A New Synchroblog - Agapeology

Glenn Hager got it in his head that he wanted to start a synchroblog. So here I am. If you want to join, let him know.


"Things I Learned From Church (That Didn’t Prove True And What I Am Learning Lately)", Otherwise Known as Agapeology:

My church background is diverse. I call myself Luther-Bapti-Catho-ChurchofChrist-Foursquarian. Yup, just about full spectrum there. Interesting to me, in reflection, the ways in which these traditions differ:

• I have learned about how the Character of God never changes, yet it is new every morning.
  
• I have learned about God’s goodness, and His ire.
  
• I have learned the Bible inside and out because it’s my only weapon against the ‘enemy’. I have also learned about the ministry of the Holy Spirit because He is my greatest weapon against the ‘enemy’.
  
• I learned that babies should be baptized by sprinkling; I learned that we must be baptized by immersion at the age of accountability; and I learned that I must be baptized again to receive the Holy Spirit.
  
• I learned to pray liturgically and in tongues.
  
• I learned that one could only meet God in a church building; I also learned that I could meet Him in my living room, a coffee shop, and even a bar - yes, I have seen people saved in a bar.
  
• I learned that God only spoke through the text of the Bible, yet He also speaks directly and audibly to me and through music, nature and other people.
  
• I learned to sing hundreds of hymns by memory. I also learned to sing hundreds of Contemporary Christian Hits by memory.
  
• I learned to kneel when I pray; I learned to stand with my hands in the air when I pray. I leaned to dance when I pray. I learned to whisper and shout when I pray.
  
• I learned that only men may preach, I learned that women may preach when properly ‘covered’, (whatever that means) and I learned that women can be ordained.
• I learned that God is male, God is female, and God is both/neither.***
  

I could go on, but you get the idea. I learned from the church that God is confused - like an old woman wandering into a room and then forgetting what her mission was, or like an adolescent changing with the hormonal tides.

Anyhow, do any of the contradictions in my list above really matter?

You can call me angry, bitter, or even a heretic, but I love the church with a blind passion- I love the people who comprise the church, as faulty as they may be - for I am one of them - even the least of these. Yes, I have been hurt - who the hell hasn't? But as they say, time heals. Well, maybe not time by itself, but time with God heals, which Lord knows I have had plenty of these last two and a half years.

Still, I cannot be mute to what I see, simply to make peace. I cannot be one more voice singing our praises or one more hand patting us on the back, not until we get this right. Please know I preach to myself as much or more than to anyone else - consider yourself simply eavesdropping in on the conversation in my head.

We struggle to explain God's idiosyncrasies with theology. We study like mad people - looking to exegesis, word studies, and commentaries to guide us along. We seek the thoughts of people who support our beliefs so that we might be validated . We create labels to help define us and then we become frustrated when asked to define those labels. We condemn, we debate, and we throw stones at each other. Didn't your momma ever tell you - "People in glass churches shouldn't throw stones?"

We've ripped God's heart out and created a god-machine designed to do our bidding.

Oops, did that slip out?

Who is this God we claim to worship? How can we worship someone whose identity we aren't even certain of? How do we know we are worshiping the right God?

There is one thing I look for. The key. Love. Without love, there is no God. Without Love, it IS NOT God.

We have tried to create a God who is unwavering in should's and shouldn'ts, do's and don'ts so that we might know how we should behave; so that we might be righteous. We have tried to identify who exactly it is God hates - so that we might be sure we don't fall into that category ourselves, and so we know who we should hate as a result.

We have castrated God's heart so that we might feel free to judge one another without God's disapproval.

We say, "Oh, but we have scripture to back it up, so it's ok."

In a word I recently learned from one of my blog-friends: "Pshaw".

I have scripture, too. Wanna see?

Judging others; rules and law...does any of this sound familiar yet?

"You're hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees! Frauds! You burnish the surface of your cups and bowls so they sparkle in the sun, while the insides are maggoty with your greed and gluttony. Stupid Pharisee! Scour the insides, and then the gleaming surface will mean something."

What about this?

"If I speak with human eloquence and angelic ecstasy but don't love, I'm nothing but the creaking of a rusty gate. If I speak God's Word with power, revealing all his mysteries and making everything plain as day, and if I have faith that says to a mountain, "Jump," and it jumps, but I don't love, I'm nothing. If I give everything I own to the poor and even go to the stake to be burned as a martyr, but I don't love, I've gotten nowhere. So, no matter what I say, what I believe, and what I do, I'm bankrupt without love."

Or this?

"Teacher, which command in God's Law is the most important?" Jesus said, "'Love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence.' This is the most important, the first on any list. But there is a second to set alongside it: 'Love others as well as you love yourself.' These two commands are pegs; everything in God's Law and the Prophets hangs from them."

