Ah Christmas Songs

Christmas Songs I don't Particularly Like:

Cherry Cherry Christmas - never should have been written. I don't have this strong feelings about most songs, but seriously. (P.S. I have a magic touch - no sooner had I typed this out than the next song on the radio - you guessed it! And I did this yesterday...okay, let's talk about "Do You Hear What I Hear" "What Child Is This" and "Africa.")
Mary, Did You Know? - Very good lyrics, yes, and perhaps goes farther than most songs to tell the Nativity / Jesus story, but I just don't like it, and that's that. I think it has to do with years of going to church as a kid and hearing terrible covers of it, usually by people who introduced it as a "wonderful new song they found just this year that they really like and is just so beautiful.' Yeah, it can't be new every year.
Merry Xmas (War Is Over) - mixed feelings here. The song itself is okay and singable and not requiring of changing the channel, but it is so...well...you know...written by hippies.
Christmastime Is Here - Really bad children's choir, not a really good melody...you have to be really sure of yourself to make up a new Christmas song and actually expect it to be a hit...this is yuck.
Santa Baby
Merry Christmas Baby - honestly, it says she is "lit up like a Christmas tree."
God Bless America - okay, I know it's not a Christmas song, but this seems as good a place as any to put it. It is disproportionately popular, and I absolutely can't stand it. It's not that I have a problem with the words...but it is an ugly, repeat U-G-L-Y tune. Yuck.
Christmas in Kansas City - that is not even a real song.

Songs Overplayed:

Chipmunk Christmas Song
Away in a Manger
Have a Holly Jolly Christmas - not a bad song, but it is overplayed. Now, the Burl Ives (is that right?) version I might actually move to the Don't Like list...but that may be due to overplayedness, so I won't.
Train's Song - It may be too early to tell, but I have decided that this song is GREAT if you just hear the chorus, like on the Coca Cola commercial, but even getting through the full song can be a little much, so onto this list it goes! :)
The 12 Days of Christmas - except the funny ones...honestly, the only way to get away with this song anymore is to make it funny. Specific examples are the one that says, "Beer!" and the one where they break out into other songs in the middle, "On the first day of Christmas my true love gave to me Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer!"
All I Want for Christmas Is You
Christmas Shoes

Songs I DO Like: (I mean, really really like)

What Child Is This
Do You Hear What I Hear
Hark the Herald Angels Sing - almost any Christmas hymn with a few exceptions
Do They Know It's Christmastime?
Christmas Canon
Wizards of Winter
Anything Mannheim Steamroller
Silver Bells and It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas - make me think of 1940's Christmases....
Where Are You Christmas?
Nobody Wants to Be Alone on Christmas - from my Home Alone soundtrack
That Jamaican style song of "Hark now hear the angels singeth a new king born today and man will live forevermore because of Christmas day..." I like the old Irishy sounding version, too, but the Jamaican one is jammin' ya know?
Polar Express song by Josh Groban - I had better like it, it's in iPod.

The Christmas / Holiday Wars

Okay, so here's my thoughts. I'm not 100% opposed to "Happy Holidays" because there are so many holidays at once. In addition, in the old British sense, "Holiday" could refer to vacation from work, in which case there are multiple "holidays" at this point. But there are some times I think it is carried past nonsense. For instance, why say "Holiday Ham?" If you "holidays" is meant to include Jews, then they would not eat a ham for the holidays. And at this point of the year, (I admit I don't know much about Kwanza, I don't wish to know much, I think it's made up) Hannukah is done and over with! So unless you are referring to Christmas AND New Year's, then Holidays doesn't seem as applicable. I mean, we are two days from Christmas, what other holiday could they be talking about?

But here's another thought - is there really any way to win this? I mean, Christmas has been so commercialized, that even saying that doesn't really mean much. And we now have the "Christmas spirit" instead of Christian giving to thank for charitable contributions and general good cheer around the holidays. In a way, "holiday" is almost more appropriate because the word comes from "Holy-day." If you are fighting a Christmas vs. Holiday war, it's almost like you have to come around from the right flank and say, "I am throwing a Christ-child party." Or "I am going home to celebrate the birth of our Savior Jesus Christ." It sounds a little fundamentalist but it at least keeps the real meaning of Christmas alive whereas the word Christmas doesn't necessarily do that anymore.

One last thought, though. Even though Christmas itself has been so commercialized and taken away from the purpose, it is interesting to note that the word is under attack. That means there is still enough of Christ in Christmas to make someone upset. As long as there are carols and ancient symbols (Christmas trees) there will always be opportunities to explain the true meaning of Christmas

I have observed that there are two types of rich people. The first enjoys spreading his ealth: he loves to live in a fine house, surrounded by beautiful furniture, and to eat the most expensive food. The second enjoys keeping his wealth: he would rather live in a howel as long as he possessed a chest full of gold and silver coins, and his greatest pleasure is to sit at a tabile, counting out his money. Which type of rich person can most easily be redeemed? Without doubt it is the first. The rich man who likes spending his money usually enjoys welcoming others into his home, so they can admire his wealth; and he takes pride in welcoming them to his table, to enjoy a sumptuous banquet. That openness to others can, with effort, be transformed into a genuine desire to share his wealth with others. But the miser who hoards his money has a heart that is closed and dark; and it is almost impossible to pry open the door of his heart in order to let the light enter. If a rich man invites me to a banquet, I may accept, hoping to convert him. But the miser never invites anyone into his home or his heart.

-St. John Chrysostom

Idols

We may observe people worshipping statues, and we accuse them of idolatry. We say that these lumps of wood, clay, or metal are lifeless, and so possess no divine qualities. Indeed we find the idea of worshiping statues so bizarre that we even laugh with contempt at those who do it. Yet far more dangerous than statues that are visible are the numerous idols which are invisible. Power is such an idol. Some people who possess powerful personalities desire power for themselves, and in this way make it their idol. Others like to be under the sway of a powerful personality, who makes decisions on their behalf, and in this way releases them from the task of making moral choices for themselves; thus they make the powerful person their idol. Fame is another invisible idol. Some people with the gift of speech love to bask in the warmth of adulation, and so make the admiration of others their idol. Those others find perverse pleasure in treating the gifted speaker as a god, whose every word must be treated as infallible. What I am saying is that the most dangerous idols are not outward objects made of wood and clay, but reside inside the human heart.

-St. John Chrysostom

Sometimes I feel that I have the last problem that St. John talks about. I know how much I admire hearing a gifted speaker or reading an inspiring book. It is hard to hear that perhaps I put more faith in these people than in God - the man who gave them their gifts. How humbling to

Greed

Those who love money are fierce in the pursuit of it, like wild animals pursuing their prey. They do not allow th eties of friendship to restrain them; they betray, cheat, or exploit their closest friends when there is gold and silver to be gained. Nor do they let the chains of conscience inhibit them; they learn to make their consciences as numb as fingers on a cold day. Even members of their own families may be used in their quest for wealth. Their eyes become blind to the suffering they cause, and their ears deaf to the cries of those whose lives are ruined by them. They imagine themselves to be free, purusing their own interests without constraint. Yet in truth they are slaves to their own greed; and this greed only brings them misery. So they bring a double misery into the world, to those they exploit and to themselves. Worst of all, they are even grateful for their own greed; they give thanks that this desire for money motivates their actions and gives purpose to their lives. While they feel this gratitude, they can never escape.

-St. John Chrysostom

O Holy Night

"O holy night the stars are brightly shining
It is the night of our dear Savior's birth
Long lay the world in sin and error pining
'Til He appeared and the soul felt its worth.
A thrill of hope, the weary world rejoices
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn.
Fall on your knees! Oh hear the angel voices!
O night divine! O Night when Christ was born!
O night dvine! Oh night, O holy night"

This song is so peaceful and beautiful - if the readio is any indicator, I think it is one of the most beloved Christmas songs. Josh Groban, I think, is the one you will most often hear singing it now. But he also cuts out important parts of the song, in my opinion.

In the first verse, I just noticed this year the phrase, "The soul felt its worth." Wow! What a great way to describe the Christian experience. We know how much God loves us - that He would send his son to die for us, to save us, to allow us to come up and be with him. I would say that means our souls are worth a LOT!

I also like the phrase "weary world." Whenever I think things are really bad, I think about when Jesus came to the world, and I realize that even 2,000 years ago the world was weary. The Jews were a conquered people. Life was hard.

"Truly He taught us to love one another
His law is love and His gospel is peace.
Chains shall he break for the slave is our brother,
And in His name all opression shall cease.
Sweet hymns of joy in grateful chorus raise we.
Let all within us praise His holy name.
Christ is the Lord, that ever, ever praise we
Noel! Noel! Oh night, oh night divine!
Noel! Noel! Oh night, oh night divine!"

I don't have anything to comment on the second verse, really. But I do love the line about breaking chains. Consequently, I did a quick internet search, and it doesn't seem that this song was written as a political statement about slavery in the Civil War, although that is what I think about when I hear it. Still - breaking chains is not a concept for days gone by. There are still slaves today - literally, and people enslaved by their own sins, their own trials, their misfortunes. In that sense, everyone is a slave. But more importantly, everyone is our brother.

But truly, I think that I could just sing the words of this song over and over again without getting in to any special "meaning." O Holy Night!

