I had my first "adult education" bible study class tonight. I wasn't really sure what to expect, so I put a few ideas together. as usual, God shows that his plans are beyond our understanding, so it'll be a good adventure over the next few weeks. the Bible is always a good adventure. but this is not the point of the blog... the point came when one woman (the coordinator of it all) said she had read up on my blog and enjoyed a post. i thought, "what blog... oh, yeah.... I haven't touched that for a while!" so, now that people are checking, i have to come up with something brilliant. ah, pressure.
but no, actually this has been burning lately and i haven't felt propelled to post because i thought it would just ring empty into cyber space. now i shall give it some air time.
We were at bible study last week (my usual ladies, not the special class) and Wendy brought up Jesus' difficult teaching on the rich and heaven. She said, "how do we teach that rich people, straight up, won't get into heaven?"
it is then, by the grace of God, that a realization came (and i know it was from God because I had never thought it before, nor understood it until it came out)... it's not about who does or does not get into heaven. it's about who will let the Kingdom of Heaven rule in their hearts. the rich are so filled up on their concerns about the riches of the world and whatnot that there's no room for God to do their thing.
think about it... the beatitudes are all about the lacking- being poor, grief, giving up control and power. it's when you have to let go of things or people that you can finally open your arms to what God has for you.
it made me really reflect- what fills my heart? what's taking up space that God can't get in? Oswald said this morning (can you tell what i'm reading again?) that it's easy to find God in the hard times- it's when things are easy that it's tough. when life is good you have something to cling to. when life is hard you learn the difference between a rock and a sandy beach- some things are sturdy and some drift with a whim.
this thought is not as nearly put-together as i'd like it to be. but maybe it'll come together after some further ponderings. until then, i'm going to go to sleep :)
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Thursday, November 22, 2007
thankshaving?
I was up in the middle of the night, i'm pretty sure because God wanted to tell me something about this year's thanksgiving. I was reflecting on thanksgiving and why this year it seems so much more real to me. this year i decided to celebrate thanksgiving instead of thankshaving. normally this holiday is one where we can list the several things that we're grateful for. but mostly that's just a list of how we're better off than the next guy.
i'm hoping my holiday has changed from that.
it only takes God giving you something, and then taking it away before you were ready to give it up, to realize that's not just about gratefulness. it's about realizing where it came from. God is the giver of all "good and perfect gifts." he can "give and take away."
When you begin to see with these eyes, you see everything in your life as a gift. God gives- and not only that, but you have to realize that it was His before it was yours and it will be His again someday. in essence, everything we have is just out on loan. the person lying beside you in bed at night, the children that keep you awake, the next breath you take- its all on loan. God can ask for it back, but He gave it to us to love and enjoy for His glory while we have it.
when we see things as "mine" or "ours", like it's a right we have, it's not really thankfulness, it's just making a list of stuff. but when we see what God has given- that it's a gift, not a right, not something deserved- then we can be truly thankful.
this all seemed a lot more clearer at 4AM.
i'm hoping my holiday has changed from that.
it only takes God giving you something, and then taking it away before you were ready to give it up, to realize that's not just about gratefulness. it's about realizing where it came from. God is the giver of all "good and perfect gifts." he can "give and take away."
When you begin to see with these eyes, you see everything in your life as a gift. God gives- and not only that, but you have to realize that it was His before it was yours and it will be His again someday. in essence, everything we have is just out on loan. the person lying beside you in bed at night, the children that keep you awake, the next breath you take- its all on loan. God can ask for it back, but He gave it to us to love and enjoy for His glory while we have it.
when we see things as "mine" or "ours", like it's a right we have, it's not really thankfulness, it's just making a list of stuff. but when we see what God has given- that it's a gift, not a right, not something deserved- then we can be truly thankful.
this all seemed a lot more clearer at 4AM.
Monday, October 29, 2007
the ark is the point!
Watched Evan Almighty last night. Not bad. Of course, sequels are never live up to the original. But for some reason, in the middle of the one of the worst nights of my life, it became clear.
God gives the ark. That's how you know.
Noah's ark. Jonah's whale-belly. The disciples' boat. They all were out, living in the midst of a storm, a storm that God can control (as seen in the disciples' boat example), but that's not how God chooses to show us his love. He doesn't get rid of storms, he gives us a place of comfort in it. The ark still endured the storm. Jonah still got tossed around. The disciples still got wet. But they were in the presence of a loving God that gave refuge, a sense of peace in the midst of that which could not be controlled.
