Just Wondering...

Watched a program yesterday. Can't remember what it was or what channel (Discovery? TLC? History? - not sure).

But the show was talking about how Galileo was persecuted by the Catholic church for claiming that the earth revolved around the sun - or more specifically that the sun was the center of the universe. The Church insisted that this idea was contrary to the Bible and therefore heresy.

From Wikipedia:

"The so-called Galileo affair, in which Galileo Galilei came into conflict with the Catholic Church over his support of Copernican astronomy, is often considered a defining moment in the history of the relationship between religion and science.

In 1610 Galileo published his Starry Messenger, describing the surprising observations that he had made with the new telescope. These and other discoveries exposed major difficulties with the understanding of the heavens that had been held since antiquity, and raised new interest in radical teachings such as the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. In reaction, many maintained that the motion of the Earth and immobility of the Sun were heretical, as they contradicted some accounts given in the Bible as understood at that time. This article treats of Galileo's part in the controversies over theology, astronomy, and philosophy, culminating in his trial and sentencing in 1633 on a grave suspicion of heresy."

It was also said in 1615 by Cardinal Robert Bellarmine that

"the heliocentric ideas were "a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false." Moreover, while the matter was not inherently a matter of faith, it became one "on the part of the ones who have spoken", namely "the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators." He conceded that if there were positive proof, "then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated."

In the end (emphasis mine):

"In modern terms, we consider Galileo's views on heliocentricity to be no fundamental advance. The Sun is no more the center of the universe than the Earth is (indeed, the question has no meaning, as apparently all locations can be equally regarded as the "center" of the universe). The Catholic Church held to the prevailing scientific opinion of the day, which was that the Earth was the center of the universe. Thus, for moderns, the key issue of this controversy was not the objective correctness of the theories being debated, but rather the morality of institutions (or persons) using physical force to shape acceptance of scientific beliefs."

I just wonder ... after this (among other similar events), why is the church (not just the Catholic church but the church in general) remain so insistent that it is always right - even on scientific issues?

I think this is the point for me: the Church was using a widely accepted interpretation of Scripture to assert a scientific truth, and held that it was a Biblical impossibility that the earth revolved around the sun. Yet we all know today that this idea is ridiculous, and we have adjusted our view of scripture to, if not support, at least not to contradict this scientific concept. Do you know anyone today who still holds to the belief that the universe (or even solar system) is geo-centric, claiming that the Bible says so? I imagine some such people exist, but the generally held view today is that the solar system is heliocentric. Few Christians today will whip out their Bible and argue against this view.

These days, what scientific subjects is the Church using Biblical interpretation to disprove? Why does the Church still insist they know the scientific truth on some certain subjects, and claim they can prove it with scripture?

What about creation vs. evolution? What about the possibility that homosexuality is, in fact, genetic?

I know there are people who will not appreciate my saying so, but what issues might we someday know that the presently held scientific perspective was the truth and our presently held Biblical perspective was not the truth?

Just wondering.

Clarification of "Questions"

I have realized that I may need to clarify some of my thougths in my post "Questions". Sorry I've had to go here. Couldn't be helped.

This really isn't about my faith or what I consider to be the foundational aspects of my faith. I have, in the course of my life, drawn some non-negotiable conclusions:

God is the creator of the universe. He is all-knowing, all-loving and all-forgiving. He saw humanity separate itself from His Holiness, and He loved humanity enough to provide a means of reconciliation. Not only that, but this means of reconciliation required the sacrifice of His Only Son. The Son willingly came to earth to live as a human, so that we might understand how much our God loves us. The Son also willingly committed Himself to crucifixion in order that He might cleanse us and reconcile us to God. He was buried and on the third day He arose bodily and walked among His disciples, so that they might believe and tell all about the miracle of who Jesus was for mankind. I believe He then ascended to heaven, where He remains at the right-hand of God, but not before leaving us the Spirit to guide us, teach us and correct us. I believe the Bible to be the God-breathed, the testimony written by men of who God was to them and what He did for them. An account of the Savior of the world, both during His earthly walk, before He took the form of flesh, and also after He returned to His father.

Is that sufficient to convince you that I am not falling into heresy? Heck, maybe I have because I left out the parts about "infalliblility" and "inerrancy" and "perfection". But then again, I know I'm not alone on that. And I'm sure my "testimony" isn't up to typical theological standards in vocabulary and content. Sorry, but I'm only me.

Part of my process of questioning was the recent realization that I do not have a sufficient answer for the hope that I have to give to those who doubt or disbelieve. So I am processing, separating the "this I know's" from the "I'm not sure's" and the "does it really matter's?" of my faith. I am wondering out loud what things really and truly make a person a Christian - and I no longer necessarily believe those things are the same things the church has taught me all my life.

