The topic of last Sunday's adult education lecture at my church was the Daily Prayers in the Book of Common Prayer. The Catechism states that prayer is responding to God, by thought and by deeds, with or without words. I've been thinking about prayer a lot recently, probably because I haven't been praying all that much. Funny enough, earlier on the same day as the aforementioned lecture, I led the prayers for the Morning Prayer Service at my church. I accidently left out the Lord's Prayer -- several parishioners mentioned this, I hadn't even noticed.
To read more, click on the Xs
Prayer is an interesting thing. When I was taking my Bible study, I prayed, well, religiously -- we're talking on my knees, using the Lord's Prayer and then a free form prayer with penitence followed by thanksgiving and oblation and intercession and petition. I was pretty happy with that. I felt like it was a good discipline and usually felt peaceful afterwards. These days, I really haven't felt like praying that way and I haven't. I pray all the time, sort of an internal monologue in my head -- while driving, especially, its a semi-quiet time when my kids aren't interrupting me.
Prayer forms -- good or bad? I tend to avoid them because they seem coldly formal to me. They are something someone else has written. However, my own personal prayers tend to become formulaic pretty quickly, so I'm not so certain they are the better choice than a prepared prayer.
I'm currently reading (at an incredibly slow pace) Agnes Sanford's Behold Your God. From an early chapter on prayer, she proposes a method very new to me. First of all, it doesn't involve kneeling but relaxing the body so the mind and spirit can focus. I've always wondered if we're supposed to kneel -- I think C.S. Lewis once indicated that kneeling was an important reminder of our animal form (am I way off on this?) as a reverance to God. So, do I kneel or not? I don't like kneeling, it hurts my knees, I don't even kneel in church, I sit on the edge of the pew and lean forward onto the rail (am I going to hell for this? Just kidding, I really don't seen it as a damning offense).
Agnes also directs that in prayer we are seek to contact God, so we are to keep a clear mind, at least at first (she says to hold off on the intercessions until we've made contact). I probably haven't read enough of the book to understand what she's saying, but its a departure from the way I've looked at prayer. The idea of being silent (meditating, really) rather than babbling at God the way I do, is intriguing. Speaking of babbling, thats what I'm doing at this point, so I'll stop.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Friday, October 29, 2004
Therapeutic Coloring -- Learning Log
Today was a rainy day, so I brought out a cardboard playhouse I picked up at Wal-Mart a few weeks ago. It has beach designs all over it (probably why it was only $5) and comes with some 'washable' markers. The girls had fun playing with it -- going inside it and coloring on it. Of course, the 2 year-old colored all over her arms. She does it all the time, I can't believe she'll grow up to be anything other than a tatoo artist. Of course, she's also going through a phase of taking off her clothes constantly, so her future professional choices are a bit disturbing at the moment. And I don't know how many times a day I say to her "nice girls don't take off their shirts." Mardi Gras here she comes.
After the 2 year-old was put down to nap, my 4 year-old asked me to color with her on the playhouse. I must say, I found it very calming. I'd like to say I emptied my head, but I did feel very peaceful and into the coloring. Suzanne decided she wanted to work on the same design as I was and it was duplicated on the other side of the house. So we peacefully colored on opposite sides of the house. Interestingly, her work was very derivitive; she kept checking to see what I was doing and what color I was using and copied me.
Coloring books are a topic of debate among unschoolers. The purists eschew them, feeling that they stomp on the child's innate creativity. Others are less concerned. I figure that we have both coloring books and plain drawing paper and the girls are free to choose which they want to use and how. I could care less whether and if they 'stay in the lines.'
We made instant pudding after the coloring. I made Suzanne read the instructions on the box and was pretty impressed when she read them all. I wondered if I heard what I wanted to hear. I asked her again to read 'immediately,' she sort of mush-mouthed it and didn't know the word when questioned. I thought she did a good job of faking it; she got the 'imm' sound right -- she also read it quickly, didn't stop and act as if she didn't know it. Great, another lawyer in the family.
After the 2 year-old was put down to nap, my 4 year-old asked me to color with her on the playhouse. I must say, I found it very calming. I'd like to say I emptied my head, but I did feel very peaceful and into the coloring. Suzanne decided she wanted to work on the same design as I was and it was duplicated on the other side of the house. So we peacefully colored on opposite sides of the house. Interestingly, her work was very derivitive; she kept checking to see what I was doing and what color I was using and copied me.
