Right from the start, I'll have to apologize to Kim, and Mary, and Betty, and oh so many others. Quakerism is full of Librarians, and they are damn good ones as well! But for the life of me, I can't think of anything more stereotypically plain that the stereotype of the common librarian, or libronus plainiatis? Anyway, there is a point to all of this.
Most Quakers don't wear plain clothes anymore. Plain clothes are decidedly an anomaly amongst the Society. There are many Friends who "dress down" and wear only clothing from resale shops, or go the jeans and sweatshirt route, and feel they are fulfilling the "spirit" of the early Friends insistence on wearing prescribed clothing. That may or may not be true, but it's not the issue of plainness that I want to discuss.
Plainness was an expression, not of Quaker insistence of looking alike so that they could keep people in line (though it might have turned into such an endeavor later). It was an expression of self-denial that reflected the knowledge that Jesus' call to bear one's cross necessarily included the tearing away of those luxuries that could get in the way of discipleship. Quakers practiced self-denial because, like waiting worship, it stripped away the will to be who we aim to be, and not who the living God wants us to be. Waiting worship is self-denial in the sense that we deny ourselves all those comforting rituals and aesthetically pleasing religious practices in favor of a more formidable experience of the Creator. An experience where all the trappings that keep us entertained are stripped away, and whatever it is that we experience is undoubtedly the invitation of the Spirit to know and understand the message that God intends for us to hear.
God's presence is not invoked through the singing of praises or the reciting of creeds. God's presence is constant, and once we deny ourselves of the comfort of religious clutter, we can wait on that ever-present spirit to shape us in the image of the Creator, and not vice-verse. But, you might ask, what does this have to do with clothing?
There are plenty of great reasons why Quakers should dress plain, but I will only focus on the aspect of self-denial. When we practice such self-denial as the wearing of plain clothes entails, we can begin what to learn what it means to be an outcast because we don't wear power ties or bell-bottoms. In fact, once we rid ourselves of adornments, we might know what it is really like to be pre-judged or discriminated against based on first glances. Or, we might finally know what it means to be committed to a public statement, not only against sweatshops and frivolity, but against the machinations of an industry that engage in the manipulation of people's self-image and self-worth, their sexuality (especially), and desire for an expression of an individuality that has left them unable to communicate outside of the fact that they dress in a manner that publishes their lack of self-worth, their acceptance of the degradation of their sexuality, and their willingness to be consumers first and foremost.
And as for the "plain" librarians. Well, the librarians I know are not plain at all. While they certainly don't wear flashy clothing, that is not my point. My point is that they are all obvious expressions of God's lovingkindness for the world, and they are some of the most incredible people to talk with, and to worship with, and to walk through life with. All it took was to develop a relationship that was not based upon uncertain projections of who they would like me to think they are, but who they really turned out to be. Plain clothes are not necessarily a projection of who we are, but who we refuse to be. The affirmative aspect of plain clothing, however, is more edifying. We empty ourselves of insecurities brought on by social standards, and fill ourselves with the identity that will reflect who God wants us to be.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
The Plain Quaker is Back!
Hello all, I am back on the blog scene and hoping to keep up with it through the summer, as I have started a new job and might be able to find 15 minutes a day to let the world know what the difference between right and wrong is! Yes, I am quite aware that this statement is not very reflective of Quaker admonishments against claiming any real truth outside of the idea that peace is nice, and Buddha is an appropriately Quakeresque path to a god. I am deeply sorry to offend any Friendly sensibilities by saying such things, but indeed, It makes me feel better to rant and rave about the many things I can do nothing about.
Incredibly, I succeeded at passing my Basic Greek II course with Susan Jeffers. Susan is a great person, and a more that competent ESR/Bethany/Quaker instructor. The next time I have the opportunity to be a student under her tutelage, however, it will be in a traditional classroom setting. I will never take another e-course again. I have neither the discipline nor the temper for such an endeavor. Susan will be happy to know, however, that I am continuing to work on my Greek skills by translating the Sermon on the Mount during my evening free-time. I must say, however, that my skills are still lacking at this point.
Anyhow, I hope to keep up to date on things, and I hope everyone who once read the content of this trash will return as faithful supporters. Blessings, Scot
Incredibly, I succeeded at passing my Basic Greek II course with Susan Jeffers. Susan is a great person, and a more that competent ESR/Bethany/Quaker instructor. The next time I have the opportunity to be a student under her tutelage, however, it will be in a traditional classroom setting. I will never take another e-course again. I have neither the discipline nor the temper for such an endeavor. Susan will be happy to know, however, that I am continuing to work on my Greek skills by translating the Sermon on the Mount during my evening free-time. I must say, however, that my skills are still lacking at this point.
