I spent this morning listening to music to help me remember.
I didn't do it to remember 9/11. I don't need any help remembering that. Maybe I was far removed from the events of that morning geographically as I spent hours in class, but I distinctly remember the images of planes and buildings that day, replayed over and over on television for us to try to understand and fail miserably. I remember the hurt and anger and confusion I couldn't get a hold on, and eventually finding myself in a long hug from Abeth where I finally sobbed it all out as I tried wrap my head around the concept of "why."
Instead, I listened to remind myself that, despite the pain, fear, and hatred that has spouted from far corners of the globe as a response to both that days events and our country's own reaction, those ways are not my ways. I also remember the darkness of October 2001, when I felt so conflicted as our country invaded Afghanistan. I wanted to be able to stand in defense of our country, but I also felt that killing people in a far flung country felt more like revenge than justice. The day the war started, I found the lyrics to a howie&scott song, "Mightier Than the Sword," and posted them on my dorm door as I still searched for my own voice in support of love and peace:
Our hands are
Our feet are
Our words are
Our lives are…
Mightier than the sword
In the days, months, and years following 9/11, there was so much talk about victory over the terrorists. As true to me as it is now, the only way I can understand victory over terrorism is not backing down from business as usual: living life without fear of the other, spending our time loving and helping each other, and building together all things new so that we as humans around the world stand together as one. What would life be like if we did that instead of tearing each other down through our words and actions of violence?
Now a year into seminary and a different kind of life for myself, I stand for love. That's what I wanted to remember this morning, and what I want to remember every morning.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Friday, September 2, 2011
How I Spent My Summer "Vacation" Q&A
After my last post, I received some ideas to address in a follow-up. If you haven’t read that post, you might want to head over there first, as these responses make less sense without that context. Thanks for all for your questions, and feel free to add more!
As my last post was a summary designed to engage the positive things I could learn from the experience, some of these topics didn’t really fit, but they were nonetheless often part of my original observations that I have expanded some upon reflection. Often, the lack of mention of certain aspects of my journey in my original post meant that I didn’t feel a way to learn something new that I might be able to incorporate into something new, instead reflecting what I thought of as what not to do. So, to the questions:
What are the signs of emotional connection? I think to help with this I need to establish a baseline of connection in my normal worship experiences. In the past, as I have attended UCC churches, there is a variety of expression from the congregation within the service. That is in no way a comprehensive experience, and indeed due to the nature of the UCC, each UCC church is different from the last. But the common sense I have gotten in a UCC service is a calm demeanor from the congregation, with limited interaction between congregants and/or pastors within the service. At the most basic, the service involves a very short time of greeting between congregants, and all other movement is based on standing or sitting at the appropriate time (hymns, calls to worship, offerings, blessings, etc.) but not often extended to lateral movement. Additionally, there may occasionally be a music selection that includes some clapping, but not as often as weekly, or sometimes even monthly. There is little to no response to the actions of the pastor, particularly during the sermon. My own church (New Spirit Community Church) is expanded much beyond that, incorporating lateral movement for longer periods at various points in the service, and more energy-inducing music that contains clapping or even dancing at multiple points during a service in a mostly weekly basis. Both of those situations do not necessarily mark the amount of emotional connection within a service, as emotion can often be inwardly expressed, especially in a group where the norms are not an open to movement, but they are not as readily apparent to a visitor.
In all of the churches I visited this summer, there was no question in the heightened emotional connection of the congregation through physical movement and vocal expression, far more than any church I have regularly attended. Though lateral movement was not often apparent, vertical movement was. During opening music, everyone stood, often with arms raised as a praise motion to receive the inspiration of the Spirit. Singing was a primary expression of emotion, with volume of voice and extent of physical movement and dance increasing with increasing awareness of emotional connection. In one church, I was particularly amazed at the volume increase of the congregational singing after an emotional and energetic sermon over the level established before the sermon. There was also encouragement of emotional expression from the congregation by the pastors. For example, if the pastor noted a particular reaction from the congregation he thought of as positive of expressive (in terms of emotional release), there would be a kind of pause in the service as that moment was stretched to heighten the experience. Music from the band or choir would increase in volume, as would the singing of the congregation. From this, I could see more hands in the air in praise, more swaying or dancing from the congregation, and sometimes some form of speaking in tongues.
Other forms of emotional connection throughout the service included shouting and crying. Both of these were very common in all the churches I attended. Shouting would occur at any point in the service as response to the music or the sermon. Sometimes it was in response to the encouragement of the preacher (“Can I get an amen?”), but there were also plenty of moments of improvisational, inspirational shouting of praise. If the music or the sermon touched a particularly strong nerve, the ultimate response was crying. Some churches offered tissues by passing them, or by stocking them in pews, showing recognition of the power of emotional connection within the church. The avenue of connection for this expression varied from church to church based on the theology of the sermon or music, but it was prevalent throughout the churches as a whole.
In summary, the emotional connection had a wide range of expression, from more movement in a stationary position (swaying, dancing, arms raised) to increased volume (shouting, singing, music) to cathartic release (speaking in tongues, crying).
