Posts
Our first duty is to our children:
To raise them up to be strong Christians
Who will not hesitate to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, care for the poor, tend the sick, welcome the foreigner, and befriend the outcast.
Who will not let any other claim or conflict from broken churches
Distract, entice, or corrupt them away from this primary calling.
It is not about the building.
It is not about the status of the people who attend.
It is not about following the values of corporate greed.
It is not about who has the loudest, flashiest A/V equipment.
Jesus didn't ask us to care about any of these things.
Jesus asked us to put all our resources, our treasure,
Into caring for the lowest and the least.
This is how we love the Lord our God
With all our heart and soul and strength.
This is how we love our neighbors as ourselves.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Monday, November 02, 2009
Monday Afternoon Thoughts on Materialism
Even though I've been on bedrest this long while, I'm still calling Monday my day off. I finish off the Sunday paper, watch all the videos online that I can't get on our rabbit-ears-and-digital-converter TV, and generally lounge about. I am not feeling guilty about this at all. An upside to all this is that I can't feel guilty about things I'm not really allowed to do, like heft the laundry downstairs.
So by way of that introduction, I have a little time to think about stuff. And think about 'Stuff.' For example, Jorge would really like a new TV that perhaps we wouldn't need rabbit ears for, and when we had the captions on, that wouldn't take up half the screen. I get that; our TV is smaller than my laptop screen, and only really works in the bedroom. And I did feel a little bit bad that we didn't have a TV for my folks to watch while they were here the past two weeks. But I'm also not sure where we'd put a 'normal' TV in our living room; it wasn't a consideration when we set up house, really...and perhaps on the upside, I taught my folks how to watch their favorite shows online as well.
At this point, Sophie doesn't have an obscene amount of toys. She has a cute 'sockmonkey' frog, a car mirror, a soft doll, a rattle, and some 'tummy time' mats. That sounds fine to me, given that she isn't even born yet, and especially in light of our rapidly shrinking apartment. However, I'm also aware that people like to buy toys for babies and she'll be arriving just before Christmas. We've already started looking for larger digs, hoping for a three-bedroom house with a yard...and yet, this one-bedroom apartment where we now live is the largest place we've ever lived as independent adults.
Last night, I looked at a Toys 'R' Us catalog, and it dawned on me that our Beloved Unborn would eventually have compulsive material desires of her own. And I didn't see anything I'd want to get for her when she was ready for serious toys. No, wait--I lied. There was one non-white, non-blond doll. That would be okay. Good Lord, though. How long can I hide toy catalogs and stores from her? Does she have to know that there are cartoon channels other than PBS (which doesn't have toy commercials), and how soon, really? And can I at least hope in a gender-stereotyped kind of way she won't automatically want violent toys?
We've been looking for a second car lately, either a minivan or something similar, that would be easy to get a baby seat or two in and out, and get to Iowa a couple times a year as well. Looking for a second car at all was a hard sell with me; after all, I walked a mile one-way to school last year in Hyde Park, and we now live one mile from church. But I think I'm learning urban distance and suburban distance are not the same; that, and there are no buses really to get Sophie to her Dr.'s visits. However, we'd probably just schedule routine visits on Tuesdays when Jorge was home and had the other car here as well. Actually, the real selling point was when the church told us the front of the church yard, which I'd have to cross with a stroller, would be heaped up and iced under by several feet, impenetrable by our maintenance folks' efforts, whenever the snowplows came by (church is near the city salt-yards). That would probably make it a little too dangerous to commute by foot.
Over the weekend we came across a nice jeep-looking-thing that was at a really great price, less than we paid for the Accord last summer. Only, we discovered upon inspection that this was a Lexus.
A Lexus? Can a mainline protestant pastor drive a Lexus with any credibility at all, no matter what the price? I had an uneasy feeling in my gut.
Since we were there, though, we decided to go for a test-drive. And it was a very, very smooth ride, and the seats were great, and the visibility for changing lanes was nice, and the back cargo door was easy to use and all...and it was dang cheap; but...it was a Lexus.
Can non-materialistic activist types such as ourselves drive a Lexus?
Funny thing is, if the same car was labeled as a Toyota (which I just learned is the manufacturer of Lexus), I'd not have any quandary at all. It was a great car. But after a while, it became easy to make more practical excuses: it doesn't have the LATCH system for installing infant seats. It could be expensive to insure and repair. It did have high miles on it, even if it did run smooth...
If any of y'all want it, I'll tell you how to get to the dealer. But for now, we're looking for something a little less conspicuous.
--
I'm down to about one maternity shirt I can 'go outside' in. This is another benefit of being on house rest, that I don't need a lot of 'presentable' clothes. I can wear Jorge's sweats or my pj's the rest of the time. At least we're getting good use out of them. Sometimes I'm astounded at the number of clothes we do have, and would like to get around to weeding out a bit more. The recent church garage sale was a big help to us, in that we had a good outlet and motivation for getting rid of a few under-utilized things already. Meanwhile, Sophie probably matches us in number of clothes, although hers are much smaller and take up less room, and I understand that most of them will be in the laundry heap on any given day, at least until we get the hang of diapering and burping.
