RevGalBlogPals Book of the Month- Good Fences

Let me say that overall, I found myself wanting more. I kept waiting for more to develop but it didn't. I liked the stories and followed her premise but felt that something was missing.


The questions as posted by Songbird with my answers follow.

1. My own church is currently seeking ways to live into four areas identified in a visioning process. The first two happened to be Identity and Hospitality. When church members asked for help with Hospitality, I suggested that they needed to be clear about Identity first, and this is Westerhoff's supposition. What is your response to the Boundaries First/Hospitality Second paradigm? Is there more to Identity than Boundaries? Or is there another metaphor that might feel more helpful?

The metaphor is helpful to begin the conversation. I don’t think I have a better one.

I think it is important to know your identity but I'm not sure that knowing your boundaries necessarily leads to the extension of hospitality. It seems to me that most of us (individually and collectively) like to think of ourselves as more open, tolerant, accepting, etc. than we are when it comes to actually interacting with people who test our stated boundaries. Perhaps, that interaction is a refining of our boundaries but I'm not sure how well defined we can be about our communal boundaries when the community is often in flux according to the participants in the community and the context in which that community is located.

2. How important is the distinction between essentials and non-essentials in your understanding of boundaries?

If boundaries are the first step, then understanding the distinction between essentials and non-essentials is necessary. If there is not clarification between essentials and non-essentials within the community, the risk is that the non-essentials become barriers to hospitality or defuse the boundaries by including those who do not value the community's essentials.

3. On page 87 of the paperback edition, Westerhoff describes the participation of a group of visiting Buddhist monks who came to the rail for Communion at her church. What was your response to this story and the discussion that took place after? Do we control the eucharist? Are there "levels" of hospitality?

I find this an interesting question. John Wesley (Anglican priest, founder of Methodism), at one point, required communion cards for those in the societies (spiritual formation groups) and, yet, at the same time, argued that communion was a means of grace in which a person could meet Christ for the first time. So, even while intentionality and baptism were vitally important, he would not refuse someone communion because he did not want to keep them from the experience of Christ that could bring salvation.

With that in mind, I carefully considered what I would do regarding communion when I was in a position to preside. I will serve those who present themselves for communion, trusting in the grace of God when I serve those that might be considered "undeserving."

4. If you have had a chance to do a unit or more of Clinical Pastoral Education, you have heard a story like the one of page 98. A student feels distressed after baptizing a baby who had already died, conflicted about what baptism means and whether it was appropriate in this case, but also certain that the parents needed pastoral care in this form. How do you respond to this case study? What might you have done in the student's position?

Sometimes the best theological understanding is not helpful in communicating the everpresent grace of God. I have a high regard for solid theology. I have little tolerance for mindless following without question. That being the case, I will set my well formed, deeply considered theological understanding aside, in the service of re-presenting God to the best of my ability. For me, pastoral care always has the potential to trump theology. That decision is based on my understanding of Jesus healing on the Sabbath and the grace imparted to folks who were in need when the logic of the Law might have led to a perfectly reasonable conclusion that one should not heal on the Sabbath.

5. The epilogue of the book contains a lengthy story about a church's process in choosing to fence in its property. Please share your reactions.

I think the story furthers the metaphor of the book and makes a good ending story. However, it seems to me that the issue of the actual fence became a focus on non-essentials for a community that supposedly had a clear identity in relation to their context as a church that was a sanctuary for hundreds of homeless. In the end of the story, it is clear that the fence enables the community to continue living their identity providing a boundary that also creates the space for hospitality.

6. Westerhoff calls on Jesus' self-description as a "narrow gate" in support of her thesis that our boundaries must be clear. Where do you think Jesus would draw his lines?

I think Jesus' boundaries are probably wider than most of ours. I do not think most of us are comfortable with the extravagant hospitality of God's grace. I'm not sure how to put that up against the metaphor of the narrow gate. I have heard the "narrow gate" used in ways that mean "you have to believe like we do in order to get in" but that doesn't match Jesus healing on the Sabbath.

7. In Chapter 5, Westerhoff refers us to the baptismal covenant as a means to test our boundaries. Does this feel like a helpful tool?

I appreciated the way she used the liturgy of baptism to frame the issue of boundaries. But I see as it helpful only for those with liturgical foundations. I grew up in a church that did not use set liturgy. The questions she addresses would have been considered irrelevant in that tradition.

8. Westerhoff admits that others are better-suited than she to certain practices of hospitality. How do you strive to *be* a neighbor in your own neighborhood? What are the challenges of being a neighbor?