All of us are liable to complain of our work. We grumble at the hardness of our work, at its monotony and dullness, at th elack of time to rest and relax. We moan about how weary we feel. And we wish that we were wealthy enough to be free of work. But just imagine what perpetual leisure actually means. In your mind let me give you a large house in which to live, filled with comfortable furniture. In this house you only need to nod at a servant, and you will be brought dish upon dish of the most delicious food. Outside there is a garden filled with trees and shrubs, which bear sweet-smelling flowers. For a few hours, for a hew days perhaps, you would enjoy being in such a place. But soon you would feel bored and restless . Your bones would become still for lack of exercise. Your stomach would swell with all that food. Your head would ache for lack of anything to stimulate the mind. Your mansion in which work was impossible would seem like a prison. God has designed us to labor for our bread; only in toil can our minds and bodies find contentment.

-St. John Chrysostom

An Ideal Church Community

I often speak of the rich and the poor. I would rather not have to speak in these terms. If everyone acted according to the teachings of Christ, there would be no rich and poor; all would be equal. This is because the rich would continue giving away their wealth until everyone had the same. Since only a minority have truly embraced the teachings of Christ, this is not going to happen. But we can make a start; and the place to start is the Church. Let the rich give liberally to their church congregations. Then let each congregation use this bounty to support widows and orphans, the sick and the crippled. And let those whom God has called to perpetual virginity be the primary means through which this bounty is channeled. Hospitals and schools can be built where those in need can come, and where those called to celibacy can serve them. The rich would take no pride in their gifts, because those receiving the gifts would not know their names; their gratitude could be directed only to the Church. So let your particular church become in this way a reflection on earth of the glory of heaven.

-St. John Chrysostom

Well churches are halfway there. I love church fundraisers and the weekly ways that the church asks me to give. I love knowing that Pastor knows where to send our charitable contributions - that the needy in our parish know to come to him, and that the rich in our parish DO give. On the other hand, we fall short of St. John's dream in many ways.

First of all, the rich have not given away so much that they are like the poor. I don't blame them entirely. It would be irresponsible to give away so much that your own family is not taken care of, or that you are not taken care of in your old age, or if there is a disaster. Then again, if you have become such a generous giver, then I am sure people will help you in your time of need.

Second, there are not enough religious to take care of the administration. Yes, Pastor does a good job for our church. But what about the school attached? In the olden days, schools and hospitals were run by nuns - sisters who only needed lodging and food, not large salaries like the teachers and nurses in today's hospitals. How do we get more people into the religious life? Why has it lost its appeal? I don't know the answer to that. But I believe it starts in the home. Much like parents should teach their children good morals and charity, they should encourage children to THINK about going into religious life. That is one of the most charitable things a person could do.

Self Discipline

The skill which the rich need to use their wealth well is the highest of all arts. Its workshop is built not on earth but in heaven, because those who are rich must communicate directly with God to acquire and practice this art. Its tools are not made of iron or brass, but of good will, because the rich will only use their wealth well if they want to do so. Indeed good will is itself the skill. When a rich person sincerely wants to help the poor, God will quickly show the best way. Thus while a person training to be a carpenter must learn how to control a hammer and saw and chisel, the rich person training to serve the poor must learn how to control the mind and heart and soul. He must learn always to think good thoughts, expunging all selfish thoughts. He must learn how to feel compassion, expunging all malice and contempt. He must learn how to desire only to obey the will fo God. That is why I say the skill of being a rich disciple of Christ is the highest of all arts; and the one who possesses it is truly a saint.

-St. John Chrysostom

I know he talks about physical wealth in this passage, but to me I think also about our hearts and minds. Do you think only rich people need to learn unselfishness? Perhaps they do - perhaps my perception of rich is different from his. For I am sure St. John would think we are all rich, here in America. Someone starving to death, always worried about getting enough to eat, would not have time to learn the arts of unselfishness, and indeed he could not possibly think to be selfish. Someone starving to death does not wish for a TV or iPod. He only wants food, and that is reasonable.

Here in America we all want more, more, more. No matter how rich we are, we always want more. And no matter how poor we are, we can be a little selfish. Admit it. That is why we all need to follow his advice in this passage - to learn to "control the mind and heart and soul." This is what we call "discipline" and hardly anybody I know (including myself!) has it anymore.

A World Without Money

You tell me that you need money. You say that money is necessary to enable you to buy the things you need. I do not disagree with you. I, too, require money in order to survive. But I wish that I did not need money. Or rather, I wish that none of us needed money. Got tells us to trust him to provide for all our needs. I wish we could trust other people also to provide what we need. Indeed as a preacher I am forced to do this. I proclaim the truth of God; and I dpeend entirely on the gifts of those who hear me - gifts which usually come in the form of money. Others among you make things. If all of you gave to others freely what you have made, money would become unecessary. If each of you took trouble to observe the needs of others, and then according to your abilities freely met those needs, none of use would need moeny. And no one would go hungry or cold; all would have sufficient.

-St. John Chrysostom

I don't think the point St. John is making here is so much about a barter economy as it is a continuation about talking about meeting peoples' needs. It seems hard, when you think of it, to take what we do for a living and do it for free to those who need it. If you check out items at a grocery store, how can you just, um, not charge someone? If you work in a factory making lightbulbs, you can't just take a few to distrubte to the poor. You are not in charge of making those decisions. Although I have discovered that there are charities that take accountants to help prepare tax returns for the needy. I could also help people with their finances by giving advice. But we CAN help those in need - either with our money, or with our talents. It doesn't have to be the same talent we use to make a living. It could mean making dinner at a soup kitchen.

Also, he talks about looking around for need. Open your eyes! I have been upset recently because our society doesn't favor charity. What I mean is that, when I read books or watch movies from about WWII or before, people would take baskets of food to poor neighbors or go give soup to a sick friend. Nowadays we live in neighborhoods separated by miles and also by class. Those in large houses don't just "see" the poor needing food. But that doesn't mean we can't go out and seek it. I wonder how often we see a need that needs met, but don't "see" it. How many times do we have the opportunity to do good but don't even know it's time to do something? I am sure I am the worst at this, so I am not trying to lecture, but I am trying to become more aware myself.

Interconnectivity

Consider how an ear of corn is produced. Most of us would point to the labor of the farmer in tilling the soil, sowing the seed, and harvesting the grain. But it is not as simple as that. The farmer needs the blacksmith to make the spade, ploughshare, sickle, and axe. He needs the carpenter to make a fram for the plough and to make a yoke for the horse. He needs the leather worker to make the harness. He needs the builder to make a stable for the horse, and a barn to store the hay and grain. He needs a baker to turn the grain into bread, otherwise his labors are worthless. And he needs the forest worker to provide wood for the carpenter to saw, and wood for the baker to heat the oven. So just to produce corn, many different people are needed. Since we depend on one another for our very survival, why do we ever try to exploit and cheat one another? Nothing could be more stupid and irrational than to try to get the better of someone else; people who cheat and exploit others are cheating and exploiting themselves.

-St. John Chrysostom

I think about the politics of the day and the anger that is out there when I read this. Everything is connected including, in a way, cheating people. (Think about someone who runs a Pay Day Loan operation and then uses the profits to, well, buy stuff). All I have to do is to look personally at my job to see how it connects to the rest of the economy.

We sell insurance to small businesses. Small businesses do most of the hiring in this country. I have been used to working with big corporations - I worked for a large accounting firm, audited huge, Fortune 500, public companies, and now I work for a Fortune 500 public company. But, large as we are, and as much as my world has revolved around large businesses, we need small businesses to thrive! This is something I have to remind myself of when I wonder what the "big deal" is about small businesses.

It's a circle, too. Although I do a lot of shopping online, or at Wal-Mart, or at a large grocery store, I also do patronize small businesses without knowing it. What is a local restaurant but a small business? And when I needed a contractor? So they help me by being customers of the company I work for, and I help them out with my patronage.

Certainly all people should look at their lives this way. So many people get angry at "the rich" or "big business." But we all rely on each other. If someone who makes cars resents those who buy cars, what good is that? It would be like a doctor resenting sick people.

What Child Is This?

"What Child Is This" has been a favorite Christmas song of mine from the first time I can remember singing it. The Greensleeves melody is beautiful and haunting, reminding me of a far away age. Yet, without the the carol's lyrics, the melody is nice but not absolutely memorable.

"What Child is this who, laid to rest, on Mary's lap is sleeping,
Whom angels greet with anthems sweet while shephderds' watch are keeping?
This, this is Christ the King, whom shepherds guard and angels sing.
Haste, haste to bring him laud, the babe the son of Mary."

"Why lies He in such mean estate where ox and ass are keeping?
Good Christians fear: for sinners here the silent Word is pleading.
This, this is Christ the King, whom shepherds guard and angels sing.
Haste, haste to bring him laud, the babe the son of Mary."

I like the second line in this verse, and yet I am not sure if I am interpreting it right. "Good Christians fear." Can you imagine the awe and fear of seeing God in person? And perhaps, if a Christian, of seeing your personal Savior? The fact that He is a little baby makes it even more awesome - that power causing fear. Not fear for our lives, but just immense awareness of something greater than we are. I wonder if those who visited Baby Jesus felt that - did they know how important he was? They knew something, or they would not have come, but did they KNOW? I wonder what it would have been like to have seen Him on that night (or any time as a baby) and carried that one meeting with you your whole life. Did they become Christians later on?

Of course, the second half of the line, "For sinners here the silent Word is pleading." Are the two halves connected? Well, I think so. All Christians are still sinners - so here they are meeting their Savior, the Word, who pleads their case before the Throne of Heaven. I think that would increase my awe and fear, knowing that. And non Christians? Other "sinners?" Well, their case is being plead as well. That is the beauty of the Christmas story.

