This if from a person I have followed since I first began blogging, David Hayward. I have shared a lot of his art over the years, but he is far more than a talented artist. He is an insightful minister and human-being. You can find his blog here.
I found this post to be very insightful and thought-provoking. As I was taught in Kindergarten, it is always good to share! Check out his blog for more!
____________________
I realize mind-games and manipulative behaviors go on in every sector. But what I’ve experienced is that when someone is nasty in the work place, they are just nasty, it is recognized as such, and called for what it is. Usually. Not always.
But what I’ve noticed over the many years in the church, in spirituality, in Christianity, is that the nastiness in religious domains is more subversive. Christians, I’ve concluded, generally want to be nice, sincere people of faith. They would never want to hurt anybody.
So when something upsetting happens to them against their will, rather than get consciously angry, mean, manipulative or deceitful, they drive these unpleasant thoughts and feelings deep underground and cover it all in a sentimental spirituality laced with ultimate concern for the church, God’s will, and mission.
What actually happens is this psychologically separates the unconscious drives from the conscious ones, allowing the unconscious ones to bloom with full sanction under the guise of genuine concern. Anyone with any discernment can see the monstrosity of the person’s thinly veiled ulterior motives, lack of honesty and integrity. But the person himself is completely blind to them. His spirituality won’t allow him to recognize it. He lacks integrity. In other words, he is not an integrated person. He is not integrating his unconscious with his conscious, his dark side with his light, his sinner with his saint.
To address the issues head-on would fall on shocked, offended and deaf ears. It is useless. Unless a close friend or relative points it out. Then maybe. Otherwise, from my experience, it takes the mortifying trauma of an understood bad dream, a revelation, self-awareness, or realization (whatever you want to call it) for it to be addressed. Plus humility.
I apologize for the delay in posting. I've had a lot going on....falling off a 10ft ladder will do that to you! But I did want to post some things that have grabbed my attention in the past week or 2:
Also a quote from Yann Martel (author ofLife of Pi), on his faith journey while writing the bestselling novel as found in a recent article in Relevant Magazine:
What's nice about faith is-- once you have it-- it feeds itself; from life, from books, from everything. In a sense, it's a constant dialog.
I like this quote because it really captures the living essence of faith to me. How many people (and I have been guilty of this as well) get settled into one theology or one specific way of looking at God. Like the cartoons above, we only limit ourselves when we forget to place our faith in constant dialog (CONVERSATION) with other thoughts and ideas. And remember a conversation/dialog means listening as much as it does talking. That means taking in others thoughts and giving them the respect they deserve!
Finally a portion of lyrics from the band, Kings of Leon, in their song, Cold Desert:
i never ever cried when i was feeling down
ive always been scared of the sound
jesus don't love me no-one ever carried my load
im too young to feel this old
These lyrics hit me because of many conversations I've had in the last couple of weeks. I have heard several people say something similar to these lyrics, I have read a conversation from Andrew Marin, who works within the GLBT community in Chicago, recount a similar experience. What's sad, is that these comments only come when someone has been severly hurt or has received a great amount of injustice from someone or a group carrying the name of Christ. Think about all of the people groups (not just the GLBT community, although they have a lot of reason to feel this way) that can say this because of a Christian's or Christianity's action or inaction that hurts an individual or people group. Think about how many Christians are responding to the hispanic immigrants in America (legal or not). Certainly many of our words and actions can cause someone to say these things. We've made Jesus' burden far more heavy than he himself claims it to be!
I have to ask myself, who's load am I trying to carry? Who's load are you trying to make lighter? What theology is keeping you from God and others? Who/what are you having dialog with that broadens and enhances your faith? I think there's a lot here to ponder in these few words and pictures.
I am ordained clergy and one of my favorite parts of being ordained is the unique role that I can play in officiating a wedding. I've already done 2 this year, and there's more to come. There is something so holy to me to when I walk a couple through the vows that they chose/wrote for each other as they look lovingly in each others eyes.
In this Tony points out some interesting and thought-provoking observations about clergy and marriage. He says:
In no other fuction as a clergyperson did I function as an extension of the government -- not when I was baptizing, burying, counseling, or communing. Only when performing a wedding did I, with the stroke of a pen, make official a legally binding contract that, in the eyes of the state, allowed that couple to enjoy certain privileges like the ability to file joint tax returns, visit one another in the hospital, and receive joint health care benefits from one of the partner's employers..... I do find it odious that clergypersons are called upon, in this one instance, to act as agents of the state.
