Today I am posting various artwork to create an online stations of the cross for my church. There are many interesting images that I found as I googled the various stations, great images pointing to racism, sexism, discrimination, but done in ways that so often offered chances at redemption, showing a God whose humanity was bigger than any way we can divide ourselves. Yet, there was one that stood out and hit me hard.
When looking for something for Station 9: Jesus meets the women of Jerusalem, I googled images based on the words Jesus do not weep for me and found something striking: a number of pictures of Miley Cyrus on the first page. What does this have to do with Jesus and the women of Jerusalem?
Luke 23 includes the text for this station:
A great number of the people followed him, and among them were women who were beating their breasts and wailing for him. But Jesus turned to them and said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For the days are surely coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.’Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us’; and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?”
I can't say exactly why Miley Cyrus ended up connected to this or even if the connection is direct. It could as easily just be someone who is upset by what they think she has become as some connection to the scripture. Either way though the idea of Jesus weeping for or because of Miley Cyrus seems a bit off.
Yet, this is often the stuff we weep over, things that happen within the culture where we assume we have the answers for another. We claim we weep for the future, for our children who are growing up in a land of lawlessness and sexualization, yet we don't trust God to be in control, we want to make the decisions on what Jesus should cry over.
"Jesus, do not weep for me, but for those who see something good in this celebrity..."
"Jesus, do not weep for me, but for those who follow this type of politics..."
"Jesus, do not weep for me, but for those who hear your voice saying something I don't..."
"Jesus, do not weep for me, but for those who live differently..."
Yet, when we do this we become those who decide for Jesus, and thus for others, who they are, what they should be, and how they should live. Jesus chooses to continue his journey to death in this story. He does not ask for mourning, instead warning us that if those close to Jesus could not see what God was all about, how could those who do not have Jesus as a reference to God living in the world.
Those who could not see who Jesus was were afraid of him, afraid that his choices would damage their place in the world. They believed that a world without Jesus was one they could control, but we have seen time and again that God is the one in control. We cannot choose who Jesus weeps for, because Jesus weeps for all whom God loves that are not with Jesus and for those who will not discern what God is doing in their own lives and in the world. Jesus doesn't weep because he's worried about others, but because of pain in his heart.
We cannot know the heart of another, just those women could not understand why Jesus was at peace with the path he was walking. We so often want Jesus to weep over the choices of another so that we can feel that Jesus is patting us on the back for not being like them. Yet, we see time and again that God's way is one of surprising love and grace for those who society, even religious society (often especially religious society), outcasts and despises. Not just those weak due to station in life, but also those weak due to their own choices, those who seem far from God are often closer than we'd like to think.
So let us go forth this Good Friday, not seeing ourselves as those who are right, or with the answers, but as those who do not live as Jesus did. Those who weep due to worry, not do to pain. Those who want control, and in wanting control have let the wood become dry, falling short of being the church that gave all, short of the God who gave all, short of the call we received upon creation. May we weep for ourselves, but then may we remember that this weeping is not forever, for we are the ones called to join Jesus in bringing about this new world. A world of love, a world of diverse ways coming together as God brings us together in Christ's image, not as we make others into our image.
Showing posts with label Faithfulness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Faithfulness. Show all posts
Friday, April 18, 2014
Saturday, December 28, 2013
NEW
Happy New Year! It is time for a new start. Of course that start is built on everything that has happened before and as much as we'd like a reset button, there just isn't one on life. So we start anew mentally, but in reality we're continuing on a path that has been moving forward since well before we ever were part of this physical existence.
Yet, all things are becoming new. That is where the path takes us, towards something new, something God intends that we have yet to fully be able to understand. So we peak at the things we see that may speak to what God is up to. We look at a world that is changing rapidly around us and we remember that our God tells us time and again "Do not fear" even as we wonder what all these new things mean for us. We are told this because God does have a plan, which will happen regardless of our willingness to go with it.
Yet we're reminded that faith(fulness) is all about discerning and acting along with the ways of God. So that means placing others before ourselves, looking out for all in need, and pursuing justice in God's name. It means being part of our community, not just the community of faith, but part of the world that is God's community of faith, God's world made up of all of these different people, all of whom are as much in God's image as you or me.
Many of you heard me talk about the "new" paradigm. This is a place where God's relational relevance needs to be at the forefront of who we are. We are to be people who are making all things new. Who are moving forward in the ways of God. We don't know exactly what the end looks like and we cannot assume to be able to understand that end, but we can act as we are able in the here and now trusting that God knows what "New" really looks like.
May we make the New Year not a beginning or an end, but a commitment to doing things that make the world and ourselves new everyday. We're all in this together.
Yet, all things are becoming new. That is where the path takes us, towards something new, something God intends that we have yet to fully be able to understand. So we peak at the things we see that may speak to what God is up to. We look at a world that is changing rapidly around us and we remember that our God tells us time and again "Do not fear" even as we wonder what all these new things mean for us. We are told this because God does have a plan, which will happen regardless of our willingness to go with it.
Yet we're reminded that faith(fulness) is all about discerning and acting along with the ways of God. So that means placing others before ourselves, looking out for all in need, and pursuing justice in God's name. It means being part of our community, not just the community of faith, but part of the world that is God's community of faith, God's world made up of all of these different people, all of whom are as much in God's image as you or me.
Many of you heard me talk about the "new" paradigm. This is a place where God's relational relevance needs to be at the forefront of who we are. We are to be people who are making all things new. Who are moving forward in the ways of God. We don't know exactly what the end looks like and we cannot assume to be able to understand that end, but we can act as we are able in the here and now trusting that God knows what "New" really looks like.
May we make the New Year not a beginning or an end, but a commitment to doing things that make the world and ourselves new everyday. We're all in this together.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Redemption not just Salvation
The work of God is one of Redemption. Sadly we often replace this with a cheap salvation. God's redemption is relational, but it is also one that involves all of creation becoming like God intended. This salvation that we too often speak of is personal, but it ends there, with the individual.
The pitfalls of a God who is only focused on individuals are many. We may become focused on comparing ourselves to others, judging their actions while excusing our own. We can become focused on rejoicing in our own perceived ends and fail to see God asking us to help in the struggles of our world. We might see this world as nothing more than that which is here for us, personally, as reward for being "God's chosen." All of these have a commonality - a focus on self.
We must realize that Jesus tells us time and again that it's not about us, but about Love and service. The call to love others and serve them as if they are God is what Jesus speaks of when he speaks about separating sheep from goats. Of course none of us always see everyone and treat them as we would if they were God incarnate. This means we're all goats, aiming to be good goats, but goats covered by grace regardless. So, if we are all goats, and if all are to be seen as God incarnate as well, then we end up right back at Redemption. We're all working as God, for God, covered by God, who is working to redeem and renew everything through our labors and God's grace. This is the core of our faith, the work of redemption as seen in Jesus Christ, God incarnate and continuing through us who are called by that name.