"So bring Him incense, gold, and myrrh. Come peasant, king to own him.
The King of Kings salvation brings; let loving hearts enthrone Him!
Raise, raise the song on high, the Virgin sings a lullaby.
Joy! Joy! For Christ is born, the babe, the son of Mary."

It was a few years ago that this carol became my all-time favorite. Usually there is one each season, and true enough there are those that I like. But since the words, "King of Kings" popped out at me, I cannot get them out of my head at Christmastime. The King of Kings! The greatest king the world will ever know, and He is just a little baby! It goes back to the awe in the last verse. I can't write more because the feeling those words inspire in me is not one that I can put into words. It's just...wow. This is why I do not write Christmas songs - I am not articulate enough to express what needs to be said about the incarnation. All the awe and power and joy come to earth on one night. It is beautiful!

The amount we give is not judged by the largeness of the gifts but the largeness of our hearts. The poor woman who shares her meager pot of stew with another poor woman is far more to be praised than the rich man who throws a few gold coins into a collection at church. But although most Christians acknowledge the truth of this, their words and actions convey a different message. When a rich man makes a large gift to the church, he is heartily thanked; and although he will not feel the lack of that money himself, he is praised for his generosity. When apoor man makes a small gift, nothing is said; even though that gift may cause him to go hungry, no one praises him or thanks him. It would be better to priase no one than to confine our praise to the rich. Better still, we should take trouble to observe every true act of generosity, whether by the rich or the poor, and then offer our praise. Indeed let us be as generous with our praise as people are generous with their money.

-St. John Chrysostom

Hark! A Carol

Once again as I listen to the Christmas carols playing on the radio this year, I am lulled to sleep by the wonderful beauty not only of the songs but of the messages they convey. So much theology, such a complete story of Christianity, is wrapped up in these simple hymns! And it is so gratifying to hear them play on secular radio stations - what a way to get the message out!

So I am adding some here - to just celebrate their words and to add my thoughts.

"Hark! The herald angels sing,
'Glory to the newborn King!
Peace on earth and mercy mild
God and sinner reconciled!'
Joyful all ye nations rise!
Join the triumph of the skies!
With the angelic voice proclaim
Christ is born in Bethlehem!
Hark! The herald angels sing,
'Glory to the newborn King!"

I think the fourth line says it all here - "God and sinner reconciled!" Why, that's not a statement about the nativity, it's a statement about the cross! It's all about WHY Jesus came to earth - not just the fact that He did. Of course, the joy of the nations sends a powerful message, too. For instance, that Jesus came for the entire world, not just for Israel. Rejoice ye earth!

"Christ by highest heaven adored,
Christ, the everlasting Lord;
Late in time behold Him come
Offspring of the Virgin's womb.
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see,
Hail the Incarnate Deity!
Pleased, as man, with men to dwell,
Jesus, our Emmanuel!
Pleased, as man, with men to dwell,
Jesus, our Emmanuel!"

I love the way this verse emphasizes the nature of Jesus. This is theology at its finest, and from the earliest days of Christianity. Jesus - fully God! - the Incarnate Deity! And also wholly man - a man who chooses to dwell with us!

"Hail the heaven born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Son of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings
Risen with healing in His wings
Mild he lays His glory by,
Born that man no more may die:
Born to raise the sons of earth
Born to give them second birth
Hark! The herald angels sing
Glory to the newborn king!"

This is my favorite verse of all! Once again we have the beautiful names for Jesus and a description of the joy he brings - light and life! But what I love is the incorporation of the Passion into the Christmas story. Here Jesus lays his Glory aside to come to earth as a man. But not only to come to earth, to die! Although the song doesn't talk about Jesus' death specifically, we know that is what it means when it says, "Born that man no more may die." It was his Passion that gave us that everlasting life.

Further, there is a kind of dual meaning of the words saying "Born that man no more may die: born to raise the sons of earth." The words speak of us - men. But they also tell the story of Jesus. He died, so that we would not have to die. And then he raised himself from the dead - and now he will raise us up as well.

This is why I love Christmas songs so much - what a wonderful opportunity to sing or talk about Jesus - and not just baby Jesus - His entire life's work! Because it all started at the Nativity!

When a tailor makes and sells a garment, only one service is performed, that of putting clothes on a body. The same is true of a cobbler making and selling a pair of shoes; the only service in this case is to put shoes on the feet. But when a person makes a gift to another person, of money or some object, a double service is performed. First, the receiver derives a material benefit from the gift. Second, the giver derives a spiritual benefit, because this act of generosity will have brought a blessing to his soul. And there can even be a third service: if the receiver is filled with humble gratitude that will be a blessing to that person's soul. Imagine a society in which no one sold anything, but everyone shared freely their skills and wealth. Then every action in that society would bring not only material benefits, but spiritual benefits also. Such societies already exists in miniature: families operate in this way. How wonderful it would be if villages and towns could become like large families. Then heaven would come down to earth.

- St. John Chrysostom

Thus the joy of continual giving. Imagine if Christmas were all year round. Imagine if we took care of each other - first those closest to us in our families and our friends, and then ever widening our circles. Last year I went to the St. Joseph table at my church, a communal supper and fundraiser to give money to feed the poor in our parish throughout the year. What if each parish had not just one St. Joseph table, but several throughout the year. And it not only fed but clothed and sheltered the needy in the parish. And then perhaps those not "in" the parish, but in the nearby community. How great the world would be if we gave not just on holidays and parties, but all the time!

The Skill of the Rich People

One person has the skill to hammer brass into the most exquisite shapes and to engrave elaborate patterns on to it. Another has the skill to make furniture, joining together different pieces of wood so firmly that no one can break them apart. A third person can spin the finest yarn, while a fourth weaves it into cloth. A fifth craftsman can lay stones one on top of the other to build walls, while a sixth puts a roof on top of the walls to make a house. Indeed there are so many different skills, each one requiring many years to attain, that it would be impossible to list them all. So what is the skill that rich people should acquire? They do not need to fashion brass or wood, or to build houses. Rather, they must learn how to use their wealth well, to the good of all the people around them. The ordinary craftsman may think that that is an easy skill to learn. On the contrary, it is the hardest skill of all. It requires both great wisdom and great moral strength. Look at how many rich people fail to acquire it, and how few practice it to perfection.

- St. John Chrysostom

This was a good challenge for me to read. One way you can read this is in terms of how we serve others. Some people have passions and talents that allow them to volunteer in very hands-on ways. But others, truly most of us in this middle-class society we live in, have financial means to give to those less fortunate. It is possible that there are those in this world whose talents are making money. There is nothing shameful in that. And if they use that money to procure their own security, and make more money, they can give even more money to those in need.

The challenge is in determining how much someone needs. We want to set aside money for the future - for future children, for retirement, or for unforeseen accidents. But hoarding too much money can be greedy and uncessary. So what is a reasonable amount? That depends on the person - we all just have to give some serious thought as to what that is for us.

The Visible Church

"Theology for Beginners" by Frank Sheed has the subtitle of, "A Modern Classic." I feel the title, which appears a little self-serving, becomes a good descriptor of the book. Sheed writes in a way that is easy to understand and conversational, almost in the stylings of C.S. Lewis himself. Further, several gems pop out at you from his writings. I'd like to write a few quotes from one chapter in particular, "The Visible Church" that were "Aha" moments for me.

"There is a feeling that one who makes all his own decisions in religion is freer and more natural. But if a man joins, or remains in, the church because he believes Christ founded it to give us truth and life and union with Him, then it is mere sanity to accept the doctrines and the moral laws it tells us Christ has given it, and the means of life and union. It is not as if we could discover these things for ourselves. We know them on God's revelation or not at all. We must find the teacher authorized by God to teach and accept his authority. The alternative is to go without. And freedom is not served by ignorance."

I feel this is what many people say about "religion" or any kind of structured church. But we all accept teaching from somewhere, even from ourselves. Ultimately it is the Holy Spirit that guides us to truth, but then how can so many people be guided to different truths? It is because we are not looking to the correct teacher. Perhaps we are not able to discern on our own the truth we hear or believe. That is why he says we are not able to discover these things on our own - because even if we searched and studied, we would not be able to discern the truth between different messages without the Holy Spirit.

"She [the church] has had popes who made no fetish of personal holiness, but not one of them has ever tried to reword the law of God to allow for the indulgence of his own temptations."

This is a wonderful apologetic statement for those who use the failures of the popes to reject the Catholic church, and Sheed is absolutely right. There have been popes with mistresses, it is unfortunately true. But none of these popes has come out and said that mistresses are a good thing, a holy thing, or not a sin. Instead, they have had to personally take on the burden and shame of living a double life, but the teachings of the church have remained intact.

In addition, a similar thought really helped me on my road to determining if I should convert. Many people will accuse Catholic teachings of not being biblical, or even being anti-biblical. But the Catholics use the same Bible as Protestants. In fact, it was early Catholics who wrote the Bible we all use today - although the "Catholic Church" did not write individual letters in the New Testament (the apostles did), it chose which letters to include in the canon we now know as the Bible. If the church thought its teachings were anti-biblical, would it not be easier for it to change the Bible itself than to defend its actions? I speak in a general sense here, but specific doctrines do hold up against the Bible, and many hold up better than their Protestant counterparts.

"A medicine must be judged not by those who buy it but by those who actually take it. A Church must be judged by those who hear and obey, not by those who half-hear and disobey when obedience is difficult."

