My prose is adapted from a sermon based on Matthew 6:25-34 delivered by Mark Booker, at the Church of the Resurrection, on 6/29/08. Audio here.
Is Christianity like a release form that we sign merely for our security, and then tuck away into the recesses of our mind as a policy against harm? Do we only pull it out when anxiety strikes? We are all anxious people -- it's a part of humanity. But Jesus said, on the Sermon of the Mount, to not be anxious. It's so much a part of us, though, that we often have to wonder how it's possible to change that. This is a call from Jesus to live differently than we do in other ways, for he calls us out of this anxious, stressful life into a life of peace.
Anxiety is a state of mind that arises from a perceived, or even an actual, need that we may not be able to get. Food, drinks, and clothing were not remotely guaranteed for people in Biblical times, which is why Christ spoke about those. But what is that most worries us? Is it whether or not to have a Diet Coke or a regular Coke? Is it whether or not we should drive to the movies instead of taking our cars? We live in an era of affluence, but we still have these little tics of uncertainty for things over which we have no control. This leads us to fear, which drives us to seek a frenzied solution -- an event which can then consume our lives. Or, we can simply become paralyzed by this fear. In either situation, our needs become our masters and our gods. And the Lord becomes relegated to a means to an end. We become a black hole of needs, living out of fear, and we can thus be neither the salt nor the light that we ought to be to the world.
Jesus says, though, that this uneasiness of mind is both futile (v. 27) and wasteful (25). We miss out on this life if we're constantly worried about it. Moreover, it shows that we forget that our sovereign God is in absolute control over all things (30), even the little sparrow that has fallen from its nest and the gorgeous lilies sprouting from the fields. Failing to trust Him and being anxious about things betrays a denial of that which we profess to be true. We aren't cosmic orphans, but are God's adopted children! Those who do not profess to be followers of Jesus may have every need to be anxious because they do not know God and have to fend for themselves. They do not have a heavenly father on whom to rely!
So, even knowing all of this, why are we always anxious? Unbelief, plain and simple. We compartmentalize, obscure, forget, and relegate God. But He's not willing to be any of those! Jesus wants to demolish our idols and make us his. He exposes our unbelief in this passage form Matthew and gives us a simple, time-tested remedy: Faith. We can't just exhort ourselves to have more faith, though, but we have to see God clearly and seek him earnestly. Jesus reveals God and directs our pursuits in this passage. We constantly forget God, failing to see him.
We look at God as if he's a campfire, nice and toasty, when, in reality, he is the Sun. Jesus reveals that God provides for his creation. Exhibit A: the sparrows and the lilies. God is not stingy! He clothes the flowers more magnificently than Solomon ever dressed! Moreover, God values us highly. Jesus rhetorically asked if we weren't more valuable than the grass which is thrown into the over. We're not expendable, and he will ever provide for us! We know the value of things by what we pay for them. We thus know our value to God because of the price that he paid for us -- that of his son. Nothing can or should stop our anxiety more than this fact!
Jesus also reveals that God knows our needs (33). Jesus is redirecting our pursuits to the God that he is revealing in Scripture. Only he can satisfy our deepest needs. We know that our needs will be met when we seek after his words. But seeking him and seeing him are intricately related. As we seek him, we will find him. C.S. Lewis writes that if we aim for heaven, we will get the earth thrown in, but if we only reach for the earth, we'll get neither. We have to seek God and he will fill our needs. But we can't seek him merely for that fact: that's idolatry. Seeking something is giving it your full attention. Many of us set God as our highest affection, but we are distracted early in the pursuit and then fall away.
When we have our eyes set continually on God, though, we will be so invigorated, so passionate, so seeking as never before. The peace of God will guard our hearts and our minds, and we will seek him in reckless abandon, thoroughly put off from all of the anxiety and hurt that so easily entangled us previously.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Towards a more Healthy Nation?
The Obama Campaign today released a statement from the candidate's doctor briefly detailing the health of the front runner for the the Democratic nomination for president. Here is a link to the New York Times' article explaining this, which also contains a download to the physician's letter.