He goes on to conclude:
Clergy and churches, on the other hand, should have no part in legally-binding contracts. Instead, religious professionals should bless and sanctify unions and partnerships that fit within their religious traditions as part of their sacerdotal functions.
Of course part of this is brought on by the issue of same sex marriage. Douglas Kmiec on The Colbert Report (Video Below), points out that "the state has an obligation to treat all of its citizens equally and to preserve the principle of equality." In essence, he is saying that by allowing the polemic Church to decide who can and can't be married that the State is not upholding its role of equality for all citizens. This is something of which I had not considered, but has been thought-provoking to me.
By watching the video and reading all of Tony's blog, you will see that what they are suggesting is a separation of the two roles. This allows the state to practice equality, while allowing the Church to decide according to their own convictions and traditions. That would mean that different traditions would bless and marry same sex couples, and others would not. If a couple would not be recognized/blessed by their own church/tradition, then they could seek out another tradition. Either way, they would still have equal rights as heterosexual unions, because according to the State, all couples would have to go through the state for the legal union of marriage.
I'm not sure this solves the problem, but it is an interesting concept. Let's face it, when it comes to marriage there is no separation of Ch. and St. When that occurs, others suffer. In this case, some churches suffer and many individuals and couples suffer. I agree that the Church and her clergy should not be agents of the State, but marriage has also become a tradition of sacrament.
I'm not sure what the right call is here, but it is a new (at least to me) thought that is interesting and will be given more thought! I do believe in equality, but in that equality it also means not forcing churches into performing marriages with which their beliefs do not mesh. How do we provide equality for all parties involved? I do not believe that there is true equality if one party is hurt by the "rights" of the other. I think on this issue it goes both ways.
In the meantime, I will continue to do weddings when asked because I truly do enjoy the unique perspective on that holy moment. I adore watching as everything that the couple feels for one another culminates into that one moment where they are pronounced married for the first time! I will continue to do it because I love the role that God plays in the blessing of those that want to seek the marriage commitment. But I will also continue to speak out for equality for all, even those that I don't agree with. Those that want to call me names and label me because I disagree with their theology, I will still fight for you. Why? 2 reasons: Because liberty for one means liberty for all. And 2, because I am called to love all and not be judgmental. And I will never forget that behind these "issues" are real human faces. People with feelings of love, pain, sorrow, etc... the same feelings that I feel. We must never remove the human element when discussing these issues or we chance perhaps losing our own humanity in the process.
These are some interesting thoughts, feel free to share yours.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Jeffrey C. Pugh Speaks to my boy Tripp Fuller about his new book: Religionless Christianity: Dietrich Bonhoeffer In Troubled Times. I think this is a great podcast that you should listen to. Done with the love and care of all of Homebrewed's podcasts, this one shifts some thoughts about Bonhoeffer's genius and how it would apply today in a post-Christian shift.
My friend, Mary, has 2 fantastic posts over @ Not All Who Wonder Are Lost. The first one I want to link to because I want to give her credit. We are all part of the same Bible study community, and spicifically one of her comments that she made (repeated in the post A Square Peg Goes To Church) inspired the thought pattern that led to me last posts.
This comment from Mary spicifically led me to my last posts:
I realized last week, that my framing story for God, theology and the body of Christ is NOT the same as many of those in my church. I kinda figured that out a long time ago, but it really became explicit for me. That realization helped me at least articulate why I felt like the square peg.
It is a good glimpse at how some of our conversations go, and how we bring our own experiences into our group to share and discuss. We have come up with some amazing questions and thoughts!!! Check it out, it's worth the read.
Also her newest post: Pro-Life=Pro-Baby was a direct comment from her tonight.
I post these links, not only to link to some good thought-provoking material, but also because I am proud to be in a group that 1) thinks critically about their faith, 2) lives and learns within the questions, and 3) (most importantly) is a free place to share one's thoughts, struggles, and disagreements openly and freely with a group that practices love and encouragement.
It is proving to me a point that many confrontational Christians have disagreed with me, that UNITY IS NOT CONFORMITY... instead it is acting in love and respect towards one-another regardless of our differences. We all acknowledge that we are broken people doing our best to become fully human (in all that means), and/or to become the person into whom God is making each of us!
We (Christians in churches) spend a lot of time alienating people who feel like "square pegs" instead of listening and learning from each other. What we would realize is that there is a communication problem...different framing stories mean we are speaking different languages! More and more people are finding that their framing story is not matching up with that of the conventional framing story as presented by the modern Church. The next question that led to my post from this was, "how then do we move forward in love once the problem has been diagnosed?" And thus we get to where the framing story posts have led thus far.
