There is a lot of talk about what ails the church and how these things will eventually destroy the church as we know it. In my denomination (PCUSA) there is a group that says we're "deathly ill." They say this as if we have some form of cancer that needs to be cut out and then maybe by some miracle we'll be able to live on. Well I might be able to agree we're deathly ill, but only in the sense that I'm deathly ill. I have diabetes, it appeared randomly and without warning. Doctors are still confused as to why and how I have this, I have no family history and no medical/lifestyle issues that would have logically led to this disease. Yet here I am. It will eventually directly or indirectly lead to my death if I live out my life to that point. But that is what proves my point: I don't know what will kill me, I do very consciously know that I will die at some point and that I have an illness that will lead to death, but I don't know that it WILL kill me, I don't know if it does HOW it will happen, and I don't know WHEN I will stop existing physically on this earth.
So if I am to argue that the church (like many of us) does have things that will eventually kill it within it, what does that mean? Should we be changing everything? Should we just hope for the best? Or do we realize that we have a purpose regardless, and continue to aim at that purpose, recognizing our weaknesses, dealing with them within the larger picture. So often we as people name ourselves after our weaknesses. I do it too. I'm a diabetic, I'm an Aspie, I'm an Extrovert...I am I guess these things, but to state them this way is to say "this is the core of who I am" which is a very false statement. I have diabetes, I live with Asperger's syndrome, I need people to be energized. These statements are much more true, they acknowledge things that are part of me for better or for worse, but don't define me by these things. They also are all things I can control, they won't go away, but I can recognize issues that come up and deal with them rather than hiding behind the "illness."
So often when we look at the problems of the church we start defining the church by these problems. This leads to a view that whatever issue is at the center is less of a process of change and growth and more of something that needs urgent attention. There are times the church needs urgent care, but that really can only happen on the local level (like surgery on a tendon/dealing with individuals) when it comes to the systemic issues of the church, we need to be constantly living with the struggles and realizing that these problems are most often not the end, but part of our journey of faithfulness and discernment. We do have some big issues in the church because we are diverse people struggling to understand who God is and what life is about. These are things that no matter our personal experiences, are not complete certainties. They are, in my opinion, the very reason for existence. We are discovering what it means to be what we were created to be. Created in God's image and as stewards of creation. It is our struggles to understand what those things mean that eventually tears the organizational church apart, but when and how, and even if this happens is not something we'll know until it occurs. So to use a analogy from the world of diabetes: rather than reacting by throwing out all the sugar and carbs, why don't we see what our bodies can handle and what life looks like. We may be surprised by how we can find balance and joy just by trying to faithfully live out who we really are...The Body of Christ.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Friday, June 3, 2011
Short Response to Albert Mohler
I just read Albert Mohler's recent article regarding sexuality orientation and Christianity. If you want to see what this is look here:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-church-and-the-clobber-scriptures-the-bible-on-homosexuality-50792/
I can't help but respond to it, I don't like to respond to things just to argue with them, especially when it comes to people who I know are not going to have a discussion with me on the topic (such as I expect Mohler wouldn't). Yet, I have to because what is done in this article is so wrong.
I don't know much about Jay Bakker's theology. I'm sure we wouldn't agree on every point. Based on Mohler's article, I'm left to assume a changing God, which I would disagree with. Of course based on other things Mohler has to say, I'm not sure I trust his understanding of that, but even if it is true, it's not a point that would cause me to side with or against Bakker.
What I can say though is that Mohler doesn't present an argument here regarding Christianity and Sexuality Orientation, rather it is a series of personal attacks and unsupported statements leading to a predetermined conclusion. While Bakker's parents lives influence his theology, that influence, that history has very little to do with Mohler's stance. It seems it is only brought up in order to remind people of "The Sins of the Parents." While "biblical," I'm pretty sure not even Mohler would actually preach such a thing. It is one of those things that everyone rejects (unless you're a group like Westboro Baptist) because it doesn't make sense with the overall narrative of scripture and of creation. Of course without holding to this theology Mohler's next point would seem illogical. Mohler then presents Bakker's view of the Old Testament what I assume is fairly decently, but with wording which, as one would expect, leaves one thinking Mohler doesn't completely agree. This though is essential, otherwise Mohler would have to argue that Bakker is up a creak because of his parents (again, Mohler seems to try to walk a fine line here, setting up fences where they work best for him).