In other words the rules, the law, and the works are void without love. The cup and saucer are dirty without love.

I'm exhausted of being told what to believe by people who refuse to speak to their next-door neighbor because they are gay or who teach that if we give 10%, we are off the hook. What I want to hear taught is for us to love people, unconditionally and limitlessly.

un·con·di·tion·al [uhn-kuhn-dish-uh-nl] :
not limited by conditions; absolute: an unconditional promise.

This means not only loving people who are just like us, not only the people we can tolerate, but everyone. This means not only loving people who we hope will one day come to Christ, not only loving people with the misguided ideal that we will change them, not only loving people with the belief that God will one day change them. Loving them as they are. Right.Now.

It means loving people who we despise. Loving people with nose piercings. It means loving people who wear suits and ties and work in a church. It means loving people who have had abortions, loving people who perform abortions. It means loving people who are Muslim, or even Pagan.

Can we answer yes to these statements towards the above-mentioned people?

Love never gives up.
Love cares more for others than for self.
Love doesn't want what it doesn't have.
Love doesn't strut,
Doesn't have a swelled head,
Doesn't force itself on others,
Isn't always "me first,"
Doesn't fly off the handle,
Doesn't keep score of the sins of others,
Doesn't revel when others grovel,
Takes pleasure in the flowering of truth,
Puts up with anything,
Trusts God always,
Always looks for the best,
Never looks back,
But keeps going to the end.

Notice it doesn't say "Love preaches the gospel, love corrects other's wrongs, love defends God's honor, love demands accountability, love gossips, love practices false humility."

I fail miserably at these "love" things more often than not. But I WANT to WANT to TRY to succeed at them.

So maybe I've been ranting, maybe I'm completely wacko. But this is what's in my heart and in my head.

I have decided one thing. I have little interest anymore in theology. I have little use in day-to-day life for the theories of atonement, hermeneutics or eschatology.

What I want is agapeology. When they start having schools of agape, I'll be the first in line.



*** I will admit I cheated and borrowed some of the text of this post from my LettersFromLeavers post, but only because it sufficiently summed up what I wanted to say.


*********************************

Other Synchrobloggers

Glenn Hager
Lyn Hallewell
Heather
Alan Knox
Lew A
Jim Lehmer
Paul Mayers
Sonja Andrews
Benjamin
Julie Clawson
Monte Asbury
Aaron
Rachel
Cindy Bryan




Edit August 31st, 2007: As it turns out, I didn't coin the term Agapeology...Kevin Beck beat me to it. (And I thought I was being so clever. That will teach me not to Google a cool new word before I use it.) In any case, I'm quite glad someone like Kevin has begun to explore this idea, and I recommend you read what he's written on the subject on his blog Transmillenial and at Presence.tv.

Eyes

Maeesha is talking about her daughter's "Eyes" today and I had to follow suit. Granted, they are much bigger these days, but this photo is still the wallpaper on my treo.

After Careful Consideration...

...about as long as it took to drink a cup of coffee...

I have changed my byline.

If you're reading this in a feedreader, you'll have to visit my blog to see what it is.

Atheism Redux

Shannon wrote an excellent comment on my previous post, and my response ended up being quite long, so I decided to post it here, instead. I'm afraid I really go crazy with this one...sorry.

First is his comment, then my response.

"Very interesting stuff! I wonder on the end just how to process your statement, "Honestly I don't even care if atheists ever believe in God as long as they believe in Love. Different words for the same thing as far as I'm concerned".

That's a huge statement. Though I think I know what you're getting at, though God is Love, love is not always God. There is a great deal of falsified or cheapened love in this thing we call life and to equate ALL love with God would be a gross misrepresentation of the true Love that God is. I love my dog cat but I don't see how that love even remotely compares to "God" love. I would never die for my cat.

Fascinating post!"

Shannon - Welcome. Nice to "meet" you.

Thanks for expressing your concern about the statement "I don't care if atheists EVER believe in God..."; it probably was misleading and in retrospect I should have qualified it further.

One of the mistakes I make in blogging is the assumption that the reader already understands certain things about me, i.e. my unwavering faith in Jesus. As far as I may wander in exploration, this one thing never changes. Making sweeping statements without following my train of thought through into what it really means for me is my trademark. I'm a fly-by-the-seat-of-my-pants writer, which always keeps things interesting around here. Often when I write I'm sorting things out in my mind as I go writing from my heart, and I later realize I've said something a little crazy. That's just me, but sometimes people call me on it and make me think. That's cool.

