any peers, ones like me: young grown-up, pre-kids, intelligent, unpredictable enough to be fun, yet dependable for the most part and easy to be around.
After a brief Chicago visit, we went down t0 Stelle, IL. This town is not on any maps as it’s unincorporated, though Google maps puts it in Cabery. It’s nearest Kempton, IL, about half-way between Chicago and Champaign-Urbana and is an intentional community in rural Ford county founded “in order to create a supportive environment where individual human development would be a foremost priority…a common theme of sustainability demonstrates itself through renewable energy applications as well as organic gardening and landscaping activities.” We had a great time staying at the B&B down the mile and trading knowledge with the co-owner about beekeeping.
Our visit to Stelle, along with T&R’s visit, got me thinking more about community. Was the ease with which we coexisted for a few days with our two friends because it was known to be temporary? Why does being gracious, adaptable, and acquiescent come with greater ease with those we know the least?
One of the fears I think people have when thinking about living more in community with other people is risking the loss of their independence. Our mentality is that we want to do what we want to do exactly when we want to do it and not have to bother with talking to other people. We don’t want to explain ourselves and justify our actions. The truth is, we rarely get our way as it is. There are so many obligations like work and caring for family members, and tending to our home to which we’ve already become accustomed. Couldn’t we just become accustomed to living with more people around, to communicating more effectively, growing up and realizing we just can’t do whatever we want to do all the time, that there are implications for generations to come if we keep living this way?
Another fear of community I think is of the tragedy of the commons. Sharing more space and property means things wear out faster, or get damaged and broken. We don’t want anyone messing with our stuff. Our “tour guide” at Stelle addressed this concern by admitting that, yes, things do need to be replaced and repaired more often when they are shared, but it’s a small price to pay for the vast waste of resources in everyone having their own personal set of power tools, for example. Stelle has a nice balance of community and personal space and responsibility. Everyone maintains their own residence of choice. The utilities are community owned, but everyone pays depending on their own usage. When the bandwidth on the community ISP started to get stressed out, the administrator pinpointed the hogs and talked to the individual users and worked it out. Everybody wins.
Crime and mental illness is on the rise in America, according to some biased websites with which I just did a quick reference. Community, intentional relationships, more communication will save us, not necessarily more cops and prisons and prescription drugs. Yes, these things have their place and are helpful to some people, but I think as a whole, relationships with other people are what make the world go around. Imagine how dangerous a gang of sustainability gurus could be!
By the way, Stelle’s only crimes are occasional vandalism and general rowdiness perpetrated by bored teenagers in the nearby rural communities. Since Stelle only has one road in and out, residents barricade the exit with a couple cars, call law enforcement and request that instead of prosecution, the kids help weed the streets and perform other community service tasks.
September 13, 2006
September 01, 2006
Soilent green is made out of the disabled
I really have a craving for a brownie today.
About two weeks ago the counseling center next door to my office was having a bake sale on the sidewalk. They provide counseling and case management mostly to people with severe disabilities and mental disorders. They are one of the only counseling offices around here that accept the state medical assistance program, which we administrate. One of our secretaries came back from her smoke break to tell us they were out there. She said, "T-- Counseling is having a bake sale out in front. The stuff looks pretty good. I was going to buy something until they said that their clients made the food. I'm... particular about where my food comes from."
"Oh." I said. I robotically agreed with her assessment that one should be cautious about food made by the disabled. Then my brain did a double take and smacked itself with a, "wait a minute...What's wrong with food made by the disabled?"
On my lunch break I went for a walk around the neighborhood. On my way back into the office, I walked past the bake sale. They had lemonade and single serving sweets as well as dishes to take home. For $0.75 I could get a cup of lemonade and a brownie. With cup in one hand and ziplocked brownie in the other, I handed over my dollar and told them to keep the quarter. Sure, the lemonade was somehow just a tad green but it was probably because of the artificial mix from Aldi's. That brownie was the best I'd had in a long time. How did they get the texture just right? Moist, yet slightly crisp on the top and oh so chocolately. They probably didn't over cook it and used real fat and white flour, unlike the tough, whole wheat, low-fat, "fudge-like" version I tend to make.
I'm happy to report my intestines have not been in any sort of distress as a result of my feast. I've had some hay-fever-induced monster sneezing, but I doubt the disabled put any ragweed in their dishes. The secretary really missed out.
Furthermore, I think you could say I'm more particular about where my food comes from than our sec. Does she go to the farmer's market faithfully twice a week? Is she at all concerned about the chemicals on the Hy-Vee food she feeds her daughters? Particularly dense, I'd say.
I really have a craving for a brownie today.
About two weeks ago the counseling center next door to my office was having a bake sale on the sidewalk. They provide counseling and case management mostly to people with severe disabilities and mental disorders. They are one of the only counseling offices around here that accept the state medical assistance program, which we administrate. One of our secretaries came back from her smoke break to tell us they were out there. She said, "T-- Counseling is having a bake sale out in front. The stuff looks pretty good. I was going to buy something until they said that their clients made the food. I'm... particular about where my food comes from."