Anyhow, I hope to keep up to date on things, and I hope everyone who once read the content of this trash will return as faithful supporters. Blessings, Scot
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Super Bowl iconoclasm
So, it's that time of year when all eyes are focused upon the NFL prize, and all true blooded Americans, as well as a multitude of cosmopolitan Midwesterners, will anxiously await to have their regional loyalties and marginal gambling allegiances vindicated by the ultimate victory. Indeed, somewhere in the middle of an Indiana or Illinois cornfield, it will smell like napalm on Monday morning.
As a marginal sports enthusiast (and a dedicated U of Mich. football fan) I can understand the excitement of this culmination of athletics and consumerism as an experience that every pop culture adherent must participate in. Yet as someone whose loyalties are bound up by an ancient regionalism that commands allegiance to the Lions, I am uniquely qualified to pooh-pooh this weekends event as nothing more than an idolatrous festival to capitalism and consumerism run amok.
I have vowed not to participate in the Super Bowl festivities for the past four years, only to be co-opted by the fact that I have worked along side of marginalized Americans who feed into the holiday-like atmosphere of Super Bowl Sunday. I have found that homeless folks and institutionalized teens somehow feel as if they had some stake in all of the pageantry, as the tributes to multi-millionaire players and multi-national corporations flicker across the wide screen televisions that are fully glorified by the spectacle.
The odd thing is, that the Super Bowl parties I participated in over the first three years of this stretch were all sponsored by churches or para-church organizations. Of course, these parties included prayer time and spiritual sharing amidst the partially exposed breasts and geriatric entertainers of the half-time extravaganzas. While it seems fairly obvious to me that followers of Jesus might do well to steer clear of the mammon worshipped during Super Sunday, it appears that I am in the minority (imagine that). Even my fellow Quaker seminarians are invested in the epic struggle between modern day gladiators (or plantation tenants) that, according to some feminist organizations, is also the occasion of the highest incidence of spousal abuse during the year. So come on everyone, put on your blue jerseys, drink lots of Budweiser or Coors light or Absolut and cheer your gambling interest on to victory. And enjoy the commercials. I hear their often better than the half-time shows.
As a marginal sports enthusiast (and a dedicated U of Mich. football fan) I can understand the excitement of this culmination of athletics and consumerism as an experience that every pop culture adherent must participate in. Yet as someone whose loyalties are bound up by an ancient regionalism that commands allegiance to the Lions, I am uniquely qualified to pooh-pooh this weekends event as nothing more than an idolatrous festival to capitalism and consumerism run amok.
I have vowed not to participate in the Super Bowl festivities for the past four years, only to be co-opted by the fact that I have worked along side of marginalized Americans who feed into the holiday-like atmosphere of Super Bowl Sunday. I have found that homeless folks and institutionalized teens somehow feel as if they had some stake in all of the pageantry, as the tributes to multi-millionaire players and multi-national corporations flicker across the wide screen televisions that are fully glorified by the spectacle.
The odd thing is, that the Super Bowl parties I participated in over the first three years of this stretch were all sponsored by churches or para-church organizations. Of course, these parties included prayer time and spiritual sharing amidst the partially exposed breasts and geriatric entertainers of the half-time extravaganzas. While it seems fairly obvious to me that followers of Jesus might do well to steer clear of the mammon worshipped during Super Sunday, it appears that I am in the minority (imagine that). Even my fellow Quaker seminarians are invested in the epic struggle between modern day gladiators (or plantation tenants) that, according to some feminist organizations, is also the occasion of the highest incidence of spousal abuse during the year. So come on everyone, put on your blue jerseys, drink lots of Budweiser or Coors light or Absolut and cheer your gambling interest on to victory. And enjoy the commercials. I hear their often better than the half-time shows.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
should we be relevant?
My question in ethics today was, should Christians insist upon social relevance when developing ethics or in responding to social issues. I raised the Question because I was reading a book for class written by John Cobb, and he was fairly insistent upon developing an ethics that was relevant to the world at large, possibly in hopes of guiding the culture toward a Christian end, if not necessarily by Christian means. Of course, one has to ask if unethical means justify an ethical end.
For example, many Quakers voted for either John Kerry, or the Green Party in the last election as a response to the horror of the Bush administration. When questioned about the ethics of voting for someone who would continue the "war on terror" and was totally absorbed in a quest to defend an American way of life that is inherently oppressive to millions, if not totally obscene in it consumerism, many said it was a matter of getting Bush out of office. Oh, I see, the lesser of two evils route.