If I have to adhere to some of the specifics the mainstream church has taught to be the "fundamentals" of christianity, then maybe I have fallen away. But I am not afraid, because the God I know understands my questions and my reasons and I fully welcome Him to correct me when I'm wrong. But I hesitate to be corrected by other humans who still insist on preaching to me the same things that have been preached to me since the day I was born, but that I have so seldom seen walked out in any meaningful reality. If God needs to correct me I believe He will do so convincingly, entirely without the use of platitudes.

I aim to be nothing less than honest in this blog. That's not to say that I always tell the "whole truth", but what I do tell is truth. I cannot in good conscience share every thought that crosses my mind and still retain a sense of privacy, yet I aim to share enough so that those who are on similar journeys are able to relate and maybe find some hope. I have no delusions of grandeur, I know how few people read here. But it's only my desire to be here where God has planted me, knowing that I may never know who my being here has helped.

In my desire to be transparent and voice my journey so that I might be a lamppost to those who might share my struggles or questions, I might say things that don't jive with typical and acceptable modern Christian standards. I'm sorry if this is sometimes difficult to understand.

I don't ask you to understand. I only ask that if you read here, partaking of the message of my personal experience and process, that you grace me with the courtesy to try to respect where I'm at. If anyone has a differing view than I of any subject matter, or wishes to share some insight or wisdom, please talk with me. I want to hear what people have to say. Dare to dialogue with me.

But I am not looking for someone to provide me with "pat" answers. I fully intend to find my own way, that's much of why I have left the church (the issue which in itself creates an entirely different argument, one that I do not wish to embark on in this post). I do have an open mind. I am not afraid of having answers. I only wonder if we have made "answers" the idol, blinding us to the flexibility and unpredictability of the God we worship. When we try to explain Him away, saying," Well in the Bible He did this or He meant that" we often miss the greater points He has for us:

that this walk, this journey is about knowing Him more,
not about knowing Him completely.

Because everything I know of Him is filtered through my human-colored glasses, I consider all my beliefs subject to reevaluation at any given time, as He reveals more of Himself and His ways to me each day. There are very few aspects of my faith that I dare to say will not EVER change. That's not to say that I hold NO aspects to be non-negotiable or that I have NO answers, just that I am careful how many. The rest is subject to interpretation through my daily and increasing intimacy with God.

I know He expects me to learn and grow, and in that I expect that my understanding of Him will evolve a little more each day. I also know that while God does not change, the way we understand Him through our "human" lenses, does.

Otherwise, why are we not still stuck in the dark ages, believing that laypeople have no right to the text of the Bible, believing that we may "buy" our forgiveness? Because the lense has changed.

That's a good thing, I think. Don't you?

It's always a frightening thing when the lense changes, I would think. It challenges us. We may have to refocus, and some things that we didn't want to see more clearly become more clear. We may have to admit that a simple stand of trees is instead a mysterious forest. We may have to admit that the scenery is more beautiful on the backroads than on the highway, even if it is slower going.

But I always welcome an improvement to my prescription. It's not about becoming "adjusted" to the vision I have and accepting it. It's about always wanting to see more clearly, even if it's disorienting for a time.

And I think it's perfectly OK for me to be questioning, and I hope that I will always continue to question and never become obsessed with or prideful in my answers.

Lord, change my prescription at Your will and then hold me up until I get my bearings. Please never allow me to be content with my current clarity of vision, let me always desire to see more clearly.

Amen.

Bookends

I know this isn't really my normal blog subject matter, but I just wanted to share. If you're not a "dog person", this will probably bore you.

You might know that we have a 9 month old female Siberian Husky. Her name is Suka, and she is amazing and we love her. She's the darker one in the picture. She is red and white, with ice green eyes and a cute kink in her tail.

We chose her name because in at least one "first nations" dialect (Inuit? Inupiaq? Inuktitut? I'm not sure precisely which dialect we got the word from) "suka" means "fast". Her full name is Ikkuma Suka - Ikkuma meaning "fire". We might be mixing dialects here - we wanted to be true to the language but didn't know anyone who could confirm for us, so we decide to just go with it. So her name, in intention if not truly in translation, being "fast fire".

(Sidenote: if anyone is familiar with these arctic dialects and wants to provide information about our choice of words/name, even if it's just to tell me that we botched the language, let me know. We won't change it now, but we still wouldn't mind knowing if we are inaccurate. Our goal was to be correct.)

None of us can keep up with her. She is never out of energy and requires constant entertainment. I'm not kidding. Our boys are 10 and 6, bundles of energy in their own right, and they still can't handle her roughhousing for long. If we fail to entertain her sufficiently, she takes to digging in the trash, chewing on furniture, or just tearing around the house.

Let me back up a little. I'm an English Springer Spaniel girl, born and bred. In September of 2003, when she was 14, our last girl Chelsea had to be put down because she could no longer walk or see or hear. It was two years before I was ready to add a canine companion to our family again. Since Chelsea's loss, we added two feline's to the crowd, but Chelsea had a special place with us and we needed to heal from her loss.

So last fall we were beginning to miss having a dog around, and I started talking about getting a Springer puppy. My husband voiced his opinion that since I got to have a springer last time, he thought it was his turn to choose. He has always wanted a husky. This is not a "Snow Dogs" or "Eight Below" motivated desire. He's wanted one for 30 years.