"Oh." I said. I robotically agreed with her assessment that one should be cautious about food made by the disabled. Then my brain did a double take and smacked itself with a, "wait a minute...What's wrong with food made by the disabled?"
On my lunch break I went for a walk around the neighborhood. On my way back into the office, I walked past the bake sale. They had lemonade and single serving sweets as well as dishes to take home. For $0.75 I could get a cup of lemonade and a brownie. With cup in one hand and ziplocked brownie in the other, I handed over my dollar and told them to keep the quarter. Sure, the lemonade was somehow just a tad green but it was probably because of the artificial mix from Aldi's. That brownie was the best I'd had in a long time. How did they get the texture just right? Moist, yet slightly crisp on the top and oh so chocolately. They probably didn't over cook it and used real fat and white flour, unlike the tough, whole wheat, low-fat, "fudge-like" version I tend to make.
I'm happy to report my intestines have not been in any sort of distress as a result of my feast. I've had some hay-fever-induced monster sneezing, but I doubt the disabled put any ragweed in their dishes. The secretary really missed out.
Furthermore, I think you could say I'm more particular about where my food comes from than our sec. Does she go to the farmer's market faithfully twice a week? Is she at all concerned about the chemicals on the Hy-Vee food she feeds her daughters? Particularly dense, I'd say.
August 17, 2006
Even C.S. Lewis will not go to hell
My pastor presented a sermon last Sunday about C.S. Lewis's arguments in the book, Mere Christianity. This is most of the text of my reponse to him. He ended up responding favorably.
From your summary of Lewis's book, the take-home message seemed to be almost a proof of God's existence. For centuries Christians and non-Christians have applied their clever little minds to this task. Descartes's "a greater cannot come from a lesser," is a notable proof of God's presence in our world straight out of the Scientific Revolution, but I don't know that anyone would settle for his argument today.
The story goes that Lewis set out to disprove Christianity and in the process of delving deep into the faith was instead converted. It's a very powerful story to tell to nonbelievers or agnostics. The fact is, he was raised Catholic and had a lengthy period of ambivalence until he finally agreed to seek and accept God with love and support from friends and respected colleagues. I believe you did mention that he grew up Catholic in your sermon, but I have heard this conversion story from other places and it's a bit misleading.
Lewis's argument is similar in format to the ontological philosophers that came before him. The biggest problem with these arguments is that they're soaked in hubris. The over-simplification of almighty God is a classic mortal error. I picture Jesus shaking his head side to side after repeating and reframing the numerous metaphors he used to try and explain to mere mortals who he was and what God wanted us to do. Did the disciples ever get it right? I think even those in Jesus' very presence could not be said to fully fathom the message the Son brought. Can we today? C.S. Lewis's argument erects walls between God's people -- you're either with us or against us; you're either in or out; you can't be on the fence. However, Jesus is theking of the third way, thinking outside the box, and the unfathomableholy grace of God.
The reason Lewis's argument bothers me so much is the action that's often taken in response. Historically this has taken the form of colonialism, slavery, ethnic cleansing, "just" wars, loss of diversity in thought, general oppression and exclusiveness, not to mention closed minds, closed hearts, and closed doors. It bothers me especially because this is the core of my personal Christian doubts. Numerous gospel passages say that Jesus is the only path to God, to salvation. And yet, I cannot believe in a God that would dismiss so many people that follow the Jewish, Islamic, or any other tradition or no tradition at all.
Recently, our Sunday school studied Max Lucado's Next Door Savior program. Lucado directly referenced Lewis's idea of not having any other choice than to accept Jesus as God or dismiss him as maniac. The questions for the discussion section used small logical steps beginning with Lewis's argument to eventually directly ask something like, "Can't you see that Christianity is the only choice and all the others are wrong?" That's not an exact quote, but I'm not exaggerating. What is the purpose of this argument other than oppression? I'm happy to report that most of people in our Sunday school class rejected this argument flat out.
I have to believe that God loves each person all the same and they will not be damned if Christians don't convert them in time. This belief in universal salvation was widely accepted in Christianity until about the time of Augustine, that God will save everyone. It is supported in scripture just about as well as the alternative and has been gaining momentum again in the last few centuries with the help of John Wesley. And isn't this a better message to inspire conversions than a mathematical proof, logic exercise, or fear mongering? It's one that brings all of God's children closer to each other instead of wetting down a slippery slope into a puddle of condemnation for those that disagree.
I don't think we need to be in the business of apologetics at this point in UM history. Christian belief is not so much about knowledge or facts, but more about that magic word, faith. Some stories have truth, but are not necessarily what really happened. This is the world Jesus walked in, one of metaphors and proverbs. It is my faith that keeps me walking beside him through the scriptures. How can we believe in Jesus' miracles, if we have to enter the door by way of a proof? Being one of those stumbling disciples and seeing the Lord shake his head at me, it is by my faith that I know I am still loved. No proof can give that to me; no proof can take it away.
