gandhi is supposed to have said quite famously, "be the change you wish to see in the world." this is all well and good, but in my estimation it is difficult for most people to decide where to start that change.
last night in our community gathering we talked about a passage from matthew 25 where jesus tells to some a forlorn story. it seems harsh and as though it rails at people who are on the outside of a certain group. without boring everyone from here to timbuktu, let it suffice to say that jesus talks here of all nations being called to him. in other words, everyone has an equal shot. that is as far as i will go with this bit of exegesis, but if you want further explanation just ask.
perhaps what i think is most interesting about this passage though is that jesus suggests our actions matter. the way in which we treat one another is significant. i have studied the idea of community for the past 6-7 years. what i have learned in that time, both experientially and academically, is that it takes intentionality. so often we believe that it will simply happen. surely our desire for it to occur counts for something, but community does not simply spring up wherever we find ourselves. it is something that is developed.
more interesting still to me is that many people equate the words translated most often "least of these" in the passage to marginalized, homeless, poverty level people. i believe these people are included in this group, however i believe we let ourselves off the hook in suggesting this translation. a more accurate translation of this word in the greek could be the "less significant" or "unimportant." to be sure, any people we have marginalized or deemed beyond redemption have been considered unimportant or less significant than ourselves, but i think the meaning is broader and the implications broader still. i see this as a cultural reminder of the fact that all people are deserving of love and compassion, dignity and respect. it is as though jesus suggests that we are to treat those to whom we have no obligation in extravagant ways. we are to go out of our own way to make sure those people to whom we owe nothing and are not beholden are taken care of.
i imagine that first century jewish and roman ears would have heard this message pertaining to the cultural system set up to remind them that they had no obligation to those below them. they owed taxes to caesar and the state demanded your complete obligation. but you had no obligation to the infirm, those outside your household, and certainly to those you had no business interaction with. in our 21st century haze, the message remains the same. we talk as though we have obligation only to those we see most often, work for, or have a nationalist allegiance to, but the reality is we are called to treat all people with love, dignity, and respect.
for the pragmatists out there who are connecting the dots and want the how-to of the lesson of communal living, i suggest the following: it begins and ends with intention. we must be intentional about how we interact with other people. we too often, in my opinion, fail to recognize the amount of responsibility and creative authority we have as humans in relation to god. we participate in a grand way as co-creators with god. and in america specifically i believe this starts with vulnerability. we must learn to talk about ourselves in unguarded and authentic ways. we too frequently hide behind masks of who we want others to see us as, and then wonder how we never know the needs of our neighbors or friends. we must learn to be genuine in our presentation of who we are in order to facilitate relationships that meet needs and foster change in our communities. and then we can begin to see the change we wish to be in the world.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
the united states of LeBron
apparently what LeBron James does on the basketball court matters, a lot. at the end of the series the Cleveland Cavaliers played against the Orlando Magic, LeBron walked off the court without shaking anyone's hand. he didn't stick around for the post-game press conference either. he quickly showered and made his way to the team bus, and he waited there to leave. in the next days a national furor went up from all kinds of media outlets. sports writers and commentators alike have excoriated LeBron for not sticking around and showing "good sportsmanship."
cue the dilemma. or maybe more appropriately, cue Charles Barkley. i remember when i was growing up and Charles Barkley was a hell of a basketball player. he was fierce under the basket and gave 100% effort 100% of the time. Charles Barkley was also a bit of a conversationalist, and his views weren't always politically correct. when called to task on one occasion for actions unbecoming of a role model he had this to say: "i am not a role model...just because i dunk a basketball doesn't mean i should raise your kids." that is sage advice if i have ever heard it. and i don't say that because i think Sir Charles would do a bad job raising kids. i think he simply understands the religion of sports.
you see sports are a religion in america. we worship athletes as though they will pass the money they make on down to us. we ritualize everything in sports from the celebrations to the way we become superstitious and especially if our team makes the playoffs (the playoff beard for example). there is a lot of good stuff out there by people who have studied this subject if you want a more in depth examination. that sports is a religion is not a problem for me in many cases. that we begin to construct athletes as role models on the other hand becomes idolatrous. and idolatry within any religion is inappropriate and destructive.
