Jess: Wes and I went to see the Hunger Games at midnight when it came out. I've never been to a midnight showing before, so I was pretty excited about the possibility of finally seeing the awesomeness that is a movie at midnight. It was pretty fun, and the mass of high school/middle school kids didn't even bother me that much. I'm not sure if I need to ever go see a movie at midnight again, but it was definitely a fun experience.
*****Spoiler alert***** Don't read past this if you haven't read/seen the first book of the Hunger Games (and don't want it ruined).
So there we are, watching the basically fabulous screen version of The Hunger Games. I really think they did a great job translating the book into a movie, which is a rare compliment from me. Part of that might have something to do with the fact that I read the book last summer and don't remember all of the minor details. Most of the changes were pretty necessary, like the fact that there are some extra interactions among the game masters, to point out what Katniss discovers by thinking through the events of the Games in the book. Cato, the last character to die, doesn't die in misery nearly as long as in the book, and he has an extra speech, both of which made me kind of happy. There was a missing character, and I believe she becomes important later on, so I wonder how they'll work that out. The only major problem I had was that I really didn't think Haymitch was characterized correctly. He didn't seem like someone who had been drinking his life away for 24 years. The Reaping was perfect, the Games were well done, and the killings were handled with grace.
What upset me about the movie was that the people (i.e. high schoolers and middle schoolers) seemed to completely miss the point of the book. Perhaps there were people in the theatre who hadn't read the book, but the movie made the themes very clear. Wes and I have been deeply disturbed by the themes in The Hunger Games, particularly the idea of the government keeping its citizens subdued by forcing children to fight to the death. Beyond that, there is the great disparity between district 1 and district 12. We're well aware of the reality of poverty in America, and although we are not divided into districts, there is a clear difference between the rich and poor areas of the nation and cities. As terrifying as this book and its themes are, it's not as if we're THAT far away from this potential. We like to think that we're safe in our democracy and that we'll be fine. Sure, 9/11 and the recession have dealt us some blows, but haven't we pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps and fixed it all?
Maybe the problem I have with the reactions of the kids in the theatre is unfair. I honestly thought that maybe they just didn't get it, that the themes were too far-reaching and over their heads. Then I talked to the freshmen in the Confirmation class the following Sunday, and they didn't seem to have any problem grasping how terrifying the themes in the books really are. Maybe they don't get just how fragile our balance in the US is, but they definitely didn't see the books as something to laugh off. Yet the kids in the theatre cheered when kids died. CHEERED. Kids between the ages of 12 to 18, kids their age, were dying bloody, terrifying, ugly deaths at the hands of their peers. All because of the adults who forced them into this situation. And the kids in the theatre clapped and cheered when they died.
Most of the kids in the books are not bad people. They are not killers, excited at the chance to win victory for their district. Most of them are hoping not to die slowly--they know their chances of surviving are slim. Yes, there are a few kids who have been trained for this, and are excited for the chance to kill their peers. But even they are the victims of a terrible system. As readers/viewers, we live in the tension of wanting Katniss to win the Games, yet knowing that she will have to kill other kids to do so. She is not the noble character Peeta, who simply doesn't want to lose his identity in the course of the Games. She wants to win, to get back to her family, and if she has to kill someone to do that, she will--and does. Yet should we cheer when she is forced to kill someone else for the sake of her own survival? Should we be glad that Cato, who finally realized how he has been manipulated for his entire life, dies an awful, bloody death?
I was appalled by this reaction. How did everyone miss the point? One of the articles I read about the Hunger Games was about whether to take kids under 13 to the movie. The author pointed out that, unlike in Harry Potter, there is no clear line between good and evil in the Hunger Games--at least not in this book. In Harry Potter, even kids can say "that guy is bad" or "that one is good." In the Hunger Games, each character is a mix--Katniss has the good characteristics of wanting to care for her family, of caring about Rue's safety, and of not hunting people down to kill them. Yet she DOES kill, she manipulates Peeta, and she breaks the law with Gale. How can we just call her "good"? In the same way, we can't call the other tributes "bad" just because they're not the protagonist of the story. It's a tough situation--and the kids missed the point completely.
Overall, the movie was great. I wonder what we're teaching kids, though, if they're unable to grasp the meaning of these books/movies. They're not just fun books. There are some really deep, terrifying themes in these books. I've heard that some teachers are having the kids read these books in class. First, I hope that that doesn't ruin them, like most books were ruined for me in school. Second, I hope that they talk about the themes, about how this isn't just another teenage love story, about how that's not even the point! If we don't recognize the truth behind these books, how will we avoid a future like this?
Wes: So, after having a couple weeks to ruminate on this experience, here are my thoughts on the Hunger Games:
As far as books to movies go, this was superbly done. As we saw with the Harry Potter books, it is a pretty difficult task to take a book where a large portion of the plot is driven and explained by a character's thoughts and turn it into a great movie. To do this well, the Hunger Games movie had to add in certain scenes where the main character, Katniss, is completely absent. I thought that these cutaway scenes really added to the plot, as well as showed us some depth in certain characters that the author, by necessity, had to leave flat.
Other added-in lines of dialogue really hit home for me and gave a side of the Games that could easily be missed. The first of these was when Caesar Flickerman is commentating on a previous Game clip, and he says something along the lines of, "This is when we see the tribute turn from killer into victim." He wasn't talking about a fallen tribute, but the change in one of the youths that was forced to kill another. This showed me that even those in Capital (other than Cinna, of course, who's just awesome) see the horror in this at times. The biggest one of these added-in lines for me, though, was when Cato, the brute tribute who most likely killed more than any of the others, makes the comment that he finally understands what's going on and that it doesn't really matter who lives or dies in these games as long as they are entertained. The horror of the situation was not lost on even him.
All that to say, I thought the movie was great.
But my viewing experience was ruined during that midnight showing, and it had nothing to do with the film itself. First, someone up in the projector room forgot to actually turn the projector on, so for the first five minutes of previews, all we got was the sound. I don't really care about this, but you should have seen the theater full of high schoolers flip out because the screen was blank during the previews. It was unbelievable. People were screaming and yelling about it, getting visibly mad about the lack of previews!
I turned to Jess at one point and asked her, "Capital?" Our theater was close to becoming the very society that Suzanne Collins' book rails against. Because of a mistake in the projector room.
To add injury to injury, every time one of the tributes died, the theater would erupt in applause. Now, I know that we as the reader/viewer are supposed to root for Katniss and Peeta. That's just how it goes. But this book was written and this movie made to show the horrors that can happen when we place our own entertainment above the lives of others. Yes, this was a movie. Yes, the heroes won. But the bad guys were not the other tributes. The bad guys are Capital, and the government and society that annually forces adolescents to fight for their very lives in a sick and twisted game.
Cato was not the bad guy.
Rue was not the bad guy.
Thresh was not the bad guy.
Fox Face, Glimmer, and Clove were not the bad guys.
President Snow was the bad guy. Seneca Crane was the bad guy. The peacekeepers were bad guys. To a certain extent, even Effie Trinket was a bad guy.
But those high schoolers that night cheered over the deaths of innocent children. It still gives me chills to think about it today.
I don't know if anyone else had a similar experiences while watching the movie. From what I've heard, this might have just been a midnight showing thing, where everyone was bursting with anticipation and could not wait to see their new favorite book up on the silver screen. I hope no one else had to experience that, and I hope no one I know was one of the ones cheering.
It was scary.
It was Capital.
So now we want to hear from you! What did you think of the movie? What was your experience while watching it? How close do you think we are to being the Capital portrayed in Suzanne Collins' heart-wrenching books?