These are my thoughts then on a November Monday. They're not in any particular order. Now, if this bothers you, by way of an apology I might say I'm not writing much these days, since I'm even off sermon duty, and I think that's made me a bit equal parts 'wooden' and 'rusty.' If that's possible. I think part of the problem, is that we have other sources of income right now, and so I don't feel the pressure to write articles, especially in a market where I would have to work much harder to get them published and paid for. On the other hand, I'm reading far more now than I usually do, and that has not been bad. Maybe after a cycle of heavy reading, I'll be ready to get back out into semi-public life.
peace,
Le Anne
So by way of that introduction, I have a little time to think about stuff. And think about 'Stuff.' For example, Jorge would really like a new TV that perhaps we wouldn't need rabbit ears for, and when we had the captions on, that wouldn't take up half the screen. I get that; our TV is smaller than my laptop screen, and only really works in the bedroom. And I did feel a little bit bad that we didn't have a TV for my folks to watch while they were here the past two weeks. But I'm also not sure where we'd put a 'normal' TV in our living room; it wasn't a consideration when we set up house, really...and perhaps on the upside, I taught my folks how to watch their favorite shows online as well.
At this point, Sophie doesn't have an obscene amount of toys. She has a cute 'sockmonkey' frog, a car mirror, a soft doll, a rattle, and some 'tummy time' mats. That sounds fine to me, given that she isn't even born yet, and especially in light of our rapidly shrinking apartment. However, I'm also aware that people like to buy toys for babies and she'll be arriving just before Christmas. We've already started looking for larger digs, hoping for a three-bedroom house with a yard...and yet, this one-bedroom apartment where we now live is the largest place we've ever lived as independent adults.
Last night, I looked at a Toys 'R' Us catalog, and it dawned on me that our Beloved Unborn would eventually have compulsive material desires of her own. And I didn't see anything I'd want to get for her when she was ready for serious toys. No, wait--I lied. There was one non-white, non-blond doll. That would be okay. Good Lord, though. How long can I hide toy catalogs and stores from her? Does she have to know that there are cartoon channels other than PBS (which doesn't have toy commercials), and how soon, really? And can I at least hope in a gender-stereotyped kind of way she won't automatically want violent toys?
We've been looking for a second car lately, either a minivan or something similar, that would be easy to get a baby seat or two in and out, and get to Iowa a couple times a year as well. Looking for a second car at all was a hard sell with me; after all, I walked a mile one-way to school last year in Hyde Park, and we now live one mile from church. But I think I'm learning urban distance and suburban distance are not the same; that, and there are no buses really to get Sophie to her Dr.'s visits. However, we'd probably just schedule routine visits on Tuesdays when Jorge was home and had the other car here as well. Actually, the real selling point was when the church told us the front of the church yard, which I'd have to cross with a stroller, would be heaped up and iced under by several feet, impenetrable by our maintenance folks' efforts, whenever the snowplows came by (church is near the city salt-yards). That would probably make it a little too dangerous to commute by foot.
Over the weekend we came across a nice jeep-looking-thing that was at a really great price, less than we paid for the Accord last summer. Only, we discovered upon inspection that this was a Lexus.
A Lexus? Can a mainline protestant pastor drive a Lexus with any credibility at all, no matter what the price? I had an uneasy feeling in my gut.
Since we were there, though, we decided to go for a test-drive. And it was a very, very smooth ride, and the seats were great, and the visibility for changing lanes was nice, and the back cargo door was easy to use and all...and it was dang cheap; but...it was a Lexus.
Can non-materialistic activist types such as ourselves drive a Lexus?
Funny thing is, if the same car was labeled as a Toyota (which I just learned is the manufacturer of Lexus), I'd not have any quandary at all. It was a great car. But after a while, it became easy to make more practical excuses: it doesn't have the LATCH system for installing infant seats. It could be expensive to insure and repair. It did have high miles on it, even if it did run smooth...
If any of y'all want it, I'll tell you how to get to the dealer. But for now, we're looking for something a little less conspicuous.
--
I'm down to about one maternity shirt I can 'go outside' in. This is another benefit of being on house rest, that I don't need a lot of 'presentable' clothes. I can wear Jorge's sweats or my pj's the rest of the time. At least we're getting good use out of them. Sometimes I'm astounded at the number of clothes we do have, and would like to get around to weeding out a bit more. The recent church garage sale was a big help to us, in that we had a good outlet and motivation for getting rid of a few under-utilized things already. Meanwhile, Sophie probably matches us in number of clothes, although hers are much smaller and take up less room, and I understand that most of them will be in the laundry heap on any given day, at least until we get the hang of diapering and burping.
These are my thoughts then on a November Monday. They're not in any particular order. Now, if this bothers you, by way of an apology I might say I'm not writing much these days, since I'm even off sermon duty, and I think that's made me a bit equal parts 'wooden' and 'rusty.' If that's possible. I think part of the problem, is that we have other sources of income right now, and so I don't feel the pressure to write articles, especially in a market where I would have to work much harder to get them published and paid for. On the other hand, I'm reading far more now than I usually do, and that has not been bad. Maybe after a cycle of heavy reading, I'll be ready to get back out into semi-public life.
peace,
Le Anne
Thursday, October 15, 2009
New CTS Building Anything But 'Green'
Published 10/14/09 at http://www.hpherald.com/pg4.html
Can a seminary really build a ‘green’ building while destroying a beloved community garden in the process?