What is the make-up of the congregation? This was certainly something that varied by church. One church I visited was mostly African-American through historic tradition. The rest seemed to be mostly Euro-American in make-up to varying degrees, some having much more diversity than others. Some churches offered services in languages other than English. However, I do not recollect any mention of race, even within the church predominantly African-American. Every church had a wide range of age groups, but I particularly focused on the large amount of inclusion of families, children, and young adults. There was a specific focus of engagement to many different age groups, especially youth and young adults. I also had a sense of middle to upper class engagement in every church except the African-American church, reflecting the geographical location of the churches (downtown Oakland versus Bay Area suburbs). No church engaged sexual orientation or gender identification as a positive way of inclusion, and some were, to me, offensive in their opposition to that inclusion.
I did not feel that any church truly reflected diversity in terms of percentages of population in the area across a number of different demographics, but I did feel the diversity of congregational make-up was greater than most of my previous church experiences, both outside and within the UCC. However, this diversity of congregational make-up was not reflected in the church leadership. Every pastor (except at the African-American church) was Euro-American. Every pastor was male. Every senior pastor was older, though some had guest preachers that were much younger. Diversity was never a topic of music or sermon in any church.
How did the preacher use scripture? This was one of the largest difficulties I had with the churches. Most churches did not have a separate reading of the scripture; it was folded into the sermon. Within those sermons came some different uses of scripture. One church used John 11 as a scripture, with the sermon as first-person perspective from the viewpoint of the writer of John witnessing the events of raising Lazarus from the dead. Another church had ten different scriptural references, one or two verses apiece, within the sermon from six different books of the New Testament and the Old Testament. Another church had six scriptural references from six different Old Testament and New Testament books, one to seven verses apiece. At no point in any church did I feel the sermon was used to critically examine scripture, instead the scripture was often picked out of context to serve the needs of the preacher, including sometimes skipping lines within the same pericope to only use the verses that served the preacher’s needs.
How did these churches address social justice? Most of the churches had some sort of outreach to the poor. This seemed to mostly come in a way to feed the hungry in the local community once a week or once a month. There may have been more efforts beyond, but they were not advertised within the service or other media present. The focus for most churches was on prosperity/personal liberation as well as salvation. Therefore, there wasn’t much of a social justice aspect of the church or worship, which I found highly disappointing. I considered what one might be able to accomplish with so many people working towards one goal, and realized there are certainly very positive and very negative results that can come from that. I would have been very interested to see what social justice might look like in a mega-church setting, but it just wasn’t there.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
How I Spent My Summer "Vacation"
Earlier this year, I decided it might be a fun and enlightening exercise to take some time to visit other churches over the summer. The more I thought about it, I reasoned that I had been to plenty UCC churches in my lifetime, and I’ll have ample opportunity to experience other ones in the future, so this might be an excellent opportunity to search out places I hadn’t experienced before. As I continued to discern what might be the best churches to visit, I realized there was a large segment of Christianity I really had no background in at all: mega-churches. I wondered what made so many people come to these services. I really had no idea, and couldn’t accurately conjecture without any base of knowledge.
Therefore, I resolved to spend (usually) every other week of the summer to visit a mega-church somewhere in the Bay Area, with the off weeks spent at my home church, New Spirit Community Church in Berkeley. However, I didn’t know where to start in picking a mega-church, and that’s when the internet came to my rescue. I found the Database of Mega-churches after a fast Google search, and I was on my way. One can sort by Name, Denomination, State, and Size, and also search individual states. I looked at a number of candidates, and narrowed it down under the following criteria: each church should be in a different geographical sphere of the Greater Bay Area, each church should be a different denomination, and each church should be a large as possible. Through those criteria, I figured I could get a decent cross-section of what it might be like to attend a mega-church in California. Here are my selections, with date of attendance, size, and denomination included:
6 /19
Jubilee Christian Center – 10,000 (Non-Denominational)
105 Nortech Parkway, San Jose, CA
7/10
Greater St. Paul Baptist Church – 5,000 (Baptist)
1827 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Oakland, CA
7/24
Menlo Park Presbyterian Church – 3,200 (Presbyterian Church, USA)
950 Santa Cruz Ave, Menlo Park, CA
7/31
Bayside Church – 9,983 (Evangelical Covenant)
8191 Sierra College Blvd., Roseville, CA
8/14
Calvary Temple – 10,515 (Assemblies of God)
1601 Coffee Rd., Modesto, CA
Each church was different from the last, as all churches are. There was a variety in theology among the churches, none of which I can say I was comfortable with. There was also imagery and language used within each church that I was uncomfortable with. I did not feel that I could attend any of these churches on a regular basis due to these conflicts with my own beliefs. However, I did not attended these churches to discover what I could find wrong about them, but instead to see what they were doing that worked well and could be useful in a progressive church setting. As such, I found a few common themes among the churches that were informative to me about why so many people might attend the churches.
Every church had a similar order of worship. Again, there were always variations dependent on the individual church, but there was not much deviation from a simple service structure: opening music, pastoral prayer, announcements, and offering, more music, message, music, and end. Some churches dwelled on certain areas longer than others as well. Some did more music, some had more message, and some had both. But they all carried the same simple structure of worship.
