I will not forget the words of my late seminary professor Cecil, he would always say: "Your job as pastor is to take care of the church, and taking care of the church is assuring it's health and long life. You do this by bringing in young families. Those are the most important people to a church." I thought then it was a bunch of bull, and I still do. Yes, that is now, has been, and will probably continue to be the way to assure that the church goes on functioning for yet another generation, but it misses the importance of actually being church.
The congregation I work with is undergoing a revisioning process, and it has been hard to stop the talk of "how do we grow the church" within that conversation. I agree we shouldn't just focus on what our church is but on a picture of what it could become in this process, but really transforming the church is different than just growing the church. Cecil is right, if you want to grow a church get focused on your youth, children, and families, but if you want to transform a church, then everyone is involved.
I was talking with one of the children at the church recently and asked the question "What is church here for?" Her answer: "To take care of those who can't take care of themselves." Do to the nature of the conversation we didn't get much deeper than that, but it is true, we are here to be community, to carry one another in a way that is healing and creative. We're not just here to bring other people in, we're here to be part of what goes out and changes the world. We must then focus not on those who can help us, but on helping those who can't help themselves. We are transformed by interacting, and I would hope that we're trying to be transformed into people with a larger vision. That means discovering new things about God, the world around us, and ourselves through relational experiences.
I took a group of youth this summer on their first mission trip. I watched them put together thoughts about inequality, human rights, and God's plan for all creation in ways that I'd never heard before. They connected with people, and then made bigger connections. We so often miss this in our normal church lives. We disconnect what we're up to in a building or through our programs from the bigger picture. Yet I truly believe that the reason it is essential for us to gather together is so that we can be transformed by one another.
This then extends to the church as a whole. If the church is going to be transformed it has to truly interact with the world around it. It can't be just a bubble with programs to draw in, it has to be a living moving creation that goes out and interacts with the world around it. It has to take care of those who are part of it that can't take care of themselves in order to be able to take care of all. It has to visit, it has to love, it has to be with the world, walking with the world and hearing the issues, and then working to help those who hurt, who are unable to help themselves, just as Jesus did.
We are the hands and feet of Christ. If we believe this, believe ourselves to be God's body, we need to be about God's work. Jesus did not worry about washing himself, he served and washed others. It was not about how many people were following him, but about what he could do for those who did. Jesus transformed the world by doing the work of God. The children came to him not because he created an environment that was child friendly, but because children recognize true friendliness and are attracted to it naturally. If we want our churches to be transformed, to continue to be relevant in generations to come, we must act as friends to the world. We must go and do God's work, and trust that God's love and grace is truly as irresistible as we claim it to be.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
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.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
I am Deathly Ill, and loving it.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)