We did our reasearch. Thoroughly. We gleaned information from everyone we knew who has a husky or any related arctic breed like a malamute or samoyed. Huskies are not a breed for the faint-at-heart. They shed. They dig. They escape. They run away and don't return. They chew. And they are relentless althletes. They love the cold and rain and snow and hate the heat. Since we have a tightly fenced yard, two energetic boys, cool wet winters and central air in our house for the summer, we figured it would be fine.

So we went one night last fall to see some husky puppies. The breeder was local and had a varied litter with one white, two black/white, two red/white, and one grey/white. We thought this would give us a good introduction to the various colors that husky genes produce. We were just going to look. JUST to look, mind you. Get information, talk to a breeder, ya know. Investigate.

Two hours and $500 later we were the proud owners of a red/white short-haired female husky. She just was for us. No doubt about it. She was perfect.

Except for the need for nighttime company. We had decided right away that we would crate-train her. She would need to be confined when not supervised (i.e. at night and when we're not home), primarily because of the cats. We set up the crate in the living room - this is not a little crate - 24 x 24 x 36. So that first night we put her to bed, we knew she would cry. Boy did she ever. Wailing and howling and crying like you've never heard. Third night we moved her crate into our room at night. Not a peep. Ok, problem solved, except that now we were committed to hauling her crate from our room to the living room each day and back at night.

And except for the predatory instinct. We had been told that since she was born into a home that had cats that she would have learned that cats are part of her "pack" and not prey. Well sure enough, that's true. What we didn't know is that she would still be compelled to CHASE the cats whenever opportunity presented itself.

And except she managed to find a way out of the yard. Thing was we couldn't determine how she was getting out. She wouldn't try it when she knew we were watching. Took weeks before we were onto her trick and were able to close off her escape route. Lucky for us she's a good girl and would eventually come when called, after we routinely chased her around the block.

And except she loves the RAIN. In Portland this translates to muddy dog 9 months of the year. Read: MUDDY. WET. FOOTPRINTS.

And except she is strong. Like an Ox. Like by the time she was 6 months old, I could no longer take her for walks. I couldn't handle her. After many sore arms and shoulders, we got her a spiked training collar. That worked for me.

But the digging in the trash. Whoa boy. I totally knew it was just a boredom thing. Now, don't get me wrong, this girl is hardly ever alone, she always has someone or something to play with, she gets run every day - sometimes twice - and has a huge yard to play in. She has no legitimate reason to be bored - except that she's a husky. So back to the trash. She knew if was wrong. When she had pullled something out of the trash she would immediately tuck her tail and run into her crate. This was, of course, after shredding said item all over the kitchen. I was at my wits end. I knew what we had to do.

After much deliberation we decided the only option was to get her a playmate. I never imagined having one Husky in my house, let alone two.

We decided we didn't want to do the puppy thing again, so we began looking for an adult dog that needed a new home. We'd been looking since about January, just hadn't found the right one. One day a couple weeks ago, there was an ad on Craigslist up in the Seattle area. I responded and we discoved that he was red/white, a little lighter but nearly identical to Suka in markings, with pale blue eyes. After several e-mail conversations with the owner, we decided to meet. I had a good feeling about this boy. I knew he had been loved, he had lived with kids and another dog. He is only a year and a half old. He has a quirk, too (remember Suka's tail is kinked), a massive overbite...it looks like his tongue doesn't fit in his mouth. He has an appropriate name too, "Kai" means "dog" in at least one arctic dialect. He was a perfect match. It just felt right.

On May 7th, after meeting him, we decided to take him home. We put his dog bed in the back of our car and he climbed in and didn't make a sound in all of the 2 hour drive home. A sign?

The first meeting of the dogs was tense. For all of about 15 seconds. Then they started chasing each other around the yard and wrestling, all the while grinning ear-to-ear ( you dog lovers know they can smile!). They are absolute soul mates. Suka thought she'd died and gone to heaven - we'd brought her A REAL LIVE toy to play with!

They are inseparable, follow each other around, curl up together to sleep, play kissy-face, tug-of-war with toys and bones, tear around the yard, tackle each other, lounge around together...I can't explain it exept it's like they are meant to be together. Oh, by the way we are not planning to breed them. These two are both official non-breedable dogs. As in "fixed".

We, of couse, planned to crate Kai, too. We were worried because he'd never been in a crate before. But sure enough, adaptive as he is and since he saw Suka doing it without complaining, he never protested. And another cool thing: Since they are crated side-by-side in the living room, we no longer have to move Suka's crate to our bedroom at night. She is not lonely because he's there, and they both sleep peacefully every night.

We now have two pullers, which is cool because we plan to skijor with them in the winter. We do have 8 muddy paws instead of 4, but overall this is a small sacrifice for having two thoroughly happy, joyful dogs.