Every church used technology to enhance the sanctuary and the service. All five churches had at least two screens at the front of the sanctuary, one to either side of the center/stage area. Before church, these screens contained information on upcoming events and other announcements. During church, the screens contained words for all of the music, either taking up the whole screen or running along the bottom of the screen over live video of the congregation and musicians. Also, the screens focused on the pastor during the sermon, flashing any scriptural references made throughout the sermon. Additionally, there was often a video of upcoming events, and a few words from the head pastor if he was away for the week.
Because of these screens, most churches did not have a traditional bulletin, but instead passed out informational pamphlets about the church as people entered the sanctuary. In my opinion, the screens helped to create a better sense of community in the church; people were always looking up instead of looking down when singing, and people could see how the entire congregation or certain individuals were reacting to moments in the service, especially at moments of high emotion and connection.
Every church used music that was powerful: energetic, and emotional. Every church had a band that included at least a drum kit, electric guitar, electric bass, piano/keyboard and vocalist. Others included more instruments and vocalists, some many more. The music was always the start of the service, and generally centered on up-tempo, praise-type music. At times, the music dipped to a slower pace, but would often pick up the tempo again with the next song. Music was used in some places as an emphatic response to the message, but was mostly centered on the beginning of the service. Often, there was recorded music played over the sound system before and after the service as people entered and exited, but all music within the service was performed live by the band and choir.
Every church used the structure of the service to make an emotional connection with the congregation. From the first notes of the opening music to the message to the music to end the service, there was always an effort to make a community in the sanctuary based on an emotional connection with each other and the divine, often emphasized on the divine. Each message was crafted to have uplifting effect on the people of the congregation, and the congregation responded. There were often testimonies from the pastor within the sermon to drive home the point found within the scriptural references of the day. The music at the beginning was used as an emotional introduction to the service, to make initial connections, but the message was the heart of the emotional experience. The message varied in length from church to church, ranging from twenty minutes to over an hour, but was always delivered with an overabundance of energy to complete and enhance the emotional connection to the congregation. People were most expressive during the most intense periods of emotion in the service, whether brought on by the message or the music.
It was hard for me to understand why someone might want to find themselves in a mega-church. The size of the church removes the individuality of a person in church. But I realized that the emotional connection to each other, to the worship leaders, and to the divine were of profound importance, and overrode any thought of an individual lost in a sea of people. Each church also provided community opportunities outside of a worship service through smaller bible studies and congregational groups and events, as well as excellent child care and education from infants to young adults.
So my conclusion was that the draw of the mega-church was the inspirational and emotional experience brought through energetic expression in contemporary music and message delivery. Of all the churches I experienced, I found the most informative and most desirable to be the Bayside Church of Roseville, CA.
While I did not agree with the theology of Bayside Church, I was blown away by the presentation and involvement of the service. They are 100% committed to making the service a very positive experience, best seen in the performance of the music. All music was done by what could easily be called a rock band. They were so experienced and together in their presentation, I could easily see them as a successful opening act for a popular modern alternative rock act. Each song was performed with passion and spirit unmatched in any other church I attended. The message was met with equal passion and spirit, and the congregation responded energetically to both. If I could recommend any of these churches to go to in an effort to understand my church visiting experience this summer that would be the one.
My take away from this project is that there are ways to connect to people that are independent of theology. I think the attendees of these services are looking for a place to find inspiration and acceptance in a modern context, and these churches are very good at providing that. But I also found myself in question moving forward: what would a progressive mega-church look like? In other words, how can I take my experience at Bayside Church and translate it to a church with progressive theology? That’s the next step for projects on the horizon.
This was an amazing experience for me. I learned quite a bit that I’ll be able to reference as I move forward into ministry. I want to thank most especially Riess Potterveld for support on this adventure, as well as Nate Mazur for accompanying me on the last two church visits. Also thanks to support of friends and family as I went on this journey, particularly in events surrounding some of the visits. Finally, I encourage you to all to find your own journey, and experience something opposite of how you think or feel. You might be surprised what you learn!
Therefore, I resolved to spend (usually) every other week of the summer to visit a mega-church somewhere in the Bay Area, with the off weeks spent at my home church, New Spirit Community Church in Berkeley. However, I didn’t know where to start in picking a mega-church, and that’s when the internet came to my rescue. I found the Database of Mega-churches after a fast Google search, and I was on my way. One can sort by Name, Denomination, State, and Size, and also search individual states. I looked at a number of candidates, and narrowed it down under the following criteria: each church should be in a different geographical sphere of the Greater Bay Area, each church should be a different denomination, and each church should be a large as possible. Through those criteria, I figured I could get a decent cross-section of what it might be like to attend a mega-church in California. Here are my selections, with date of attendance, size, and denomination included:
6 /19
Jubilee Christian Center – 10,000 (Non-Denominational)
105 Nortech Parkway, San Jose, CA
7/10
Greater St. Paul Baptist Church – 5,000 (Baptist)
1827 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Oakland, CA
7/24
Menlo Park Presbyterian Church – 3,200 (Presbyterian Church, USA)
950 Santa Cruz Ave, Menlo Park, CA
7/31
Bayside Church – 9,983 (Evangelical Covenant)
8191 Sierra College Blvd., Roseville, CA
8/14
Calvary Temple – 10,515 (Assemblies of God)
1601 Coffee Rd., Modesto, CA
Each church was different from the last, as all churches are. There was a variety in theology among the churches, none of which I can say I was comfortable with. There was also imagery and language used within each church that I was uncomfortable with. I did not feel that I could attend any of these churches on a regular basis due to these conflicts with my own beliefs. However, I did not attended these churches to discover what I could find wrong about them, but instead to see what they were doing that worked well and could be useful in a progressive church setting. As such, I found a few common themes among the churches that were informative to me about why so many people might attend the churches.