I don't claim to really know anything theological at all about God or the Christian faith - if you read here long, the one thing you can be sure of is me saying "I don't know".

With that...and I might be pigeonholing myself here, so I reserve the right to change my mind.

God=Love, and if that is true, then true love (like the love we have for our child, for instance) is of God. In other words, TRUE love really is ALWAYS of God. The falsified or cheapened love you mention isn't really love. It's only an illusion of love - often lust, infatuation, obsession, etc. As for what you say about your pets, I do think some people can experience the love of God through their pets - it's that unconditional love, again.

My point was to make the observation that if God=Love and Love=God, atheists (and anyone else) cannot escape experiencing God as long as they experience love in their lives. That they don't recognize it as God doesn't make that fact any less true. Choosing not to acknowledge God doesn't render Him impotent, nor non-existent, we know.

I'm not an evangelist, because I'm not big on trying to "convert" people - I'm more into seeing what God is already doing in a person's life. What I pray for people is not that they will convert to Christianity so they can get to know God or experience God; instead I want to be a catalyst helping people to simply acknowledge that God already exists in their life, whether they ever went asking for God or not.

Some Christians refuse to see God as willing or able to exist in the life of an atheist (or other non-Christian), because suddenly that makes us Christians not so special anymore. But I sure as heck want to spread God around, not keep God to the exclusive few. God is present and active in EVERY life - for God is life-giver and love-giver. Two of my siblings are more/less atheists, and I still see God at work in big ways in their lives. I pray one day God will open the door and I'll be able to point out to them the ways in which I have seen God always being there, active in their lives.

Becoming a Christian (in my mind) isn't some huge conversion, experienced by asking God to be with me, and then attending church, subscribing to certain rules and behaviors. Instead, it is acknowledging that God has been there all along and realizing this changes the way I view the world, the way I behave; creating in me a hunger for more of God and increasing my ability to love others, because God=love.

If we take God out of the Christian box and recognize that God truly is everywhere, in every life, and refuse to put heavy parameters on the belief in and worship of God; if we can simplify it, (if some people call this "watering the Gospel down", so be it) into a simple statement that if God=Love then Love=God, then we might just invite far more people into a life acknowledging of God.

To sum it up: I am wondering if we were able to say conversion to Christianity were as simple as acknowledging that God has been there all along and God is love, if we might have fewer atheists. Where is Jesus in all this, you might wonder? He is many things, one thing He is to me is the example of perfect Love in human form. So wherever Love is, Jesus is also.

I know there are many things seemingly omitted from this post - simply in order to avoid being tangential, I cannot cover all the rabbit trails...if you have (or anyone else has) more questions, feel free to e-mail me.

Anyhow, I'm glad you asked, because it forced me think this through some more. I probably have rambled here and still haven't been very clear - I do think this one will require more exploration on my part before I have any further clarification.

Am I an Atheist?

You know, I hate quoting part of a post or article - especially authors whom I don't really know - because I'm always afraid the parts I choose will cause my readers to make assumptions out of context. So I'm going to try to be careful here, but if you are really following this post, I recommend reading the two original articles. And to the authors, I hope I haven't misrepresented your meaning.

Two recent posts intrigued me - I think because I read them in close succession, the compare and contrast really got me. It's a subject I'm not really knowledgeable about, but one which interests me.

The first is an article from Bold Grace written by Kevin Beck, where he states matter-of-factly that he is an atheist.

"...perhaps you’re asking, “Kevin, have you lost your mind? You write and talk about God every day. You help people find ways to experience a deeper spiritual life as they connect with the divine presence within.” I haven’t lost my mind—at least not that I know of. It’s true that I do write about God in life, and by the grace of God I’ll keep doing that for a long time to come. But—by the grace of God—I’m still an atheist."

Kevin proceeds to talk about Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion:

"I don’t believe in that [the god Dawkins describes] heartless, distant, command-barking god either. However unlike Dawkins, popular views of a self-absorbed, vindictive, and violent god have not caused me to repudiate God all together. Instead, they have helped me to find new ways of seeing and experiencing God."

And then Kevin describes how this makes him an atheist:

"Nearly two millennia ago, traditional Roman culture labeled the earliest Christians as atheists because they refused to acknowledge the empire’s conventional deities. In that mode, I count myself amongst a growing number of people who decline to accept the image of God customarily found in our empires. Perhaps this means we’re atheists. If Love makes us atheists, so be it. I’d rather Love and be considered an atheist than to withdraw from humanity or to hate people and be considered a pious believer. Maybe Love is the new atheism. You can call it whatever you wish. But for me, to believe in Love is to believe in God because God is Love. This is the God I know."