Coloring books are a topic of debate among unschoolers. The purists eschew them, feeling that they stomp on the child's innate creativity. Others are less concerned. I figure that we have both coloring books and plain drawing paper and the girls are free to choose which they want to use and how. I could care less whether and if they 'stay in the lines.'
We made instant pudding after the coloring. I made Suzanne read the instructions on the box and was pretty impressed when she read them all. I wondered if I heard what I wanted to hear. I asked her again to read 'immediately,' she sort of mush-mouthed it and didn't know the word when questioned. I thought she did a good job of faking it; she got the 'imm' sound right -- she also read it quickly, didn't stop and act as if she didn't know it. Great, another lawyer in the family.
What Game is Your Life?
When my husband worked as an associate in litigation for a law firm, he told me his job felt a bit like playing the amusement park game Whack-A-Mole. That game involves holding a large, soft mallet while electronic 'moles' emerged from various holes. The quicker you whacked them, the higher your score.
Today, I'm feeling a bit like the game Asteroids -- these young children keep coming at me from various sides and I have to stay alive.
I imagine PacMan would describe how a lot of people feel -- I was wondering if it might describe DH's current job, at least the part about being chased around by ghosts.
Anyway, I was just wondering what game your life feels like. This is not limited to Gen Xers who might be more familiar with arcade games, if a board game describes your life, tell me about it.
Today, I'm feeling a bit like the game Asteroids -- these young children keep coming at me from various sides and I have to stay alive.
I imagine PacMan would describe how a lot of people feel -- I was wondering if it might describe DH's current job, at least the part about being chased around by ghosts.
Anyway, I was just wondering what game your life feels like. This is not limited to Gen Xers who might be more familiar with arcade games, if a board game describes your life, tell me about it.
Episcopalians Anonymous
Hello, my name is Sparky and I'm an Episcopalian.
Hi, Sparky!
The Episcopal Church is dealing with the fall-out of having consecrated a homosexual bishop in New Hampshire. I don't know that there is any Episcopal church that has been unaffected by this, though some have more difficulty with it than others. Some parishs are considering breaking away, some parishioners are leaving for other churches, and some churches are considering affliliating with some sort of Anglican organization, a more conservative branch that opposes the consecration of gays -- I don't know much about this organization (not even its name) because my parish is not among those considering membership.
To read more, click on the Xs
I think all Episcopalians (and probably many others) have asked themselves how they feel about the consecration of a gay bishop. Can you accept that? Under what reasoning?
This is a difficult issue for me but not for the most obvious reason. Its difficult for me because in discussing my view, I have offended people and disrupted a small discussion group at my church. I'm really very ashamed about the whole situation, though I think I'm making more of it than there really was. I'm very reluctant to create any more pain about this issue but I still have wounds that are unhealed, so this is my attempt to find a bit healing and perhaps make a bit more sense of my feelings on the issue.
I don't have a problem with consecrating a gay bishop if the person is not promiscuous -- i.e. the person is either in a committed relationship or celibate. I would expect the same from any unmarried priest. First issue resolved.
The reasoning behind my view is where things get tricky. One line of reasoning might be termed "sin is everywhere." In this view, I say that I realize the Bible makes several statements against homosexuality. The Bible also makes several statements against divorce and remarriage but the Episcopal church has been able to overcome this nasty little problem -- I believe there are both priests and bishops who have been divorced and remarried. This leads me to wonder on what basis gay priests can be denied the opportunity to become bishops. This is where the explosion went off in my small group -- regardless of the obvious fact that none of us were priests and therefore ineligible to seek a bishopric, one person became extremely offended, thinking that I was condemning her. At that point, I realized that I had created more strife when what I was seeking to do was explain my reasoning. Blessed are the peacemakers.
Okay, lets move beyond my issues. If sin is the barrier to consecrating a gay bishop, we must realize that we are weighing sins here. It would follow that we are determining homosexuality to be a greater sin than adultery (which is what the Bible has called divorce and remarriage). I'm not picking on anyone who has been remarried, here -- I'm not judging them. Mistakes happen, people hurt each other -- praise God that they can move on. Doesn't the Bible emphasize the quest for redemption? We're talking about who can be a bishop here. I can't and it doesn't bother me a bit.
