Now that majority of home-improvement projects are over, I've been taking some more time to read through the Church Fathers. I hopped around a bit, reading a few random things here and there, but then I spotted St John of Damascus on the spine and thought I'd give his Exposition of the Faith a go. It starts off a little on the light side, with a few short chapters that deal with questions of the existence of God and his nature in almost casual fashion. Not that St John is treating those issues casually, but its clear that they are not the primary focus of this piece and he appears to assume that his intended audience may well have already settled those questions for themselves quite satisfatorily. However, when St John gets into his discussion of the Trinity, his writing becomes quite intense and meticulous. Certain descriptive phrases are repeatedly presented to qualify his statements and, apparently, to make sure that his readers understand exactly what he means. For instance, when speaking about Christ's begotten-ness, St John almost always says something like "like the Father in all things except in subsistence". This and similar clauses pepper the page, making for long sentences and sometimes dense passages, but overall, his meaning is quite clear. As is his intention: precision & accuracy in every possible detail. He wants no mistakes, no ambiguity, nothing that can be twisted or misused by another party.
And this is, of course, quite understandable. John wants neither to lead anyone astray through an easily avoidable misunderstanding, nor does he want to feed the flames of heresy by failing to ensure that the proper meaning, and only the proper meaning, can be taken from his words. The latter is likely the stronger factor, because it is clear that St John's world was permeated by people who think. It would seem a significant segment of the population was capable of deep-thinking, of analyzing his arguments for weaknesses, holes or mistakes. Obviously, though, the majority of the population was probably not able to read his arguments, much less pick them apart, and in that, things are not too dissimilar from today. Even a brief perusal of any Christian bookstore or the Christian section of a larger retailer, will show a distinct negation of theology and thinking. Just about everything is a how-to book of some kind, claiming to contain the secrets to happiness, abundance, prosperity, spiritual wholeness, etc, conveniently provided in 7 easy steps. No difficult drudgery of actually reading the Bible for yourself, or learning the difficult work of prayer through long, persistent hours - just $16.95 plus tax and would you like your receipt in the bag?
Of course, not everyone is like that and there are still many Christian authors who produce carefully considered works of theology and philosophy. I think the primary difference between then and now, though, is that these authors are unto themselves. Whereas in St John's day, church leadership was greatly concerned with correct theological discourse and took great pains to guarantee that no false thing entered the doctrines of the faith, today we are (in the Protestant evangelical church) largely saddled with leaders who are not theologically minded and frankly, measure success by factors other than fidelity to the deposit of faith. Scholarly works never cross their desks or night-stands, and it would appear most are not capable of deep, analytical thought. They are un-thinkers, operating at the shallowest levels of thought. They have not been trained in deep thinking and don't see any inherent value in such efforts - that is left up to to others, who will hopefully trim it down to 5 easy steps and come out with a paperback edition in the near future. This, I think, is one of the largest departures from the church of St John's day. We are a church of unthinkers, lead by unthinkers.
This obviously has a huge impact on the form, function, theology, worship and bonds of the modern church - which I won't discuss here. Since I have been reading 1 John of late, with its emphasis on abiding, I am considering whether this departure into unthinking also represents a true break from the historic faith. Not in the sense of a mere difference, however incorrect that may be, but a going out as described in 1 John 2:18-19. The question then, in my mind, is whether opening the door to this intellectual and theological frailty, to this antipathy towards deep reflection on God, is itself an antichrist in some way?
(cont)
7.19.2005
7.16.2005
Uncomfortable requests
The wife and I had dinner with the church planter (and his wife) from our former church - a man named Dave. We went to a new Japanese restaurant in town that is, apparently, still hammering down its menu & service. The food was good, but something did not sit well later that evening, if you know what I mean. During the meal, Dave asked us to get more involved in his church plant. Not just attending more often, but my possibly preaching now and then, doing the announcements fairly regularly, leading a small group or young marrieds Bible study, and being a part of a elder-in-training program which I dubbed the "Youngers". I'm touched by his requests and desire to keep me involved; he obviously respects me and appreciates my talents & gifts, but frankly, I just don't know what to say to him about it. If we're to stay here, I've got to find a job that pays reasonably well (which, realistically, would not be a huge amount in this area). So far, not so much as a blip on the screen in that area, so that provides an easy excuse. Should a job come available, then I'd be put into the position to tell him the truth: I don't want to be involved, not at that level and probably not at any level. I respect him and what he's trying to do - his intentions are good & holy - but I think he's just perpetuating, at some levels, the standard Protestant failure - reinventing "church" with some whiz-bang model at regular intervals. Fortunately, I don't think Dave will fall into the God-as-therapist-and-life-coach heresy that seems to be the dominant form of Prot-Christianity in the US. I'm just worried about the underlying foundation of the entire edifice.
7.13.2005
Encouraging democracy
A somewhat disturbing, if unsurprising, report from CSMonitor.com, that parts of southern Iraq are falling under a very strict religious piety similar to that in Iran. The article introduces speculation that this change may, in fact, be sponsored by Iran - no big surprise there. But this raises a number of questions - how do you encourage democracy to flourish in the face of a fervent, anti-democratic faith (ain't no electoral college voting on the 12th Imam)? how will the US promote a pluralistic society that makes room for both faith and secular political activity? will federalism solve the problem or only create religious enclaves, each with their own rule of law? can a society with no real history of democracy successfully make the transition from despotism?
On that final question: I don't think there is anything inherent about Arabs or Muslims that will prevent them from fostering successful, free democracies - they're people and it can be done. The problem is that our democracy took a while to get rolling and our polity was formed from a conglomeration of many different groups, ideologies and backgrounds. This forced us into compromise and it made things slow-going until everyone got used to the system. The problem in Iraq is that there is a history of political corruption and antagonism between relatively few groups - they will have to learn to overcome their history of distrust and animosity just to get to a point where they can realistically approach questions of governance and law. Some may argue that the constitutional process currently underway is proof that is already occurring, but I think such an assertion is unfounded. That system may work for a while, but I believe the whole thing may be scrapped, eventually, as the Iraqi people and Iraqi culture develop in this new age. In 10 years, will Iraqis view the constitution prepared at the behest of the coalition forces as still valid, or even relevant? If the southern Shiites make a move to religious fundamentalism or are manipulated into seeking a more theocratic government by Iran, how will the country respond? How will the US respond?
On another point - earlier I discussed issues of proportionality. Another tenet of Just War Doctrine (JWD) is a reasonable chance of success. If our goal was to reshape the Middle East in more democratic, Western-friendly ways, do we still have a reasonable chance of pulling that off? Did we ever? I think its clear the Bush administration vastly underestimated the requirements of this task. No matter how good the intentions might have been, is naievete or ignorance a legitimate excuse in light of the moral requirements of war? Can a war still be just if the instigators didn't plan well and didn't anticipate likely outcomes?
On that final question: I don't think there is anything inherent about Arabs or Muslims that will prevent them from fostering successful, free democracies - they're people and it can be done. The problem is that our democracy took a while to get rolling and our polity was formed from a conglomeration of many different groups, ideologies and backgrounds. This forced us into compromise and it made things slow-going until everyone got used to the system. The problem in Iraq is that there is a history of political corruption and antagonism between relatively few groups - they will have to learn to overcome their history of distrust and animosity just to get to a point where they can realistically approach questions of governance and law. Some may argue that the constitutional process currently underway is proof that is already occurring, but I think such an assertion is unfounded. That system may work for a while, but I believe the whole thing may be scrapped, eventually, as the Iraqi people and Iraqi culture develop in this new age. In 10 years, will Iraqis view the constitution prepared at the behest of the coalition forces as still valid, or even relevant? If the southern Shiites make a move to religious fundamentalism or are manipulated into seeking a more theocratic government by Iran, how will the country respond? How will the US respond?
On another point - earlier I discussed issues of proportionality. Another tenet of Just War Doctrine (JWD) is a reasonable chance of success. If our goal was to reshape the Middle East in more democratic, Western-friendly ways, do we still have a reasonable chance of pulling that off? Did we ever? I think its clear the Bush administration vastly underestimated the requirements of this task. No matter how good the intentions might have been, is naievete or ignorance a legitimate excuse in light of the moral requirements of war? Can a war still be just if the instigators didn't plan well and didn't anticipate likely outcomes?
7.11.2005
New blog
Thanks to Doug for finding Fr Mirabile's blog. He wrote the article I linked to in the previous post and I've added him to my blog-roll.
7.08.2005
Emergence and the Divine Order
Interesting article over on the Ooze - a pomo-emergent online magazine. It offers a good critique of the emergent church's ongoing antipathy towards order and structure, as if transitioning into some kind of institution or establishment is the reason the modern Protestant church is struggling/dying. An excerpt:
Modernity therefore, has left us looking for a church that is complex rather than shallow, rich and deep, rather than flat and one dimensional. I want a church that expresses its theology with robust intelligence, not shallow propositions or open-to-interpretation half-truths. I want a church that meets the entire human person in all his or her complexity and not one that addresses human beings as if they were one dimensional wills or intellects alone. I want a church that is stronger by diversity according to it’s kind, its order of genus, rather than a vaporous non-organization or one so open to diversity that it ceases to possess its distinguishing features. The church ceases to be the church when the principle of emergence-towards-order is replaced by open ended emergence towards no definable end.
Modernity therefore, has left us looking for a church that is complex rather than shallow, rich and deep, rather than flat and one dimensional. I want a church that expresses its theology with robust intelligence, not shallow propositions or open-to-interpretation half-truths. I want a church that meets the entire human person in all his or her complexity and not one that addresses human beings as if they were one dimensional wills or intellects alone. I want a church that is stronger by diversity according to it’s kind, its order of genus, rather than a vaporous non-organization or one so open to diversity that it ceases to possess its distinguishing features. The church ceases to be the church when the principle of emergence-towards-order is replaced by open ended emergence towards no definable end.
7.07.2005
Proportionality
I've been chapter hopping in a book I got a few months back but haven't picked up until now - Kosovo: Contending Voices on Balkan Interventions. The book is a collection of essays by diverse authors from a wide range of fields - religion (including pieces from Bishop Ware and Fr Harakas), politics, military strategy, as well as eye-witness and first-hand accounts from both Kosovars and Serbs. Each author does not necessarily present a balanced picture, but on the whole, the diversity of presentations makes for a fair degree of parity.
Several of the authors try to examine the NATO bombing campaign against Serbia in light of the Just War Doctrine (JWD), and pretty much all of them make a great deal of hay about proportionality. Did the bombing campaign meet this criteria, especially after the campaign was expanded to include Serbia proper and all the civilian deaths this brought? Some say yes, some say no, but it got me thinking about the 2 wars our country has fought in the last few years - Afghanistan and Iraq - and I started wondering about their proportionality. Do they meet the criteria? This is just kind of an exploration - I'm no theologian and certainly not a philosopher, so this is just my own relatively uninformed thinking on the matter.
The proportionality criterion is rather simple - one can't hurt the enemy worse than they hurt you. If an enemy took control of your territory, then you getting that territory back would be proportional. If you took more than you previously owned without good reason (like preventing further aggression), then it was not proportional. You also shouldn't kill more of the enemy nation's people than it killed of your own, unless you have to in order to secure peace. Other factors play into this, though. As in Iraq, overthrowing a dictator and giving sovereignty back to the people is a huge good that could potentially outweigh a directly disproportional body count. Its kind of like a scale with both the good (installing a democratic government) and the bad (death toll & others) coming into balance. So do the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq balance out? Did the good achieved outweigh the evils undertaken in pursuit of peace?
Pinning down civilian casualty numbers for Afghanistan is hard - estimates range from a few thousand to upwards of 30,000 when you include deaths indirectly attributable to US military action. As in Iraq, the US apparently did not even try to maintain an accurate record of civilian deaths, so we're left with no solid source. For the sake of argument, lets assume it was 12,000 - thats about 4 times as many as died on 9/11; clearly a disproportionate amount. But we installed a democracy that seems to be making some gains, thousands of kids (including girls) are able to go to school, and the entire country is experiencing a greater degree of freedom. However, the government's control diminishes outside of the capital and many areas are still under the thumb of local warlords. And it will be years before the country is stable enough to exist without the presence of foreign troops and without billions of dollars in foreign aid. Which is one reason why poppy production has increased dramatically - potentially flooding the market with heroin, which makes the drug cheaper and more available to a wider range of customers. We've clearly got a mixed bag - freedom, democracy and the elimination of a base of operations for al Qaida on the good side and a weak, dependent government, disproportionate death toll and increased drug production on the bad. How do we weigh this? If you could quantify it all - how many points does democracy add to our tally and how many does 12,000 deaths subtract? How many points are added for the future generations who will get to live without the violent control of the Taliban? How many are subtracted for the many thousands of lives that will be negatively impacted, or taken, by Afghani heroin?
Of course, things get a lot murkier and more abstract when talking about Iraq. Our (purportedly) main justification for the war - WMD - has turned out to be a farce, though I suppose one could argue the alleged intention was good. Yes, we've installed a democratic government, but our own failure in implementing a good post-war plan (which was available but not used) encouraged this insurgency. And, of course, the death toll is far higher than in Afghanistan. Iraqbodycount.net puts the civilian death toll between 22,000 and 25,000. The Lancet reported some months back that their research suggested the death toll was over 100,000, and we really have no idea how many Iraqi soldiers died during the war. There is also the psychic toll the presence of US forces is having on both the Iraqi people and our own soldiers - shouldn't that be included in our calculations?
This, I think, is one of the primary weaknesses of the JWD - its conventions are too ambiguous to really be useful. How do we calculate the value of freedom? Does that value change if freedom was brought by a conquering army versus a home-grown revolution? What about the intangibles of hatred, animosity, resentment or love, good-will, gratitude? How do these things weigh against a civilian death toll? Or a military one? What is the relative worth of a civilian life versus a soldier's life in this scenario? And have these things even been taken into account by our political leadership, military commanders or the American people? I don't think they have, because we seem to lack the moral imagination to bring all facets of a conflict into play - and doesn't that factor into any question of whether or not a war was just? Does naive moral reasoning excuse its results?
So to answer my own question about the proportionality of these 2 conflicts, I am forced to admit that I just don't know. My gut tells me that Afghanistan was probably pretty close to it, and Iraq a far-cry. But we can't govern by intuition - we have to ask and attempt to answer these hard questions, always hounded by the stark realization that, on this side of heaven, we'll probably never have a good solution.
Several of the authors try to examine the NATO bombing campaign against Serbia in light of the Just War Doctrine (JWD), and pretty much all of them make a great deal of hay about proportionality. Did the bombing campaign meet this criteria, especially after the campaign was expanded to include Serbia proper and all the civilian deaths this brought? Some say yes, some say no, but it got me thinking about the 2 wars our country has fought in the last few years - Afghanistan and Iraq - and I started wondering about their proportionality. Do they meet the criteria? This is just kind of an exploration - I'm no theologian and certainly not a philosopher, so this is just my own relatively uninformed thinking on the matter.
