the priviledged have no voice 11.18.04    in one of my more critical moments, i listened uncomfortably to a speaker on Christian mission. he was mostly from my perspective, i don't know what i would have said differently. missions must be holistic, emphasize peace and justice, be done sensitively and with cultural awareness and contextualization of the gospel message.    but there was something that didn't sit right. i think it may have been not the message, but who we are. it is seriously difficult to imagine myself as a "missionary" as one who is a white, male, u.s. american, with priviledges economically, socially, and in a solid Christian upbringing. i don't think that means that my faith is not real or justified, but i don't know how much it has been genuinely put through the fire. one can only speak "to the extent that they have suffered," which in my case seems minimal. if there is a calling or a need for a mission in my life, maybe it is simply (or not so simply) moving in with the suffering and trying to get by with them. maybe it is to learn what life is really about, when all the ease and comfort is taken and i really become vulnerable. really, what does that take? stress is learned 11.16.04    i remember a conversation with Eloina when we were out visiting her little town Quirusillas, about 5 hours west of the city of Santa Cruz, about the differences between her pueblo and city experiences. it was a cold weekend and we were bundled up as we hung out on her porch/dining room/patio/laundry space or whatever. anyhow one of the most memorable parts of the discussion was on the things she learned when beginning to work in the city. She said that working around the gringos, she would overhear this work "stress," and never quite understood when others would try to explain it to her. in time, she learned the meaning of the word by being caught up in it. she says of life in Quirusillas, that sure there are frusterations, problems, and whatnot, but the idea of rushing from one thing to another, or the fear of coming up short, or the high emphasis on efficiency or success, aren't the same.    even for myself, i remember thinking my junior year of high school during yearbook class, that i was feeling stress like i had never really experienced it before. it was a new sense of being overwhelmed with commitment within the limits of time. it was uncomfortable, but i had to be thankful at the same time that i had been able to live and study and enjoy life for so long without really needing to deal with that. anyhow, that feeling has been part of me, at some points more than others, ever since then.    what are we after in college? a degree? knowledge? abundant living? i suppose i'm here for all of those, but they need to happen in a healthy way. time has been perverted by north american society, and we need to recognize that time is not necessarily best used in efficiency and achievement. it has amazed me how, even has i have been so impressed and impacted by seeing a lifestyle where relationship and quality of time is most important, that i can still be easily caught up in the pace or approach to the rigours of college. it is important to remember that stress is not inevitable, and that we are responsible for ordering lives in a way that foster healthy relationships and a balanced productivity. the idea of relationships raises the idea too that we do support each other through struggles-- we don't just disengage ourselves. the cooperation of vulnerable and weak creatures and the strength that relationship with God brings us, is what puts us in a position to experience abundant living. future-oriented and/or present-oriented 10.31.04    yet another sunday school discussion of God's will for our lives, thinking about plans or gifts or dreams, how we are preparing ourselves for that... all that is part of the talk in one way or another. my question is how we have become so intrigued/obsessed/overwhelmed with the future?    on the other hand, i remember talking with a friend MCC worker a few months ago who noted that "where there is a new capacity to think about tomorrow, that is development." with the pronats kids, it was certainly true that that was our goal. the kids in that situation may have everything for the day (friends, enough money, some food, freedom, job security) and have no reason to worry about tomorrow. so what is the advantage of moving to another job that pays less, limits freedom, and may not be secure? what is the incentive to dream or to imagine tomorrow: rewarding work, better friends, a family? everything in that situation is to be enjoyed for the moment.    it seems like there is once again a need for a balance between the extremes. to be able to dream, to catch God's vision and to live completely in the moment as well. to be fully engaged in life also requires the willingness to make mistakes, but maybe mistakes aren't always as bad as we anxiously expect they may be. the real world? 10.31.04    upon returning from fall break, there was a quick discussion with roommate pete about the return to the "real world" of studies. but then there was the counter: "or was that (fall break) the real world?" "i'd have to say that that (fall break) was more the real world."    i suppose how we defined "real world" there was, at least for me, the experience of friends and family and being out where people work jobs, go to regular church families, have families, and so on.    but that makes me wonder: what it is about school that makes me consider it less than real? probably something about the lack of those things just listed: jobs, regular church, families...    what would make it real? it needs connection to that other real. what can i do to make that connection? there are connections with the community: volunteer work, local coffee houses and restaurants that kind of reflect what is going on, awareness of local events that happen outside of the campus. reading the local paper and its editorials is something i could do more of. but there must be ways to be engaged. connections with church: it's amazing to me that, for as long as i've been out to my local church here that i don't know a lot of people's names (even though i think a lot of them know mine). but to really connect with a church is another way to be less than a transient college student.    family is maybe the harder one. there is no real substitute. visits every month or so, weekly phone calls, random i.m. opportunities are all good. maybe now that i'm only 3 hours away it seems like i should be able to be more at home than the last year in the southern hemisphere. and i am. but maybe that's one area where i am just transient. christian education 10.31.04    so i've grown up with 9 years at kraybill mennonite school, 4 at lancaster mennonite high school, and starting my 3rd at eastern mennonite university. (any trend there?) and my question really could go beyond specifically mennonite education. rather, why christian education?    the reasons i've gathered for mennonite education have included: separation from public schools/the pledge/secular training, opportunity to teach bible classes and anabaptist theology, and there's also been the reason that there is a greater likelihood that the kids will marry within the group and support the tradition. and once we have the schools, it is important to support them so they are worth while. today i heard a persuasive story of a single mom who with the help of a grant really appreciates Christian ed as almost a "second parent" in raising her children. and in my few experiences with public schools and some public school teachers, i certainly value highly the commitment and contribution of the quality schools and teachers that i've been able to be part of.    my general problem is that i believe the believer must be an engaged believer. and i'm not completely sure how the mennonite tradition, which began as such a radically engaged tradition came to be the "quiet in the land." but how is social action taught in private school? i wonder how we moved from the family teaching the kids faith, to the sunday school teaching the kids faith, to the school teaching the kids faith.    and i'm currently at a mennonite school and i feel like i'm able to engage and learn here better than i could somewhere else. so i support a mennonite collage. and i benifited from my high school and elementary schools, so i support them too. but would i send my kids through all of them? if not, what would be the level to teach them that they live in a bigger world than mennonites? high school? and the mennonite schools that do exist must teach and open doors to alert and engage students in their faith and communities around them. _____________________________________________________ links to older stuff that was on this page. writings from bolivia gospels study notes scribblings 02-03 former roommate's contribution > blog scribblings | music | pictures | history | home