Back to sin -- one sin that gets harped on quite a bit in the Bible is the sin of pride. I have a problem with pride. I have met many priests who have a problem with pride. Shall we deem the sin of pride to be less than the sin of homosexuality? Some apparently feel that we should. I think the Catholics even put pride, the love of self instead the love of God, as tops in the Seven Deadly sins. (I may be way off on that, but it makes the list).
Leaving the topic of sin, what other rationales might we find for allowing the consecration of a gay bishop? The Bishop of my diocese reasoned in a New York Times Magazine article last winter that the churches of New Hampshire had elected to consecrate the gay priest, that there had been many votes and this was who the people wanted as their Bishop. The General Convention vote was merely the last vote in a long line of elections. Shouldn't the people have the Bishop they want?
Later, I read an article, or perhaps it was in the same article, where my Diocesan Bishop discussed his Biblical reasoning for voting for the consecration of a gay bishop. He felt that the liberal tenor of the New Testament allowed for the acceptance of homosexuality in the future and that the consecration would not be contrary to that. I'm sure I'm mangling this a bit, but my point was that my Bishop did look at the Bible and consider its message as part of his reasoning.
All of this leads me to what will have to be a future post -- what is the point of a bishop anyway? Right now, all I can think of is that they move diagonally. Chess humor.
Hi, Sparky!
The Episcopal Church is dealing with the fall-out of having consecrated a homosexual bishop in New Hampshire. I don't know that there is any Episcopal church that has been unaffected by this, though some have more difficulty with it than others. Some parishs are considering breaking away, some parishioners are leaving for other churches, and some churches are considering affliliating with some sort of Anglican organization, a more conservative branch that opposes the consecration of gays -- I don't know much about this organization (not even its name) because my parish is not among those considering membership.
To read more, click on the Xs
I think all Episcopalians (and probably many others) have asked themselves how they feel about the consecration of a gay bishop. Can you accept that? Under what reasoning?
This is a difficult issue for me but not for the most obvious reason. Its difficult for me because in discussing my view, I have offended people and disrupted a small discussion group at my church. I'm really very ashamed about the whole situation, though I think I'm making more of it than there really was. I'm very reluctant to create any more pain about this issue but I still have wounds that are unhealed, so this is my attempt to find a bit healing and perhaps make a bit more sense of my feelings on the issue.
I don't have a problem with consecrating a gay bishop if the person is not promiscuous -- i.e. the person is either in a committed relationship or celibate. I would expect the same from any unmarried priest. First issue resolved.
The reasoning behind my view is where things get tricky. One line of reasoning might be termed "sin is everywhere." In this view, I say that I realize the Bible makes several statements against homosexuality. The Bible also makes several statements against divorce and remarriage but the Episcopal church has been able to overcome this nasty little problem -- I believe there are both priests and bishops who have been divorced and remarried. This leads me to wonder on what basis gay priests can be denied the opportunity to become bishops. This is where the explosion went off in my small group -- regardless of the obvious fact that none of us were priests and therefore ineligible to seek a bishopric, one person became extremely offended, thinking that I was condemning her. At that point, I realized that I had created more strife when what I was seeking to do was explain my reasoning. Blessed are the peacemakers.
Okay, lets move beyond my issues. If sin is the barrier to consecrating a gay bishop, we must realize that we are weighing sins here. It would follow that we are determining homosexuality to be a greater sin than adultery (which is what the Bible has called divorce and remarriage). I'm not picking on anyone who has been remarried, here -- I'm not judging them. Mistakes happen, people hurt each other -- praise God that they can move on. Doesn't the Bible emphasize the quest for redemption? We're talking about who can be a bishop here. I can't and it doesn't bother me a bit.
Back to sin -- one sin that gets harped on quite a bit in the Bible is the sin of pride. I have a problem with pride. I have met many priests who have a problem with pride. Shall we deem the sin of pride to be less than the sin of homosexuality? Some apparently feel that we should. I think the Catholics even put pride, the love of self instead the love of God, as tops in the Seven Deadly sins. (I may be way off on that, but it makes the list).
Leaving the topic of sin, what other rationales might we find for allowing the consecration of a gay bishop? The Bishop of my diocese reasoned in a New York Times Magazine article last winter that the churches of New Hampshire had elected to consecrate the gay priest, that there had been many votes and this was who the people wanted as their Bishop. The General Convention vote was merely the last vote in a long line of elections. Shouldn't the people have the Bishop they want?