We keep splitting, pushing, and running away, but I'm here to tell you that:
IT IS POSSIBLE PEOPLE! :)
And I'm grateful to be a part of where it is happening!
I apologize for being slightly negligent on the blog this week. It has been busy. I hope to make it up to both you who read my posts regularly:)
Until then I thought I would point you to another post that explains an exciting opportunity that I am partaking in. A conversation being put together by by good friend Tripp (PhD student at Claremont and co-blogger/podcaster of Homebrewed Christianity) for Transforming Theology.
You can read all about it over at "Recliner Ramblings", who is also participating in this project.
Here's also a video explaining the overall project.
This is a huge project that could make a lot of positive and effective changes in many areas of Christian Life. The beauty is that it isn't just in the academic world, but that this can impact and change for "the people in the pews" as well. I'm grateful to be a part of this. Your comments can also add to this conversation!
The book I will be discussing (as seen on my "Kindle Kollection" sidebar) is Incarnation and Imagination: A Christian Ethic of IngenuityBy Darby Kathleen Ray. You should see AT LEAST one post concerning this book as I read, but we may also look at some of her thoughts as we go. Your comments will be welcome here and I hope that we both enjoy the ride.
This is from artist and blogger David Hayward entitled Inaugural Hopes.
It really caught my attention especially as much hate-filled language as we have had floating around in the last year in America. Our politics and religion seem to have become more vocal about their prejudices.
We place people in nice neat categories such as a race, and think that this one specific category defines who they are. Yet people are people... they extend beyond and even defy catagorization. Yet, we label them as this or that in order to take the human element out of our hatred, fear, and judgement! Its just easier that way.
Yet...lest we forget, "Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world"! We are ALL God's children regardless of race, creed, sexuality, religion, etc...
The only label that truly defines us all is the title of "human".
I wonder if we should add a few more lines to the verse of the song? It has failed to keep up with our growing prejudices. "For God so loved the world" surely exceeds simply primary colors!
Are those of us who embrace more postmodern methods of exegesis and interpretation throwing away the academic approaches we learned in our studies in favor of other preferred methods? Simply because we have moved past modernity, doesn't mean that we leave behind all of the experiences and methods available to us behind with it. That's assuming that we've truly left modernity behind, which I argue that we are still in transition and have not arrived.
No, if we are truly experience gatherers, then we must use as many tools at our disposal for understanding and interpreting the Bible as possible. If we don't, then we are not what we claim to be as postmodern Christians. In fact, it takes us away from our claimed "holistic approach" back to simply picking and choosing once again. It takes us out of the conversation, and puts us back in a bubble. It deceives us since it is a different bubble than the Christianity out of which most of us emerged, but it is still a bubble that ignores realities.
I will post pictures that I take and sometimes talk about them. I sometimes will just post them to see what thoughts and feelings it might invoke in others.
An Advent thought: Advent: Attempting to relive the expectation of the future birth of the child that has already come each and every year. And who says that Christians aren't mystics?
Imagine that God speaks to you—we’re not talking about general revelation here, this is specific divine interruption. He lets you know that he desires to give you a Gift, but because of “free will” it will need to be one of your own choosing. Having said that you’re given two options:
1.) You can spend the rest of your life being absolutely certain about God, there will be no questions of faith or doubt. There will be an abiding sense of God’s presence and smile in all your ways…but everyone you meet will instantly begin to doubt the certainty of their own faith. They may or may not ever recover from that crisis. OR
2). through you many of the wrongs in the world will be righted, justice and mercy and grace will be exhibited, the blind will see, the deaf will hear and the lame will walk…but you will cease to believe in God at all. You will even forget this conservation between yourself and the Most High…it will have been all in your imagination.
Which do you choose and why?
This has manifest into a great discussion you might want to check out and join in. Here's my initial response:
Yes these questions are unfair, but alas, so is life and even more-so faith. However, I don’t believe that these hypothetical ponderings are all that obscure. There are many times in the Bible that what God does or does not do seems unfair to us. Jesus+cross still= unfair, no matter what your interpretation of that is.
When speaking of such celestial matters, I don’t think #1 would be advisable at all. As a matter of fact (and yes your assumed outcome is biased, although I tend to agree), I think that choosing the first option would be downright catastrophic. I think the only way to have certainty is to “see the face of God”. Last time I checked, that was still considered taboo. I think that there’s a reason for that (literally or metaphorically).
