Write Lightning is a blog from writer Deb Thompson.
Everyone is welcome here.
(Some links or topics may not be completely kid-appropriate.)
Everyone is welcome here.
(Some links or topics may not be completely kid-appropriate.)
Sat, Mar 06 2004
A High Calling Always Draws The Most Critics
Since I've already expressed some thoughts on Mel Gibson's recent film, and since I'm also (somewhat) a Seventh-day Adventist, I took notice when I saw this. If these things are in the Seventh-day Adventist's denominational Church Manual, as this particular man says in his open letter to fellow pastors, I guess I have missed the mark when it comes to being the kind of Adventist he would like to see. For one thing, I have always been creative and artistic and was invited into the denomination anyway. And I have always been friends with people in all walks of life. I don't rub elbows with just pastors and church organists and choir directors. I have other important people in my life who are mechanics, store clerks, artists and accountants. I have friends and loved ones who are nurses, actors, pilots and musicians. Many of them feel called to do the work they do. I wonder if that pastor would encourage us to shun the work of a mechanic or a cabinet-maker? Why is it more appropriate to criticize the work of those who work in film? People who work in entertainment and the arts are valuable parts of our existence. The Bible is full of art and drama and stories that remind us that each of us is given a different experience so that we can come together and learn from one another's experience. If this pastor wishes to single out artists as being bad for the rest of us, that is his choice. But, know this. He does not speak for me. And I know he does not speak for a lot of other Christians. He has his own experience, but he does not have mine. How could he know that there were people in the entertainment industry who saved my life and sanity when neither he nor any other pastor was there for me?
Life is drama, life is theatre, and life is a story to be told and retold by many voices again and again. This pastor had his say on the matter. Now I'm going to have mine. I challenge Seventh-day Adventist (and all spiritual) young people who feel a calling to arts and entertainment to use their talent to be the best they can be. It's easy to criticize and try to blackball the efforts of our fellow human beings. It's a far greater thing to step up and dare to create art of one's own. If you feel The Master Artist and Creator wants you to write (or paint or act or direct or sing), then do it, and do it with all your might. Your work may save someone else's life. And it may save your own.
posted at: 12:34 | category: /Religious and Spiritual | link to this entry
Since I've already expressed some thoughts on Mel Gibson's recent film, and since I'm also (somewhat) a Seventh-day Adventist, I took notice when I saw this. If these things are in the Seventh-day Adventist's denominational Church Manual, as this particular man says in his open letter to fellow pastors, I guess I have missed the mark when it comes to being the kind of Adventist he would like to see. For one thing, I have always been creative and artistic and was invited into the denomination anyway. And I have always been friends with people in all walks of life. I don't rub elbows with just pastors and church organists and choir directors. I have other important people in my life who are mechanics, store clerks, artists and accountants. I have friends and loved ones who are nurses, actors, pilots and musicians. Many of them feel called to do the work they do. I wonder if that pastor would encourage us to shun the work of a mechanic or a cabinet-maker? Why is it more appropriate to criticize the work of those who work in film? People who work in entertainment and the arts are valuable parts of our existence. The Bible is full of art and drama and stories that remind us that each of us is given a different experience so that we can come together and learn from one another's experience. If this pastor wishes to single out artists as being bad for the rest of us, that is his choice. But, know this. He does not speak for me. And I know he does not speak for a lot of other Christians. He has his own experience, but he does not have mine. How could he know that there were people in the entertainment industry who saved my life and sanity when neither he nor any other pastor was there for me?
Life is drama, life is theatre, and life is a story to be told and retold by many voices again and again. This pastor had his say on the matter. Now I'm going to have mine. I challenge Seventh-day Adventist (and all spiritual) young people who feel a calling to arts and entertainment to use their talent to be the best they can be. It's easy to criticize and try to blackball the efforts of our fellow human beings. It's a far greater thing to step up and dare to create art of one's own. If you feel The Master Artist and Creator wants you to write (or paint or act or direct or sing), then do it, and do it with all your might. Your work may save someone else's life. And it may save your own.
posted at: 12:34 | category: /Religious and Spiritual | link to this entry
Marriage: One Man, One Woman, One Government?
I've always been the type who can read material from the political (and religious) left, right, middle and everything between those and still end up with three unread, new thoughts to ponder before I make up my mind (which is also why I'll eventually get sent home from jury duty next week). Even parody and satire appeal to me because their stretch of the obvious forces me to confront my own beliefs and ethics. When someone makes fun of what I believe in, I need to look inside and find out why.
