on my friend kevin thompson's blog, i got reconnected with the thoughts of andre resner. resner is a pretty interesting guy. he taught my life and teaching of Jesus class at acu, was strict as hell, and blew my mind in a lot of ways. i lost track of him after i graduated, heard that he had gone through a divorce, and i wondered how a man so lessoned in theology and thought weathered such an experience. not addressed specifically as such, i suppose this excerpt from an essay published at this link in the blue rock review (full essay starting on page 87) is some sort of reply to that question...
"Though incarnated love has failed us again and again, we have yet experienced real love through these fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, friends, children, husbands and wives. Did they ultimately fail to love us as we most needed to be loved, as we yearned to be loved? Yes, largely yes. Just as we failed them. But the answer is no, also. Because pure love sometimes got and gets in the mix too. We have been held in an embrace that took us out of time and space and made us aware of something much bigger than ourselves and our losses and our failures. We have known love, love that surprised us, thrilled us, validated us as human beings, love that evoked within us awe, praise and gratitude. We have seen in the eyes of another the look and gaze of understanding, care, and ultimate concern. Looking in those eyes that locked on us we were granted a portal to the Divine gaze, the Divine love, the Divine promises. We need a community of nurture, where love is allowed to breathe."
i recently saw m. night shyamalan's the village. in it there was a quote more profound than maybe any other bit of script from cinema. you probably remember it (did it move you like it did me?).
"the world moves for love; it kneels before it in awe."
Immanuel has come. thanks be to God.
hallelujah.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Thursday, December 14, 2006
food for thought
some noteworthy points from an article from the economist, dec 9 2006; an article entitled "good food?".
people are being socially active in the grocery stores,
people like you and me.
buying organic to protect the earth from ugly pesticides,
and to help with richer soil and clear water supplies.
people are buying freetrade-stamped goods,
because it helps the poor farmers in third world countries.
this article points out, "shopping is the new politics... vote with your supermarket trolley..."
it's called "the ethical food movement."
here's the problem:
what the businesses that are selling "ethical foods" are suggesting, or at least what we are convincing ourselves will result from our purchasing "ethical foods", at best falls short of what we hope for, and at worst may be doing the very opposite. (editor's note: if you are content assuaging your guilt for being a white american making more than fourty thousand dollars a year, when half the world's population makes less than two dollars a day, by buying fairtrade foods, or if you are finding some solace from the excessive pollution and the empire of non-deteriorating rubbage that you (as a single human being!) have already generated in your two-to-three decades of life, then you may want to just stop here and keep buying your "ethical foods.")
organic food, grown without human-generated pesticides and fertilizers, depends on crop rotation, manure and compost instead of fertilizer. sound's good, 'eh? the deal is: all land cultivation disrupts the native habitat. since we decided it was too much work to pick berries and chase mountain goats in our loin cloths a few thousand years ago, we've been clearing land (heavily in the rain forrest areas, i might add), to cultivate farmland. without using our common method of augmenting the worldwide crop yield with factory-ready pesticides and fertilizers, we would need many times as much land as is presently used to provide the same agricultural output. in the words of the author, "there wouldn't be much room left for the rain forest." notably, grain yields have tripled -- without increasing the land requirement -- since current agricultural methods were put into place. and, unfortunately, there is not a surplus of farmland.
and the fairtrade notion is great... as a notion. the movement aims to give back to the poor farmer by increasing the price for the consumer. and we, being generally ethically-minded people, don't mind spending an extra forty cents on our bag of coffee beans for that cause, right? "by propping up the price, the fairtrade system encourages farmers to produce more commodities rather than diversifying into other crops and so depresses prices -- thus achieving, for most farmers, exactly the opposite of what the initiative is intended to do. and since only a small fraction of the mark-up on fairtrade foods actually goes to the farmer -- most goes to the retailer -- the system gives rich consumers an inflated impression of their largesse and makes alleviating poverty seem too easy."
my goodness, don't hear me wrong. i am not advocating a republican laissez-faire. my wife and i wash out every friggin' cranberry juice jug and cola can and pitch it in the blue bin. but i want to share how i was convicted reading this particluar article. i buy self-righteousness cheaply, without really ever examining or deeply caring about the mess i've made (and am making). and i ignore the issues that surround me in my city right here and now to feign interest in grand global problems. i'm certainly not willing to change if it means pain or sacrifice. i prefer "the inflated impression of [my] largesse." i'm the priest who crosses the street to avoid the robbed, beat-up traveller in order to get to my priestly duties on time.
heaven help us. really.
people are being socially active in the grocery stores,
people like you and me.
buying organic to protect the earth from ugly pesticides,
and to help with richer soil and clear water supplies.
people are buying freetrade-stamped goods,
because it helps the poor farmers in third world countries.
this article points out, "shopping is the new politics... vote with your supermarket trolley..."
it's called "the ethical food movement."