The pitfalls of a God who is only focused on individuals are many. We may become focused on comparing ourselves to others, judging their actions while excusing our own. We can become focused on rejoicing in our own perceived ends and fail to see God asking us to help in the struggles of our world. We might see this world as nothing more than that which is here for us, personally, as reward for being "God's chosen." All of these have a commonality - a focus on self.
We must realize that Jesus tells us time and again that it's not about us, but about Love and service. The call to love others and serve them as if they are God is what Jesus speaks of when he speaks about separating sheep from goats. Of course none of us always see everyone and treat them as we would if they were God incarnate. This means we're all goats, aiming to be good goats, but goats covered by grace regardless. So, if we are all goats, and if all are to be seen as God incarnate as well, then we end up right back at Redemption. We're all working as God, for God, covered by God, who is working to redeem and renew everything through our labors and God's grace. This is the core of our faith, the work of redemption as seen in Jesus Christ, God incarnate and continuing through us who are called by that name.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Missing the Mark of Faithfulness
Those who know me know I think Pistis is best defined as faithfulness, which I understand as being the act of discerning what God wants one to do and the willingness to do it. So what does that mean for Hamartano?
Hamartano is understood to be "missing the mark" initially in archery, but then applied to other aspects of life, and in faith became "Sinning." So if the mark we miss is Pistis, then Sin becomes either "not discerning God in what we do" or "not acting on what we have discerned." Both of these options are things that would be hard if not impossible for anyone but the primary party to fully know.
Thus when we focus on the personal "Sin" of others, we ourselves are missing the mark of faithfulness that points throughout gospel and all stories of scripture to Justice as our primary call. Only in a just world may we even begin to be able to see others actions through shared lenses of faithfulness. As long as the world is not just, we can never clearly see the movement of God in another.
So if we are to believe God's grace is limitless, we must seek that which makes it up within ourselves: justice, love, peace, and mercy. Seeking those things of God and then acting upon them is at the core of Pistis and thus we must place them first in all we do. We may never fully accomplish this and avoid Hamartano, but when we realize this tension is inherently personal, it allows us space to more clearly see God acting in the world and seek to join in that work of bringing about God's kingdom today that is so central to our faith.
Hamartano is understood to be "missing the mark" initially in archery, but then applied to other aspects of life, and in faith became "Sinning." So if the mark we miss is Pistis, then Sin becomes either "not discerning God in what we do" or "not acting on what we have discerned." Both of these options are things that would be hard if not impossible for anyone but the primary party to fully know.
Thus when we focus on the personal "Sin" of others, we ourselves are missing the mark of faithfulness that points throughout gospel and all stories of scripture to Justice as our primary call. Only in a just world may we even begin to be able to see others actions through shared lenses of faithfulness. As long as the world is not just, we can never clearly see the movement of God in another.
So if we are to believe God's grace is limitless, we must seek that which makes it up within ourselves: justice, love, peace, and mercy. Seeking those things of God and then acting upon them is at the core of Pistis and thus we must place them first in all we do. We may never fully accomplish this and avoid Hamartano, but when we realize this tension is inherently personal, it allows us space to more clearly see God acting in the world and seek to join in that work of bringing about God's kingdom today that is so central to our faith.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Love is Logical
When I look back over my life there are some key things that most every girl I ever liked had in common. On the other hand I can also look back and see some great people who really liked me that I wouldn't even give the time of day. What was it that kept me from being attracted to these girls? In reality, I just wasn't, I had a very specific type of personality and physical look that would keep my attention and moved me romantically. I couldn't then, and can't now logic being attracted to others in that way. Of course at one time that inability to logic attraction made me wonder how ANYONE could be attracted to those who I wasn't. As I though came to a greater understanding of how we communicate and began to better see the world through others eyes, I saw that everyone had things that they were attracted to, but they weren't always the same things.
I now feel this is THE most reasonable argument for why same sex attraction is normal. It's not that everyone should be, but that some just ARE. It is what they are romantically interested in, just as I have only certain people who attract me, they do too. There is no difference. So if you are to tell someone not to be attracted to those of the same sex, you are also saying that you shouldn't limit who you're attracted to by anything other than a set of external rules. I'm not even sure how we could determine these external rules. It's just illogical to think that we should all only be attracted to the exact same people. I have never seen anything that makes that seem realistic.
Why do I use this as my core argument? Because it is all the same love. Beyond the complexities of Gender Identity, Roles, Physical Sex, and all of that, who we're attracted to is just that, a short list of people that is different for every person. It is just how we all do it, regardless of where we may fall on a spectrum. I can argue with you from a theological standpoint, from a justice standpoint, from a legal standpoint, from any number of other standpoints, but this simple idea to me seems the most universal to all. Even if you're not attracted to anyone at all, you know what you don't feel. Why can we not understand that this just is what it is, and we can't really just go change it?
I tried after my divorce to date a few people different than my ex, mostly physically different but also personality. My wife now is physically similar, and in some core places is almost the same, same with her personality, there are differences, but there are some key similarities. I know for some these core attractions do adjust over time, but we all I think can find some patterns either throughout life or within a season of life.
I don't care what you think about people's actions, there is a serious issue with judging who a person is attracted to, regardless of if that judgement is based on gender or personality or a person's look. It is like judging another for other differences in thought, such as if you were to judge me because I'm an aspie and can't think the same way as "most" or judging me for what I choose to eat because I am a diabetic. I do not fit simply into either of these boxes, and to simply use your experience with others who are labeled with these labels to define me is unfair and judgmental These are both complex situations I find myself in that I have to work with. But they are more than illnesses or disorders, they are part of me, part of a full me, a core me, a real me that is as real and complete as any other.
Equality is not as simple as the rights to do what others get to do. To allow all legal rights does not make us equal. What makes us equal is seeing all people as complete people and treating all that way. That means there is no one set of rules that will always make everyone fit, that is actually the core of a relational theology. God is three and God is one in relationship. All three are different, but they are all fully God. It is the same for us, we are each individual, but it is in our relationships with others who are different but still fully human that we ourselves can be fully human ourselves.
Let people be who they are. No law is going to change us, we have to change us. We have to see people as fully equal to us if we want to move forward and bring the kingdom. Time to get rid of the fear and embrace the same love one for another that we have been given since creation when we were made in the image of Love.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Frisbee and Faith
Tonight while playing Ultimate Frisbee there was a moment that reminded me a lot of what I've seen going on through social media with my the PCUSA. In this blog I want to present a series of quotes (as I best remember them) that I heard there and how I've seen them at play in my denomination recently.
First some background: I've played with the same basic group of people for the last 5 years. Some members have come and we've added some new ones but there has always been a core group that had come together just to have fun and play. We've had a few come in with different views of what "fun" was but they tended to come and go fairly quickly. Recently the always open invite has brought a large group of diverse points of views, and tonight the core group was certainly a minority. A number of college and club players were there as well as others who "want" to fit into that world.
So that is where we start. And it doesn't take long for tensions to increase and interactions such as the following to begin. (all expletives are adjusted out)
"You can take it out and bring it back in"
"Sorry, that's not how we play here"
"Cut IN, Why won't you cut?"