Let us know!
You stay classy, World Wide Web!
-wes and jess
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Tejas
Jess: Although we had some wonderful suggestions about what to write for this blog, we decided to go the boring route and tell y’all what we did over our trip to Texas.
I think I can safely speak for both of us when I say our bi-annual trips to Texas, while wonderful, have been pretty stressful at times. With the exception of our trip last August, we have always traveled down for someone’s wedding. Wes has been in those weddings, and our trip this November will be for a wedding I’m in. Weddings are wonderful. We love seeing our friends get married, and we’re so happy that so many have included us in their special day.
But weddings are also a lot of work—even for those of us who are just bridesmaids/groomsmen. At the very least, the two or three days leading up to the wedding are filled with parties, rehearsals, and last minute planning. Hence our trip in August: we were trying to have a time where our agenda was our own. We failed pretty badly at making the trip relaxing, though, because we flew into north Texas, drove down to Austin/San Antonio, and drove back up at the end of the week. Not exactly a relaxing time.
Somehow, though, this trip has been by far the most relaxing one in the more than two years we’ve lived in New Jersey. It seems like we finally hit a good balance. We knew enough of our general plan to know when we needed to crash with friends and whose car we would borrow. But we didn’t have a million things we had to do. We had whole days where we just hung out, with little to no agenda.
To top off the amazingly relaxing experience, Tim and Brittany’s wedding was just plain wonderful. They had a little outdoor ceremony on the first hole of a golf course. Our friends Jeremy and Amanda co-led the service, and it was just awesome. Then we headed into the golf club building and the reception was beautiful, too. We were able to hang out with all of our TLU friends, there was dancing, there was cake, and the food was delicious. Although Wes and I didn’t get to see a ton of the bride and groom, we did have one awesome party experience. And we didn’t have to be responsible for anyone or anything.
We really miss our friends in Texas while we’re in New Jersey, and we love going home because we feel like we’re celebrities when we get there. Everyone is so happy to see us, they change their work schedules to accommodate our vacation, and life is just so easy. We feel incredibly blessed to have such great friends from our time in college, and even more blessed that they’re willing to go through the pain of long-distance friendship.
Wes: So Jess decided to leave it to me to actually tell y’all what we did. Our departure from Philly was one of the most potentially stressful flights that I think I have ever had. When we made it to our gate last Wednesday, we were told that we were not going to be able to make our connecting flight from Dallas to San Antonio. Instead of getting to the Alamo City at around 9 pm, we weren’t going to be able to get there until midnight. And since we had a two-hour drive after this, it wasn’t going to get us home until 2 am. That wasn’t going to work. So I called up some of our friends in the Arlington area and we sparked a plan. Elizabeth would pick us up from the airport and take us to Jon. Jon would then drive us from Arlington to Hico, where we would meet my dad and go home. It all worked out, and not only were we home before midnight; I was able to get a Dublin Dr. Pepper!
Here was the rest of our schedule in a nutshell with some major points to along with it:
Thursday—Slept in. Dad made breakfast tacos. Jess went to bachelorette party. Wes played pool into the wee hours of the morning.
Friday—Slept in a little less. Picked up Jess from Austin. Ate lunch with grandparents. Jess, Wes and Dad played pool into the wee hours of the morning.
Saturday—Hung out with family and went to breakfast. Had coffee with one of Wes’ mentors. Got lost on the way to wedding. Made it to the wedding with seconds to spare. Partied all night with good friends whom Wes and Jess dearly missed. Made some very important life decisions.
Sunday—Went to church at University United Methodist Church. Heard a great message and worshipped with Mark Swayze Band! Lunch at Magic Time Machine. Jess went dress shopping for Kelli’s wedding. Wes and friends floated the Comal River. Rudy’s for dinner.
Monday—Woke up at 5 am to drop Dad off at Texas State. Led chapel at TLU and saw more friends and great mentors. Coffee with Shook. Lunch with favorite professor. Sat in on storytelling class. 3 hrs in Freddy’s Frozen Custard doing paperwork. Dinner at Mamacitas. Late night fun and great conversations with Ryan.
Tuesday—Wes has early morning candidacy meeting with DCOM. Wes was unanimously approved! Yay! Riverboat tour on San Antonio Riverwalk. Lunch with Mark Swayze. Dinner with more of Wes’ family.
Wednesday—fly home…
Well, that was our trip in a nutshell. To be precise, a pecan shell. For those that we got to see and hang out with, thanks for making time for us! For those we didn’t get to see, please know that we love you, we just made it a point not to make any plans this time.
Goodbye for now, Texas! We promise we’ll be home again soon! But until then, you stay classy, World Wide Web.
-Jess and Wes
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Grading and the Downfall of the American Seminarian
Jess: Wes and I both have a problem. We like to get good grades. We like it so much that sometimes we forget that we're in school to learn, not to get A's. And sometimes, getting an A doesn't mean we've learned, and getting a B or C doesn't mean we haven't. On the first day of Confessions, Dr. Wengert informed us of the scale he and a fellow professor had devised years ago, which boils down to B- students making the best pastors. I'm not sure I buy into that, but his point was clear: perfection is not the answer.
So when I got my first paper back from his class and got a B-, I was torn. When I was in middle/high school, I was expected to get A's. In Hudson, Ohio, this was a pretty formidable task. Yet I tried, and failed to get straight A's. Eventually, both my parents and I realized that that was an unrealistic expectation, and I worked on trying my best. This resulted in a pretty healthy attitude about grades, but not any sort of delusion that not trying would get me far in life.
In college, I got one B. In four years. So my perfectionist streak came back, despite the years of fighting against it throughout high school. Why shouldn't I get A's if I was clearly capable of making straight A's? Why would I accept anything less from myself? Why would I allow myself to "fail"? This came back to bite me in the butt when I got a B+ on a final paper during my first semester senior year. I spent quite awhile agonizing over it, got mad at my favorite professor about it, beat myself up about it for days, and then finally realized that 1) I was still getting an A in the class and 2) A B+ is not failure. It means there's room for improvement. And isn't there always?
Now here I am in my first year of seminary, and you would think that I had held onto that lesson from my senior year of college. Yet, somehow, I've latched back onto the idea that A's make me a better person or something. That anything less than perfection is unacceptable. Finally, though, after that first B-(on just one small, fairly insignificant, first paper of the semester, mind you), I've realized my own silliness. I might still attach some weight to grades. Pretending that grades don't mean anything is just as bad as thinking that they mean everything. An A, B, C, D, or F does not determine my personal worth. Yet each one says something about the effort I put into a task, the work I've already accomplished, and how far I have to go. An A means I've come close to mastering a particular subject. A B means I need some work. Yet my learning is never going to be complete, no matter how great I feel about myself.
The biggest thing I realized within the last few weeks is that no one is going to be grading me in "real life." I know I probably should have recognized that awhile ago, but any of you who know me know how perfectionist I can be, and that sometimes clouds the rest of what's happening. Anyway, when I give a sermon or teach a class or do pastoral care, no one is going to give me a grade. And even more important, those who are judging or deciding whether I'm doing a good job or not are not going to be as kind as my professors who genuinely want me to succeed. I need to get past this obsession with grades and look forward to the future, and what really matters.
Wes: First off, ditto to all of Jess' comments. She didn't leave me with much to say, so I'll just make up a bunch of stuff.
But seriously.
I have always been an A student. I remember when I was younger and my parents would reward my good grades on my report card. I would get a dollar for every point I improved from last grading period, and five dollars for every perfect grade. Then, at some point, they just... stopped paying me. I guess I was costing them too much money, or they thought I had grown out of the need for handouts. Either way, I still felt this need to make all A's.
