Julie's News from Maryland

The first day of our Thinking Outside the Plate: Re-imagining Offering conference was a work day. When Terry first told me that we'd be spending the first day gutting a house in New Orleans and that I should bring grungy clothes, I thought she was nuts. I don't even own grungy clothes, let alone work gloves. I sort of figured that I'd get out of any heavy work because I would be filming. Terry had invited me to come to the conference to film the proceedings and then work with her to create some films that we can distribute on the web and on DVD. I thought maybe I'd hide behind the camera and avoid any "labor". Boy, things never turn out like I think they will.

First of all, my impressions of what we'd be doing were off from the get-go. I thought we'd be going into an empty house and tearing the walls down. At our orientation we learned that we would first need to empty the house of its belongings. This house had everything in it exactly as it had been the day the hurricane hit. They asked us to go through the drawers and cupboards carefully and look for anything we might be able to save for the homeowner. Our crew leader told us that 250,000 homes were damaged in the hurricane and less than half of them have had anything at all done to them. Most of them are sitting exactly as they were left when people evacuated.

I found myself compelled to help. Gone was my "I don't do that kind of work" attitude. When we arrived at the house and opened the door we couldn't believe what we found. The furniture had been moved around and most of it was soaking wet - a year and a half later it was still wet. The back room of the house was the lowest place and the wood furniture there almost disintegrated when we tried to pick it up. It took 20 of us about 2 1/2 hours to clear out the house. We piled everything that couldn't be saved - which was most things - in the street. Once it was empty, we called the garbage pickup crew and they came with bulldozers and picked up all the trash and carted it off. Meanwhile, the crew started pulling the walls down while I started filming.

It was obvious the more the walls came down that the house was not structurally sound. From the looks of it, the house was in bad shape before the hurricane and certainly the flood waters didn't help any. In many places we could see through the floor to the ground below and we could see through the roof to the sky. Our crew leader explained that this house would probably need to be bulldozed to the ground.

At some point in the day we had asked how the foundation chooses which houses and homeowners to help. I wondered if they gave priority to people that were planning to return. He said that it was based on a lot of things, but mostly need and that no priority was given based on return plans. He said that the work we had done that day would cost about $4000-$6000 to hire people to do it. Most importantly, the emotional trauma of removing all of the ruined belongings was more than most people could bear. In the end, we had cleared the house so that the insurance adjusters could really see what had happened and could accurately assess the damage. The homeowner is now free to make real decisions about what to do next instead of remaining in limbo with a house full of wet and rotting things.

I had not expected to be so intimately connected to this house and this homeowner. We didn't meet any of the people that lived in the house, but we cared for their belongings as if they were our own. At orientation they told us that it would be like a funeral and in many ways it was. We found ourselves using the utmost care as we sorted through the cupboards and drawers. I can't imagine what it would be like to leave my home and my belongings only to have total strangers throw away the rotting contents 18 months later. It is unthinkable. I just can't imagine how horrendous that would be.

Many neighborhoods in New Orleans are still ghost towns - empty of people. The houses are sitting as they were left. It is unbelievable that a disaster of this proportion has hit the United States and all this time later people are still homeless and misplaced. The stories are endless. The tragedy is beyond words.

The back of the house was the lowest. The waterline was about 4 feet up the wall.

As you can see, this mattress was still mostly wet, 18 months after the flooding.

The piles of trash in the street spanned the house we were gutting and the neighbors house. They reached 7-8 feet in the air.

I heard this week on various news sources that Bill O'Reilly from Fox News commented on his TV show that Shawn Hornbeck, the young boy that was recently found after having been kidnapped 4 years ago, didn't escape or ask for help from police because he liked living with his kidnapper.  O'Reilly claimed that he doesn't believe that Shawn was affected by Stockholm syndrome, but rather preferred living with his kidnapper rather than his parents because he didn't have to go to school.

My initial reaction was outrage that anyone could think that.  I thought it unfathomable that anyone could believe that a young child would prefer being raped regularly than going to school.  It just doesn't seem possible than any rational adult would believe that.  And then it hit me: O'Reilly doesn't really believe that.  He knows that no one would prefer being raped and abused to going to school.  He knows that a child would be scared and lonely and tortured in that situation.  O'Reilly didn't say that because he thinks it is true, he said that for the money.