Chicago Theological Seminary and the UofC will gather at 2pm, Thursday, October 15, to break ground on the new seminary building at 60th and Dorchester. A few weeks later, they’ll pave paradise in favor of a parking lot.
LEEDS, the ratings system for ‘green’ construction to which CTS aspires, specifies that a building not only be environmentally friendly in construction process and function, but also that it contribute to overall quality of life for its inhabitants and location. An active community garden which unites generations, classes, and races as the centerpiece of this block does well in this regard; looking out over an urban wasteland of empty lots does nothing good.
It’s important to know that when the Board of Trustees and administration of CTS had the opportunity to use their influence to stop this destruction, they chose not to do so, despite alumni pressure.
Throughout this decision-making process, CTS has operated as a silent accomplice. I can understand why community garden supporters might not want to challenge the UofC for its community development ethics; it’s an 800 lb. gorilla. But here is a seminary that is about to reap enormous gains from the neighborhood’s loss, earning fame for preaching its concern for creation and the world’s oppressed, and saying nothing about destruction done on its behalf in our own backyard.
Only a few students including myself ever went down to meet with folks at garden, local churches, schools, farmers’ markets, or the Experimental Station; the administration initiated no genuine efforts to do so.
This silence is not unique to the garden’s destruction. For years, CTS has been completely disengaged from the neighborhood--so much so that hardly anyone realizes there’s a seminary above the Seminary Co-op Bookstore in the first place.
Lest readers think I’m a chronically disgruntled alum, I used to love this school. I was editor of the student paper, student government co-president, student representative to the Board of Trustees. I worked in the Development office and gave generously of my personal time and money. I was even on a design committee and participating in LEEDs discussions until it became clear that accountability to the surrounding neighborhood would be no serious priority. At every step, I raised concerns for community preservation and neighborhood accountability, and my words fell on deaf ears.
We need to hold CTS accountable, and not allow their silence to protect them. The onus is on CTS to prove itself prophetic outside its walls. As this ‘progressive’ seminary leaves one ivory tower to build an ivory fortress south of the midway, it is up to the people who care to demand they shoulder the responsibility for what they’ve done.
Any institution can speak prophetically, and can even gain a little fame and fortune for doing so. It’s entirely another thing for the administration, Trustees, faculty, and students to walk their talk.
Rev. Le Anne Clausen de Montes
M.Div. CTS 2009
Can a seminary really build a ‘green’ building while destroying a beloved community garden in the process?
Chicago Theological Seminary and the UofC will gather at 2pm, Thursday, October 15, to break ground on the new seminary building at 60th and Dorchester. A few weeks later, they’ll pave paradise in favor of a parking lot.
LEEDS, the ratings system for ‘green’ construction to which CTS aspires, specifies that a building not only be environmentally friendly in construction process and function, but also that it contribute to overall quality of life for its inhabitants and location. An active community garden which unites generations, classes, and races as the centerpiece of this block does well in this regard; looking out over an urban wasteland of empty lots does nothing good.
It’s important to know that when the Board of Trustees and administration of CTS had the opportunity to use their influence to stop this destruction, they chose not to do so, despite alumni pressure.
Throughout this decision-making process, CTS has operated as a silent accomplice. I can understand why community garden supporters might not want to challenge the UofC for its community development ethics; it’s an 800 lb. gorilla. But here is a seminary that is about to reap enormous gains from the neighborhood’s loss, earning fame for preaching its concern for creation and the world’s oppressed, and saying nothing about destruction done on its behalf in our own backyard.
Only a few students including myself ever went down to meet with folks at garden, local churches, schools, farmers’ markets, or the Experimental Station; the administration initiated no genuine efforts to do so.
This silence is not unique to the garden’s destruction. For years, CTS has been completely disengaged from the neighborhood--so much so that hardly anyone realizes there’s a seminary above the Seminary Co-op Bookstore in the first place.
Lest readers think I’m a chronically disgruntled alum, I used to love this school. I was editor of the student paper, student government co-president, student representative to the Board of Trustees. I worked in the Development office and gave generously of my personal time and money. I was even on a design committee and participating in LEEDs discussions until it became clear that accountability to the surrounding neighborhood would be no serious priority. At every step, I raised concerns for community preservation and neighborhood accountability, and my words fell on deaf ears.
We need to hold CTS accountable, and not allow their silence to protect them. The onus is on CTS to prove itself prophetic outside its walls. As this ‘progressive’ seminary leaves one ivory tower to build an ivory fortress south of the midway, it is up to the people who care to demand they shoulder the responsibility for what they’ve done.
Any institution can speak prophetically, and can even gain a little fame and fortune for doing so. It’s entirely another thing for the administration, Trustees, faculty, and students to walk their talk.
Rev. Le Anne Clausen de Montes
M.Div. CTS 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)