The proportionality criterion is rather simple - one can't hurt the enemy worse than they hurt you. If an enemy took control of your territory, then you getting that territory back would be proportional. If you took more than you previously owned without good reason (like preventing further aggression), then it was not proportional. You also shouldn't kill more of the enemy nation's people than it killed of your own, unless you have to in order to secure peace. Other factors play into this, though. As in Iraq, overthrowing a dictator and giving sovereignty back to the people is a huge good that could potentially outweigh a directly disproportional body count. Its kind of like a scale with both the good (installing a democratic government) and the bad (death toll & others) coming into balance. So do the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq balance out? Did the good achieved outweigh the evils undertaken in pursuit of peace?
Pinning down civilian casualty numbers for Afghanistan is hard - estimates range from a few thousand to upwards of 30,000 when you include deaths indirectly attributable to US military action. As in Iraq, the US apparently did not even try to maintain an accurate record of civilian deaths, so we're left with no solid source. For the sake of argument, lets assume it was 12,000 - thats about 4 times as many as died on 9/11; clearly a disproportionate amount. But we installed a democracy that seems to be making some gains, thousands of kids (including girls) are able to go to school, and the entire country is experiencing a greater degree of freedom. However, the government's control diminishes outside of the capital and many areas are still under the thumb of local warlords. And it will be years before the country is stable enough to exist without the presence of foreign troops and without billions of dollars in foreign aid. Which is one reason why poppy production has increased dramatically - potentially flooding the market with heroin, which makes the drug cheaper and more available to a wider range of customers. We've clearly got a mixed bag - freedom, democracy and the elimination of a base of operations for al Qaida on the good side and a weak, dependent government, disproportionate death toll and increased drug production on the bad. How do we weigh this? If you could quantify it all - how many points does democracy add to our tally and how many does 12,000 deaths subtract? How many points are added for the future generations who will get to live without the violent control of the Taliban? How many are subtracted for the many thousands of lives that will be negatively impacted, or taken, by Afghani heroin?
Of course, things get a lot murkier and more abstract when talking about Iraq. Our (purportedly) main justification for the war - WMD - has turned out to be a farce, though I suppose one could argue the alleged intention was good. Yes, we've installed a democratic government, but our own failure in implementing a good post-war plan (which was available but not used) encouraged this insurgency. And, of course, the death toll is far higher than in Afghanistan. Iraqbodycount.net puts the civilian death toll between 22,000 and 25,000. The Lancet reported some months back that their research suggested the death toll was over 100,000, and we really have no idea how many Iraqi soldiers died during the war. There is also the psychic toll the presence of US forces is having on both the Iraqi people and our own soldiers - shouldn't that be included in our calculations?
This, I think, is one of the primary weaknesses of the JWD - its conventions are too ambiguous to really be useful. How do we calculate the value of freedom? Does that value change if freedom was brought by a conquering army versus a home-grown revolution? What about the intangibles of hatred, animosity, resentment or love, good-will, gratitude? How do these things weigh against a civilian death toll? Or a military one? What is the relative worth of a civilian life versus a soldier's life in this scenario? And have these things even been taken into account by our political leadership, military commanders or the American people? I don't think they have, because we seem to lack the moral imagination to bring all facets of a conflict into play - and doesn't that factor into any question of whether or not a war was just? Does naive moral reasoning excuse its results?
So to answer my own question about the proportionality of these 2 conflicts, I am forced to admit that I just don't know. My gut tells me that Afghanistan was probably pretty close to it, and Iraq a far-cry. But we can't govern by intuition - we have to ask and attempt to answer these hard questions, always hounded by the stark realization that, on this side of heaven, we'll probably never have a good solution.
Finally...
The house is finally on the market and almost 100% of the work is done. There are a few minor things to take care of, but after the marathon of house-related work that started Wednesday afternoon when my uncle arrived to help re-furbish our kitchen and ended Monday night (no fireworks for us, sad to say), I'm going to take my own sweet time in addressing them. Its mostly just keeping the place clean & tidy in hopes of a few showings. Now, it just has to sell and we just have to figure out where God wants us to go or if he wants us to stay. Its been a stressful month in that regard, but at least we're finally at a point when things can start happening one way or another.
6.27.2005
Tolstoy: That's...uh....what?
A few years ago in a used book store - not sure if it was in Alaska or Arizona - I picked up a well-worn copy of Tolstoy's "On Civil Disobedience and Non-violence." I must say, I know very little of Tolstoy, but picked up the book because it sounded interesting. I thought Tolsoty was Orthodox. I mean, Tolstoy=Russian, Russia=Orthodox, ergo Tolstoy=Orthodox. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. And wrong again. I pulled it off the book shelf last week for want of something to read (I've been reading even more than I usually do in the last month or so; its one way I deal with the tension & frustration we're feeling right now. Yesterday I finished a 700 page book I bought Thursday night, so I'm quickly running short on reading material. I need a library card.) This piece is from an essay called Church and State:
"Religion cannot be forced and cannot be accepted for the sake of anything, force, fraud, or profit. Therefore what is so accepted is not religion but a fraud. And this religious fraud is a long-established condition of man's life.
In what does this fraud consist, and on what is it based? What induces the deceviers to produce it? and what makes it plausible to the deceived?...In Christianity, the whole fraud is built up on the fantastic conception of a Church: a conception founded on nothing, and which as soon as we being to study Christianity amazes us by its unexpected and useless absurdity.
Of all the godless ideas and words there is none more godless than that of a Church. There is no idea which has produced more evil, none more inimical to Christ's teaching, than the idea of a Church."
The essay continues thusly, charging that the Church is actually a fraud perpetuated by the clergy because of their desire for power primarily, but also wealth & comfort. It is, of course, a rather old argument, so what surprised me was not its content, but its unfortunate similarity to some Protestant currents of thought about denominations.
The church I recently departed was part of a smallish denomination of 39 local churches. Its grown considerably over the last decade or so, adding several church plants and accepting existing churches into its organization. While the local churches are, for the most part, doing quite well, the denomination itself is in a bit of a crunch. Churches are giving less as part of their general funding and many are starting to strike out on their own international-missions wise (those that care about IM, anyways) and so are reducing their direct funding for that as well. The main motivator for this decline in funding is a strain of thinking that says denominations don't matter, that its all about the local church. Bill Hybels and the Willowcreek Association are big contributors to this thinking; for them, the local church is really the only thing that matters because it is the primary vehicle for reaching the masses with the Gospel. In its utilitarian ecclesiology, denominational structures are essentialy useless and are therefore jettisoned, or at least jettisonable.
The heart of this matter is, of course, ecclesiology. How are we to understand ecclesiology, and the related issues of authority and structure? Despite Tolstoy's claims to the contrary (claims predicated mainly on a rejection of Paul and pretty much the rest of the NT), the Bible does give us a good basis for answering these questions, particularly in light of Holy Tradition. I think I may turn this into a little project - partially for the sake of my own sanity which is imperiled by the increasing tedium of near-constant home improvement projects over the last month, and partially because I'd like to answer the question for myself: what is the proper ecclesiology? No promises though, since I don't know if I'll have the time.
"Religion cannot be forced and cannot be accepted for the sake of anything, force, fraud, or profit. Therefore what is so accepted is not religion but a fraud. And this religious fraud is a long-established condition of man's life.
In what does this fraud consist, and on what is it based? What induces the deceviers to produce it? and what makes it plausible to the deceived?...In Christianity, the whole fraud is built up on the fantastic conception of a Church: a conception founded on nothing, and which as soon as we being to study Christianity amazes us by its unexpected and useless absurdity.
Of all the godless ideas and words there is none more godless than that of a Church. There is no idea which has produced more evil, none more inimical to Christ's teaching, than the idea of a Church."
The essay continues thusly, charging that the Church is actually a fraud perpetuated by the clergy because of their desire for power primarily, but also wealth & comfort. It is, of course, a rather old argument, so what surprised me was not its content, but its unfortunate similarity to some Protestant currents of thought about denominations.
The church I recently departed was part of a smallish denomination of 39 local churches. Its grown considerably over the last decade or so, adding several church plants and accepting existing churches into its organization. While the local churches are, for the most part, doing quite well, the denomination itself is in a bit of a crunch. Churches are giving less as part of their general funding and many are starting to strike out on their own international-missions wise (those that care about IM, anyways) and so are reducing their direct funding for that as well. The main motivator for this decline in funding is a strain of thinking that says denominations don't matter, that its all about the local church. Bill Hybels and the Willowcreek Association are big contributors to this thinking; for them, the local church is really the only thing that matters because it is the primary vehicle for reaching the masses with the Gospel. In its utilitarian ecclesiology, denominational structures are essentialy useless and are therefore jettisoned, or at least jettisonable.
The heart of this matter is, of course, ecclesiology. How are we to understand ecclesiology, and the related issues of authority and structure? Despite Tolstoy's claims to the contrary (claims predicated mainly on a rejection of Paul and pretty much the rest of the NT), the Bible does give us a good basis for answering these questions, particularly in light of Holy Tradition. I think I may turn this into a little project - partially for the sake of my own sanity which is imperiled by the increasing tedium of near-constant home improvement projects over the last month, and partially because I'd like to answer the question for myself: what is the proper ecclesiology? No promises though, since I don't know if I'll have the time.
Holy Lands Blogging
Adam from Pomomusings (linked at right), is in Israel/Palestine for the summer with a Christian organization - it might be a PCUSA thing, or it could be something else; I couldn't find a definitive reference after a brief skimming. Adam is, of course, an Emergent guy and given Emergent's liberalizing tendencies, I'm not surprised that he sides with the Palestinians. Stuff like this isn't so surprising, but it is frustrating. How do the Jews feel when they are hit by suicide bombers? How do the Jews feel when all of the nations surrounding them funnel money to terrorist organizations that target Israel? How do they feel when all the surrounding nations don't even have Israel on their maps and refuse to officially recognize them as a sovereign nation? I'm not saying I think Israel's actions in response to the Palestinian terror organizations has been perfect; far, far from it. But simple fairness demands that we consider both sides, and that is something woefully lacking here. The pictures are good, though, so check out the photo galleries.
6.22.2005
Writer's block
Ever since I became unemployed, I have had a bit of writer's block. I've had time to post at least a little here and there, but I just don't have anything to talk about. The last few weeks for me have been spent working on the house and looking for work - neither have been overly stimulating and haven't spawned any deep cogitations. Except that you should put primer on just about anything before you paint; one window frame will just not stay white. If color seeps through again, I'm going to prime it and then put the 6th coat of paint on. Hopefully that will do the trick. Thankfully, the home improvement projects are coming to a close. The upstairs is almost complete - just a little more paint on the bathroom window, installing blinds and re-hanging a bedroom door. If all goes well, it should be done tonight. Then its on to the crown molding in the dining room and a little paint removal. That could be done by Saturday afternoon if all goes according to plan.
I've gotten a couple of call backs for jobs, but so far nothing is really sounding that good. One didn't offer anywhere near enough pay for its area and the other basically gives you a completely random schedule every week; no 2 days off in a row, your shift can start anytime between 10am and 6pm and can be on any day and you have to work overtime on little to no notice. Thanks, but no thanks. I'm tempted to keep it open for the time being since I don't have any other good leads yet, but its a temptation I'm feeling very good about resisting.
I've gotten a couple of call backs for jobs, but so far nothing is really sounding that good. One didn't offer anywhere near enough pay for its area and the other basically gives you a completely random schedule every week; no 2 days off in a row, your shift can start anytime between 10am and 6pm and can be on any day and you have to work overtime on little to no notice. Thanks, but no thanks. I'm tempted to keep it open for the time being since I don't have any other good leads yet, but its a temptation I'm feeling very good about resisting.
6.19.2005
Batman
So I went and saw "Batman Begins" on Friday afternoon. The wife, not a huge action flick fan, much less an aficionado of the Dark Knight, chose to let me attend on my own. The movie as a movie was good; good pacing and character development, they did a good job of filling in Batman's back-story, good action without it being over the top and certainly not very much gore, which is a nice change. I left the theater, though, feeling very troubled by the film. It just didn't sit right. WARNING: Spoilers to follow. If you plan to see the movie, come back and read this after you are done.
We are, of course, reacquainted with another version of Bruce Wayne's tragic childhood; only child sees his parents gunned down outside a theater, grows up alone, etc. However, this does not follow the script we heard in the first Batman movie - no "you ever dance with the devil..." and the Waynes' killer ends up dead at the hand of a mob assassin some years later. I realize the makers of this Batman movie did not want to be tied to any of the others, but I found this variation a bit grating. Yes, the mugger's death is integral to Bruce Wayne becoming the Batman: he was planning on killing his parents murderer after he got out early from assisting the government on an organized crime investigation. After his plans are foiled, it starts Bruce on a chain of events that lead him to seek to understand the criminal mind and eventually takes him to his mentor who will train him in martial arts, the use of fear and the importance of justice. In the first movie, you'll remember it was a young Joker who murdered the Waynes and that act played a key part in its plot. This discontinuity soured the movie for me, at least for a little while. If we are to understand this movie as a prequel of sorts, then this change in the story trips things up. It would be like tampering with the original Star Wars movies in the prequels; Leah isn't really Luke's sister, or Jabba the Hutt is actually a good guy.
We are first forced to confront Bruce's unmitigated hatred for the man who killed his parents, and with him, a thirst for revenge he unthinkingly labels justice. He refuses to forgive, refuses to let go of the pain, refuses to do anything but live in the past, embracing the moment of his worst agony. In this, we see that Bruce/Batman is actually diametrically opposed to the Christian ideal. He hangs onto his hate and is ruled by fear. He feels no love, only bitterness over what was taken from him with absolutely no regard for anyone other than himself. He eventually moves past this brutal fixation on vengeance, but only by a matter of degree. His mentor, a master ninja and member of the centuries old League of Shadows, which has battled corruption and evil as far back as the Roman Empire (this character mentions the league's involvement in the fall of Rome, among other examples of powerful political entities that eventually became corrupt and were pulled down) orders Bruce, as a final test of his training, to kill a murderer. Bruce refuses, saying since his compassion is the only thing that separates him from the criminal, then he must hold onto it. But truly it is not compassion - Bruce thinks the man should be killed by the lawful authorities, not him. There is no hint of trying to understand why the man committed his crime and if there might be elements that mitigate the deserved punishment. It is only this trifle of respect for the rule of law that separates Bruce from the criminal; he has no qualms about the use of violence, does not hesitate to instill fear and, in fact, is trained to use fear as a weapon, and certainly has no overall respect for the law. It also becomes abundantly clear later in the movie that Bruce/Batman has little respect for human life in his quest for "justice" and the "good."
In one dramatic scene, his old friend and assistant DA Rachel (played by Katie Holmes) is gassed with a lethal dose of a mind-altering chemical agent. Bruce/Batman must rush her back to the Batcave where he has the antidote. But his drive back to the manor is actually a car chase involving dozens of cop cars - many of which crash in manners that are likely fatal to the occupants. Further, Batman drives over rooftops, knocking debris onto the ground below in a complete disregard for any possible pedestrians. These innocent deaths do not matter to him so long as he can save his old friend; another mark of the selfishness that permeates Batman's motivations. Bruce isn't fighting for some objective good or for the benefit of society - he is fighting because he is consumed by hatred and anger. In this, he is actually very much like the character of Anakin Skywalker, the primary difference being that Bruce Wayne is self-aware enough to realize that, in venting his hatred, there is little that separates him from the criminals he fights. Thus, he puts a veneer of good on it, by fighting for "justice", by opposing them and trying to hand them over to the authorities for prosecution. But at its root, his fight is fueled by hate and by Bruce's selfish desire to act on it.