Dr. David L Scheiner, of Hyde Park Associates in Medicine, said that Obama has had regular check ups, no major health problems and intermittent issues with smoking. He has "quit this practice on several occasions," Scheiner wrote, "and is currently using Nicorette gum with success." On his ability to run for President, he wrote, "Senator Barack Obama is in overall good physical and mental health needed to maintain the resiliency required in the office of President."
All of this is unspectacular. Obama is in good health. Great. He can maintain the office. Great. There are no serious problems. Great. So why did he have to release this information?
Some say that presidential candidates ought to release serious medical issues prior to their run. Woodrow Wilson suffered a large stroke in 1919, but had never released information that he had experienced several strokes before that, according to historian Robert Gilbert, in a LiveScience piece. This lack of disclosure was a "disenfranchisement of the American people," according to philosopher Robert Streiffer, as quoted in the same article.
I agree that disclosure ought to be made to the electorate if a candidate has a history of medical issues. John McCain, who survived a bout with melanoma, released a portion of his medical records for this very purpose -- to show that he is now free of cancer and in a healthy enough state to run the nation. That's understandable.
But now, we get a single page saying that Obama is in good health, and not even background evidence showing this. I wonder if, in this whole, crazy, highly-politicized environment in which we now find ourselves, this is even necessary. He had no significant health issues in the past, so we know he is not going to pull a Wilson on us.
Don't get me wrong. This is not a critique on Obama -- in our political environment, he had to release his data just because McCain did. He cannot possibly be one-upped by the Republican. I'm questioning the necessity of public officials releasing their medical condition if they are indeed in good health.
It's too bad that the public trust isn't trusting enough in this case.
Dr. David L Scheiner, of Hyde Park Associates in Medicine, said that Obama has had regular check ups, no major health problems and intermittent issues with smoking. He has "quit this practice on several occasions," Scheiner wrote, "and is currently using Nicorette gum with success." On his ability to run for President, he wrote, "Senator Barack Obama is in overall good physical and mental health needed to maintain the resiliency required in the office of President."
All of this is unspectacular. Obama is in good health. Great. He can maintain the office. Great. There are no serious problems. Great. So why did he have to release this information?
Some say that presidential candidates ought to release serious medical issues prior to their run. Woodrow Wilson suffered a large stroke in 1919, but had never released information that he had experienced several strokes before that, according to historian Robert Gilbert, in a LiveScience piece. This lack of disclosure was a "disenfranchisement of the American people," according to philosopher Robert Streiffer, as quoted in the same article.
I agree that disclosure ought to be made to the electorate if a candidate has a history of medical issues. John McCain, who survived a bout with melanoma, released a portion of his medical records for this very purpose -- to show that he is now free of cancer and in a healthy enough state to run the nation. That's understandable.
But now, we get a single page saying that Obama is in good health, and not even background evidence showing this. I wonder if, in this whole, crazy, highly-politicized environment in which we now find ourselves, this is even necessary. He had no significant health issues in the past, so we know he is not going to pull a Wilson on us.
Don't get me wrong. This is not a critique on Obama -- in our political environment, he had to release his data just because McCain did. He cannot possibly be one-upped by the Republican. I'm questioning the necessity of public officials releasing their medical condition if they are indeed in good health.
It's too bad that the public trust isn't trusting enough in this case.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Emil: From Another Place
This was a project that James Neuendorf and I did for the photojournalism section of the World Journalism Institute. We interviewed Emil, a sketch artist in Central Park. I hope you enjoy it.
Click here to view it.
Click here to view it.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Why Microfinancing
The issue of microfinancing is one on which I think many people can agree. So many political campaigns are driven by the idea of eradicating poverty - but the majority of them merely drone with the same ideas of redistributing wealth, funneling money into a bureaucratic system, and giving to people on welfare rolls who have no incentive to do any better.
But microfinancing is different. It allows individuals to help out other people who are in need, and it has a proven track record in doing this. Starting with Mohammed Yunus’ work in Bangladesh, and continuing today with organizations such as Microfinancing Partners in Africa, Jamii Bora, Opportunity International, and Kiva.org, thousands of lives have been transformed through the donation of millions of dollars.