Like the quote above, this quote emphasizes that we are not to say the teachings of the church of a whole are invalid because of the lack of holiness of its members. In fact, we are all less than holy, although some are more holy or unholy than others. Still, any church would agree that they want to be judged by the message they are teaching rather than the actions its members do with the message. And though members of the Catholic Church can fail miserably, but it saints have been inspirations for the entire world.

"It seems so strange that so many Christians think the Apostles fulfilled their commission by writing the New Testament, leaving behind them no successors, nor any need for successors, with the authority the Lord had given themselves. It seems strange, for one reason, that it would mean only five of the twelve had obeyed their Master - Matthew writing a gospel, John a gospel and three brief letters, Peter two letters, James and Jude one each. Not a word written from Thomas, for instance, so ready with his tongue...
It would seem strange for another reason - that the Church Christ founded would be a teaching church only for a half-century or so, in all the centuries since merely a library. Circumstances change and someone must have the authority to apply the teachings to the new circumstances; otherwise they would end up as frustrations rather than teachings. Even in the doctrines themselves there are depths which the believing mind can explore, with all the danger of error but all the rich possibilities of development. With every operation of the unstagnant mind of man upon the truth, the question must arise, "What did Christ mean?"
So it has proved. There is not a word uttered by Christ that has not met a great number of diverse interpretations, some of them intelligent, some immensely attractive, but contradicting each other. How are we to know? Without a teacher - to tell us, beyond the possibility of error, which of the various meanings is Christ's - we should have no revelation but only an ever growing pile of conundrums."

This is a beautiful, clear way of explaining some of the thoughts that went through my head before I decided to become Catholic. There were too many people running around interpreting things differently, and even though some interpretations were very intelligent, they could also be contradictory. I knew that God would no have left us to live in a world of chaos! There had to be A truth out there to find.

Your Possessions Own You

Do you feel upset when you drop a plate or pot and it smashes into tiny pieces on the ground? Do you feel anxious when a strong wind is blowing, and you can hear the tiles on your roof coming loose? Do you feel worried about the crops in your field when it rains so hard that the ground is flooded? Do you feel frightened at night when you hear a door click or squeak, wondering if robbers have come to steal your goods? To feel those things is quite normal. Yet the challenge of our faith is that we become so indifferent to material possessions that nothing of this kind can concern us. Of course, while we remain on this earth, we mus thave plates on which to serve our food, roofs above our heads to keep us dry, crops growing in the fields to feed us, and some basic pieces of furniture in our homes. But if we work hard day by day to the best of our abilities, we can be sure that God will provide what we need. And if something is broken, lost, or stolen, God will decide if and when to replace it.

-St. John Chrysostom

When we live according to the moral principles of our faith, those around us may respond in three possible ways. First, they may be so impressed by the example of our goodness, and so envious of the joy which it brings, that they want to join us and become like us. That is the response which we most earnestly desire. Second, they may be indifferent to us, because they are so bound up with their own selfish cares and concerns; although their eyes may perceive our way of life, their hearts are blind, so we are unable to stir them. Third, they may react against us, feeling threatened by our example and even angry with us; thus they will cling even more firmly to their material possessions and selfish ambitions, and slander us at every opportunity. Naturally, we dread this third type of reaction, because we want to live in peace with our neighbors, regardless of their personal beliefs and values. But if no one reacts to us in this way, we must wonder whether we are truly fulfilling the commandments of Christ.

-St. John Chrysostom

Some people see the houses in which they live as their kingdom; and although in their minds they know that death will one day force them to leave, in their hearts they feel they will stay forever. They take pride in the size of their houses and the fine materials with which they are built. They take pleasure in decorating their houses with bright colors, and in obtaining the best and most solid furniture to fill the rooms. They imagine that they can find peace and security by owning a house whose walls and roof will last for many generations. We, by contrast, know that we are only temporary guests on earth. We recognize that the houses in which we live serve only as hostels on the road to eternal life. We do not seek peace or security from the material walls around us or the roof above our heads. Rather, we want to surround ourselves with a wall of divine grace; and we look upward to heaven as our roof. And the furniture of our lives shoulod be good works, performed in a spirit of love.

-St. John Chrysostom

Pandora's Box

Pope Benedict XVI has always been a strong leader - he does not compromise Catholic beliefs or values for modern trends. In many ways, his positions are more conservative than even his predecessor's, Pope John Paul II. So why did he open a pandora's box this week? Benedict's comments on the use of condoms this week has confused pretty much everyone in the world - Catholics and non-Catholics alike. In fact, it is only a small minority of Catholics, those perhaps most "popish" to begin with, that actually understand what he meant. Like me. I am educated in faith and morals, and after reading story after story in the news, I feel confident that I understand what he was trying to say. But I disagree, in part, with what he said, and in whole with the fact that he said it. I might even go so far to call the comments irresponsible because of the confusion it causes in Catholics, non-Catholics, and pretty much everyone else.

I said "popish" Catholics would understand what the pope meant. What I mean by that are practicing Catholics who are well versed in their faith. They know the rules, they know the teachings. They can read the comment and the comments on the comment and say, "Okay, that's just a clarification of something that was already in place." For instance, a good practicing Catholic who, for a medical reason such as the having HIV, felt a need to use condoms within a married relationship to prevent spreading it to his wife would most likely go to his priest and discuss the matter. The priest would then most likely tell him that, for this case, the use of condoms was justified. And even after the pope's recent comments, most good practicing Catholics would still want to consult a priest about these things.

But the danger for Catholics who are non-practicing or have little knowledge of the church is a misunderstanding of what the church teaches about sex and contraceptives. While the pope positively reaffirmed the church's stance on contraceptives, his comments may be confusing in the effect that it appears he is justifying certain types of relationships. For instance, how can using condoms be justified for male prostitutes when prostitution itself is a sin? For people who call themselves Catholics but don't have a knowledge of church teaching, they may see the pope's comments as an open door policy. Those already practicing sex outside of marriage may see this as the "go-ahead and by the way, please use protection" announcement they were waiting for. In America at least we have a society that hears what it wants to hear, picks up on sound bites, and doesn't bother to research the issues. Even though the Vatican followed up on the pope's comments by saying it still affirms sexual relationships ONLY in marriage, the damage may have already been done.

In addition, the comments are unclear to non-Catholics. The news media, by nature, twists stories and adds bias - it's almost unavoidable. But the fact is, they have already pounced on this story and are spreading it around as though the Catholic church's entire position has changed. In comments posted on news pages I have read cynics complaining that the "infallible" pope was changing his story. While this is juse not the case, it is a very real and serious consequence of the pope's announcement, especially in a world so ready to judge the Catholic church and Christians in general.

The truth is, papal infallibility goes only so far as the pope declares it ex cathedra. This means the pope would have to say that his statement is infallible, and the statement would be much more formal than simply a comment to a reporter. Ex cathedra statements are very rare - most popes only ever issue one and many issue none. When they are issued, they become infallible doctrine in the same sense that the Apostle Peter may have issued a statement on morals. And the church believes these statements to be infallible because we do not think God would have left us with no way to interpret scriptures in light of changing times. All other guidance by the pope is just that - guidance. It guides the church, and Catholics should seriously consider his statements. But it does not mean it has been issued infallibly, nor that it cannot be changed at a later date. The pope's statements this week were most certainly not made ex cathedra, which means he could be just as prone to misjudgment as you or me, which is exactly the reason I take issue with him stating it.

Although, as I said before, his comments do not actually change any of the prior teachings of the church, people jump to conclusions and say that the church is changing its course and therefore they must have been wrong before and are wrong in other matters. That is a dangerous lie to spread.

Finally, I think that the pope's statements dangerously add to the mythical idea of "safe sex." While not condoning sex outside of marriage, the pope has said that "safe sex" is morally responsible. However, the previous stance of, "No condoms at all" was a much safer stance to take when considering the spread of deadly diseases. So many people fall into a trap of believing that just by using condoms they can avoid STD's. The church's position has been like that of a caring parent, warning children that condoms can fail and have dire consequences when they do. Indeed, between 3% (with perfect use) and 17% (with typical use) of condoms fail. The proliferation of this usage in our society is not making the world SAFER from STD's but perpetuating them at a remarkable pace. 3% is about 1 in 33 - how many people would use 33 condoms in a given year, let alone a lifetime? And 17% is close to 1 in 5! Recent studies show that about 1 in 5 homosexual men in America have HIV and other studies say that about 1 in 5 adults of both genders have an STD of some sort. It does not seem a coincidence that the failure rate of condoms is almost exactly equal to the instance of STD's! The idea that not allowing for condom use is somehow dangerous is backwards! Rather than accept 3 - 17% of the population catching deadly diseases, is it not more humane to promote abstinence and fidelity so that 100% of the population can be disease free? Instead, the ready availability of condoms has given people the mindset that they can have "safe" sex, which leads to more sex, which spreads the disease faster and farther.

Consider this final thought. For Catholics engaged in premarital sex, the church's doctrine on contraceptives and condoms is probably the farthest thing from their mind. For if they are going to sin in this sense, why would they strictly adhere to rules that can be seen as adversarial to their health? For this reason alone the pope's comments should not have been necessary. It is like saying, "If you drive drunk, go ahead and wear a seatbelt." Telling someone to do something that "may" protect them, even when they are doing something incredibly dangerous in and of itself, is not going to solve the bigger problem. No, I think the pope opened pandora's box, and I just hope that he finds a way to close it again before too much damage is done.

