Giving thanks for Creation's bounty

So, my church friends know that remembering to say grace before meals is, ummm, not one of my strong points. To put it mildly. Everyone grows up doing some things and not doing others. This is not a practice that was a regular part of my family's life, and trying to introduce it later always felt forced and awkward.

I have also gotten more interested in food recently. I’ve paid some attention to ethical growing conditions, sustainability, etc. for several years now but over December I got stuck in an airport for most of the day and read through The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Now I got a lot more interested, specifically with regard to animal products. I haven’t gotten regular-old grocery store meats since.

This was happening at the same time as Project Leviticus but I tried to write it up a couple times and my posts ended up being “The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Abridged” with a shake of “Oh and there are a bunch of agricultural laws in Torah and I’m sure this is in the same spirit somehow.” Rigorous exegesis this is not. Although there ARE a bunch of agricultural laws in Torah, which I figure are fundamentally about respecting the Creator through respecting Creation, and I AM sure this is in the same spirit somehow.

I had been interested in getting a CSA share for a while now but it hasn’t really been feasible as a singleton. This year I have some friends who wanted to share it with me, so we signed up for a vegetable share and a meat share (different farms). The veggies have been coming for about six weeks and we recently got our first meat share.

Given the Massachusetts growing season, it wasn’t all that interesting at first. Lotsa lettuces. Some bok choi. Beets. But now in mid to late July things are getting a lot more fun, and it's become more possible to make meals out of my CSA bounty.

And recently I’ve prepared a few group meals, mostly (though not entirely) from CSA sources and shared with friends old and new and I tell you it has been delightful! Absolutely lovely. Now I always like cooking and sharing meals with friends, but the locally grown and responsibly produced element makes it even better. I feel so much more connected with the natural order of things, as if this is the way it is supposed to be.

And, especially interesting to me, beginning these meals with a prayer hasn't felt forced. It has felt quite natural.

What do we look for in church?

Some of my friends are in the process of finding a church home and so we were talking about what we look for in church. Why is church important?

One aspect that comes up a lot in these conversations is community. We want to find our "urban tribe" in church -- that network of interconnected relationships of people who celebrate together, support each other, create a sort of extended family.

We certainly all need networks like that. And certainly it would be strange indeed to isolate that circle of your nearest and dearest from those you worship with.

Still, that isn't what I expect a church to be. I've lived in my current city for almost six years and attended my current church for all but a few months of that time. My "urban tribe," such as it is, is heavily composed of people from that church, and most of the others attend similar churches. I realized this relatively recently and I find it disturbing. My other close friends -- that circle that is so close geography doesn't matter -- is heavily non-Christian.

If we think of church as an "urban tribe", then it seems to me we have two options. One option is that it is somehow inappropriate to be this close to non-Christians. Of course we should interact with people who don't always see the world in the same way -- but your nearest and dearest circle should be all Christian. I don't care for that option at all. The other option is that my dear friends who are Jews or Unitarians or whatever else are in fact part of my church. If that's the case then I think the word "church" has lost its meaning.

Another friend of mine was part of a large church body for a while but found the relational overload to be overwhelming. After you've been at a place for a while, you've been in a few different small groups, served on projects with a bunch of other people, the numbers add up quickly -- he couldn't maintain all those relationships. After trying a house church for a while he's currently just focusing on spending time with Christian friends, and is quite satisfied with this. I have a very strong sense that he's missing the point. Going out to dinner with Christian friends, talking about spiritual matters is all fine and good and valuable, but that's not what church IS.

Okay, then what IS church? If church isn't basically and fundamentally about relationships, what is it about? One option that comes to mind immediately is "well, it's fundamentally about the sacraments." That's part of it too -- but that were the basic fundamental point then I'd be hanging out with the Episcopalians or Lutherans, or maybe still the Catholics, not the Congregationalists.

So what is it? What is going on here? I realize that I have no clue and I find this fascinating. Thoughts?

What she said

The May 6, 2008 post, to be precise.

http://firstyearminister.blogspot.com/

Seeking allies and recognizing the costs

Today I spent an hour watching this documentary, about a desegregation lawsuit in Yonkers, New York in the 1980s.

www.brick-by-brick.com

The NAACP filed a complaint with the Department of Justice, alleging systemic racial discrimination in housing and education in Yonkers. Suit was filed in 1980, continued through much of the 1980s. The educational element settled, but Yonkers dug in its heels with the housing issues, ultimately being held in contempt of court and paying crippling fines rather than submit to the court order. The first subsidized housing in the good side of town opened up in 1992 and the final resolution didn't occur until 2007. Twenty-seven years after the lawsuit was brought. Did it need to take so long?