And it’s easy to become a part of it! I could go right now to Kiva.org and select an entrepreneur whose story resonates with me. A small loan of $25 gives them the opportunity to open a store, establish a restaurant, or purchase supplies for their farms. Sr. Toni has shown this to us.
I think it’s a great way for Christians to help spread what so many term “the social gospel.” We are so wealthy, so privileged, and we should be using our blessings to help others. I wholeheartedly believe that this is not to be done through the government, but through our giving to churches, worthy organizations, and needy individuals. By helping people in this way, we can be partners in, for instance, helping to lift a Kenyan women out of poverty. A small loan can help her buy more potatoes, which, when this turns a profit, can help her buy more potatoes and eventually a small table to make a shop.
But microfinancing is different. It allows individuals to help out other people who are in need, and it has a proven track record in doing this. Starting with Mohammed Yunus’ work in Bangladesh, and continuing today with organizations such as Microfinancing Partners in Africa, Jamii Bora, Opportunity International, and Kiva.org, thousands of lives have been transformed through the donation of millions of dollars.
And it’s easy to become a part of it! I could go right now to Kiva.org and select an entrepreneur whose story resonates with me. A small loan of $25 gives them the opportunity to open a store, establish a restaurant, or purchase supplies for their farms. Sr. Toni has shown this to us.
I think it’s a great way for Christians to help spread what so many term “the social gospel.” We are so wealthy, so privileged, and we should be using our blessings to help others. I wholeheartedly believe that this is not to be done through the government, but through our giving to churches, worthy organizations, and needy individuals. By helping people in this way, we can be partners in, for instance, helping to lift a Kenyan women out of poverty. A small loan can help her buy more potatoes, which, when this turns a profit, can help her buy more potatoes and eventually a small table to make a shop.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Current Interest: Microfinancing (It's not Charity. It's Credit)
The idea of microfinancing -- where a small loan is given to an aspiring entrepreneur to help jump start their rise from poverty -- is highly intriguing to me. I'd love to continue learning about it, and I'd like to share some of my initial thoughts in what is sure to be a continuing theme.
Coming up, I'll be exploring trends which allow a person like me to give directly to an entrepreneur of my choosing. I'll also look at it, hopefully, as an investment with a Christian perspective.
I had the privilege to attend a screening for a short documentary on a woman who works with a microfinancing organization in Kenya. Here are some of my thoughts on that:
When Sister Toni Temporiti needed a long break from the doldrums of her work in America, she took a much-needed and refreshing sabbatical in Africa.
Little did she know that she would soon become a part of a global trend that has large influence through small actions.
She and her fellow travelers traveled by bus down the Western coast of Africa, from Cairo, Egypt, to Cape Town, South Africa. At night, they pitched tents on the vast African plains and started a fire for food and warmth. As they supped around their campsite, women from local villages would congregate with them. There, she heard their stories of destitute life, of joyful families, and of lofty dreams. For some, this was to find a way to use their strong, entrepreneurial work ethic.
“I would listen to the women’s stories about their children and what they dreamt about,” Temporiti said in a documentary film about her work. “Through reflection I realize that it was in the women – the African women – around the campfire that I met my grandmother.”
Temporiti’s grandmother took a small loan to open a grocery store after her husband died, leaving her with ten children. Through her grandmother’s strength, she said she saw her family stay together. She saw the same strength in the Kenyan women.
But she saw that they were joyful – and needy. When she returned to St. Louis, she realized that she could help them for less than the cost of the sandwich she was eating. That is, all they needed was a small business loan.
Temporiti knew that a small loan, combined with the fortitude and hard work of the African women, could help to support them. It would allow them to rise out of their destitute poverty and live comfortably.
A woman can take a small loan, for example, to buy a few potatoes. As seen on the microfinancing documentary “Invest in Us,” she sells her product, makes a profit and repays her loan. She is then free to borrow more money, buy more potatoes at wholesale prices and continue the cycle. Eventually, she can move her place of business from a burlap sack on the dirty street to a table under a canopy. She has thus moved from destitution to being a prosperous entrepreneur with a shop front.
