Sometimes the irony of a situation is just too much to ignore. I'll get to that in a minute. This is really about the new show, "Harry's Law", which looked pretty good to me because it had Kathy Bates, whom I think is an underrated actor and was developed by David Kelly who had a hand in stuff like L.A. Law, Picket Fences, and Boston Legal. At first I treated to some classic smart-ass Kathy Bates, and I began to think I was going to enjoy this. But then it happened - Bates's character, Harry Korn,got fired from her white-shoe law firm doing patent law and moved into an abandoned office in - (guess where?) - the inner city. This is the part of town we used to call the "ghetto", but apparently we realized that the term told too much truth, so we renamed it the "inner city".
But the failures of the program itself, in generally flat dialogue and two-dimensional characters, are nothing compared to the most offensive aspect of the show - the plot-line, once again, of the do-gooder white folks coming in to save the po' black folk. Think about how many movies, plays, and TV shows this have this plot. Off the top of my head, I can think of "Radio", "The Soloist", "The Blind Side", "Remember the Titans" (to some extent), and on and on. Think hard - I'll bet you can come up with some of your own.
I understand that some of these are "true stories" in the sense that a basic story has been taken and romanticized to portray the wonderful rescue of black folks by white folks. But where are the "true stories" about African-Americans fighting hard enough against the system to create success? Where are the stories about the community organizers who help their neighbors advocate for justice in their own neighborhoods? With every one of the "White rescuing Black" stories, I am concerned that we strengthen the stereotype that Blacks aren't capable of improving their own situation.
Now for the irony - this show premiered on January 17th, the day when we celebrated the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. If anything, Dr. King's message was exactly the opposite of the "White rescue Black" myth. Let's be conscious of what messages we send with shows like Harry's Law, and spend our energy on providing the tools and resources for people to help themselves.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Is the Bible Just for Reading?
I read a blog by Carl McColman, a spiritual writer whom I admire quite a bit - he seems to frequently have some very insightful things to say. His most recent blog, however, gave me some pause. He was talking about a new Paulist Press Bible that was designed specifically to help people pray lectio divina, an ancient form of prayer with Scripture. In short, it consists of four steps: lectio (reading), meditatio(reflecting), oratio (prayer / responding), and contemplatio (resting / contemplation). So far Mr. McColman and I agree that this would be a good thing. He goes on to express concern, however, that the ad for the Bible seems to indicate that there is "action" involved as the fourth step. Here are his words:
I nicked the following graphic from the Paulist Press website, where they are promoting their new Catholic Prayer Bible: Lectio Divina Edition. It’s coming out in a couple of months; and when I first heard about it, I was excited at the concept: a Bible designed to support the practice of lectio divina. Wow. I was looking forward not only to acquiring my own copy, but to selling it through the store where I work.
But then I saw this graphic, and my anticipation turned to dismay. Look at it carefully: it boldly pronounces to the world that the four step process of lectio consists of reading, reflection, prayer, and action.
Action?!?!?!
I don’t know about you, but the last time I checked what Guigo II had to say, the classical model of lectio consisted of these four steps: lectio, meditatio, oratio and contemplatio. Okay, so lectio is reading, meditatio can be interpreted as reflection, and oratio certainly is a key form of prayer.
But since when is contemplatio a code word for action?!?!?!? Have we as a culture become so frightened of contemplation that we have to re-invent the very spiritual practices that were designed to foster contemplation, so that they function as self-help programs instead?
Okay, I realize I’m reacting to an ad. Maybe this was designed by some overzealous undergraduate intern who doesn’t know any better. Maybe the actual Bible will retain the original understanding of lectio. One can hope.
But — if this ad is accurate and the commentary in this Bible really does re-invent lectio divina as some sort of spiritualized goal-setting exercise rather than as an invitation to contemplation, then I cannot in good conscience recommend this book. We shall see.
I can also agree with Mr. McColman that rejecting "contemplation" in favor of "action" would be too indicative of what is wrong with our action-oriented, hypercharged culture. On the other hand, I have advocated for adding a FIFTH step (talk about chutzpah!!) calledoperatio, or "work", or, keeping with the other "r" words, "re-engaging". It seems to me that as its own exercise, lectio divina is a fine form of praying with Scripture and of meditation / contemplation. My only objection always is that such contemplation should lead us backinto the world, not as an escape from it. Proper contemplation of Scripture, it seems to me, calls us to ACT - we are claimed by the One who speaks to us in Scripture, and that claim demands action on our part. Leaving lectio divina (which I practice myself frequently, by the way) with the final step as contemplatio seems to me to leave it my heart and between me and God. I've never been comfortable with that - I always feel driven to take what insights I have had and to apply them to my life - to ACT.
I can sympathize with Mr. McColman's dismay if the entire emphasis is on developing some sort of "action plan" from practiciing lectio divina as if it is some sort of go-getter tool for success. Rather, I think that if the idea is to use lectio not only for private contemplation but for an impetus to build the Kingdom, then I'm all for it.
I nicked the following graphic from the Paulist Press website, where they are promoting their new Catholic Prayer Bible: Lectio Divina Edition. It’s coming out in a couple of months; and when I first heard about it, I was excited at the concept: a Bible designed to support the practice of lectio divina. Wow. I was looking forward not only to acquiring my own copy, but to selling it through the store where I work.