Every church had a similar order of worship. Again, there were always variations dependent on the individual church, but there was not much deviation from a simple service structure: opening music, pastoral prayer, announcements, and offering, more music, message, music, and end. Some churches dwelled on certain areas longer than others as well. Some did more music, some had more message, and some had both. But they all carried the same simple structure of worship.
Every church used technology to enhance the sanctuary and the service. All five churches had at least two screens at the front of the sanctuary, one to either side of the center/stage area. Before church, these screens contained information on upcoming events and other announcements. During church, the screens contained words for all of the music, either taking up the whole screen or running along the bottom of the screen over live video of the congregation and musicians. Also, the screens focused on the pastor during the sermon, flashing any scriptural references made throughout the sermon. Additionally, there was often a video of upcoming events, and a few words from the head pastor if he was away for the week.
Because of these screens, most churches did not have a traditional bulletin, but instead passed out informational pamphlets about the church as people entered the sanctuary. In my opinion, the screens helped to create a better sense of community in the church; people were always looking up instead of looking down when singing, and people could see how the entire congregation or certain individuals were reacting to moments in the service, especially at moments of high emotion and connection.
Every church used music that was powerful: energetic, and emotional. Every church had a band that included at least a drum kit, electric guitar, electric bass, piano/keyboard and vocalist. Others included more instruments and vocalists, some many more. The music was always the start of the service, and generally centered on up-tempo, praise-type music. At times, the music dipped to a slower pace, but would often pick up the tempo again with the next song. Music was used in some places as an emphatic response to the message, but was mostly centered on the beginning of the service. Often, there was recorded music played over the sound system before and after the service as people entered and exited, but all music within the service was performed live by the band and choir.
Every church used the structure of the service to make an emotional connection with the congregation. From the first notes of the opening music to the message to the music to end the service, there was always an effort to make a community in the sanctuary based on an emotional connection with each other and the divine, often emphasized on the divine. Each message was crafted to have uplifting effect on the people of the congregation, and the congregation responded. There were often testimonies from the pastor within the sermon to drive home the point found within the scriptural references of the day. The music at the beginning was used as an emotional introduction to the service, to make initial connections, but the message was the heart of the emotional experience. The message varied in length from church to church, ranging from twenty minutes to over an hour, but was always delivered with an overabundance of energy to complete and enhance the emotional connection to the congregation. People were most expressive during the most intense periods of emotion in the service, whether brought on by the message or the music.
It was hard for me to understand why someone might want to find themselves in a mega-church. The size of the church removes the individuality of a person in church. But I realized that the emotional connection to each other, to the worship leaders, and to the divine were of profound importance, and overrode any thought of an individual lost in a sea of people. Each church also provided community opportunities outside of a worship service through smaller bible studies and congregational groups and events, as well as excellent child care and education from infants to young adults.
So my conclusion was that the draw of the mega-church was the inspirational and emotional experience brought through energetic expression in contemporary music and message delivery. Of all the churches I experienced, I found the most informative and most desirable to be the Bayside Church of Roseville, CA.
While I did not agree with the theology of Bayside Church, I was blown away by the presentation and involvement of the service. They are 100% committed to making the service a very positive experience, best seen in the performance of the music. All music was done by what could easily be called a rock band. They were so experienced and together in their presentation, I could easily see them as a successful opening act for a popular modern alternative rock act. Each song was performed with passion and spirit unmatched in any other church I attended. The message was met with equal passion and spirit, and the congregation responded energetically to both. If I could recommend any of these churches to go to in an effort to understand my church visiting experience this summer that would be the one.
My take away from this project is that there are ways to connect to people that are independent of theology. I think the attendees of these services are looking for a place to find inspiration and acceptance in a modern context, and these churches are very good at providing that. But I also found myself in question moving forward: what would a progressive mega-church look like? In other words, how can I take my experience at Bayside Church and translate it to a church with progressive theology? That’s the next step for projects on the horizon.
This was an amazing experience for me. I learned quite a bit that I’ll be able to reference as I move forward into ministry. I want to thank most especially Riess Potterveld for support on this adventure, as well as Nate Mazur for accompanying me on the last two church visits. Also thanks to support of friends and family as I went on this journey, particularly in events surrounding some of the visits. Finally, I encourage you to all to find your own journey, and experience something opposite of how you think or feel. You might be surprised what you learn!