"For me, I will see God in every act of love, every generous deed, every kind word. I will open my heart to the poor and the lonely and the sick—and when I do I will sense the presence of God. I will look through the facade of ethnicity, gender, political persuasion, and even religion to see individuals bearing the divine likeness. I subscribe to the dream of Mother Teresa “that before they die all people will know they are loved.” I will embrace an atheism that celebrates, “god is dead. Long live God. Long live Love.”

If being an atheist means rejecting the commonly accepted notion of God as angry or vengeful, but rather embracing the understanding that God is Love, well, I can hang my hat on that one.

The second post I want to refer to is from the blog Thoughts from a Sandwich, by DagoodS, titled "Embarassment":

"At the time of my deconversion, I was active, both in leadership roles, and as a participant in a local church. Since I could no longer maintain the beliefs required for membership, I resigned my positions...I asked my wife if we could change churches. She agreed, and we began attending a church at a greater distance, where friends attended.

"At this new church, with a fresh start, I was candid with the leadership as to who I am, and that I would like to participate in some way, shape or form. After quite a few discussions, that gradually became more and more uncomfortable for the leaders as they tried to politely explain I did not fit in and I was not welcome to participate, it sunk in my thick skull that church is not a place for a deconvert. Oh, it is fine for us to attend and sit in the pew. But to be an active part of the church?—that is too difficult and contrary to the design of the intention of a local congregation."

While this post goes on to touch on some other subjects, the thing that stood out to me was how a de-convert (atheist) would not be welcome to participate in a church. He was welcome to attend services, but not to join a bible study or small group or even help out in any capacity. He is seeking love in the God environment, without the God.

So what did I learn from these two posts? If God=Love, Love=God. I see a clear potential for reconciliation - not necessarily of these two particular individuals, but of the positions they seem here to represent. Honestly I don't even care if atheists ever believe in God as long as they believe in Love. Different words for the same thing as far as I'm concerned.

I just wonder: if more Christians took the position that God is simply equal to Love, would we have fewer atheists? Or if more Christians defined atheism as rejection of an angry God and acceptance of a loving God, we'd have fewer Christians and more atheists? Is there really a difference? What they are both really seeking is simply Love.

Problem:

I have just been notified that I'm in direct violation of the FCC's Fairness in Blogging Act. To remedy this offense, I must post this:

The Man's Remote

The Woman's Remote

Since the "Man's Remote" thing seems to be going around, I'll counter with this card my S-I-L gave me for my birthday last December... which is still proudly displayed on my desk.

Link Roundup

~~ Think you're e-mail phishing scam proof? Try this test at McAfee - via Lifehacker.

~~ Julie has the first part of an article up over at God's Politics about her search for a "justice bra". Yes, you read that right.

~~ Interesting discussion about spiritual language, a.k.a. "tongues" over at Heather's blog.

~~ Quite a while back, I wrote about FunkPlastic a.k.a. Todd Irving. He's a native Portland guy who drums on plastic paint buckets. Well, today he left me a comment on that post that he is finally auditioning for Stomp next week, over in Europe. Yay! You can find him at MySpace, and there's a recent article/video at the Oregonian. Did I mention he's a Christian?

~~ Cindy, always enlightening us, blogs today about un-salty beans, or the meaning of the word "zydeco". I had to break out the Beausoliel after that one. To her credit, yesterday she blogged about Parallex Theology. Whew! How's about them beans?

~~ NakedPastor blogs on three steps to freedom. Yup, yup, and yup, praise God!

~~ John Smulo is celebrating his 5000th comment since starting his current blog in December 2006. To give some perspective on how well-liked of a guy he is, in almost two years I am just shy of 1700 comments here at DF. Congrats, John!

~~ For you Portland people, Last Thursday is on tonight on Alberta Street, and Pam and her crew will be there selling their Lovely Skulls headbands. Check out her post about it from last month, and if you see her, be sure to give her a hug.

~~ Oh, oh, OH - I almost forgot - Sonja has a great post about idolizing church and leadership.

Redirect....

I would like to thank everyone for the great and insightful discussion here on being an introvert...and feel free to continue the conversation....

But I'd also like to point you all to Gary's post on "Get a Life - Second Life..." because it's closely related. And interesting.

Introverts and Intuition

Blog Addiction: 87% This post is about why.

In part, I've been thinking about some things since Brother Maynard's post on introversion. I have always marveled at the sheer percentages of innies I meet in the blog world, and I have wondered why this is. Obviously, blogging gives us the ability to interact with the world on our own terms, without having to deal with that energy-sapping face-time.

Sometimes I feel goofy talking about my online life to people in my real life (IRL). I have few people IRL who even know what a *blog* is, much less have one. I struggle to explain, especially to extroverts who have no need for such nonsense, why I so value this world.