So having spent the majority of his space talking about Bakker's family and regarding things that protect him from being called a "fundamentalist" or other such attacking term, finally we get to the crux of Bakker and Mohler's disagreement. We're in for some great exegetical and theological work here. Or. . .not?
Mohler claims that arguments that texts mean something other than what Mohler has understood them to mean as "not faithful to the texts." Why does he feel this way? I HAVE NO IDEA! He makes no statements to what makes a translation or interpretation faithful, nor does he do any work to show why his view is faithful. WHAT? Okay, well maybe I should already know these things if I'm reading his work, so lets move on.
Mohler also claims that it's wrong to doubt historical views of scripture. . .you mean like slavery? relationship between races? gender equality? Hold on, so maybe he wasn't so okay with Bakker's OT theology, and we are suffering from the sins of our forefathers in very personal ways!!! I have no idea how he's doing this little balancing act, maybe he'll help by explaining the difference here . . . OR NOT?!?
Instead he turns back on the attack. Claiming that the term "clobber" is problematic. I'm not sure I argue with that fact, but his why is off base. He doesn't argue that clobber is a reactionary term, but rather, that what is being done is right and shouldn't be considered bad in any way. That we are called to point out when others do something wrong, and thus we all should be "clobbered" by scripture for doing THINGS THAT ARE WRONG. This is where my theology comes in: It's not the WHAT that is sinful, but the WHY. Anything we do can be sinful when we do it for the wrong reasons, of course we are really the only ones who know if we did something for our selves or for God/others. That is something that takes discernment and reflection. Both of these things seem so far to be missing from Mohler's article. But there's still a bit more.
Mohler's final argument has strong? and weak points:
The Bible’s condemnation of same-sex behaviors is comprehensive and clear. Really is it? I see no support for that out of this article.
It is interwoven with the Bible’s message concerning God’s plan for humanity, marriage, and society. Really? God states plans for marriage and society? I seem to miss these clear and comprehensive scriptures as well. I see some guidence on the subjects: That they are to be full of love and focus on others and not about ourselves. Maybe that's what Mohler means.
Human flourishing is found only by living in obedience to God’s revealed plan. Hold on, we're back to "The Sins of the Parents" here aren't we? No? Maybe it's just a prosperity gospel? No? What is your point here? Maybe you mean this the way I'd say it "We find our deepest joys when we live in a state of faithfulness, seeking and discerning God within the world, and joining in where God is working." Okay, maybe if that's what Mohler meant I can go with him here.
Our rebellion against the Creator is never so insidious as when we declare that our own plan is superior to his. Avoiding the male only God language issue (I struggle at times there too), I wouldn't argue too much with this. Of course, I would say that "Sin is when we think we choose to think we know all the answers." Careful Albert Mohler, I think you may have just pointed out the plank in your own eye.
When the Bible, in part or in whole, is dismissed as “clobber Scriptures,” it is not only the Bible that is subverted, but also the Gospel. The Church must recognize that fact clearly - and fast. Speaking of planks, I see nothing in how Bakker or others interpret these scriptures as dismissing them, only working to discern more about the nature of God through them. So I agree with you, if you are simplifying God and Scripture to just something you can dismiss. (kind of like the arguments made by Mohler regarding this subject) then we should be aware and work harder at understanding the God who we are created in the image of and who calls us to stewardship of creation.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-church-and-the-clobber-scriptures-the-bible-on-homosexuality-50792/
I can't help but respond to it, I don't like to respond to things just to argue with them, especially when it comes to people who I know are not going to have a discussion with me on the topic (such as I expect Mohler wouldn't). Yet, I have to because what is done in this article is so wrong.
I don't know much about Jay Bakker's theology. I'm sure we wouldn't agree on every point. Based on Mohler's article, I'm left to assume a changing God, which I would disagree with. Of course based on other things Mohler has to say, I'm not sure I trust his understanding of that, but even if it is true, it's not a point that would cause me to side with or against Bakker.
What I can say though is that Mohler doesn't present an argument here regarding Christianity and Sexuality Orientation, rather it is a series of personal attacks and unsupported statements leading to a predetermined conclusion. While Bakker's parents lives influence his theology, that influence, that history has very little to do with Mohler's stance. It seems it is only brought up in order to remind people of "The Sins of the Parents." While "biblical," I'm pretty sure not even Mohler would actually preach such a thing. It is one of those things that everyone rejects (unless you're a group like Westboro Baptist) because it doesn't make sense with the overall narrative of scripture and of creation. Of course without holding to this theology Mohler's next point would seem illogical. Mohler then presents Bakker's view of the Old Testament what I assume is fairly decently, but with wording which, as one would expect, leaves one thinking Mohler doesn't completely agree. This though is essential, otherwise Mohler would have to argue that Bakker is up a creak because of his parents (again, Mohler seems to try to walk a fine line here, setting up fences where they work best for him).
