What language will you speak?

Communication is everything.  The words we use, the tone we set, the syntax, the language all participate in this thing we call 'communication': not simply how one transfers information from one individual to another, but how that one invites another into a particular thought process or set of ideas and ideals. Communication.  

I've sat with frustration, as have many others, over communication issues, seemingly particular to immigration. You know the rhetoric:  "If those people are going to come to our land, they've gotta learn to speak our language." This ideology goes further then to presume: no it goes on to assume that because another is unable to speak 'our language' that one must be stupid, ignorant, un-worthy, less than deserving of basic inalienable rights. 

This ideology frustrates me; I spent several years working in a Physical Therapy office and saw a number of folk who came in with a variety of work related injuries; one particular individual I'll recount worked for a flagging crew.  He was hit by a car as he was holding one of the warning flags.  He spoke little/no English; conversing thru an interpreter, I learned he'd been a biological engineer (?? is that right?) back in Mexico, but accepted what work he could because he didn't speak the language, and he shared his frustrations with the assumptions that he was less than intelligent based on that qualification alone. Truth is, anybody who wanted to know, wanted to speak, wanted to hear what he had to say was able to spend the time find the avenues to make communication happen, if they thought it was important enough. 

But we, as a society, hold the arrogant mindset that says 'They have to learn our language if we are going to deem them worthy.' This is lived out in rhetoric in governmental paperwork, shopping centers, road signs, and we rail against the ignorance and arrogance; we push against the isolatory exceptionalism. 

Funny how a little thing like language - a willingness to learn another's language can have such an effect on society - on how we view those who are different from us. Amazing how a thing like language can either bring people together or further polarize and isolate. 

Even more amazing is that even within a common language some messages 'speak' while others fail to do so. By 'Speak' I mean - 'to illicit a particularly desirable response'.  I was struck by a particular video this morning - 

Now, it's fairly obvious that this  is a staged scenario - easy to play off as trite or simply aimed at tugging the heart-strings.  But yeah.  It does tug at those strings.  It speaks to the nature of communication and the role the message plays in how we invite others to participate in that message - either as proclaimers or responders.  Do we wish people to respond? People can either respond positively or negatively - they will have a response one way or another, being mindful that ambivalence and apathy are a response as much as generosity and compassion are a response.  The deeper question is - what response is a desirable response?  What response is the desirable response?

How do you find people engage the message you proclaim? Do you find yourself upset that people are not hearing? not listening? not gettin' it? What language are you speaking?  Do you speak the same language to those who 'get it' as you do with those who don't?   Maybe if you just speak louder, that'll help;  maybe if you slow your words down, that will more effectively impress upon them what they're supposed to do; maybe if we call them names and ply them with shame and guilt for their lack of understanding - maybe that will help.  

If the message is really that powerful, that meaningful - I think it's worth the time, commitment, and attention to learning how to better proclaim that message in a way that people can most appropriately engage and respond, even if it means learning to speak a multiplicity of divergent languages.  

What language will we choose?

 

Traitor Joe

sorry, no ill intended toward the fine company that is TJoes  - just couldn't pass up on the play on words.
yeah, we'll show you how we handle traitors around here.

Scripture lesson from Mark 12 for this week (vs.  28-34), as much as they describe a dynamic Jesus lived through his journey on the way, what might they reveal of how this dynamic was lived out in the later 1st century Christian community Mark is addressing?

The account in these verses follows directly on the heals of Jesus encounter with the Sadducees: they set up their straw-man scenario about nature of marriage in death, feeling certain they'd adequately trapped this would be prophet, messiah - this one who most recently had come into town with accolades given to the Son of David. In His proving them wrong, Jesus had nothing more to do than open up the scriptures - "This scripture which you, I, we hold near and dear???/  This is why you are wrong - Oh so wrong. Maybe you should spend a little time reading that which you profess to believe so dearly." (that last sentence was a bit of editorial interpretation that may/may not be directly stated within Mark's missive.)

Enter the scribes - lest we forget (neglect) to note who this scribe represents- what attitude and perspective he brings to the discussion:  I direct you to vs. 18 of previous chapter.  "and when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him." While there was maybe no love lost between the Sadducees and the scribes - they had an agenda which they (he) was complicit in carrying out.  Do away with him. Get rid of Him. By any means possible, do not allow this' One coming in the name of the Lord' (vs.9 of ch.11) - by stealth, (vs.1,2 ch 14)  sneaky sneaky/ deceptively if need be??

Enter this scribe. He comes to Jesus having seen the quick, decisive, authoritative work he'd made of the Sadducees'; he comes with curiosity peaked? with a desire to know? seeking another opportunity to discern a weakness to later exploit?  Who knows what this scribe's motivations were - what it offered up was an opportunity for Jesus to show really how far apart they were not.