Which is why I left the theater thinking "is Batman an antichrist?" And the answer, I think, is an unfortunate yes. Yes, Batman fights evil, but for the wrong reasons. He fights, not in order to save the criminal, or even to save the criminal's victims, but in order to inflict the punishment of his own hatred on those he sees as "evil."
We are, of course, reacquainted with another version of Bruce Wayne's tragic childhood; only child sees his parents gunned down outside a theater, grows up alone, etc. However, this does not follow the script we heard in the first Batman movie - no "you ever dance with the devil..." and the Waynes' killer ends up dead at the hand of a mob assassin some years later. I realize the makers of this Batman movie did not want to be tied to any of the others, but I found this variation a bit grating. Yes, the mugger's death is integral to Bruce Wayne becoming the Batman: he was planning on killing his parents murderer after he got out early from assisting the government on an organized crime investigation. After his plans are foiled, it starts Bruce on a chain of events that lead him to seek to understand the criminal mind and eventually takes him to his mentor who will train him in martial arts, the use of fear and the importance of justice. In the first movie, you'll remember it was a young Joker who murdered the Waynes and that act played a key part in its plot. This discontinuity soured the movie for me, at least for a little while. If we are to understand this movie as a prequel of sorts, then this change in the story trips things up. It would be like tampering with the original Star Wars movies in the prequels; Leah isn't really Luke's sister, or Jabba the Hutt is actually a good guy.
We are first forced to confront Bruce's unmitigated hatred for the man who killed his parents, and with him, a thirst for revenge he unthinkingly labels justice. He refuses to forgive, refuses to let go of the pain, refuses to do anything but live in the past, embracing the moment of his worst agony. In this, we see that Bruce/Batman is actually diametrically opposed to the Christian ideal. He hangs onto his hate and is ruled by fear. He feels no love, only bitterness over what was taken from him with absolutely no regard for anyone other than himself. He eventually moves past this brutal fixation on vengeance, but only by a matter of degree. His mentor, a master ninja and member of the centuries old League of Shadows, which has battled corruption and evil as far back as the Roman Empire (this character mentions the league's involvement in the fall of Rome, among other examples of powerful political entities that eventually became corrupt and were pulled down) orders Bruce, as a final test of his training, to kill a murderer. Bruce refuses, saying since his compassion is the only thing that separates him from the criminal, then he must hold onto it. But truly it is not compassion - Bruce thinks the man should be killed by the lawful authorities, not him. There is no hint of trying to understand why the man committed his crime and if there might be elements that mitigate the deserved punishment. It is only this trifle of respect for the rule of law that separates Bruce from the criminal; he has no qualms about the use of violence, does not hesitate to instill fear and, in fact, is trained to use fear as a weapon, and certainly has no overall respect for the law. It also becomes abundantly clear later in the movie that Bruce/Batman has little respect for human life in his quest for "justice" and the "good."
In one dramatic scene, his old friend and assistant DA Rachel (played by Katie Holmes) is gassed with a lethal dose of a mind-altering chemical agent. Bruce/Batman must rush her back to the Batcave where he has the antidote. But his drive back to the manor is actually a car chase involving dozens of cop cars - many of which crash in manners that are likely fatal to the occupants. Further, Batman drives over rooftops, knocking debris onto the ground below in a complete disregard for any possible pedestrians. These innocent deaths do not matter to him so long as he can save his old friend; another mark of the selfishness that permeates Batman's motivations. Bruce isn't fighting for some objective good or for the benefit of society - he is fighting because he is consumed by hatred and anger. In this, he is actually very much like the character of Anakin Skywalker, the primary difference being that Bruce Wayne is self-aware enough to realize that, in venting his hatred, there is little that separates him from the criminals he fights. Thus, he puts a veneer of good on it, by fighting for "justice", by opposing them and trying to hand them over to the authorities for prosecution. But at its root, his fight is fueled by hate and by Bruce's selfish desire to act on it.
Which is why I left the theater thinking "is Batman an antichrist?" And the answer, I think, is an unfortunate yes. Yes, Batman fights evil, but for the wrong reasons. He fights, not in order to save the criminal, or even to save the criminal's victims, but in order to inflict the punishment of his own hatred on those he sees as "evil."
6.10.2005
What to post?
I was fortunate enough to find a local coffee shop that has free wireless access, and my wife was fortunate enough to have a friend give her an old lap-top. A happy bit of providence that has allowed me to spend several mornings this week applying for jobs while sipping a nice, hot cup of joe. So far, no responses on the job search, but I re-wrote my resume and cover letter, so I'm hopeful that the latest broadcast will turn up some results.
I've been doing some extensive home-improvement projects over the last 2 weeks - new trim & paint in one of the bedrooms, constructed closet doors, painted the hall/stairs, replaced the kitchen floor and am getting ready for crown-molding and other trim in the dining room. We have some ancient paint - probably lead - on some of the trim in the dining room and applied some Ready-strip (as seen on TV) last night. Man, that stuff is awesome! After only an hour or so, some of the paint was literally dripping off the wall. I'm going home to scrape it all off in a few minutes, in preparation for the realtor coming over to have a look. Based on a phone conversation with her earlier this week, she seems to think we can sell our house for at least $10,000 more than what we paid for it in October. Its a combination of the market and the improvements we've made, and certainly isn't a bad turn-around on the investment. Hopefully she'll maintain the same rosy outlook when she sees it today.
I have, of course, lately had little time for in-depth reading and haven't had a chance to consider much beyond the immediate projects set before me. But I did have a chance last night to read a litle "For the Life of the World" by Fr Schmemann, and this quote jumped out at me:
The first act of the Christian life [just before baptism] is a renunciation, a challenge. No one can be Christ's until he has, first, faced evil, and then become ready to fight it. How far is this spirit from the way in which we often proclaim, or to use a more modern term, "sell" Christianity today!...One does not see very well where and how "fight" would fit into the weekly bulletin of a suburban parish, among all kinds of counseling sessions, bake sales, and "young adult" get togethers.
Where, indeed, would "fight" fit? Now, anyone who has even been casually acquainted with this blog over the last year or so knows that this is a critique that speaks directly to the church by which I was formerly employed. So I'm not going to talk about that; its well-worn ground and I'm honestly trying to put it behind me. To constantly talk about or dwell on that church's failings would be only to continually pick at the scab, starting to bleed all over again. No, its my own life, my own heart that I'm interested in.
And I realize, immediately, that I have not truly taken that stand to fight. I have not truly "renounced Satan, and all his Angels, and all his works, and all his services, and all his pride?" For instance, when I exploded at my wife yesterday because she made a harmless joke that wounded my fragile pride, where was my renunciation? When I have wallowed in bitterness and anger over being fired, or held onto a grudge against the leaders at my former church, where was my decision to fight? When I am faced with temptation, with my own failing, where is my resolution to do battle? It is lost in apathy, to be honest. I think it is a sensation that has dominated this last year; a feeling of swimming in molasses, of constantly battling a swift current and being exhausted by it. It is easier to go with the flow than to go against it, simpler by far to float instead of fight. But its end is destruction, dissolution and I want to be Christ's. I want to be holy, to be transformed, to throw off this entangling snare.
I renounce Satan, and all his Angels, and all his works.....
I've been doing some extensive home-improvement projects over the last 2 weeks - new trim & paint in one of the bedrooms, constructed closet doors, painted the hall/stairs, replaced the kitchen floor and am getting ready for crown-molding and other trim in the dining room. We have some ancient paint - probably lead - on some of the trim in the dining room and applied some Ready-strip (as seen on TV) last night. Man, that stuff is awesome! After only an hour or so, some of the paint was literally dripping off the wall. I'm going home to scrape it all off in a few minutes, in preparation for the realtor coming over to have a look. Based on a phone conversation with her earlier this week, she seems to think we can sell our house for at least $10,000 more than what we paid for it in October. Its a combination of the market and the improvements we've made, and certainly isn't a bad turn-around on the investment. Hopefully she'll maintain the same rosy outlook when she sees it today.
I have, of course, lately had little time for in-depth reading and haven't had a chance to consider much beyond the immediate projects set before me. But I did have a chance last night to read a litle "For the Life of the World" by Fr Schmemann, and this quote jumped out at me:
The first act of the Christian life [just before baptism] is a renunciation, a challenge. No one can be Christ's until he has, first, faced evil, and then become ready to fight it. How far is this spirit from the way in which we often proclaim, or to use a more modern term, "sell" Christianity today!...One does not see very well where and how "fight" would fit into the weekly bulletin of a suburban parish, among all kinds of counseling sessions, bake sales, and "young adult" get togethers.
Where, indeed, would "fight" fit? Now, anyone who has even been casually acquainted with this blog over the last year or so knows that this is a critique that speaks directly to the church by which I was formerly employed. So I'm not going to talk about that; its well-worn ground and I'm honestly trying to put it behind me. To constantly talk about or dwell on that church's failings would be only to continually pick at the scab, starting to bleed all over again. No, its my own life, my own heart that I'm interested in.
And I realize, immediately, that I have not truly taken that stand to fight. I have not truly "renounced Satan, and all his Angels, and all his works, and all his services, and all his pride?" For instance, when I exploded at my wife yesterday because she made a harmless joke that wounded my fragile pride, where was my renunciation? When I have wallowed in bitterness and anger over being fired, or held onto a grudge against the leaders at my former church, where was my decision to fight? When I am faced with temptation, with my own failing, where is my resolution to do battle? It is lost in apathy, to be honest. I think it is a sensation that has dominated this last year; a feeling of swimming in molasses, of constantly battling a swift current and being exhausted by it. It is easier to go with the flow than to go against it, simpler by far to float instead of fight. But its end is destruction, dissolution and I want to be Christ's. I want to be holy, to be transformed, to throw off this entangling snare.
I renounce Satan, and all his Angels, and all his works.....
6.06.2005
Narrowing the search
The first week of my extended vacation has passed largely without incident. I have spent the majority of my time working on our house and preparing it for a potential/likely sale. There were 3 big projects to be completed: the second bedroom upstairs needed trim & closet doors, the kitchen floor needs to be replaced and crown molding in the dining room. The first, aside from a few more coats of paint, is done. The second is about half-way there; just waiting for the floor primer (never knew there was such a thing) to dry so we can start laying the vinyl tiles tomorrow morning. The crown-molding will have to wait until later this week, but we'll probably get the house on the market in the next few days.
The biggest thing the wife and I are facing right now is, of course, what to do next. On a suggestion from my mother, I'm looking at nursing schools - I've always been interested in medicine and a job with good pay & benefits, with high portability and a huge "other-focused" factor, is right up my alley. We've been praying about it a lot and we're feeling a peace about pursuing that, but still aren't fully decided on it. Part of that stems from the fact that I would have to complete some more schooling and the rest from not knowing where to go/if we should stay here. But more school was inevitable - a BA in Religious Studies looks nice on the wall but doesn't open many doors - as was moving. However, there are a couple of school options here, as well as others near family on both sides with varying degrees of potential job connections. So where we're going is pretty up in the air right now. Which is why I'm glad I've had all these projects to work on; its allowed me to stay focused on the immediate, accomplishable future. Very soon, though, this transitional period will end and we will have to get on with the difficult work of actually stepping out in faith.
There have been a lot of things I've wanted to comment on over the last week, but haven't had either the time or computer access to make that happen. Once these projects are completed and until I find a job or we move, I should have more time. Your continued prayers are greatly appreciated.
The biggest thing the wife and I are facing right now is, of course, what to do next. On a suggestion from my mother, I'm looking at nursing schools - I've always been interested in medicine and a job with good pay & benefits, with high portability and a huge "other-focused" factor, is right up my alley. We've been praying about it a lot and we're feeling a peace about pursuing that, but still aren't fully decided on it. Part of that stems from the fact that I would have to complete some more schooling and the rest from not knowing where to go/if we should stay here. But more school was inevitable - a BA in Religious Studies looks nice on the wall but doesn't open many doors - as was moving. However, there are a couple of school options here, as well as others near family on both sides with varying degrees of potential job connections. So where we're going is pretty up in the air right now. Which is why I'm glad I've had all these projects to work on; its allowed me to stay focused on the immediate, accomplishable future. Very soon, though, this transitional period will end and we will have to get on with the difficult work of actually stepping out in faith.
There have been a lot of things I've wanted to comment on over the last week, but haven't had either the time or computer access to make that happen. Once these projects are completed and until I find a job or we move, I should have more time. Your continued prayers are greatly appreciated.
5.31.2005
Stepping out
I am about to step out of my office for the last time. My blogging will step-down a bit, since I've done it entirely from work and we don't have the internet at home. I'm not quitting the blog, though. Please pray for us as we get our home ready for (a potential) sale and seek the Lord as to where to go and what to do next.
5.27.2005
Base closure politics
I was finishing up the painting in the youth room this afternoon, and had the radio on to the Rush Limbaugh show. I actually dislike Rush quite a bit and find most of his show to be self-serving and bombastic, which is no big surprise to anyone. He frequently distorts matters and relies more on verbosity and volume than sound reasoning. Today was another brilliant example:
Senator John Thune, who recently displaced Tom Daschle in South Dakota, has announced his intentions to vote against John Bolton's appointment to the UN in retaliation for the closure of a military base in his state. Rush admits that he cannot blame the guy - South Dakota is a small state and will experience a greater financial hardship than a larger or more populous state. Further, Rush suggested that the White House should have actually closed a base in the state of one of the "sell-outs" who crafted the deal to avoid the so-called "nuclear option." The essence of Rush's argument is that base closures should be made on the basis of political infighting instead of either a sound defensive posture or economics.
In my opinion, this is one of the key failings of democracy. Though it is still a vastly superior system to anything else yet tried, it will always eventually come down to political considerations over the best interests of the state and her people.
Senator John Thune, who recently displaced Tom Daschle in South Dakota, has announced his intentions to vote against John Bolton's appointment to the UN in retaliation for the closure of a military base in his state. Rush admits that he cannot blame the guy - South Dakota is a small state and will experience a greater financial hardship than a larger or more populous state. Further, Rush suggested that the White House should have actually closed a base in the state of one of the "sell-outs" who crafted the deal to avoid the so-called "nuclear option." The essence of Rush's argument is that base closures should be made on the basis of political infighting instead of either a sound defensive posture or economics.
In my opinion, this is one of the key failings of democracy. Though it is still a vastly superior system to anything else yet tried, it will always eventually come down to political considerations over the best interests of the state and her people.