That didn't necessarily mean that I tried my hardest, though. Truth be told, I spent most of junior high and high school sleeping my way through class and earning high A's the whole time. My mom--the English teacher--and my aunt--also an English teacher--would get upset with me at times. They said that if I would just try a little harder, I could have been making 100's in all my classes and could be valedictorian. I figured, though, that as long as I was making A's, it was good enough. This mindset got me through high school, and I ended up fourth in my class. Do I ever regret not putting forth the effort to be better? Not really. I had fun in high school and did not let grades hold the highest priority in my life.
Then I got into college. I'm one of those idiots who took Biblical Greek my very first semester. Because of some outside events that were out of my control and because I honestly just did not put forth the effort to learn as much as I should, I ended the first semester with a B. That would be the first of three, and the other two would come up the very next semester. After that, I decided that I would make sure that everything else--especially the classes within my major--was a close to perfect as I could do. I worked hard on my papers and projects, trying to prove mainly to myself that I had it in me to be the absolute best. I ended up graduating Summa Cum Laude, and do not at all regret the work I put into those classes.
Seminary, though, is a completely different ballgame. I have worked my keister off (yeah, I just used that word) and have earned a handful of A's as well as a handful of B's. It seems like the classes I've worked the hardest in are the ones in which I've received the lowest grades! I don't think that's fair, but that is life.
I really struggle with my grades. I've come home after receiving back papers and been completely depressed because I did not get the grade I thought I deserved. A grade of a "C" is not and never has been "average" for me. An "A" is average. Nothing else is allowed. Obviously, this is something that I need to work on...
But here is my problem with the whole grades thing right now. I feel like there is not much grace in this institution that is supposed to be preparing me to share God's grace with the world. I have now been told by a preceptor and a professor that if my paper is not publishable as is, it is not "A" quality work. Now, I can understand high standards at a place like Princeton (or really in any Master's program), but this seems a little unreasonable to me. Especially when, once again, this is a church institution, I would think that a little grace would shine through. Now all of the profs act this way, though, which is nice, but enough do that it is still a struggle for me. It takes away some of the fun in the learning for me, when I'm constantly struggling to make sure I am meeting what seem to be unreachable standards. I have taken a few classes pass-fail, which is great, but since I want to be able to pursue a doctorate at sometime in the future, I cannot take too many of these because it doesn't look so swell on applications.
I just feel like there should be a better way to do this.
What are your thoughts, oh web of the cyber? Do/did you struggle with grades? What are your thoughts of the expectations of individuals and institutions today?
You stay classy, World Wide Web!
-wes and jess
So when I got my first paper back from his class and got a B-, I was torn. When I was in middle/high school, I was expected to get A's. In Hudson, Ohio, this was a pretty formidable task. Yet I tried, and failed to get straight A's. Eventually, both my parents and I realized that that was an unrealistic expectation, and I worked on trying my best. This resulted in a pretty healthy attitude about grades, but not any sort of delusion that not trying would get me far in life.
In college, I got one B. In four years. So my perfectionist streak came back, despite the years of fighting against it throughout high school. Why shouldn't I get A's if I was clearly capable of making straight A's? Why would I accept anything less from myself? Why would I allow myself to "fail"? This came back to bite me in the butt when I got a B+ on a final paper during my first semester senior year. I spent quite awhile agonizing over it, got mad at my favorite professor about it, beat myself up about it for days, and then finally realized that 1) I was still getting an A in the class and 2) A B+ is not failure. It means there's room for improvement. And isn't there always?
Now here I am in my first year of seminary, and you would think that I had held onto that lesson from my senior year of college. Yet, somehow, I've latched back onto the idea that A's make me a better person or something. That anything less than perfection is unacceptable. Finally, though, after that first B-(on just one small, fairly insignificant, first paper of the semester, mind you), I've realized my own silliness. I might still attach some weight to grades. Pretending that grades don't mean anything is just as bad as thinking that they mean everything. An A, B, C, D, or F does not determine my personal worth. Yet each one says something about the effort I put into a task, the work I've already accomplished, and how far I have to go. An A means I've come close to mastering a particular subject. A B means I need some work. Yet my learning is never going to be complete, no matter how great I feel about myself.
The biggest thing I realized within the last few weeks is that no one is going to be grading me in "real life." I know I probably should have recognized that awhile ago, but any of you who know me know how perfectionist I can be, and that sometimes clouds the rest of what's happening. Anyway, when I give a sermon or teach a class or do pastoral care, no one is going to give me a grade. And even more important, those who are judging or deciding whether I'm doing a good job or not are not going to be as kind as my professors who genuinely want me to succeed. I need to get past this obsession with grades and look forward to the future, and what really matters.
Wes: First off, ditto to all of Jess' comments. She didn't leave me with much to say, so I'll just make up a bunch of stuff.
But seriously.
I have always been an A student. I remember when I was younger and my parents would reward my good grades on my report card. I would get a dollar for every point I improved from last grading period, and five dollars for every perfect grade. Then, at some point, they just... stopped paying me. I guess I was costing them too much money, or they thought I had grown out of the need for handouts. Either way, I still felt this need to make all A's.
That didn't necessarily mean that I tried my hardest, though. Truth be told, I spent most of junior high and high school sleeping my way through class and earning high A's the whole time. My mom--the English teacher--and my aunt--also an English teacher--would get upset with me at times. They said that if I would just try a little harder, I could have been making 100's in all my classes and could be valedictorian. I figured, though, that as long as I was making A's, it was good enough. This mindset got me through high school, and I ended up fourth in my class. Do I ever regret not putting forth the effort to be better? Not really. I had fun in high school and did not let grades hold the highest priority in my life.
Then I got into college. I'm one of those idiots who took Biblical Greek my very first semester. Because of some outside events that were out of my control and because I honestly just did not put forth the effort to learn as much as I should, I ended the first semester with a B. That would be the first of three, and the other two would come up the very next semester. After that, I decided that I would make sure that everything else--especially the classes within my major--was a close to perfect as I could do. I worked hard on my papers and projects, trying to prove mainly to myself that I had it in me to be the absolute best. I ended up graduating Summa Cum Laude, and do not at all regret the work I put into those classes.
Seminary, though, is a completely different ballgame. I have worked my keister off (yeah, I just used that word) and have earned a handful of A's as well as a handful of B's. It seems like the classes I've worked the hardest in are the ones in which I've received the lowest grades! I don't think that's fair, but that is life.
I really struggle with my grades. I've come home after receiving back papers and been completely depressed because I did not get the grade I thought I deserved. A grade of a "C" is not and never has been "average" for me. An "A" is average. Nothing else is allowed. Obviously, this is something that I need to work on...
But here is my problem with the whole grades thing right now. I feel like there is not much grace in this institution that is supposed to be preparing me to share God's grace with the world. I have now been told by a preceptor and a professor that if my paper is not publishable as is, it is not "A" quality work. Now, I can understand high standards at a place like Princeton (or really in any Master's program), but this seems a little unreasonable to me. Especially when, once again, this is a church institution, I would think that a little grace would shine through. Now all of the profs act this way, though, which is nice, but enough do that it is still a struggle for me. It takes away some of the fun in the learning for me, when I'm constantly struggling to make sure I am meeting what seem to be unreachable standards. I have taken a few classes pass-fail, which is great, but since I want to be able to pursue a doctorate at sometime in the future, I cannot take too many of these because it doesn't look so swell on applications.
I just feel like there should be a better way to do this.