"Because that's a normal throw to make."
"Not if you're REALLY playing"
"Well that's how we play"
"Stack"
"What's that?"
"UGH!"
These types of interactions I find common in the PCUSA. It's like we're speaking two different languages and the longer we don't feel like others are getting what we're trying to say, the more agitated we get.
Finally after some comment that I did not hear one of the core group (we'll call him Kurt) started picking up the cones (his) and running off. The rest of the core group also slowly faded to the sidelines. As Kurt ran away from the field he yelled "Who do they think they are, they came to play in OUR game!" One of the other players yelled back "We're just trying to play the right way." At that point the rest of the core group outside of me left as well (mostly just uncomfortable with what happened).
I again see this time and again in PCUSA. Take our toys and go home? Sure. Tell people that they need to get with the "right" way to do things or to think? Sure. Yell it back and forth because both sides have decided to hold their ground at all costs? For Sure!
As they left, a series of questions and comments came my way as we made use of waterbottles and hats as cones.
"You've played with them the longest, what was that about?"
"Let them go, let's just play"
"Seriously, are they always like that?"
"I've never seen them that way, what's going on?"
"That was uncalled for"
I wasn't sure what to say. No one really wanted the answer it didn't seem ("You've taken what they saw as fun and made it something they don't recognize without really including them in the changes." "Why they are here doesn't mix with this well without first feeling like you respect who they see themselves as")
Yet, so often I feel like that's what I'm called to try to explain within my church and denomination. Why does one side not see the world the way another side does on an issue or as we tend to camp together with like thoughts as a general worldview.
Both sides didn't want to dialogue, they didn't want to work together, they wanted what they wanted and wanted it now because they both felt like they had the "right" answer and the "right" to dictate how things should be. They wanted to poke holes in what the other side wanted and prove to them why they should change. They didn't want to hear a different viewpoint and then find a way to move forward and find what would be what things "should" be for the good of all. Yes, the good of all may have ended the same way, but really there was no desire to do so.
So often this is exactly what I hear. I work with a conservative Head of Staff who really wants to dialogue but gets defensive because he's been attacked so often. I tweet regularly with people who consider themselves progressive and liberal who likewise take up defensive stances from the attacks they've suffered. I can't blame either side for being defensive honestly from a cultural point of view, but I feel we're called to be counter cultural as the church. So how do we begin to actually dialogue, discern, and live faithfully together into whatever the future will bring? We're far from it, our current GA thus far seems to be pointing to a culture much like our Frisbee game. Some are tired of fighting, some are very much standing their ground, some are stuck and unwilling or more likely unable to help anyone move forward. Regardless of what you want for the church, we need to move against the culture of "us" vs "them" and show another way to struggle with things that are divisive and with worldviews that just do not match up.
In Acts 10, Peter sees a vision of a sheet and it is filled with things that he correctly labels as unclean, yet God gives him a new way to interpret what he sees. It is not a simple revelation, it is one we see many struggle with over time: "Do Not Call Common (Unclean) What God Has Purified." I believe we all have sheets, some of them include people we disagree with, some include actions we find unforgivable, some include things we don't understand in others lives, but we all have a sheet. We need to realize that God has created all of us in God's image and God is always working towards unknown ends. That will always leave us with a certain uncertainty, and it is that uncertainty that we need to focus on. We don't have the answers, we're just asked to struggle together towards that distant, hazy goal that is beyond all the stuff that we have to get through to get there. Let us focus on struggling together, realizing we don't KNOW anything about what is going to happen or how it is going to happen and live at peace with the uncertainty of "What's Next" or even "What Now." If we are able to do that we may have a chance to do discernment together and be something more than people fighting over how to play a game.
First some background: I've played with the same basic group of people for the last 5 years. Some members have come and we've added some new ones but there has always been a core group that had come together just to have fun and play. We've had a few come in with different views of what "fun" was but they tended to come and go fairly quickly. Recently the always open invite has brought a large group of diverse points of views, and tonight the core group was certainly a minority. A number of college and club players were there as well as others who "want" to fit into that world.
So that is where we start. And it doesn't take long for tensions to increase and interactions such as the following to begin. (all expletives are adjusted out)
"You can take it out and bring it back in"
"Sorry, that's not how we play here"
"Cut IN, Why won't you cut?"
"Because that's a normal throw to make."
"Not if you're REALLY playing"
"Well that's how we play"
"Stack"
"What's that?"
"UGH!"
These types of interactions I find common in the PCUSA. It's like we're speaking two different languages and the longer we don't feel like others are getting what we're trying to say, the more agitated we get.
Finally after some comment that I did not hear one of the core group (we'll call him Kurt) started picking up the cones (his) and running off. The rest of the core group also slowly faded to the sidelines. As Kurt ran away from the field he yelled "Who do they think they are, they came to play in OUR game!" One of the other players yelled back "We're just trying to play the right way." At that point the rest of the core group outside of me left as well (mostly just uncomfortable with what happened).
I again see this time and again in PCUSA. Take our toys and go home? Sure. Tell people that they need to get with the "right" way to do things or to think? Sure. Yell it back and forth because both sides have decided to hold their ground at all costs? For Sure!
As they left, a series of questions and comments came my way as we made use of waterbottles and hats as cones.
"You've played with them the longest, what was that about?"
"Let them go, let's just play"
"Seriously, are they always like that?"
"I've never seen them that way, what's going on?"
"That was uncalled for"
I wasn't sure what to say. No one really wanted the answer it didn't seem ("You've taken what they saw as fun and made it something they don't recognize without really including them in the changes." "Why they are here doesn't mix with this well without first feeling like you respect who they see themselves as")
Yet, so often I feel like that's what I'm called to try to explain within my church and denomination. Why does one side not see the world the way another side does on an issue or as we tend to camp together with like thoughts as a general worldview.
Both sides didn't want to dialogue, they didn't want to work together, they wanted what they wanted and wanted it now because they both felt like they had the "right" answer and the "right" to dictate how things should be. They wanted to poke holes in what the other side wanted and prove to them why they should change. They didn't want to hear a different viewpoint and then find a way to move forward and find what would be what things "should" be for the good of all. Yes, the good of all may have ended the same way, but really there was no desire to do so.
So often this is exactly what I hear. I work with a conservative Head of Staff who really wants to dialogue but gets defensive because he's been attacked so often. I tweet regularly with people who consider themselves progressive and liberal who likewise take up defensive stances from the attacks they've suffered. I can't blame either side for being defensive honestly from a cultural point of view, but I feel we're called to be counter cultural as the church. So how do we begin to actually dialogue, discern, and live faithfully together into whatever the future will bring? We're far from it, our current GA thus far seems to be pointing to a culture much like our Frisbee game. Some are tired of fighting, some are very much standing their ground, some are stuck and unwilling or more likely unable to help anyone move forward. Regardless of what you want for the church, we need to move against the culture of "us" vs "them" and show another way to struggle with things that are divisive and with worldviews that just do not match up.