Cleaning out my office
I've spent the last half hour or so cleaning out my desk & office. I've pretty much removed all the personal stuff and now it only remains to sort through the remaining paperwork to see what should stay and what should go. A bit surprisingly, I don't really feel anything - nothing bad anyways. In some ways, there is actually a spark of hope and freedom. No longer am I tied to this place and to this way of doing things. No longer will I have to hold my tongue in the midst of anyone, students and staff alike. No longer will my livelihood depend on a boss whom I don't respect - its on God now. And I trust that he will not continually be caught up in the latest thing (there are no fads in heaven) nor move us around unnecessarily. The future lays before us, my wife and I, like a wide open plain; anything is possible and we will follow our Guide where ever He leads.
5.26.2005
The Perv Factor
I scanned through the referrals on my Sitemeter report and was disturbed to see that probably half of the hits on my blog are due to perverts conducting searches for various things related to fighting, the fairer half of the species, and various "romantic" scenarios. I won't quote any of the search strings because heck if I want to make it up any higher on those search lists; lets just say I chose poorly when it came to my blog name and when I decided to post about conversations I've had with kids in my youth group. Still, its boosting my stats, so come on in all you looking for fighting videos - you won't find what you're looking for, but maybe I'll help you find what you need.
Conversations with pastors
This last week I was fortunate enough to have extended conversations with both my former youth pastor and the priest of the Orthodox parish my wife and I attended for a few months. The youth pastor's name is Jeff and the priest is Fr. Chris.
The conversation with Jeff was marked by bitterness well on its way to joy - a "weeping is just for the night" kind of pain. He feels betrayed by his church and with little wonder; more than anything else, internal politics are what pushed the search committee to pass him over. They thought he was too close to the former senior pastor, even though Jeff was constantly trying to hold him accountable, to move him towards repentance & change. As we were talking, Jeff kept dropping little bits of advice and wisdom - the hard-won rewards of years of successful ministry. As we were talking, I kept thinking to myself "Why couldn't my senior pastor have been like this? Under this man's leadership, I could have done some amazing things." The pain of what might have been kept creeping up on me. Jeff's major concern with me was that this experience did not spoil me on ministry and he encouraged us to stay on the trail, so to speak.
Now, I say his ministry was successful, and truly it was - but not because of its size. Yes, under his care, the youth ministry grew to several hundred kids (twice the size of my entire church, actually) but I've never found numbers alone to be an adequate mark of success. On Sunday morning, I witnessed a church saying a loving goodbye to her pastor, her leader and in the audience were not just the current high school kids, but several dozen former students and adult volunteers. These were the people around when this ministry first got started, and Jeff has ever been a center of gravity in their lives. No matter where they've gone or what they've done, the students who came through Jeff's very capable hands & loving care have always known they have a place to come back to. And its not a soft place; its a place that will accept them, but challenge them to repentance and growth. To me, that is success and I think it will always be a criterion by which I judge my own ministry.
The meeting with Fr. Chris was, needless to say, very different and not just because my wife was with us. He is a young man, probably in his early 30's, but displays a depth and maturity well beyond his years. We spoke for a while about our troubles and trying to find what God has for us next; the difficulty of finding patience for the waiting. He is, somewhat, in the same boat. He is interested in pursuing his PhD because he would like to be able to teach at the college level some day, but he does not want to attend an Orthodox school. This surprised me, but I respected his reasons (and saw a lot of myself in them, as well) - he wants to be challenged, to hear the other side of things and then bounce it off of the Church's teaching & faith. This is basically what I did as an undergrad getting my degree in Religious Studies, but right now I cannot imagine doing it at the doctoral level. Fr. Chris was very encouraging to us, urging us to move forward in faith. He also urged us to move back to Phoenix and to come back to his parish, but he admitted that was based more on his desires than what may be best for us. That was nice to hear, though.
As is obvious, I deeply admire and love Jeff, but I don't know how I can follow his advice when I have my doubts about the ground the trail crosses. Until I settle this doubt, or rather, until God settles this doubt, I cannot continue in a Protestant pastoral position; it would be dishonest. I don't really believe all that an evangelical church would require me to affirm and I certainly couldn't go into a theologically liberal church, thus I'm stuck. Now, Fr. Chris' advice resonates with me, but its probably because its what I want to hear. I don't want to "settle" for something - I want to do something big. But that is likely out of pride and certainly not a good reason. So while I feel somewhat less tumultuous than I did before going to Arizona, things are no more settled than when we left. If anything, they are less - I had not seriously considered moving back to Arizona until we got out there and we saw all of our old friends. Now, though, it looms as another possibility.
The conversation with Jeff was marked by bitterness well on its way to joy - a "weeping is just for the night" kind of pain. He feels betrayed by his church and with little wonder; more than anything else, internal politics are what pushed the search committee to pass him over. They thought he was too close to the former senior pastor, even though Jeff was constantly trying to hold him accountable, to move him towards repentance & change. As we were talking, Jeff kept dropping little bits of advice and wisdom - the hard-won rewards of years of successful ministry. As we were talking, I kept thinking to myself "Why couldn't my senior pastor have been like this? Under this man's leadership, I could have done some amazing things." The pain of what might have been kept creeping up on me. Jeff's major concern with me was that this experience did not spoil me on ministry and he encouraged us to stay on the trail, so to speak.
Now, I say his ministry was successful, and truly it was - but not because of its size. Yes, under his care, the youth ministry grew to several hundred kids (twice the size of my entire church, actually) but I've never found numbers alone to be an adequate mark of success. On Sunday morning, I witnessed a church saying a loving goodbye to her pastor, her leader and in the audience were not just the current high school kids, but several dozen former students and adult volunteers. These were the people around when this ministry first got started, and Jeff has ever been a center of gravity in their lives. No matter where they've gone or what they've done, the students who came through Jeff's very capable hands & loving care have always known they have a place to come back to. And its not a soft place; its a place that will accept them, but challenge them to repentance and growth. To me, that is success and I think it will always be a criterion by which I judge my own ministry.
The meeting with Fr. Chris was, needless to say, very different and not just because my wife was with us. He is a young man, probably in his early 30's, but displays a depth and maturity well beyond his years. We spoke for a while about our troubles and trying to find what God has for us next; the difficulty of finding patience for the waiting. He is, somewhat, in the same boat. He is interested in pursuing his PhD because he would like to be able to teach at the college level some day, but he does not want to attend an Orthodox school. This surprised me, but I respected his reasons (and saw a lot of myself in them, as well) - he wants to be challenged, to hear the other side of things and then bounce it off of the Church's teaching & faith. This is basically what I did as an undergrad getting my degree in Religious Studies, but right now I cannot imagine doing it at the doctoral level. Fr. Chris was very encouraging to us, urging us to move forward in faith. He also urged us to move back to Phoenix and to come back to his parish, but he admitted that was based more on his desires than what may be best for us. That was nice to hear, though.
As is obvious, I deeply admire and love Jeff, but I don't know how I can follow his advice when I have my doubts about the ground the trail crosses. Until I settle this doubt, or rather, until God settles this doubt, I cannot continue in a Protestant pastoral position; it would be dishonest. I don't really believe all that an evangelical church would require me to affirm and I certainly couldn't go into a theologically liberal church, thus I'm stuck. Now, Fr. Chris' advice resonates with me, but its probably because its what I want to hear. I don't want to "settle" for something - I want to do something big. But that is likely out of pride and certainly not a good reason. So while I feel somewhat less tumultuous than I did before going to Arizona, things are no more settled than when we left. If anything, they are less - I had not seriously considered moving back to Arizona until we got out there and we saw all of our old friends. Now, though, it looms as another possibility.
5.21.2005
Old friends and pairing off
So far, this trip has been good. Thursday night I went to "poker night" at a friend's house (the groom from the wedding we're going to tonight, actually) and saw the whole group of my old guy friends from church. It was good but left me feeling a bit odd. I did 2 deployments with the Army, one for 6 months and the other for 9, and while I was away I hardly heard from any of those friends. No emails, no letters - nothing. The same has been true since we left Arizona for Illinois, though this time it was not too surprising. After coming back from Alaska, the old group just didn't cohere for me like it used to. Part of that was the fact I was working a full-time, corporate job that prevented me from staying up till 2 and 3 in the morning like we used to. And the rest of it was being married, with all the new dynamics that that introduces. But seeing all the guys again was easy, it just settled in like we really hadn't missed a beat. Aside from a little catching up about work and the like, it didn't really seem like a whole lot had changed.
I'm not sure if that is good or bad, but I'm leaning towards bad. It seems like there should be a more noticeable gap, something that says "we've been apart for a long time". Some have praised that feeling of non-interruption as a mark of true friendship, and perhaps it is, but at the same time it introduces a strong sense of detachment, of hollowness to the relationship. The absence has not mattered, with all the implications that statement brings.
We had dinner last night with an old college friend and his pregnant wife, and this morning we had lunch with my wife's aunt & uncle - a nice, retired couple of a deep and committed faith. In both instances, the men and women ended up pairing off and speaking exclusively to each other most of the time. In the instance of the old friend, its none too surprising - we had a lot to catch up on and we're both having to consider a career change and grad school in the immediate future. The women, of course, were talking about the baby and (I imagine) their thoughts on their husbands' respective career problems. But there seemed to be no reason for the pairing with my wife's aunt & uncle; I would think they would be far more interested in talking to her, being related and all. I remember, though, this seems to happen quite a lot, even when its only 2 couples - and this strikes me as odd. Why can't the entire group have a conversation? What causes us to automatically shift into man-man/woman-woman communication when in mixed company like that?
I'm not sure if that is good or bad, but I'm leaning towards bad. It seems like there should be a more noticeable gap, something that says "we've been apart for a long time". Some have praised that feeling of non-interruption as a mark of true friendship, and perhaps it is, but at the same time it introduces a strong sense of detachment, of hollowness to the relationship. The absence has not mattered, with all the implications that statement brings.
We had dinner last night with an old college friend and his pregnant wife, and this morning we had lunch with my wife's aunt & uncle - a nice, retired couple of a deep and committed faith. In both instances, the men and women ended up pairing off and speaking exclusively to each other most of the time. In the instance of the old friend, its none too surprising - we had a lot to catch up on and we're both having to consider a career change and grad school in the immediate future. The women, of course, were talking about the baby and (I imagine) their thoughts on their husbands' respective career problems. But there seemed to be no reason for the pairing with my wife's aunt & uncle; I would think they would be far more interested in talking to her, being related and all. I remember, though, this seems to happen quite a lot, even when its only 2 couples - and this strikes me as odd. Why can't the entire group have a conversation? What causes us to automatically shift into man-man/woman-woman communication when in mixed company like that?
5.18.2005
Made it
We have made it safely to Arizona. It was, thankfully, an uneventful trip, the only problem being that we had to get up at 2am to drive up to Chicago to catch our 620am plane. Which meant we got less than 3 hours of sleep, and while I was unconscious on the plane, one really cannot call that sleep.
5.17.2005
Leaving on a jet plane
The wife and I are heading back to Phoenix for a friend's wedding tomorrow morning. The wedding is on Saturday and it just so happens that the Sunday will be my former youth pastor's final Sunday at his church. Last year, the senior pastor was fired for infidelity and possibly embezzling a small amount of money from the church. The youth pastor had posted for the position, but was denied by the church. So now he's going to be a senior pastor at a church in Tigard, OR. We'll probably end up going to the farewell service, but I was hoping to hit St George's - the Antiochian parish we attended for several months - one last time. Maybe I'll email the priest to see if he can't get together for lunch or something.
5.13.2005
The Resurrection
I have been working through the Gospel of Luke with the kids during the last semester, and last week we got to the final 2 chapters. But since we didn't get as much covered as I'd like, we're going to spend some more time on them, especially chapter 24.
Popping over to Matthew 27 & 28 for a description of the precautions the authorities were taking to prevent fraud on the part of Jesus' disciples, I'm struck in verse 4 that after an earthquake that rolls away a large & heavy stone from the mouth of the tomb, the angel sits down on the rock! I love the picture that creates - the earth shakes, the rock rolls, the Roman guards are passing out and this angel just nonchalantly takes a seat. Perhaps to watch the fun as the guards wet themselves or to wait patiently for the women so that he can make his momentous announcement. But either way, he's just sitting there. You know - talk amongst yourselves, no big deal; just a little earthquake and abject terror, folks.
Popping over to Matthew 27 & 28 for a description of the precautions the authorities were taking to prevent fraud on the part of Jesus' disciples, I'm struck in verse 4 that after an earthquake that rolls away a large & heavy stone from the mouth of the tomb, the angel sits down on the rock! I love the picture that creates - the earth shakes, the rock rolls, the Roman guards are passing out and this angel just nonchalantly takes a seat. Perhaps to watch the fun as the guards wet themselves or to wait patiently for the women so that he can make his momentous announcement. But either way, he's just sitting there. You know - talk amongst yourselves, no big deal; just a little earthquake and abject terror, folks.
First call & suit shopping
Got my first call about a job I had applied for this morning and have a phone interview set up for next Tuesday. It would be semi-local, ie, its in the next town over, which would make for a bit of a commute, but not a terribly long one. We'll have to see how it plays out.
My folks came into town for a couple of days and are now driving to Iowa to see my brother and attend his fiance's graduation party. My mom asked if I had a suit for job interviews, and well, no, I don't. I was in the Army, and they give you a suit. Its all earth-tones and pockets, but at least you don't worry about stains. I then worked in a business-casual office for over a year - khakis and polo shirts; these didn't wear very well and I am now low on khakis and polo shirts. I then worked as a youth pastor in a seeker sensitive church, which is all jeans and t-shirts and go-tees. So no suit. Bless their hearts, my parents took me out and bought me a nice, new suit and a tie. And if I do say so myself, I looked rather dapper.
What is it, though, about the sales people at suit stores? Why on earth do they have to touch you so much as you try a jacket on?! A little pull on the lapel, a yank on the sleeve, smoothing the shoulders, messing with the buttons, the collar, you name it. I am a big personal space guy, so it weirded me out a bit. Besides, what's the point of doing that? You don't have someone to tug and smooth your jacket when you put it on to go to work - shouldn't you want it to look right without all that?
My folks came into town for a couple of days and are now driving to Iowa to see my brother and attend his fiance's graduation party. My mom asked if I had a suit for job interviews, and well, no, I don't. I was in the Army, and they give you a suit. Its all earth-tones and pockets, but at least you don't worry about stains. I then worked in a business-casual office for over a year - khakis and polo shirts; these didn't wear very well and I am now low on khakis and polo shirts. I then worked as a youth pastor in a seeker sensitive church, which is all jeans and t-shirts and go-tees. So no suit. Bless their hearts, my parents took me out and bought me a nice, new suit and a tie. And if I do say so myself, I looked rather dapper.
What is it, though, about the sales people at suit stores? Why on earth do they have to touch you so much as you try a jacket on?! A little pull on the lapel, a yank on the sleeve, smoothing the shoulders, messing with the buttons, the collar, you name it. I am a big personal space guy, so it weirded me out a bit. Besides, what's the point of doing that? You don't have someone to tug and smooth your jacket when you put it on to go to work - shouldn't you want it to look right without all that?