The best thing: he's extrememly good-mannered. He doesn't dig in the trash, doesn't steal food of tables, doesn't climb on the furniture, and is gentle with the kids.

And they are a formidable match for the lonely pit bull in the yard behind us.

What a deal.

Bookends. A matched pair. Pretty cool if you ask me.

A God thing.

So we had tickets to see POD last Saturday night, here in Portland.

Thing is, they had gear transport trouble on the way up, and the concert was postponed to tonight. I was regrettably unable to go tonight (a family thing), so my husband went with two friends. It so happens that one of these friends used to have a band who toured with POD some time ago. The other friend has a band now.

[Editor's note: My husband and his two friends are all musicians and my husband makes custom skateboards as a hobby.]

I'll let hubby tell the rest of the story in his own words...

POD is doing the "Warriors 2" tour along with Pillar and a couple of other Christian bands. It's not heavily advertised and it's at smaller venues that they might not normally play. I immediately bought two tickets when I first heard about it. So, anyway the show was postponed to Monday night (tonight) and I couldn't find anyone to go with me. Because of the postponement they were offering ticket refunds, so I took my tickets back and got a full refund.

So I'm sitting at home feeling kinda let down, when finally one of my friends (who I had been trying to get ahold of earlier to go with me) calls. It was getting late, but we decide to get another friend of ours and go down there and see if we can get in (since my one friend used to know the band). We get down there and happen to find a parking spot right in front with the tour buses! We're running really late for the show, it started an hour earlier than we thought, and so it's almost over. After talking with the people at the security check for awhile, they decide to let us in for free since we had missed most of the show.

Afterwards, my friend (who's band toured with POD back in the mid-to-late 90's) wants to say "Hi" to the band. We try talking with Security without any luck, I'm sure they thought we were just making up a story to get backstage - but then a weird thing happened that had to be a God thing. Another Security guard (who hadn't even heard our story) suddenly walks up and says "Let these guys through". So we walk backstage (like we own the place, of course).

The members of POD instantly recognized my friend and started giving him hugs. My friend then introduced us. Then, amazingly enough, the band asked us to sit down with them and enjoy some food & drinks. Through the course of conversation, I find out not only do we have several common interests (music & making skateboards), but we also find out they were in real need of encouragement (they've been touring for quite awhile) and they asked us to pray for them.

After hanging out for like an hour, we exchanged e-mail addresses & stuff, 'cause they want to stay in touch. It was really amazing, and I feel like God had us there to encourage them and also as the possible beginning of other (as of yet unnamed/unknown) God-connections. Everything just fell into place.

So...

My husband got to hang with POD tonight!

Wait...let me try that again!

MY HUSBAND GOT TO HANG WITH POD TONIGHT!

Was that loud enough? Did you hear me down in New Zealand?

I LOVE LOVE LOVE how God works. He's so cool! What a blessing to a whole bunch of guys!

Oh, and POD... YOU ROCK!

Over and out.

Questions

Just wondering: at what point is it OK to question your faith? What kinds of questions are OK? What question (or questions) indicate that you have fallen into the abyss? As long as you are still asking questions of God, even if they are about His existance, are you still a Christian?

So I heard, once upon a time (might've been a bumper sticker) this statement:

I told God I don't believe in Him.
He said He still believes in me.

OK, where is the unbelief in that? Why bother telling God that you don't believe in Him if you don't believe in Him? And how do you know He answered back if you don't believe in Him?

So as long as you are still there, in that place of dialogue, is there still hope?

I have been having to really pick it apart lately. Am doing a little Bible study with a friend, the first study I have chosen to embark on in 18 months. I was a little nervous to begin examining my faith in this way again, with very good reason. I have never, until now, had the boldness to really be willing to ask the tough questions.

What am I seeking on this journey of mine? Not only on the journey of Christian faith, but this journey of detoxing and wandering. What do I hope to find? Peace? Acceptance? What aspects of faith am I certain I believe? What do I doubt and why? Do any of those doubts render my faith impotent?

Or the toughest question.

Why do I even believe at all?

Don't get me wrong. There is no doubt that I believe in Jesus.

But then again, even satan believes in Jesus.

Kidding.

But I truly do claim a saving relationship with Jesus. I can't deny that even if I try. (I have tried. It lasts for about 10 seconds.) I am just too stubborn or too starry-eyed to let it go. So this I know because I know that I know.

But Peter says to always have an answer for the hope that you have. What kind of answer? Does my answer need to be personal and testimonial? What qualifies as a "good" answer?

Why do I believe? I have realized recently that I don't have a good answer. I know all the textbook answers, and I fully believe in the Spirit's ability to provide apt words of wisdom for any given situation, but shouldn't I be prepared in some way? If I can't, in this very moment of my life, answer that ONE momentous, defining question, can I really claim to have any faith at all?