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Bath time and bananas would never be the same.
I'm sure you've seen the news this week. It's been all over the place, as if we had nothing better to worry about this week. Or maybe we just want to escape whatever roller coaster the stock market is sending us on?
Yes, people are getting up in arms about Bert and Ernie. Sure, quite a few of us grew up singing about our rubber duckies, but I guess we can't just leave it alone. Bert and Ernie are examples for children these days, as they always have been, and it appears we are concerned about what that example might be.
One might think, given my hefty support of same-gender loving marriage, that I would be in full support of the idea of a wedding for Bert and Ernie. But they'd be quite wrong.
It's not that I'm opposed to the idea of them getting married. Sure, if that's who they are, then go for it. But is that who they are? The good folks at Sesame Street keep telling us that Bert and Ernie aren't gay, and are instead best friends and roommates. I don't think they were created as gay characters, and if they weren't then, why are they now?
In an age where we are fighting for a revolution in gender identity, is it fair for us to project our own ideas of who somebody is or isn't onto their lived experience absent their own input? I understand they are puppets (as the folks at Sesame Street are also keen to point out) and subject to whatever character traits and thoughts created for them by human writers, but I know I didn't think about that when I was growing up. I knew of Bert and Ernie as people that are friendly with each other, because that's what they are portrayed as. Anything else added to that is our own projection of what we want to see, for better or for worse.
Should Sesame Street have gay, married characters? Well, I think an example of all forms of love, as well as an example of the different areas of gender identity would be good for an educational program to show, especially for those that might not get it in any other context. But that's a different argument. For us to decide that Bert and Ernie are gay and should be married is no better than us deciding who is gay based on how they dress, the people they hang out with, or how they speak. Same goes for gender identity. It is not for us to project our own desires and perceptions on other people. That's how we end up with stereotyping and discrimination.
So if we want to petition Sesame Street to address gender and sexual orientation topics in an educational and positive way, I'm in. But if we want to petition Sesame Street to address our own ideas of what people (or in this case, puppets) should do without respecting who they are, then I'm out. I'll have fun with Bert and Ernie over bananas and bath time:
Yes, people are getting up in arms about Bert and Ernie. Sure, quite a few of us grew up singing about our rubber duckies, but I guess we can't just leave it alone. Bert and Ernie are examples for children these days, as they always have been, and it appears we are concerned about what that example might be.
One might think, given my hefty support of same-gender loving marriage, that I would be in full support of the idea of a wedding for Bert and Ernie. But they'd be quite wrong.
It's not that I'm opposed to the idea of them getting married. Sure, if that's who they are, then go for it. But is that who they are? The good folks at Sesame Street keep telling us that Bert and Ernie aren't gay, and are instead best friends and roommates. I don't think they were created as gay characters, and if they weren't then, why are they now?
In an age where we are fighting for a revolution in gender identity, is it fair for us to project our own ideas of who somebody is or isn't onto their lived experience absent their own input? I understand they are puppets (as the folks at Sesame Street are also keen to point out) and subject to whatever character traits and thoughts created for them by human writers, but I know I didn't think about that when I was growing up. I knew of Bert and Ernie as people that are friendly with each other, because that's what they are portrayed as. Anything else added to that is our own projection of what we want to see, for better or for worse.
Should Sesame Street have gay, married characters? Well, I think an example of all forms of love, as well as an example of the different areas of gender identity would be good for an educational program to show, especially for those that might not get it in any other context. But that's a different argument. For us to decide that Bert and Ernie are gay and should be married is no better than us deciding who is gay based on how they dress, the people they hang out with, or how they speak. Same goes for gender identity. It is not for us to project our own desires and perceptions on other people. That's how we end up with stereotyping and discrimination.
So if we want to petition Sesame Street to address gender and sexual orientation topics in an educational and positive way, I'm in. But if we want to petition Sesame Street to address our own ideas of what people (or in this case, puppets) should do without respecting who they are, then I'm out. I'll have fun with Bert and Ernie over bananas and bath time:
Monday, July 25, 2011
My Surreal Sunday
It was unexpected. By that, I mean, having never been punched in the face before, I didn't recognize what was happening until after it happened. It was a touch past surreal. Maybe next time I'll know I should duck.
I have no idea how the day ended up this way. The plan: head to Menlo Park Presbyterian Church for morning service, chill out in the area for a bunch of hours, and then head back to the church for the 7 PM young adult service. As part of my day hanging around, I thought a movie would be a good time killer, so I found a big theater, drove over there after the service got out around noon, parked the car, and went looking for some food.
Ah, Redwood City, a fine downtown area indeed, if not a tad on the ritzy side. As I rounded a corner towards the "food court" area next to the theater, I passed a man on the sidewalk that seemed to give me a strange look. So it goes sometimes, I thought, and continued on. About halfway down the street, as I was checking out the many food options, I realized the man that gave me a strange look was following me, and that's when he approached me.