5.10.2005
Catholics are scary
Two anti-Catholic sentiments were issued in the staff meeting today. The first: a man had approached the senior pastor and handed him the information card we stick in every program. It has a space for name & address if you want to be added to the mailing list, a list of small group/activity options and a list for prayer requests. The man was apparently a very nice, outgoing guy that really made an impression on the senior pastor. On the prayer request section of the card, the man had written "pray for us sinners." The church secretary, who was raised Catholic and attended parochial schools until she became a Protestant during college, said under her breath "sounds Catholic to me" with more than a hint of disdain. She repeated it again a minute or so later, again with disdain. Apparently even the use of Catholic-esque language is verboten.
The second was occasioned by the death of a woman in our church over the weekend. She had cancer and was undergoing chemotheraphy, but her death was still a surprise. Her chemo was progressing well and even if it did not take care of her cancer, she was still expected to live for several months. She checked herself into the hospital because the latest round had left her extremely tired. She awoke in the middle of the night and requested a drink of water from the nurse. The nurse returned a few minutes later and found her dead. This woman was a strong woman of faith who left a significant legacy both within this church and in the lives of those around her. There is no doubt that she was welcomed into heaven as a good and faithful servant. Monday night, the church had an informal time of prayer & celebration for this woman's life. The church secretary, with deep suspiction, asked "what exactly were you praying for?" They said it was prayers of thanks for her life, for a quick and quiet death, for her legacy, prayers for the salvation of her family and for the upcoming funeral. The secretary said "I was just wondering because the Catholics would be trying to pray her into heaven", with sarcasm and vitriol echoing in her words.
Today, both of these anti-Catholic statements came from the same person, but this is unfortunately par for the course here and frequently come from a variety of sources. And frankly, I'm damn sick of it. I'm sick of the judgmental arrogance that assumes Catholics are just a bunch of delusional idiots who are going straight to hell. I'm sick of the lack of historical understanding that a whole lot of what Protestants, particularly evangelicals, believe is not even close to what the early church accepted or practiced. I'm thankful to be leaving.
The second was occasioned by the death of a woman in our church over the weekend. She had cancer and was undergoing chemotheraphy, but her death was still a surprise. Her chemo was progressing well and even if it did not take care of her cancer, she was still expected to live for several months. She checked herself into the hospital because the latest round had left her extremely tired. She awoke in the middle of the night and requested a drink of water from the nurse. The nurse returned a few minutes later and found her dead. This woman was a strong woman of faith who left a significant legacy both within this church and in the lives of those around her. There is no doubt that she was welcomed into heaven as a good and faithful servant. Monday night, the church had an informal time of prayer & celebration for this woman's life. The church secretary, with deep suspiction, asked "what exactly were you praying for?" They said it was prayers of thanks for her life, for a quick and quiet death, for her legacy, prayers for the salvation of her family and for the upcoming funeral. The secretary said "I was just wondering because the Catholics would be trying to pray her into heaven", with sarcasm and vitriol echoing in her words.
Today, both of these anti-Catholic statements came from the same person, but this is unfortunately par for the course here and frequently come from a variety of sources. And frankly, I'm damn sick of it. I'm sick of the judgmental arrogance that assumes Catholics are just a bunch of delusional idiots who are going straight to hell. I'm sick of the lack of historical understanding that a whole lot of what Protestants, particularly evangelicals, believe is not even close to what the early church accepted or practiced. I'm thankful to be leaving.
Brian McLaren blogs
Brian McLaren, the uberemergent, is being hosted on a number of blogs for a discussion about his newest book "The Last Word and the Word After That: A Tale of Faith, Doubt and a New Kind of Christianity". I haven't read much of McLaren's work - I've skimmed through a couple of his books and read a few articles - but I have to say I find his guest-blogging rather disappointing. His initial posts are terribly short and don't seem to make a real point you can get your hands on. His answers to questions in the comments section are similarly brief and thin, so much so that there isn't really much to respond to - you can't tell if you agree, disagree or where you could even start a dialogue.
Here are the blogs:
Pomomusings
Tall Skinny Kiwi
Jen Lemen
Paradoxology
Dwight Friesen
Jordon Cooper
Here are the blogs:
Pomomusings
Tall Skinny Kiwi
Jen Lemen
Paradoxology
Dwight Friesen
Jordon Cooper
T-shirts
I spent the majority of the weekend taking a group of kids to a music festival called Agape, down in scenic Greenville, IL. I don't really listen to contemporary Christian music (my daily listening for the last few months has been Ancient Faith Radio), especially of the rock/pop/punk bands that were the majority of the acts. Overall, though, the shows were good and the bands mostly performed well - there were a couple of local bands that didn't really make the grade. Toby Mac, of DC Talk fame, puts on a great show with at least 3 other vocalists/rappers, a dj with turntables and a full band. There were, at various times, people standing worshipfully with hands raised while a rock band was hammering through one of their songs - how one can worship to hard rock is beyond me, but hey, more power to 'em.
My wife and I found one thing troubling; "Christian-girl" t-shirts. Now, I'm used to all the Christian rip-offs you find at Christian bookstores & concerts - instead of "Abercrombie & Fitch" its "Abreadcrumb & Fish", or "Christ is King" instead of "Calvin Klein" - you know, that kind of crap. Great witnessing tools I'm sure, though I suspect they just make Christians look stupid. No, the shirts that bothered us were these skin-tight, pink "wife-beater" style tank tops with "Christian Girl" emblazoned in a gothic script across the chest. I'm sure the issues of modesty, guys lusting and the paradoxical message that such shirts send in general are quite clear. From the same vendor came another shirt for girls, this time in the form of a fitted t-shirt, with you choice of captions: "Looking for a Christian boy" or "I love Christian boys." On the surface, these may not seem that bad but I found these particularly problematic. The first is yet another affirmation of the message teen-age girls constantly receive: you are nothing if you are not attached to some guy. The latter echoes this same message, but its lack of specificity is the real problem - boys, not a specific boy, kind of implying that the girl will take any and all boys so long as they are Christian. Again, a girl is to get her self-esteem and self-worth from her relationships with boys, not her relationship with God.
Perhaps I'm sounding a bit stodgy and paternalistic. Perhaps there is nothing really wrong with these things and I'm making mountains of mole hills, but I don't think so. Over the last year, I have seen first-hand the corrosive effects youth culture is having on our kids, both boys and girls. As I said above, girls are being taught to derive their sense of self-worth from how they are perceived by guys - there is no other reason why junior high girls would engage in lesbian kisses for a crowd of cheering boys or high school girls in sex acts at school (true stories from some kids in my youth group). Boys, though, are being trained to be non-committal, to be "players." Girls are disposable play-things, there for the boy's entertainment or gratification until the boy gets tired of them. Then its on to the next conquest, the next trophy. It is the culture of pornography playing out in the lives of teenagers.
My wife and I found one thing troubling; "Christian-girl" t-shirts. Now, I'm used to all the Christian rip-offs you find at Christian bookstores & concerts - instead of "Abercrombie & Fitch" its "Abreadcrumb & Fish", or "Christ is King" instead of "Calvin Klein" - you know, that kind of crap. Great witnessing tools I'm sure, though I suspect they just make Christians look stupid. No, the shirts that bothered us were these skin-tight, pink "wife-beater" style tank tops with "Christian Girl" emblazoned in a gothic script across the chest. I'm sure the issues of modesty, guys lusting and the paradoxical message that such shirts send in general are quite clear. From the same vendor came another shirt for girls, this time in the form of a fitted t-shirt, with you choice of captions: "Looking for a Christian boy" or "I love Christian boys." On the surface, these may not seem that bad but I found these particularly problematic. The first is yet another affirmation of the message teen-age girls constantly receive: you are nothing if you are not attached to some guy. The latter echoes this same message, but its lack of specificity is the real problem - boys, not a specific boy, kind of implying that the girl will take any and all boys so long as they are Christian. Again, a girl is to get her self-esteem and self-worth from her relationships with boys, not her relationship with God.
Perhaps I'm sounding a bit stodgy and paternalistic. Perhaps there is nothing really wrong with these things and I'm making mountains of mole hills, but I don't think so. Over the last year, I have seen first-hand the corrosive effects youth culture is having on our kids, both boys and girls. As I said above, girls are being taught to derive their sense of self-worth from how they are perceived by guys - there is no other reason why junior high girls would engage in lesbian kisses for a crowd of cheering boys or high school girls in sex acts at school (true stories from some kids in my youth group). Boys, though, are being trained to be non-committal, to be "players." Girls are disposable play-things, there for the boy's entertainment or gratification until the boy gets tired of them. Then its on to the next conquest, the next trophy. It is the culture of pornography playing out in the lives of teenagers.
5.06.2005
Hello, Mr. President
This morning, I have an appointment to call the president. No, not that president; the president of our denomination. At the urging of my father-in-law, who is head of international missions for the denomination and was a pastor for many years, and my uncle-in-law, who once was the president and was also a pastor for many years, I am going to bring up some of the issues I have detailed here in the past, as well as issues related to my termination. I'm a little uncomfortable doing this - not because the matters don't need to be raised & addressed - but because it seems almost like tattling. Sort of an "I'm going to tell my mom on you!" kind of thing. If I didn't have some genuine concerns about the way this place is governed and the failure to develop & mentor me, a brand-spanking-new pastor, I wouldn't be doing this.
The problem, though, is that this denomination has functioned for a very long time in a laissez-faire way towards her churches. The churches are largely independent; this is highlighted by the fact the denominational headquarters is called the "resource center." But the denomination is growing, both through church plants (several over the last few years) and established churches abandoning their denomination (mostly Mennonites sick of the liberalism), and there seems to be a sense that perhaps the denominational leadership needs to take a stronger hand in working with local churches. The denomination licenses their pastors (licensed pastors get a significant federal tax break), funds much of their construction/expansion projects through a specialty ministry, provides a summer camp for the kids, and provides a variety of other services - it seems like the denomination should have more of a hand in ensuring her churches are following a biblical structure, ie, having more than 3 elders, developing & mentoring new pastors and generally being wise stewards of the money the denomination has entrusted to them. Though I won't be around for it, it will be interesting to see how all this plays out.
The problem, though, is that this denomination has functioned for a very long time in a laissez-faire way towards her churches. The churches are largely independent; this is highlighted by the fact the denominational headquarters is called the "resource center." But the denomination is growing, both through church plants (several over the last few years) and established churches abandoning their denomination (mostly Mennonites sick of the liberalism), and there seems to be a sense that perhaps the denominational leadership needs to take a stronger hand in working with local churches. The denomination licenses their pastors (licensed pastors get a significant federal tax break), funds much of their construction/expansion projects through a specialty ministry, provides a summer camp for the kids, and provides a variety of other services - it seems like the denomination should have more of a hand in ensuring her churches are following a biblical structure, ie, having more than 3 elders, developing & mentoring new pastors and generally being wise stewards of the money the denomination has entrusted to them. Though I won't be around for it, it will be interesting to see how all this plays out.
5.04.2005
Pawn shop
My wife and I recently joined a small group through the church plant, and we met with them for the first time on Sunday night. It was good, but long - we got hooked up with some talkers - but then again, we had a lot to share about last week's events and another couple, who recently had a child, are thinking about moving & starting a new job, so we had a lot to cover. For the summer, we're going to be reading through Ruthless Trust by Brennan Manning. We picked it up Sunday afternoon shortly before our meeting, so I only had a chance to read through about half of the first chapter. What I read was pretty good, and the point of the book seems to focus on moving beyond mere belief in Christ, to really & truly trusting Him in all things, particularly in the hard times.
But there was one line which referred (if I remember it correctly; I don't have the book with me today) the "dusty old pawn shop of doctrine." 'Doctrine' may have been plural, but either way, this phrase is pregnant with meaning. Doctrine is outdated & obsolete, something to be cast off or even sold. It is detritus. Perhaps if you are a collector of antiques, you may wish to brave the ancient dust to browse through these decrepit works, but only so long as you realize their value lies solely in the curious fact that people once considered these withered trinkets something important, something useful. We have, thankfully, grown beyond the need of such baubles into a mature, doctrine-less faith. We are the diet soda of religion.
I wish I could say that I don't understand this antipathy towards doctrine and creed, but to a certain extent, I do. It is born of a desire to be open, inclusive, to eschew judgment and condemnation - things Jesus obviously had a desire for as well. But any reading of the Gospels that focuses only on this "positive" side of Christ is woefully deficient. Even a brief perusal of the Sermon on the Mount shows the error of such thinking. Jesus does not deny the law, He expands it so that it is no longer a mere external prohibition. Jesus does not promote inclusiveness - He promotes holiness; throwing out the tasteless salt or cutting off the sinful member can hardly be seen as support for a doctrine-free openness.
One cannot escape doctrine - to claim Christ as Lord is to make a doctrinal statement. To call oneself a Christian, to pray, to preach - these are all statements about what you believe, about doctrine. This is where my understanding breaks down - why is doctrine bad? Why can't people recognize their own doctrines, which they certainly hold to be as infallible as anything promulgated by Pope or Council?
But there was one line which referred (if I remember it correctly; I don't have the book with me today) the "dusty old pawn shop of doctrine." 'Doctrine' may have been plural, but either way, this phrase is pregnant with meaning. Doctrine is outdated & obsolete, something to be cast off or even sold. It is detritus. Perhaps if you are a collector of antiques, you may wish to brave the ancient dust to browse through these decrepit works, but only so long as you realize their value lies solely in the curious fact that people once considered these withered trinkets something important, something useful. We have, thankfully, grown beyond the need of such baubles into a mature, doctrine-less faith. We are the diet soda of religion.
I wish I could say that I don't understand this antipathy towards doctrine and creed, but to a certain extent, I do. It is born of a desire to be open, inclusive, to eschew judgment and condemnation - things Jesus obviously had a desire for as well. But any reading of the Gospels that focuses only on this "positive" side of Christ is woefully deficient. Even a brief perusal of the Sermon on the Mount shows the error of such thinking. Jesus does not deny the law, He expands it so that it is no longer a mere external prohibition. Jesus does not promote inclusiveness - He promotes holiness; throwing out the tasteless salt or cutting off the sinful member can hardly be seen as support for a doctrine-free openness.
One cannot escape doctrine - to claim Christ as Lord is to make a doctrinal statement. To call oneself a Christian, to pray, to preach - these are all statements about what you believe, about doctrine. This is where my understanding breaks down - why is doctrine bad? Why can't people recognize their own doctrines, which they certainly hold to be as infallible as anything promulgated by Pope or Council?
5.03.2005
Pondering the future
A whole mess of stuff is going through my head right now - part angry, part sad, part hopeful, part excited, part numb, part grateful, part disenchanted, part wondering. I'm really and truly trying to take the high road - I wrote a letter to parents that is largely BS because I don't want to cause division here. I've seen it happen with other churches, one quite recently, and frankly this place has enough problems without all of this adding fuel to the fire. But though I'm trying to be positive, focused & waiting on the Lord, part of me deep, deep down inside finds some perverse delight in the thought of hacking their computers or leaving an open can of tuna fish or two to rot in the ventilation system. Petty and immature, I know, but not without some allure. :)
Staff meeting today will be interesting. I'm sure they're going to try to pawn off telling the staff on me, but that's just not going to happen. The staff can know the truth that I was fired and they can tell them on their own.