What are your thoughts, oh web of the cyber? Do/did you struggle with grades? What are your thoughts of the expectations of individuals and institutions today?
You stay classy, World Wide Web!
-wes and jess
Friday, February 17, 2012
Lent!
Jess: Lent is right around the corner (five days away to be exact), and Wes and I have come up with a pretty interesting Lenten discipline this year. St. Mark is going to be reading through a book called Simplify Your Life, so we’re kind of playing off of that theme. I also started formulating the idea when we were talking about the Commandments in Confirmation. Wes and I are going to intentionally have a Sabbath every Saturday during Lent.
One of the things we talked about during Confirmation was that the Sabbath was instituted for the good of all. No one was allowed to do work on the Sabbath, from the most king down to the animals. The point was not that some people got a day off to rest and regenerate, but that everyone in the Israelite community did. For this reason, the Sabbath requires quite a bit of intentionality. If no one is allowed to cook on the Sabbath, then everyone must think ahead and get food taken care of the previous day. If you can’t travel, then all of your errands need to be done the day before.
Wes and I spent a little while hashing out the details of what a Sabbath would look like for us. As you may remember, we both expressed the desire to spend some more time together—not just being in the same room, but focusing on one another and building our relationship. This is part of what led into the Sabbath idea. For that reason, we quickly established that sitting around watching movies/TV is not the Sabbath we’re looking for. Sure, watching some TV might factor into a restful day, but not comprise the whole thing.
We are going to be closing our computers and turning off our phones on the Sabbath, as well. Especially with school, we spend a lot of time on our computers, and these dang iPhones are just plain distracting. If our goal is to focus more on one another and our relationship, and be peaceful, that doesn’t mesh with the little “ding” noises every time we get a text.
Finally, we were both a little concerned about getting our homework done. We’re aware of the benefits of taking a break from studying. Yet taking an entire day off from reading and doing homework just won’t be conducive to succeeding this semester. Again, part of a Sabbath is being intentional. But if we’re too busy stressing out about what we still have left to do, there’s no way we’ll be relaxed. So we decided that homework can be done until 2 p.m. on Saturdays. After that, we’ll go take a walk, cook dinner together, etc.
I’m pretty excited to see where this goes and what it teaches us about rest. If God took the time for it, we probably should, too.
Wes: I had a weird thing happen to me at my churches. As many of you know, we've been working through The Story, which goes through the biblical narrative (NIV) in 31 chapters. We've been doing a chapter a week for the most part (with the exception of those few times that I crammed two together for the sake of finishing on time for Lent), and it's been a wonderful thing for both me and the church. I feel like I've grown in my competence of Scripture, and for many people in my church, they are moving into a biblically literate life because of it.
So a few weeks' ago, we as a church witnessed and celebrated the death and resurrection of Christ. Before Lent. We will finish up The Story next week (yeah, I didn't calculate it out perfectly... Oh well...) and then immediately move into Lent as we prepare again for Holy Week and all that it holds.
Do you get what means? My season of Lent this year is bookended by the resurrection of Jesus.
Weird, right?
One of my friends on Facebook made a comment that I was celebrating Easter a little early. I felt like I was! But in a way, I'm very glad for this, because it has reminded me of a very important aspect of my faith: I celebrate the resurrection of Christ every Sunday. Each Sunday can, should, and must be an Easter celebration!
Too much of the time, though, this is far, far from the case. I find myself bogged down in the Law of religion that I often forget the Grace of God that is present there as well! (That was a shout out to all of my Lutheran friends, b-t-dubs). This Lent, as Jess and I engage in intentional Sabbath time, as we remember that from dust we have come and to dust we shall return, as we reflect on the testing, the trials, the temptation, and the passion of Christ, I am going to work hard to put it all in context. I going to strive to live into the call of all of the disciples to be an Easter people.
And I'm going to remember what it is all about.
I'll also probably end up going to church a lot more since Jess is working with a bunch of Lutherans who worship together on Wednesday nights. That'll be fun.
So what are your plans for Lent? We'd love to hear them! Maybe we can all be praying for each other as we covenant together in our Lenten disciplines this year.
You stay classy, World Wide Web!
-jess and wes
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Celebrating Life: A Prayerful Conversation on Abortion
Jess: Well, this post may just be the one that finally makes us lose half of the few followers that we have. Wes and I debated writing about the Susan G. Komen/Planned Parenthood controversy and decided that this is too important to not write about, especially from our theological perspective. If you don't know what I'm talking about, here's a link. Susan G. Komen has since changed their minds, but the issues still stand.
Here's my take on it, first from the Christian perspective:
God tells us "Do not murder." Yes, we all know this is true, and some people even know that this is the fifth commandment. This seems to be the thing people bring up most frequently when defending their pro-life stance. God tells us not to kill, so we can't kill--and then we have to define what counts as a living being. I totally agree with this stance. We are called to refrain from killing. Ignoring the fact that God also commands God's people to kill those who disobey certain laws, we still run into a problem: whose life is most important?
I'll be completely honest with you. I haven't worked out my own stance on abortion yet. I know a few things:
1. I could never bring myself to get an abortion.
2. I could never judge someone else for choosing to do so.
3. I do not believe that abortion should be used as a form of birth control.
4. I think there are situations in which abortion may be necessary.
This last one is the one I think a lot of people kind of ignore when they're choosing sides in the abortion debate, and relates to the question above. Whose life is more important? If doctors know that the woman bearing this child WILL die for whatever reason, does that mean that she must forfeit her life for the sake of the unborn baby? If a woman has been raped, became pregnant as a result, and cannot afford to care for this child, does that mean she should sacrifice herself for something she had no control over? Yes, there is always the choice of adoption, but I think most people can recognize the attachment that women develop to their babies as they carry them for nine months. The point I'm making is that, like most issues, there is a gray area.
Luther has an answer to this that probably just makes the gray areas grayer, but I like it so I'm going to bring it up. In his explanation of the 5th commandment in the Small Cathecism, he says, "We are to fear and love God, so that we neither endanger or harm the lives of our neighbors, but instead help and support them in all of life's needs." There is more than "don't kill anyone" to this command. We are also called to "help and support" our neighbors in their lives. This includes when they find themselves in situations where they have to make big decisions, including those about abortion.
Mark Hall, the lead singer/songwriter of Casting Crowns, a Christian band, also addresses this issue. Their song "Does Anybody Hear Her?" developed from Hall seeing a young woman coming out of an abortion clinic, probably hurting physically and emotionally, who was basically attacked by pro-life protestors. He points out that, as Christians, we cannot with fairness step in that late in the game. We have already failed that young woman. We cannot tell her that having an abortion was wrong when we weren't there for her before she hit the downward spiral when "In walks her Prince Charming and he knows just what to say/Momentary lapse of reason and she gives herself away." Where were we when she needed an education about sex? Where were we when she was making tough decisions? Where are we now when she needs to hear, "God loves you."?
The point is that, as Christians, we should stand up for what we believe. If that's taking a pro-life stance, okay. If that's taking a pro-choice stance, okay. But we should form these opinions based on Scripture, not what someone else tells us. And we should not be forcing our Christian lives on the secular world. That's no way to lead people to faith. We should be loving God and neighbor. Only when we have done this--which, by the way, we never can, because we are broken--can we say, "What you did was wrong, and this is why." Jesus told us to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves--and that's the best way to spread the Gospel news. Jesus healed people, cared for them, and saved them. Yes, he also challenged them, debated with them, and downright fought with them. But all this came out of his love for God and people. If only we could learn to do the same.