i say this because more often than not our idolatry of an individual makes them into something more than human. (although i might not argue that LeBron is more than human...but i would argue that he is a freak machine and not a god!) we forget that they are subject to the same laws as we are, that they are simply human, make mistakes, or are not morally impeccable whether or not we want them to be. our culture has set us up to expect the impossible from certain sports athlete individuals and when they fail to hold those standards we cry foul as though the moral fabric of america is at risk.
only in a voyeuristic culture where we value living vicariously through athletic superstars and holding them up as false role models higher than identifying with the humanity of them as individuals do we get ruffled that someone like LeBron James failed to shake hands with the other team and not show up to a post-game press conference. i ask why should we care whether or not he shakes hands with someone? i am willing to bet that a lot of other people didn't shake hands nor do we in the work place or in daily life when things don't go our way.
here is generally where people suggest that if kids are watching it sets a bad example. i am guessing that the argument here is predicated on the fact that sportsmanship is shown by shaking someone's hand after victory or defeat, some call this having grace in defeat. i wonder if we think the same thing as we see players trash talk others, disrespect stadiums and other teams in celebration dances, etc. it seems singularly selective to suggest that sportsmanship or graciousness is exemplified in a 20 second handshake after a game. as a person who played sports their entire life growing up, there is not a lot of authenticity in those events. you only line up because someone is telling you have to do so. i would suggest that if we want to examine sportsmanship we must look at the humanity of the player. and i would argue that if there is no intention of authenticity in a "congratulatory" handshake on LeBron James' part after a game, he exhibits more sportsmanship than others who falsely display "sportsmanship" by leaving the court. all we are doing is creating an idol akin to the superstar role model out of sportsmanship wherein we value the display of accepted sportsmanship ritual over the true humanity of an individual in a sporting event. in other words, we don't value sports athletes as humans, we only value them for the entertainment commodity we have made them.
perhaps Sir Charles was right so many years ago. true role models should be people who are actively participating in shaping the lives of our children. and as a culture we should recognize the idols we have set up for ourselves and identify the destructive nature of those idols.
cue the dilemma. or maybe more appropriately, cue Charles Barkley. i remember when i was growing up and Charles Barkley was a hell of a basketball player. he was fierce under the basket and gave 100% effort 100% of the time. Charles Barkley was also a bit of a conversationalist, and his views weren't always politically correct. when called to task on one occasion for actions unbecoming of a role model he had this to say: "i am not a role model...just because i dunk a basketball doesn't mean i should raise your kids." that is sage advice if i have ever heard it. and i don't say that because i think Sir Charles would do a bad job raising kids. i think he simply understands the religion of sports.
you see sports are a religion in america. we worship athletes as though they will pass the money they make on down to us. we ritualize everything in sports from the celebrations to the way we become superstitious and especially if our team makes the playoffs (the playoff beard for example). there is a lot of good stuff out there by people who have studied this subject if you want a more in depth examination. that sports is a religion is not a problem for me in many cases. that we begin to construct athletes as role models on the other hand becomes idolatrous. and idolatry within any religion is inappropriate and destructive.
i say this because more often than not our idolatry of an individual makes them into something more than human. (although i might not argue that LeBron is more than human...but i would argue that he is a freak machine and not a god!) we forget that they are subject to the same laws as we are, that they are simply human, make mistakes, or are not morally impeccable whether or not we want them to be. our culture has set us up to expect the impossible from certain sports athlete individuals and when they fail to hold those standards we cry foul as though the moral fabric of america is at risk.
only in a voyeuristic culture where we value living vicariously through athletic superstars and holding them up as false role models higher than identifying with the humanity of them as individuals do we get ruffled that someone like LeBron James failed to shake hands with the other team and not show up to a post-game press conference. i ask why should we care whether or not he shakes hands with someone? i am willing to bet that a lot of other people didn't shake hands nor do we in the work place or in daily life when things don't go our way.