A common theme to early civilizations (we're talking pre-pre-anything. The time that the Pentateuch was written) was the idea of "toe-voo va boe-hoo" (that's transliterated Hebrew. sorry, no hebrew font on this app, and I'm not sure i could remember how to spell it). The uncontrollable waters. The place where, if you upset the gods who lived there, you were sure to die. A place of refuge was necessary for life to continue.
So, when Jesus calmed the storm, that was a pretty big deal. When God "hovered above the waters", also a big deal. God is bigger than that and is in control of all that.
So why doesn't he just make nice waters all the time? Why the storms?
Because then we'd never enter the ark. We'd never need the presence of Jesus. We'd never reconsider that maybe we're headed in the wrong direction (in the case of Jonah). We'd never see how good God truly is because we'd never recognize our need for him in the storms.
God doesn't choose to give us bad things, storms. And they're not outside of his control.
My favorite line from the movie last night was Morgan Freeman's jaunt on opportunity. He said, "When someone prays for patience, does God just make you patient or does he give the opportunity to become a more patient person? Or when someone prays for the family to become closer, does He give you warm, happy feelings or the opportunity to do something together?"
When we cry out to God in the midst of a storm, does God take away the storm or give you the opportunity to find refuge in Him?
(I also have thoughts on the "knowledge of good and evil" and the curse. But that shall come later. )
God gives the ark. That's how you know.
Noah's ark. Jonah's whale-belly. The disciples' boat. They all were out, living in the midst of a storm, a storm that God can control (as seen in the disciples' boat example), but that's not how God chooses to show us his love. He doesn't get rid of storms, he gives us a place of comfort in it. The ark still endured the storm. Jonah still got tossed around. The disciples still got wet. But they were in the presence of a loving God that gave refuge, a sense of peace in the midst of that which could not be controlled.
A common theme to early civilizations (we're talking pre-pre-anything. The time that the Pentateuch was written) was the idea of "toe-voo va boe-hoo" (that's transliterated Hebrew. sorry, no hebrew font on this app, and I'm not sure i could remember how to spell it). The uncontrollable waters. The place where, if you upset the gods who lived there, you were sure to die. A place of refuge was necessary for life to continue.
So, when Jesus calmed the storm, that was a pretty big deal. When God "hovered above the waters", also a big deal. God is bigger than that and is in control of all that.
So why doesn't he just make nice waters all the time? Why the storms?
Because then we'd never enter the ark. We'd never need the presence of Jesus. We'd never reconsider that maybe we're headed in the wrong direction (in the case of Jonah). We'd never see how good God truly is because we'd never recognize our need for him in the storms.
God doesn't choose to give us bad things, storms. And they're not outside of his control.
My favorite line from the movie last night was Morgan Freeman's jaunt on opportunity. He said, "When someone prays for patience, does God just make you patient or does he give the opportunity to become a more patient person? Or when someone prays for the family to become closer, does He give you warm, happy feelings or the opportunity to do something together?"
When we cry out to God in the midst of a storm, does God take away the storm or give you the opportunity to find refuge in Him?
(I also have thoughts on the "knowledge of good and evil" and the curse. But that shall come later. )
Sunday, October 28, 2007
untitled
Then Jesus became explicit: "Lazarus died. And I am glad for your sakes that I wasn't there. You're about to be given new grounds for believing. Now let's go to him." (John 11:14-15)
...
Mary came to where Jesus was waiting and fell at his feet, saying, "Master, if only you had been here, my brother would not have died."
When Jesus saw her sobbing and the Jews with her sobbing, a deep anger welled up within him. He said, "where did you put him?"
"Master, come and see," they said. Now Jesus wept.
The Jews said, "Look how deeply he loved him."
Others among them said, "Well, if he loved him so much, why didn't he do something to keep him from dying? After all he opened the eyes of a blind man."
Then Jesus, the anger again welling up within him, arrived at the tomb. It was a simple cave in the hillside with a slab of stone laid against it. Jesus said, "Remove the stone." The sister of the dead man, Martha, said, "Master, by this time there's a stench. He's been dead for four days!"
Jesus looked her in the eye. "Didn't I tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?" (11:33-40)
...
Things i've noticed:
1. Jesus' "anger welled up within him." Twice.
2. "if only you were here"
3. "if he loved him *that* much"
4. "it's been four days..."
5. "Didn't I tell you?"
6. "new grounds for believing//the glory of God."