In Acts 10, Peter sees a vision of a sheet and it is filled with things that he correctly labels as unclean, yet God gives him a new way to interpret what he sees. It is not a simple revelation, it is one we see many struggle with over time: "Do Not Call Common (Unclean) What God Has Purified." I believe we all have sheets, some of them include people we disagree with, some include actions we find unforgivable, some include things we don't understand in others lives, but we all have a sheet. We need to realize that God has created all of us in God's image and God is always working towards unknown ends. That will always leave us with a certain uncertainty, and it is that uncertainty that we need to focus on. We don't have the answers, we're just asked to struggle together towards that distant, hazy goal that is beyond all the stuff that we have to get through to get there. Let us focus on struggling together, realizing we don't KNOW anything about what is going to happen or how it is going to happen and live at peace with the uncertainty of "What's Next" or even "What Now." If we are able to do that we may have a chance to do discernment together and be something more than people fighting over how to play a game.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Treasure Hunting for God
Asked for a devotional on how I deepen my relationship with God, I came up with the following. Sadly I couldn't fit a Cowboy Mouth or Adele song in the 1hr I had to write it:
Weep
for yourself, my man,
You'll never be what is in your heart
Weep Little Lion Man,
You're not as brave as you were at the start
Rate yourself and rake yourself,
Take all the courage you have left
Wasted on fixing all the problems
That you made in your own head – Mumford and Sons
You'll never be what is in your heart
Weep Little Lion Man,
You're not as brave as you were at the start
Rate yourself and rake yourself,
Take all the courage you have left
Wasted on fixing all the problems
That you made in your own head – Mumford and Sons
My relationship with God deepens through any number of processes, events,
practices, and encounters. Yet often the
most meaningful, life changing moments come seemingly randomly while focused on
some organized process aimed to an end, much like following a map to the X
where the treasure will be found. Yet,
rarely do these “treasure” seeking missions turn out as simple as the map makes
them out to be. Along the way things happen which cause me to look more deeply
at myself, to see what my personal motivations are, to hear the music that is
playing as I walk along side others, to see the world more deeply through
better understanding myself and those I’m traveling with.
Ten
thousand words swarm around my head
Ten million more in books written beneath my bed
I wrote or read them all when searchin’ in the swarms
Still can’t find out how to hold my hands – Avett Brothers
Ten million more in books written beneath my bed
I wrote or read them all when searchin’ in the swarms
Still can’t find out how to hold my hands – Avett Brothers
Sometimes what we find even at the end of these adventures is the thing
that changes us. Sometimes we think
something is the answer, but when we look at it deeper it actually changes us
and changes the questions. Our relationship with God is deepened by realizing
that the everyday has great amounts of spirit moving throughout it and it leaves
us caught in a tension between realizing what it is that we could have done
differently and working to reorient ourselves on the path we’re now on as the people
we’ve become. This constant state of
flux and searching makes up life itself and pulls at us so we can’t just be
comfortable as who we see ourselves to be.
When we are willing to not just focus on an end, but to see the means of
life as ends unto themselves, we find ourselves continually moving, changing,
growing, and ever more faithfully searching for who we were made to be.
In
these bodies we will live,
in these bodies we will die
Where you invest your love,
you invest your life – Mumford and Sons
in these bodies we will die
Where you invest your love,
you invest your life – Mumford and Sons
Awake My Soul.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Bible Thumping Christians
I have heard a number of people I respect told recently that they don't hold the bible in the proper esteem or that they completely ignore it. I know better than to fight their fights, but I do know that I want to state my own view on the subject.
I am the very model of a modern major general . . . oops.
I take great pride in calling myself a Bible Thumping Christian today. I take scripture VERY seriously. It is at the core of what I believe and what I desire for life and all of creation. I don't think there is any of scripture that is not useful for teaching and learning and talking about. I don't think there's anything in there that's just a waste of words. Actually my feelings on those words is what I think makes me able to claim that title of "Bible Thumper."
I love language. I took Chinese, Latin, Italian, Spanish, and German in school. And then when I made it to seminary I was so addicted to Greek that I was named our schools language scholar and got into regular long winded discussions with my language professors. I started trying to find as many ancient Greek texts as I could from all areas. Trying to find how words may have been used outside of scripture. I started looking at the little nuances of words and phrases, not taking even the "best" English translations at face value. I picked apart words, trying to make it all make more sense, trying to see what it is that scripture could teach me about this God who I knew existed.
I knew tons about the world, I wrote my proof of God based on things I found in String Theory. I saw a spirit moving in people and throughout the world, but it is scripture that brings me back to God. Scripture brings me to a place where I face the struggle, the epic struggle of humanity to be who we were created to be. The struggle that makes us question how someone like David could be "after God's own heart." The struggle that makes us wonder why God made a world so diverse that we actually have to work to be in community even when we're around people very much like ourselves. The struggle that brings people into a church crying because they are desperate for God. The struggle that makes us look at what is written in scripture and wonder what pieces are contextual, and what is really truly a universal truth.
Yes, I know this is the sensitive subject. Yet we all claim some things are universal and others aren't. We know that scripture is written in a certain time, and in many cases there is no debate also for a certain community. We all teach about the specific problems in Judah, or Egypt, or Ephesus, or Corinth. We know that was the context that these are created for originally. We also know that the words that are chosen are specific and nuanced for those communities and even the best of us who translate betray the actual text to some extent.
This is especially true when you get into word studies. Some words are used differently in law texts, social texts, religious texts. Other words are only found in one type outside of scripture. Some aren't found at all and we really start playing games to try to define them. Do I think there is one meaning that HAS to be the meaning? Well in some ways yes, because there was an original context. Yet in other ways no, because it's really not that simple. I will argue till I die that Pistis is best translated as Faithfulness, and that will influence everything I teach and lead because it changes how I interpret scripture. That is the key for those of us who are claiming a title others want to keep away from us. We are Bible Thumping because we value that text as something special, something that informs all we do, and is a key to our faith. It is not the only key, but without it we do fall down, or at least I do. God Bless the Bible Thumpers.
I take great pride in calling myself a Bible Thumping Christian today. I take scripture VERY seriously. It is at the core of what I believe and what I desire for life and all of creation. I don't think there is any of scripture that is not useful for teaching and learning and talking about. I don't think there's anything in there that's just a waste of words. Actually my feelings on those words is what I think makes me able to claim that title of "Bible Thumper."
I love language. I took Chinese, Latin, Italian, Spanish, and German in school. And then when I made it to seminary I was so addicted to Greek that I was named our schools language scholar and got into regular long winded discussions with my language professors. I started trying to find as many ancient Greek texts as I could from all areas. Trying to find how words may have been used outside of scripture. I started looking at the little nuances of words and phrases, not taking even the "best" English translations at face value. I picked apart words, trying to make it all make more sense, trying to see what it is that scripture could teach me about this God who I knew existed.