We had a short conversation about what I was doing and what my plans were, and I had a sense that something strange was going on. We walked into the Chipotle together, as I figured burritos were a good choice of food. Plus, it was a public establishment that might discourage any untoward action. Or so I thought. I stood in line, and he asked me if I knew what I wanted. I told him I was still figuring it out, all the while trying to figure out how to separate myself from him, for the hair on the back of my neck grew straighter by the second.
That's when I didn't recognize his fist coming at me. Like so often said, it was in slow motion. Rather than reacting, I stood confused, trying to figure out what he was doing. That was sorted out pretty quickly when he hit me, but I was still confused: why would someone want to hit me, much less someone I don't know?
I backed away with my hands in front of me, ready to try to ward of the next blow that never came. At first the ladies at the counter implored us to take it outside, not wanting violence in their fine eatery. I agreed vociferously, quickly winning them over with my consistent backing and asking for them to call the police. The man was still saying things to me, but I wasn't paying too much attention to that so much as his location and my places of safe harbor. After the ladies at the counter confirmed they were calling the police, the man left and walked down the street in a pretty normal manner.
One punch. That was it. It's hard for me to call one punch an assault, but that's where the police were, so I wasn't going to argue. Since they had him in custody due to some fast and fantastic police work, I was asked if I wanted to press charges. It took me a while to decide. All I could think about was compassion and love, and how it's so hard to love those who hate you, but that doesn't get you off the hook. So I was leaning towards no, but I then I thought some more.
I'd had some time to reflect on what happened as I waited for the police to show up, and I ran everything over in my head. I can't remember the specifics of what he was saying, but the general gist I was picking up was he didn't like me for some reason, and thought what I was doing was wrong. I don't know what that's a reference to, since I had never seen this man before in my life, and we knew nothing of each other. He didn't want my money, and he never said anything about how I might have wronged him. I was clearly targeted by him, so a quick inventory of myself told me he thought I was gay. Either that, or he didn't like my orange shirt? I still wear my rainbow bracelet every day to show my support for the LGBTQ population, and that was the only thing I could think of that might have caught his attention.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it felt to me like a hate crime. In the end, that's why I decided to press charges. If he was disturbed, or high, or I had unknowingly wronged him, I might have let it pass and let go, but there was that nagging feeling in the back of my head that there was something else to it. If he had hit me because I was gay, even if it was only a slim possibility, I couldn't let it pass. How could I look my friends or family in the eye after fighting against things like that for so long, and then when the opportunity came upon me, just letting it slide? How is that justice?
But maybe I'm just projecting an idea to understand these strange events. It's easier to think that someone won't decide today that you're the one to be violent towards. It's easier to think that everyone acts in a rational way, and that one need only show a person the "right" way to change a course of action. It's easier to think that everything has a simple reason behind it, and that if we understand that reason, if in some way it all makes sense to us, then it just gets better. But it's not easy. Even if I can fully convince myself of his possible ugly intentions, I still don't see a way to clearing up the confusion I can't shake. My mind works so hard to try to understand everything I can encounter, and it sure is working overdrive on this one, but I'm no closer to understanding now than I was as it was happening.
I never was angry at the man, and I'm still not. Whatever his reasons were, in the end he needed some kind of help, and perhaps his arrest will point him towards that help. Really, I felt sad for him. I felt sad for all the points in his life that led him to the one of violence with me. I felt sad for how his life may be so different now that he hit me. I felt sad that he didn't even see the wrong in what he had done, with they way in which he casually walked away revealing so much.
The police officer told me I would most likely never see him again, and I suppose I'm fine with that. But part of me wishes I could see him again, perhaps just in passing, just to say that I pray peace finds his life to free him from whatever led him to hit me, and that I forgive him.
I have no idea how the day ended up this way. The plan: head to Menlo Park Presbyterian Church for morning service, chill out in the area for a bunch of hours, and then head back to the church for the 7 PM young adult service. As part of my day hanging around, I thought a movie would be a good time killer, so I found a big theater, drove over there after the service got out around noon, parked the car, and went looking for some food.
Ah, Redwood City, a fine downtown area indeed, if not a tad on the ritzy side. As I rounded a corner towards the "food court" area next to the theater, I passed a man on the sidewalk that seemed to give me a strange look. So it goes sometimes, I thought, and continued on. About halfway down the street, as I was checking out the many food options, I realized the man that gave me a strange look was following me, and that's when he approached me.
We had a short conversation about what I was doing and what my plans were, and I had a sense that something strange was going on. We walked into the Chipotle together, as I figured burritos were a good choice of food. Plus, it was a public establishment that might discourage any untoward action. Or so I thought. I stood in line, and he asked me if I knew what I wanted. I told him I was still figuring it out, all the while trying to figure out how to separate myself from him, for the hair on the back of my neck grew straighter by the second.
That's when I didn't recognize his fist coming at me. Like so often said, it was in slow motion. Rather than reacting, I stood confused, trying to figure out what he was doing. That was sorted out pretty quickly when he hit me, but I was still confused: why would someone want to hit me, much less someone I don't know?