It's become very evident to me that it's not Jesus' love, or lack thereof, for Lazarus, Mary or Martha that is at the center of this story. He gets just a little angry when people begin to tie his love to his acts. They begin thinking that they are the reason for what Jesus did. But really, this miraculous act was about the glory of God.
Somehow we begin to think that God's love for us is only made evident when He does what we want Him to do, in our time. But that's not love. Love isn't always getting what you want.
We know God loves us because He puts us in the midst of his miraculous works. Whether it's creation or redemption, He has made us a part of His great plan for this world. And he does miracles all the time to give us reason to believe in it, to continue believing in it, even when He doesn't do what we want when we want Him to.
...
Mary came to where Jesus was waiting and fell at his feet, saying, "Master, if only you had been here, my brother would not have died."
When Jesus saw her sobbing and the Jews with her sobbing, a deep anger welled up within him. He said, "where did you put him?"
"Master, come and see," they said. Now Jesus wept.
The Jews said, "Look how deeply he loved him."
Others among them said, "Well, if he loved him so much, why didn't he do something to keep him from dying? After all he opened the eyes of a blind man."
Then Jesus, the anger again welling up within him, arrived at the tomb. It was a simple cave in the hillside with a slab of stone laid against it. Jesus said, "Remove the stone." The sister of the dead man, Martha, said, "Master, by this time there's a stench. He's been dead for four days!"
Jesus looked her in the eye. "Didn't I tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?" (11:33-40)
...
Things i've noticed:
1. Jesus' "anger welled up within him." Twice.
2. "if only you were here"
3. "if he loved him *that* much"
4. "it's been four days..."
5. "Didn't I tell you?"
6. "new grounds for believing//the glory of God."
It's become very evident to me that it's not Jesus' love, or lack thereof, for Lazarus, Mary or Martha that is at the center of this story. He gets just a little angry when people begin to tie his love to his acts. They begin thinking that they are the reason for what Jesus did. But really, this miraculous act was about the glory of God.
Somehow we begin to think that God's love for us is only made evident when He does what we want Him to do, in our time. But that's not love. Love isn't always getting what you want.
We know God loves us because He puts us in the midst of his miraculous works. Whether it's creation or redemption, He has made us a part of His great plan for this world. And he does miracles all the time to give us reason to believe in it, to continue believing in it, even when He doesn't do what we want when we want Him to.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
a return
as i was perusing the itunes podcast section, i came across erwin mcmanus' sermons. i decided to download one to see what i thought. it was called "the lie" and he was circling in on the fall and the lie we believe about ourself.
then i got an email from my sister, whom i might visit this weekend, and she included a sermon from her pastor from last week so that if i go to church, i will not be lost amid the series. the title? "the lie." hmmm... i think it's time to revisit genesis 1-3?
so i did. and now i have questions. of course.
1. adam and eve were naked. life was good. they ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. still naked, but now life was bad. why? it obviously wasn't the nakedness. they were naked in the beginning; God made it that way and life was good. and it's not as if God was trying to pull one over on them, keeping the fact that they were naked a secret because it was bad... he wanted it to be that way. so why, praytell, does our knowledge of good and evil have an effect on our nakedness and our perception of its badness? it seems that the nakedness wasn't the problem... the problem is what we thought of it all.
2. the youngest as favorite syndrome. as an oldest child, i relate. seems it began with adam and eve... abel, the baby, always did things better than cain. you know, in cain's defense, he had to screw up so that others could learn from the mistakes of the eldest. it's the way life works. but, nonetheless, it seems that the youngest is always God's favorite, as well. isaac over ishmeal for Abraham; jacob over easu for Isaac; benjamin over all 11 of them for jacob. Christ over Adam. The second is always chosen over the first. Why?
3. what is the "knowledge of good and evil" really all about? how does knowing good and evil change the course of human history? why did it change our relationship with God? i think has something to do with self-relience, or in the words of Angie's pastor, the beginnings of self-preservation (thus the plight of Cain.... if i'm not good enough, then destroy that which reveals that i'm not good enough). but why does knowing good and evil drive us to self-preservation? why does the choice between the two (good or evil) mean that we frequently choose to self-preserve?
Seriously, folks. Not being my usual antagonist self... i'd like to know how these things come together to form our understanding of God and ourselves.
then i got an email from my sister, whom i might visit this weekend, and she included a sermon from her pastor from last week so that if i go to church, i will not be lost amid the series. the title? "the lie." hmmm... i think it's time to revisit genesis 1-3?
so i did. and now i have questions. of course.