I knew tons about the world, I wrote my proof of God based on things I found in String Theory. I saw a spirit moving in people and throughout the world, but it is scripture that brings me back to God. Scripture brings me to a place where I face the struggle, the epic struggle of humanity to be who we were created to be. The struggle that makes us question how someone like David could be "after God's own heart." The struggle that makes us wonder why God made a world so diverse that we actually have to work to be in community even when we're around people very much like ourselves. The struggle that brings people into a church crying because they are desperate for God. The struggle that makes us look at what is written in scripture and wonder what pieces are contextual, and what is really truly a universal truth.
Yes, I know this is the sensitive subject. Yet we all claim some things are universal and others aren't. We know that scripture is written in a certain time, and in many cases there is no debate also for a certain community. We all teach about the specific problems in Judah, or Egypt, or Ephesus, or Corinth. We know that was the context that these are created for originally. We also know that the words that are chosen are specific and nuanced for those communities and even the best of us who translate betray the actual text to some extent.
This is especially true when you get into word studies. Some words are used differently in law texts, social texts, religious texts. Other words are only found in one type outside of scripture. Some aren't found at all and we really start playing games to try to define them. Do I think there is one meaning that HAS to be the meaning? Well in some ways yes, because there was an original context. Yet in other ways no, because it's really not that simple. I will argue till I die that Pistis is best translated as Faithfulness, and that will influence everything I teach and lead because it changes how I interpret scripture. That is the key for those of us who are claiming a title others want to keep away from us. We are Bible Thumping because we value that text as something special, something that informs all we do, and is a key to our faith. It is not the only key, but without it we do fall down, or at least I do. God Bless the Bible Thumpers.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
The God of America
I spent a good bit of time in my childhood/teens in SBC churches. I even remember a seminary board member who was part of one of these churches telling me they were always there to make sure I had every opportunity to live up to my potential (at least until I got divorced). I have a fairly good working knowledge of the conservative christian world because of this I think. Today's event in Texas and the politicizing of faith is not what I remember anyone in that world really standing for. The political ideologies played some part in things sure, but what we taught and were taught was all about helping others regardless of the cost. Now I admit that it often glossed over some of the national social issues, but I remember many nights carrying blankets for the homeless, driving them to shelters, and giving money towards medical missions at home and abroad. These were the things people talked about and did. Yes, there was an annoying amount of morality based theology, but the "literal" reading of scripture didn't read like "America the Chosen nation." It often read very differently than that.
I don't know exactly how this side of Christianity got co-oped by those wanting to create fear and promote nationalism, but it certainly seems to have happened. Maybe it's because instead of being a community where various ideologies had a voice, all the dissenting views left or were pushed out (and some of both happened). Without dissenting voices it is much easier to broker fear, without those who push our buttons and make our blood boil that we truly love, it is easier to call them enemies, to push them into a group known as "other." I say this with a sense of fear of what could still happen in the PC(USA), where the sides divide, glad to let go of struggles and settle into a comfortable place. I don't think that's what we're called to. I think we're called to struggle. To struggle along with those we disagree with vehemently, to struggle about the meaning of scripture, to struggle with questions of power, privilege, equality, and love. We need to see that none of us have the only way, and that we must go together if we are to do anything good in this world.
Today there are people praying for the economy, for our nation, for moral values, and for other things that I personally find to be misguided prayers. I would rather us pray for equality of humanity, care for creation, love for all, and continued struggling together, but those praying for these other things can only journey with us if we're willing to treat them as equals and not as others. I do not agree with the co-opting of God for national, personal, or ideological gain, but I do nothing better if I'm not willing to engage in the conversations and act in love.
That being said, I must say why I am pained by the subjects of these prayers:
1. The Economy - Those who have lost before know that these prayers are ones of protect what I have. Yet, God is clear that nothing is our own. Should we lose everything, we gain a freedom that we do not have when we possess things of our own. We should not pray that God fixes the economy, but that we will learn what many who have been or are homeless know: There is a real difference between want and need.
My prayer: http://youtu.be/a-O88_hZD5o
2. Our Nation - I do not hate the US, but I do not think we deserve any special blessings, or even deserve all we have. We are truly a nation of privileged and power, and any prayers for our nation should begin with a greater realization of what protecting our own does to damage the rest of the world. God is not interested in making our nation great, rather God is interested in the greatness of all of creation and that begins with us all realizing our shared humanity, our shared divine spark, and our shared call to be stewards of all of Creation.
3. Morality - I don't think we should go about killing each other or just doing whatever whenever, but really it is not what people do in scripture that makes them faithful or not, why do we think that's the key for us? The key for those called faithful within our Christian (and by extension Jewish) tradition is a willingness to listen and discern that which God wants from them. Jonah is reluctant, Moses is both reluctant and immoral, Peter falls far from belief or morality (cutting off ears, easily forgiven?) . . . these are heroes, and they should be because they never stop struggling and discerning. They are faithful, not moral. The why is of greater importance than the what. This also means that we are not to decide for others what is most faithful in any specific instance, but again walk along side them in their journey, for we do not know which paths are narrow or wide while we are on them.
There is much more I could say, but really you've probably read all you want to by now. Again, I wonder how many others really think that God is America's God? How many feel that God is more interested in us than any other nation? How many think that God feels that the things we call important to God are really the things that are important? How many want a God that is a God that is going to say "You didn't feed me when you saw me on the street corner that one time, you're a goat, go to hell."? How many think that God just wants you to believe, be fairly moral to those you care about, and ask for lots of forgiveness, all while trying to protect that which you think of as yours?
Or do we really realize that God created us for something more, for greater works of faithfulness, for an actual relationship with God, each other, and all of creation that calls us to give all of ourselves up and being uncomfortable and struggling, but to do so together in love with one another for there we will find peace?
I don't know exactly how this side of Christianity got co-oped by those wanting to create fear and promote nationalism, but it certainly seems to have happened. Maybe it's because instead of being a community where various ideologies had a voice, all the dissenting views left or were pushed out (and some of both happened). Without dissenting voices it is much easier to broker fear, without those who push our buttons and make our blood boil that we truly love, it is easier to call them enemies, to push them into a group known as "other." I say this with a sense of fear of what could still happen in the PC(USA), where the sides divide, glad to let go of struggles and settle into a comfortable place. I don't think that's what we're called to. I think we're called to struggle. To struggle along with those we disagree with vehemently, to struggle about the meaning of scripture, to struggle with questions of power, privilege, equality, and love. We need to see that none of us have the only way, and that we must go together if we are to do anything good in this world.
Today there are people praying for the economy, for our nation, for moral values, and for other things that I personally find to be misguided prayers. I would rather us pray for equality of humanity, care for creation, love for all, and continued struggling together, but those praying for these other things can only journey with us if we're willing to treat them as equals and not as others. I do not agree with the co-opting of God for national, personal, or ideological gain, but I do nothing better if I'm not willing to engage in the conversations and act in love.