Yet, isn't participation in the American electoral system participation in an unjust system. Did not a vote for John Kerry undermine any real chance that an alternative voice to the American political spectrum would be heard. And, aren't we ethically wedded to challenging every injustice at the core, such as the illegitimacy of most claims to authority and power made by any government that refuses to value life when it comes at the expense of profit or individual freedoms? and don't get me started on the dope smoking hippies of the Green Party! Ok, some of them are nice folks...
Anyway, if voting for the liberal anti-war agenda personified in the form of Dennis Kucinich is being relevant to our society simply because it is participation in the liberal democracy that holds the world at bay with nuclear weapons and Baywatch, no thanks. I might rather watch Baywatch... or the Super Bowl. Then my opinions will not only be relevant to most Americans because I am culturally informed, but because I hold on tightly to those values that suggest the right to oppress and objectify women ethically trump any woman's right to deprive me culturally mandated bliss.
For example, many Quakers voted for either John Kerry, or the Green Party in the last election as a response to the horror of the Bush administration. When questioned about the ethics of voting for someone who would continue the "war on terror" and was totally absorbed in a quest to defend an American way of life that is inherently oppressive to millions, if not totally obscene in it consumerism, many said it was a matter of getting Bush out of office. Oh, I see, the lesser of two evils route.
Yet, isn't participation in the American electoral system participation in an unjust system. Did not a vote for John Kerry undermine any real chance that an alternative voice to the American political spectrum would be heard. And, aren't we ethically wedded to challenging every injustice at the core, such as the illegitimacy of most claims to authority and power made by any government that refuses to value life when it comes at the expense of profit or individual freedoms? and don't get me started on the dope smoking hippies of the Green Party! Ok, some of them are nice folks...
Anyway, if voting for the liberal anti-war agenda personified in the form of Dennis Kucinich is being relevant to our society simply because it is participation in the liberal democracy that holds the world at bay with nuclear weapons and Baywatch, no thanks. I might rather watch Baywatch... or the Super Bowl. Then my opinions will not only be relevant to most Americans because I am culturally informed, but because I hold on tightly to those values that suggest the right to oppress and objectify women ethically trump any woman's right to deprive me culturally mandated bliss.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Business as usual gooood...sectarianism baaad!
The only reality in the world, or so it seems, is that there are three natures of truth. Most folks are oppressed, a few folks are oppressors, and many of us simply underwrite the status quo. Within this context, it my contention that A) there will never be world peace, and B) most Americans have little or no interest in a real world peace, because it would require a great deal of sacrifice on our part. This leads me to the role of the church, which, upon recognition that the world is oppressive, and full of violence all of the time, and reticent about suffering on behalf of others, needs a new game plan.
Oh, we should still try to change the world, or at least recognize that the world was changed drastically by the victory of God over the world's rejection of peace and justice through the resurrection, but we need to do it on Jesus' terms, and not the terms of the world that has accepted the reality that has been stated above. We need to live our lives as though the world has been changed.
It is the church's role to offer an alternative to the injustice and violence of the world by creating a lasting alternative to it, not by coercing the world into an existence that suits a morality that makes sense only to the People of God. Justice and peace are terms used by most Americans only when American interests are involved, and with little regard for how such hopes are achieved. Military might has generally failed to promote a lasting peace of any kind, unless you consider that the welcoming of defeated enemies into the domination system of western powers counts as justice. It's a tentative peace at best, held together by the fact that the US still dominates oil interests and remains the head puppeteer for most developing countries. Wait until Europe gets frustrated again. Well, except for France.
Anyway, back to the point. If we accept that there will never be world peace, then it should be the church's place to be a community separate from the world, yet insistent upon serving a world that rejects the truth of the resurrection because God commands us to relieve the suffering of those who are oppressed.
We cannot relieve suffering, however, by continuing to acquiesce to dictum of socialist nation states or the tenets of liberal democracies. We can only witness against oppression by refusing to benefit from it. They world might refuse to buy into our truth claims, but AC/DC said it best "Prophecy ain't no riddle man, to me it makes good good sense!" Actually, that's a paraphrase, but I don't think they will mind.
Oh, we should still try to change the world, or at least recognize that the world was changed drastically by the victory of God over the world's rejection of peace and justice through the resurrection, but we need to do it on Jesus' terms, and not the terms of the world that has accepted the reality that has been stated above. We need to live our lives as though the world has been changed.
It is the church's role to offer an alternative to the injustice and violence of the world by creating a lasting alternative to it, not by coercing the world into an existence that suits a morality that makes sense only to the People of God. Justice and peace are terms used by most Americans only when American interests are involved, and with little regard for how such hopes are achieved. Military might has generally failed to promote a lasting peace of any kind, unless you consider that the welcoming of defeated enemies into the domination system of western powers counts as justice. It's a tentative peace at best, held together by the fact that the US still dominates oil interests and remains the head puppeteer for most developing countries. Wait until Europe gets frustrated again. Well, except for France.