I pastor an urban church. We struggle with the boundaries of being a good neighbor. Sometimes we are more motivated by fear and self-preservation than by hospitality in the name of Christ. I think this book could be a helpful entry point for some of my church members in considering what hospitality and welcoming the stranger could be.

Madeleine L'Engle

One of my favorite authors, Madeleine L'Engle, died yesterday. I just found out. It makes me sad.

The New York Times article ends:

“Why does anybody tell a story?” Ms. L’Engle once asked, even though she knew the answer.

“It does indeed have something to do with faith,” she said, “faith that the universe has meaning, that our little human lives are not irrelevant, that what we choose or say or do matters, matters cosmically.”

With a free subscription, you can read the article here.

An article published by Episcopal Life has a quote from her about suffering and grief. You can read it here.

Several years ago, I was one of the adults on a youth camping trip. Most of the group were out on a hike. I was at the campsite reading "Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art." Another adult who came back just ahead of the group saw the title and said, "Oh, that's how you do it-- a how to book -- walking on water."

RevGalBookPals: Grace(Eventually)

Truth be told, I didn't have the guts to post this on RevGalBlogPals. However, all of the terrific questions asked are by RevAbi. Others posted their responses but, in general, I think they were more positive than my response. So, with fair warning, this is not a glowing review. If you love Anne Lamott, stop reading now so I don't hurt your feelings.

Here are some questions to get us started in our book discussion. You are invited to write responses to them or to write your own thoughts ask other questions as well:

1. Did Grace Eventually live up to your expectations? Why or why not?

Not really. I really wanted to like this book. I bought it just to participate in the discussion and I mostly slogged through it. There were a few turns of the phrase that I particularly liked but all too often I found myself "outside" of the book. I wanted to be captured, but I just wasn't.

2. How much did you know about Lamott and her spirituality before you started reading the book? Were you familiar with the her platform, and did this influence your decision to choose the work? Did the book live up to your expectations of the author? Did it exceed your expectations? Why or why not?

I mostly knew about Lamott from others quoting her. I didn't really know about her platform but I could understand, and sometimes echo, her sentiments. The point of view was not a problem for me, even though sometimes the expression was pretty strong.

3. What did you like or dislike about the book that hasn't been discussed already? Were you glad you read this book? Would you recommend it to a friend? Do you want to read more works by this author?

I probably would be willing to read "Traveling Mercies" if it were loaned to me. But I probably won't be looking for anything else by her and I'm not likely to recommend it to anyone. Madeline L'Engle's Crosswick Journals I would recommend even though there are spots where they are a little dated.

4. What do you think motivated Anne Lamott to share these particular personal stories? How did you respond to her "voice"?

Maybe part of why I wasn't captured is that I couldn't always figure out why these particular stories were shared. Some of them were obvious to me but to only include them would have made a booklet instead of a book. I actually liked her "voice" and the way she told the stories for the most part. But, I wondered "why is she telling me this?" too many times.

6. Do you think Anne Lamott is trying to elicit a certain response from the reader, such as sympathy? How has Grace Eventually changed or enhanced your view of her?

My view of her was 3^rd hand so there wasn't much to change in a direct way. However, I'm not as impressed as I was prepared to be. I do think there is something to be said for her giving voice and thought for some who may feel quite isolated with their similar feelings.

7. In one of her chapters, "Wailing Wall," she writes that "anger is good, a bad attitude is excellent, and the medicinal powers of shouting and complaining cannot be overestimated." Do you agree or disagree and tell why?

Isn't that why there are more lament Psalms than any other kind?

8. One of the most controversial chapters of the book, tells about Anne helping a terminally-ill friend die. How did you react to this chapter? How does “Grace" fit into this or not?

I hated it.

9. She writes at one point "I prayed impatiently for patience, and to stop feeling disgusted by myself, and to believe for a few moments that God, just a bit busy with other suffering in the world, actually cared about one menopausal white woman on a binge." What are your thoughts about that?

Regardless of age or situation, I think everyone has times of struggling with self worth. I think our own preoccupation with our own feelings of disgust interfere with our ability to know that God does in fact care for each one of us. I don't think it is God's care or presence that is missing but that we are completely oblivious to it.

10. "I wish grace and healing were more abracadabra kinds of things," she writes in one of her essays, "that delicate silver bells would ring to announce grace's arrival. But no, it's clog and slog and scootch, on the floor, in silence, in the dark."Do feel the same way about Grace and healing or do you feel differently? If so why?

I think that abracadabra grace and healing would be too much like a vending machine; put in your prayer, poke the button, get your grace. However, while I have experienced that clog and slog and scotch on the floor in silence in the dark, I believe the part of Psalm 139 that says God hems me in behind and before that wherever I go, even Sheol, God is there.