Jesus listened to what the scribe was asking - what he was saying, and in the depth of His response revealed a truth that the scribe may or may not have found comforting - his and His experience of the scripture, the truth revealed of God's hope and guidance and affirmation for human interaction are not that disparate, in fact they're likely within the statistical margin for error.

I've gotta wonder what the talk around the local watering hole was like that next morning. When the powers that be met out at the gate to talk of the happenings, to hear squabbles and disputes and render judgements on such matters, what judgement did they render upon this scribe.  "Traitor!!" ? "You and your stupid question - left the door wide open for that rabble rouser to reveal Truth - to speak a Word that does not make him look like a crazed lunatic - to show us in a way that reveals how small and petty
we really are, maybe. Damn you!!"

Was traitor the worst name levied at today's scribal envoy?  Was he able to show his face at the morning gatherings? Did he have to backtrack and walk-back his discussion and revelation in order to appease a particular narrative and agenda? Did he find himself ostracized, shunned, excommunicated - at least until he'd paid the appropriate penance?

How well was he embraced by those who were following Jesus as He journeyed the way?  did they shun him? did they ostracize him because of who he was?  How total was our scribe's alienation?

Jesus listened to those who wanted to kill him; He listened for a hint of agreement, nugget of commonality,  a seed of shared value through which He was able to come along-side this one scribe.  Was there nothing worth listening and hearing from what the Sadducees had to say? Was there nothing within what the other scribes had to share? I don't know.  Did this one scribe's experience of the Son of David leave a lasting mark upon his life? - - dunno - What I do know (we know) is that it left a significant enough of an impression that Mark thought it integral to share with his community. (were they dealing with dynamics of inside and out? Us vs. Them? Who is faithful and who is not? I wonder if Mark was trying to encourage them to be particularly mindful of what the 'other' was saying; to hear and listen for those places where we're not so far off from one another? Maybe it's in this listening posture that we will recognize the ever-present nearness of the Kingdom.

waiting and making space for the other

taking home communion to shut in creates a heightened realization of the space we must, we do make for others:  when praying the Lord's prayer communally- many of our shut ins would finish 30 seconds behind, were we to pray these words of our Lord at our usual and customary pace.

 But, in order to make room for - allow the space for these beloved children of God, these faithful servants of the one whose words they are attempting to repeat - we slow it down. we pause longer than we might otherwise pause.

It's what we do for those who for whatever reason just aren't able to keep up with the fast pace our language sometimes dictates. It's the way we stick together.

we make the space - we allow the time -

for those unable to follow in the steps of those leading from within.

It's this compassion for one another that holds the body of Christ together.

What's that staring back at me?

 Who do you see when you look in the mirror? What do you see if you look in the mirror? Whom do you see when you gaze deeply into those eyes you find staring back at you through the looking glass?

Most likely, you spend as little time as necessary in front of the mirror.  I mean, really, why waste hours (minutes, days) staring at one’s own reflection, what’s to be gained from such a practice? Likely we spend only as much time as it reasonably takes to brush our hair and teeth, wash face, shave, put on make-up, etc. (This seeks to be a bit more inclusive list than my own morning ritual might otherwise afford;)  But I’ll warrant, that even in those brief moments of mirrored gazing, one’s attention is invariably drawn to those personal aspects we wish would otherwise go away. Skin blemishes, warts, moles, pimples, freckles draw our attention like moths to a porch light. We zero in on how we ‘look’. How do these pants make me look? Do they make me look taller? Shorter? Do these glasses make me look smart(er)? These are merely representative of the vast number of insecurities we live with – insecurities that marketers exploit (rather effectively, I might add).

There is no demographic that escapes the fine-toothed-comb of critical exploitation. We want desperately to be seen as beautiful, hip, lovely, likable, fun, charismatic, carefree, more youthful. – More than that, though, we want to see ourselves as all those things and we’re willing to pay whatever it takes to attain that appearance.

Of interesting note: that which is defined as ‘beautiful’ has never been constant, but is always relative to that which is more difficult to attain.  Hence: in times and/or places of mean resources and scarce food supply – a more robust, fleshy person with more body fat is seen as the ideal, which then defines ‘beauty’ to which ‘everyone’ aspires. Whereas in times of plenty, abundance, and ease (relative), the idealized body image gravitates to the skinnier, dare I say anorexic appearing model of ‘beauty.’

The point is – we constantly aim at a moving target; which even if we hit dead-center, moves from beneath our mark, leaving only our feelings more deeply unmet.

