Disqus - Latest Comments for jwinton

Re: A Poem For Mother Teresa

jwinton — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:12:30 -0000

First of all, to answer your questions about what sounds like good news: felt closeness with God and felt assurance that He will never leave us is certainly good (the best?) news. Reading her letters, though, it is clear that she never had a doubt that God was in, supporting, guiding, and inspiring the work. The most confusing aspect of these letters, which I'm sure supports the point you're trying to make, is that she didn't feel the Presence which she saw others experience through the MC. She wondered at many points whether she was deceiving others and even wanted to tell them how desolate she felt. She never did go through with it, explaining that when she would go to do tell God would shut her mouth (spiritualizing a negative consequence of sin or revealing the true origin of her "darkness"?).

The most fascinating thing to me (one that gives me courage) is that she was willing to give whatever He would take (assuming that, in fact, He did take away His felt presence for so many years). She eventually came to understand that she was experiencing the same spiritual state as the dying and destitute in the slums and could better empathize spiritually with their experience because of it, which I think she clearly did. Mother Teresa's experience of spiritual absence was obviously problematic and even disturbing, something she obviously deeply felt, especially after years of close felt union with Him. But why didn't God answer her prayers to take it away or to bring His felt presence back? And why did she appear to have such tremendous faith (her response in the pain) while admitting to a wasteland of spiritual feelings?

Re: A Poem For Mother Teresa

jwinton — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:24:49 -0000

Thanks for pointing out the context, Paul. I thought about putting a link to the book in a note above the poem, but decided against it (for aesthetic reasons), figuring folks would likely know what I was doing or be able to find out. I would definitely recommend reading the book itself (Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light--The Private Writings of the Saint of Calcutta).

I guess I do admire certain parts of her response to "the darkness," though I'll admit to feeling confused reading about the utter desolation she described to her directors. She apparently did not see, feel, or even "know" God's love for many, many years. Her experience of union with God, which had been common, and the very Voice which had, in fact, spawned "the work" (as she liked to call it), almost suddenly disappeared when the work started. The paradox, of course, was that as a result she constantly felt a deep longing for her spouse Jesus, which altogether overshadowed (but did not minimize) the doubt and painful absence. It was as if the darkness became her answer to the longing she felt to love Him and the poorest of the poor (whose experience was strikingly similar to hers). As above poem reads, she came "to love the darkness"--not because it meant something special for her but because it nourished a longing she had for Him and a desire to refuse Jesus nothing. That's probably what I admire about it. I know what you're thinking, "Well, what don't you admire?" But don't blame me, I'm an artiste. :)

Other than that, though I think her experience shouldn't be thought of as a model for all people everywhere, I do think it is consistent with Jesus' teachings (i.e., taking up one's cross and following Him). If it's the amount of time that it apparently lasted which bothers you, I'm not sure I have an answer to give. Like St. Paul wrote, "Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church" (Colossians 1:24).

Lastly, it seems to me Mother Teresa understood and lived the "good news" precisely in her willingness to accept this painful sacrifice as a small (perhaps even insignificant) token of blind faith, creating her deepest longing to be with God, and propelling an even more authentic identification with Christ in the work she was convinced (with profound faith?) He created and sustained. She apparently did this happily, as "God's flower of the field."

Re: the least of these my brethren

jwinton — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:54:04 -0000

One other thought, or rather, a question or two. The stranger in this story is pretty elusive and was run out of the kitchen. Why was he in the kitchen in the first place? And are there any modern examples of people who follow Jesus' way, the way that Jesus did? There's a part of me that thinks, "If Teresa and Francis weren't prophetic enough to preach 'the powerful discovery' you mentioned above, who can?" I know that is sort of a dull question (making them into more than examples?), but I want to be inspired/encouraged that Jesus takes on disciples today who believe and live the way he did.

Re: the least of these my brethren

jwinton — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:17:07 -0000

I like what you say about Jesus being both personally and organizationally poor. From what I can tell in reading about the first ten years of M. Teresa's MC, they did not have much (if any) substantive institutional support. She was given a designation of "sister," which might have granted her legitimacy but did not come with any material support. In fact, she writes that some in the convent where she came from had called the work she was doing "the devils work." But, in Christendom, we often "saintify" those who provoke us in order to pacify our conscience and our hearts.