That being said, I must say why I am pained by the subjects of these prayers:
1. The Economy - Those who have lost before know that these prayers are ones of protect what I have. Yet, God is clear that nothing is our own. Should we lose everything, we gain a freedom that we do not have when we possess things of our own. We should not pray that God fixes the economy, but that we will learn what many who have been or are homeless know: There is a real difference between want and need.
My prayer: http://youtu.be/a-O88_hZD5o
2. Our Nation - I do not hate the US, but I do not think we deserve any special blessings, or even deserve all we have. We are truly a nation of privileged and power, and any prayers for our nation should begin with a greater realization of what protecting our own does to damage the rest of the world. God is not interested in making our nation great, rather God is interested in the greatness of all of creation and that begins with us all realizing our shared humanity, our shared divine spark, and our shared call to be stewards of all of Creation.
3. Morality - I don't think we should go about killing each other or just doing whatever whenever, but really it is not what people do in scripture that makes them faithful or not, why do we think that's the key for us? The key for those called faithful within our Christian (and by extension Jewish) tradition is a willingness to listen and discern that which God wants from them. Jonah is reluctant, Moses is both reluctant and immoral, Peter falls far from belief or morality (cutting off ears, easily forgiven?) . . . these are heroes, and they should be because they never stop struggling and discerning. They are faithful, not moral. The why is of greater importance than the what. This also means that we are not to decide for others what is most faithful in any specific instance, but again walk along side them in their journey, for we do not know which paths are narrow or wide while we are on them.
There is much more I could say, but really you've probably read all you want to by now. Again, I wonder how many others really think that God is America's God? How many feel that God is more interested in us than any other nation? How many think that God feels that the things we call important to God are really the things that are important? How many want a God that is a God that is going to say "You didn't feed me when you saw me on the street corner that one time, you're a goat, go to hell."? How many think that God just wants you to believe, be fairly moral to those you care about, and ask for lots of forgiveness, all while trying to protect that which you think of as yours?
Or do we really realize that God created us for something more, for greater works of faithfulness, for an actual relationship with God, each other, and all of creation that calls us to give all of ourselves up and being uncomfortable and struggling, but to do so together in love with one another for there we will find peace?
Monday, July 18, 2011
Can one depart a relationship graciously?
I heard the term again today . . . Gracious Departure. I can't tell you how uncomfortable that term makes me. It's like a CIA coverup, let's work out a deal and then it'll be done and all go our separate ways. Before you know it, it'll be like nothing ever happened.
For people that's BULL. For churches that's BULL. It is the nature of relationships that some end. Many when they end, need to end, and when both parties recognize that it does become easier to move on. Those in that situation though are few and far between, and even then division of shared identity is problematic. This best case scenario then recognizes the irreversible change that we create on one another and the links created. This does happen, but it's never quick and painless.
A truly gracious ending to a relationship though is more complicated and happens only 1 of 2 ways in my opinion:
1. A recognition that a relationship needs to end from 2 parties, with a full recognition of mutual connections and commitments, and an understanding of the continuation of these apart, leaving open the potential for forming a new relationship in the future.
2. A realization that a relationship is not, nor was it ever as both parties may have interpreted it, with an agreement to continue to work and define said relationship for what it is, not what either side thought it was.
Of course to read between the lines there, many would argue that neither is an actual departure from said relationship. I would argue from a Human Communication viewpoint they are actual departures, just outside of what we view as the norm.
Yet, at this moment it seems though that this split that is happening within the PC(USA) is not amicable, much less gracious. Both sides have put a claim on parts of the shared identity as solely belonging to them. This means that we're not looking at a Gracious Departure, but a Violent Disassociation. I've been here done this in the Baptist world, some churches there had packed their bags more than a decade earlier and were already out the door, just playing house with the denomination. Their exit was expected, but they still thought that it would "prove a point." It didn't. Other churches still cling to some form of dual identity, but really have hacked off a leg or 2 in the process in order to feel comfortable with their decision. The problem for these churches is they realized the bond that was already formed and didn't want to lose it, there was value in the relationship they had fought for, and they still wanted to be heard. . .on some things. On the other issues, they'd take their ball and play elsewhere until their partner (SBC) made them take the rest of their stuff from the house as well.
I see both of these things happening in PC(USA). The "Fellowship" group is seemingly trying to do the latter, while a number of churches are willing to just take the bags they packed and leave. There though are many churches who haven't committed to either of these approaches, but feel the tugs of one or both. It is for these that I fear the consequences of what we choose to do with the others in regards to a "Gracious Departure."
I will use a circumstance I know for an example. I know 3 churches in an area who are all currently restless due to the passage of 10A. They all have sessions that are "examining the options" or have examined them. Given the right set of circumstances they may all take a chance at a "Gracious Departure." The pastors and sessions have tired of fighting with the denomination. So let's assume they agree to make a "Gracious Departure" would it really look like Grace?
Church 1 - Leads the Hispanic ministry in the area, without them this growing ministry collapses within the PC(USA) for the area.
Church 2 - Is more theologically diverse than their Session believes. Their pastor is honestly struggling to work through issues he's having, but is committed to the denomination, if they leave his turmoil becomes worse. The other staff member would quit immediately. The church would lose people and probably go under in the resulting turmoil.
Church 3 - Again, an active church in community outreach, heads up many presbytery wide initiatives (school and clothing drives, education events, etc).
Regardless of how both the church and denomination handled the departure of any of these churches it would be less than gracious because the connections are too deep. Termination of these relationships couldn't be done cleanly and quietly. No relationship termination is without explosive collateral damage when disassociation is involved.
I admit that I do not desire for there to be a mass exodus of conservative congregations, I feel denominations are stronger and better able to grow faithfully when there is pushing and struggling together rather than moving to places of ideological agreement. This also goes for efforts to name churches according to ideological stances on any certain issue (fellowship, more light, etc.) but as long as we don't use these tags to disassociate with one another, it would be a smaller price to pay in my opinion. I do not believe that in all cases the fight should be to keep those who have been out the door for years, they're going to go anyway, but let's not encourage others to go that way because we're acting as we feel we've been acted towards. I don't think this denomination would be stronger if the chopped off all that feel uncomfortable, don't fit. To say that it would is as fundamentalist as one may claim those who now feel like leaving are. This has been and will continue to be a complex journey of faith we take together. This is not the end nor is it a beginning, it is just another moment in the journey and the journey together is what I think it is really all about.
So maybe there is a way still to redefine these existing relationships, maybe though there does need to be some sort of "break." I don't know the answers, but I feel we're not doing enough to truly be a people where ALL are welcome when we're too willing to let the uncomfortable, the misfits walk (regardless of who these misfits are). This is a hard issue for our church, just as it is when friends, lovers, or any other relationship becomes strained and difficult for a long time. Let us journey together in God's grace.
For people that's BULL. For churches that's BULL. It is the nature of relationships that some end. Many when they end, need to end, and when both parties recognize that it does become easier to move on. Those in that situation though are few and far between, and even then division of shared identity is problematic. This best case scenario then recognizes the irreversible change that we create on one another and the links created. This does happen, but it's never quick and painless.