You said that Mere Christianity might be a good book to recommend to someone that has doubts about their faith. I say, all doubt is not to be quashed. A little skepticism is healthy and necessary to be a discerning Christian and a steward of the Word. This is how we find ways to grow in our understanding of faith, lest we think we have it all figured out and close our minds to growth.
My pastor presented a sermon last Sunday about C.S. Lewis's arguments in the book, Mere Christianity. This is most of the text of my reponse to him. He ended up responding favorably.
From your summary of Lewis's book, the take-home message seemed to be almost a proof of God's existence. For centuries Christians and non-Christians have applied their clever little minds to this task. Descartes's "a greater cannot come from a lesser," is a notable proof of God's presence in our world straight out of the Scientific Revolution, but I don't know that anyone would settle for his argument today.
The story goes that Lewis set out to disprove Christianity and in the process of delving deep into the faith was instead converted. It's a very powerful story to tell to nonbelievers or agnostics. The fact is, he was raised Catholic and had a lengthy period of ambivalence until he finally agreed to seek and accept God with love and support from friends and respected colleagues. I believe you did mention that he grew up Catholic in your sermon, but I have heard this conversion story from other places and it's a bit misleading.
Lewis's argument is similar in format to the ontological philosophers that came before him. The biggest problem with these arguments is that they're soaked in hubris. The over-simplification of almighty God is a classic mortal error. I picture Jesus shaking his head side to side after repeating and reframing the numerous metaphors he used to try and explain to mere mortals who he was and what God wanted us to do. Did the disciples ever get it right? I think even those in Jesus' very presence could not be said to fully fathom the message the Son brought. Can we today? C.S. Lewis's argument erects walls between God's people -- you're either with us or against us; you're either in or out; you can't be on the fence. However, Jesus is theking of the third way, thinking outside the box, and the unfathomableholy grace of God.
The reason Lewis's argument bothers me so much is the action that's often taken in response. Historically this has taken the form of colonialism, slavery, ethnic cleansing, "just" wars, loss of diversity in thought, general oppression and exclusiveness, not to mention closed minds, closed hearts, and closed doors. It bothers me especially because this is the core of my personal Christian doubts. Numerous gospel passages say that Jesus is the only path to God, to salvation. And yet, I cannot believe in a God that would dismiss so many people that follow the Jewish, Islamic, or any other tradition or no tradition at all.
Recently, our Sunday school studied Max Lucado's Next Door Savior program. Lucado directly referenced Lewis's idea of not having any other choice than to accept Jesus as God or dismiss him as maniac. The questions for the discussion section used small logical steps beginning with Lewis's argument to eventually directly ask something like, "Can't you see that Christianity is the only choice and all the others are wrong?" That's not an exact quote, but I'm not exaggerating. What is the purpose of this argument other than oppression? I'm happy to report that most of people in our Sunday school class rejected this argument flat out.
I have to believe that God loves each person all the same and they will not be damned if Christians don't convert them in time. This belief in universal salvation was widely accepted in Christianity until about the time of Augustine, that God will save everyone. It is supported in scripture just about as well as the alternative and has been gaining momentum again in the last few centuries with the help of John Wesley. And isn't this a better message to inspire conversions than a mathematical proof, logic exercise, or fear mongering? It's one that brings all of God's children closer to each other instead of wetting down a slippery slope into a puddle of condemnation for those that disagree.
I don't think we need to be in the business of apologetics at this point in UM history. Christian belief is not so much about knowledge or facts, but more about that magic word, faith. Some stories have truth, but are not necessarily what really happened. This is the world Jesus walked in, one of metaphors and proverbs. It is my faith that keeps me walking beside him through the scriptures. How can we believe in Jesus' miracles, if we have to enter the door by way of a proof? Being one of those stumbling disciples and seeing the Lord shake his head at me, it is by my faith that I know I am still loved. No proof can give that to me; no proof can take it away.
You said that Mere Christianity might be a good book to recommend to someone that has doubts about their faith. I say, all doubt is not to be quashed. A little skepticism is healthy and necessary to be a discerning Christian and a steward of the Word. This is how we find ways to grow in our understanding of faith, lest we think we have it all figured out and close our minds to growth.
June 29, 2006
Two and half years later, I've climbed the ladder: I'm now the Man. When people ask me how work is going, all I have to say is, "great!" Compared to my last situation, this is cake. No matter how much people complain about the bureaucracy, it's nothing compared to my previous job at an NGO. This is not to generalize about NGOs or the government, but just to say I don't grump nearly so much about work. It's Fred's turn to grump about his boss now.
I'm disappointed none of you tried the food pantry experiment. None of you are probably reading this! Foiled again!
I'm disappointed none of you tried the food pantry experiment. None of you are probably reading this! Foiled again!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)