Re: the least of these my brethren

jwinton — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:21:05 -0000

The thing I like about this story is how it "turns the tables" on the question, "Would you treat Jesus like this?" It makes me wonder how the stranger responded to her when she caught up to him.

But I'm puzzled as well. Does this story deconstruct soup kitchens? Or does it deconstruct majority power structures/ownership, which many times are a part of feeding the hungry? I couldn't help but think of Mother Teresa when reading this story. She seems to have had a very mature understanding of the "least of these" (similar to yours?). Yet she fed and clothed and housed and visited the "least of these" whether they were His brethren or not. I just read a passage in Come Be My Light (her private writings before and after she began the MC) where she references a dying man who asks God for a few more weeks to live because he just learned how to suffer for God (versus simply suffering for a disease), thanks to Mother Teresa. And, of course, Mother Teresa was used this way as a poor person herself and often times without the physical means readily available to carry it out. Any thoughts about the way she lived out Jesus' life and example?

Re: Greed, America, and the Rich Young Ruler

jwinton — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:03:42 -0000

Where is Paul Munn? ;-)

Re: By what authority?

jwinton — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:29:27 -0000

I have been thinking through this issue a lot recently due to my role as "the leader" of a small community. I decided to try something different over the summer. It occurred to me (watching a Peter Rollins video) that the best way I can "lead" them is by refusing to lead. So, for the summer, there was no "formal" leadership. Surprising to me, many folks commented afterward that they felt abandoned and lost, that they realized how much they desired for me (as their leader) to lead them versus God or His gifts in folks like them. Some of them even attributed my "leadership" to situations and decisions that I had nothing to do with--i.e., an attempt by a few members to forcefully lead while I was gone (which turned out to be an empty "authority" anyway).

Another example has come out of this recent experience. A few of the members asked if I would officiate their wedding. They wanted me to get ordained online (which I declined) and to formally pronounce them as husband and wife. At first, considering the short notice (about 3 weeks) and the lack of in-depth conversation about marriage and their relationship, I wanted to say no. After considering it more, I came to the conclusion that I could offer them three options I would be willing to support them with. One, they could postpone the wedding, which would give us time to talk and make it less frantic. If they chose that one, I would do the formal officiating, though without the "authority" to sign a state marriage license (i.e., traditional wedding). The second option was to think of me as the "host of the ceremony" instead of officiator and to invite God, primarily, and the community to affirm and bless their union. This would involve some of the traditional parts of a wedding as well as to include many non-traditional parts (such as no marriage pronouncement from any humans). The third option was that I would help them find someone else to "officiate" within the bounds of what they wanted.

With surprisingly little hesitation, they chose number two. I'm glad they did. It's going to be very interesting, to say the least.

Re: La Iglesia Emergente

jwinton — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 19:14:19 -0000

Hola, me gustaría conocerte (y cualquier otro/a que quisiera juntar) cuando estamos en Peru. Por ahora vivimos en California, pero vamos a visitar a Lima este Diciembre para la Navidad.

p.d. yo también me sentí raro--a veces sigo sientiendo así. ;-)

Re: Revolutionaries Don’t Have Room For T-Ball…Right?

jwinton — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:56:53 -0000

That's hard stuff. I'm not sure I would add anything different than what you've already done. My family of origin has consistently offered me support and criticism, usually in the same breath. They've seen me change and grow and make mistakes. Even when I'm right and doing what I should, they know how wrong I am sometimes and could tell you a list of my sins.

Sometimes I think it would be very significant, and perhaps also a bit shocking, to all of us, if I were to ask them to give me some constructive feedback. And I may do that...someday...become the more vulnerable family member (which might either fuel the fire of criticism or maybe cause it to burn out). Who knows, maybe I would learn something new about them (or even myself).

Re: Revolutionaries Don’t Have Room For T-Ball…Right?

jwinton — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:43:33 -0000

I'm not familiar with that history...are there any links that describe it?