1. adam and eve were naked. life was good. they ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. still naked, but now life was bad. why? it obviously wasn't the nakedness. they were naked in the beginning; God made it that way and life was good. and it's not as if God was trying to pull one over on them, keeping the fact that they were naked a secret because it was bad... he wanted it to be that way. so why, praytell, does our knowledge of good and evil have an effect on our nakedness and our perception of its badness? it seems that the nakedness wasn't the problem... the problem is what we thought of it all.
2. the youngest as favorite syndrome. as an oldest child, i relate. seems it began with adam and eve... abel, the baby, always did things better than cain. you know, in cain's defense, he had to screw up so that others could learn from the mistakes of the eldest. it's the way life works. but, nonetheless, it seems that the youngest is always God's favorite, as well. isaac over ishmeal for Abraham; jacob over easu for Isaac; benjamin over all 11 of them for jacob. Christ over Adam. The second is always chosen over the first. Why?
3. what is the "knowledge of good and evil" really all about? how does knowing good and evil change the course of human history? why did it change our relationship with God? i think has something to do with self-relience, or in the words of Angie's pastor, the beginnings of self-preservation (thus the plight of Cain.... if i'm not good enough, then destroy that which reveals that i'm not good enough). but why does knowing good and evil drive us to self-preservation? why does the choice between the two (good or evil) mean that we frequently choose to self-preserve?
Seriously, folks. Not being my usual antagonist self... i'd like to know how these things come together to form our understanding of God and ourselves.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
ah, jacob
JJ and i were doing our bible study for the AM and it used the story of Jacob and his 2 wives. While the point the study was getting at, crazy intra-family conflict, wasn't necessarily what provoked this post, I was compelled to revisit the character of Jacob.
He was quite a guy. I remember hearing a sermon in my preaching practicum class about him, and my colleague drew upon the fact that early in his life Jacob had some real self-actualization issues. Early in his life he said "I am Esau" when he was not. It took him a good bit of life and a wrestle with God before he could say, "I am Jacob". Which means, btw, "Heel". "Problem". Trickster. You know, I could see why Jacob wasn't real keen on announcing himself with a name like that.
So I did a bit of rereading on Jacob's life. Just a skim through, it'll take a while to really absorb all that his God did in his life. But what I came up with, i'm actually still processing. Which is why i write about it under a blog called "thoughts in process." that means they're not finished. gives me a bit of leeway.
Jacob started his life named a problem-child. He tricked his brother into giving up his birthright and tricked his dad into giving him the blessing. He then began quite a pattern of running from his problem. Another connection to the name "Heel"? He went to his uncle to get a couple of wives and he himself was tricked. But here's where I began to notice a life pattern for Jacob. He was a guy that had his eye on what he wanted and he really felt he had a right to have it, no matter the cost. He wanted the life of the firstborn, so he tricked his way into it. He wanted the younger, prettier wife- but that was not proper. Didn't stop him from bartering for it (and smart guy would go find himself a wingman to marry the older one so he could have Rachel and everyone is happy). Jacob would see something and then do what it took to have it. You have to admit, he was probably quite a heel to deal with.
After quite a while of doing well, Jacob gets up and scoots out in the middle of the night. Running again. Both times he has been successful and has, legally, rightfully gained what is his. But he runs. I think maybe Jacob is living the quote, "Who I am hates who I've been." He's running and running, trying to escape his heel-ed-ness. He's coming home now, because God told him to and Jacob has at least learned not to go against that. But at the fjord of the river (i've always wanted to use that word in a sentence), before going home, Jacob is forced to deal with who it is that he has become. Wrestling with God, he is forced to admit, "I'm a heel."
There's no more running, and now there's no more wrestling. Because when Jacob finally admits what he's been all these years, God says, "not anymore, you're not. Now you're Israel." God-wrestler.
After this, the tone of Jacob's life begins to change. Slowly. I mean, it's a process. He meets up with Esau, there is reconciliation, a theme that Jacob previously didn't know how to deal with in an honoring way (hence all the running). Esau essentially tells him, "come on home." Jacob agrees, but it takes him a while to get there. There's at least another chapter before he finally gets home, as he settles in for a bit at a few different places (and his sons completely annihilate one of villages- I think they carry some of their father's issues). He hasn't completely changed, but has instead followed the path of his grandpa and calls his wife his sister. Some lessons take time i guess.
But finally Jacob comes home after a very meaningful meeting with God in Bethel. It's been quite a journey.