So having spent the majority of his space talking about Bakker's family and regarding things that protect him from being called a "fundamentalist" or other such attacking term, finally we get to the crux of Bakker and Mohler's disagreement. We're in for some great exegetical and theological work here. Or. . .not?
Mohler claims that arguments that texts mean something other than what Mohler has understood them to mean as "not faithful to the texts." Why does he feel this way? I HAVE NO IDEA! He makes no statements to what makes a translation or interpretation faithful, nor does he do any work to show why his view is faithful. WHAT? Okay, well maybe I should already know these things if I'm reading his work, so lets move on.
Mohler also claims that it's wrong to doubt historical views of scripture. . .you mean like slavery? relationship between races? gender equality? Hold on, so maybe he wasn't so okay with Bakker's OT theology, and we are suffering from the sins of our forefathers in very personal ways!!! I have no idea how he's doing this little balancing act, maybe he'll help by explaining the difference here . . . OR NOT?!?
Instead he turns back on the attack. Claiming that the term "clobber" is problematic. I'm not sure I argue with that fact, but his why is off base. He doesn't argue that clobber is a reactionary term, but rather, that what is being done is right and shouldn't be considered bad in any way. That we are called to point out when others do something wrong, and thus we all should be "clobbered" by scripture for doing THINGS THAT ARE WRONG. This is where my theology comes in: It's not the WHAT that is sinful, but the WHY. Anything we do can be sinful when we do it for the wrong reasons, of course we are really the only ones who know if we did something for our selves or for God/others. That is something that takes discernment and reflection. Both of these things seem so far to be missing from Mohler's article. But there's still a bit more.
Mohler's final argument has strong? and weak points:
The Bible’s condemnation of same-sex behaviors is comprehensive and clear. Really is it? I see no support for that out of this article.
It is interwoven with the Bible’s message concerning God’s plan for humanity, marriage, and society. Really? God states plans for marriage and society? I seem to miss these clear and comprehensive scriptures as well. I see some guidence on the subjects: That they are to be full of love and focus on others and not about ourselves. Maybe that's what Mohler means.
Human flourishing is found only by living in obedience to God’s revealed plan. Hold on, we're back to "The Sins of the Parents" here aren't we? No? Maybe it's just a prosperity gospel? No? What is your point here? Maybe you mean this the way I'd say it "We find our deepest joys when we live in a state of faithfulness, seeking and discerning God within the world, and joining in where God is working." Okay, maybe if that's what Mohler meant I can go with him here.
Our rebellion against the Creator is never so insidious as when we declare that our own plan is superior to his. Avoiding the male only God language issue (I struggle at times there too), I wouldn't argue too much with this. Of course, I would say that "Sin is when we think we choose to think we know all the answers." Careful Albert Mohler, I think you may have just pointed out the plank in your own eye.
When the Bible, in part or in whole, is dismissed as “clobber Scriptures,” it is not only the Bible that is subverted, but also the Gospel. The Church must recognize that fact clearly - and fast. Speaking of planks, I see nothing in how Bakker or others interpret these scriptures as dismissing them, only working to discern more about the nature of God through them. So I agree with you, if you are simplifying God and Scripture to just something you can dismiss. (kind of like the arguments made by Mohler regarding this subject) then we should be aware and work harder at understanding the God who we are created in the image of and who calls us to stewardship of creation.
Cranky Pants Post
I'm a little cranky today. I've heard a couple of friends who are recent seminary grads complain about their debt and their difficulties in ministry. I appreciate the reality of these issues, but when they move from discussing it as a personal issue to "don't you agree that these are problems for all those going into ministry" universals. I want to throw them under a fundamentalist bus...or better yet ON ONE!
My experiences have hardships of their own, but through them I am the minister I am today. Does that mean that I missed out on certain things at early ages? Yes! I rarely had the money to go out with friends in college because I was paying my own way through it, likewise in Seminary I had both an unpaid internship and a paying "secular" job so I could pay my way through there as well. These are not BAD THINGS that happened to me along my journey, but choices I made because I felt a call towards my passion daily.