And, I'll be honest, the Arnold quote is a bit hard to swallow for me as well. If the early christians were known for these things, then what was it that made them compelling to the "young people and women"? I've seen many marriages unravelled and then, ultimately, destroyed. I doubt this happened (in the cases I am familiar with) because of any committment to Christ, however, it's hard to imagine much, if any, good coming from that kind of family disruption (no matter who the person claims to follow).

Re: La Iglesia Emergente

jwinton — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:40:11 -0000

Por si acaso, les quería enseñar una pagina web que ofrece libros electrónicos en español por gratis. Que lo disfruten.

Re: Revolutionaries Don’t Have Room For T-Ball…Right?

jwinton — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:17:31 -0000

If anyone is interested, here's a quote from Eberhard Arnold (of Bruderhof notoriety). He emphasizes, with some grit, the early Christian's risky committment to follow Jesus, even amidst (or over against) family ties and obligations:

More and more soldiers of the Spirit were sworn to the symbol of the "military oath" through baptism and confession of the truth. This mystery bound them to the service of Christ and the simplicity of his divine works. Through immersion, the believers buried all their ties and involvement of their former lives. Plunged into the water as symbol of the blood of the crucified Christ, the believers accepted as their own the victory of the cross and its power to sever all demonic powers. Now they could live in the strength and future of the risen one. Each believer broke with the status quo and was committed to live and die for the cause. A triumphal march of fighters for the new time invaded the old with truth and power. Through baptism, the Christians found themselves in sharp conflict with their relatives--households were dissolved, whole families split, engagements annulled, and marriages destroyed. Celsus launched bitter attacks against the weavers, cobblers, and tanners who confronted young people and women when they were alone. He accused them of persuading their "victims" with wonderful words to leave parents and teachers in order to learn what was good from artisans in their workshops. Celsus admitted that they often achieved their purpose.

Re: “The kingdom of God is among you” Four misconceptions about the kingdom Jesus announced

jwinton — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:56:51 -0000

Could you say more about that last paragraph? Why start with healing, for example? Was it intentional on Jesus' part to start with one and end with the other?

Re: Revolutionaries Don’t Have Room For T-Ball…Right?

jwinton — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:50:12 -0000

As you know, Paul, voluntary poverty and vulnerability are more or less willing states for me, but (in certain cases) not for my wife. She and I have had conversations in the past about God's ability to "provide for the many needs of a family" and, Julissa (my wife), has mostly heard my vague refrain: "Somehow...God will provide for us." She wants more specific answers than that. And, at least some of the time, I get her point. I'm glad for a practical push-back from someone (like her) who knows me so intimately; she's offering me a chance to backpedal (if I need to) and a challenge to discover how genuinely (or not) I believe. The harder part is figuring out where and when to "insist" on a risky decision or family agreement to act. How far would you challenge a son or daughter, husband or wife, to follow a Jesus teaching or his example? The cross doesn't boad well for most families, period. But...

Re: La Iglesia Emergente

jwinton — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:00:33 -0000

Saludos. Que bueno escuchar de otro escritor interesado en estas cosas. Ya me tienes muy curioso sobre el tema de ¿Dios? con "d" mayuscula. ¿Por qué no entregas algunos artículos a esta revista (Jesus Manifesto) que hize yo? Busca esta pagina aqui para compartir con el editor.

Re: La Iglesia Emergente

jwinton — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:44:01 -0000

Saludos, Sebastian, y un abrazo de paz desde California.

Re: La Iglesia Emergente

jwinton — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:42:41 -0000

Mi amor, nuestro Dios y su reino (que siempre nos trasciende) tambien nos va a cuidar y dar el esfuerzo para cumplir sus promesas y seguir sus enseñanzas y mandamientos. And you're right...the Christian life is not for wussies!!!

Re: Revolutionaries Don’t Have Room For T-Ball…Right?

jwinton — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 01:04:09 -0000

No...that was kind of my point. It seems like there is a lot more to it than simply living radically vs. raising kids in the suburbs. For starters, I think the overarching theme ought to be following Jesus and that doing so wouldn't necessarily put one into either the lets-start-a-revolution "radical" camp or the self-interested-t-ball "suburban" crew.