A truly gracious ending to a relationship though is more complicated and happens only 1 of 2 ways in my opinion:
1. A recognition that a relationship needs to end from 2 parties, with a full recognition of mutual connections and commitments, and an understanding of the continuation of these apart, leaving open the potential for forming a new relationship in the future.
2. A realization that a relationship is not, nor was it ever as both parties may have interpreted it, with an agreement to continue to work and define said relationship for what it is, not what either side thought it was.
Of course to read between the lines there, many would argue that neither is an actual departure from said relationship. I would argue from a Human Communication viewpoint they are actual departures, just outside of what we view as the norm.
Yet, at this moment it seems though that this split that is happening within the PC(USA) is not amicable, much less gracious. Both sides have put a claim on parts of the shared identity as solely belonging to them. This means that we're not looking at a Gracious Departure, but a Violent Disassociation. I've been here done this in the Baptist world, some churches there had packed their bags more than a decade earlier and were already out the door, just playing house with the denomination. Their exit was expected, but they still thought that it would "prove a point." It didn't. Other churches still cling to some form of dual identity, but really have hacked off a leg or 2 in the process in order to feel comfortable with their decision. The problem for these churches is they realized the bond that was already formed and didn't want to lose it, there was value in the relationship they had fought for, and they still wanted to be heard. . .on some things. On the other issues, they'd take their ball and play elsewhere until their partner (SBC) made them take the rest of their stuff from the house as well.
I see both of these things happening in PC(USA). The "Fellowship" group is seemingly trying to do the latter, while a number of churches are willing to just take the bags they packed and leave. There though are many churches who haven't committed to either of these approaches, but feel the tugs of one or both. It is for these that I fear the consequences of what we choose to do with the others in regards to a "Gracious Departure."
I will use a circumstance I know for an example. I know 3 churches in an area who are all currently restless due to the passage of 10A. They all have sessions that are "examining the options" or have examined them. Given the right set of circumstances they may all take a chance at a "Gracious Departure." The pastors and sessions have tired of fighting with the denomination. So let's assume they agree to make a "Gracious Departure" would it really look like Grace?
Church 1 - Leads the Hispanic ministry in the area, without them this growing ministry collapses within the PC(USA) for the area.
Church 2 - Is more theologically diverse than their Session believes. Their pastor is honestly struggling to work through issues he's having, but is committed to the denomination, if they leave his turmoil becomes worse. The other staff member would quit immediately. The church would lose people and probably go under in the resulting turmoil.
Church 3 - Again, an active church in community outreach, heads up many presbytery wide initiatives (school and clothing drives, education events, etc).
Regardless of how both the church and denomination handled the departure of any of these churches it would be less than gracious because the connections are too deep. Termination of these relationships couldn't be done cleanly and quietly. No relationship termination is without explosive collateral damage when disassociation is involved.
I admit that I do not desire for there to be a mass exodus of conservative congregations, I feel denominations are stronger and better able to grow faithfully when there is pushing and struggling together rather than moving to places of ideological agreement. This also goes for efforts to name churches according to ideological stances on any certain issue (fellowship, more light, etc.) but as long as we don't use these tags to disassociate with one another, it would be a smaller price to pay in my opinion. I do not believe that in all cases the fight should be to keep those who have been out the door for years, they're going to go anyway, but let's not encourage others to go that way because we're acting as we feel we've been acted towards. I don't think this denomination would be stronger if the chopped off all that feel uncomfortable, don't fit. To say that it would is as fundamentalist as one may claim those who now feel like leaving are. This has been and will continue to be a complex journey of faith we take together. This is not the end nor is it a beginning, it is just another moment in the journey and the journey together is what I think it is really all about.
So maybe there is a way still to redefine these existing relationships, maybe though there does need to be some sort of "break." I don't know the answers, but I feel we're not doing enough to truly be a people where ALL are welcome when we're too willing to let the uncomfortable, the misfits walk (regardless of who these misfits are). This is a hard issue for our church, just as it is when friends, lovers, or any other relationship becomes strained and difficult for a long time. Let us journey together in God's grace.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Creating a Spirit of Fear
I spent today with a youth who I know has lots of thoughts and opinions, but rarely expresses them. You can see her brain working but rarely do words come out beyond "That's fine", "It's okay", "Whatever you want", "I can do that", etc. Around the half way point of the day, she finally says this: "I don't say much because I'm afraid I'll say something wrong and disappoint someone or embarrass myself."
I was told recently how impressed people were with how "mature" my kids are. Well, I wanted then to tell that parent then that I wish my kids knew more about what being a kid is like. These are kids who are expected to take care of younger siblings, take care of grieving parents, and take care of each other due to loss in the community. They are kids who live structured lives run by coaches and directors, kids so talented that they seem to always be placed in leadership roles wherever they go. This seems to have been the case for most of them since they got to middle school.
How hard do we push our kids to grow up? Why do we push them in certain ways? It seems to me that we far to often view kids as our legacy, and thus try to give them a leg up in being "the best they can be." Youth are the future of the church, our kids "shouldn't go through what we had to," we want them to have "happy lives." All of these ideas have major issues. We set up kids to shut down because they're afraid of failing us, and thus failing themselves and God by extension. We make kids feel like what they do is attached to who we are and our emotions. We set them up to think if people aren't happy then things have been a failure.
We shouldn't focus on happiness of any individual or group when talking about what it means to be adult or to be Christian. Rather we need to use a language that encourages finding "meaning" and acting on that "meaning." Kids know they want more than to be happy, but we've been telling them for so long that "we just want you to be happy" or "I'm not upset at you, I'm just not happy right now" that they don't even know what it is they're seeking.
So since they know there's more to life than being happy, but it seems the only other options are pleasing "adults" who seem to want to be happy at their core. This sets up the fear of disappointing others or self that my youth today spoke of. They want to make sure they're saying, doing the right thing. They don't want to feel bad about a wrong choice, so why even bother choosing anything when "someone will tell me what to do."
So what type of place do we need to create within the church for our young people? A place where they know they can't disapoint us? A place where they can seek meaning? A place where they're encouraged to speak what is on their mind freely, just so they can get it out there? Probably a little of all of these things, but it's not easy because both the culture and the church is full of this legacy thinking, full of people afraid to be wrong, afraid to risk their "good name," afraid they may find themselves uncomfortable while searching for meaning instead of happiness. We can't ask our youth to be in the present, to be the change they want to be, if we're not willing to join them. They are not the future, they are the present, and their questions, their struggles are our struggles. But we're the adults, we should provide real opportunities to journey through these things, not provide a place where youth are afraid to journey as individuals and within the community.
I was told recently how impressed people were with how "mature" my kids are. Well, I wanted then to tell that parent then that I wish my kids knew more about what being a kid is like. These are kids who are expected to take care of younger siblings, take care of grieving parents, and take care of each other due to loss in the community. They are kids who live structured lives run by coaches and directors, kids so talented that they seem to always be placed in leadership roles wherever they go. This seems to have been the case for most of them since they got to middle school.