I say catastrophic both to the world/people around you as well as to self. I have a feeling that it would be catastrophic to self because you would find that there is no certainty in God. Only depth, creativity, and mystery. I know we speak more of the Holy Spirit in this language than we do God, but I think the Trinity is still an acceptable doctrine all-around. I think we would find that God is like the wind, not static, always in motion. There is no grasping the wind. The spirit goes where it is needed and is always changing form to make differing impacts. Just think, a wind can be a gentle breeze in the summer, a bitter chill in the winter, a tornado or hurricane, or so light its only evidence is a slight movement in the leaves.
One might would get so lost in this depth and wonder that is God and would lose all sense of self. The world would vanish from the conscience, as well as all relationships. Like Peter Pan in Hook, Peter would forget that his life actually existed.
This would be catastrophic to the world because, lost in another reality, that is one less person doing the kingdom’s work on earth. It would be one less person fighting against injustice, greed, war, death…. it would be one less person giving hope to all of those that once knew him or her. Certainty as we know it is an illusion. To me, it’s what the tree of Knowledge represents. Nothing good can come from it, and everything horrible comes flooding out with one bite into that enticing fruit.
the interesting thing to me about these questions is that Christ never calls anyone to number one, but calls everyone to number two. Perhaps he didn’t word it quite like that (and I know people will quote some guard dog scriptures of classical discernment at me), but when Christ called us into faith…into belief, that seems to be, by very definition, non-certainty. I mean he even left without properly outlining and blueprinting what he meant by “Church”. He left his followers in a lot of confusion over that (which I argue we still haven’t figured that one out). But I’m sure he had his reasons. Perhaps it is something about questions and uncertainty fueling faith and action; pursuit and passion. But I guess I can’t be certain on that. I’ll just take it on faith.
Feel free to jump over there and join in on the discussion. There are some really good thoughts up there!
An interesting discussion Over at Beliefnet between Tony Jones (Emergent Church) and Rod Dreher (Conservative politics and religion blogger) on the issue of Same Sex Marriage. Obviously this is a hot topic after the prop. 8 vote.
I am not promoting one over the other as the discussion continues (it will continue over several weeks), but give ear to both writers and the comments. It is a great resource that you can participate in...just please do so respectfully on all sides!
check Tony's first post here, Rod's is linked at the end of Tony's post, and at the top of this post.
feel free to leave your thoughts here too if you like!
I recently plugged The Voice, A new Bible translation now available. Today, on Emergant Villiage's blog, Brian McLaren writes about working on the project and a little more on what the purpose of this translation is. There's a lot of info in the article.
John Ortberg Writes a great post as he reflects on the election, and the role that Christians seem to play in politics. He calls it the, “Seven Deadly Sins of Evangelicals and Politics.”
It is a good reflection and warning about how NOT to approach an election as traditionally most Christians (esp. evangelicals) seem to do. I post this because of my own conversations during this election season, and I see how utterly true this has been. I've cut-and-pasted the list below. _-_-_-_ Messianism. The sin of believing that a merely human person or system can usher in the eschaton. This is often tipped off by phrases like: “The most important election of our lifetime” (which one wasn’t?); or “God’s man for the hour.”
Selective Scripturization. The sin of using Scripture to reinforce whatever attitude toward the president you feel like holding, while shellacking it with a thin spiritual veneer. If the candidate you like holds office, you consistently point people toward Romans 13: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.” If your candidate lost, you consistently point people to Acts 4:10 where Peter and John say to the Sanhedrin: “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.” It’s just lucky for us the Bible is such a big book.
Easy Believism. This is the sin of believing the worst about a candidate you disagree with, because when you want them to lose you actually want to believe bad things about them. “Love is patient, love is kind,” Paul said. “Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth.” But in Paul’s day nobody ran for Caesar. There was no talk radio.
Episodism. The sin of being engaged in civic life only on a random basis. The real issues never go away, but we’re tempted to give them our attention only when the news about them is controversial, or simplistic, or emotionally charged. Sustained attention to vital but unsexy issues is not our strong suit.
Alarmism. A friend of mine used to work for an organization that claimed both Christian identity and a particular political orientation. They actually liked it when a president was elected of the opposite persuasion, because it meant they could raise a lot more money. It is in their financial interests to convince their constituents that the president is less sane than Jack Nicholson in The Shining. Alarmists on both sides of the spectrum make it sound like we’re electing a Bogeyman-in-Chief every four years. I sometimes think we should move the election up a few days to October 31.