After seeing the value of microfinancing, Temporiti began a partnership with Ingrid Munro, who founded Jamii Bora, a microfinancing organization started in Kenya to help finance local entrepreneurs living desperately in the slums of Nairobi. Munro started with 50 Kenyan women, she said in a documentary film, “Invest in Us.” Jamii Bora, which means “Good Family” in Swahili, offers health and life insurance, as well as social support, in addition to the cash loans.
As one Kenyan in the film, working her way out of poverty, said, “Today, I am a life.”
When Temporiti saw the value in this, she formed Microfinancing Partners in Africa (MPA), a non-profit corporation in America. MPA exists, as their website says, to “provide grants for the strengthening and expansion of microfinancing programs that empower Africa’s poorest of the poor to lift themselves out of poverty with dignity through access to financial services and to education.”
After this company was founded, Temporiti went on a trip to Africa to see the results of her endeavor. She said at a screening for the documentary on May 18, “I came back so hopeful and so energized.”
Her excitement came from seeing “people whose lives were changed by credit,” she said, “not charity.”
Coming up, I'll be exploring trends which allow a person like me to give directly to an entrepreneur of my choosing. I'll also look at it, hopefully, as an investment with a Christian perspective.
I had the privilege to attend a screening for a short documentary on a woman who works with a microfinancing organization in Kenya. Here are some of my thoughts on that:
When Sister Toni Temporiti needed a long break from the doldrums of her work in America, she took a much-needed and refreshing sabbatical in Africa.
Little did she know that she would soon become a part of a global trend that has large influence through small actions.
She and her fellow travelers traveled by bus down the Western coast of Africa, from Cairo, Egypt, to Cape Town, South Africa. At night, they pitched tents on the vast African plains and started a fire for food and warmth. As they supped around their campsite, women from local villages would congregate with them. There, she heard their stories of destitute life, of joyful families, and of lofty dreams. For some, this was to find a way to use their strong, entrepreneurial work ethic.
“I would listen to the women’s stories about their children and what they dreamt about,” Temporiti said in a documentary film about her work. “Through reflection I realize that it was in the women – the African women – around the campfire that I met my grandmother.”
Temporiti’s grandmother took a small loan to open a grocery store after her husband died, leaving her with ten children. Through her grandmother’s strength, she said she saw her family stay together. She saw the same strength in the Kenyan women.
But she saw that they were joyful – and needy. When she returned to St. Louis, she realized that she could help them for less than the cost of the sandwich she was eating. That is, all they needed was a small business loan.
Temporiti knew that a small loan, combined with the fortitude and hard work of the African women, could help to support them. It would allow them to rise out of their destitute poverty and live comfortably.
A woman can take a small loan, for example, to buy a few potatoes. As seen on the microfinancing documentary “Invest in Us,” she sells her product, makes a profit and repays her loan. She is then free to borrow more money, buy more potatoes at wholesale prices and continue the cycle. Eventually, she can move her place of business from a burlap sack on the dirty street to a table under a canopy. She has thus moved from destitution to being a prosperous entrepreneur with a shop front.
After seeing the value of microfinancing, Temporiti began a partnership with Ingrid Munro, who founded Jamii Bora, a microfinancing organization started in Kenya to help finance local entrepreneurs living desperately in the slums of Nairobi. Munro started with 50 Kenyan women, she said in a documentary film, “Invest in Us.” Jamii Bora, which means “Good Family” in Swahili, offers health and life insurance, as well as social support, in addition to the cash loans.
As one Kenyan in the film, working her way out of poverty, said, “Today, I am a life.”
When Temporiti saw the value in this, she formed Microfinancing Partners in Africa (MPA), a non-profit corporation in America. MPA exists, as their website says, to “provide grants for the strengthening and expansion of microfinancing programs that empower Africa’s poorest of the poor to lift themselves out of poverty with dignity through access to financial services and to education.”