How hard do we push our kids to grow up? Why do we push them in certain ways? It seems to me that we far to often view kids as our legacy, and thus try to give them a leg up in being "the best they can be." Youth are the future of the church, our kids "shouldn't go through what we had to," we want them to have "happy lives." All of these ideas have major issues. We set up kids to shut down because they're afraid of failing us, and thus failing themselves and God by extension. We make kids feel like what they do is attached to who we are and our emotions. We set them up to think if people aren't happy then things have been a failure.
We shouldn't focus on happiness of any individual or group when talking about what it means to be adult or to be Christian. Rather we need to use a language that encourages finding "meaning" and acting on that "meaning." Kids know they want more than to be happy, but we've been telling them for so long that "we just want you to be happy" or "I'm not upset at you, I'm just not happy right now" that they don't even know what it is they're seeking.
So since they know there's more to life than being happy, but it seems the only other options are pleasing "adults" who seem to want to be happy at their core. This sets up the fear of disappointing others or self that my youth today spoke of. They want to make sure they're saying, doing the right thing. They don't want to feel bad about a wrong choice, so why even bother choosing anything when "someone will tell me what to do."
So what type of place do we need to create within the church for our young people? A place where they know they can't disapoint us? A place where they can seek meaning? A place where they're encouraged to speak what is on their mind freely, just so they can get it out there? Probably a little of all of these things, but it's not easy because both the culture and the church is full of this legacy thinking, full of people afraid to be wrong, afraid to risk their "good name," afraid they may find themselves uncomfortable while searching for meaning instead of happiness. We can't ask our youth to be in the present, to be the change they want to be, if we're not willing to join them. They are not the future, they are the present, and their questions, their struggles are our struggles. But we're the adults, we should provide real opportunities to journey through these things, not provide a place where youth are afraid to journey as individuals and within the community.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Human Communication and Social Media
I love social media, I truly do. As an Aspie, it has been a wonderful way to get closer to people without the difficulties I have in normal social situations. I've met people I never would, shared great ideas, gotten closer to people who I may have just barely known otherwise. Yet, those who know me know I go against the grain when it comes to the idea that we can form community from social media alone.
My issue has always been based on issues of how much we share with each other in these places and the types of connections we form. We tend to gravitate towards the extremes, towards those who share views close to our own, or in some cases towards conflict with those on far poles from us. It seems that many people just form pseudo-communities based around ideological or demographic similarities. There's nothing wrong with these relationships, but if you read my previous blog posts you will know that I don't think these things can be the basis for community as defined from a Human Communication perspective.
Well, now I'm adding a new piece to this. I've spent some time today reading and researching on the idea of a global/cosmic consciousness (or 6th sense). In studying this, I begin to really see patterns that show that we "think" with some idea of each other, that we don't just react but that we connect to each other and all of creation with some commonality of thought or common desire. A "God Spark" if you wanted to make it theological. But studies show that the level of connection over distance is significantly weaker than that of people who are closely connected through local communities that interact physically. Much like magnetism, the closer we are to one another, the more this global thought is shared. These are not common opinions, but emotional responses and physical subconscious reactions. This is not saying we can make each other think alike, rather that we share a deep emotional, maybe even spiritual connection. It is the feeling we're being watched, it is these moments that come from a physical experience, not just one through interaction of ideas (social media's base). Our emotions are not just reactions, but do seem linked to something bigger and greater than individual moments.
It also makes me wonder about myself as an Aspie, I really want to find some research about the subconscious activity of people with Asperger's syndrome. Some of this research tonight on human emotions and how we understand them individually and in community seems to indicate to me it is those connections that act differently in Aspies. We don't read faces well, we don't act according to social norms, is it possible that my extreme logic is something connected to being somehow disconnected from the global consciousness. Yet, studies also show that some Aspies have a higher level of premonition than normal, so this would say we're still connected but less reactive and more proactive. So I want to ask: do we move outside the collective consciousness or do we just connect differently? Regardless of this answer: How does that effect how we view and understand God?
All of this put together makes me wonder if my response to social media is based on personal experiential evidence, or if there is something real that social media can't recreate? I am convinced that there is something more to physical contact that even the best connections through electronics cannot recreate. For that reason, I plead for those who feel alone to seek community in places like churches where not everyone thinks the same. I plead for churches to be those places, places where we can walk faithfully seeking and discerning, not being indoctrinated and conformed to ideological ideals. I hope that what we find out about our commonality as humanity, be it a global consciousness or not, is the key to what brings us together into community. For it is that commonality, that "image of God" in all of us, that truly can change the world.
My issue has always been based on issues of how much we share with each other in these places and the types of connections we form. We tend to gravitate towards the extremes, towards those who share views close to our own, or in some cases towards conflict with those on far poles from us. It seems that many people just form pseudo-communities based around ideological or demographic similarities. There's nothing wrong with these relationships, but if you read my previous blog posts you will know that I don't think these things can be the basis for community as defined from a Human Communication perspective.
Well, now I'm adding a new piece to this. I've spent some time today reading and researching on the idea of a global/cosmic consciousness (or 6th sense). In studying this, I begin to really see patterns that show that we "think" with some idea of each other, that we don't just react but that we connect to each other and all of creation with some commonality of thought or common desire. A "God Spark" if you wanted to make it theological. But studies show that the level of connection over distance is significantly weaker than that of people who are closely connected through local communities that interact physically. Much like magnetism, the closer we are to one another, the more this global thought is shared. These are not common opinions, but emotional responses and physical subconscious reactions. This is not saying we can make each other think alike, rather that we share a deep emotional, maybe even spiritual connection. It is the feeling we're being watched, it is these moments that come from a physical experience, not just one through interaction of ideas (social media's base). Our emotions are not just reactions, but do seem linked to something bigger and greater than individual moments.
It also makes me wonder about myself as an Aspie, I really want to find some research about the subconscious activity of people with Asperger's syndrome. Some of this research tonight on human emotions and how we understand them individually and in community seems to indicate to me it is those connections that act differently in Aspies. We don't read faces well, we don't act according to social norms, is it possible that my extreme logic is something connected to being somehow disconnected from the global consciousness. Yet, studies also show that some Aspies have a higher level of premonition than normal, so this would say we're still connected but less reactive and more proactive. So I want to ask: do we move outside the collective consciousness or do we just connect differently? Regardless of this answer: How does that effect how we view and understand God?
All of this put together makes me wonder if my response to social media is based on personal experiential evidence, or if there is something real that social media can't recreate? I am convinced that there is something more to physical contact that even the best connections through electronics cannot recreate. For that reason, I plead for those who feel alone to seek community in places like churches where not everyone thinks the same. I plead for churches to be those places, places where we can walk faithfully seeking and discerning, not being indoctrinated and conformed to ideological ideals. I hope that what we find out about our commonality as humanity, be it a global consciousness or not, is the key to what brings us together into community. For it is that commonality, that "image of God" in all of us, that truly can change the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)