Illuminated Windows

One of the reasons I enjoy winter is that it gets dark earlier.  Since it is dark outside, people are in their homes with the lights on.  Stay with me now, though this might sound creepy.  I love looking through people's windows as I walk by or ride by on the bus and catch a glimpse of life inside.  I'm not looking for anything in particular, and there's no part of sexual voyeurism.  I just enjoy getting to see a small snapshot of life.  Most often, people leave their shades closed at such times, which is appropriate to protect privacy during personal or intimate times.  But sometimes, the curtains are open and I get to see how someone likes to decorate, or what they are watching on TV.  Yesterday, while I was on the bus, I went by a house with big open windows, and peering out at me as I watched him was a beautiful white cat.  A couple blocks down I saw a woman in her kitchen sipping on what I presume to be a cup of tea.

I think these windows into people's lives are beautiful.  I also think many other media exist for presenting illuminated windows that give a brief glimpse into one's life. Social networks are a great way to provide and seek out snapshots of one's experiences, tastes, and thoughts.  Facebook, Twitter, and blogs serve as easy ways to share oneself publicly.  I have to think, though, that just as open windows can illuminate both picturesque and uncomfortable or even lewd scenes within, social networks can share harmless, enjoyable information as well as things that should be kept private.  The dilemma of Facebook and Twitter are that they feel private.  We have friends who view our information, but in reality, we are broadcasting whatever we do on these sites to the whole world.  Despite privacy settings, if someone has enough savvy and interest, anyone can access our information.  This article presents a perfect example of people who posted things that would have been perfectly acceptable among friends, but in a public sphere, they were not only inappropriate, but they were ruled to be criminal by the courts.

I think we need to be careful about what we say and how we say it, or what pictures or links we post.  People are peering into our lives, and it is not always the people we intend.  If information or thoughts or pictures are private in nature, reserved for intimate or personal space, they don't belong online.  This is no different than if something personal or intimate is taking place in your home, you wouldn't want someone watching through the window.  In those times, you close the blinds and shut the world out.  It is inappropriate to share some things with public eyes.  Yet other things are fun and healthy to share with whoever cares to receive them.  Carelessness and fearful prohibition are both irresponsible and potentially destructive reactions to living in a social world.  Leaving one's curtains open at all times whether watching tv or making love is reckless and grossly inappropriate.  Leaving them closed at all times deprives you of viewing the outside world and letting in the daylight.  A responsible, thoughtful person knows when to leave a window to the world open to share life with the people around them and when it is best to keep private things private.

Checking in from PDX

As usual, life is busy. Whenever I actually live in such a way that doesn't completely reflect slug-likeness, I seem to be in a constant state of being almost behind. I suspect--as long as it doesn't spiral out of control--this fact is a good thing.

Not all busyness is mundane, however. This weekend Chrissy and I went out to McMenamins Edgefield Resort for a nice weekend together. We went out on Saturday to enjoy the whimsical artwork, pub fare, beautiful scenery, and partake at the winery. We spent a wonderful night there together and even shared a dip in the heated saltwater soaking pool. I'm so blessed to have such an amazing wife to share experiences with, and I can't wait to see where our road takes us next!

School and work keep me on my toes as usual.  I have more Hebrew to work on than I really care to think about (how in the world am I supposed to concentrate on Old Testament/Hebrew Bible in my later studies if I don't like working with Hebrew?!).  My Acts and Epistles class is good but rather basic, so a lot of it is stuff I have already learned through the years or with my amazing professors in the Evangel University Theology Department. Thanks to my Mentored Field Ministry (internship) I've gotten that little extra push I needed to become more active with Evergreen. I've enjoyed getting to know more people as well as getting to know Dustin better. It has given me the chance to meet with Dustin regularly, become involved with administrative tasks, and make an intentional effort to connect with more people in the community.

Another Evergreen related development is my newfound interest in the fight against sex trafficking in Portland. I have experienced a growing passion to rescue young women and girls who have been trapped in a life of slavery and sexual exploitation. I have been in contact with Todd Diskin from Mayor Sam Adams' office to find out about how the city is involved, and Evergeen is looking into how we can make a difference. I am excited about doing something to help victims of this egregious evil, and I'm lookomg forward to being a part of Evergreen's efforts.

To be or not to be... Racist?