After this company was founded, Temporiti went on a trip to Africa to see the results of her endeavor. She said at a screening for the documentary on May 18, “I came back so hopeful and so energized.”
Her excitement came from seeing “people whose lives were changed by credit,” she said, “not charity.”
That's Right...Fight Amongst Yourselves
::edit:: Well, so far I was wrong with KY. Clinton more than won by the odds I predicted. I also recognize that my math was slightly off. Perhaps the Democratic delegate allocation is more complicated than I thought...We'll see how the rest of the night goes soon...
Today could be make-or-break day for Hilary Clinton. She is clearly behind in the delegate race, due to the sharp swing of super delegates to Barack Obama over the past couple of weeks. In fact, she’s gone from up about 20 a couple of weeks ago, to now being down 25.
But she is currently flying high in Kentucky, whose primary election is today. Her Real Clear Politics average puts her up 29 points, with other recent polls ranging from +25 to +36% above Obama.
Kentucky is a 51-delegate state, and it is a closed primary. Sorry those of you trying to participate in Rush Limbaugh’s Operation: Chaos, but you can’t swing this one even more in Clinton’s favor. I predict that Clinton will win with 26.4% of the vote, giving her approximately 37 of the delegates from the state, to Obama’s 14.
On the other hand, Oregon is also having its primary vote today, and Clinton is kind of floundering there. Over the past 10 days, Oregon's Real Clear Politics average puts Obama up +12%, with a spread from +5 to +20% above Clinton.
Oregon, likewise, is a closed primary, with 52 delegates up for grabs. Obama will definitely win this primary, and I predict it will be by 9.4%. This gives him 32 delegates, to Clinton’s 21.
At the end of the day, this gives Clinton a net gain of 58 delegates and Obama a gain of 46. Even if my percentages are a few points off, these numbers won’t change by more than 4 or 5 in either direction, I’m sure.
This puts Obama at 1656 pledged delegates, and Clinton at 1501.
Apparently, Obama is ready to announce that he has the majority of pledged delegates. And Clinton is claiming that she is winning in the popular vote.
They will continue to fight. She won’t back down, even in the face of ever-increasing odds.
So, as John McCain said, “That’s right. Fight amongst yourselves.”
I'm good with that.
Today could be make-or-break day for Hilary Clinton. She is clearly behind in the delegate race, due to the sharp swing of super delegates to Barack Obama over the past couple of weeks. In fact, she’s gone from up about 20 a couple of weeks ago, to now being down 25.
But she is currently flying high in Kentucky, whose primary election is today. Her Real Clear Politics average puts her up 29 points, with other recent polls ranging from +25 to +36% above Obama.
Kentucky is a 51-delegate state, and it is a closed primary. Sorry those of you trying to participate in Rush Limbaugh’s Operation: Chaos, but you can’t swing this one even more in Clinton’s favor. I predict that Clinton will win with 26.4% of the vote, giving her approximately 37 of the delegates from the state, to Obama’s 14.
On the other hand, Oregon is also having its primary vote today, and Clinton is kind of floundering there. Over the past 10 days, Oregon's Real Clear Politics average puts Obama up +12%, with a spread from +5 to +20% above Clinton.
Oregon, likewise, is a closed primary, with 52 delegates up for grabs. Obama will definitely win this primary, and I predict it will be by 9.4%. This gives him 32 delegates, to Clinton’s 21.
At the end of the day, this gives Clinton a net gain of 58 delegates and Obama a gain of 46. Even if my percentages are a few points off, these numbers won’t change by more than 4 or 5 in either direction, I’m sure.
This puts Obama at 1656 pledged delegates, and Clinton at 1501.
Apparently, Obama is ready to announce that he has the majority of pledged delegates. And Clinton is claiming that she is winning in the popular vote.
They will continue to fight. She won’t back down, even in the face of ever-increasing odds.
So, as John McCain said, “That’s right. Fight amongst yourselves.”
I'm good with that.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Brightening Manhattan Nights
Shining from the seventy-second floor of the Empire State Building and rising to the tip of the towering spire, hundreds of lights illuminate the top tier of New York’s most famous office building.