Anyway, back to the point. If we accept that there will never be world peace, then it should be the church's place to be a community separate from the world, yet insistent upon serving a world that rejects the truth of the resurrection because God commands us to relieve the suffering of those who are oppressed.
We cannot relieve suffering, however, by continuing to acquiesce to dictum of socialist nation states or the tenets of liberal democracies. We can only witness against oppression by refusing to benefit from it. They world might refuse to buy into our truth claims, but AC/DC said it best "Prophecy ain't no riddle man, to me it makes good good sense!" Actually, that's a paraphrase, but I don't think they will mind.
Monday, January 8, 2007
Am I really Shrill?
Brian Young once said, "I can't wait for the parousia to happen so you won't have any more axes to grind." Well Brian, parousia is best translated as "royal presence," not "second coming" and if I'm grinding axes now, you can bet I have a thing or two say to Jesus at night about the state of the realm of God. I'm not quite falling for that "almost/not yet" stuff. The Kingdom is now!
Yet, I am more fully aware now than ever that stating there is "no king but YHWH" can offend Quaker sensibilities, primarily because there is no consensus in the ecumenical community that reflects such awkward truth telling. What I have learned now is that truth telling is in fact a practice in shrillness.
Perhaps most folks don't often quote the Hebrew Prophets because - well - they don't want anyone to think they're being shrill. Politicians and MSW's can rely on questionable empirical data to create programs for broken people that never seem to work, but a prophet challenging the whole system as being corrupt and unjust is shrill, not because she makes people feel uncomfortable, but because she challenges their very right to comfort when the culture is responsible for such suffering around the world.
It has been suggested that we all need to quiet down about issues such as same sex marriage because no one is listening. First of all, no one is listening when the state of marriage itself is challenged as a practice in self-centered relational fulfillment. Is the state of most modern marriages the crap that the anti gay and lesbian crowd is fighting to defend.
Communities need to listen to others as a practice in self-awareness and critical reflection. But they should never shy away from claiming truth, such as the truth that all covenant relationships find God's favor when the partners stay faithful to one another, and to God. I'm sorry if stating that same-sex marriages are sanctioned by God, and that those denominations that refuse to accept this as a truth are wrong, is shrill.
I'm sorry that I have so many axes to grind, but blessed are those who thirst for righteousness and justice, and insist upon it as a primary tenet of the realm of God.
Yet, I am more fully aware now than ever that stating there is "no king but YHWH" can offend Quaker sensibilities, primarily because there is no consensus in the ecumenical community that reflects such awkward truth telling. What I have learned now is that truth telling is in fact a practice in shrillness.
Perhaps most folks don't often quote the Hebrew Prophets because - well - they don't want anyone to think they're being shrill. Politicians and MSW's can rely on questionable empirical data to create programs for broken people that never seem to work, but a prophet challenging the whole system as being corrupt and unjust is shrill, not because she makes people feel uncomfortable, but because she challenges their very right to comfort when the culture is responsible for such suffering around the world.
It has been suggested that we all need to quiet down about issues such as same sex marriage because no one is listening. First of all, no one is listening when the state of marriage itself is challenged as a practice in self-centered relational fulfillment. Is the state of most modern marriages the crap that the anti gay and lesbian crowd is fighting to defend.
Communities need to listen to others as a practice in self-awareness and critical reflection. But they should never shy away from claiming truth, such as the truth that all covenant relationships find God's favor when the partners stay faithful to one another, and to God. I'm sorry if stating that same-sex marriages are sanctioned by God, and that those denominations that refuse to accept this as a truth are wrong, is shrill.
I'm sorry that I have so many axes to grind, but blessed are those who thirst for righteousness and justice, and insist upon it as a primary tenet of the realm of God.
Sunday, January 7, 2007
Hello Again!
I am very sorry for the length of time it has taken for me to get back to blogging. I am fairly inept when it comes to computer competency, and I could not figure out how to get blogspot to accept my login attempts. Anyway, the holidays are over, we've all been sick at home, even one of the hogs, and I am buried in intensives - Quakers and the Bible. In other words, I not feeling up to enlightening anyone right now, though it feels good to write again. I look forward to more long lost friends like Anne Marie. Anyway, I'll think of something more profound to write over the next few days and get back to you all. Peace and Grace to y'all, as My Greek teacher likes to paraphrase the Apostle Paul, So long
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