Wes: I grew up hearing from seemingly everyone around me that abortion is a sin and that anyone who gets an abortion is going to hell. Now, there is a very, very good chance that many of the people whom I heard say this never actually took such a stance, but this is what my developmental mind heard and registered as a Christian truth. I thought for the majority of my life that this was as black and white an issue as which of my hands was left and which was right.
My senior year of high school, I can remember driving home with a few friends of mine after a rousing trip to Walmart, where everyone in Burnet went for fun. We were talking, as many headstrong seniors do, about all of the problems in the world that we would soon solve once we were out of high school. We went through issues of war, of human trafficking, of poverty, etc... until we finally found ourselves on the issue of abortion. I remember making a sweeping comment about how one simple law could solve that problem and families could just step up raise their kids like God intended. My friends looked at me, and one of them, Eli, said, "Wes, I don't think it's that simple."
And it's not, is it? I mean, we can all agree that human trafficking is wrong. People starving to death is wrong. Needless killing is wrong. But abortion seems a little bit more complicated than that.
But then again, sometimes it is absolutely that simple. The result of copulation is supposed to be reproduction. We have a sex drive so that we can maintain population growth. It's one of the few instincts that humans for sure have. Therefore, if you engage in sexual activities, you have to be ready for the consequences.
It's like in Genesis 3 when God speaks to Adam and Eve after they have eaten of the fruit of the forbidden tree. God doesn't set out punishments for them. Instead, he shares with them the consequences of their actions. They chose a path contrary to God's command, and their lives changed because of it. Life will not be a walk in the Garden of Eden from now on, so women will have to give birth to more children to combat infant mortalities. The earth will not willingly bear food anymore, so men will have to toil at the soil unceasingly to produce enough to live off of. In the same way, because two people chose to have sex, they now have to deal with the consequences that sex can/does lead to babies.
Abortion as birth control--be it for the teenager who took messing around too far or a cheating spouse trying to cover his/her indiscretions or the couple who just isn't ready yet for a/another kid--is completely unacceptable. It's wrong. It's black and white.
But the complexity comes into play when abortion isn't just used for birth control. As Jess mentioned above, what happens if something is wrong with the mother or the baby and going through with the pregnancy and birth could/would lead to the death of the mother or the baby or both of them? Can we place the value of one life over or under the value of another life? Is the potential life of the one to be born qualitatively greater than the one already living? I feel like Spiderman, having to choose between saving Mary Jane or the cable car full of helpless passengers.
Or what happens in the case of a pregnancy that is the result of rape? Can we expect someone to bear the emotional and physical pain of carrying with her for nine months the constant reminder of a horrible event? Can we expect that person to pay the physical, emotional, and monetary toll that comes with childbirth, even if she ends up giving the baby up for adoption? Honestly, until our government or some other organization is willing to pick up the entirety of the costs for the routine check-ups, delivery, and post-check-ups as well as pay for counseling for the victim, I cannot bring myself to say that anyone in this situation should have to bear this burden.
The last point that I want to make is extremely important. And here it is: I'm a man. Thanks to God and the lack of breakthroughs in modern science, I will never have to have the experience of bearing within me another living soul or of giving birth to him/her. Whereas I absolutely can have a learned and weighed opinion on this matter, and whereas my voice absolutely should be heard in all of this, the final decision for this should not be solely on my shoulders, or the shoulders of one man or group of men. We participate in the miracle of conception, but the miracle of gestation and birth has been given solely to our better halves. I think that when we engage in conversations about abortion, we should keep this in mind.
The Susan G. Komen Foundation made a decision a few weeks ago to stop their funding of Planned Parenthood because a small portion of their resources (about 3%) are budgeted toward aiding in abortions. The Foundation made this decision because they were trying (as far as I can tell through the reading I've done) to uphold a moral stance against abortions. Truthfully, I have no problem with an organization making a decision like this. Yes, there are some negative consequences, and yes, Planned Parenthood does so much more than help young women who are seeking an abortion. But I can absolutely understand an individual or group who takes the steps necessary to stick to their morals and beliefs, even if I do not agree with them. A man that I truly admire recently left the United Methodist Church because he found out that the UMC supports Planned Parenthood. He decided that he couldn't financially support a church that in some way supports abortion. As is the case with the Foundation, I cannot hold it against him for staying true to his heart.
For this post, I decided to check out exactly what the UMC says about abortion. It was a comforting thing for me, and it solidified again for me that I am United Methodist: "Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection." (http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.2239163/k.A82E/Abortion_Overview.htm)
I am pro-life. I wholeheartedly agree that each living soul is sacred and should be viewed as such. But I also believe that too much of the time in this broken world there is a lot more gray than there is black and white. I pray that God will guide us through such areas, and that always and above all, God's love would shine through.
You stay classy, World Wide Web.
-Jess and Wes
Here's my take on it, first from the Christian perspective:
God tells us "Do not murder." Yes, we all know this is true, and some people even know that this is the fifth commandment. This seems to be the thing people bring up most frequently when defending their pro-life stance. God tells us not to kill, so we can't kill--and then we have to define what counts as a living being. I totally agree with this stance. We are called to refrain from killing. Ignoring the fact that God also commands God's people to kill those who disobey certain laws, we still run into a problem: whose life is most important?
I'll be completely honest with you. I haven't worked out my own stance on abortion yet. I know a few things:
1. I could never bring myself to get an abortion.
2. I could never judge someone else for choosing to do so.
3. I do not believe that abortion should be used as a form of birth control.
4. I think there are situations in which abortion may be necessary.
This last one is the one I think a lot of people kind of ignore when they're choosing sides in the abortion debate, and relates to the question above. Whose life is more important? If doctors know that the woman bearing this child WILL die for whatever reason, does that mean that she must forfeit her life for the sake of the unborn baby? If a woman has been raped, became pregnant as a result, and cannot afford to care for this child, does that mean she should sacrifice herself for something she had no control over? Yes, there is always the choice of adoption, but I think most people can recognize the attachment that women develop to their babies as they carry them for nine months. The point I'm making is that, like most issues, there is a gray area.
Luther has an answer to this that probably just makes the gray areas grayer, but I like it so I'm going to bring it up. In his explanation of the 5th commandment in the Small Cathecism, he says, "We are to fear and love God, so that we neither endanger or harm the lives of our neighbors, but instead help and support them in all of life's needs." There is more than "don't kill anyone" to this command. We are also called to "help and support" our neighbors in their lives. This includes when they find themselves in situations where they have to make big decisions, including those about abortion.
Mark Hall, the lead singer/songwriter of Casting Crowns, a Christian band, also addresses this issue. Their song "Does Anybody Hear Her?" developed from Hall seeing a young woman coming out of an abortion clinic, probably hurting physically and emotionally, who was basically attacked by pro-life protestors. He points out that, as Christians, we cannot with fairness step in that late in the game. We have already failed that young woman. We cannot tell her that having an abortion was wrong when we weren't there for her before she hit the downward spiral when "In walks her Prince Charming and he knows just what to say/Momentary lapse of reason and she gives herself away." Where were we when she needed an education about sex? Where were we when she was making tough decisions? Where are we now when she needs to hear, "God loves you."?
The point is that, as Christians, we should stand up for what we believe. If that's taking a pro-life stance, okay. If that's taking a pro-choice stance, okay. But we should form these opinions based on Scripture, not what someone else tells us. And we should not be forcing our Christian lives on the secular world. That's no way to lead people to faith. We should be loving God and neighbor. Only when we have done this--which, by the way, we never can, because we are broken--can we say, "What you did was wrong, and this is why." Jesus told us to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves--and that's the best way to spread the Gospel news. Jesus healed people, cared for them, and saved them. Yes, he also challenged them, debated with them, and downright fought with them. But all this came out of his love for God and people. If only we could learn to do the same.