Television and television shows are about money.  TV shows make money.  The more ratings a show gets, the more advertisers it gets, which means more money for the network and those associated with the show.  O'Reilly knows that when he says something controversial that everyone will talk about it (just as they have done) and more people will tune into his TV show and he'll make more money.

I think this disgusts me even more than the idea that O'Reilly actually believes this is true.  It's one thing to say controversial, and potentially untrue things (read LIES) about public figures: politicians, actors, hotel heiresses.  People that have deliberately put themselves in the public spotlight are subject to scrutiny, even by people that tell lies about them.  But to deliberately tell a lie about a child - a child that was kidnapped, held in captivity, and raped for 4 years - all to make another buck, that is despicable.  This poor child has been abused at the hands of an adult male for 4 years, he certainly doesn't need any more adults abusing him by questioning the choices he made while in captivity.

I guess I could be wrong.  Maybe O'Reilly really is that ignorant and naive about the situations of children that are abused.  Or worse, maybe O'Reilly was abused as a child and is in such deep denial about his own pain that he can't recognize the pain of others.  But it is hard for me to believe that someone that is educated and successful says such a thing without having full knowledge of its affect.

 

Found this on another blog - look like any church you know? Sigh. Sad but so true.

For those keeping score, I got my report card and I've made it through another semester of seminary without flunking out.  Hooray!  In fact, I did much better than I expected.  Here's the rundown:

Liturgics: A-
Preaching in the Liturgy:  A
Pastoral Theology/Field Ed: A
Systematic Theology: B

 I was suprised to see the A- in Liturgics.  I worked hard in that class and I knew that I did well on the final exam, but was unsure of how I had done on the final paper - a 10 page paper describing the theology of the 1979 prayer book and its continuity and discontinuity with earlier prayer books.  It was a great assignment and I learned a lot about the prayer book in the process of researching and writing the paper.  I love when I get to learn something really useful when doing homework.  

I expected the grade I got in systematics.  I'd gotten solid B's on the papers that I'd written and I was lucky I came out alive from the final exam.  The final was a timed, 2-hour, open book test.  We picked up the questions in the classroom and brought them home, the professor requested that we type the answers.  I had woken up that morning with a fever and a throat infection, so I knew it was going to be a miracle if I could think coherently, let alone write anything useful.  The first question I answered asked something about naming and describing the characteristics of Christian monotheism.  I found a few good things in my notes and wrote a reasonably decent essay.   The professor commented at the bottom of the page, "No mention of the Trinity in a Christian monotheism?" Oh, sigh.  I was sick!  (I feel like Ross from friends, "We were on a break!").  The stupidest thing about it was that I had written a paper about the Trinity earlier in the semester, so it wasn't like I hadn't thought that through during the semester.  Geez.  

I've signed up for more courses than I should probably take next semester, but there were so many that I wanted to take it was hard to narrow it down.  I suppose if it really is too much, I'll determine that in the first couple of weeks and get myself out if I need to do so.  More on those classes after school starts on the 29th.

Well, it's not exactly a new piano, but it is new to us.  Someone no longer wanted the piano, so they left it in the hallway near the piano teacher's classroom in the basement of the front building at seminary.  The case of the piano is in good shape, but it is very badly out of tune (even I can tell it is out of tune and I'm tone deaf) and some of the keys don't work.  The piano tuner estimates that it will cost about $250 or so to tune it.  Since it was free and all I had to do was move it across the street (down a few stairs and up a few stairs) I decided it was the best deal I would ever get on a piano and we took it.

The apartment was pretty crammed with just our furniture.  It was a little tricky finding a place to put the piano, but we managed.  We moved things around in the living room a bit and the piano fits in the far corner.  There are a few things that are still a little displaced (the hope chest and the kids' easel), but I'm sure we'll find somewhere to put them.

 Now all we need is a bench.  Oh, and maybe some music to play.  Rumor has it that there is tons of free music on the web, so I might wander around and find some after we get it tuned.  Yippee. The universe gave us a piano!