I thought the most interesting character was Mary Dorman, going from fearing potential changes in her neighborhood, to actively opposing desegregation, to welcoming her new neighbors. She’s not a horrible vicious stereotype. And there were probably lots and lots of Yonkers residents like her (and also some who were simply virulently racist).

So, it used to be very common when you bought a house that the deed would include a “restrictive covenant” keeping you from later on selling it to a minority. The Supreme Court case that struck down these restrictive covenants was Shelley v. Kraemer and the house in question was in Washington Park, a neighborhood of Chicago that was close to where I went to school. At the time of the case it was a thriving middle class neighborhood. Now it’s the stereotypical depressed inner city.

Now I want to be on record as entirely in favor of Shelley v. Kraemer. Entirely in favor. However, you do not need to be innately evil to really not want your beloved neighborhood to take the same path that Washington Park did. Schooling can be the same way. People can be not racist and still not want their seven-year-olds to be spending hours on a bus going across the city. And in college I spent some time volunteering in a public high school that I would have attended if my family had lived one block north and we had gone to public schools (we went to the neighborhood Catholic schools). That was an eye-opener. I would estimate that this tenth grade class was doing about what my class had done in sixth grade. You do not have to be a horrible person to say “I’m not sending my kid there.” And I’m CERTAINLY not interested in having my kid spending hours on a school bus to go across town when that’s what they’re going to.

During the days of the major desegregation decisions, there was often a criticism that the judges, living happily in their wealthy and overwhelmingly white suburbs, were not going to have THEIR kids bussed across town. Those areas are not going to be meaningfully desegregated anytime soon. That burden will be felt by the people in the cities, etc. The lower economic class whites. And that’s true. However, that doesn’t mean that the judges weren’t right to order desegregation.

It seemed as if the NAACP was reacting to a real and serious and very destructive injustice in Yonkers and in response they went on the warpath. And I can understand why they did so because after all it was a real and serious and very destructive injustice.

But is our goal here front page newspaper stories about our victories or is it actually improving the situation? Maybe it’s both. Precedent matters. Those headlines can make a difference. But gosh darn it, the ultimate goal here has to be actually changing the situation. And I have to wonder if maybe the process might not have been so destructive, might not have taken two decades, if there had been some effort to reach out to the Mary Dormans of the world and enlist them as allies instead of (or in addition to?) going in with guns blazing with the result that the Mary Dormans of the world were threatened, had no one assuaging some relatively reasonable fears (as well as many many unreasonable ones) and were told that they were awful people when gosh darn it Mary Dorman did not think of herself as awful. Given that dynamic, it is not all that surprising (although deeply, deeply wrong) that she went into anti-desegregation activism. Could this have been avoided? Could the NAACP have gotten the Mary Dormans of the world as allies? Could maybe those awful racially divided City Council meetings have been avoided, or at least lessened?

This also raises a question of to what extent we need to be heroic. The big argument for white flight was often “well sure, I have no problem with the new people moving into the neighborhood. But let’s just be realistic, my neighbors will, and property values are going to plummet. I just have to get my house on the market first before they fall too much more.” And that is true. But it also accelerates the process of the property values falling, there being less disposable income in the neighborhood and so not as many stores, etc., so the neighborhood is less attractive so people with some money don’t want to be there anymore, etc. etc. etc. To what extent are we required to say “Yes, property values may well fall. I probably am going to lose a good chunk of my life savings by staying here, meanwhile the neighborhood is becoming a less attractive place to be. I’m still staying.” That’s a huge burden to carry (and it has to be noted, a burden that is not borne at all in the wealthy suburbs – this is a burden imposed on the working class). Same thing goes for schooling. Prosperous families, with time and resources to invest in their kids schooling, are going to avoid that high school I observed if they can. They’ll buy a house that goes to the neighboring high school instead (property values increased significantly in that one block!) or pay the tuition for private schools or something. But, having those families at the public high school and involved in the school community would help make it better for all concerned. Are we obligated to do so? When is the cost just too high?

AAACK. My head is hurting. Why can’t moral issues be simple?

Talking about love

As if I didn't have enough books demanding attention. This one looks like it could be well worth savoring.

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3289

I was especially struck by this paragraph from the book review:

Thomas Aquinas explained how differences in closeness and worthiness justify different degrees of love--for, say, a sinful parent and for a virtuous stranger. By contrast, Luther says that Christian love for others should be independent of their worth. The epitome of Christian love, for Thomas, was friendship for God, whereas Luther emphasized obedience to God’s word. While Thomas made self-love central, Luther considered it sinful.

I'm not familiar (yet) with the nuances being summarized here. Luther seems right that Christian love should be independent of the worth of the beloved. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us and all that.

However, there are differences of roles and relationship and to overlook that seems inhuman. A Christian may well owe a duty to starving children in Africa, but it is very different from the duty owed by a Christian parent to their own children. Any moral system which does not recognize this difference is simply out of line with humanity.