Within the industries of fashion, cosmetic, health related industries there is no demographic isolated from the onslaught of negative imagery.  From the young girls wondering if they’re too heavy, to the boys feeling they need steroids to look masculine; from the women to feel they must some how augment their body in order to be more feminine to the man who’s told he really doesn’t have much life unless he’s got a full head of hair: no one escapes.  The underlying fear that is preyed upon is that unless we change, we are unlovable.

Sad to see the church, likewise preying upon this fear.

 How much different would our image of ourselves be if, rather than the recurrent rhetoric of fear and criticism, we heard a steady and genuine chorus of ‘You are fearfully and wonderfully made’ or ‘You are loveable just as you are.’ We sing the song ‘Just as I am’- why should we not extend that same grace and courtesy to include you ‘Just as you are.?’ Or better yet, what if we could affirm for friend or foe, ‘I love you just as you are, because of who you are, because you are made in God’s image.’ Do you think that if we shared this message often enough, people might begin to view themselves as beings created in God’s image, whose love could be taken as a given rather than something that had to be worked for. The affirmation may invite the question ‘What does it mean to be created in the image of God?’ (how would you answer that question?)

Maybe, instead of hurriedly passing by that mirror, we’d stop and spend a few moments staring deeply into those eyes staring back into us, and in that time, just maybe we’d experience a bit deeper insight into what is means to be a child of God made in God’s image. And maybe, we might catch that same glimpse in the gaze of a stranger we pass on the street. (or maybe we’ll see the glimpse we find in the stranger’s eyes reflecting back into our own.

To my congregation, whom I am blessed to serve – I love and adore each of you and am blessed for being invited to pastor here in Phoenix, Oregon.  Thank you for these past 7 years.

Rev. Mike

Paul as Davidic parallel?

Yeah, I know - that's what I was thinking:  what the what??
But if we look at the sequence of events and dynamics surrounding the rise of both - maybe there is a nugget of some Truth to buy into.
In the search for the king - Samuel brought before the people the biggest, most valiant, strongest, charismatic candidate he could find - Saul.  and we can read God's endorsement as if to say, "well, okay - if that's what you want to do, let's follow this path for a while and see where this leads." And then God chose David, who was, for as much as we want to romanticize him into the perfection of 'godliness' (whatever that means) - he was a scrawny, punk of a youngest child - he was a cocky smart-aleck  who had little to no business in the court of the king, let alone as the King in the court. (at least according to the world's standards of 'kingliness') Nevertheless, God chose him - if for no other purpose than to illumine the weakness of worldly wisdom, strength, and valor.
Similarly - Luke catalogues the very intentional list of criteria the remain 11 engage in order to fill the vacancy in the roster resulting from Judas' demise. As if going thru check list of criteria:  He was one of us: check.  (Okay, check-list of criterion) And I can hear God remarking:  "well, okay, if that's hat you want to do, let's follow this path for a while and see where it leads."  And we never hear from the 'chose' one again.  But God chooses Paul (Saul) who functionally fills that space vacated by Judas - even if he is never really embraced by the other 11.  Saul, that antagonist of the Way:  Saul, the judge, jury and executioner of those who would profess to follow the Way:  Saul, the one thru whom the seeds of the gospel would be sown into and cultivated within the Gentile World. The most un-natural and unimaginable (least imaginable) of roll players. But there it is, God again upending our logical course of action in favor of something wholly (and Holy) other.

MaidenVoyage of the new Frankenbeik

Many thanks to @ihadanidea Frankenbeik has been given a new life, new drive - many more miles to pedal.
review of the first ride - new 105 compact crank (vs. previous ultegra 600 crank 53/39) offer increased transfer of power as well as noticeably increased torque; the consequence of stiffer crank arms and smaller (albeit slightly) chainrings.

In the cassette, the only change made was dropping from 12-25T to 11-25T.   Increase in torque made the 50T-11T combo spin easier that previous 53T-12T, even though it's a higher gear ratio.

 both ft and rr derailleurs functioned flawlessly -
105 Brake calipers much more grabby with less effort than previous Ultegra 600 generation. (I'll lay that at the feet of moving from a single pivot to dual pivot design).
Shifters:  new shifters were awesome. - though having spent the past (almost) 20 years riding butterfly shifters, my thumbs found themselves looking for the shifters before I realized they were no longer there. Thumbs were much happier for their absence.