Oprah opened her new school in South Africa this week.  A $40 million school for impoverished South African girls that have no other opportunities for education.  And, naturally, people are criticizing her.  I must admit, even I wondered why it had to cost $40 million for a school or why she didn't spread the wealth out more, but geez, who am I to criticize?  If she has $40 million and wants to spend it creating a school for young women that live a life without hope, why are we criticizing her?  I just don't understand.  Why is it that we have to find reasons to criticize those that give?  I don't really know the answer to this but I speculate.  My theory is that it scares us to think about giving.  Our culture of scarcity keeps us constantly afraid that we don't have enough for ourselves and that we have to keep what we do earn to ourselves.  When we see someone giving extravagantly we feel fear, "Oh no!  What if someone thinks I should do that?!  I can't do that, then I won't have enough for myself."

Or maybe we feel shame because we don't do it.  Deep down, we all know that we could be doing more - more for the world, more for the community, more for our neighbors, more for our family members.  There is always more that we can be doing to change the world.  But, criminy, it is work to do that, isn't it?  It takes time and energy and money to make an impact on the world and we are already too busy.  So, we don't do it.  We find a million reasons not to do it.  And then, when we see someone that has done it, we realize that we have not met our potential.  It occurs to us that if they can do it, we probably can too. But, since we haven't, we criticize.  Maybe if we belittle the "do-gooder" it will take some of the focus away from our failure to step up to the plate.

Maybe I am reading too much into this.  Maybe everyone's actions should be scrutinized to keep us all accountable and make sure that we aren't being frivolous, narrow minded, or too idealistic when we are being charitable.  I don't know, it's tough to say.  

Personally, I think Oprah's vision is an incredible experiment. Not only do these girls get a high school education, but she has committed to pay for them to go to the university of their choice anywhere in the world.  The girls have made a committment to return to South Afrida to use their education to revitalize the country.   In the next 20 years she will provide high school and college educations to thousands of girls.  Then, they all return to work in leadership positions in their own country.  Imagine what these girls can do.  Plus, not only has she created individual leaders, but she has created a network of leaders.  These are girls that will know one another from having been at school together.  If it works really well, they will be able to work together to enact change.

It's an incredible gamble.  It might not work.  These girls might be so traumatized from their experiences that they can't achieve all that Oprah hopes for them.  I'm sure that will be true for some of them.  For others, they will probably achieve more than anyone can imagine for them.  In the end only time will tell.  It might not work, but at least Oprah had done something thoughtful and intentional to affect a change in the world.   

 

Weather.  I suppose that it isn't really news that New York is having a mild winter this year.  I just saw on the news that this is the latest into winter that New York has ever gone without getting snow.  Tomorrow the temperature is expected to be 67 degrees, well above the current record of 63.  Many easterners that I know are a little uncomfortable with it, but I must say that I'm lovin' it.  I am thrilled to not be freezing every time I go outside.  And, it is so great for my kids to be able to go outside and play.  The weather here really has been just like Northern California in winter.  It's fabulous.

Working.  I got a contract job for the winter break and I've been working.  I really like working.  It is so fun to work with a team and create a product.  I get to be creative and innovative and we brainstorm and produce really cool stuff.  I miss collaborating with a team.  I don't really notice how much I miss it until I get to do it.  I also have realized how fun it is to have some creative control over what I'm doing.  Writing papers is certainly interesting and I learn a lot, but I haven't really figured out a way to be creative with my homework assignments.  I actually failed in my goal to make a movie for a class project at least once a semester - I never found a reason to make a movie this semester. Drat.  The great bonus to working is the paycheck, of course.  It's definitely good to make money.

Stewardship.  I get to be on the team for a really cool stewardship conference in a couple of weeks.  Terry Parsons, who I've raved about before I know, is leading a team of people in presenting Thinking Outside the Plate: Re-imagining the Offering at the end of the month.  I'm really excited about getting to participate.  I'll be filming the conference activities and some interviews.  I find myself so passionate about stewardship and feel so called to learn about it and talk about it.  And, as an extra bonus, one of my friends from home will be there so I get a little bit of home while I'm there too.