Wonderful friendships I have gleaned in this world notwithstanding, it has been an amazing outlet for me. I have been encouraged, educated, and had eye-opening conversations. I have had goofy chats with some cool new friends. I have found space to truly explore what it means for me to be a Christian - and found voices just like mine.

All this things should be evidence of the value of this world.

But many people - those who don't participate in this environment and especially those who look at me blankly - blink-blink - because they cannot fathom interacting with someone they can't see - make me feel silly.

If you're an introvert, you know that interacting with people saps your energy and being alone energizes you. Ever thought about why?

I used to think it was because being in present company forced me to think of things to say, forced me to make conversation. But truth is, I have no trouble at all talking with people I know well.

Maybe it's just because I'm an intuitive (N), or maybe it has to do with insecurities - I'd be interested to know you other innie's takes on this -

But I have noticed that when I am with other people - either strangers, acquaintances, or even friends who I don't know really well, my intuition and perception goes into overdrive. I am constantly reading nonverbal cues - both body language and that more vague sense of discernment or intuition - are they being honest, did what I said offend them, am I being too opinionated...and all this information - both compiling it and processing it - all while having a conversation - is overwhelming and exhausting.

And you extroverts or non-intuitives might say - "Well then, stop" - but it's not that simple. This is who I am, not a behavior I engage in. I sometimes wish I could stop - but I can't. Sometimes it's a curse - my husband asks me why I am always reading into what people say. Often, this proves to be accurate, but it's true, some extroverts say exactly what they mean, no holds barred, and trying to read some inner truth is often frustrating.

I am an information junkie - all kinds of information is helpful in assessing a situation, for engaging in conversation, for seeing a person for who they really are and not who they portray themselves as and for hearing the heart or spirit behind what they are saying.

With that, sometimes people will tell me it seems as if I'm not listening when they are talking - when in fact I am more than listening and can often not only tell them what they have said, but what they actually meant. This is why so often people come to me for counsel, I guess.

In any case, I guess what I'm getting at - is the blog world provides me with a break, a chance to interact with people while being free of the need or ability to intuit them. When interacting with people in text-only, yes, something is lost in the translation. But then again, for some of us this is a good thing. I have to learn about people from their words, and this stretches me, for I sometimes choke when I can't see someone's eyes to know what they are really saying. It's a learning process, and one I need. Because in being an intuitive there is also insecurity - learning to trust and take people are face-value, rather than trying to dig deep into their motives, is an important confidence builder for me.

I thrive on the chance to give my innie a rest from perceiving. Also, when writing, I am not having to both converse and perceive at the same time - and this is much less exhausting and resource-sapping than having to convert-on-the-fly. I can write something, then read a response, then think about that response, then write my own response. I have times to process apart from having to think about what I'm actually hearing and saying.

Of course there are other reasons I like blogging - for one I have met people whom I value that I would never had otherwise met without the net. I have also engaged with a wide variety of beliefs and perspectives, while IRL it's easier to interact with people just like me.

Any thoughts?

Thankful

Sonja tagged me to name 6-8 things I'm thankful for.

1. I'm thankful for sleep. What a wonder that we can recharge that way. I'm especially thankful for getting enough sleep.

2. I'm thankful for music. Without it I would go nuts. I wish I could implant and mp3 player in my head.

3. I'm thankful for my RL friends who will participate with me in the strangest of all rituals - Bunco!

4. I'm thankful for summer because it motivates me to change. Something about the lifegiving sun that makes me want to grow.

5. I'm thankful for babies who grow up to be kids. How awesome to have no more diapers or car seats or bottles or strollers. We are in the wonderful in-between stage where they are no longer little but not yet big. They are agreeable and fun and relatively undemanding. Ask me again in a couple years when I have a teenager.

6. I'm thankful for my husband who will work a 40 hour week with 10 hours of commuting and then spend his weekend working on the aspects of home improvement that I was unable to complete.

7. I am thankful for a God who loves unconditionally and who is ever-present.

8. I am thankful for all of you who bother to read my drivel and even comment on it. You all inspire me and encourage me and even challenge me. You are, in one of my newest blog friends' seemingly favorite words...suh-weet!

EDIT: I guess I was supposed to tag some people - but I'm going to be lame because I'm really tired and I don't know who has already been tagged. So if you want to be tagged, then consider yourself tagged.

Except for Cindy. She's tagged!

Exhausted

I have to say - I told my husband last night that I haven't been so exhausted since we moved 9 years ago.