But then I saw this graphic, and my anticipation turned to dismay. Look at it carefully: it boldly pronounces to the world that the four step process of lectio consists of reading, reflection, prayer, and action.
Action?!?!?!
I don’t know about you, but the last time I checked what Guigo II had to say, the classical model of lectio consisted of these four steps: lectio, meditatio, oratio and contemplatio. Okay, so lectio is reading, meditatio can be interpreted as reflection, and oratio certainly is a key form of prayer.
But since when is contemplatio a code word for action?!?!?!? Have we as a culture become so frightened of contemplation that we have to re-invent the very spiritual practices that were designed to foster contemplation, so that they function as self-help programs instead?
Okay, I realize I’m reacting to an ad. Maybe this was designed by some overzealous undergraduate intern who doesn’t know any better. Maybe the actual Bible will retain the original understanding of lectio. One can hope.
But — if this ad is accurate and the commentary in this Bible really does re-invent lectio divina as some sort of spiritualized goal-setting exercise rather than as an invitation to contemplation, then I cannot in good conscience recommend this book. We shall see.
I can also agree with Mr. McColman that rejecting "contemplation" in favor of "action" would be too indicative of what is wrong with our action-oriented, hypercharged culture. On the other hand, I have advocated for adding a FIFTH step (talk about chutzpah!!) calledoperatio, or "work", or, keeping with the other "r" words, "re-engaging". It seems to me that as its own exercise, lectio divina is a fine form of praying with Scripture and of meditation / contemplation. My only objection always is that such contemplation should lead us backinto the world, not as an escape from it. Proper contemplation of Scripture, it seems to me, calls us to ACT - we are claimed by the One who speaks to us in Scripture, and that claim demands action on our part. Leaving lectio divina (which I practice myself frequently, by the way) with the final step as contemplatio seems to me to leave it my heart and between me and God. I've never been comfortable with that - I always feel driven to take what insights I have had and to apply them to my life - to ACT.
I can sympathize with Mr. McColman's dismay if the entire emphasis is on developing some sort of "action plan" from practiciing lectio divina as if it is some sort of go-getter tool for success. Rather, I think that if the idea is to use lectio not only for private contemplation but for an impetus to build the Kingdom, then I'm all for it.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Tuscon, Violence, and Civil Discourse
The link attached (http://www.paxchristiusa.org/news_statements_more.asp?id=2091) is a compassionate and insightful reflection on yesterday's shooting in Tuscon from Pax Christi. In addition to Pax Christi, the Franciscan Action Network (www.franciscanaction,org/civildiscourse) has been calling for civility in public discourse for months before the election last November. While there will likely be continued disagreement about the level of influence that words like "target" and "RELOAD!" and images of cross-hairs had on the shooter, can there be any denial that what we say and the words we use influence others?
It seems to me that ALL words, images, phrases and rhetoric that use militaristic or violent symbols or expressions should be shunned by anyone claiming to be Christian. To use words of hate, disrespect, and prejudice or to imply that violence or war-like actions solve anything is contrary to anything I have read in the Gospel.
What is the message under our words when "pro-life" proponents call themselves "prayer WARRIORS"? What about the "war on poverty", the "war on drugs", or the "war" against evil? Is it not so small a step to go from "battling" evil on a spiritual level to using violence to eradicate that evil that might be thought to be embodied in an individual, or a race, or a nation?
Maybe we have to examine each and every word and phrase we use to make sure that it is actually reflective of the Gospel message of non-violence, forgiveness, human dignity, and peace. Otherwise we will continue to wonder why violence is persistently sought out as a solution, when, in fact, only love and peace have ever, and will ever, bring a lasting resolution to any human strife and discord.
Welcome - with an explanation
As the first entry to my blog, it might be appropriate to explain the name of the blog. It comes from a fable that goes like this:
"Tell me the weight of a snowflake", a coal-mouse asked a wild dove.
"Nothing more than nothing" was the answer.
"In that case I must tell you a marvelous story", the coal-mouse said. "I sat on a branch of a fir, close to its trunk, when it began to snow, not heavily, not in a giant blizzard, no, just like in a dream, without any violence. Since I didn't have anything better to do, I counted the snowflakes settling on the twigs and needles of my branch. Their number was exactly 3,741,952. When the next snowflake dropped onto the branch - nothing more than nothing, as you say - the branch broke off."
Having said that , the coal-mouse flew away. The dove, since Noah's time an authority on the matter, thought about the story for a while and finally said to herself: "Perhaps there is only one person's voice lacking for peace to come about in the world."
"Tell me the weight of a snowflake", a coal-mouse asked a wild dove.
"Nothing more than nothing" was the answer.
"In that case I must tell you a marvelous story", the coal-mouse said. "I sat on a branch of a fir, close to its trunk, when it began to snow, not heavily, not in a giant blizzard, no, just like in a dream, without any violence. Since I didn't have anything better to do, I counted the snowflakes settling on the twigs and needles of my branch. Their number was exactly 3,741,952. When the next snowflake dropped onto the branch - nothing more than nothing, as you say - the branch broke off."
Having said that , the coal-mouse flew away. The dove, since Noah's time an authority on the matter, thought about the story for a while and finally said to herself: "Perhaps there is only one person's voice lacking for peace to come about in the world."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)