We all make choices, they all have consequences, and all choices I have ever made had a downside of some sort. I don't though regret them, they made me who I am, and THAT is what is important. This moment is what is important. How we get somewhere influences things, and how we view the world beyond this moment is essential to consider, but what we do "at this moment" is all we can actually control.
It's an obvious concept, but also an odd one. We've spent much of our lives thinking of time as this constant, this ticking of seconds. Yet that is just how we relate to it, a construct created so we feel more in control. Yet, we're not in control of anything but this moment, and even there all we really control is what we do. We don't control what happens afterward, we don't know the effects of our actions. Our understanding of time influences our decisions every day, but should it?
What if we just did the best we can for God in each moment, took the risks, put our own needs secondary? What if we didn't worry so much about our futures, and focused on God's now? I dunno what would happen. I'm not completely sure if that's the call. I do though know that the world happens much faster and much slower than we're able to experience it and that there is more to this world that what affects me.
With that in mind I look at my choices for this moment, knowing that I continue to be influenced by past choices, knowing that what choice I make now will affect not just my future but all of time. Yet, I am free to make that choice because God is still in control. So the question is not a matter of past or present or how we got here or where we're going, but rather the question is: What does it look like to be faithful? Constantly discerning.
My experiences have hardships of their own, but through them I am the minister I am today. Does that mean that I missed out on certain things at early ages? Yes! I rarely had the money to go out with friends in college because I was paying my own way through it, likewise in Seminary I had both an unpaid internship and a paying "secular" job so I could pay my way through there as well. These are not BAD THINGS that happened to me along my journey, but choices I made because I felt a call towards my passion daily.
We all make choices, they all have consequences, and all choices I have ever made had a downside of some sort. I don't though regret them, they made me who I am, and THAT is what is important. This moment is what is important. How we get somewhere influences things, and how we view the world beyond this moment is essential to consider, but what we do "at this moment" is all we can actually control.
It's an obvious concept, but also an odd one. We've spent much of our lives thinking of time as this constant, this ticking of seconds. Yet that is just how we relate to it, a construct created so we feel more in control. Yet, we're not in control of anything but this moment, and even there all we really control is what we do. We don't control what happens afterward, we don't know the effects of our actions. Our understanding of time influences our decisions every day, but should it?
What if we just did the best we can for God in each moment, took the risks, put our own needs secondary? What if we didn't worry so much about our futures, and focused on God's now? I dunno what would happen. I'm not completely sure if that's the call. I do though know that the world happens much faster and much slower than we're able to experience it and that there is more to this world that what affects me.
With that in mind I look at my choices for this moment, knowing that I continue to be influenced by past choices, knowing that what choice I make now will affect not just my future but all of time. Yet, I am free to make that choice because God is still in control. So the question is not a matter of past or present or how we got here or where we're going, but rather the question is: What does it look like to be faithful? Constantly discerning.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Montreat Signature Conference
So those of us blessed with Asperger's syndrome tend to struggle socially. Finding a balance between that my extrovertness is never easy but rarely does it come out the way it does when placed in unfamiliar situations by myself. That has been day 1 of the Montreat Signature conference for me. I've been battling the duality of myself so much that I really am not focused the way I want.
I really want to talk with people, get to know them and share. Yet, I have NO IDEA HOW and it seems everyone else is in their own world here with people from their church or school or old friends. I feel completely on the outside.
Now that I've said that on to the subject at hand. The theme here is being spiritual in a crazy busy world. A valid and worthwhile theme, but one that doesn't come with nice Presbyterian answers. Unfortunately more than half the people here seem to be the type that want that and nothing more. So there were moments tonight when some people were rolling their eyes at a sermon that seemed even a bit "safe." Yet, the points are well heeded by anyone who wants to think about things spiritual. We do have to change what we think is important to daily living if we want to see bigger changes in our lives. If we always think that things should stay the same, or that things are just a certain way and that's the way it should be we become self defeating. You can't give one thing lip service while doing something else. . .
To bring that back around, I'm sitting out in the lobby hoping for some contact because at least there are people here. Maybe some of them will speak to me, maybe not, but it's at least trying something to change things. BTW: Cooperative confirmation classes are NOT new and shocking. *shakes head*
Yeah, now I'm eavesdropping.
I really want to talk with people, get to know them and share. Yet, I have NO IDEA HOW and it seems everyone else is in their own world here with people from their church or school or old friends. I feel completely on the outside.
