Author: Michele Minehart (Page 311 of 311)

lessons from a bag lady (you will need to have seen rent to understand this)

it seems quite incredible the depth of thought that can come from watching rent for the 9 millionth time. i was watching the deleted scenes with the directors comments (because when you watch it so much, you need some flair), and there was a scene in which Mark the camera man and Roger the musician have an argument, which i had long since forgotten was in the musical version. but basically, angel had just died and roger didn’t want to be around when mimi dies and mark calls him out on it. of course, the entire argument is sung.
anyway, as a way of turning the attention from his own shortcomings, roger redirects the fight toward mark. he says, “what about you?” then he launches into a solo about how mark is always saying “you must feel for the people” but in actuality he hides behind the camera.

then, while watching the movie as the director released it, i stumble upon the scene where the gang is outside and a bag lady is getting pushed around by the cop (this is right before Santa Fe, for those of you following along at home). mark, with camera ever ready at the helm, says, “smile officer…” and the cops just tell the bag lady she needs to move it. but then, the bag lady just launches into mark! she says something along the line of “you an artist? you artists always ready to [paraphrasing here: make a case out of my life’s conditions”]. THEN she says, “artists got a quarter? that’s what i thought.” [because they don’t have a quarter. they’re poor. they can’t pay the rent, thus the theme song and purpose of the movie.]

and you’re thinking to yourself, “umhumm. so?”

and i say to you, what a tragedy.

it’s a tragedy when you become so familiar with life’s pitfalls and difficulties that we don’t begin to search for ways to find more quarters. instead, the approach is usually to use someone’s life as an example of why this or that ought not to be.

if you’ve ever worked in a job that required you to connect on an emotional level with people, you know the dangerous dance (almost a Tango Maureen) that is the love and help you show people versus your own mental and emotional sanity. knowing your limits. knowing whats best and how to truly help a person. dangerous dance. but i’m wondering if sometimes we allow ourselves to veer to the side of safety- get behind a videocamera- simply because it’s too hard to go there with that person. that we want to feel as if we’re doing something to make the wrongs right, but in actuality we haven’t identified ourselves with those who are hurting at all.

this is a really long post that is going to leave a lot of people disappointed when it comes to no real conclusion. all i know is that, 5 hours after watching the movie, it has me all keyed up. i’m wondering what my video camera is. i’m wondering who i identify with (because that’s the essence of mark and roger’s adventures- they have the ability to do more but choose to live where and as they do because they want to “fight the larger powers that be”)- who do i want to identify with but really i just know a lot about them. who is saying, “stop writing blogs of ungodly length and just give me a quarter!”

*ps, though i love comments, please refrain from using the “give a man a fish/teach a man to fish” argument. this isn’t about economics. it’s about compassion. we’ll save the fishing for another day.

what is love? baby don’t hurt me…

“Mostly what God does is love you. Keep company with him and learn a life of love. Observe how Christ loved us. His love was not cautious but extravagant. He didn’t love in order to get something from us but to give everything of himself to us. Love like that.” (Ephesians 5:1-2, Mes)

I think i’ve returned to this passage 78 times this summer. Maybe that’s an exaggeration. 72 times. And every time I come to it, it just rocks my world. Love extravagently. Love so that you give, not get. Ouch.
I know Paul wasn’t pointing fingers… but he seems to be. I want to be a person of love- i see them all around me and that’s what i want to be. I think i could be good at it if i was able to choose my targets. I could love soraya in a way that gives instead of gets. but then again, she offers me so much joy by loving her that maybe it’s a selfish love, too. it reminds me of that episode in friends where phoebe says there’s no such thing as an unselfish deed… that we only do good things because we like feeling good about it. sometimes i wonder if i love when it’s hard not because i’m a loving person but because i know i “should” or it’s the thing to do.
but i don’t want to be a person who simply follows through on orders. i want to be a person of love and compassion… someone who loves extravagantly, not just enough to make the other person feel loved. not just enough to be a good wife, sister, daughter & friend, but with so much love that it can only come from God himself.
so i ask (rhetorically, of course), why do i have so much problem loving in such a way? why do i stop just before jumping off the selfless cliff? what fears me? because we know, thanks to john the first, that there is no fear in love because perfect love casts out all fear. so what am i scared of?
a good shrink would probably tell me i’ve been wounded in the past. whatev. i can’t recall any deep woundings. if anything, i think i had a wonderful example of selfless love in my father. but i can’t seem to want to make the plunge into a life centered on God and flowing with love simply because God finds joy in the things that i love (ie: people). they’re God’s creation and i should love and cherish them for basically no other reason…
once again, a process.
i’m trying, i really am.

purpose

tonight at journey we talked about PSaul’s conversion (thanks, tyler, for that crafty way of getting around the “what name do i use?” issue). lots of great discussion, but it left me with a few parting, interwoven, thoughts. First, as 21st century Americans, we typically value Psaul for his contributions in building the church. a great contribution it is! he built what we now function from… i’m a psaul fan, so the following comments are in no way a slander to psaul’s glorious work for God. But God didn’t love Paul because of what Paul did for God. God loved Paul because God is love. God loved Paul for the man he was and for the man he was to become. In our task-driven, workaholic culture, i think we walk a dangerous line of valuing people because of what they can do for us. one of my professors often said we tend to make the people around us either scenery or machinery. we use them to make ourselves look better or to make us more functional. But God doesn’t do that. He doesn’t see his children only as a means to carrying out what is going on in his mind. He loves us for who we are before he loves us for what we can do. i work at a place that does outsource recruiting and hiring. basically, we find good people for jobs. God does not work at RTi. God does not look through our resume of activity and decide which of my experiences will be most beneficial for the position he has open for changing the world. he doesn’t see that i have a bit of church-work experience that would fit well for what he’s looking for. God doesn’t dig around and find something useful for him. as jim said, God was quite brilliant in having Paul as his man for forming the church. but i think it’s bigger than that. God didn’t see Paul as the perfect candidate. God created the perfect candidate in Paul. which brings me to another thought… God loved paul because God created him. and (*important nugget of personal information: i do not typically veer closely to the edge of pre-destination. I believe God gave us the power to love him by giving us the gift of free will and choice. so what i’m about to say has large implications knowing where i began…)when we consider the idea of “God’s plan for your life” and “God’s will” i think we often only think of our usefulness to God. where can i serve, what can i DO for God. we forget that God is creating us and renewing us to be his children. that his plan for us began long before we conceptualized His plan. if you were to ask Saul pre-damascus trip, i’m sure he would have told us that he was following God’s will for his life. but after an encounter with jesus, that understanding of God’s will changed. God’s will didn’t… Psaul’s understanding of it did. i’m sure there’s more to this, but this is a good ending spot. perhaps more another time?

Newer posts »

© 2026 Michele Minehart

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