Don't get me wrong - these butterfly shifters have worked great over the past 2 decades.  Although they're indexed for 7spd suntour cassette -which I never could get to run quite right, on the friction setting (contrary to all professional counsel) they served me from the 6-7 speed transition, into the 8 - and finally into the 10sp cluster.  Paired with the Dura Ace rear derailleur worked flawlessly - just gotta be willing/able to work with a bit of subtlety. (Some of you reading may find irony in that).
There may be a bit of lament, letting go of these shifters;  they've been a part of every bike I've ridden since the Motobecane SuperMirage I came out of college with, thru the days of the giant Trek 800 I purchased after I killed the derailleur hanger on that frame. After several years riding a 63cm bike (that mis-appropriated geometry took its tole on my shoulders, for sure) - downsized to a 56 cm Bianchi frame - what I perceived as 'blue' was infact purple - or a deep lavender.  yeah, the family got a kick out of my colorblinddisability (I'm always good for the comic relief)- but I road the purple bike for 2+ years before getting the red Kona frame which now resides beneath my butt.
Who knows what further manifestations my pedular form of transportation will take - LBS said the headset is a bit pitted and in need of being replaced - I can't tell the difference - seems to steer smoothly to me.
Looking forward to many more miles on these piecepartedbike - how many more 1day STPs does it have in it?  who knows.
Peace to all.

Loving One's Enemies (reposting from PoMoMusings)

(repost from PomoMusing discussion on living into the future of the church)

We live an age that, as tempted as I may be to define as ‘like no other,’ I find I cannot.  We live an age that pits antagonistic forces against one another; these forces may (or may not) be military forces; these antagonists may (or may not) be officially sanctioned forces by any particular governing body. We watch the political parties seek out weaknesses in the opposition, that they might exploit. We watch the liberals take on the conservatives, conservative base chip away at the enclaves of liberalism.  We do not just watch as passive bystanders rubber-necking an auto accident; we engage the fray, whether out there on the front lines risking arrest (or worse) or from the relative safety of our keyboards, iPads, and smartphones—oh we engage, all right. An age like no other?  Hardly—An age like every other is more like it.

We live in the Burger King age that says, “If you won’t give it to me my way— I know a place that will.” And if that place does not exist, I’ll create that place/space where I can have life on my terms and bring other like-minded persons to join me in creating this space.  How many times this has been replicated through history? The pilgrim’s venture to live out their days under the guise of “freedom of religion” quickly turned into “freedom of my religion” as religious persecution of those who practiced something different seemed to become the law of the land. I’m skeptical that those who desire to plant an utopian community will do little other than restack the deck in their own favor.

And yet, it’s this age, through this age, into this age that the Church as the Body of Christ seeks to live faithfully. What will it mean for this body to be faithful to the calling spirit of the Christ? What is one belief, practice or element of Christianity that we must hold onto and live out more fully so that Christianity can move forward and truly impact the world in the next 100 years? The ways we can honestly, truly, fully love our enemies will determine how well, how faithfully we will live out our calling as the Body of Christ.

“You have heard it said, ‘Love your neighbor,’ ” and we can all remember reading countless blog posts and hearing sermons too numerous to count expounding on this question, “and who is my neighbor?” We are good at loving our neighbor, and we willingly redefine who our neighbor might be to avoid leaving out anybody we are supposed to love.

“You have heard it said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, ‘Love you enemies and pray for those who persecute you’ (Matthew 5:43-44).” In Luke’s gospel Jesus takes this a step further, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who persecute you, pray for those who abuse you (Luke 6:27-28).”

Paul, in his letter to the Romans says this, “God demonstrates divine love in this way; while we were sinners (enemies, antagonistic, persecutors, haters, nay-sayers) God reconciled us to God’s-self through the Christ event (Romans 5:8).”

The Psalmist wrote of the reality he experienced of God’s love, “ye though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, thou art with me . . . You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies – my cup overflows (Psalm 23)”

Scripture seems replete with examples of what to do with and how to treat one’s enemies, yet we seem content to follow the world’s example, and either destroy them or insist they be transformed before we sit down to dinner with them.  Amazing how willingly we will sit at table with those with whom we disagree, so long as we we’re able to pluck the slivers from their eyes (so long as we are able to transform them into something more like us).

So, how do we go about this ‘loving my enemies’ thing? A starting point may be with being willing to name who they are – who the antagonists, haters, those with whom we disagree; who are those who are disagreeable? Who are the ones who refuse to see life as we believe it should be seen?  How do we view them? How do you view them? Do you see them as the world sees them, as mere throwaways, individuals you’re really better without? Or do you see the image in which they were created? And then how will we love? Why will we love?  We love because God first loved us (while we were (and are) enemies) –

While this self-giving love may not change the behaviors of the individual, the target, the recipient, I do believe this self-giving love does hold the power to transform our relationship with one another, and ultimately deepen our relationship with, our reliance upon, our faith in the One who brings life through the most seemingly lifeless of possibilities. This is the power of the resurrection made known in the here and now.