Re: Revolutionaries Don’t Have Room For T-Ball…Right?

jwinton — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:55:46 -0000

Thanks, Paul, for the clarification. I think you're right about following Jesus and being poor. Following Jesus is so much better than just imitating the life of poor people. And just to clarify, though you might have assumed this, many of the families in Peru I am writing about here are educated (IT professionals, seminary graduates, etc.) and could have either served in wealthier neighborhoods or made "careers" for themselves (including salaried positions and perhaps benefits). Instead, they chose to live differently--not necessarily because they think Jesus teaches voluntary poverty per se, but because it wouldn't sit right with them if they left everyone else they know and love to live in vulnerability and distress without depending on Jesus for their daily sustenance too.

Re: “The kingdom of God is among you” Four misconceptions about the kingdom Jesus announced

jwinton — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:50:11 -0000

I came of age as a Christ follower within the Vineyard movement. In our tradition, we talk a lot about the "already/not yet" Kingdom of God (a la Georde Ladd) and in relation, especially, to the gifts of the spirit. Physical healing, in particular, was a focus for our patriarch, John Wimber (the leader for the national Vineyard movement until his death in 1997). Here's a short summary of how he began to question the status quo of church life, which ultimately led him to join others in what we now call the Vineyard:

Shortly after John Wimber became a Christian, he became a voracious Bible reader. The Scriptures excited him. Finally, after weeks of reading about life-transforming miracles in the Bible and attending boring church services, John asked one of the lay leaders, "When do we get to do the stuff?"

"What stuff?" asked the leader. "You know, the stuff here in the Bible," said John. "You know, like stuff Jesus did-raising people from the dead, healing the blind and the paralyzed. You know, that stuff."

"Well, we don't do that anymore," the man said. "You don't? Well what do you do?" asked John.

"What we did this morning," replied the man. In frustration, John responded: "For that I gave up drugs?"

Like so many of us, John was taught by example that the contemporary Christian life was radically disconnected from the power and awesomeness of the Scriptures. Throughout the remainder of his ministry, however, he proved that the disconnection was unnecessary. What follows are some articles, tapes and books written about the kingdom of God, prayer, healing, suffering, and deliverance--in other words, doin' the stuff.

That being said, one of the ways the Vineyard movement has explained the power of physical healings as well as their absence is that the Kingdom of God is already here (therefore, we can ask for and believe for healing to take place) and also "not yet" (therefore, we have an eschatalogical hope for when all healing will take place, even when it doesn't happen now). My question for all of us has to do with this "already/not yet" tension. What would propell us to have faith in following Jesus' example and teachings if the Kingdom of God is available to us immediately, but not always and not necessarily now?

Re: “Sustainability” was not in Jesus´ vocabulary

jwinton — Mon, 18 May 2009 14:46:32 -0000

Hi Paul,

I've been meaning to ask you this. What are your thoughts on the Early Church's example (Acts of the Apostles etc.)? How close do you think they came to following Jesus' example? Had they already begun to organize "church" into "sustainable" ways of community or ministry? As I type that question I realize that my own life is a far cry from the early church's example of faithfulness and, so, maybe it's a dumb question, but I'm still wondering.

Re: Are we the people?

jwinton — Fri, 01 May 2009 13:54:43 -0000

In having worked within many institutions (Christian and otherwise), I've almost always felt a mixture of emotions related to my calling--often de-ligitimized, sometimes excited, many times uncertain and confused. Despite my best plans, I have come away from these “places” many times feeling like someone both consumed and desperate, full of conflicting allegiances and passions. For example, I used to work in a residential treatment program for late teens “exiting” the foster care system (exiting, by the way, equals no more money from the State). I used to love meeting with our “kids” in the program. We would make each other laugh, talk about our past/present/future pains and fears, frustrate each other with ambivalent loyalty to both vulnerability and power. The team I was a part of often made decisions (obviously with my consent) about these residents in ways that were highly influenced, if not dictated, by the questions of program finances/sustainability and county “approval” (workers who incidentally also tended to "feel dependent in some way on the institution").