here's the problem:
what the businesses that are selling "ethical foods" are suggesting, or at least what we are convincing ourselves will result from our purchasing "ethical foods", at best falls short of what we hope for, and at worst may be doing the very opposite. (editor's note: if you are content assuaging your guilt for being a white american making more than fourty thousand dollars a year, when half the world's population makes less than two dollars a day, by buying fairtrade foods, or if you are finding some solace from the excessive pollution and the empire of non-deteriorating rubbage that you (as a single human being!) have already generated in your two-to-three decades of life, then you may want to just stop here and keep buying your "ethical foods.")
organic food, grown without human-generated pesticides and fertilizers, depends on crop rotation, manure and compost instead of fertilizer. sound's good, 'eh? the deal is: all land cultivation disrupts the native habitat. since we decided it was too much work to pick berries and chase mountain goats in our loin cloths a few thousand years ago, we've been clearing land (heavily in the rain forrest areas, i might add), to cultivate farmland. without using our common method of augmenting the worldwide crop yield with factory-ready pesticides and fertilizers, we would need many times as much land as is presently used to provide the same agricultural output. in the words of the author, "there wouldn't be much room left for the rain forest." notably, grain yields have tripled -- without increasing the land requirement -- since current agricultural methods were put into place. and, unfortunately, there is not a surplus of farmland.
and the fairtrade notion is great... as a notion. the movement aims to give back to the poor farmer by increasing the price for the consumer. and we, being generally ethically-minded people, don't mind spending an extra forty cents on our bag of coffee beans for that cause, right? "by propping up the price, the fairtrade system encourages farmers to produce more commodities rather than diversifying into other crops and so depresses prices -- thus achieving, for most farmers, exactly the opposite of what the initiative is intended to do. and since only a small fraction of the mark-up on fairtrade foods actually goes to the farmer -- most goes to the retailer -- the system gives rich consumers an inflated impression of their largesse and makes alleviating poverty seem too easy."
my goodness, don't hear me wrong. i am not advocating a republican laissez-faire. my wife and i wash out every friggin' cranberry juice jug and cola can and pitch it in the blue bin. but i want to share how i was convicted reading this particluar article. i buy self-righteousness cheaply, without really ever examining or deeply caring about the mess i've made (and am making). and i ignore the issues that surround me in my city right here and now to feign interest in grand global problems. i'm certainly not willing to change if it means pain or sacrifice. i prefer "the inflated impression of [my] largesse." i'm the priest who crosses the street to avoid the robbed, beat-up traveller in order to get to my priestly duties on time.
heaven help us. really.
Monday, December 11, 2006
rip
By degrees, his awe and apprehension subsided. He even ventured, when no eye was fixed upon him, to taste the beverage which he found had much of the flavor of excellent Hollands. He was naturally a thirsty soul, and was soon tempted to repeat the draught. One taste provoked another; and he reiterated his visits to the flagon so often, that at length his senses were overpowered, his eyes swam in his head, his head gradually declined, and he fell into a deep sleep.
On waking, he found himself on the green knoll whence he had first seen the old man of the glen. He rubbed his eyes--it was a bright sunny morning. The birds were hopping and twittering among the bushes, and the eagle was wheeling aloft, and breasting the pure mountain breeze. "Surely," thought he, "I have not slept here all night." He recalled the occurrences before he fell asleep. The strange man with the keg of liquor--the mountain ravine--the wild retreat among the rocks--the woe-begone party at ninepins--the flagon--"Oh! that flagon! that wicked flagon!" he thought --"what excuse shall I make?"
He looked round for his gun, but in place of the clean well-oiled fowling-piece, he found an old firelock lying by him, the barrel encrusted with rust, the lock falling off, and the stock worm-eaten. He now suspected that the grave roysterers of the mountains had put a trick upon him, and, having dosed him with liquor, had robbed him of his gun. Wolf, too, had disappeared, but he might have strayed away after a squirrel or partridge. He whistled after him and shouted his name, but all in vain; the echoes repeated his whistle and shout, but no dog was to be seen.
(special thanks to washington irving for his text above.)
On waking, he found himself on the green knoll whence he had first seen the old man of the glen. He rubbed his eyes--it was a bright sunny morning. The birds were hopping and twittering among the bushes, and the eagle was wheeling aloft, and breasting the pure mountain breeze. "Surely," thought he, "I have not slept here all night." He recalled the occurrences before he fell asleep. The strange man with the keg of liquor--the mountain ravine--the wild retreat among the rocks--the woe-begone party at ninepins--the flagon--"Oh! that flagon! that wicked flagon!" he thought --"what excuse shall I make?"
He looked round for his gun, but in place of the clean well-oiled fowling-piece, he found an old firelock lying by him, the barrel encrusted with rust, the lock falling off, and the stock worm-eaten. He now suspected that the grave roysterers of the mountains had put a trick upon him, and, having dosed him with liquor, had robbed him of his gun. Wolf, too, had disappeared, but he might have strayed away after a squirrel or partridge. He whistled after him and shouted his name, but all in vain; the echoes repeated his whistle and shout, but no dog was to be seen.
(special thanks to washington irving for his text above.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