Why do I believe? Is there even an answer for such a question? I can easily lean on the Bible, but what good does that do if I'm speaking to a person who does not recognize the Bible as any kind of authority? I can provide personal testimony of how God has worked miraculously in my life, but then I am asked how do I know it's not just "coincidence"? There are many specific miracles in my life, but what about an unbeliever who can provide similar "miracles" in their life? I can tell them that those times are God working in their life (for He can work in whomever He chooses), that He was trying to get their attention, but that doesn't seem realistic that they would believe that.

Then there's the question of "what do I believe"? Well, do I have to know specifics? Do I have to be able to outline the tenets of my personal faith; i.e. where I stand on the issues of predestination or original sin or eschatology, or abortion for that matter? Should always be prepared with my answers to these things? Because I'm not prepared at all. I find that the more I know, the more I know I don't know. And just when I think I have it figured out, tomorrow I will change and today won't mean a thing. *

I find that I am usually short on answers, and when I do have them, my answers only lead to more questions that I don't have answers to.

So, if I say when asked why I believe, "I don't bloody well know. But I do.", what kind of Christian does that make me?

I hope it would make me an inquisitive one, like a child, for not having an answer.
An honest one, for telling it like it is.
A faithful one for still believing even if I can't say why.
And a human one, for being so weak as to use foul language in the delivery.

And a prayerful one, for hoping at this point the Spirit would see fit to rescue me with some timely and appropriate wisdom.

Am I crazy? Just wondering.

What did you get for Mother's Day?

From hubby I got two chilli pepper coffee mugs I really wanted ... they match my decor, and of course coffee is always important. They look like this:

From my 10 year old I got a PowerPoint slideshow on CD-Rom ... they made them at school. Beautiful music and transitions and basically I'm the best mother in the world! How's that for a compliment?

From my 6 year old I got a handmade foam frame in sunny yellow with a drawing and a "Happy Mother's Day" written inside.

From myself I got new cushions for the wicker patio furniture ... shhh, don't tell.

Then I went out to dinner with my mom.

And hubby cleaned up our kitchen :)

But most importantly I got about a million hugs and beautiful cheerful attitudes from the kids, all day long!

Hope you had a good one!

It's gonna be a scorcher!

For all you locals...do you realize our record temperature for today is 86 and it's supposed to be 93 today?

Sunblock, hats, umbrellas, and a trip to the Rose Quarter Fountain for the kids today! Stay cool!

I finally gave in...

...and read the "Da Vinci Code".

Warning ... this is a potentially meaningless and confusing post to wade through. It helped me gel some trains of thought and see where I am more clearly. It's not necessarily useful to others. Enter at your own risk.

After countless months of being met with people's blank stares when I share that I have not read DVC; being the Tom Hanks fan that I am and considering the imminent release of the film, I caved.

I read it yesterday. Yes, you heard me right. I. Read. It. Yesterday.

Not being interested in devoting many useful days to it, I decided to do the thing I don't do very often and dedicated a single day to it.

It's not that I have been opposed to the book on any spiritual or theological level, just that I'm not a follower of the majority on most things artistic. Call me a rebel, but I make no apologies. It's not that I don't usually enjoy the entertainment preferred by the masses, or that I fear some kind of "lemming syndrome", just that I often rather spend my time in the unusual and "off the beaten path".

Case in point: my favorite movie in recent times? "The Weeping Camel" or "Danny Deckchair". Favorite musical interest of late? Flyleaf ... Book choice? "The Silmarillion" ... Did I EVER once crack the pages of, let alone read, "PDL"? Of course not.

Get my drift?

So moving right along...what did I think of DVC? Hm. Pondering.

It's full of thoroughly interesting concepts, imagery, and mystery. It's a creative masterpiece, and frankly Dan Brown is a genius for looking to this subject matter as not only the groundwork for a bestselling novel, but the foundation for the creation of an entire cult. Not that he antcipated that to occur. But not that he didn't. WINK.

Does the book worry me? Of course not. I am smart enough to know that most Christians, regardless of what the "truth" might actually be, are not looking to be spiritually led by a work of fiction. Nor do I think that Christians should be concerned about NON-Christians being spiritually influenced by this book. Will people be influenced? Yes. But not in bad ways. It will cause a few people to seek, and they will naturally go to the Church for answers. This book certainly has the ability to stir in people an interest in history as a whole, as seen by the masses flocking to the historic sites featured in DVC, only because of the book. And it opens the door of dialogue about the alleged atrocities committed and secrets held by the "church" throughout history.

I am not concerned with the theories the book tosses about. These ideas are nothing new. I am not concerned about whether or not these ideas are truth, lies, or something in-between. If a day were to come when there was indisputable evidence that there exists an earthly lineage of Jesus, I would cross that bridge when I came to it.

In the meantime, I have got to thinking. I just wonder if the real draw of this book is much more simple than many would want to believe.

I wonder if what it's really about is the (and you can call me biased on this) enormous disillusionment people have with the church ... both christians and non-christians alike. I wonder if we are so hungry for some new sense of truth ... some excitement ... some new ideas about this faith and it's evolution over the last 2000 years ... and even the last 10,000 years if we peer back far enough?