Later, I read an article, or perhaps it was in the same article, where my Diocesan Bishop discussed his Biblical reasoning for voting for the consecration of a gay bishop. He felt that the liberal tenor of the New Testament allowed for the acceptance of homosexuality in the future and that the consecration would not be contrary to that. I'm sure I'm mangling this a bit, but my point was that my Bishop did look at the Bible and consider its message as part of his reasoning.
All of this leads me to what will have to be a future post -- what is the point of a bishop anyway? Right now, all I can think of is that they move diagonally. Chess humor.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Dear Daughter's Post -- October 16, 2004
My 4 year-old DD knows that I enjoy blogging. Being at a highly imitative age, she wants a blog of her own. I've offered to set up a real one for her, but she'd rather do her own one.
She dictated to me a post:
"Here is my blog. My computer is so hard to work on. Remember my book, Leaves, that I worked on and it was so hard, too. Then turn off computer."
By the way, she made her own computer and I didn't even know it. She glued a blue piece of construction paper to a green piece and bent to blue to make a screen. She took a building block and traced around it in four different places to make keys. I just noticed it today, I don't know when she did it. I don't plan or initiate art activities for her. I'm glad to see confirmation that I don't need to, she'll do it on her own and it shows more creativity than if I showed her a project to make and told her how to do it.
She dictated to me a post:
"Here is my blog. My computer is so hard to work on. Remember my book, Leaves, that I worked on and it was so hard, too. Then turn off computer."
By the way, she made her own computer and I didn't even know it. She glued a blue piece of construction paper to a green piece and bent to blue to make a screen. She took a building block and traced around it in four different places to make keys. I just noticed it today, I don't know when she did it. I don't plan or initiate art activities for her. I'm glad to see confirmation that I don't need to, she'll do it on her own and it shows more creativity than if I showed her a project to make and told her how to do it.
Makes Worship Fun
A phrase often used in advertising educational toys for children is "makes learning fun!" This makes my blood boil. Learning is inherently fun, its only when learning is forced unwanted on people that it becomes a drudgery. Having to put the fun back in learning tells me that something went very wrong somewhere.
I was at an adult education lecture at my church a few weeks ago and the topic was the communion services in the Book of Common Prayer. Oh, oh, bad joke in my head. Why doesn't the Catholic Church use the Book of Common Prayer? Because the initials are the same as birth control pills. I said it was a bad joke. Anyway, the Book of Common Prayer contains the services used by the Episcopal church, along with prayers and other documents.
I took some notes on the history and theology of the services -- frankly, I found the lecture a little dull (hence the title of this post). At some point, my thoughts took over from the notes I was taking on the lecture. I have the question "does Orthodoxy work?" I'm willing to bet this was not what the lecturer was saying. I was wondering if the church is accomplishing what the Bible set forth as its purpose. With him I am well pleased. Does this apply to the Church today?
The lecturer discussed the theology imbedded in the BCP. She said that the authors were motivated to set forth some uniformity because of the profusion of movements during the Reformation; there was a florid view of what was permissive in the Christian church and the Reformers were trying to stop it. The problem was one with the doctrine, not the practice. The corruption was in the teaching and the uniform prayer had a specific form to fix this.
If this sounds stilted and unclear, its because it is -- I should have typed up my notes and thoughts soon after I heard the lecture. I didn't and I post this stuff just to see if it sparks a discussion. Call me Sparky.
I was at an adult education lecture at my church a few weeks ago and the topic was the communion services in the Book of Common Prayer. Oh, oh, bad joke in my head. Why doesn't the Catholic Church use the Book of Common Prayer? Because the initials are the same as birth control pills. I said it was a bad joke. Anyway, the Book of Common Prayer contains the services used by the Episcopal church, along with prayers and other documents.
I took some notes on the history and theology of the services -- frankly, I found the lecture a little dull (hence the title of this post). At some point, my thoughts took over from the notes I was taking on the lecture. I have the question "does Orthodoxy work?" I'm willing to bet this was not what the lecturer was saying. I was wondering if the church is accomplishing what the Bible set forth as its purpose. With him I am well pleased. Does this apply to the Church today?
The lecturer discussed the theology imbedded in the BCP. She said that the authors were motivated to set forth some uniformity because of the profusion of movements during the Reformation; there was a florid view of what was permissive in the Christian church and the Reformers were trying to stop it. The problem was one with the doctrine, not the practice. The corruption was in the teaching and the uniform prayer had a specific form to fix this.