I have been painting and painting and painting since Saturday - I would love to estimate the square footage but my brain is fried. Two coats per wall, about a gallon of primer (two walls were bare sheetrock under the wallpaper) and 5 gallons of paint - and this is good paint - paint-store paint, not Wal-mart paint or even Lowe's paint. It goes a looong ways. You do the math. And all those walls have edges. Edges that have to be cut-in.

Several of you seemed surprised that we were doing so much painting all at once - but you see, in our house the walls of the living room, dining room, entry and hall are all shared walls - we don't have separate rooms - it's like one great room. So there are not starting/stopping points. It has to all be done at once.

But it is a huge job. Not to say it's been any worse than I expected, but still. And ooooh the Advil. Thank God.

There's more to finish and then on to the kitchen soon.

I have manged to read and comment on some of your blogs, but as far as me having the energy to write anything interesting, it will be a few more days.

Sonja tagged me, too. I'll get that when I can.

Painting and Church

Felt motivated to spruce up around the house. I'm painting my dining room. And living room. And entry. And hall. And eventually the kitchen. And the wrought-iron railing. And changing out all the outlets. And replacing the chandelier. Going to be doing the kitchen floor, too. Maybe re-staining the cabinets. And the list goes on.

So I might be a little scarce around here these days.

Painting is therapeutic for me. I turn on *world* music - because it makes me happy and energized but doesn't mess with my psyche - and I actually spend time lost in interesting conversations with God.

A few days ago I eavesdropped on two related conversations: an article written by Bob Hyatt over at Next-Wave and the ensuing discussion both there and at his blog.

I didn't engage in the discussion because I just haven't lately felt I had the emotional stamina - but a couple of my blog-world acquaintances did a fine job of covering some of what I was thinking/feeling about it. It's honestly a complicated discussion to summarize - if you aren't familiar with it and are interested in knowing more - read the links.

I don't know Bob and have never attended his church - but I have read his writing for close to two years. Based on that perspective, the Next-Wave article surprised me; not so much on the content as the tone. I think I understand why Bob feels so strongly about the importance of church community, but this article seemed more insistent on the subject than I had previously thought him to be. Quote:

"I've often wished I could write off church... It certainly would make life easier in many ways and at least I'd get to sleep in on Sundays. But, I'm beginning to think that if I truly understand the Gospel... I just can't. More and more people are declaring "I want to follow Jesus... I just can't handle church." The rise of the free-range Christian along with its attendant cynicism towards all things institutional has been one of the big stories of the last couple of years..."

"The perpetually churchless Christian wants to experience a bit of what the "spiritual but not religious" all around us seem to have. In other words, they want Christ, just not His Community."

One unfortunate problem: in the Next-Wave article, he failed to clarify what he believes *church* to be.

However, in the comments of his blog post he defined *church* as:

"5 or 10 people...[who] Baptize people, take communion, serve the poor together, read and discuss Scripture and pray with and for each other. Regularly worship God together and when necessary, correct one another. If someone is doing ALL of that with their 5 or 6 friends then I have absolutely NO beef with them whatsoever. That's church."

I do understand his point. I have never believed it is desirable for someone to be *unchurched* indefinitely. I also think Bob might have a unique right to say what he has said. It seems to me that he has desired to create in his church a safe place for us, free of many of the issues many of us *leavers* have problems with, and I commend that.

However, a bigger problem still lies - at least in my neck of the woods there are scant places which are safe for formerly-known-as, disenfranchised, or otherwise de-churched Christians to gather. In the big picture, if churches and leaders really are so concerned about our spiritual well-being and are intent on coaxing us to return, they have to be willing to make hard changes. I'm not speaking from a personal or selfish perspective - my issues and current unwillingness to return to church are personal and my own - I'm speaking of us *church-leavers* as a collective.

Until a time comes when church in general begins to evolve to a focus which is outside of itself, there just aren't that many places for us to go. And as much as many of us love the idea of church with 5-10 friends, the reality is, we don't usually follow through.

As my final thought, or question as it may be, do you agree with Bob's definition of church as quoted above? MUST a gathering include those elements in order to be *church*? MUST we be engaged in such a gathering in order to be healthy Christians?

I am still not convinced. But that's just me.

So many things...

...running around in my head these days. Please - in this post I'm so not looking for accolades about how good of a friend I am. That is so very irrelevant to me. What I AM seeking is your prayers, not only for my friend but for you or any person you know or anyone in the world who is grieving the terrible loss of a loved one.

I have been in a place this last week where I have never been before.

I have been very fortunate in life - so fortunate - I have never suffered real grief. Yes, I have lost a grandparent, but there is such difference between the loss of an aging 85-year-old's life and the life of a vibrant 43 year old mother. tremendous difference. And I'm certainly not trying to draw a comparison - I'm trying to say I've never really been there.