From May 16 to 18, these lights will, for the first time in history, light the building in two different color schemes for the final subway series between the New York Mets and the New York Yankees in their current stadiums. Each team’s colors will occupy two sides of the building – blue/white/blue for the Yankees and blue/orange/blue for the Mets. On May 19, all four sides will be lit for the winner of the series.
This is, of course, a matter of personal pride for every New Yorker, as each has a team that he supports wholeheartedly. To see the display of a favorite team’s colors on the Empire State Building will be a perfect extra dose to an already-euphoric delight in victory.
The lighting personnel normally light one color scheme on any given night. White is the standard color, but there are myriad other palettes, which range from solid green for St. Patrick’s Day, to lavender/pink/white for the release of the latest Mariah Carey album. The current lighting system is not the original one, however, and the history of this system is quite fascinating.
The first functional light on the Empire State Building, according to its website, was a searchlight beacon put in place in November 1932, to announce the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt as the new President. Lights on the building have been used for special events and holidays ever since. In 1956, the building placed four spotlights on a revolving circuit; each light was five feet in diameter and weighted one ton. Since they could be seen up to 300 miles away by air, they were a grand welcome to America for many immigrants and a symbol of hope for the post-war nation.
When the building added full floodlights in 1964, the top 30 floors of the Empire State Building were fully bathed in light, making the building a full-fledged national landmark at the beginning of the World’s Fair in New York. Color was added to the lights in 1976, and the building was lit in red, white and blue for the bicentennial anniversary of America.
In 1977, the color schemes were updated with the introduction of plastic gels that could fit over the floodlights that illumine the uppermost portion of the building. Finally, the system was updated in 1984 to allow for the illumination of the mooring mast, as well as the ring on the uppermost portion of the building spine. Potential innovations for the future include the use of LED lights instead of the floodlights, as reported by the New York Times last year.
The lighting system of the Empire State Building instills patriotism, spurs remembrance, and encourages celebration. It literally brightens up the nights in Manhattan, emanating a dazzling glow from the crown jewel in the city’s skyline
From May 16 to 18, these lights will, for the first time in history, light the building in two different color schemes for the final subway series between the New York Mets and the New York Yankees in their current stadiums. Each team’s colors will occupy two sides of the building – blue/white/blue for the Yankees and blue/orange/blue for the Mets. On May 19, all four sides will be lit for the winner of the series.
This is, of course, a matter of personal pride for every New Yorker, as each has a team that he supports wholeheartedly. To see the display of a favorite team’s colors on the Empire State Building will be a perfect extra dose to an already-euphoric delight in victory.
The lighting personnel normally light one color scheme on any given night. White is the standard color, but there are myriad other palettes, which range from solid green for St. Patrick’s Day, to lavender/pink/white for the release of the latest Mariah Carey album. The current lighting system is not the original one, however, and the history of this system is quite fascinating.
The first functional light on the Empire State Building, according to its website, was a searchlight beacon put in place in November 1932, to announce the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt as the new President. Lights on the building have been used for special events and holidays ever since. In 1956, the building placed four spotlights on a revolving circuit; each light was five feet in diameter and weighted one ton. Since they could be seen up to 300 miles away by air, they were a grand welcome to America for many immigrants and a symbol of hope for the post-war nation.
When the building added full floodlights in 1964, the top 30 floors of the Empire State Building were fully bathed in light, making the building a full-fledged national landmark at the beginning of the World’s Fair in New York. Color was added to the lights in 1976, and the building was lit in red, white and blue for the bicentennial anniversary of America.
In 1977, the color schemes were updated with the introduction of plastic gels that could fit over the floodlights that illumine the uppermost portion of the building. Finally, the system was updated in 1984 to allow for the illumination of the mooring mast, as well as the ring on the uppermost portion of the building spine. Potential innovations for the future include the use of LED lights instead of the floodlights, as reported by the New York Times last year.
The lighting system of the Empire State Building instills patriotism, spurs remembrance, and encourages celebration. It literally brightens up the nights in Manhattan, emanating a dazzling glow from the crown jewel in the city’s skyline
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