Looking ahead, the biggest struggle I'm having right now is figuring out what's next. Not in a real specific way - I'm sure God has a job lined up and will take care of us. No, I'm not sure if we should aim for something big or something simple. A month or two ago, my mom, an elementary teacher of 20+ years, wrote a couple of essays on the state of education in Arizona that were published on her local NPR station. She went in and recorded them, but did not ask for a tape of the broadcast. So I went online to see if I could find them and instead ended up stumbling on the NPR jobs postings, and though I don't have any radio or journalism experience, I thought there were a couple I was qualified for. So I figured "what the heck" and applied. About a week and a half ago I got a call - of the 250 applications received, I was 1 of 30 that they were doing phone interviews with. Of those 30, they will be bringing 10 out for a personal interview and I will hopefully hear if I am one of those people by the end of this week. Now, that right there is just an encouragement to me in the present moment - somebody figured I was smart enough and capable enough to be worth a second look. Having just been fired, that's nice. But if I were to actually get this job (a very big IF), it would require us to move to DC - a big move to a big city where we know no one and that is far from family.
The question, to me anyways, is not really about a specific job, its about what's the best thing to strive for - a simple life in a simple place or doing something that could open a lot of doors and maybe even have an impact on something big? I don't think for one minute I am going to be a huge force for change at NPR, but a conservative Christian veteran sure isn't their typical employee or listener, so just throwing me into the mix will have to have some effect. The path of simplicity is incredibly attractive, but I don't want to take it out of an unconscious fear. God will most likely work all this out for me by simply shutting a door, but in the meantime, its fun to think about.
Staff meeting today will be interesting. I'm sure they're going to try to pawn off telling the staff on me, but that's just not going to happen. The staff can know the truth that I was fired and they can tell them on their own.
Looking ahead, the biggest struggle I'm having right now is figuring out what's next. Not in a real specific way - I'm sure God has a job lined up and will take care of us. No, I'm not sure if we should aim for something big or something simple. A month or two ago, my mom, an elementary teacher of 20+ years, wrote a couple of essays on the state of education in Arizona that were published on her local NPR station. She went in and recorded them, but did not ask for a tape of the broadcast. So I went online to see if I could find them and instead ended up stumbling on the NPR jobs postings, and though I don't have any radio or journalism experience, I thought there were a couple I was qualified for. So I figured "what the heck" and applied. About a week and a half ago I got a call - of the 250 applications received, I was 1 of 30 that they were doing phone interviews with. Of those 30, they will be bringing 10 out for a personal interview and I will hopefully hear if I am one of those people by the end of this week. Now, that right there is just an encouragement to me in the present moment - somebody figured I was smart enough and capable enough to be worth a second look. Having just been fired, that's nice. But if I were to actually get this job (a very big IF), it would require us to move to DC - a big move to a big city where we know no one and that is far from family.
The question, to me anyways, is not really about a specific job, its about what's the best thing to strive for - a simple life in a simple place or doing something that could open a lot of doors and maybe even have an impact on something big? I don't think for one minute I am going to be a huge force for change at NPR, but a conservative Christian veteran sure isn't their typical employee or listener, so just throwing me into the mix will have to have some effect. The path of simplicity is incredibly attractive, but I don't want to take it out of an unconscious fear. God will most likely work all this out for me by simply shutting a door, but in the meantime, its fun to think about.
5.01.2005
The Announcement
Well, I'm supposed to announce to the kids today that I'm no longer the youth pastor here, or won't be at the end of May. I'm not looking forward to telling them for both emotional reasons (I'm going to miss them and I hope they're going to miss me), but also because I'm not exactly sure what to say. I didn't really decide to step down - I was fired, but it was a termination that I largely agree with. So how do you epxlain that to a room full of junior highers without badmouthing anyone or giving them the impression that this church and her leadership are going in the wrong direction? Thankfully I'm fairly good at being diplomatic, but I won't lie to them.
This is going to be hard.
This is going to be hard.
4.29.2005
"I'm as free as a bird now..."
It has been decided - I will work through the end of May and be done. The meeting today went well, there was no bitterness or anger, and they affirmed a lot of what I had done here. It was good to hear that after yesterday's hammering (their words), which was pretty close to 100% negative. The only problem is that they are only offering me one month of severance pay after May, which is in violation of the denomination's standard 90 days, and in all honesty, is not a realistic amount. Yes, I will be actively seeking a new job through May, but things do not always move very quickly. I informed them that I expected at least 2 months of pay and they said they will "look into it." Please pray they do the right thing by us. And, of course, that we would wait patiently for God to direct our steps. But also that he would hurry up already! :)
4.28.2005
All but certain
It now appears all but certain that I will be invited to step down from my position as youth pastor. I had a meeting with the elders board today - yup, all 3 of 'em - and I am not meeting their expectations, due almost entirely to very different philosophies of ministry. What I think the kids need and how I can best serve them is increasingly at odds with how they think I should be doing ministry. They are going to get together sometime before we have a followup meeting tomorrow, and though they said the decision wans't final, I'm fairly certain they're sure of what they want to do. Ain't nothing left but the doing, as the saying goes.
I would appreciate your prayers in finding another job and everything that would require (selling the house, finding a place to live, etc). I'm not looking for a youth ministry position again; what this experience has taught me, if nothing else, is that while I love kids, I am not really all that well-suited for working with youth. I'm not sure what I'm looking for, but I do have one lead that is semi-promising and is probably something I would really enjoy doing, so please pray for that. Since I do pretty much all of my blogging at work, my posting frequency may drop off some but I'm not taking a hiatus or anything. Please pray for us and I'll keep you posted.
I would appreciate your prayers in finding another job and everything that would require (selling the house, finding a place to live, etc). I'm not looking for a youth ministry position again; what this experience has taught me, if nothing else, is that while I love kids, I am not really all that well-suited for working with youth. I'm not sure what I'm looking for, but I do have one lead that is semi-promising and is probably something I would really enjoy doing, so please pray for that. Since I do pretty much all of my blogging at work, my posting frequency may drop off some but I'm not taking a hiatus or anything. Please pray for us and I'll keep you posted.
4.26.2005
Unparenting & the future of youth ministry
I read an article yesterday while in the waiting room at a hospital. A boy in my youth group punched a wall after someone dropped a pass in a flag-football game and broke a bone in his hand, requiring a plate and 4 screws to repair. The article was about the conflict between parents & teachers, and it interested me because I work with youth and because my mom has taught elementary school for over 20 years. She's taught 5th grade for the last 10 years or so (correct me if I'm wrong, ma) and taught a couple of other grades prior to that. I spoke with her on the phone last night and I asked her about her experience in dealing with parents. Basically, she said, when she first started teaching elementary school, she had 1 or 2 parents per class that sided with their kids on everything and were lax in supervising their children's progress and school work. The rest of the parents were attentive and responsive, and she knew that if a child got in trouble at school, that child would also get in trouble at home. In short, the threat of calling a kid's parents was real for the majority of the children in her classroom. Today, it is the exact opposite. She has only 1 or 2 parents whom she can call and be confident that they will deal with poor performance or behavior. The rest of the parents just don't want to be bothered - as long as the kid isn't complaining or doing too poorly, they don't really care what's going on. They just want their kids to be "happy", not challenged. They don't want their kids to learn any hard lessons or to experience any significant consequences for their actions. The kids have caught on to this fact and use it to their advantage. Recently, my mom took a day off and when she came back, the sub had left the names of a couple of students who consistenly misbehaved when my mom is gone. For the cumulative effect of their misbehavior, my mom wrote them up and the principal gave them in-school suspension. One student immediately protested and told the principal to call his/her mom, that she should know about this and seemed to think that his/her mom would be able to keep the student out of trouble. I commented to my mom that this almost seems coordinated, almost as if parents nationwide were required to take some class in how to unparent their kids. My mom thinks that parents are simply too tired from work, the extracurricular activities of their kids, etc, to really get involved or care. They don't want the responsibility of actual parenting - they are focused on themelves. Its easier to turn on the tv then to look over homework or eat dinner together as a family.
Back to my context, I see the same thing pretty consistently, though from a different angle. Our Sunday school (for lack of a better term) consists mostly of discussion. I sometimes throw other elements in, but its mostly a question & answer kind of thing with me giving some short homily-like talks. Sometimes when I ask a question, I get some hands raised, but many times I don't. In those times, I have never hesitated to call on someone. I put them on the spot and don't think twice about it. On Sunday morning, a dad came up to me and said that his daughter gets uncomfortable when I call on her and thinks that I put her on the spot. I explained to the dad that I put everyone on the spot at some point, but that I do call on his daughter because she is one of the few kids who will actually offer a substantive answer. She thinks. She responds and dang if that isn't exactly what I'm looking for and trying to encourage in these kids. The dad said he told her this was a growth opportunity and would pass my words on to her, and I said I would try to make sure I don't call on her any more often than any other kid. He just wanted me to be aware of this so I don't alienate his daughter. Other parents, though, when they have a problem with something I've said or done, or rather, when their child has had a problem, have come at me with both barrels. Or sat in sullen resentment waiting for the opportunity to undermine me with other parents or the pastoral staff.
In education, this is bad. Disinterested parents result in disinterested kids, who know more about gaming the system than anything taught in schools. However, school is at least required, both legally and pragmatically. A child knows that he won't be able to get any kind of halfway decent job when he grows up if he doesn't at least graduate from high school and the majority of high school students say they plan on going on to college. One can hope, perhaps somewhat unrealistically, that just being in school will cause something to "stick." These kids will learn something about life and academics through their time in the classroom. Like I said, in education, this attitude by parents is bad; in ministry, it is downright disastrous. The family is the primary spiritual training ground - if faith is not modeled and lived out at home, then most students will think that being a Christian entails showing up at church on Sundays and little else. A parent that won't take 10 minutes to look over elementary math homework (which can literally be "2+2=_"), certainly isn't going to take 10 minutes to pray with their kids or really talk to them about their day. Faith then becomes an abstraction or a duty; you sing along on Sunday morning, stand at the appropriate times, listen to a sermon you will promptly forget and then go home to do exactly what everybody else is doing. Unparenting is killing the faith of our youth and making youth ministry all but obsolete. Youth ministry used to be about providing extra instruction, social activities, a chance for kids to make the necessary separation from their parents while maintaining strong contacts with other adults and opportunities for kids to live out the faith they learned at home. It was simply an extension and amplification of the ministry of the family.
This is no longer the case - youth ministry has largely become a stand-alone endeavor, meant to evangelize, convert, disciple and grow students in the faith. And its impossible. For the majority of students, youth ministry cannot do all of that, especially when you consider the counter-example that is being lived out at home. Its really only when the whole family gets involved, when parents take the primary role they were meant to play in the spiritual leadership and instruction of their family, is any realy progress made in the lives of the youth. This means the larger church has to do more to equip parents to assume that role - it has to provide the tools, the knowledge, and perhaps more importantly, the challenge to see themselves as pastoral leaders in their own homes. I don't think many churches are actually doing this for a very simple reason: marketing. If parents are mostly focused on themselves, on satisfying their own desires and needs, and view kids as something to be juggled or managed, then they are going to go to the church that is the easiest and most comfortable. They will be drawn to the church that supports that mission of self-fulfillment because no one really likes to be challenged or be told to engage in some self-denial. These churches will focus on that mission to the neglect of equipping parents to be parents, because this precisely what they seem to want to avoid, thus putting more butts in the seats. And you can quickly see how the church is encouraging unparenting and putting a heavier and heavier burden on the youth ministry. It is a burden that it, quite simply, cannot bear much longer. Youth ministry is already becoming ineffective - soon, it may be die altogether.
Back to my context, I see the same thing pretty consistently, though from a different angle. Our Sunday school (for lack of a better term) consists mostly of discussion. I sometimes throw other elements in, but its mostly a question & answer kind of thing with me giving some short homily-like talks. Sometimes when I ask a question, I get some hands raised, but many times I don't. In those times, I have never hesitated to call on someone. I put them on the spot and don't think twice about it. On Sunday morning, a dad came up to me and said that his daughter gets uncomfortable when I call on her and thinks that I put her on the spot. I explained to the dad that I put everyone on the spot at some point, but that I do call on his daughter because she is one of the few kids who will actually offer a substantive answer. She thinks. She responds and dang if that isn't exactly what I'm looking for and trying to encourage in these kids. The dad said he told her this was a growth opportunity and would pass my words on to her, and I said I would try to make sure I don't call on her any more often than any other kid. He just wanted me to be aware of this so I don't alienate his daughter. Other parents, though, when they have a problem with something I've said or done, or rather, when their child has had a problem, have come at me with both barrels. Or sat in sullen resentment waiting for the opportunity to undermine me with other parents or the pastoral staff.
In education, this is bad. Disinterested parents result in disinterested kids, who know more about gaming the system than anything taught in schools. However, school is at least required, both legally and pragmatically. A child knows that he won't be able to get any kind of halfway decent job when he grows up if he doesn't at least graduate from high school and the majority of high school students say they plan on going on to college. One can hope, perhaps somewhat unrealistically, that just being in school will cause something to "stick." These kids will learn something about life and academics through their time in the classroom. Like I said, in education, this attitude by parents is bad; in ministry, it is downright disastrous. The family is the primary spiritual training ground - if faith is not modeled and lived out at home, then most students will think that being a Christian entails showing up at church on Sundays and little else. A parent that won't take 10 minutes to look over elementary math homework (which can literally be "2+2=_"), certainly isn't going to take 10 minutes to pray with their kids or really talk to them about their day. Faith then becomes an abstraction or a duty; you sing along on Sunday morning, stand at the appropriate times, listen to a sermon you will promptly forget and then go home to do exactly what everybody else is doing. Unparenting is killing the faith of our youth and making youth ministry all but obsolete. Youth ministry used to be about providing extra instruction, social activities, a chance for kids to make the necessary separation from their parents while maintaining strong contacts with other adults and opportunities for kids to live out the faith they learned at home. It was simply an extension and amplification of the ministry of the family.
This is no longer the case - youth ministry has largely become a stand-alone endeavor, meant to evangelize, convert, disciple and grow students in the faith. And its impossible. For the majority of students, youth ministry cannot do all of that, especially when you consider the counter-example that is being lived out at home. Its really only when the whole family gets involved, when parents take the primary role they were meant to play in the spiritual leadership and instruction of their family, is any realy progress made in the lives of the youth. This means the larger church has to do more to equip parents to assume that role - it has to provide the tools, the knowledge, and perhaps more importantly, the challenge to see themselves as pastoral leaders in their own homes. I don't think many churches are actually doing this for a very simple reason: marketing. If parents are mostly focused on themselves, on satisfying their own desires and needs, and view kids as something to be juggled or managed, then they are going to go to the church that is the easiest and most comfortable. They will be drawn to the church that supports that mission of self-fulfillment because no one really likes to be challenged or be told to engage in some self-denial. These churches will focus on that mission to the neglect of equipping parents to be parents, because this precisely what they seem to want to avoid, thus putting more butts in the seats. And you can quickly see how the church is encouraging unparenting and putting a heavier and heavier burden on the youth ministry. It is a burden that it, quite simply, cannot bear much longer. Youth ministry is already becoming ineffective - soon, it may be die altogether.