More than that, I have never even been in a place of supporting someone who is grieving. At least not closely.

Trying to think of how to articulate what I want to say.

For my friend - more than anything I am praying, crying out for God to give her and her family a break, damnit. Maybe that is selfish, since her and her immediate family are alive and healthy - and for that I am incredibly grateful. For the sake of privacy I won't go into details - but the two situations she has written about - her father and her best friend - are not the only grief-worthy situations in her life right now.

Sigh.

Just some imagery that came to me. Maybe it's inaccurate, but it's what's in my head. If this analogy seems wrong or insensitive, I'm sorry. I'm processing out loud right now.

Grief falls upon someone like a canopy - it envelops them and puts up a barrier between them and life - darkening out the sun and creating a place which is separate from the rest of their world. However, that canopy, or tent, has to have something to affix itself to or it will blow in the wind - shaking the grieving person, knocking them around. It has to have poles or stakes and those poles have to have support. They have to find firm, secure footing on the ground.

I am doing my best to be that firm footing - the stake driven into the solid ground. I cannot enter the tent with my friend and I cannot lift it from her - but I can do my damndest to hold tight to the tent supports so that the tent shakes as little as possible while my friend is inside.I can hold it tight to the ground so when it rains it does not fall on her. Anything I can do to make it as stable as I am capable of.

I'm don't live in very close proximity to her - so I am not there doing her dishes and laundry - maybe I ought to be. But what I can be is the person she can call at midnight when she needs to talk - the person who can love her and listen through the tears, stories of a life which she will miss. I did go hang out with her for a few hours the other night - and just listened, while our boys - hers and mine - ran around the house and yard. I feel as though there is more I ought to do - but I'm trying to listen to the voice of the spirit instead of the voice of "ought".

And obviously this tent requires more than one stake for stability - and I am so glad to be paired up right now with other strong stakes who are helping to hold firm her tent of grief. And we each have a different purpose, a different hand, heart, perspective to offer. For this I am thankful and I pray that there is someone to meet her there in every aspect of her grief. People who have been there and DO know. People who are bringing food and love. People who are calling and praying. Even all of you who have taken the time to leave prayers on her blog pages - thank you, you are stakes, as well. Every bit of firm footing that any of us can be is valuable.

But then there are deeper and more difficult layers to this - for, more importantly, my friend is also a stake herself, supporting the tremendous tent of grief with has fallen over a family suffering the most heart-wrenching of losses. She has spent time caring for the family's adolescent daughter. She has packed boxes and scrubbed bathrooms and sorted things - things which have attached to them memories of times which will never be again. She has spoken to the press on several occasions and fielded their phone calls. She has tried to care for the details the husband cannot be burdened with because of his grief and his son who is still in the hospital, recovering from his injuries.

For my friend, on top of all this comes the relational dynamics and tension between many grieving people, family and friends - many of those dynamics are unpretty and maybe even unfair.

So I shared the only pearl of wisdom I possess - thanks to my mother:

"If for no other reason - let everything you say and do and feel during this time have the purpose and motive of honoring her life."

Of course I wasn't quite so articulate at midnight last night. But that's the drift.

Ok, I'm spent. I do have some other posts in my head, but they will come out when they come out. Thanks for listening.

A quick rant about Banks

I'm so glad the feds are finally taking a look at overdrafts and their related fees.

"Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) of the House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit is holding a hearing today on unfair bank overdraft fees and their impact on consumers, especially in regard to debit card transactions. A number of consumer advocates will document that so-called over-draft protection "features" in bank accounts should be more strictly regulated as loans, not fees; that the fee income now totaling billions of dollars in bank overdraft revenue is essentially no different than payday loan sharking; and that multiple $35 fees are unfairly heaped on consumers for their supposed $5 overdrafts (which sometimes occur only because the bank manipulated the order of received checks it posts each night or perhaps unfairly held for several days a deposited check it knew was good)."

I am thrilled that someone is finally looking at the ways in which electronic banking and technology has improved banks' bottom lines without protecting the consumer.

The Ostrich Syndrome and the Utopian Myth - July SynchroBlog

I am an idealist by nature and personality. On the one hand this is a good thing - I am often able to see and encourage the positive potential, even where there might seem to be none. On the other hand, I often am lax in turning that idealism internally and seeing ways in which I need to improve my contributions to the imperfect in this world. This post is about both.


Mental illness, poverty, domestic violence, gang violence, drug addiction, pedophilia, slavery, human trafficking, genocide, religious wars...