Hypocrisy

We who are disciples of Christ claim that our purpose on earth is to lay up treasures in heaven. But our actions often belie our words. Many Christians build for themselves fine houses, lay out splendid gardens, construct bathhouses, and buy fields. It is small wonder, then, that many pagans refuse to believe what we say. "If their eyes are set on mansions in heaven," they ask, "why are they building mansions on earth? If they put their words into practice, they would give away their riches and live in simple huts." So these pagans conclude that we do not sincerely believe in the religion we profess; and as a rsult they refuse to take this religion seriously. You may say that the words of Christ on these matters are too hard for you to follow; and that while your spirit is willing, your flesh is weak. My answer is that the judgment of the pagans about you is more accurate than your judgment of yourself. When the pagans accuse us of hypocrisy, many of us should plead guilty.

-St. John Chrysostom

Imagine a carpenter with the crudest of tools. It takes him many days to make a simple table; and its quality is so low that the price he obtains for it is poor. He has a choice: either he can spend all the money he earns on food and drink, or he can set some money aside, even if it means going hungry, in order to buy better tools. If he does the latter, then he will soon be making good tables much more quickly, and so his earnings will quickly rise. This choice is analogous to a spiritual choice that each of us must make. Either we can spend for our own pleasure all the wealth we possess or we can set aside part of our wealth to give to others. If we do the latter, then we may sacrifice a few immediate, earthly pleasures; but the joy we earn for ourselves in heaven far, far surpasses the pleasure we have lost on earth. Every act of charity on earth is an investment in heaven.

-St. John Chrysostom.

Wow, so I have to think about this one a while - that is why I am posting these one at a time anyways. It really speaks to what I have been mulling over tonight, a topic that comes up often. That is, how do we reconcile the way we spend our time or money to heavenly expectations? If I don't watch THAT TV show I am missing out on entertainment and potential bonding with the folks at work. But if I am avoiding something immoral, or am doing something helpful with my time, it is worth it, right? I don't think we have to live a miserable life - that is not what I am saying. But sometimes living a life of a Christian is not as fun as the life others live. How "un-fun" are we willing to go if it means doing the right thing? The thing we know is right? And also, what is the depth to which God calls us on these right things? Is watching a bad TV show really immoral if we are not behaving as the characters on the show? Or does it corrupt our minds? What is hot and cold and lukewarm? How do we know when we've reached them?

Loaning at Interest

When a family falls into poverty, it may be compelled to borrow money in order to survive. But if the lender charges interest on the loan, then that family will fall deeper into the pit: not only will they have to repay the loan but also the interest that accumulates on it. The lender may pretend, even to himself, that he is acting kindly; but in fact behind the guise of charity he is acting with extreme malice. He is trading on the calamities of others; he is drawing a profit from their distress; he is demanding a material reward for an act of charity, and so turning charity into robbery. He seems to be beckoning the poor family into a safe harbor, but in truth he is taking their ship onto the rocks. The lender may ask: "Why should I lend to others money that is useful to me, and demand no reward for it?" My answer is that you shall receive a reward: in return for the gold you lend on earth, you shall receive gold in heaven at a far greater rate of interest than you could ever imagine.

-St. John Chrysostom

In today's banking system, loaning money at interest and investing for interest are common practices and not unethical in most cases. Most money experts agree that taking out a loan on a house is necessary, and that taking out a loan on at least a first car is usually also necessary.

But there are systems that do take advantage of the needy. Payday loan companies appear to offer a quick fix, while really charging exorbitant interest. They take advantage of someone's need to have money fast. They may argue that the high interest is charged to offset the risk, but that is no excuse. Those driven to such places are in the most dire of straits, usually, and they need good financial advice and help, not gimmicks.

Now, on the other side of the aisle are those who borrow. As St. John says, sometimes it is necessary. But think carefully before entering into debt for something! Here is the example from a book I recently read that made it plain to me:

Say you make $30,000 a year, but you find you can't live on it, that you must live on $32,000. So you borrow the $2,000. Now the next year you will (especially in this raise-less economy) also make $30,000. But you will now have to pay back the $2,000. AND you will still have to cover the living expenses you tried to live on last year. So your quality of life just went from spending $32,000 a year to spending $28,000 a year, and that doesn't even begin to calculate the interest! You see the squeeze? If you are going to live on $28,000 a year, it is better to start off that way and save the $2,000 for yourself.

The Art of Being Poor

The sins of the rich, such as greed and selfishness, are obvious for all to see. The sins of the poor are less conspicuous, yet equally corrosive of the soul. Some poor people are tempted to envy the rich; indeed this is a form of vicarious greed, because the poor person wanting great wealth is in spirit no different from the rich person amassing great wealth. Many poor people are gripped by fear: their hearts are caught in a chain of anxiety, worrying whether they will have food on their plates tomorrow or clothes on their backs. Some poor people are constantly formulating in their minds devious plans to cheat the rich to obtain their wealth; this is no different in spirit from the rich making plans to exploit the poor by paying low wages. The art of being poor is to trust in God for everything, to demand nothing - and to be grateful for all that is given.

-St. John Chrysostom

So it is with our society these days - class envy is alive and strong, and it drives people to extremes. We are asked to be content with what we have.

Share what you have, lest you lose what you have. Spend what you possess on the needs of others in order to keep what you possess. Do not cling to what you own, lest it be taken away from you. Do not hoard your treasures, lest they rot and become worthless. Entrust all your wealth to God, because then it is protected against all who want to steal or destroy. Do you understand what these injunctions mean? Or do they sound like nonsense to you? To the person without faith, they mean nothing. But to the person with faith, they make perfect sense. Faith tells us that God alone can supply the material things on which we depend. He gives some people more than they need, not that they can enjoy great luxury, but to make them stewards of his bounty on behalf of orphans, th esick, and the crippled. If they are bad stewards, keeping this bounty to themselves, they will become poor in spirit, and their hearts will fill with misery. If they are good stewards, they will become rich in spirit, their hearts filling with joy.

-St. John Chrysostom

To those whom much is given, much is expected. It is harder to be rich, by far, and so many rich people fail at the test they are given. But those who succeed are charitable and worth of emulation by us all, even those who are "middle class," for are we not rich by the rest of the world's standards? But those who hoard their wealth only want more and more and more and are never satisfied.

Love and Marriage

"In a family the husband needs the wife to prepare his food; to make, mend, and wash his clothes; to fetch water; and to keep the rooms and furniture in the house clean. The wife needs the husband to till the soil, to build and reapir the house, and to earn money ot buy the goods they need. God has put into a mans' heart the capacity to love his wife, and into a omwna's hear the capacity to love her husband. But their mutual dependence makes them love each other out of necessity also. At times love within the heart may not be sufficient to maintain the bond of marriage. But love which comes form material necessity will give that bond the strength it needs to endure times of difficulty. The same is true for society as a whole. God has put into every person's heart the capacity to love his neighbors. But that love is immeasurably strengthened by their dependence on one another's skills."

-St. John Chrysostom

At first glance, this quote may appear old fashioned - fit for the 4th century, in which it was written. But it still holds today. St. John speaks of specifics for a wife's role, but he essentially describes work - hard work. In today's society many women work outside the home, which means they work doubly hard when they get home.

But whether a marriage involves one person working outside the home or two, it is still a teamwork situation. Both wife and husband work for the betterment of the whole.

These days many people find themselves in a twisted version of what St. John is talking about. They play house first, moving in together before they get married. Then, as he mentions, they find themselves unable to break up, both dependent on each other for finances. But without the lifetime commitment, eventually they do part.

In addition, there are married couples who experience the times when "love within the heart may not be sufficient" to hold on. But as women assert their financial independence, they march out of the homes when things get rough, using day care to help raise the children.

The truth is marriage is hard, and there are times when it may seem "easier" to quit. Sometimes people pull through because they believe that marriage lasts forever. Or they need each other financially. Or they are too ashamed to admit defeat. Whatever the reason, they pull through those hard times to better times on the other side, and that's how it is supposed to be.

Because marriage isn't supposed to be all lovey-dovey and romance, but it IS supposed to last forever.

Wages

"Commerce in itself is not bad; indeed it is an intrinsic part of God's order. What matters is how we conduct our commerce. The reason why commerce is necessary is that God created human beings with different ambitions and skills. One person is a good carpenter, another a good preacher; one person can make crops grow in the poorest soil, another can heal the most terrible diseases. Thus each person specializes in the work for which God has ordained him; and by selling his skills, or the goods he produces, he can obtain from others the goods that he needs. The problems arise because some people can obtain a far higher price for their work than others, or because some people employ others and do not pay a fair wage. The result is that some become rich and others poor. But in God's eyes one skill is not superior to another; every form of honest labor is equal. So inequalities in what people receive for their labor undermine the divine order."

- St. John Chrysostom

"Remember how we have all been created. All human beings have a common ancestor. Thus all human flesh has the same substance; there is no difference between the flesh of the nobility and that of peasants. When we commit an act of charity, in which we use our excess wealth to help someone with too little, we are acknowledging our unity with others. After all, the rich and the poor have the same flesh, the hunger of the poor should ccause pain to the rich; and the pain can only be soothed through assuaging that hunger . Sadkly, rich people often speak about charity, expressing their good intentions, but their deeds do not match their words. Good intentions give some cause for hope: they mean that the rich recognize their unity with the poor. Our challenge is to persuade the rich to turn words into actions. Preachers must try to do this; and so also must everyone who has an opportunity to speak to the rich."

