You are currently browsing the monthly archive for August 2009.
I’ve been flipping through my copy of Shane Claiborne’s The Irresistible Revolution, and though hard to believe, I think I’d forgotten its goodness.
I could drop a hundred quotes from the book here, and that would be a good thing to do. Instead, I’ll just share the one paragraph that I haven’t forgotten. In fact, this paragraph has done more than stay with me – it is one of a fairly small number of passages that have shaped whatever will be my future.
Hope it means something to someone else out there, too:
Not too long ago, I was speaking at Princeton, and some of the students asked me how they were to choose which issue of social justice is the most important. The question made me cringe. Issues? These issues have faces. We’re talking not only about ideas but also about human emergencies. My response to the well-intentioned Princeton students was, “Don’t choose issues; choose people. Come play in the fire hydrants in North Philly. Fall in love with a group of people who are marginalized and suffering, and then you won’t have to worry about which cause you need to protest. Then the issues will choose you.”
It has been a nice day. Early morning walk with the sunrise, then going down to the Fieldhouse to help setup for the big kickoff-the-school-year worship assembly. Pleasant class and worship, and another good sermon from Preacher Ken. Scrumptious lunch with the gracious Le family, followed by doing some readings for classes.
But the day after our Katrina anniversary, I’d be remiss to just enjoy my lazy Malibu Sunday without recognizing the fires that rage around our state. Thousands of homes in danger. Worried people.
For some reason this morning I remembered how God told Noah he wouldn’t destroy the world with water anymore, and then how Peter said the next time would be with fire. This is not good news for Katrina survivors transplanted to California.
Oh well. We take things one crisis at a time anymore.
But for lots of Californians, today is a real crisis. So for those of you inclined to pray about such things, I’m sure they would appreciate your contribution on their behalf.
Four years now.
I have read three notes from three friends today remembering Katrina and seen an album of pictures from another. Somehow I don’t have the energy to contribute either notes or pictures of my own.
I wrote a small e-book after Katrina I called, “Katrina: A Spiritual Journey.” It was my way of trying to remember. I thought maybe I’d post it today, but after a search, it seems that I lost it somehow. Sort of appropriate, eh?
So I stole (“looted”) a pic from my friend, Keith, and this will have to suffice today. It is a picture from a time I will never forget: Sunday morning worship on the front lawn because so many great folks had come and “flooded” our auditorium with supplies.
And the church sign, which says a bunch about a time I will always treasure.
Friday night will be my night off. There, I said it. Law school can have the rest of me, but not Friday nights. This is a firm commitment I am making. (Well, except for next week. And maybe others I haven’t thought about just yet. As you learn in law school, there are exceptions to every rule, but anyhow…)
So here I am, home with Hillary, waiting for Jody to get home from her also busy week. I don’t want to think right now. Surely not about law school. Not about blogs. Not about politics. Not about religion. Not about inspiring thought or discussion or humor. Not about nothing, and obviously, not about grammar.
Tonight is a no brainer, just almost literally.
So, in honor of not using a brain, and for our collective viewing pleasure, and to show you how many of us feel after a round with law school, I will share this – and catch up with you all sometime tomorrow.
I started to do my best to describe Walter Wink’s exegesis of the “turn the other cheek” passage, but I can do you one better and let Walter Wink say it himself.
I find it fascinating. You can find it at http://www.csec.org/csec/sermon/wink_3707.htm
After a little Facebook interaction on the torture issue, I was reminded that although I have written a lot on certain things over the years, many who may read my notes now weren’t around then.
Which makes it hard to know where to begin.
First of all, with great thanks to lots of authors out there (primarily Walter Wink & Stanley Hauerwas), I have come to believe in and advocate a “third way” of responding to violence. There are two natural responses to violence – “fight or flight” in psychological jargon, or “just war or pacifism” in theological discussions – but I believe that these dichotomies are insufficient. There is a third response.
To use the governmental use of force, for example, the normal options given are these: (1) use violence if necessary to achieve your goals, or (2) let people run over you. The classic argument against the latter is, What if we had just let Hitler do what he wanted?
Given these options, most people logically choose option number one.
It has dawned on me that this is why there is no substantial public outcry over the revelations of torture. The general public has chosen “violence if necessary.” They aren’t particularly proud of it, but in the end, it is considered the better option.
I believe in a third option. I like to call it creative non-violence, and it demands more explanation than I have time to give it today. But I’ll at least try to sketch it out.
First of all, there is an important distinction to be made between VIOLENCE and FORCE. Take the general practice of a police force for instance. We empower the police “force” in general to use force, not violence. Suspects can be seized, searched, detained, questioned, arrested, convicted, and imprisoned without resorting to what I’m calling violence – the unnecessary use of force.