4.22.2005
Spacing
Can anyone tell me why the line spacing gets compressed after a blockquote? And more importantly, can anyone tell me how to fix it?
The Punitive Father God of Fundamentalism
I am an occasional reader and commenter over on Karen's Kinesis, formally of "Heretic's Corner" fame. In a recent post, Karen suggested, somewhat lightheartedly I believe, to get newcomer packets ready for all the progressive Catholics who might be jumping ship after the election of the 'Rottweiler'. One commenter posted "I don't think Love and Spirit will be what we see from this Bishop of Rome." This irked me. The man sees things differently and that somehow renders him un-Loving (not sure what the capital 'l' signifies) and un-Spirited? I responded to that comment with some questions about, had the conclave elected a progressive/liberal pope, wouldn't that have likely resulted in the unloving alienation of the majority of the world's Catholics who are conservative socially and theologically?
Not much of a response to that. However, another poster did say "there remains hope God was involved in his election..." Oh my, I couldn't resist. Because the man is conservative, then the default position must be that God did NOT have anything to do with his election? Conservatives can only be elected apart from and in spite of the activity of the Lord? Here is the response:
Now, I wasn't immediately sure if this wasn't tongue in cheek. Granted, the poster's handle is "radicalfeministpoet" but you never know. Then I clicked on the link, which consists of 22 questions for the new pontiff. Apparently, Pope Benedict XVI loves/d Hitler, follows the example of fascism, is an ideologue and not a theologian, is obsessed with sex and may, in fact, want to put homosexuals into concentration camps "as Hitler did", is aware that Pope John Paul I was murdered by cardinals and JPII's election was influenced by the CIA, is not really a Christian, and may not be aware that "evil spirits have taken over the Vatican at this time in history". The final question is a fun one:
"22. Why do you forbid Catholics to talk about God as Mother? God as Child? Original Blessing instead of Original Sin (which is not in the Bible)? God as female as well as male?"
Last I checked, describing God as mother, child & female, and whatever "Original Blessing" may be, aren't in the Bible either. Apparently by Dr. Fox's logic, so long as it isn't actually in the Bible, pretty much any title or descriptor for God will do. (As will any concept - what the hell is "Original Blessing"?) Dr. Fox, though, isn't entirely demoralized by this "rigged election." No, there is some hope:
If this is all the substance the progressives can muster - unsupported allegations, ceaseless ad hominems and fun (unbiblical) phrases like "Mother-Father Creator of Justice and Compassion", well, their ship has sunk. No reasoned argument, no in-depth theological debate, just diatribe and polemic. Nothing to stand for, just against. It is rotted out from the inside and soon, will not be able to support the anger & hatred that they try to disguise as "letting the Spirit work."
Not much of a response to that. However, another poster did say "there remains hope God was involved in his election..." Oh my, I couldn't resist. Because the man is conservative, then the default position must be that God did NOT have anything to do with his election? Conservatives can only be elected apart from and in spite of the activity of the Lord? Here is the response:
It is of course absurd that God voted in this conclave, otherwise those cardinals would have chosen the Dalai Lama, or some other sensible person. God would no more have voted for Ratzi the Nazi than for Dubbya. No, this clearly was a rigged election, every bit as corrupt as back in the days of Avignon, on y danse, on y danse. Quite a contrast to the election of +Bishop Robinson in NH, which was obviously the work of the Spirit. It never ceases to amaze me that reactionaries can't see the difference. Pardon me--won't see. Their blindness must be deliberate.
I would commend to all this response to the calamity by Father/Mother Matthew Fox, who has said everything Karen tried to say, only better.
Now, I wasn't immediately sure if this wasn't tongue in cheek. Granted, the poster's handle is "radicalfeministpoet" but you never know. Then I clicked on the link, which consists of 22 questions for the new pontiff. Apparently, Pope Benedict XVI loves/d Hitler, follows the example of fascism, is an ideologue and not a theologian, is obsessed with sex and may, in fact, want to put homosexuals into concentration camps "as Hitler did", is aware that Pope John Paul I was murdered by cardinals and JPII's election was influenced by the CIA, is not really a Christian, and may not be aware that "evil spirits have taken over the Vatican at this time in history". The final question is a fun one:
"22. Why do you forbid Catholics to talk about God as Mother? God as Child? Original Blessing instead of Original Sin (which is not in the Bible)? God as female as well as male?"
Last I checked, describing God as mother, child & female, and whatever "Original Blessing" may be, aren't in the Bible either. Apparently by Dr. Fox's logic, so long as it isn't actually in the Bible, pretty much any title or descriptor for God will do. (As will any concept - what the hell is "Original Blessing"?) Dr. Fox, though, isn't entirely demoralized by this "rigged election." No, there is some hope:
Now the good news. The silver lining in the election of this, the first Grand Inquisitor as Pope, is this: Now people of conscience the world over have a clear choice between Religion and Spirituality; Fundamentalism and Wisdom; A Punitive Father God and the Mother-Father Creator of Justice and Compassion; Fascism and Control vs. Letting the Spirit Work; between a preferential option for the rich and powerful (cf. Opus Dei) and a preferential option for the poor (as in liberation theology).
Now all people--and Catholics in particular--are called to find their consciences and take a stand about the Punitive Father God of Fundamentalism and the Divine Wisdom of Justice and Compassion and against idolatry including religious idolatry and papalolatry and the television cult of personality, and between lies and truth.
If this is all the substance the progressives can muster - unsupported allegations, ceaseless ad hominems and fun (unbiblical) phrases like "Mother-Father Creator of Justice and Compassion", well, their ship has sunk. No reasoned argument, no in-depth theological debate, just diatribe and polemic. Nothing to stand for, just against. It is rotted out from the inside and soon, will not be able to support the anger & hatred that they try to disguise as "letting the Spirit work."
4.21.2005
Or...
From House Set to Approve Energy Bill:
The House bill also would shield the makers of MTBE, a gasoline additive that has prompted dozens of lawsuits over drinking water contamination, from defective product liability claims. The issue was blamed for scuttling energy legislation in the Senate in 2003.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, has insisted that the MTBE liability waiver be included, arguing that the oil industry produced MTBE to help meet government-imposed clean air requirements in the 1990s, so Congress should protect the industry against what is expected to be an avalanche of lawsuits that claim the product is defective.
Or should it open the government to liability suits? I mean, if the industry was forced to use an unsafe product due to government requirements, why isn't the government at least partially liable for the problems that product caused?
The House bill also would shield the makers of MTBE, a gasoline additive that has prompted dozens of lawsuits over drinking water contamination, from defective product liability claims. The issue was blamed for scuttling energy legislation in the Senate in 2003.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, has insisted that the MTBE liability waiver be included, arguing that the oil industry produced MTBE to help meet government-imposed clean air requirements in the 1990s, so Congress should protect the industry against what is expected to be an avalanche of lawsuits that claim the product is defective.
Or should it open the government to liability suits? I mean, if the industry was forced to use an unsafe product due to government requirements, why isn't the government at least partially liable for the problems that product caused?
College decisions and revolution: an office debate
The mother of a girl in my youth group (a graduating senior and I am sorry to see her go) volunteers one morning a week in the church office. This girl is having a hard time picking a college, but one of the top three is a Mennonite school in Indiana. When the possibility of this particular school first raised its head, the mother was disappointed and exclaimed "they don't even believe in war." It seemed (and seems) odd to me to base a college decision on whether or not it is wholeheartedly in favor of war. The mother is in the office this morning and I asked her if her daughter had made a choice yet. She said no but revealed that the Mennonite school was still in the running. Another pastor suggested they really investigate this school's views on salvation, scripture and sexuality, since these are the areas where the Mennonites have turned quite liberal in recent years.
The mother, though, still perplexed by their pacifist ideals asked "what would they make of the Revolutionary War?" I wanted to ask "what the hell does that have to do with anything?", as if the Revolutionary War holds some special place in the history of wars because it involved the founding of America or something. But I refrained. Instead, I pointed out that from a biblical perspective a la Romans 13, the Revolutionary War was wrong since it involved militant disobedience to the established powers. Stunned silence ensued, followed by one office member saying something about the nature & behavior of the government. I pointed out that the text offers no such caveat or exception - whether or not the government is nice or plays fair doesn't matter, moreso when you realize Paul was writing under the Roman government which had many moments of exceptional brutality. Well, she immediately went for a Bible to prove me wrong, but gave up after a few minutes.
The mother listened for a few minutes and then asked me what my point was. "My point," says I, "was that it does not matter what the school's view on the Revolutionary War is because, in light of the most plain sense reading of the text, our view on it is wrong. We think the Revolutionary War was an unmitigated good, never considering the possibility that it just might have been a sinful act." Not that God cannot and has not brought some extreme good out of it, and not that, perhaps, that text should not be taken overly literal so as to preclude the possibility of any exceptions. The debate kind of moved from there to the perceived legalism of the Mennonites in regard to following the example of Christ, and the mother chimes in with a sneering "and that is the only way to be meek." I pointed out that it is pretty hard to consider a soldier laying down suppressive fire with a machine gun "meek." That's more or less where the discussion ended, but I walked away extremely frustrated. Frustrated that people are unwilling to consider the ideas and beliefs of others, unwilling to critically evaluate their own thought systems and so damn condescending and spiteful towards fellow Christians. I'm not saying we should be so open that we uncritically accept anything that comes along, but why can't we at least be open to discussion?
The mother, though, still perplexed by their pacifist ideals asked "what would they make of the Revolutionary War?" I wanted to ask "what the hell does that have to do with anything?", as if the Revolutionary War holds some special place in the history of wars because it involved the founding of America or something. But I refrained. Instead, I pointed out that from a biblical perspective a la Romans 13, the Revolutionary War was wrong since it involved militant disobedience to the established powers. Stunned silence ensued, followed by one office member saying something about the nature & behavior of the government. I pointed out that the text offers no such caveat or exception - whether or not the government is nice or plays fair doesn't matter, moreso when you realize Paul was writing under the Roman government which had many moments of exceptional brutality. Well, she immediately went for a Bible to prove me wrong, but gave up after a few minutes.
The mother listened for a few minutes and then asked me what my point was. "My point," says I, "was that it does not matter what the school's view on the Revolutionary War is because, in light of the most plain sense reading of the text, our view on it is wrong. We think the Revolutionary War was an unmitigated good, never considering the possibility that it just might have been a sinful act." Not that God cannot and has not brought some extreme good out of it, and not that, perhaps, that text should not be taken overly literal so as to preclude the possibility of any exceptions. The debate kind of moved from there to the perceived legalism of the Mennonites in regard to following the example of Christ, and the mother chimes in with a sneering "and that is the only way to be meek." I pointed out that it is pretty hard to consider a soldier laying down suppressive fire with a machine gun "meek." That's more or less where the discussion ended, but I walked away extremely frustrated. Frustrated that people are unwilling to consider the ideas and beliefs of others, unwilling to critically evaluate their own thought systems and so damn condescending and spiteful towards fellow Christians. I'm not saying we should be so open that we uncritically accept anything that comes along, but why can't we at least be open to discussion?
4.19.2005
Its official - 3 good things
My brother is officially engaged! He popped the question on Saturday night, and though technically she didn't say anything, the tears and extended hug were taken as an affirmative response. He did at the piano bar where they both work on the weekends - the pianist/singer stopped in the middle of his set and my brother called her up there with him and got down on one knee. Its funny, he started off saying all the romantic stuff you would expect at a proposal but a lot of people in the crowd were still surprised (loud gasps and what not) when he dropped down and brought out the ring (what were they expecting?). Everyone cheered and toasted them after it was over and there more than a few women who started crying. My brother was so nervous - all day Saturday he kept asking me "do you think she'll say yes?" The relief and joy on his face after she finally did, in fact, "say" yes was incredible. That alone made for a wonderful weekend, but I also got to see my folks who came in from Arizona for the event. Though it was a short visit, it was good to see them. We'll have an extended visit in a about a month and a half, so this was kind of a preview. Great weekend all around. Just one of those happy, togetherness times - something the wife and I really needed right now. No idea on the wedding date, but hopefully it won't be a very long engagement.
A couple who used to be in our small group took our dog for us for the weekend. We've watched each other's puppies a couple of times, but this time our dog was acting really weird when we got him back. He almost seemed like he was sick. He's normally very affectionate and very active, but he wouldn't come over to us on his own and would kind of go off and huddle by himself. But he would chase his ball and was eating fine, so I don't think he was sick; I think they were mean to him. They have a St. Bernard pup about the same age and he is, to put it lightly, a big tub of goo. Zero personality and certainly not very active. I'm betting our normal little active puppy was more than they could handle. Needless to say, that is the last time they will watch our lil' buddy. Thankfully, he was pretty much back to his old self by yesterday afternoon.
I got my graduation packet in the mail yesterday. Magna cum laude for a BA in Religious Studies. I really thought I was going to get summa, but then my wife pointed out that I did get a 'c' in one class we took together a year and a half ago. It was a class on Islam and the teacher was a French-Turk who did not take well to my refusal to swallow her apologetic presentation of the material. Apparently pointing out that a woman getting 1/4 the inheritance of her brothers is still patriarchal and discriminatory against women when the professor is trying to present it as englightened and egalitarian is a sure-fire way to piss her off. Correcting her mistaken interpretations of the Bible only adds fuel to the fire. Oh well. I can expect my diploma approximately 12 weeks after graduation, which I will not be attending, so I can have it framed and hung on my wall by mid-fall. That seems like an awful long time, but hey, graduated is graduated and I'm glad to finally be done!
A couple who used to be in our small group took our dog for us for the weekend. We've watched each other's puppies a couple of times, but this time our dog was acting really weird when we got him back. He almost seemed like he was sick. He's normally very affectionate and very active, but he wouldn't come over to us on his own and would kind of go off and huddle by himself. But he would chase his ball and was eating fine, so I don't think he was sick; I think they were mean to him. They have a St. Bernard pup about the same age and he is, to put it lightly, a big tub of goo. Zero personality and certainly not very active. I'm betting our normal little active puppy was more than they could handle. Needless to say, that is the last time they will watch our lil' buddy. Thankfully, he was pretty much back to his old self by yesterday afternoon.
I got my graduation packet in the mail yesterday. Magna cum laude for a BA in Religious Studies. I really thought I was going to get summa, but then my wife pointed out that I did get a 'c' in one class we took together a year and a half ago. It was a class on Islam and the teacher was a French-Turk who did not take well to my refusal to swallow her apologetic presentation of the material. Apparently pointing out that a woman getting 1/4 the inheritance of her brothers is still patriarchal and discriminatory against women when the professor is trying to present it as englightened and egalitarian is a sure-fire way to piss her off. Correcting her mistaken interpretations of the Bible only adds fuel to the fire. Oh well. I can expect my diploma approximately 12 weeks after graduation, which I will not be attending, so I can have it framed and hung on my wall by mid-fall. That seems like an awful long time, but hey, graduated is graduated and I'm glad to finally be done!