If this sounds stilted and unclear, its because it is -- I should have typed up my notes and thoughts soon after I heard the lecture. I didn't and I post this stuff just to see if it sparks a discussion. Call me Sparky.
Learning Log -- October 21, 2004
My unschooling log -- sometimes its easier to see what you've done than what you're doing.
My 4 year-old DD was painting with brushes on an easel while I was puttering around tidying things up. (Note: you can get a very reasonably priced stand-up art easel from Ikea; no need to order one for $80 through a fancy toy catalog). I had a bunch of fliers and pamphlets and other giveaways from the Black Family Reunion, and I finally started sorting through them. I came across a 2004 wall calendar and asked DD if she wanted it. She got very excited and started flipping through it. She flipped to October and asked me for the date, noting that the day was Wednesday. I told her it was the 21st and that it was actually Thursday (this is a no-no according to John Holt, who thought it better to let the child correct herself, believing that the child would eventually do so and that no harm is done in the meantime. He had exceptions, of course, where there was actual danger posed by a potential mistake). She notices that there are two Columbus Days marked on the calendar, which gave me the opportunity to explain the difference between a holiday itself and when the holiday is observed.
She saw the notations in the calendar for the phases of the moon -- new, first quarter, full, and last quarter. I was intrigued that there was no half moon notation; later, my husband and I figured that one out (since we only see one side of the moon, a 'half' moon is really a quarter of the actual moon -- we're only seeing half of the half that faces the earth. So its new with no sun reflected on it, then waxing to half, which is first quarter, than waxing beyond to full and then waning back to last quarter, which is really back down to 'half' again, then back to new. I hope we got that right, otherwise the kids are off to school. Nah, we'd just learn it together).
She flipped over to February and saw Valentine's Day and said that its on the February 4. I corrected her (Holt: bad mommy) and point to where the 4th is on the calendar and ask her what day Valentine's Day is. She counts up to 14. I do a really quick lesson on ordinals, saying that February 14 is the 14th of February.
Hopefully, that covers math for awhile.
Earlier in the week, we went to a story time at the library. I always love hearing what DD says to other people. The librarian mentioned pumpkins and DD told her how we had pumpkins on the porch and one was eaten by a squirrel who was eating lots of food to sleep through the winter. So she does listen to the things I tell her (hope I was right!)
My 4 year-old DD was painting with brushes on an easel while I was puttering around tidying things up. (Note: you can get a very reasonably priced stand-up art easel from Ikea; no need to order one for $80 through a fancy toy catalog). I had a bunch of fliers and pamphlets and other giveaways from the Black Family Reunion, and I finally started sorting through them. I came across a 2004 wall calendar and asked DD if she wanted it. She got very excited and started flipping through it. She flipped to October and asked me for the date, noting that the day was Wednesday. I told her it was the 21st and that it was actually Thursday (this is a no-no according to John Holt, who thought it better to let the child correct herself, believing that the child would eventually do so and that no harm is done in the meantime. He had exceptions, of course, where there was actual danger posed by a potential mistake). She notices that there are two Columbus Days marked on the calendar, which gave me the opportunity to explain the difference between a holiday itself and when the holiday is observed.
She saw the notations in the calendar for the phases of the moon -- new, first quarter, full, and last quarter. I was intrigued that there was no half moon notation; later, my husband and I figured that one out (since we only see one side of the moon, a 'half' moon is really a quarter of the actual moon -- we're only seeing half of the half that faces the earth. So its new with no sun reflected on it, then waxing to half, which is first quarter, than waxing beyond to full and then waning back to last quarter, which is really back down to 'half' again, then back to new. I hope we got that right, otherwise the kids are off to school. Nah, we'd just learn it together).
She flipped over to February and saw Valentine's Day and said that its on the February 4. I corrected her (Holt: bad mommy) and point to where the 4th is on the calendar and ask her what day Valentine's Day is. She counts up to 14. I do a really quick lesson on ordinals, saying that February 14 is the 14th of February.
Hopefully, that covers math for awhile.
Earlier in the week, we went to a story time at the library. I always love hearing what DD says to other people. The librarian mentioned pumpkins and DD told her how we had pumpkins on the porch and one was eaten by a squirrel who was eating lots of food to sleep through the winter. So she does listen to the things I tell her (hope I was right!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)