Now that I've said that on to the subject at hand. The theme here is being spiritual in a crazy busy world. A valid and worthwhile theme, but one that doesn't come with nice Presbyterian answers. Unfortunately more than half the people here seem to be the type that want that and nothing more. So there were moments tonight when some people were rolling their eyes at a sermon that seemed even a bit "safe." Yet, the points are well heeded by anyone who wants to think about things spiritual. We do have to change what we think is important to daily living if we want to see bigger changes in our lives. If we always think that things should stay the same, or that things are just a certain way and that's the way it should be we become self defeating. You can't give one thing lip service while doing something else. . .
To bring that back around, I'm sitting out in the lobby hoping for some contact because at least there are people here. Maybe some of them will speak to me, maybe not, but it's at least trying something to change things. BTW: Cooperative confirmation classes are NOT new and shocking. *shakes head*
Yeah, now I'm eavesdropping.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Hymn Text Draft
A Short Hymn on Living Faithfully
We give ourselves over to comfort
by refusing to search for new ways
Transversing what we see as desert,
our focus set on heat and the blaze
Sometimes we must look to the outskirts
and sometimes we just have to look in
Fight power with something that subverts
For we know it's God's love that will win
Though we are not called to our privilege
We each are given much in this life
We must not carry it as baggage
But use it to bring light unto strife
For faithfulness is just to follow,
follow God into the unknown
To "love one another" is hollow
if those different than us we disown
©WolfWill 2011
by refusing to search for new ways
Transversing what we see as desert,
our focus set on heat and the blaze
Sometimes we must look to the outskirts
and sometimes we just have to look in
Fight power with something that subverts
For we know it's God's love that will win
Though we are not called to our privilege
We each are given much in this life
We must not carry it as baggage
But use it to bring light unto strife
For faithfulness is just to follow,
follow God into the unknown
To "love one another" is hollow
if those different than us we disown
©WolfWill 2011
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Rough "One Take" poetry
The following is just off the top of my head right now.
We give ourselves over to comfort
Refusing to search for new ways
To tranverse what we see as desert
So focused on heat and the blaze
Sometimes we must look to the outskirts
Sometimes we just have to look in
Fight power with something that subverts
For we know Gods love it will win
Though we are not called to our privilege
We each have a lot in this life
We must not carry it as baggage
But use it to bring light to strife
I have little burden to carry
If I carry just what's my own
But share with the hurting and wary
And my faith I will not disown
To be faithful is but to follow
Follow God into unknown
For "love one another" is hollow
If we journey just with our own
©WolfWill 2011
We give ourselves over to comfort
Refusing to search for new ways
To tranverse what we see as desert
So focused on heat and the blaze
Sometimes we must look to the outskirts
Sometimes we just have to look in
Fight power with something that subverts
For we know Gods love it will win
Though we are not called to our privilege
We each have a lot in this life
We must not carry it as baggage
But use it to bring light to strife
I have little burden to carry
If I carry just what's my own
But share with the hurting and wary
And my faith I will not disown
To be faithful is but to follow
Follow God into unknown
For "love one another" is hollow
If we journey just with our own
©WolfWill 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Who am I?
Another day where I wonder if I come across the way I want when I talk. So many parts of me compete for attention, and somehow I feel so over-aware of them most of the time. I am an Aspie, so I fear change, but my theology and philosophy in life is that we're always changing. I'm an Aspie, so I struggle socially, but the lowest I've ever scored on a Myers-Briggs type test is 95% Extrovert. I need people, but I never quite feel connected. I'm a diabetic, but my A1Cs tend to be in the low 5s. I'm a type 2 diabetic, but every doctor thinks that that HAS to be WRONG, because nothing says I should be, and I have no family history. I am a diabetic, but I get by on very minimal medication and not the strictest diet ever made. I have a Master of Divinity, but I'm not ordained nor do I plan to be. I work as a Christian Educator in the PC(USA) where it's unusual to have the combination I just mentioned. I'm a undeniably Presbyterian theologically, but I'm definitely Quaker when it comes to life and spirituality. I graduated from a Baptist seminary, though I grew up without a denomination, but I now will fight for the PC(USA) until I, or it dies. I am NOT a youth worker, but youth and parents would all probably fight hardest to defend me against anything said against me. I am obviously loved by kids, but my wife and I want none of our own. I am a coach, a director of plays, and love to preach and teach, but again I'm an Aspie and it stresses me out to no end. I'm Male, an competitive athlete, but also a theatre major who looks quite good in a pair of high heels. I am a theologian, who is logical (Aspie) and a science nerd (love me some quantum physics) but also artsy (theatre major) and a bit of an anarchist. Not to mention I'm a perfectionist in a world where I know I'm anything but.
