Learning to say yes
26/02/13 04:29
We live in a culture that places a high value on the negative. It doesn’t matter whether the topic is politics or religion, people feel quite confident in expressing their opinions about what they don’t like or reject, but are much more hesitant to say what they favor or believe. The political gamesmanship playing out in Washington, D.C. this week is an excellent example. The conflict between the President and the House of Representatives, where the Republicans hold the majority, has come to the point where the sequester is set to come into play and both sides are simply blaming the other side. I have no particular solutions for this season of crisis after crisis in Washington, D.C., but I sure wish I could hear some statements from some politicians express what they favor rather than what they oppose. Saying “no” isn’t the heart of governing.
Before I move on, I simply want to state that I believe in the separation of powers that is written into the Constitution of our nation. So it grieves me when the Senate delays and says “no” over and over when it comes to judicial appointments. Not granting the judges necessary for the efficient operation of the judiciary weakens this vital branch of government. At the same time the Senate and House are so deadlocked and so busy saying “no” that they have become almost incapable of passing meaningful legislation. Draconian cuts are hanging over the federal budget. There are just four days left to stop automatic spending cuts from affecting everything from air travel to food inspections. And yesterday the United States House of Representatives had only one item on their agenda. H.R. 667 would “redesignate the Dryden Flight Research Center as the Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center.” No, renaming NASA operations is not the most pressing order of business. The leadership of the House of Representatives is pursuing a considered strategy of deliberate idleness. With the Senate engaging in delaying action that results in a weaker judiciary and the House engaging in action that results in a weaker legislative branch, both chambers seem to be set on upsetting the balance of powers.
It is all because it is easier to say “no!” than to say “yes.” You can win an election to the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives by telling people what you oppose. It takes being in favor of something to govern effectively. Working with others for the common good, by the way, a lesson that is actively taught in the preschool in our building every day. I’ve though about requiring mandatory preschool for all legislators, but have no idea how to get such legislation passed in the culture of “no!”
The same thing happens in all sorts of arenas in contemporary American society. It is a fad these days to say that you are “spiritual, but not religious.” When I try to figure out what that phrase means, those who use it are rarely able to articulate what they mean by “spiritual.” They might give a vague description of an emotional reaction to one of the glories of nature. They might describe a moment of meditation that was meaningful. But for the most part they shrug their shoulders and say, “you know what I mean.” I don’t know what they mean. I am genuine in my curiosity. But most people who claim the “spiritual, not religious” label can clearly tell you what they don’t like about institutional religion. They feel that too much money is spent on buildings. They are sure that disagreements over religion have led to violence. They are upset, and rightly so, over the cover-up of clergy sex abuse and pedophilia. They blame the church for wars and religious people for the restriction of human rights. They often describe doctrinal rigidities, the over-application of guilt and other aspects of religion that I do not experience in the congregation that I serve.
I, of course, have a different perspective. While it is true that plenty of evil has taken place because of misguided religion and there is no small amount of abuse of power in religious institutions, it is also true that a great deal of good is done by religious institutions. Our church is involved in the direct feeding of hungry people, in providing energy assistance to cold people living in our region, in working for justice for those who are oppressed and striving to improve the care of the environment for the benefit of all people. We do pay salaries and maintain a building, but that building is used for a wide variety of community activities and functions. I could write thousands of words about the good things that we do. This does not make us a perfect institution. It is simply that the negative criticism isn’t the whole story.
As to spirituality, I am also moved by the beauties of nature and I am disciplined about the practices of silence and prayer and study. I am attentive to the movement of the Holy within my life. In addition, I have learned that taking the Spirit seriously demands a relationship with others. In Christian terms, you can’t be the body of Christ all by yourself. In practical terms, discerning the difference between what God wants and what I want is easier when I am engaging others in the process of discernment. There is nothing wrong with private and personal spirituality, but it is enhanced, strengthened and empowered by practices in community.
I also find that my spiritual life is enhanced by the study of the history and philosophy of religion. “Spiritual but not religious” people sometimes tell me of their discovery of a practice, but they are unaware that the practice is ancient. The only thing “new” about New Age religion is that the practitioners don’t know the history of previous generations. They think they are “discovering” new practices. What they have found are ancient practices. Because they have little information about the history of religion, they can’t see how they fit into a much grander, multi-generational stream of religious practice.