Wes: I grew up hearing from seemingly everyone around me that abortion is a sin and that anyone who gets an abortion is going to hell. Now, there is a very, very good chance that many of the people whom I heard say this never actually took such a stance, but this is what my developmental mind heard and registered as a Christian truth. I thought for the majority of my life that this was as black and white an issue as which of my hands was left and which was right.
My senior year of high school, I can remember driving home with a few friends of mine after a rousing trip to Walmart, where everyone in Burnet went for fun. We were talking, as many headstrong seniors do, about all of the problems in the world that we would soon solve once we were out of high school. We went through issues of war, of human trafficking, of poverty, etc... until we finally found ourselves on the issue of abortion. I remember making a sweeping comment about how one simple law could solve that problem and families could just step up raise their kids like God intended. My friends looked at me, and one of them, Eli, said, "Wes, I don't think it's that simple."
And it's not, is it? I mean, we can all agree that human trafficking is wrong. People starving to death is wrong. Needless killing is wrong. But abortion seems a little bit more complicated than that.
But then again, sometimes it is absolutely that simple. The result of copulation is supposed to be reproduction. We have a sex drive so that we can maintain population growth. It's one of the few instincts that humans for sure have. Therefore, if you engage in sexual activities, you have to be ready for the consequences.
It's like in Genesis 3 when God speaks to Adam and Eve after they have eaten of the fruit of the forbidden tree. God doesn't set out punishments for them. Instead, he shares with them the consequences of their actions. They chose a path contrary to God's command, and their lives changed because of it. Life will not be a walk in the Garden of Eden from now on, so women will have to give birth to more children to combat infant mortalities. The earth will not willingly bear food anymore, so men will have to toil at the soil unceasingly to produce enough to live off of. In the same way, because two people chose to have sex, they now have to deal with the consequences that sex can/does lead to babies.
Abortion as birth control--be it for the teenager who took messing around too far or a cheating spouse trying to cover his/her indiscretions or the couple who just isn't ready yet for a/another kid--is completely unacceptable. It's wrong. It's black and white.
But the complexity comes into play when abortion isn't just used for birth control. As Jess mentioned above, what happens if something is wrong with the mother or the baby and going through with the pregnancy and birth could/would lead to the death of the mother or the baby or both of them? Can we place the value of one life over or under the value of another life? Is the potential life of the one to be born qualitatively greater than the one already living? I feel like Spiderman, having to choose between saving Mary Jane or the cable car full of helpless passengers.
Or what happens in the case of a pregnancy that is the result of rape? Can we expect someone to bear the emotional and physical pain of carrying with her for nine months the constant reminder of a horrible event? Can we expect that person to pay the physical, emotional, and monetary toll that comes with childbirth, even if she ends up giving the baby up for adoption? Honestly, until our government or some other organization is willing to pick up the entirety of the costs for the routine check-ups, delivery, and post-check-ups as well as pay for counseling for the victim, I cannot bring myself to say that anyone in this situation should have to bear this burden.
The last point that I want to make is extremely important. And here it is: I'm a man. Thanks to God and the lack of breakthroughs in modern science, I will never have to have the experience of bearing within me another living soul or of giving birth to him/her. Whereas I absolutely can have a learned and weighed opinion on this matter, and whereas my voice absolutely should be heard in all of this, the final decision for this should not be solely on my shoulders, or the shoulders of one man or group of men. We participate in the miracle of conception, but the miracle of gestation and birth has been given solely to our better halves. I think that when we engage in conversations about abortion, we should keep this in mind.
The Susan G. Komen Foundation made a decision a few weeks ago to stop their funding of Planned Parenthood because a small portion of their resources (about 3%) are budgeted toward aiding in abortions. The Foundation made this decision because they were trying (as far as I can tell through the reading I've done) to uphold a moral stance against abortions. Truthfully, I have no problem with an organization making a decision like this. Yes, there are some negative consequences, and yes, Planned Parenthood does so much more than help young women who are seeking an abortion. But I can absolutely understand an individual or group who takes the steps necessary to stick to their morals and beliefs, even if I do not agree with them. A man that I truly admire recently left the United Methodist Church because he found out that the UMC supports Planned Parenthood. He decided that he couldn't financially support a church that in some way supports abortion. As is the case with the Foundation, I cannot hold it against him for staying true to his heart.
For this post, I decided to check out exactly what the UMC says about abortion. It was a comforting thing for me, and it solidified again for me that I am United Methodist: "Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection." (http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.2239163/k.A82E/Abortion_Overview.htm)
I am pro-life. I wholeheartedly agree that each living soul is sacred and should be viewed as such. But I also believe that too much of the time in this broken world there is a lot more gray than there is black and white. I pray that God will guide us through such areas, and that always and above all, God's love would shine through.
You stay classy, World Wide Web.
-Jess and Wes
Monday, January 30, 2012
The "S" Word
Jess: A few weeks ago in Confirmation, we talked about the sixth commandment. For those of you who have lost track--and trust me, I just checked to make sure I hadn't messed up--that's the one that says, "You shall not commit adultery." As one of the students pointed out, it's about sex and it's number six. Just in case you needed a good memory trick.
I was pretty impressed with the students and their willingness to have a discussion about this commandment. Luther says that this commandment means, "We should fear and love God that we may lead a chaste and decent life in words and deeds, and each love and honor his spouse." We talked a lot about this and its practical applications for our lives. But what struck me the most was when we started talking about what the church tells us about sex. Linda and I talked a little about it when we met the next week, but it has been bothering me ever since.
Why don't we talk about sex in the church? I'm not saying that the Sunday sermon is necessarily the best place to discuss the pros and cons of sex, sexuality, etc. Yet it's not as if sex doesn't exist in the Bible. God told Adam and Eve to "Be fruitful and multiply." Abraham and Sarah had fertility issues. Jacob had two wives, two concubines, and thirteen children! David, the great king, slept with his friend's wife. Jesus talks with prostitutes and those who have committed adultery. And there's no lack of discussion on circumcision in the Bible. But this was one of the first--if not THE first--time that I've discussed sex in a church setting. We didn't even do that in campus ministry at college.
What are we so afraid of? Look at the traditional ways the church has dealt with the issue of sex. Either we ignore it completely, or we convince everyone that sex is somehow dirty and wrong, or we declare that having sex before marriage somehow makes you less perfect. None of these is the right way to talk about something that God obviously intended for us. Surely if God thought sex was dirty, God would have created us in another way. And in Bible times, sex WAS marriage, so how can we declare something like that? There's no way that never talking about sex ever ever ever in the church is the right answer. It's part of God's creation, and God declared the whole of creation good.
If we don't talk about sex with the adolescents in our congregations, where are they going to learn? Sure, they'll learn the mechanics, some scary results, and possibly some options for contraception in school. Parents can talk to them, but is that enough? Can that combat everything they're going to hear from their friends, all the dirty jokes and bragging? What if we took the time in church to teach them that sex is a gift from God, and what that means? What if we taught them about how to deal with the hormones and emotions they experience on a daily basis right now? What if we taught them how to be friends with other boys and girls without feeling the pressure to use their sexuality inappropriately?
I'm definitely not claiming to have the answers. This is one of those situations where all I know is that what we're doing now isn't working. I'm not sure how to fix it, but I know we should.
Wes: Here are some of my thoughts on sex:
Why is it called the birds and the bees? I've always wondered that...