A bunch of striking themes within the life of Jacob. I think it might take a few more reads ;). There's the issue of conflict and resolution and reconciliation. But most interesting to me is Jacob's issues with himself. I can identify. Sometimes you just don't like who you've been or who you are. You try to call yourself by different names and take on the life of the people that you wish you were. But that's not who you truly are. And when you're tired of running, you wrestle. And, finally, at the end of the fight, you just admit it. "I've been a heel all my life."
And that's when God says, "That's not who you are any more. I am going to give you a name, that's how you'll be known, and that's how you should live." Sometimes it takes a while to get used to the new name, and you'll always know what you've been. Other people will know who you've been. But i guess this just begins the journey of learning to live as the person God has called you to be, rather than what you've always known to do.
He was quite a guy. I remember hearing a sermon in my preaching practicum class about him, and my colleague drew upon the fact that early in his life Jacob had some real self-actualization issues. Early in his life he said "I am Esau" when he was not. It took him a good bit of life and a wrestle with God before he could say, "I am Jacob". Which means, btw, "Heel". "Problem". Trickster. You know, I could see why Jacob wasn't real keen on announcing himself with a name like that.
So I did a bit of rereading on Jacob's life. Just a skim through, it'll take a while to really absorb all that his God did in his life. But what I came up with, i'm actually still processing. Which is why i write about it under a blog called "thoughts in process." that means they're not finished. gives me a bit of leeway.
Jacob started his life named a problem-child. He tricked his brother into giving up his birthright and tricked his dad into giving him the blessing. He then began quite a pattern of running from his problem. Another connection to the name "Heel"? He went to his uncle to get a couple of wives and he himself was tricked. But here's where I began to notice a life pattern for Jacob. He was a guy that had his eye on what he wanted and he really felt he had a right to have it, no matter the cost. He wanted the life of the firstborn, so he tricked his way into it. He wanted the younger, prettier wife- but that was not proper. Didn't stop him from bartering for it (and smart guy would go find himself a wingman to marry the older one so he could have Rachel and everyone is happy). Jacob would see something and then do what it took to have it. You have to admit, he was probably quite a heel to deal with.
After quite a while of doing well, Jacob gets up and scoots out in the middle of the night. Running again. Both times he has been successful and has, legally, rightfully gained what is his. But he runs. I think maybe Jacob is living the quote, "Who I am hates who I've been." He's running and running, trying to escape his heel-ed-ness. He's coming home now, because God told him to and Jacob has at least learned not to go against that. But at the fjord of the river (i've always wanted to use that word in a sentence), before going home, Jacob is forced to deal with who it is that he has become. Wrestling with God, he is forced to admit, "I'm a heel."
There's no more running, and now there's no more wrestling. Because when Jacob finally admits what he's been all these years, God says, "not anymore, you're not. Now you're Israel." God-wrestler.
After this, the tone of Jacob's life begins to change. Slowly. I mean, it's a process. He meets up with Esau, there is reconciliation, a theme that Jacob previously didn't know how to deal with in an honoring way (hence all the running). Esau essentially tells him, "come on home." Jacob agrees, but it takes him a while to get there. There's at least another chapter before he finally gets home, as he settles in for a bit at a few different places (and his sons completely annihilate one of villages- I think they carry some of their father's issues). He hasn't completely changed, but has instead followed the path of his grandpa and calls his wife his sister. Some lessons take time i guess.
But finally Jacob comes home after a very meaningful meeting with God in Bethel. It's been quite a journey.
A bunch of striking themes within the life of Jacob. I think it might take a few more reads ;). There's the issue of conflict and resolution and reconciliation. But most interesting to me is Jacob's issues with himself. I can identify. Sometimes you just don't like who you've been or who you are. You try to call yourself by different names and take on the life of the people that you wish you were. But that's not who you truly are. And when you're tired of running, you wrestle. And, finally, at the end of the fight, you just admit it. "I've been a heel all my life."
And that's when God says, "That's not who you are any more. I am going to give you a name, that's how you'll be known, and that's how you should live." Sometimes it takes a while to get used to the new name, and you'll always know what you've been. Other people will know who you've been. But i guess this just begins the journey of learning to live as the person God has called you to be, rather than what you've always known to do.