I have personal problems with capital punishment (i.e. violence). I have personal problems with what you see in the occasional “Law & Order” episodes of cracking a suspect’s head against a wall to try to encourage an answer (i.e. violence). I have no problem with force.
Therefore, option number two – simply letting someone run over you – is insufficient in my book. But option number one – the use of violence – is out-of-bounds in my book as well.
Take parent-child relationships for example. I have no problem with parental use of force (taking away privileges, etc. – even theoretically, spanking, though I’m not a big fan). I have a big problem with child “abuse” – that is, violence.
Put this all together…
* Child abuse = violence / Discipline = force
* Torturing prisoners = violence / Imprisoning & removing freedom = force
* War (as generally understood) = violence / Military police action = force
To “war,” I like Wendell Berry’s question: What if there was an international law prohibiting any country from killing a child of another country? How then would war be waged?
So, that was all just the first point. Being anti-violence is not the same as being a pushover.
Second, here’s where the problems come in. What do you do when you encounter violence that is greater than the legitimate force (not violence) you have at your disposal? What then? I don’t advocate resorting to violence. Neither do I advocate letting the violent wreak havoc without any response. I advocate creative non-violence. If you want a primer on how to do this, I would suggest reading about the lives of people like Gandhi, Dr. King, and one whom both looked to for inspiration, Jesus.
Walter Wink wrote some great stuff on Jesus’s instructions to love enemies – on how to creatively rebel against violence by sometimes hilarious means. Wink argues that Jesus’s turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile, and give your cloak as well instructions weren’t a primer on how to get run over.
Well, this is a lot for me to write on a day of law school. Maybe I’ll explain Wink’s interpretation tomorrow if anyone shows any interest.
Bottom line for today: When you choose violence over getting run over, where do you draw the line? The (lack of) Christian reaction to torture revelations leads me to believe that folks don’t have a really good answer – outside of Well, it’s better than getting run over.
I advocate a third way.
I am appalled by the revelations of torture inflicted on prisoners by our own government. I am disappointed that town hall yelling does not occur with these revelations, but only when our own health/money is involved.
I had some interesting comments on a Facebook article link along these lines; at the end, my good friend, DeJon, shared wise words from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
As I sit here and reflect on what Dr. King would say today, in his absence, I think the words DeJon shared will have to suffice:
“The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence … Hate merely increases hate. . . . Returning violence for violence multiples violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”
Off. And running. Ordinarily, two independent adjectives that go a long way in describing me personally. Combined, however, they do a nice job of describing today.
I have already been on my walk to the chapel to look out over the ocean and say my morning prayer. The sun hadn’t even fought its way over the mountains yet.
At 8am, I will sit in Dean Perrin’s Evidence class and officially begin my 2L year.
At 9:40am, I will interview with the firm of Waters & Kraus for a potential job in the summer of 2010.
At 12:35pm, I will attend my first meeting with the Dispute Resolution Law Journal.
At 2:50pm, I will sit in Professor Cupp’s two-hour Products Liability class.
At 4:50pm, I will hustle up the hill to President Benton’s house for a reception for Housing & Residence Life.
Around 7pm, I will head back to the library to begin reading for my 8am Evidence class on Wednesday. Because tomorrow’s schedule is crazier than today’s.
As they used to tell Mr. Kotter… Welcome back.
One of my many cutbacks when beginning law school was my fantasy sports involvement, but I couldn’t give it up completely. I agreed with myself not to be a commissioner anymore, and since football was the least time-consuming (and most fun), to limit my teams to just one football team.
Worked fine for year one. For year two, I had the same plan, but since two friends started a similar league, I decided to be risky and field two football teams. Yesterday was my first draft.
I haven’t really followed the camps and relied completely on Yahoo’s rankings. So, thought I’d post my draft order for the world to see, and if any football fan has any inside scoop (good or bad) on the dudes drafted by the Malibu Big Owls, feel free to share.
Malibu Big Owls
1. (1) Adrian Peterson (RB)
2. (20) Marion Barber (RB)
3. (21) Calvin Johnson (WR)
4. (40) Philip Rivers (QB)
5. (41) Roy Williams (WR)
6. (60) LenDale White (RB)
7. (61) Santonio Holmes (WR)
8. (80) Derrick Ward (RB)
9. (81) Matt Cassel (QB)
10. (100) Donnie Avery (WR)
11. (101) John Carlson (TE)
12. (120) Chicago (DEF/ST)
13. (121) Mason Crosby (K)
14. (140) Miami (DEF/ST)
15. (141) Dustin Keller (TE)
16. (160) Hakeem Nicks (WR)
17. (161) Jason Elam (K)