- St. John Chrysostom

We do not need to buy air, water, fire, sunshine, and things of this kind. God has given enough of all these blessings for everyone to enjoy them freely. The sun shines equally on the rich and the poor, and they both breathe the same air. Why is it, then, that these necessary things, which sustain life, are created by God for common use, while money is not common? The reason is twofold: to safeguard life and to open the path to virtue. On the one hand, if the necessities of life were not common, the rich, with their usual greediness, would take them away from the poor. In fact, since they keep all money for themselves, they would certainly do the same with these necessities. On the other hand, if money were common and available to all, there would be no opportunity for generosity on the part of the rich and gratitude on the part of the poor.

- St. John Chrysostom

A Message from St. John Chrysostom

A few months ago I decided to read through the "Doctors of the Church," a group of people who were considered to have made a significant theological contribution to Christianity throughout the ages. One of the books I have read was by St. John Chrysostom, a man who lived in the early days of the church and wrote about equity. I enjoyed his work because it was challenging yet doctrinally sound. I would call it a summary of Christian economics.

The book I had broke his sermons into short page-long pieces, and since St. John's works are now considered "public domain" I wanted to reproduce what he said here - it will help me to keep in mind his advice as well as to share some good wisdom with those who otherwise might not seek it.

"The rich usually imagine that, if they do not physically rob the poor, they are committing no sin. But the sin of the rich consists in not sharing their wealth with the poor. In fact, the rich person who keeps all his wealth for himself is commiting a form of robbery. The reason is that in truth all wealth comes from God, and so belongs to everyone equally. The proof of this is all around us. Look at the succulent fruits which the trees and bushes produce. Look at the fertile soil which yields each year such an abundant harvest. Look at the sweet grapes on the vines, which give us wine to drink. The rich may claim that they own many fields in which fruits and grain grow, but it is God who causes seeds to sprout and mature. The duty of the rich is to share the harvest of their fields with all who work in them and with all in need."

Answered Un-Prayers

So here's a question I have been considering. I am a huge believer in the power of prayer - that all prayers are answered, even if the answer is "No." I believe that it is very reasonable that God may want to give us the things we ask for, so long as they are in His best interest and ours. I have no trouble that God CAN answer even the hardest prayer and that he is WILLING to answer prayers for even relatively small things. I don't like to pray for silly things, but I think God can use answers to silly prayers to bolster faith in others.

But here's my question - does God answer prayers we don't ask? I have found this phenomenon appearing with almost regularity in my life. A problem comes up that I either believe is to small to pray about, or that I just neglect to pray over. And yet, the problem resolves itself with miraculous speed. Now, if I didn't have a strong faith, I would call this luck, and I don't really have a problem calling it luck now. But I still wonder if it may be more than that. Is it wrong to think that maybe God is trying to get my attention? To say, "Sarah, you didn't bring this to me, but look what I can do if you would!" A little reminder to bring everything to Him.

Now, whether we believe that God does reach down and solve insignificant problems in our lives or not, there is no reason why we can't be grateful to Him. We are supposed to thank God for all our blessings, and so these answered un-prayers (as opposed to unanswered prayers) are most certainly a cause for thanks! As the Christmas song says, we should go to sleep "counting blessings instead of sheep." And maybe that is the lesson I need to learn today.

Reality TV

I remember the good ol' days when reality TV first hit the scene. People were fascinated by this new genre, although at first it was just an outcropping of what had already been in place. Game shows where people competed for outlandish prizes and talk shows where people were exposed for their good deeds, odd quirks, or outrageous personalities. Still, most people I knew thought the reality TV thing was a phase that would pass. It certainly seemed that way, as soon "Celebrity" editions of popular shows came out, trying desperately to change things up to keep audiences interesting. Still, some of the first shows exist - Survivor and Big Brother, and other shows are always coming and going. Some shows are educational, others are entertaining, and still others are just wrong on so many levels.

This year I have found myself watching some of the shows, despite not having cable and despite not really wanting to. I was just drawn in. But I feel like I could be a great contestant on some of these shows. For other shows, I will have to wait for "special editions" to compete, like:
"America's Next Top Really Really Short Slightly Overweight Kinda Old to Begin a Career Like this and Not All That Attractive to Begin With Model." (also known as "America's Next Top Foot Model" (or hand...or elbow...just not face)
"The Moderate Loser" For those of us who really want to be pushed to lose that extra 10 - 20 pounds
"Dancing With the Regular People."
"Extreme Makeover: Condo Edition" Although I've never seen them demolish a home that is part of a larger block of homes...I don't think I have done anything of merit to qualify for this.
"I Was Smarter than a Fifth Grader when I Was in Fourth Grade."

But I think reality TV should try to do some good in the world, while it is going strong. For instance, instead of all the celebrity editions of everything, these shows should hire people who have been out of work for a long time, to help jump start the economy. Also, some of the TV shows could really serve purposes in psychological research, all they would have to do would be to tweak a few things to make the experiments truly scientific. A show I watched a few times, "Dating in the Dark," claims to be a unique new dating experiment. Well, why not take it up a notch and get some psychology grad students involved in designing the show so that it truly meets the qualifications for an experiment. The same could be said about, "What Would You Do?" This is a great show that puts people in interesting situations and then tests what they would do. It is close to scientific because they change up different variables, one at a time, in order to see if the response changes. Once again, just a few tweaks, and people could write believable research papers on the results. Similar to "Myth Busters," it would be both educational and entertaining, and colleges would benefit from the research funding.

And, of course, the shows could continue the great work they do with charity - shows like Oprah's big giveaway, where people compete to do the most good or like "Extreme Home Makeover." Even normal shows like "American Idol" or "Dancing With the Stars" could incorporate community service - teaching young, at risk, teens how to dance or sing to keep them out of trouble.

And maybe we could get some of the morals back in line with traditional American values, or at least not glorify risky behaviors. Imagine a show about young people choosing to date purely. Or the next episode of the bachelor could (SPOILER ALERT) end with the bachelor rejecting both finalists with a Public Service Announcement type discussion on why we don't enter serious relationships with men who date multiple women at once.

Since reality TV looks like it's here to stay, I just figured these could become incorporated into the genre for the betterment of all Americans.

Silence

I wonder what it would have been like to be an alien watching our planet in the 1940's. Or even an impressionable teenager or pre-teen. The world seemed ready to fall apart, at war for years. Millions were dying. In Europe, a crazy dictator was methodically trying to exterminate an entire race of people. Others, even those who were considered credible in the free world, supported a less drastic measure of "purifying" the world through eugenics. Wars raged on, with no side appearing to win, and all over the globe. Those countries that abstained from the war effort drew into themselves, their populace beginning to seethe with discontent. In or out of the world, things would have appeared hopeless - perhaps to the extent of the end of humanity itself.

If we didn't know it was true, the horror of the Holocaust would seem like a sci-fi or horror film. I saw "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas," and it seemed like some sort of M. Night Shamaylan creepfest, but unfortunately too much of it was based on historical fact (the surprise twist was made up).

And then, a victory - in Europe - that gave hope to the world, but it was short lived hope. How could the Allies rest while there was still a gruesome war going on halfway around the world?

And so it happened in early August, two flashes of light. Boom. Boom.

And then, silence.

If our observer were to watch the next 50 years, it would be as if the entire world took a collective gasp. What was this horror that had been unleashed? And when would it strike next? It was as if the world was waiting.

On the planet, life went on - advances were made in technology, social norms changed, people married and had children, they worked and played. But collectively, the gasp remained. In the silence of space, looking down on the planet our observer might wonder what had happened to make the planet as quiet as the space around it.

And gruesome as the question is, I have to wonder, 65 years later, why there were only two explosions.

While the world gasped at the display of power, the United States stood like a mother separating feuding children. The world was gasping. She was screaming, "Stop!" Like the first time a child gets spanked, the effect was instantaneous and, in the scheme of history, short lived.

Our alien doesn't know that in the quiet the world shivers. Nations race to develop the power to explode these horrendous bombs. But the mother is ready, her arms remain outstretched, weapon in hand, facing her enemy, who also carries his weapon. The parents face off - the children cower behind their legs.

I can't help but wonder what would have happened if it had not been the United States who developed this weaponry first. What if it had been any one of our three main enemies at the time. Would they have used the bombs as a warning signal? Or would they have used them to annihilate their enemies and advance their agenda? I know that history is written by the winners, and that the winners therefore come out as "good." But couldn't you also assign the term "good" to the defenders, rather than the aggressors? In which case, wouldn't the result be the same?

Silence.

After going through the Liberty Memorial, I am even more aware now that we may just be living in the time between two wars. 20 years after World War I, Hitler was still vengeful. 20 years after World War II, the war was still at the forefront of Europe's mind, and C.S. Lewis was always writing about it in the 60's.

And yet, even as the pot starts to simmer again, I wonder if this weapon will ever seriously come back. The mother is watching the kids of her enemy - little children who want to play with their daddy's gun. But mother still has her arms outstretched, ready to defend her children. I think that, even between the adult parents, there was an unspoken agreement not to pull the weapon out again. A decision to take two steps back in that particular scientific advancement to advance the cause of something more important that was threatened by its very existence. Humanity.

A Never Ending Recession

I'm two classes short of a minor in economics, but I do have a Master's in Accounting. And two years into the Recession, I have the same thought about it I did going in. "How did the Great Depression end?" and "Will this not be a self perpetuating crisis?" Frankly, I don't think there is a way out, and it's a good and bad thing. Much like the crisis we have created with healthcare, it is a crisis of our own doing.

Let me explain.