I backed away with my hands in front of me, ready to try to ward of the next blow that never came. At first the ladies at the counter implored us to take it outside, not wanting violence in their fine eatery. I agreed vociferously, quickly winning them over with my consistent backing and asking for them to call the police. The man was still saying things to me, but I wasn't paying too much attention to that so much as his location and my places of safe harbor. After the ladies at the counter confirmed they were calling the police, the man left and walked down the street in a pretty normal manner.
One punch. That was it. It's hard for me to call one punch an assault, but that's where the police were, so I wasn't going to argue. Since they had him in custody due to some fast and fantastic police work, I was asked if I wanted to press charges. It took me a while to decide. All I could think about was compassion and love, and how it's so hard to love those who hate you, but that doesn't get you off the hook. So I was leaning towards no, but I then I thought some more.
I'd had some time to reflect on what happened as I waited for the police to show up, and I ran everything over in my head. I can't remember the specifics of what he was saying, but the general gist I was picking up was he didn't like me for some reason, and thought what I was doing was wrong. I don't know what that's a reference to, since I had never seen this man before in my life, and we knew nothing of each other. He didn't want my money, and he never said anything about how I might have wronged him. I was clearly targeted by him, so a quick inventory of myself told me he thought I was gay. Either that, or he didn't like my orange shirt? I still wear my rainbow bracelet every day to show my support for the LGBTQ population, and that was the only thing I could think of that might have caught his attention.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it felt to me like a hate crime. In the end, that's why I decided to press charges. If he was disturbed, or high, or I had unknowingly wronged him, I might have let it pass and let go, but there was that nagging feeling in the back of my head that there was something else to it. If he had hit me because I was gay, even if it was only a slim possibility, I couldn't let it pass. How could I look my friends or family in the eye after fighting against things like that for so long, and then when the opportunity came upon me, just letting it slide? How is that justice?
But maybe I'm just projecting an idea to understand these strange events. It's easier to think that someone won't decide today that you're the one to be violent towards. It's easier to think that everyone acts in a rational way, and that one need only show a person the "right" way to change a course of action. It's easier to think that everything has a simple reason behind it, and that if we understand that reason, if in some way it all makes sense to us, then it just gets better. But it's not easy. Even if I can fully convince myself of his possible ugly intentions, I still don't see a way to clearing up the confusion I can't shake. My mind works so hard to try to understand everything I can encounter, and it sure is working overdrive on this one, but I'm no closer to understanding now than I was as it was happening.
I never was angry at the man, and I'm still not. Whatever his reasons were, in the end he needed some kind of help, and perhaps his arrest will point him towards that help. Really, I felt sad for him. I felt sad for all the points in his life that led him to the one of violence with me. I felt sad for how his life may be so different now that he hit me. I felt sad that he didn't even see the wrong in what he had done, with they way in which he casually walked away revealing so much.
The police officer told me I would most likely never see him again, and I suppose I'm fine with that. But part of me wishes I could see him again, perhaps just in passing, just to say that I pray peace finds his life to free him from whatever led him to hit me, and that I forgive him.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Mid-Summer
It's nearing the end of July, and I've had a busy three weeks of Introduction to Christian History class. Four hours a day in class, five days a week, plus reading homework and then papers to write. Tomorrow is the final day, and the class had been great. So tomorrow will be a great day of ending as we talk about the last 50 years of Christian history, and then I'll be (mostly) free for the month of August to do a lot of something and a lot of nothing.
Also, the Giants are having a good month. Really, they are having a good year. How do I know this? Well, aside from checking out the Giants games, box scores, and stories, I find myself already checking the standings every day. In mid-July. With well over two months to go on the season. Yowza.
What have I learned? Well, as of tonight, the Giants are a fine four games in first place, tied for the largest division lead at this point. For those counting at home, they have the same number of wins as the Evil Empire (aka the Yankees) while scoring 125 fewer runs. Who needs high-priced free agents? Or the ability to score runs? Only the Phillies have allowed fewer runs than the Giants, which should make for an interesting series come October, should both get that far.
It's the same Giants as last year, but worse. Somehow, they find a way to win those one run games (at 26-13), and that's all it takes. A win by one run counts the same as a win by twenty.
If the Giants make it to the playoffs again, I'll be happy. If they make it to the World Series again, I'll got nuts. And if they win again? Well, I wasn't sure how I'd react to the first one last year, so I have no idea how I'd take two in a row. Of course, if they fall flat and miss the playoffs, I'll be sad, but then I can remember the glory of last October, for I'm sure I'll be feeling that one for a while.
But, seriously, it's too early for watching the standings every day. So much can happen in two and a half months. Just look where the Giants were last year at this time. You never know who will come from behind to make a run at it. You never know what Cinderella will fall apart (Pirates? Indians? Diamondbacks?). So what's the use with all this scoreboard watching with so much time left.
Now, do as I say, not as I do.
Also, the Giants are having a good month. Really, they are having a good year. How do I know this? Well, aside from checking out the Giants games, box scores, and stories, I find myself already checking the standings every day. In mid-July. With well over two months to go on the season. Yowza.