When ultra-conservative Christians use selected passages from the Bible and claim the verses have literal meaning (often in order to back their case for one or another pet doctrine), they are often willing to force others to live by their rules. Check out the list for a Biblical Marriage Amendment Proposal at Landover Baptist Church. You might laugh, you might shrug, or you might even get angry. But you can see their point.
The thing I always come back to is that society should make laws for the general welfare of the citizens. Leave the details of personal religious beliefs--as far as possible while still maintaining social order--to individual choice. When someone wants government to define individual religious behaviors they usually only want it for the single pet doctrine they have. They don't realize that once the government begins to make laws for one religious behavior someone else might demand the same thing--for an opposing religious behavior. That's why some of us work so hard to keep government out of private beliefs as far as reasonably possible. If you believe a certain thing is spiritual and is central to your life, no law the government sets up will make you change your belief. You don't need a civil law in order to follow what you already believe to be true and correct behavior. If your goal is to force your beliefs on others by way of government rules, you are walking a dangerous path, because you are setting a precendent whereby someone else in the same society may very well try to force their beliefs on you, using government laws. And if what they believe happens to be in the majority at that time, they might very well get what they want. And it will be partly your fault for fertilizing the process to begin with.
Ultimately, the marriage issue is one that will probably require two different arenas--expanding details to fit the current procedures. When people have a marriage ceremony now, they can have a spiritual one, but the minister (or whoever presides over the vows) still has to get them to sign that paper for the State. At some point I expect society to make more of a split between these two procedures in order to allow people to form civil unions that allow greater ease in sharing health benefits and making legal decisions. We already have differences in marriage and divorce law from state to state, but if you get married (or divorced) in one state, you are still considered married (or divorced) in another state. Once we have a Federal definition of who and what constitutes a marriage, will we then be given a similar amendment for divorce? And what then? You know it won't end with one amendment. How far are we willing to take this? And how many of our own religious beliefs are we willing to put on the line for the day when we are outvoted?
posted at: 08:27 | category: /Religious and Spiritual | link to this entry
I've always been the type who can read material from the political (and religious) left, right, middle and everything between those and still end up with three unread, new thoughts to ponder before I make up my mind (which is also why I'll eventually get sent home from jury duty next week). Even parody and satire appeal to me because their stretch of the obvious forces me to confront my own beliefs and ethics. When someone makes fun of what I believe in, I need to look inside and find out why.
When ultra-conservative Christians use selected passages from the Bible and claim the verses have literal meaning (often in order to back their case for one or another pet doctrine), they are often willing to force others to live by their rules. Check out the list for a Biblical Marriage Amendment Proposal at Landover Baptist Church. You might laugh, you might shrug, or you might even get angry. But you can see their point.
The thing I always come back to is that society should make laws for the general welfare of the citizens. Leave the details of personal religious beliefs--as far as possible while still maintaining social order--to individual choice. When someone wants government to define individual religious behaviors they usually only want it for the single pet doctrine they have. They don't realize that once the government begins to make laws for one religious behavior someone else might demand the same thing--for an opposing religious behavior. That's why some of us work so hard to keep government out of private beliefs as far as reasonably possible. If you believe a certain thing is spiritual and is central to your life, no law the government sets up will make you change your belief. You don't need a civil law in order to follow what you already believe to be true and correct behavior. If your goal is to force your beliefs on others by way of government rules, you are walking a dangerous path, because you are setting a precendent whereby someone else in the same society may very well try to force their beliefs on you, using government laws. And if what they believe happens to be in the majority at that time, they might very well get what they want. And it will be partly your fault for fertilizing the process to begin with.
Ultimately, the marriage issue is one that will probably require two different arenas--expanding details to fit the current procedures. When people have a marriage ceremony now, they can have a spiritual one, but the minister (or whoever presides over the vows) still has to get them to sign that paper for the State. At some point I expect society to make more of a split between these two procedures in order to allow people to form civil unions that allow greater ease in sharing health benefits and making legal decisions. We already have differences in marriage and divorce law from state to state, but if you get married (or divorced) in one state, you are still considered married (or divorced) in another state. Once we have a Federal definition of who and what constitutes a marriage, will we then be given a similar amendment for divorce? And what then? You know it won't end with one amendment. How far are we willing to take this? And how many of our own religious beliefs are we willing to put on the line for the day when we are outvoted?
posted at: 08:27 | category: /Religious and Spiritual | link to this entry