here is generally where people suggest that if kids are watching it sets a bad example. i am guessing that the argument here is predicated on the fact that sportsmanship is shown by shaking someone's hand after victory or defeat, some call this having grace in defeat. i wonder if we think the same thing as we see players trash talk others, disrespect stadiums and other teams in celebration dances, etc. it seems singularly selective to suggest that sportsmanship or graciousness is exemplified in a 20 second handshake after a game. as a person who played sports their entire life growing up, there is not a lot of authenticity in those events. you only line up because someone is telling you have to do so. i would suggest that if we want to examine sportsmanship we must look at the humanity of the player. and i would argue that if there is no intention of authenticity in a "congratulatory" handshake on LeBron James' part after a game, he exhibits more sportsmanship than others who falsely display "sportsmanship" by leaving the court. all we are doing is creating an idol akin to the superstar role model out of sportsmanship wherein we value the display of accepted sportsmanship ritual over the true humanity of an individual in a sporting event. in other words, we don't value sports athletes as humans, we only value them for the entertainment commodity we have made them.
perhaps Sir Charles was right so many years ago. true role models should be people who are actively participating in shaping the lives of our children. and as a culture we should recognize the idols we have set up for ourselves and identify the destructive nature of those idols.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
where risk meets opportunity
those people reading who know me well...or maybe even not well, you will not be surprised that i have opinions when it comes to the future of the church. and if you don't know me well (and i am not guessing there are many of those people reading, but if there are i just wanted to be sure my salutation bases were covered), you now know that i have opinions about the future of the church. to be clear for everyone involved i mean the church universal, not perhaps my or your local church that you like, dislike, are ambivalent toward, etc.
onward to the meat of all of this.
i have never been too terribly public about some of these feelings, and yet have also never shied away from the opportunity to discuss these things with other people when the opportunities have arisen. that being said, i was recently given the opportunity to do some writing for a website featuring young adults thoughts about the united methodist church. it was free reign to choose what i wanted to, and so i took some of my thoughts previously put here and expanded on them and edited them down some as well. (as a note i haven't submitted them yet, but check back there to see them when they do show up.)
it feels both thrilling and a little bit intimidating to have your words and thoughts put out somewhere for others to judge and (hopefully) read. but i also feel like i have valuable things to say and have been looking for opportunities to be more involved in these type of conversations recently and to reach a broader audience.
the problem in all of this is that i have never been good at risk taking. i have always been the person who double and triple checks things before moving forward in order to minimize whatever risk is there. and this is probably in some ways detrimental. i have no doubt missed out on some opportunities due to these tendencies, and perhaps other opportunities have been available to me because of that same tendency. in my daydreams i want to be a person who takes more risks and does adventurous things with the opportunities in front of me.
perhaps it is not an either/or situation but a discovery of the balance between the two where risk meets pragmatism and opportunity converges with both.
onward to the meat of all of this.
i have never been too terribly public about some of these feelings, and yet have also never shied away from the opportunity to discuss these things with other people when the opportunities have arisen. that being said, i was recently given the opportunity to do some writing for a website featuring young adults thoughts about the united methodist church. it was free reign to choose what i wanted to, and so i took some of my thoughts previously put here and expanded on them and edited them down some as well. (as a note i haven't submitted them yet, but check back there to see them when they do show up.)
it feels both thrilling and a little bit intimidating to have your words and thoughts put out somewhere for others to judge and (hopefully) read. but i also feel like i have valuable things to say and have been looking for opportunities to be more involved in these type of conversations recently and to reach a broader audience.
the problem in all of this is that i have never been good at risk taking. i have always been the person who double and triple checks things before moving forward in order to minimize whatever risk is there. and this is probably in some ways detrimental. i have no doubt missed out on some opportunities due to these tendencies, and perhaps other opportunities have been available to me because of that same tendency. in my daydreams i want to be a person who takes more risks and does adventurous things with the opportunities in front of me.
perhaps it is not an either/or situation but a discovery of the balance between the two where risk meets pragmatism and opportunity converges with both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)