During the recession, people are either out of work or afraid they will become out of work, or they are asked to take a pay cut. As such, they cut back on spending all but the necessities. This causes companies that make "luxury" items (anything that is not clothes, food, houses, cars) to lose revenue and lay people off, adding to the recession. Now, some of these companies struggle as well, because we have found creative ways to make a necessity (car) a luxury (fully-loaded SUV, a new one purchased every two years). So more people lose jobs, less people buy luxuries. I really don't see the cycle ending until we are back to food, utilities, cars, houses, etc. (On the other hand, when the iPad and the Kindle are some of the hottest selling items of the year, can anyone really say that we are in a recession? Perhaps people just traded their annual splurge on a car to a splurge on an electronic device - I could see that).

But there is something, I think, different about this recession than there was about the Great Depression. We actually have enough resources to go around. Yes, there has been an influx of homeless and no structures in place to take care of them, but that is just because shelters take time to build. Americans still produce enough food and clothes and shelter to give everybody the necessities.

Take a simple economy. 100 years ago people spent all day every day making food. Everybody worked and everybody ate. Then someone discovered a way to make twice as much food using half the workers. Now there is a surplus of food, but there is 50% unemployment. The question becomes, how do you distribute food to people who aren't working? So the newly unemployed start being creative. They invent luxury goods and a perceived "need" among the employed. They trade those goods for food. Again, someone refines the process, and the number of employees needed to produce food is cut in half again. Pretty soon, only a small fraction of the population is producing food for the entire population, but a large economy has sprung up to trade non-food luxury items back and forth.

Now, let's look at real history. In the 1950's we suddenly had an influx into the workforce. We always talk about women going to work, but in reality, we mean middle class women. Any perusal of a 19th century novel will show you that women had been working for centuries - either to support themselves or if their husbands could not make enough to support a family. So what we mean by women in the workforce is "women who otherwise would not HAVE to work and still be able to feed their family."

Of course this caused an economic boom. Families' incomes doubled, so they were able to purchase more luxury goods. And these luxury good companies sprung up and hired the additional workforce that had caused such an influx.

Now we are faced with the opposite problem. Baby boomers are starting to retire - which may help our employment numbers. But it also means the largest portion of the population will be scrapped for cash.

But if we think about present unemployment numbers and then walk back to the pre-1950's era, are we really surprised that we now see 10 - 17% unemployment? (17% is the estimated actual unemployment when people who have dropped out of the job market are considered). Would this represent the previously unemployed middle class woman?

I wonder if every married, parenting couple that could affor do to so voluntarily selected a parent (let's be feminist here and say it could be the father OR mother) to stay home with the children, I imagine our unemployment numbers would fade away. Sure, these families may have to downsize and not live the large life they had been living. But look at the alternative. Employment is allocated sporadically across the population. Most families still have two incomes, while young singles right out of college and divorced mothers may have been hit by layoffs. Going back to a pre-1950's model may actually put our economy back in balance. It would just lower our standard of living.

But once again, our standard of living was actually over-inflated. Partially because so many people were living up to their ears in debt (I am still furious at what I see as the majority of American people who put us into this terrible mess and still expect someone else to get them out of it). But also because we had two-income households.

I am not writing this as a sort of action item, although I do think the real benefactors of having single income families would be the children who get to be raised by their parents again instead of corporate day care. I am just pointing out that the economy is a big and complicated monster - prone to cough up problems rooted decades ago. We must face the reality that perhaps our productivity is so good that we can only ever gainfully employ 90% of the population. And we have resources enough for everyone - we are just in the middle of growing pains to discover how to make sure everyone has them.

On 9/11

Sometime in the days after September 11, 2001, my history teach began to ponder the impact of the terrorist attacks in a historical sense. I remember how he analzyed it at the time, that it was not as big an event as the attacks on Pearl Harbor had been. But, he said, we would have to see just what the consequences of the attacks were.

Nine years later, I think he was right to some extent, but he may have undervalued the significance of the attacks. Nine years later we are still involved in the war on Afghanistan and the War on Terror. Nine years later people are still sore and hurting about a mosque being built in New York City. Nine years later the idea of a terrorist attack is more real to us than it ever was before the attack.

Pearl Harbor forced our hands - and it got us involved in a world wide war, and it ultimately resulted in the Allies winning the war. If the War on Terror ever careened to the proportions of World War II (I hope not World War III at all), then it would be comparable.

I also noticed the impact World War II had on those who lived in that time period, and also the impact of World War I. 20 years after World War I, Hitler began the second World War because he was still bitter about the outcome. 20 years after World War II C.S. Lewis was writing books about the war, using Nazis as his example of "bad guys." (Frankly, 65 years later World War II continues to have a lasting impact on us - even those who did not live in that time period. It literally changed the world!)

So we are not even halfway to the midpoint of 20 years to see if this was a defining moment. We are in the middle of a recession that, experts say, will define my generation's spending habits. And my generation is still involved in the Afghanistan war. But in 11 years will we all continue to think of September 11th with the same patriotism and fervor that we do now?

I don't know. And I don't know what answer I would like. I would like to say "yes" because it means we would remember those who died that day and what it means to be an American. On the other hand, to say "yes" would imply the terrorists had won - they had created an "incident" as great and terrible as the attack on Pearl Harbor had been.

But I supose it doesn't matter - in 20 years I will probably still know exactly what 9/11 means on my calendar. But hopefully 11 years from now the terrorists will finally understand what the Japanese learned - don't mess with the USA.

An afterthought: the other day I went downstairs to our cafeteria, and the news was playing. On it was a picture of black, billowing smoke. My immediate thougth was, "Oh no, what have they blown up this time?" The video turned out to be of the oil well explosion in the Gulf. However, it reminded me of the impact 9/11 had on me - an embedded uneasiness about certain things - behaviors of airplanes, clouds of smoke. I don't know when that unease will go away.

A Good Friday

Recently I wrote about a typical Sunday for me. I thought it would be fun to explain my typical Friday. First of all, let me backtrack to the rest of the week. Most nights I get home around 5:00 and aim for bed by 9:00 (so I actually get to bed by 10:00). These days include as long a walk as I can stand, eating dinner, playing computer games, maybe a soak in the tub.

Mondays I volunteer, which I always go to in a crabby mood, dragging my feet. I don't get home until 7:30 or later, which cuts my 5 hours into about 2 (thus the crabbiness).

Tuesdays Kristen is usually home, so I like to talk to her. Sometimes we just sit together in the living room both playing our computers. Sometimes we go out to dinner.

Wednesdays are my veg nights. I have nothing going on.

Thursdays I have puppy class (intermediate dog training, actually).

But Fridays I don't care when I go to bed, because I can "sleep in" or take a nap the next day. So I have a ritual. While the general weeknight pattern takes place, I have a few twists. I eat cheese pizza, for one. I also allow myself any other fun snack - like ice cream or s'mores. Sometimes I rent a movie. But the best part happens at 9:00.

At 9:00 I get into the big poofy red chair and prop my feet up. I have at my disposal a book or my laptop. I also have a nice glass of either wine or Dr. Pepper (in a wine glass, of course, to add to the glamour of it). Then I turn on the TV and watch "Star Trek: The Next Generations" - which I personally think is the least appealing of the four series I have followed in my life, but which I had rarely cared to see when it was airing. I get lost in the sci-fi show, in odd musings, subtle political statements. And, of course, I have my book or computer for the advertisements.

After Star Trek the King of Queens comes on and reminds me of my stay in Chicago - ah, I miss those days!

And I also miss Fridays when I don't get to play this came. I am half tempted to perform the routine tonight, and just risk being crabby tomorrow morning. I haven't decided yet, but I do know that I don't have any Dr. Pepper or wine lying around...

Memorial to Liberty

The first and last things you witness at the Liberty World War I Memorial Museum are striking, overwhelming, and contemplative. For lack of a better description, they are, “Whoah!” moments. And everything in between is like walking through a History Channel special – complete with sounds and music, wafting through the museum, from the video repeating itself at the far end of the exhibit.

The first “Whoah” comes with the entrance video that uses the primitive footage of the day to describe the factors leading up to the first World War. Social, economic, political, nationalistic. Along with ominous drums beating, the video informed us that the pot was boiling. And then, the assassination of the Archduke of Hungary.

What comes next is what makes the entire video worthwhile – the words scroll up too quickly to write down or memorize, but I will summarize from what I can remember. One at a time, in complete silence, the following sentences appear on the screen. “One month later, within the course of a week:” “Russia declares war on Austria.” “Germany declares war on Russia.” “Germany mobilizes its troops against Belgiuim.” “France declares war on Germany.” “Russia declares war on Germany.” “Germany declares war on France.” “England declares war on Germany.” Within a week, the entire world is at war.

The first half of the museum takes you through the first half of the War – when only Europe was involved. You are astonished by the death toll – over 20 million – not just stated, but displayed in various graphs. One in three soldiers die. You see photographs of ancient castles in Europe destroyed. And you peer into diorama trenches to see exactly what trench warfare looked like from a soldier’s point of view and hear him describe his experience. Trench warfare defined World War I – in a little less than a month after the war began battle lines were drawn. Both sides dug trenches and waited. Waited for the other side to lose enough men to give up. For three years, the battle lines barely changed. Meanwhile Germany began to suffer a horrible famine, even as its resources were being sent to the war.