I read somewhere (maybe in Rob Bell's "Sex God" but I'm not promising anything) that throughout history, curse words have developed around the thing that each culture holds as the most important thing. This is why so many older curse words, such as the use of the Lord's name in vain, focus around God. It's also why, during the Black Plague, the word "bloody" became a strong curse word in Europe--blood was extremely important, especially if it was healthy and still running in someone's veins. I think it is interesting that a number of our "worst" curse words all deal with either the act of copulation or the body parts that are used for said activity.
I think the most I have ever heard about sex in church--in any setting, be it youth group, confirmation, adult Bible study, or anything else within the confines of the local church--is when someone read the Scripture that includes "so-and-so begetting so-and-so" (please keep in mind that this is not a direct quotation; the Bible does not actually contain the phrase "so-and-so" in Hebrew or Greek). The Lutherans might have the Methodists beat on this point... But only on this point.
I can vividly remember, though, being in settings with other denominations, such as a youth camp and FCA and even a See You At The Pole, where sex was not only brought up, but extra-marital sex was openly condemned and portrayed as the absolute worst thing that any God-fearing man or woman could ever do. I always felt like this was an unhelpful way to approach the problem. It was like telling someone not to eat that cake or not to press the red button. Of course they are going to have icing around their lips, and the alarms will be going off because the doomsday device is now working at full power. Tell someone--let's say, for instance, a teenage boy--that he is absolutely not allowed under any circumstances to do something--let's say, for instance, sex--and most of the time that one activity will pervade the majority of his waking thoughts. There has to be a better way to teach abstinence, and I don't mean by doing what my church obviously did, which was ignore the subject completely.
I will say that I was able to have wonderful one-on-one conversations with my good friends within the church about sex and through these conversations I learned a lot about my views, what Scripture said, and how the church could better portray this. I also am very grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in Chrysalis, a Walk to Emmaus style retreat for high schoolers. They break the groups up for the weekend into a guy's retreat and girl's retreat and then go through different topics. Two of these topics were sex in marriage and celibacy in singleness. These talks, given by lay leaders from the area, were real and very influential for both my own growth as well as the growth of who knows how many other guys.
I was also very lucky to be a part of a Men's Spirituality Group at TLU that dealt with a number of hard issues, and even though I don't remember a specific one about sex, we did speak quite a lot about the needs, responsibilities, and roles that men play in their different relationships throughout life. In the myriad of conversations that we had, I am sure that even if the subject of sex was not broached, it was the one place that I would have felt absolutely comfortable in speaking about it with others.
So. I guess in summary: Sex is a good, God-given thing that the church needs to find a better way of addressing. This does not include trying to scare the sex out of adolescents. It also does not include completely shying away from the subject. Open, frank discussions about sex are good things. Finally, why is it called the birds and bees?
I really want to know... Someone google it for me.
Well, TTFN: Ta Ta For Now. You stay classy, World Wide Web.
Love, Jess and Wes
I was pretty impressed with the students and their willingness to have a discussion about this commandment. Luther says that this commandment means, "We should fear and love God that we may lead a chaste and decent life in words and deeds, and each love and honor his spouse." We talked a lot about this and its practical applications for our lives. But what struck me the most was when we started talking about what the church tells us about sex. Linda and I talked a little about it when we met the next week, but it has been bothering me ever since.
Why don't we talk about sex in the church? I'm not saying that the Sunday sermon is necessarily the best place to discuss the pros and cons of sex, sexuality, etc. Yet it's not as if sex doesn't exist in the Bible. God told Adam and Eve to "Be fruitful and multiply." Abraham and Sarah had fertility issues. Jacob had two wives, two concubines, and thirteen children! David, the great king, slept with his friend's wife. Jesus talks with prostitutes and those who have committed adultery. And there's no lack of discussion on circumcision in the Bible. But this was one of the first--if not THE first--time that I've discussed sex in a church setting. We didn't even do that in campus ministry at college.
What are we so afraid of? Look at the traditional ways the church has dealt with the issue of sex. Either we ignore it completely, or we convince everyone that sex is somehow dirty and wrong, or we declare that having sex before marriage somehow makes you less perfect. None of these is the right way to talk about something that God obviously intended for us. Surely if God thought sex was dirty, God would have created us in another way. And in Bible times, sex WAS marriage, so how can we declare something like that? There's no way that never talking about sex ever ever ever in the church is the right answer. It's part of God's creation, and God declared the whole of creation good.
If we don't talk about sex with the adolescents in our congregations, where are they going to learn? Sure, they'll learn the mechanics, some scary results, and possibly some options for contraception in school. Parents can talk to them, but is that enough? Can that combat everything they're going to hear from their friends, all the dirty jokes and bragging? What if we took the time in church to teach them that sex is a gift from God, and what that means? What if we taught them about how to deal with the hormones and emotions they experience on a daily basis right now? What if we taught them how to be friends with other boys and girls without feeling the pressure to use their sexuality inappropriately?
I'm definitely not claiming to have the answers. This is one of those situations where all I know is that what we're doing now isn't working. I'm not sure how to fix it, but I know we should.
Wes: Here are some of my thoughts on sex:
Why is it called the birds and the bees? I've always wondered that...
I read somewhere (maybe in Rob Bell's "Sex God" but I'm not promising anything) that throughout history, curse words have developed around the thing that each culture holds as the most important thing. This is why so many older curse words, such as the use of the Lord's name in vain, focus around God. It's also why, during the Black Plague, the word "bloody" became a strong curse word in Europe--blood was extremely important, especially if it was healthy and still running in someone's veins. I think it is interesting that a number of our "worst" curse words all deal with either the act of copulation or the body parts that are used for said activity.
I think the most I have ever heard about sex in church--in any setting, be it youth group, confirmation, adult Bible study, or anything else within the confines of the local church--is when someone read the Scripture that includes "so-and-so begetting so-and-so" (please keep in mind that this is not a direct quotation; the Bible does not actually contain the phrase "so-and-so" in Hebrew or Greek). The Lutherans might have the Methodists beat on this point... But only on this point.
I can vividly remember, though, being in settings with other denominations, such as a youth camp and FCA and even a See You At The Pole, where sex was not only brought up, but extra-marital sex was openly condemned and portrayed as the absolute worst thing that any God-fearing man or woman could ever do. I always felt like this was an unhelpful way to approach the problem. It was like telling someone not to eat that cake or not to press the red button. Of course they are going to have icing around their lips, and the alarms will be going off because the doomsday device is now working at full power. Tell someone--let's say, for instance, a teenage boy--that he is absolutely not allowed under any circumstances to do something--let's say, for instance, sex--and most of the time that one activity will pervade the majority of his waking thoughts. There has to be a better way to teach abstinence, and I don't mean by doing what my church obviously did, which was ignore the subject completely.
I will say that I was able to have wonderful one-on-one conversations with my good friends within the church about sex and through these conversations I learned a lot about my views, what Scripture said, and how the church could better portray this. I also am very grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in Chrysalis, a Walk to Emmaus style retreat for high schoolers. They break the groups up for the weekend into a guy's retreat and girl's retreat and then go through different topics. Two of these topics were sex in marriage and celibacy in singleness. These talks, given by lay leaders from the area, were real and very influential for both my own growth as well as the growth of who knows how many other guys.
I was also very lucky to be a part of a Men's Spirituality Group at TLU that dealt with a number of hard issues, and even though I don't remember a specific one about sex, we did speak quite a lot about the needs, responsibilities, and roles that men play in their different relationships throughout life. In the myriad of conversations that we had, I am sure that even if the subject of sex was not broached, it was the one place that I would have felt absolutely comfortable in speaking about it with others.