Monday, August 27, 2007
lessons from a bag lady (you will need to have seen rent to understand this)
it seems quite incredible the depth of thought that can come from watching rent for the 9 millionth time. i was watching the deleted scenes with the directors comments (because when you watch it so much, you need some flair), and there was a scene in which Mark the camera man and Roger the musician have an argument, which i had long since forgotten was in the musical version. but basically, angel had just died and roger didn't want to be around when mimi dies and mark calls him out on it. of course, the entire argument is sung.
anyway, as a way of turning the attention from his own shortcomings, roger redirects the fight toward mark. he says, "what about you?" then he launches into a solo about how mark is always saying "you must feel for the people" but in actuality he hides behind the camera.
then, while watching the movie as the director released it, i stumble upon the scene where the gang is outside and a bag lady is getting pushed around by the cop (this is right before Santa Fe, for those of you following along at home). mark, with camera ever ready at the helm, says, "smile officer..." and the cops just tell the bag lady she needs to move it. but then, the bag lady just launches into mark! she says something along the line of "you an artist? you artists always ready to [paraphrasing here: make a case out of my life's conditions"]. THEN she says, "artists got a quarter? that's what i thought." [because they don't have a quarter. they're poor. they can't pay the rent, thus the theme song and purpose of the movie.]
and you're thinking to yourself, "umhumm. so?"
and i say to you, what a tragedy.
it's a tragedy when you become so familiar with life's pitfalls and difficulties that we don't begin to search for ways to find more quarters. instead, the approach is usually to use someone's life as an example of why this or that ought not to be.
if you've ever worked in a job that required you to connect on an emotional level with people, you know the dangerous dance (almost a Tango Maureen) that is the love and help you show people versus your own mental and emotional sanity. knowing your limits. knowing whats best and how to truly help a person. dangerous dance. but i'm wondering if sometimes we allow ourselves to veer to the side of safety- get behind a videocamera- simply because it's too hard to go there with that person. that we want to feel as if we're doing something to make the wrongs right, but in actuality we haven't identified ourselves with those who are hurting at all.
this is a really long post that is going to leave a lot of people disappointed when it comes to no real conclusion. all i know is that, 5 hours after watching the movie, it has me all keyed up. i'm wondering what my video camera is. i'm wondering who i identify with (because that's the essence of mark and roger's adventures- they have the ability to do more but choose to live where and as they do because they want to "fight the larger powers that be")- who do i want to identify with but really i just know a lot about them. who is saying, "stop writing blogs of ungodly length and just give me a quarter!"
*ps, though i love comments, please refrain from using the "give a man a fish/teach a man to fish" argument. this isn't about economics. it's about compassion. we'll save the fishing for another day.
anyway, as a way of turning the attention from his own shortcomings, roger redirects the fight toward mark. he says, "what about you?" then he launches into a solo about how mark is always saying "you must feel for the people" but in actuality he hides behind the camera.
then, while watching the movie as the director released it, i stumble upon the scene where the gang is outside and a bag lady is getting pushed around by the cop (this is right before Santa Fe, for those of you following along at home). mark, with camera ever ready at the helm, says, "smile officer..." and the cops just tell the bag lady she needs to move it. but then, the bag lady just launches into mark! she says something along the line of "you an artist? you artists always ready to [paraphrasing here: make a case out of my life's conditions"]. THEN she says, "artists got a quarter? that's what i thought." [because they don't have a quarter. they're poor. they can't pay the rent, thus the theme song and purpose of the movie.]
and you're thinking to yourself, "umhumm. so?"
and i say to you, what a tragedy.
it's a tragedy when you become so familiar with life's pitfalls and difficulties that we don't begin to search for ways to find more quarters. instead, the approach is usually to use someone's life as an example of why this or that ought not to be.
if you've ever worked in a job that required you to connect on an emotional level with people, you know the dangerous dance (almost a Tango Maureen) that is the love and help you show people versus your own mental and emotional sanity. knowing your limits. knowing whats best and how to truly help a person. dangerous dance. but i'm wondering if sometimes we allow ourselves to veer to the side of safety- get behind a videocamera- simply because it's too hard to go there with that person. that we want to feel as if we're doing something to make the wrongs right, but in actuality we haven't identified ourselves with those who are hurting at all.
this is a really long post that is going to leave a lot of people disappointed when it comes to no real conclusion. all i know is that, 5 hours after watching the movie, it has me all keyed up. i'm wondering what my video camera is. i'm wondering who i identify with (because that's the essence of mark and roger's adventures- they have the ability to do more but choose to live where and as they do because they want to "fight the larger powers that be")- who do i want to identify with but really i just know a lot about them. who is saying, "stop writing blogs of ungodly length and just give me a quarter!"
*ps, though i love comments, please refrain from using the "give a man a fish/teach a man to fish" argument. this isn't about economics. it's about compassion. we'll save the fishing for another day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)