All I know is this "christianity" does not work. I'm not sure it ever worked ... ever. We've been taking the bull by the horns - so to speak - for so long ... trying to wrestle the great and powerful unknowns of God into something tame and knowable, manageable even, that maybe much has been lost over the millenia. I wonder if we really have missed some essential elements of our faith ... not saying that we must canonize the gnostics or accept the idea that Christ had children ... but that maybe we really do need to look beyond what is/has been manistream christianity for thousands of years and seek that which is missing ... mystery ... intrigue ... whatever else you might want to call it.

I have always wondered why we keep feeling the need to revise this faith system ... I mean the disciples certainly had a pretty clear idea of what Christ was about ... why don't we have great general agreement among ourselves? I realize the whole story has been manipulated by men ... if not in any literal sense, at least in an interpretive sense, so that what we know today is a far cry from what we read about in the NT. Each generation believes the lens through which christianity was interpreted by the generation immediately preceeding us was dirty or out-of-focus. I wonder if it's not the lens that's the problem but the fact that we are using a lens at all ... wondering if it's so much more simple than it's always been made to be. Maybe it's about opening our eyes, trusting our own vision instead of the glasses we are given.

And I realize I am ranting and may be losing you in my train of thought ... it's midnight so bear with me as I get it all out ...

People are obviously drawn to the ideas that are put forth in this book, so I wonder if we really need to give it a serious shake at helping us see what out freeze-dried faith needs to get a grip on in order to become what it was meant to be.

Not saying that ANY of the concepts in DVC are what our faith is lacking... but that they are ALL what it is lacking... collectively, as a whole ... meaning, what do these ideas in DVC, as a unit, offer people that modern christianity doesn't? Why are there seemingly more DVC converts in the last 2 years than there have been real disciples created in the last 20?

Aside from the notion that Jesus was much more "human" than we ever imagined (I doubt it) and aside from the notion that there is some enormous conspiracy to conceal that fact (I double doubt it) and aside from the notion that anyone would ever be able to prove such things were true...

... maybe we have missed some great point ... some key element ... that could make this faith the powerful agent of love and change and justice that it was meant to be?

Maybe in all our attempts to explain and understand and grasp what Christ would really have us be, and then document and dissect and argue why we have these particular explanations and understandings so that others will know that WE have the REAL TRUTH ... maybe we have lost the point entirely.

It was never meant to be known or understood or unravelled into some kind of college text book. It was meant to be powerful and secretive and awesome and mysterious. God is only knowable in that we can know that He exisits and that He is who He says He is ... God is not knowable in that He will never be predictable or formulaic or measurable.

The Gospel was never meant to have all the answers. The Gospel is about pointing the way to the ONE who does. That way is twisting and turning and sometimes dark and sometimes treacherous. It is a wagon on a rutted road and a bicyclist on cobblestone. It is switchbacks and downhills. It is forested and desert. It is seaside and rainsoaked. It is foggy and starlit...

So does the "DaVinci Code" really provide more answers than it does questions? I think so, if we know where to look. It provides the answer to the question of "what do people really seek"? That answer is this: "What we seek is NOT answers to questions of doctrine and theology and history. What we seek is THE answer. The answer to life and meaning."

Everything we seek beyond the One Whom we Seek just leads to more questions we cannot answer.

Confusing?

But maybe that's the point. Maybe we need to rethink whether we actually NEED any other answers?

Just wondering.

OK, my mind is now officially mush. Going to bed.

Happy Mother's Day!

From For Better or Worse

More StumbleUpon Fun...

...or maybe just bored.

In any case, if you wonder what StumbleUpon is, read my post here.

Electronic Reusable Paper - Hm, would'nt a Magic Slate be cheaper?

The Ultimate Case Mod List - as determined by Neat-O-Rama

The National Public Toilet Map - too bad it's only for Australia

Transparent Computer Monitors - not sure if they really did or just shopped a photo. Still trippy.

Hubblefox - For you Firefox Fans

FiveFinger Shoes - I'm sure there are people who'd love this, but it seems just weird

Moving Color - Imagine shower tile that changes color with temperature

Seen any of these films...?

From Justin To Kelly
3 Ninjas: High Noon at Mega Mountain
Glitter
Son of The Mask
You Got Served
Baby Geniuses
Gigli
The Garbage Pail Kids Movie
Jaws: The Revenge
Teen Wolf Too
Spice World
Street Fighter

If so, you've had the privelege of being "entertained" by one of IMDB's Bottom 100 movies of all time.

What's really sad is how many movies on that list I've actually seen.

This fascinated me

Rachael Papo has done a photo essay on women serving in the Israeli military. I'll let her tell it.

From her Statement:

"The life of an eighteen-year-old girl in Israel is interrupted when she is plucked out of her environment at an age when sexual, educational, and family values are at their highest exploration point. She is then placed in a rigorous institution, where individuality becomes a secondary matter, making room for nationalism. “I solemnly swear…to devote all of my strength and to sacrifice my life to protect the land and the liberty of Israel,” repeats the newly recruited soldier during her swearing-in ceremony. She enters the two-year period in which she will change from a girl to a woman, a teenager to an adult, all under a militaristic, masculine environment, and in the confines of an army that is engaged in daily war and conflict.