So. I guess in summary: Sex is a good, God-given thing that the church needs to find a better way of addressing. This does not include trying to scare the sex out of adolescents. It also does not include completely shying away from the subject. Open, frank discussions about sex are good things. Finally, why is it called the birds and bees?
I really want to know... Someone google it for me.
Well, TTFN: Ta Ta For Now. You stay classy, World Wide Web.
Love, Jess and Wes
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Stewardship
Jess: Alright, it’s finally here: the long-neglected, long-awaited post on stewardship. I promised Andrew that we would write this over a month ago, but all the holiday stuff got in the way, and here we are…finally fulfilling a pretty simple promise.
Stewardship is a word that the church likes to throw around a lot, and generally neglects to actually explain. I don’t know if this is based on an assumption that everyone already knows what it means, or because we just don’t have a good grasp on it. In the Lutheran church (and maybe others), we like to bring out “stewardship,” talk about it for a few weeks, hope people give us some money, and then put it away till the next fall.
Before I get too deep into my argument about how I think we abuse the concept of stewardship, I’ll give a couple of definitions of it. The term comes from the occupation of “steward,” someone who was in charge of property or certain tasks. Wikipedia says stewardship, “is an ethic that embodies responsible planning and management of resources.” The church frequently only talks about stewardship in the sense of “making sure you pledge a good amount of money to the church so we can make our budget.” And therein lies my problem.
I don’t know any pastors who like talking about money, and I think that’s where some of the problems develop. Pastors, who benefit from the (monetary) stewardship of parishoners and who are dependent upon the generosity or obligation of said parishoners, have a hard time saying, “we need your money.” I don’t know anyone who likes listening to sermons about money, either. It’s kind of like how no one likes to talk about sex in the church—it just seems dirty.
I am convinced, however, that a real, lasting effort toward a holistic approach to stewardship would change this attitude drastically. If we spent the whole year talking about stewardship as a way of life, as something that we do with each passing day, people will start to understand its scope. Yes, we will still have to have the “money talk” each year. Yet it will be in the context of a long-term discussion of our stewardship of all aspects of our life: financial, environmental, emotional, our talents, our time, physical, etc.
Stewardship is a way of living. We are called to be good stewards of the earth. God told Adam and Eve, “‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.’ God said, ‘See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.’ And it was so.” If we have dominion over all the earth, we have a duty to care for it all. This is environmental stewardship. Although we talk about his at the seminary, it is not usually a topic of importance within the church.
All that we have is from the Lord. Stewardship is about caring for all that God has entrusted to us with love and respect for the One who created the earth and all that is in it. Yes, this includes our money, but financial stewardship is not all-encompassing. Perhaps if we started emphasizing this in our churches, people would recognize that coming and painting the halls of the church, spending time with shut-ins, teaching the children, limiting our use of natural resources, and offering some of our financial resources to the church are all parts of our stewardship, our care and thankfulness for all that God has created.
Wes: First off, ditto to everything that Jess said up there. She's one smart double-chocolate chip cookie. The following are small portions of a sermon I gave on stewardship. I promise I'm not (just) being lazy. I worked hard to formulate my thoughts on this, and want to put forth my best work for you, our loyal blog reader.
Stewardship is the practice of right utilization of the gifts and resources that our generous God has given to our care. For those in the church, it means giving to God--in some form and fashion--all that God has given to us so that it might truly bring glory to the Almighty. Our offerings of our resources and money are ways that we tell God how much we love him. They are acts of worship. Our offering is very dear to God because it shows that we are willing to give of our resources and ourselves to show our love to God. Our tithes and offerings are a tangible sign of our desire to live wholly for God. It is a spiritual discipline, an act of faith.
Now, when most people think of spiritual disciplines, they think of things like prayer, or fasting, or reading the Bible. They are good practices for the faithful Christian, and are usually acts that, like learning to play a musical instrument, take time and practice to master. So what can we mean when we say that tithing, giving of our resources to God, is a spiritual discipline? Well, just like how praying (especially out loud in public) is something most people have to work on before they are accomplished at it and comfortable with it, giving is something that we might not be particularly comfortable with at first. Giving, especially when we cannot immediately see how we benefit from it, is something that goes against worldly understanding. Giving our tithe and offering to God is not something that can be understood by the world. It takes a fair measure of faith to be able to give to God in this way, especially in financially troubling times such as this.
But this is something that we are called to do. In fact, from the earliest biblical times, the primary way that people worshipped God was not by the singing of praise songs or listening to sermons. The primary act of worship was building an altar and offering the fruit of one’s labors upon it to God. Scripture tells us that from as early as Adam’s children, Cain and Abel, God’s people were giving their best from crop and herd to God. Abraham and Jacob were the first to build altars and sacrifice their best to the Lord to show obedience and honor to God. Moses recorded God’s words on tithing in Leviticus: “A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the LORD; it is holy to the LORD.”
Now, as Christians, we are not bound by the Law of Moses, but we do see it as a guideline for how to live a holy life. That is why we still practice tithing and many other acts as described in the Torah. We should give God God’s tithe first (tithe actually means “first-fruits”) and then use the rest of our money and resources as we see fit.
So why is it that today we have people saying things like, “I give of my time and energy so I don’t need to give God my money”? This should be like saying, “I give a lot of money to the church so I don’t really need to pray or go to worship.” It is unacceptable. We as faithful disciples of Christ need to answer his call to engage in all forms of spiritual disciplines, not just the ones that tend to come easier to us. It might not be easy at first, but the more that we give, the more we will want to give. Working on giving is an act of discipleship. The more we work at it, the better we are at it.
Reverend Virjilio Vasquez-Garza was my District Superintendent when I declared my intent to enter the ministry. He is a wonderful person and a very wise man of God. I learned from another pastor friend that while growing up in Mexico, Virjilio, from his first pay day on, always gave a portion of his earnings to God. He would wake up early on Sunday mornings, take out his offering, and iron the bills so that they would be as crisp and clean as possible. He was proud of his offering, and would place it each week in the offering plate with great reverence, knowing that he was helping, in some small way, to fund the work of the Lord in his community.
Virjilio understood that discipleship is more about the need of the disciple to give than it is about the need of the church to receive. He was able to engage in worship through his financial faithfulness to God, giving joyfully even when he did not have any extra. He answered God’s call to be a good steward of God’s world and its resources.
That is what stewardship means. It is much, much more than giving a regular offering to the church. As Christians, we are stewards here on earth of God’s resources. Stewardship is giving back to God what is God’s and taking care of what God has entrusted us with. Our goal is to determine what God wants us to go with the resources we have at our disposal.
A good friend and colleague of mine, Ryan, went to visit a church in Rwanda and was greeted by the pastor and the congregation in the same manner. Everyone came up to him and grasped his hand while placing one arm over the other. After he had met everyone and shaken everyone’s hands, Ryan asked the pastor, Nathan Amoede, about this handshake, for he had noticed they did not shake each others hands in this way. Pastor Nathan told him that they had shaken his hand using the sign of highest respect, acknowledging him as a holy person. Soon after this conversation, the service started. When it came time for the offering, the plates were not passed row by row. Instead, Nathan placed a basket at the front of the church and the people, after they had prayed and spent some time hearing from God, walked up to the front of the church and placed their offering in the basket while placing one hand over the other arm, the same exact way that they had greeted Ryan.
When they gave their offering, they were not simply giving money to the church, they were grasping hands with the Almighty, partnering with God in the work of the Kingdom. What an amazing way to understand the offering time!
We look forward to hearing from you, and until then, you stay classy, World Wide Web!
-wes and jess
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