Allow me to ask a few clarifying questions of us all. Do we see Christ’s body working on the inside of institutional structures and positions? Should we wade our way into (or through) their messes? Assuming we are able to refuse the "reality" of their claims, should we also refuse their gifts and compensation (i.e., salary, clout, relationships, professional privilege, work experience, etc.)? In other words, how do we live into Jesus' radical example while also being dependent on the institution’s favors? It sounds like you (Paul) are saying that doing so might not be possible at all. And I tend to agree with you there, if that’s what you actually meant. I got to thinking about this yesterday while reading the Matthew and Luke account of Jesus’ interaction with the “rich young ruler.” Jesus told the disciples after his conversation with that man, "What is impossible with men is possible with God" (Luke 18:27). Could this be the solution to our contemporary idolatries of institution?

Re: Are we the people?

jwinton — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:36:06 -0000

Paul, what would you say to "the person [who] has separated himself from the body of Christ" if they requested, irrespective of their decisions, to be recommended by other Christians (either vocally or in the form of symbolic actions) as a member of Christ's body?

I know the Eucharist could easily be read as "institutional" depending on how you define it (is that always the case?), although this was the first question that popped into my mind as I read your response above: What about the integrity of our recommendation or joining as seen in the Eucharist? Perhaps there is a more creative way to look at it, though. Your thoughts?

Re: Does Jesus need a “movement”? Lessons from the old new monasticism

jwinton — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:14:26 -0000

Lest I come in too late to an already great discussion, let me offer/remind us of Wendell Berry's essay "In Distrust of Movements." He doesn't appear to hold the exact same position as Paul (he recently participated in protests over Moutain-Top Removal), but the opening to his essay is pretty awesome (in my opinion) nevertheless:

I have been pondering about the necessity of getting out of movements even movements that have seemed necessary and dear - when they have lapsed into self-righteousness and self-betrayal, as movements seem almost invariably to do. People in movements so readily learn to deny to others the rights and privileges they demand for themselves. They too easily become unable to mean their own language, as when a “Peace Movement” becomes violent. They often become too specialized. They almost always fail to be radical enough, dealing finally in effects rather than causes. Or they deal with single issues or single solutions, as if to assure themselves that they will not be radical enough. The movements, which deal with single issues or single solutions, are bound to fail because they cannot control effects while leaving causes in place.

It's odd, however, that I was introduced to this essay through an Emergent Village email (authored by Brian McLaren) some 4 or 5 years ago. What's one to make of all the entanglements and allure that we constantly find ourselves in? Though I don't believe it is possible to completely untangle ourselves from all that threatens the work of God's Kingdom, I do think our efforts (even in the right direction) will be undermined to the extent that we assimilate into "movements" and categories. And we should avoid and resist that. But how?

Re: A Size 10 Hypocricy

jwinton — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:52:51 -0000

Walter Wink talks about Jesus' Third Way in undoing violence and injustice--neither fight (violence) nor flight (passivity), he says. Having said that, it seems appropriate to also mention his warning to fellow pacifists about the potential misuse of language:

""Reconciliation" also has been misused. Reconciliation is necessary, and it must be engaged in at all stages of the struggle. The human quality of the opponent must be continually affirmed. Some kind of trust that can serve as the basis of the new society to come must be established even in the midst of conflict. But when church leaders preach reconciliation without having unequivocally committed themselves to struggle on the side of the oppressed for justice, they are caught straddling a pseudo-neutrality made of nothing but thin air. Neutrality in a situation of oppression always supports the status quo. Reduction of conflict by means of a phony "peace" is not a Christian goal. Justice is the goal, and that may require an *acceleration* of conflict as a necessary stage in forcing those in power to bring about genuine change.

"Likewise, blanket denunciations of violence by the churches place the counter-violence of the oppressed on the same level as the violence of the system that has driven the oppressed to such desperation. Are stones thrown by youth really commensurate with buckshot and real bullets fired by police?"

Now, I'm NOT saying Brandon has even hinted at either of these misunderstandings, but I do have a few questions. I'm asking myself (like Brandon did in the article), what symbolic actions could be used to bring about genuine change? If not a shoe, what would get the attention (or create enough conflict) to expose the Powers and make another world possible? As well, and not to defend a symbolic action I really don't understand, but wouldn't the shoe tossing, in addition to being a show of disrespect, put them (Iraqis and Bush) on the same level to face each other as equals?