So who am I? Am I defined by my diet? My marital status? My "way of thinking"? How I get my energy? My educative background? My theology? My spirituality? My job? My gender? My "disabilities"? My political views?
Some would argue I'm all of these things, I though tonight feel like I'm none of these things. These things are all comparative. I only need to be defined by any of these things when they affect the circumstance I'm in at a given moment. At this moment, I'm just a guy typing a stream of consciousness blog post. I AM though ALWAYS one thing. I am always a creation made in the image of my creator. I decided long ago in my studying of faith, scripture, and life that the idea of being made in God's image was not about how we looked, but what we were capable of and what we exist for. We are capable of creation, that is undeniable, we see that which we have created all around us. Yet we exist for more than creation, the same way that God exists beyond acts of creation. We exist to be stewards of creation, to maintain creation with the same love that it was created and continues to be cared for with by God.
Stewards does not mean: Use as we want. Creators does not mean: Be our own God. To be creators and stewards of creation means that we have to constantly be seeking that which is best for creation, that which God desires. Those desires are also our own deepest desires. We desire to be understood, thus we should desire to understand. We desire to be loved, thus we should desire to love. We desire to feel a purpose, thus we should desire to seek our purpose and to work to do that with all that we are. We are blessed with all that God is, all the power to be whatever we want to be, but we should want to be that which God is. That is what we see in the life of Jesus. Jesus doesn't do everything we do daily, the world is different, but does everything with the same WHY that we should have behind everything we do.
I am a steward and creator, created by God to LOVE and take care of ALL of Creation with ALL that I am. I can be less, I can choose not to be this, but this is who I am called to be, who I aim to be, and who I desire to be. In that I know who I am, because I know WHY I am.
And it is who we all have been created to be. I am not going to say let us forget that which makes us different, because in our differences are better able to understand the depth of God and of life and are better able to be that which we are called to be. I am though saying that maybe if we spent a bit less time with the comparatives of life it wouldn't be so bad. Maybe we can actually enjoy our diversity if we focused less on the "What" we are and remember the "WHY" we all are, because in that "WHY" we are all equal, and that then lets each of us be "Who I am"
So who am I? Am I defined by my diet? My marital status? My "way of thinking"? How I get my energy? My educative background? My theology? My spirituality? My job? My gender? My "disabilities"? My political views?
Some would argue I'm all of these things, I though tonight feel like I'm none of these things. These things are all comparative. I only need to be defined by any of these things when they affect the circumstance I'm in at a given moment. At this moment, I'm just a guy typing a stream of consciousness blog post. I AM though ALWAYS one thing. I am always a creation made in the image of my creator. I decided long ago in my studying of faith, scripture, and life that the idea of being made in God's image was not about how we looked, but what we were capable of and what we exist for. We are capable of creation, that is undeniable, we see that which we have created all around us. Yet we exist for more than creation, the same way that God exists beyond acts of creation. We exist to be stewards of creation, to maintain creation with the same love that it was created and continues to be cared for with by God.
Stewards does not mean: Use as we want. Creators does not mean: Be our own God. To be creators and stewards of creation means that we have to constantly be seeking that which is best for creation, that which God desires. Those desires are also our own deepest desires. We desire to be understood, thus we should desire to understand. We desire to be loved, thus we should desire to love. We desire to feel a purpose, thus we should desire to seek our purpose and to work to do that with all that we are. We are blessed with all that God is, all the power to be whatever we want to be, but we should want to be that which God is. That is what we see in the life of Jesus. Jesus doesn't do everything we do daily, the world is different, but does everything with the same WHY that we should have behind everything we do.
I am a steward and creator, created by God to LOVE and take care of ALL of Creation with ALL that I am. I can be less, I can choose not to be this, but this is who I am called to be, who I aim to be, and who I desire to be. In that I know who I am, because I know WHY I am.
And it is who we all have been created to be. I am not going to say let us forget that which makes us different, because in our differences are better able to understand the depth of God and of life and are better able to be that which we are called to be. I am though saying that maybe if we spent a bit less time with the comparatives of life it wouldn't be so bad. Maybe we can actually enjoy our diversity if we focused less on the "What" we are and remember the "WHY" we all are, because in that "WHY" we are all equal, and that then lets each of us be "Who I am"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)