I decided to portray female soldiers in Israel during their mandatory military service as a way for me to revisit my own experience. I served as a photographer in the Israeli Air Force between 1988-1990. It was a period marked by continuous depression and extreme loneliness, and at the time I was too young to understand these emotions. Through a series of images showing female soldiers in army bases and outside, individually or in groups, I attempt to reveal a facet of this experience that is generally overlooked by the global community."

Visit SERIALNO3817131.com to see this story for yourself.

Of Note

Some of what I've been reading in the blogosphere:

• Darryl Dash on What's Good and Bad about the Emerging Church
• John O'Keefe on Friendship
• PBS Religion & Ethics Newsweekly on Churches in Trauma - Sex scndals in the church
• PBS R&E on Church Health Sharing - healthcare cost sharing in the church
• House Church Blog - Are We too Disconnected?
• Andrew Jones - adventures in Hybridity Parts 1 and 2
• Mark Bushor on the Brands of Christianity
• Jordan Cooper on Spencer Burke's upcoming article in Leadership Journal
• Scot McKnight - What's a "heretic" anyway?
  
• And related: Brother Maynard on Heresy
• Brother Maynard - I thought Change was Inevitable
• Bob Hyatt - The Hank Hill church video. Downloadable link at Bob's site, view it here
• Michale Kruse - When Exploitation is Mutually Beneficial - on free trade
• Sherman Kuek on Altered Calls

and Kiva - giving small loans to small businesses in third-world countries. I got this link from somebody's blog - and now I can't remember who. If you know who has linked to it recently, let me know so I can HT.

[EDIT] I just got a nice comment from Fiona Ramsey, Customer Relations and Operations Manager for Kiva. She jogged my memory that I got this link from Michael Kruse. Drop in over there and read what he has to say about this organization. It's pretty dang cool!

All kinds of Alarms!

A friend recently sent me a link to this article in the New York Times.

Contra-Contraception

No doubt many of you have already heard about it. If not, I will summarize in the next few paragraphs. It is, however, a quite long article, and I urge you to visit the NY Times and read the entirety of it.

I might ruffle a few feathers here...and I am tempted to enter into a long qualification as to why I fear this article, but I think I'll let it speak for itself initially.

"For the past 33 years — since, as they see it, the wanton era of the 1960's culminated in the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 — American social conservatives have been on an unyielding campaign against abortion. But recently, as the conservative tide has continued to swell, this campaign has taken on a broader scope. Its true beginning point may not be Roe but Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case that had the effect of legalizing contraception. "We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion," says Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, an organization that has battled abortion for 27 years but that, like others, now has a larger mission. "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set," she told me. "So when a baby is conceived accidentally, the couple already have this negative attitude toward the child. Therefore seeking an abortion is a natural outcome. We oppose all forms of contraception."

...

"R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is considered one of the leading intellectual figures of evangelical Christianity in the U.S. In a December 2005 column in The Christian Post titled "Can Christians Use Birth Control?" he wrote: "The effective separation of sex from procreation may be one of the most important defining marks of our age — and one of the most ominous. This awareness is spreading among American evangelicals, and it threatens to set loose a firestorm.. . .A growing number of evangelicals are rethinking the issue of birth control — and facing the hard questions posed by reproductive technologies."

...my "favorite"

"Focus on the Family posts a kind of contraceptive warning label on its Web site: "Modern contraceptive inventions have given many an exaggerated sense of safety and prompted more people than ever before to move sexual expression outside the marriage boundary." Contraception, by this logic, encourages sexual promiscuity, sexual deviance (like homosexuality) and a preoccupation with sex that is unhealthful even within marriage."

...

"Dr. W. David Hager, a Christian conservative whom President Bush appointed to lead the panel in 2002 ... said he feared that if Plan B were freely available, it would increase sexual promiscuity among teenagers. F.D.A. staff members presented research showing that these fears were ungrounded: large-scale studies showed no increase in sexual activity when Plan B was available to them, and both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Society for Adolescent Medicine endorsed the switch to over-the-counter status. Others argued that the concern was outside the agency's purview: that the F.D.A.'s mandate was specifically limited to safety and did not extend to matters like whether a product might lead to people having more sex. Meanwhile a government report later found that Dr. Janet Woodcock, deputy commissioner for operations at the F.D.A., had also expressed a fear that making the drug available over the counter could lead to "extreme promiscuous behaviors such as the medication taking on an 'urban legend' status that would lead adolescents to form sex-based cults centered around the use of Plan B." In May 2004, the F.D.A. rejected the finding of its scientific committees and denied the application, citing some of the reasons that Dr. Hager had expressed."