What does it mean to be racist? I know I typically think of extreme cases like the KKK or even just thinking that people of other races are dirt and treating them accordingly. But I don't actually know anyone like that. Does real racism--or bigotry of any variety-- have to be so overt, or is it more subtle in most people? Can you truly believe that people of every nation, color, faith, gender, and class have the same intrinsic value, deserve the same opportunities, and are capable of the same things as people who fit your own profile and still be a bigot? I think the answer might be 'yes.'

Dr. Paul Metzger spoke yesterday at Evergreen about racism. He told us that Portland is full of racism. At first that statement seems absurd, but I think racism outside of the South is more subtle, but no less terrible. The way Paul put it is that (if you're not white) in the South, it doesn't matter how close you get, it matters how high you get. In the North (or the West Coast), it doesn't matter how high you get, it matters how close you get. I think that makes a lot of sense: it doesn't matter what color an executive, or senator, or president is to someone in the Pacific Northwest, but people don't necessarily want to live in the same neighborhoods as people from different backgrounds, or sit next to them on a bus, or have to live with them.

I think Bob really nailed the issue when he took it a step further than race and pointed out the same tendencies toward varying classes and economic backgrounds. That expansion is where it began to feel like there might be something to work on in me. Of course, I don't think of people as beneath me who have less; that's not the issue. My tendency is more along the lines of falling back on stereotypes in situations where I don't have an opportunity or reason to know someone as an individual. For example, I absolutely do not believe that someone on the street is any more likely to harm me because that person is of a particular race. However, if he dresses like he is part of a gang, then I'm more likely to be wary around him. Unfortunately, maybe someone truly in that lifestyle would do harm to a stranger, but to most people, that urban fashion is just a means of expression and fitting in to a group. At the point I allow myself to make a judgment about any person, based on any external criteria, I take a step toward bigotry.

Now, I could justify my caution around rough looking guys--regardless of race--and say, "Since I can't know who this person really is, better safe than sorry," and I could easily avoid contact without doing him any harm. But what about someone who likes music that I hate or comedy that I find distasteful and inane. Maybe somehow I find a person who values everything I just can't stand, and loves the things that seem worthless and even crude, idiotic, or destructive to me. At that point I have a choice. Do I humble myself enough to say, "Maybe there is value in this I just can't appreciate, or maybe neither is better than the other, or maybe his way sucks, but something has led him there, and before I make a judgment about him as a person, he deserves a chance to show me who he is," or do I simply (perhaps subtly and without consciously thinking about it) decide that since I like things that are good and hate things that are bad (whether morally, qualitatively, or however else) and he likes what I hate, he must be bad?

The next step comes in defining the opposite of prejudice. Is it tolerance? I can easily tolerate a person without valuing them or even treating them well. The problem with tolerance (as Dr. Metzger pointed out) is that it can often just as easily be described as indifference. True opposite of bigotry is not tolerance; it is love. Love reaches out and touches someone. Love doesn't ignore someone who needs us. Love actively seeks the betterment of its object, and it does it without demeaning or degrading. Loving someone from a different race or social background isn't simply abstaining from seeking harm or elevating yourself above another person, but it is giving yourself to that person in a big way or small.

Openness, vulnerability, and personal risk characterize a life free of prejudice. That's not an easy way to live, even if you don't bear any hard feelings toward different people. I know I have work to do in myself, and I'm sure it will take a lifetime, but if I can make progress and show people Jesus' love, it will be a life well spent.

Justice in the Rain

So, the rainy season is here, or rather--since I live in Portland--the end of the dry season. It was the first rainy day since I started commuting to work by bike and bus, and I ordered a rain jacket just for that, but it didn't arrive by the time I left for work.  To compound the soakage I would certainly already experience, the bus was a good 15 minutes late, and the stop happens to be at the corner of two busy streets, right in front of a storm drain, which means that cars have to cross over a little river in the road to get in the right turn lane.  Needless to say, I received the full onslaught of dirty water from several sets of tires.  I boarded the bus feeling gross and soaked and a tiny bit sorry for myself, though I really was trying to keep a positive attitude since it was an unavoidable situation and I was only about 25 minutes from getting home and drying off.

We all know what happens when you ride the bus anyway.... right? What was I thinking?