Another moving, although less mind-boggling, video describes the environment in which America entered the war. In short, Germany offered Mexico the Southwest states if they would join the war against the U.S. and convince Japan to do the same. In an act of outrage and self-defense, President Wilson, who had just been re-elected because of his stance of trying to gain peace in Europe while staying out of the war, declared war on Germany. Coming from a museum in Kansas City, MO, USA, perhaps the video was a little one sided. But I couldn't help but be moved by the thought of the Americans coming to the rescue - that it was our entrance into the war that changed the outcome and spelled the beginning of the end.

In fact, after three years of deadlock, the war the Americans entered was fairly fast paced. Just the body count of the troops we sent to Europe drastically outnumbered the German soldiers. Even though Russia pulled out to deal with its own crisis, the Allies still pushed through. Once the war was won, it was interesting to think of what a horror that time period must have been. The dead, over 20 million, were barely buried when a flu crisis swept around the world, killing as many. Communism swept through Russia, causing panic and scare in America. And Germany was left bitter. Even more interesting was learning that England was already setting up a Jewish state in Israel and dealing with Palestinians to negotiate a treaty - a treaty that would be vague and broken and lead to lasting tensions 100 years later.

The museum is set up in a kind of mirror image, and so the last "Whoah" moment came at the end, in a room of quotes. Each quote was on a holographic display, and when you moved around it, you could see who said it and when. The second to last quote hissed, "The deaths of 2 million German boys shall not have been in vain - we demand vengeance." Who said it? Adolf Hitler, 1923. Chilling.

The first time I went to the museum another takeaway was the sheer brutality of the conditions of war. Men lived in trenches filled with icy mud, with very little room. They were dirty, cold, sick, scared. We really have no appreciation for intense pain these days. But then again, not long before World War I, pioneers were travelling through heat and cold to cross the country and living amid bugs, bad water, and dangerous attacks. People were working in dangerous factories and living in dirty slums. Life was just plain harder back then. Add to the distress the sheer pointlessness of the war - a war even experts can't quite agree on why it happened.

But one thing is for certain - although we may not understand why World War I happened, we know exactly what caused World War II. The War to End All Wars did not take the pot off the heat, it just left it simmering.

DiSCover Your Personality Type

Red, yellow, lion, D, C. What do these things have in common? Why, they're personality types, of course! In my short life I have undergone multiple personality tests. They are an almost magical window into the unknown world of me, or anyone else, and yet, they use a simple and accurate method to analyze your deepest desires. You. Unlike horoscopes and bogus personality tests that ask your favorite color, real personality tests ask you to describe yourself in unique ways and by thinking of different situations. And what I find interesting is that the three legitimate tests I know of end up with four basic personality types. Now, I don't know if a Lion and Red and i are all the same thing - I get more confused allocating the animals out. So I am going to talk about a personality system I took last summer, DiSC, because I am most familiar with it, and because my family members have also happened to take this test.

In one sentence or less, the personality types in the DiSC test are:
D - Leader, impatient, results oriented, fast paced decision maker.
i - Politician, personable, chatty, people oriented
S - Loyal, kind, nice, friendly
C - Logical, wants the correct answer.

Note that the i and S personality types are people oriented and describe people that most of us would want to be our friends. The outer two are more results oriented, and they describe traits that many of us would see as key to success. Remember that.

Now, the DiSC test can actually create infinite personality types, but there are 12 main ones. Each person has a most dominant and second most dominant personality trait. For instance, my mom is a CS - Logical but also really nice. The infinite number of traits just depends on the person. Some people have almost even traits - where all four are either high or low. Some people have dramatic differences between their first trait and their second. There is a graph I filled out for myself, but just imagine each trait being assigned a number, and the higher the number, the more of that trait you have. But the 12 main ones are the combinations of the strongest and second strongest trait for any given individual. And that is what we were asked to look at when learning about our personalities.

So if there are 12 traits, we end up with 2 traits being predominantly results oriented (non-social), and 2 traits being predominantly people oriented - DC, CD, iS, Si. Assuming that personality traits are evenly distributed across the population (which they very well may not be) that results in 1 in 6 having very few people skills and 1 in 6 being incredibly people oriented. When I think of this, it makes sense. Most people are just normal, but get a group of friends together and you will ultimately have one wallflower and one social butterfly (unless the group is of 12 people, in which case you will have two of each, and so on).

Now, I wanted to blog about this, because I want to bring it up later. In addition, I think it's important to be aware of the different personalities and what they bring to the table. Their strengths and weaknesses. I think everyone should participate in a personality study (not just the test - there should be some formal or informal learning ABOUT the different personalities as well, not just your own) at some time in their life. Many companies promote these as well. But your personality types affects how you see the world. I, unfortunately, am of the 1 in 6 with double no-people-skills personality whammy. DC. That is not an excuse for me to be rude or anything, but it helps me understand some of my difficulties in working with people. I also wish more people would attempt to understand the DC's and CD's.

When I was learning about the DiSC personalities, our instructor divided us into groups by strongest trait, so I was with the C's (my test was wrong the first time I took it, but my CD numbers are similar). It was fun working with like-minded people to answer the instructor's questions. (I also had fun pointing out when my C's were acting like D's "Let's just answer the question and keep going." Because I was at a training for accountants, there were quite a few C's that had strong D traits and, I assume, vice versa). Right before this exercise I had been complaining to a friend that the i's ruled the world. Even though we all went through these nice little personality sessions, at the end of the day we were all expected to talk to each other and behave like i's. During show and share my worst fears were confirmed. When asked how their personality group could change and be aware of other personality types, the i's said, "We don't change for other people. Other people change for us."

A year later, I am still exhausted by this mentality. Being an i is a self-perpetuating talent. At some point you were accepted in a large peer group, you developed skills for engaging with lots of people (I think i vs. S may have a little to do with those who prefer a large circle of friends vs. a smaller circle). And now you will always have a large circle of friends because you have a sort of magnetism. You are popular.

I wonder if there was ever a time where the "popular" or "admired" personality type was a D or C. I think, perhaps, during the times of the Greek philosophers C's were admired and respected. D's or Di's are probably in their prime in times of war - when great leaders need to take charge. (Now a Di or iD is probably a politician, and you can see how respected those are). And some personality traits are gender linked, too. I don't think there are more female S's than i's, but if you have the people personality, I think women are expected to behave more like S's, while men are expected to behave more like i's.

Ultimately I have never walked away from a personality session without being cognizant that it takes all four types to really get anywhere - whether we have that in people with two strong traits or a mix of one strong trait for everyone. I just wish the world at large would begin to recognize the contribution of the D's and C's.

Letters to Malcom: Chiefly on Prayer

For C.S. Lewis to write a book on prayer would have been too hard. It would have been boring, dull, and full of claims he could not substantiate. So instead he wrote, "Letters to Malcom" (by the way, I know the correct grammar for a book title is to underline it, but because of limited formatting here on the internet, I put the titles in quotes, I hope you don't mind). These were imaginary letters to an imaginary (I assume) friend in which Lewis discussed his thoughts on prayer and many other things. How fun would that book have been to write! Not only did he put down all the thoughts he wanted to convey to the general public in the letters, but he had to imagine what the response of his dear friend had been and so formulate his writing. It is not, I think, unlike when I write and wonder what some of my close friends would say in response to my ideas or opinions and then try to address such objections or comments before they are made.

It was, I believe, a quote from C.S. Lewis in a different book on prayer (but by Philip Yancey) which taught me that we can pray for past events, so long as we do not know the outcome. I heard once of a man who said, jokingly I believe, that he always prayed his parents would meet or that a great Christian writer would be converted. But this was silly, since he knew the positive outcome of both. While he could pray in thanksgiving for the occurrence of the events, intercessory prayer was no longer needed. On the other hand, if his friends had handed him St. Augustine's "Confessions," and he had proceeded to read it, knowing nothing of Augustine but only that he truly lived, it would seem reasonable to pray for his conversion, until one had finished the book and found that said conversion had, indeed, happened. As he said, our prayers are answered from eternity (no matter what the answer is) - because God is outside of time as we know it.

Another mind-boggling concept that Lewis put forth in his book was about our attitude toward prayer. It's hard, isn't it? I mean, he blatantly stated that many times we rush through it, get distracted easily from it, or do it out of a sense of obligation. I have been driven to distraction by how much I am distracted at prayer. But Lewis also adds an excellent point - perhaps the times when we pray because we feel obligated to, or when it is hardest to do so because we are tired or distracted or bored, are the times when our prayers are most pleasing to God. Don't get me wrong, I think we need to cultivate a joy of prayer and focus on developing our relationship with God. But it makes perfect sense that it doesn't make sense to pray, especially if you don't enjoy it. So forcing yourself to do something unpleasant is a true sign of belief, of faith, of desire to please God. Think about it - a man who is scared for his life may pray very earnestly and without distraction even if he has never prayed before. Another man may dutifully sit in his room twice a day to speak to the Almighty, even when he'd rather be fishing or reading or eating or sleeping. Doesn't the second man show more of a devotion? A desire to cultivate a relationship?

Another point he makes is that ready-made prayer and home-made prayers have a blurry line between the two. Some people look down on ready-made prayers, when in reality, the Lord's Prayer is one of the most popular prayers of all time (and rightly so, given its context). But Lewis also points out that many times our prayers become formulaic, whether we mean for them to or not, and sometimes they become outright repetitive. So is a home-made prayer recited every night any better than someone else's prayer recited every night? Wouldn't it be the heart behind the prayer that matters more than who came up with the original words? I have also heard that some repetitive prayers serve more as a meditation tool - to be background noise to the heart as the heart works out its own prayer, whether that prayer be with words or not.