Here's finally someone with some wits about them:

"Dr. James Trussell, director of the Office of Population Research at Princeton University and one of the world's leading experts on contraception, said..."There is evidence that there is a contraceptive effect of breast feeding after fertilization. While a woman is breast feeding, the first ovulation is characterized by a short luteal phase, or second half of the cycle. It's thought that because of that, implantation does not occur." In other words, if the emergency contraception pill causes abortions by blocking implantation, then by the same definition breast feeding may as well."

OK, I understand the main purpose of the article is to discuss whether or not the "Plan B" pill should be available over-the-counter. That is a deep and difficult question, in my opinion. I am not going to put myself in a place of discussing it at this time, especially since I have no daughters at all and no children over the age of 10 at this time, so I don't really feel qualified to analyze that.

But the underlying arguments about the evils of contraceptives in general has my liberal panties in a wad, for sure.

I am going to let the obvious social/religious issues lie for a moment, and I don't really want to get into the discussion of the right/wrong of abortion as a contraceptive method...so when I use the term "contraceptive" here, I'm speaking of the typical contraceptive methods: barriers such as the condom and the diaphragm; and hormones such as the pill, the IUD (which is primarily hormonal these days), Depo, Norplant; etc.

Mmy personal perspective on the medical aspect of contraception: I am a woman that had two extremely difficult pregnancies, both involving complete bed-rest by 20 weeks gestation, both involving gestational diabetes which can greatly endanger the health of the baby and the safety of delivery. I had two nearly life-threatening deliveries, my second child has a lifelong speech disorder because of the difficulty of his pregnancy and delivery. Now, I am also a Type II diabetic. And they want me to exercise absolutely NO CONTROL over the possibility of another pregnancy? What kind of nonsense is that? My husband and I are undecided about any additions to our family ... but we are in agreement that my health at this time is not good enough to bear pregnancy without serious complications, both for myself and the child. And I am thankful that I am able to make that informed choice. In any case, if God desperately wants me to have more children, I don't believe "the pill" is going to stop Him (in fact I know it won't, as I have two friends who have "I was on the the pill" children).

I do believe God created sex for more than just survival of the species. What is all this jive about it not being OK to "objectify" your spouse sexually (I think we're talking "lust" here - or having sex purely for the fun of it)? So if we use contraceptives, it will encourage us to have sex for the pleasure of it rather than for the purpose of procreation? Why is that bad - even within marriage? It's still the single irreplaceable union of two people, both body and Spirit.

If we fear that contraceptives will be "abused" outside of marriage, maybe we should legislate only providing contraceptives to married couples before we try to ban them altogether? Hm, never thought of that....? Now, I don't want my liberal friends to get riled, so I will say that I think that's a ridiculous notion, too.

In the end, I am all for choice in contraception. God provides medical technology for a reason. To say that something as seemingly simple as oral contraception goes contrary to God's purposes, why use any medicine at all? Now that's a loaded question and I guess I just won't go there. But still...?

And just wondering, but as a side note I think there is a disgusting measure of patriarchal, male-chauvinist attitude in this entire run of contra-contraceptive nonsense, as portrayed in this article. Anyone else?

Dub

Steve Taylor (e~mergent kiwi) was talking the other day about Dub in worship. Cool!

... some of the highlights of his post, titled "dub, spirituality and worship" :

"Thought 1 - It struck me at the Greg Laurie Crusade (in Christchurch over the weekend) that the music was "white boy" music - more rock based,guitar driven, clear verse/chorus song structure - in style ...

Thought 2 - Often the songs sung in church are "white boy" music; I'm thinking Delirious, Hillsong, Soul Survivor...

Thought 3 - Dub music is currently BIG in New Zealand; I'm thinking Fat Freddys Drop, Salmonella Dub, Awake the Dawn ... the list goes on ...

Thought 4 - Some of my most spiritual moments in the last 5 years have occurred listening to dub...

Thought 5 - Dub music seems to create a number of layers for the individual participant to move within. It is more fluid and less linear than rock."

From Wikipedia:

"Dub is a form of music that uses extensive echo and reverb effects and snatches of the lyrics from the original version, with most of the lead instruments and vocals dropping in and out of the mix. Another hallmark of the dub sound is the massive low bass. The music is often further augmented by live DJs, and electronic sound effects."

I appreciated Steve's links to Salmonella Dub and Fat Freddy's Drop ... being pretty musically open-minded ... especially when it comes to worship ... I found some leads on some great new tunes. Thanks, Steve.

Some interesting conversation about worship music in general going on over at that post, too. Check it out.

Anne Lamott

A couple weeks ago I had the oppotunity to hear Anne Lamott speak here in Portland. I have not been familiar with her work, had heard of her but never read her. My friend Pam let me know she would be speaking and suggested that I come hear her.

I can't tell you how much I enjoyed her humor and wit. On the spot, I bought both "Travelling Mercies" and "Plan B" and I have loved them both. I think I got through Travelling Mercies in two days, they are easy and entertaining reads.

I have to say she is a total kick, and her attitude and perspective of faith is so real. Her life has been much like many of our lives, she's just not afraid to admit it.