A few minutes into the ride a guy, maybe a little younger than me, got on. He was one of those super chatty bus riders I never want to sit by.  He introduced himself to a couple people and asked for a cigarette from someone.  What is significant about him is that apart from his bus-chattiness nothing indicated he was in any way different from anyone else--that is, until he started talking about sleeping at Mt. Tabor.  At this point, I felt foolish being so displeased by a 45 minute commute in the rain when probably thousands of people in Portland have to live and sleep in it every day.  I guess sometimes I need a little wake up call to remind me about priorities and perspective.

More than that, this situation got me thinking.  We just talked about justice this week at Evergreen and not doing nothing and not getting overwhelmed trying to do everything.  In addition to simply figuring out exactly how I can contribute, how we all can, we talked about the idea of helping people without viewing ourselves as heroes and the people we help as victims.  In other words, can we help people without inherently elevating ourselves above them as we do it?

Another recent experience that comes to bear on this topic was when Chrissy and I were in line to get into the Portland International Beer Festival.  A homeless gentleman was walking past the queue and loudly pointing out how people could be putting their money to better use.  He challenged a couple guys who proudly proclaimed they intended to get drunk, which sent him into a fury, repeatedly shouting, "God's gonna ****ing kill you!"  However, before this point, in an attempt to prove how frivolous we were all being with our money, he announced he only made $600 per week.  $600 per week!  I was astounded.  That's double what I make actually going to a job!  That got me thinking, and I have been much less motivated to give to supposedly needy people since that day.

But maybe I should look at all of this differently.  Maybe it shouldn't matter how much I have compared to another person.  Maybe if someone needs help, I should help if I can, not just if I am better off than they are.  I think if I keep thinking in terms of hierarchies and the one better off helping the one in need, I miss the point, and I will never really help anyone.  We all have need.  Our needs just differ.  Someone may not have food for the day, and I can provide that food, but I have a need they can fulfill.  I can learn from wisdom they have, or I can grow as a person by giving from what God has given me.  However I look at it, I live a selfish life.  I don't think there will ever be a time when that won't be true to some extent, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't try to grow.  I hope God will help me as I work to change my outlook, gain some humility, and really learn what it means to give, without demeaning those who receive or thinking better of myself than I should.

Eternal Death

"Eternal death is in a very real sense the extension and finalization of spiritual death.  If one comes to physical death still spiritually dead, separated from God, that condition becomes permanent." - Millard J. Erickson Christian Theology

 This thought really struck me.  Of course, this has been my basic understanding of what happens when nonChristian people die for a long time, but he presents it in really the perfect way, I think.  I believe completely in the concept of a real Hell, where people suffer forever.  I don't want anyone to go there, nor do I think God really wants anyone to go there (there are scripture references that back me up on this).  On the basis of Erickson's more theological phrasing, it seems to me that the standard youth group explanation of "People choose for themselves where to go; God only sends people to Hell who already want to be there." isn't a bad thought.  The reason I say that is that I don't think we really understand what Heaven or Hell are like.  The Bible is quite vague and uses a lot of what is probably metaphor and symbolism, without really presenting a concrete blueprint for us.  Basically, Hell is the place of spiritual (and eternal) death.  Heaven is the place of spiritual (and eternal--if we include the new earth...) life.  Spiritual life is entirely involved with intimate connection with God, of a relational and worshiping nature.  Spiritual death is entirely involved with separation from God.  Therefore, whatever we want in this life is what we get in the next.  The only difference is that we can change our mind so long as it is before our physical death.  There comes a point when we can no longer change.  There is a deadline.  Just like a person getting a tattoo has a lot of time to think and decide what he wants to get.  He could have decided on a dragon for two years, but then he changed his mind a week before he plans to get it, and instead he gets a tiger.  He has that freedom.  However, once he goes under the needle, there is no turning back.  His decision is made, and it's final.  In the same way, I could reject and re-accept God an infinite number of times in this life.  However, once and die.  I am stuck.  I receive whatever I wanted at the point my days end.  (of course this last part makes it seem like i don't believe in eternal security of salvation, which I do in some ways and in some I don't, but that's a topic for another day.)

I praise God for his sovereignty, and his security, wherein he feels secure in his sovereignty enough not to be threatened by human free will.  He grants us the freedom to decide for ourselves whether or not love him and glorify him.  If we want to love and worship he, we have the opportunity and may continue to do so for eternity.  If we want nothing to do with him, he does not force us, and we can continue in that decision forever, as well.