What have I learned? Well, as of tonight, the Giants are a fine four games in first place, tied for the largest division lead at this point. For those counting at home, they have the same number of wins as the Evil Empire (aka the Yankees) while scoring 125 fewer runs. Who needs high-priced free agents? Or the ability to score runs? Only the Phillies have allowed fewer runs than the Giants, which should make for an interesting series come October, should both get that far.
It's the same Giants as last year, but worse. Somehow, they find a way to win those one run games (at 26-13), and that's all it takes. A win by one run counts the same as a win by twenty.
If the Giants make it to the playoffs again, I'll be happy. If they make it to the World Series again, I'll got nuts. And if they win again? Well, I wasn't sure how I'd react to the first one last year, so I have no idea how I'd take two in a row. Of course, if they fall flat and miss the playoffs, I'll be sad, but then I can remember the glory of last October, for I'm sure I'll be feeling that one for a while.
But, seriously, it's too early for watching the standings every day. So much can happen in two and a half months. Just look where the Giants were last year at this time. You never know who will come from behind to make a run at it. You never know what Cinderella will fall apart (Pirates? Indians? Diamondbacks?). So what's the use with all this scoreboard watching with so much time left.
Now, do as I say, not as I do.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Who casts the first stone?
Checking out links on Facebook today led me to this story about the "The Marriage Vow" and the willingness of Republican Presidential candidates to sign it. Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum have already signed on, and others may be on the way shortly. If you'd like to take a look, read below.
The Marriage Vow
My quick summery after a read-through: the candidate pledges to "protect" marriage through various actions and legislation if elected to office. As I am generally a liberal fellow, you are probably not surprised in my lack of support for this document.
In wandering though the experience of reading this, I was struck by two things. First, the liberal reaction is mostly vitriol. Is the left really surprised by this? Here we see on paper exactly what a number of candidates have been talking about throughout their campaigns. The reaction to this on the right, I presume, is one of affirmation. These are, after all, Republican candidates looking for ways to distinguish themselves in a race full of a lot of look-a-likes. Telling their base in no uncertain terms exactly what they want to hear when it comes to social issues, so, no, I am not surprised by the news of the Vow, or that candidates are signing it, because that's what the Republican base wants.
And that leads me to my second thought, which I find much more important. If we describe ourselves as progressive, how are we to have a conversation with those that oppose us by starting the conversation with insults and belittling. I see progressives so quick to claim the high ground on so many issues with a reinvention of moral superiority the marginalized have sought so long to eliminate. Doesn't it seem the least bit hypocritical and pretentious to tell other people they need to stop bullying and name calling and finish by calling them stupid for not getting it?
Oh, I'm could talk about the problems I have with this vow and those candidates that support it, and I could for quite some time, but that's beyond the point. We can disagree with each other on how we view the world and how we implement policy. But if we truly believe that our vision for the country is better than some other vision, we cannot start down that road by stepping backwards into pettiness and thuggery. After all, that's what it is to call someone stupid.
I was reminded in class this week that, despite a many and varied differences, we are all human. It is important to remember that we all deserve compassion. We come from different social locations, political systems, and spiritual beliefs, but we must remember that we must be compassionate for every human, not matter how badly we disagree with them. Everyone had their bias on how they view the world, but if we add compassion to that bias, we can start a conversation about moving forward without moving backward.
The Marriage Vow
My quick summery after a read-through: the candidate pledges to "protect" marriage through various actions and legislation if elected to office. As I am generally a liberal fellow, you are probably not surprised in my lack of support for this document.
In wandering though the experience of reading this, I was struck by two things. First, the liberal reaction is mostly vitriol. Is the left really surprised by this? Here we see on paper exactly what a number of candidates have been talking about throughout their campaigns. The reaction to this on the right, I presume, is one of affirmation. These are, after all, Republican candidates looking for ways to distinguish themselves in a race full of a lot of look-a-likes. Telling their base in no uncertain terms exactly what they want to hear when it comes to social issues, so, no, I am not surprised by the news of the Vow, or that candidates are signing it, because that's what the Republican base wants.
And that leads me to my second thought, which I find much more important. If we describe ourselves as progressive, how are we to have a conversation with those that oppose us by starting the conversation with insults and belittling. I see progressives so quick to claim the high ground on so many issues with a reinvention of moral superiority the marginalized have sought so long to eliminate. Doesn't it seem the least bit hypocritical and pretentious to tell other people they need to stop bullying and name calling and finish by calling them stupid for not getting it?
Oh, I'm could talk about the problems I have with this vow and those candidates that support it, and I could for quite some time, but that's beyond the point. We can disagree with each other on how we view the world and how we implement policy. But if we truly believe that our vision for the country is better than some other vision, we cannot start down that road by stepping backwards into pettiness and thuggery. After all, that's what it is to call someone stupid.
I was reminded in class this week that, despite a many and varied differences, we are all human. It is important to remember that we all deserve compassion. We come from different social locations, political systems, and spiritual beliefs, but we must remember that we must be compassionate for every human, not matter how badly we disagree with them. Everyone had their bias on how they view the world, but if we add compassion to that bias, we can start a conversation about moving forward without moving backward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)