4.13.2005
Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience
An interesting interview on Christianitytoday.com with Ron Sider, author of the new book Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience. I'm limited on time today, so only a couple of excerpts:
How do we turn the ship around?
We need to rethink our theology. We need to ask, "Are we really biblical?" Cheap grace is right at the core of the problem. Cheap grace results when we reduce the gospel to forgiveness of sins only; when we limit salvation to personal fire insurance against hell; when we misunderstand persons as primarily souls; when we at best grasp only half of what the Bible says about sin; when we embrace the individualism and materialism and relativism of our current culture. We also lack a biblical understanding and practice of the church.
Today, when so many congregations are abandoning biblical truth, you say in the book that all congregations need to be connected to a denomination. Are you serious?
Absolutely. It's simply wrong for a local congregation to have no accountability to a larger body. Now I'm not saying it has to be one of the current denominations. There can be new structures of accountability. Any congregations that feel they must break away from older denominations that are no longer faithful theologically or in terms of moral practice should be a part of some new denominational, organizational structure so they're not isolated lone rangers. They need to have a larger structure of accountability. It is flatly unbiblical and heretical for an individual congregation to say, "We'll just be by ourselves and not be accountable to anybody."
How do we turn the ship around?
We need to rethink our theology. We need to ask, "Are we really biblical?" Cheap grace is right at the core of the problem. Cheap grace results when we reduce the gospel to forgiveness of sins only; when we limit salvation to personal fire insurance against hell; when we misunderstand persons as primarily souls; when we at best grasp only half of what the Bible says about sin; when we embrace the individualism and materialism and relativism of our current culture. We also lack a biblical understanding and practice of the church.
Today, when so many congregations are abandoning biblical truth, you say in the book that all congregations need to be connected to a denomination. Are you serious?
Absolutely. It's simply wrong for a local congregation to have no accountability to a larger body. Now I'm not saying it has to be one of the current denominations. There can be new structures of accountability. Any congregations that feel they must break away from older denominations that are no longer faithful theologically or in terms of moral practice should be a part of some new denominational, organizational structure so they're not isolated lone rangers. They need to have a larger structure of accountability. It is flatly unbiblical and heretical for an individual congregation to say, "We'll just be by ourselves and not be accountable to anybody."
4.12.2005
The Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch - Consensus III
Thanks to some advice from Clifton , who has an ongoing diablog about soteriology that is meters over my head and dauntingly voluminous, I started reading through the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch last night for my personal edification. I figured I'd read through the shorter recensions first, then the longer and then come back to a little more in-depth study & comparison. I read through his letters to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians (I think) and got fairly well into his letter to the Romans before being forced to retire by my current head cold/upper respiratory hoopla.
For those coming from a Protestant background, like myself, St. Ignatius' focus on the role and authority of the bishop is startling. He frequently links submission and obedience to the bishop to our submission and obedience to Christ Himself. To Ignatius, the bishop is the hinge on which unity swings.
It seems fairly obvious that the bishop would play a significant role in the unity of the church. If all the churches in his region were under his authority, then by virture of his position he could keep all the churches on the same page. By conferring with other bishops and coming into theolocial and ecclesiological agreement, the bishop could thus preserve unity within the larger church. So from an entirely pragmatic perspective, the office of bishop is a useful, and perhaps needful, thing. I can scarcely imagine with things would be like in America today if all of the local churches were to subject themselves to a bishop in order to bring about unity. This is an impossibility, I know, but still an attractive idea.
But here is where St. Ignatius' thinking becomes most unsettling -
This removes all pragmatic considerations from the table, or at least relegates them to the kiddie table off to the side. To Ignatius, the bishop is not merely a functionary of unity; he is an icon of Christ. The bishop manifests Christ to us in a unique way and it is more than just a derivation of authority, for we are not told to respect him like we would Christ or to obey him as if he were the Lord, but to "look upon the bishop as we would upon the Lord Himself." The implications of this are, to say the least, immense. If St Ignatius's writing accurately reflects the understanding of the earliest Christians - and despite the controversy surrounding some of his (alleged) writings and likely interpolations, it appears widely assumed that it does - then the office and role of the bishop are a central question to the Chrisitan faith. It is little wonder that Calvin repudiated all the Ignatian epistles as spurious; they are clearly opposed to Protestantism at almost every level.
This, of course, ties into my earlier posts (here and here) on the impossibility of consensus between the early church and the Reformation. This by itself is not a conclusive argument about the potential error of the Reformation, however. It is entirely possible for a modern Christian to dismiss these differences as inconsequential, to say the early church's practices were culturally determined or influenced and are not normative for the present day. But if this is true, how do we know her theology was not similarly adulterated? How can we trust the canon she produced or the doctrines she promulgated? This kind of argument would seem to leave us foundationless, with only a tenuous connection to Christ and His Apostles.
Assuming the early church's praxis is normative for the moment, what are we modern Christians to do with that? More specifically, what am I supposed to do with it? Yeah, yeah, I think I already know the answer, but man, things would be a whole lot easier if it were different.
For those coming from a Protestant background, like myself, St. Ignatius' focus on the role and authority of the bishop is startling. He frequently links submission and obedience to the bishop to our submission and obedience to Christ Himself. To Ignatius, the bishop is the hinge on which unity swings.
Wherefore it is fitting that ye should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing also ye do. For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp. Therefore in your concord and harmonious love, Jesus Christ is sung. And do ye, man by man, become a choir, that being harmonious in love, and taking up the song of God in unison, ye may with one voice sing to the Father through Jesus Christ, so that He may both hear you, and perceive by your works that ye are indeed the members of His Son. It is profitable, therefore, that you should live in an unblameable unity, that thus ye may always enjoy communion with God. Letter to the Ephesians, ch 4
Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, 'God resisteth the proud.' Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God. ibid, ch 5
It seems fairly obvious that the bishop would play a significant role in the unity of the church. If all the churches in his region were under his authority, then by virture of his position he could keep all the churches on the same page. By conferring with other bishops and coming into theolocial and ecclesiological agreement, the bishop could thus preserve unity within the larger church. So from an entirely pragmatic perspective, the office of bishop is a useful, and perhaps needful, thing. I can scarcely imagine with things would be like in America today if all of the local churches were to subject themselves to a bishop in order to bring about unity. This is an impossibility, I know, but still an attractive idea.
But here is where St. Ignatius' thinking becomes most unsettling -
For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself.ibid, ch 6 emphasis mine
This removes all pragmatic considerations from the table, or at least relegates them to the kiddie table off to the side. To Ignatius, the bishop is not merely a functionary of unity; he is an icon of Christ. The bishop manifests Christ to us in a unique way and it is more than just a derivation of authority, for we are not told to respect him like we would Christ or to obey him as if he were the Lord, but to "look upon the bishop as we would upon the Lord Himself." The implications of this are, to say the least, immense. If St Ignatius's writing accurately reflects the understanding of the earliest Christians - and despite the controversy surrounding some of his (alleged) writings and likely interpolations, it appears widely assumed that it does - then the office and role of the bishop are a central question to the Chrisitan faith. It is little wonder that Calvin repudiated all the Ignatian epistles as spurious; they are clearly opposed to Protestantism at almost every level.
This, of course, ties into my earlier posts (here and here) on the impossibility of consensus between the early church and the Reformation. This by itself is not a conclusive argument about the potential error of the Reformation, however. It is entirely possible for a modern Christian to dismiss these differences as inconsequential, to say the early church's practices were culturally determined or influenced and are not normative for the present day. But if this is true, how do we know her theology was not similarly adulterated? How can we trust the canon she produced or the doctrines she promulgated? This kind of argument would seem to leave us foundationless, with only a tenuous connection to Christ and His Apostles.
Assuming the early church's praxis is normative for the moment, what are we modern Christians to do with that? More specifically, what am I supposed to do with it? Yeah, yeah, I think I already know the answer, but man, things would be a whole lot easier if it were different.
4.08.2005
Corruption round-up
An unfortunate round-up of the corruption problems the US and Iraqi governments are facing, much of which could have been prevented and could now be prosecuted. Emphasis on could.
4.06.2005
Beijing enforces the party line...
For anyone who ever thought maybe communist China wasn't so bad...
"In a surprisingly broad and deep targeting of thought and expression here, authorities across China have shut or drastically curtailed college Internet message boards - a powerful vehicle for free exchange, and one used far more by non-students than students."
"The crackdown is another phase of a broad and zealous campaign situated inside the central propaganda department that advocates a 'strengthening of ideology' [read: brainwashing and crushing dissent] through stricter control over culture, education, and media."
The government has also introduced new education requirements that force students to take several classes in communist ideology.
"The new [education] campaign is designed to create greater faith in the party among ordinary Chinese. It is also an effort to bring results that communist Eastern Europe was unable to achieve as it became freer during the 1980s, informed sources say. The party in China intends for the country to achieve a high-growth economy, but without the dissent and uncontrolled openness found in the Warsaw bloc prior to the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989."
When communism fails in China, and it will eventually go the way of the dodo, that country will probably descend into total chaos. After all this repression, people just won't know what to do.
"In a surprisingly broad and deep targeting of thought and expression here, authorities across China have shut or drastically curtailed college Internet message boards - a powerful vehicle for free exchange, and one used far more by non-students than students."
"The crackdown is another phase of a broad and zealous campaign situated inside the central propaganda department that advocates a 'strengthening of ideology' [read: brainwashing and crushing dissent] through stricter control over culture, education, and media."
The government has also introduced new education requirements that force students to take several classes in communist ideology.
"The new [education] campaign is designed to create greater faith in the party among ordinary Chinese. It is also an effort to bring results that communist Eastern Europe was unable to achieve as it became freer during the 1980s, informed sources say. The party in China intends for the country to achieve a high-growth economy, but without the dissent and uncontrolled openness found in the Warsaw bloc prior to the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989."
When communism fails in China, and it will eventually go the way of the dodo, that country will probably descend into total chaos. After all this repression, people just won't know what to do.
4.05.2005
Actively seeking
I had a youth conference Friday night and all day Saturday, and it was...well...(how do I put this diplomatically?) it was TBN-ish. Yeah, that's probably about the best way to put it. I only had a few kids sign up (one had to drop out due to illness), so it was a small group from my church, but overall there were probably about 400 kids. It started out pretty good - the band and singer were in good form and the music, though not exactly to my tastes, was God-focused. But then things got TBN-ish. The main speaker was frenetic - he spoke quickly and with frequent side-bars in funny voices (this being a youth conference, after all), and, I promise I am not exaggerating, every syllable of every word was punctuated with some kind of hand gesture. Whether it was both arms flailing over his head, chopping up and down, back and forth, pointing, hand to chest or some combination thereof, he never stopped moving. At first, it was quite distracting, but after a while it became almost hypnotic. He also made up some of his own terminology - I mean, is "idolaterize" really a word? - and they repeated the same 4 or 5 songs throughout the weekend, sometimes 2 or 3 times in the same session. I took a class on cults in college, and they were meeting some of the criteria - hypnosis through those gestures and the repetitive songs, and making up their own words. I was half expecting to be handed a rifle on Saturday night and told to hole up in the mountains so I could resist the federal government. It was weird.
But thanks to the Cult Recruiting Conference, I had a little flex-time to burn this morning, so I went to a local coffee shop. Kind of in preparation for another analytical post on my church, I started writing down the strengths and weaknesses of my church, trying to be as honest as I could. This church does do some things very well and frequently the motivation for the things that bother me is a good one, as well. I may think its wrong to play secular music in the service, but they are doing that in order to break down false barriers to faith that people often erect. They are trying to reach out and be relevant, even if I think the relevance they are producing does more harm than good. So I took stock and asked "how likely is it that any of these problems (as I see them) are going to change?" I realized it is not likely at all. We will not abandon the business model of our church, at least not easily, because that has been the norm for many years. We will not pursue a strong discipleship program because of our major emphasis on evangelism - when resources are limited, and they often are, evangelism will carry the day every time. And because of that emphasis on evangelism, it would take major efforts to show that, perhaps, the way we do things is not the best way. Even then, there would be major institutional resistance from the lay leadership since that is not the church that they know. We are not likely to implement a strong elder board so the senior pastor has someone to be accountable too because, quite frankly, he has gotten used to the freedom of his position. Personally, I know it will be hard to go back to a "regular" job after this precisely because of the freedom I have.
So these things are not likely to change, and even if they do, they will take some time - years probably. And, quite frankly, neither my wife nor myself are really willing to invest that kind of time here - either in this church or this town. With that in mind, it would be dishonest of me to stay here any longer than I need to. I am not on board with the mission and praxis of this church any longer. Basically, then, we're going to be actively seeking the Lord for a time to leave, a place to go, a job to get and a smooth transition. I am quite certain that I do not want to get another job in youth ministry right now - I'll post more on the reasons for that later - but I'm not sure what I'd like to do. I would appreciate your prayers for what I listed above and for the kids here. They will be the hardest thing to leave and that is honestly the biggest obstacle to leaving in my mind right now. I think of telling them that we're leaving and I don't even know how to begin to explain the many reasons for it.
But thanks to the Cult Recruiting Conference, I had a little flex-time to burn this morning, so I went to a local coffee shop. Kind of in preparation for another analytical post on my church, I started writing down the strengths and weaknesses of my church, trying to be as honest as I could. This church does do some things very well and frequently the motivation for the things that bother me is a good one, as well. I may think its wrong to play secular music in the service, but they are doing that in order to break down false barriers to faith that people often erect. They are trying to reach out and be relevant, even if I think the relevance they are producing does more harm than good. So I took stock and asked "how likely is it that any of these problems (as I see them) are going to change?" I realized it is not likely at all. We will not abandon the business model of our church, at least not easily, because that has been the norm for many years. We will not pursue a strong discipleship program because of our major emphasis on evangelism - when resources are limited, and they often are, evangelism will carry the day every time. And because of that emphasis on evangelism, it would take major efforts to show that, perhaps, the way we do things is not the best way. Even then, there would be major institutional resistance from the lay leadership since that is not the church that they know. We are not likely to implement a strong elder board so the senior pastor has someone to be accountable too because, quite frankly, he has gotten used to the freedom of his position. Personally, I know it will be hard to go back to a "regular" job after this precisely because of the freedom I have.
So these things are not likely to change, and even if they do, they will take some time - years probably. And, quite frankly, neither my wife nor myself are really willing to invest that kind of time here - either in this church or this town. With that in mind, it would be dishonest of me to stay here any longer than I need to. I am not on board with the mission and praxis of this church any longer. Basically, then, we're going to be actively seeking the Lord for a time to leave, a place to go, a job to get and a smooth transition. I am quite certain that I do not want to get another job in youth ministry right now - I'll post more on the reasons for that later - but I'm not sure what I'd like to do. I would appreciate your prayers for what I listed above and for the kids here. They will be the hardest thing to leave and that is honestly the biggest obstacle to leaving in my mind right now. I think of telling them that we're leaving and I don't even know how to begin to explain the many reasons for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