One Issue-ism. Justifying our intolerance of complexity and nuance by collapsing a decision into a simplistic and superficial framework.
Pride. I couldn’t think of a snappy title for this one. But politics, after all, is largely about power. And power goes to the core of our issues of control and narcissism and need to be right and tendency to divide the human race into ‘us’ vs. ‘them.’ _____
Find it in full here. NOTE: I place the picture of our President-Elect, not to point out that this happens one-sided. It is on both sides, but this is the man that was elected, and I like putting up pictures to easily identify posts:) Thanks to Mike for pointing this out. let me know your thoughts.
Several here that I've been collecting... I'll let them speak for themselves, but remember. I post these not to always be critical, but to always make me (and hopefully others) think. So I would love to hear your thoughts!
As I sit and watch the presidential debate tonight, one can really see that the economic recession, depression....whatever we call it, is hurting many people. As I look at how much money my wife and I have lost in this past month in our investments...well it's discouraging!
But there is one thing it is NOT. What it is not, is sickening! What is sickening is the issue of world poverty. When I see numbers and figures of people (and it's not just in underdeveloped countries.... News Flash: there's a poverty problem in the U.S. prior to the economic crisis) who live DAILY in poverty, hunger, and disease. looking at even our seemingly meager budget, my wife and I STILL can't imagine what it is like to live a life below the poverty line. It's not even a fair comparison. But maybe, just perhaps, we will remember how hard it is now that we have to cut back on some wants, and then think about those that have no budget for needs...little less wants.
So two things I want to contribute to the discussion:
1)A verse and a thought: Proverbs 13:23-- “A poor man’s field may produce abundant food, but injustice sweeps it away.”
Poverty is a huge injustice in this world. Every person, made in the image of God; a child of God, deserves the basic human rights. Each person deserves the right to feed themselves and their families. Everyone deserves the right to have shelter and medicines. Everyone has the natural human right to live... to experience a life where each day's bread is provided.
Do we hear the poor's prayer that says, "give us this day our daily bread." Perhaps when we were commanded to pray that same line as those who "have" it was partially a reminder that we DON'T have to worry about having food tomorrow, so let's think about what we can do for those who do have that stress.
2) How I help: There are many links of charities to give to within the links above. Alison and I have several things we do. Compassion International is a good organization (I've known people who work with the kids), and we support a child from Honduras. There are a lot of other organizations we support, but you have to find the one(s) that's right for you.
My personal favorite is the ONE Campaign. The reason I like this is because you don't send them money. If you want an organization to send money to, there is a list on there site here. I have worn the bracelet and shared the vision with many people for almost 2 years. I like that I can take a more active role. I have written letters, signed petitions, spoken with organizations I have connections with about partnering/supporting ONE, and have worked through those organizations to further the cause of ONE: the campaign to end world poverty!
ONE wants the poverty issue to be known, to truly become an issue that we care about! They have been very active during this election year. Here's a vid.
This may not be the organization for you, but still, help make the issue known. Talk with your friends and family about it. Make this invisible issue an ongoing discussion. Find a way where you can help, and know that it's not always about giving money. Your time and energy can be just as effective.
This is more than just a "one day a year" discussion and issue for me. It is a big part of the essence of my calling as a follower of Christ.
Do I believe that world poverty can be eliminated? I HAVE to believe it, because I have to believe that since there is enough wealth and food in the world to eliminate poverty, that one day humanity in all of its goodness will come together and take this issue off the table. Then on one "Blog Action Day" sometime down the road, we can have a discussion of what a terrible thing poverty used to be, rather than what a terrible thing it IS...
It’s extraordinary to me that the United States can find $700 billion to save Wall Street and the entire G8 can’t find $25 billion dollars to saved 25,000 children who die every day from preventable diseases. - Bono
A fantastic article challenging the idea of Sola Scriptura(by scripture alone) has been a staple in protestant thinking since the reformation. However, in light of a shifting worldview, many have begun to rethink this doctrine along with many other "traditional dogmas".
He makes a case against the validity of this doctrinal stance and how it's been used and defended/explained. A great article to think on, whether you agree or not, I think it is always good to challenge the traditional doctrines in order not to be focused as much on worshiping theology over worshiping God.
Thanks to Relvant Christian for posting the original heads up on the article.
.jpg)
art from 