Some people feel if they give money to huge worldwide organizations which make mythical and utopian promises such as entirely eliminating global poverty, it excuses them from making any difference the lives of people in their community. It makes it simple for them to ostrich-ly ignore the suffering in their communities; I gave at the office, you know? This is not to say I am bashing charitable giving, of course not. I am simply rejecting the notion that charity is all there is to alleviating suffering in this world. (I have to say, tithing elicits a similar response in many Christians...including myself for awhile.)

What about the smaller things - the lonely or uncared for elderly, single parents, the disabled in my neighborhood...? What about loving on the sad, feeding the hungry neighbor kids....or simply helping out a stranger? So then, who is responsible for caring for these things?

Making a difference doesn't have to be huge or even interesting. The other day at Costco I came around a corner and saw a woman struggling to put a 40# bag of dog food onto her cart. Several able-bodied people walked by her without stopping, ignoring her even though it was such a little thing (though I'm sure they all give to World Vision). I stopped to help her, it took all of 10 seconds. I'm not trying to sing my own praises, the point I'm trying to make is that these things are simple.

In my mind, failing to recognize our ability to make this world better whenever we have the opportunity, even in the smallest way, is akin to donating money to a huge charity (or tithing) and calling it good - sticking our ostrich heads in the sand of local suffering.

Instead, I embrace the desire and willingness to recognize when I can make a difference, no matter how small.



Please visit my fellow SynchroBloggers (I will update post links as they become available):

Steve Hayes - Utopian Communities SynchroBlog
John Morehead - Utopia and the Myopic Evangelical Vision
Phil Wyman - Nudity, Innocence and Christian Distopia
David Fisher - Current Utopia: Above Consumerism
Adam Gonnerman - Nowhere Will be Here
Sam Norton - A This-Worldly Faith
Sonja Andrews - Bridging the Gap
Julie Clawson - SynchroBlog On Utopia - Being Content in the Present
Tim Abbott - Eternity in Their Hearts
Steve Hollinghurst - The Gospel According to Buffy
Jeremiah - Relationship : The catch-22 of the Internet Utopia
Mike Bursell - A Second Life Utopia
Sally Coleman - SynchroBlog: Mrs. Brown and the Kingdom of God

More Template Fun

Just a little doo-dad for you guys to play with: I added a background color switcher. Lower left widget. If you've allowed cookies here, it will remember from visit to visit what color background you prefer.

Credit to Dynamic Drive's Style Sheet Switcher script.

I could really customize the styles, but I haven't the time right now, so you'll have to be happy with custom background colors.

Just for fun, let me know what color you prefer.

Miracles

I originally titled this post "Little Miracles", but I decided to change it. There's really nothing "little" about it.



Last week there was an accident in this area (unrelated to the accident which took Pam's friend) involving some relatives of mine. They were hit by an impaired drived on the afternoon of July 2nd.

It actually happened outside a retirement home where my mom's parents live. My aunt was there at the time, and when she heard the accident, she went out to see if she could do anything. Turns out one of the cars which was hit was driven by my mom's (and aunt's) cousin. In the car were his wife, their 18 year old daughter, and their daughter's 21 year old boyfriend. While the others suffered only minor injuries, the boyfriend, Brandon Scarth, was seriously injured. Initially, it seemed that he had no brain activity, and they weren't sure if he would recover.

I have been following this through the grapevine, and he has made some progress. Today I happened across an article in a local paper that highlights what has been going on.

"Scarth didn’t fare as well as his girlfriend and her family. He suffered brain injury due to severe head trauma, and during his first day at the hospital, he had “zero brain activity,” said Nerz, who has all but camped out at the hospital’s intensive care unit (ICU) since the crash.

That first night, many of Scarth’s friends found themselves praying, weeping and praying some more.

The next morning, between 30 and 40 members of Scarth’s church, Sandy Community Presbyterian, gathered for a prayer vigil at the hospital.

“They filled the ICU,” said Scarth’s close friend, Ryan Callahan. “There were all these people praying for Brandon, taking up half of the ICU waiting room.”

That’s when the miraculous began to occur, friends and family say.

Doctors said the injury caused his brain to swell and blood clots to form. To relieve the pressure, Scarth was to undergo surgery that would have removed a large piece of his skull, allowing his brain to expand.

But the next morning, July 4, the procedure was canceled.

“Brandon started to regain brain activity,” Callahan said, “and they don’t know why this happened. They said nothing like this has ever happened.”

Because Scarth was beginning to heal on his own, the surgery, they surmised, was unnecessary.

The unexplainable continued to occur. A CAT scan revealed that there were no traces of the blood clots. He began to move his left arm, and by the end of the day Wednesday he was able to move his right arm and both of his legs, and could even wiggle his toes.

Who says miracles don't happen?

If you think of it, please pray for Brandon's continued recovery.