So if you think I’m wrong, or if you think I don’t understand, please do me the favor of thinking about what you do believe. Tell me about the positive aspects of your position. Think about what you might contribute to society and to the history of our people.
I have far too many opportunities to hear what people oppose and what they are against. I’m eager to hear about the things that make you say, “Yes!”
Before I move on, I simply want to state that I believe in the separation of powers that is written into the Constitution of our nation. So it grieves me when the Senate delays and says “no” over and over when it comes to judicial appointments. Not granting the judges necessary for the efficient operation of the judiciary weakens this vital branch of government. At the same time the Senate and House are so deadlocked and so busy saying “no” that they have become almost incapable of passing meaningful legislation. Draconian cuts are hanging over the federal budget. There are just four days left to stop automatic spending cuts from affecting everything from air travel to food inspections. And yesterday the United States House of Representatives had only one item on their agenda. H.R. 667 would “redesignate the Dryden Flight Research Center as the Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center.” No, renaming NASA operations is not the most pressing order of business. The leadership of the House of Representatives is pursuing a considered strategy of deliberate idleness. With the Senate engaging in delaying action that results in a weaker judiciary and the House engaging in action that results in a weaker legislative branch, both chambers seem to be set on upsetting the balance of powers.
It is all because it is easier to say “no!” than to say “yes.” You can win an election to the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives by telling people what you oppose. It takes being in favor of something to govern effectively. Working with others for the common good, by the way, a lesson that is actively taught in the preschool in our building every day. I’ve though about requiring mandatory preschool for all legislators, but have no idea how to get such legislation passed in the culture of “no!”
The same thing happens in all sorts of arenas in contemporary American society. It is a fad these days to say that you are “spiritual, but not religious.” When I try to figure out what that phrase means, those who use it are rarely able to articulate what they mean by “spiritual.” They might give a vague description of an emotional reaction to one of the glories of nature. They might describe a moment of meditation that was meaningful. But for the most part they shrug their shoulders and say, “you know what I mean.” I don’t know what they mean. I am genuine in my curiosity. But most people who claim the “spiritual, not religious” label can clearly tell you what they don’t like about institutional religion. They feel that too much money is spent on buildings. They are sure that disagreements over religion have led to violence. They are upset, and rightly so, over the cover-up of clergy sex abuse and pedophilia. They blame the church for wars and religious people for the restriction of human rights. They often describe doctrinal rigidities, the over-application of guilt and other aspects of religion that I do not experience in the congregation that I serve.
I, of course, have a different perspective. While it is true that plenty of evil has taken place because of misguided religion and there is no small amount of abuse of power in religious institutions, it is also true that a great deal of good is done by religious institutions. Our church is involved in the direct feeding of hungry people, in providing energy assistance to cold people living in our region, in working for justice for those who are oppressed and striving to improve the care of the environment for the benefit of all people. We do pay salaries and maintain a building, but that building is used for a wide variety of community activities and functions. I could write thousands of words about the good things that we do. This does not make us a perfect institution. It is simply that the negative criticism isn’t the whole story.
As to spirituality, I am also moved by the beauties of nature and I am disciplined about the practices of silence and prayer and study. I am attentive to the movement of the Holy within my life. In addition, I have learned that taking the Spirit seriously demands a relationship with others. In Christian terms, you can’t be the body of Christ all by yourself. In practical terms, discerning the difference between what God wants and what I want is easier when I am engaging others in the process of discernment. There is nothing wrong with private and personal spirituality, but it is enhanced, strengthened and empowered by practices in community.
I also find that my spiritual life is enhanced by the study of the history and philosophy of religion. “Spiritual but not religious” people sometimes tell me of their discovery of a practice, but they are unaware that the practice is ancient. The only thing “new” about New Age religion is that the practitioners don’t know the history of previous generations. They think they are “discovering” new practices. What they have found are ancient practices. Because they have little information about the history of religion, they can’t see how they fit into a much grander, multi-generational stream of religious practice.
So if you think I’m wrong, or if you think I don’t understand, please do me the favor of thinking about what you do believe. Tell me about the positive aspects of your position. Think about what you might contribute to society and to the history of our people.
I have far too many opportunities to hear what people oppose and what they are against. I’m eager to hear about the things that make you say, “Yes!”