I love Thomas's emphasis on friendship for God. Obedience is very important. Obedience is how we learn to develop a friendship for God, but simple obedience is far from the end goal.

And then there's the issue of self-love. So often we hear about "self-love" and think of narcissism and arrogance. And so often we label our own narcissism as "self-love", which does not help matters. However, it seems to me that the two could not be further apart, and so much sin comes not from an excessive self-love but from the lack of it.

After all, I am the beloved of God! As a follower of God, I ought to love what God loves. And God loves me. God loves a whole lot else, of course, but God definitely loves me. How can I do otherwise? And when I recognize that, what else do I need? I don't need to be the center of attention. I don't need to puff myself up. When I don't know God's love for me, and don't love myself, then I will fall into narcissism.

Fundamentally good and still needing saving

Often at church I'll hear something along the lines of "Modern psychology tries to tell us that while we do bad things we are basically good people. However, the Bible tells us that we are sinners." To which I am always yearning to respond "You are saying that as if those statements are in some way contradictory!" See, I most definitely do sin, but I am also the good creation of an amazingly good God. And all the sin I bring into my life cannot change my basic nature as God's good creation. I'm just not that powerful.

I read an article recently which referred to Jane Austen's "Emma," and specifically Knightley's rebuke of Emma.

http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2008/03/24/go-on-agree-with-god/

Emma had just told Miss Bates, in public, that she is a bore. Which, it must be admitted, she is. She will natter on about nothing for ages, leaving everyone else climbing the walls. However, she also has a good heart and precarious financial circumstances and if you are a character in a Jane Austen novel it Does Not Do to let on that Miss Bates drives you up the wall. Emma breaks that social code and Mr. Knightley, appropriately, lets her have it.

However, it seems to me that the writer of this article misses an absolutely essential element of Knightley's rebuke. This author seems to interpret Knightley's rebuke as wholesale condemnation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The end of Knightley's rebuke puts everything into the right context:

"I will tell you truths while I can; satisfied with proving myself your friend by very faithful counsel, and trusting that you will some time or other do me greater justice than you can do now." Emma, Ch. 43.

He is absolutely unsparing about her awful behavior -- because he knows her and loves her and knows she is better than this.

Talking with a friend recently, I was saying that we humans are fundamentally good, although certainly still sinners in need of a savior. He did not understand the concept, but it seems to me an absolutely essential one. We screw up royally -- and yet we remain fundamentally God's good creation. That does not excuse our bad behavior -- if anything it makes our bad behavior all the worse because we are better than this! And it is high time we live up to our God-given good nature.

Knightley is in love with Emma, and that colors everything. He calls her to account because he loves her and knows her current behavior is unworthy of her. We would do well to understand our own conviction of sin in the same light. The Holy Spirit often will call us to account -- always and only because of God's great love for us. We are better than our bad behavior. Time to start acting like it.

What privileges do you have?

Based on an exercise about class and privilege developed by Will Barratt, Meagan Cahill, Angie Carlen, Minnette Huck, Drew Lurker, Stacy Ploskonka at Illinois State University.

(If you participate in this blog game, they ask that you PLEASE acknowledge their copyright.)

Directions: Bold the statements that apply to you.

1. Father went to college.
2. Father finished college.
3. Mother went to college.
4. Mother finished college.
5. Have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor.
6. Were the same or higher social class than your high school teachers.
7. Had more than 50 books in your childhood home.
8. Had more than 500 books in your childhood home.
9. Were read children’s books by a parent.
10. Had lessons of any kind before you turned 18.
11. Had more than two kinds of lessons before you turned 18.
12. The people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively.
13. Had a credit card with your name on it before you turned 18.
14. Your parents (or a trust) paid for the majority of your college costs.
15. Your parents (or a trust) paid for all of your college costs.
16. Went to a private high school.
17. Went to summer camp.
18. Had a private tutor before you turned 18.
19. Family vacations involved staying at hotels. (occasionally -- usually we were visiting relatives)
20. Your clothing was all bought new before you turned 18 (most but not all).
21. Your parents bought you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them.
22. There was original art in your house when you were a child.
23. You and your family lived in a single-family house.
24. Your parents owned their own house or apartment before you left home.
25. You had your own room as a child.
26. You had a phone in your room before you turned 18.
27. Participated in a SAT/ACT prep course.
28. Had your own TV in your room in high school.
29. Owned a mutual fund or IRA in high school or college.
30. Flew anywhere on a commercial airline before you turned 16.
31. Went on a cruise with your family.
32. Went on more than one cruise with your family.
33. Your parents took you to museums and art galleries as you grew up.
34. You were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family.

I have a lot more bolding than not. I was especially struck by the last one. Ummm ... wow.

How then should I live?