Second Sunday

We headed back to St Nick's again this morning. No baptism today, and we got there early enough to sit on the other side (where we can hear the chanters better) and to grab a couple of liturgy books so we could follow along. We did much better in that regard this morning, but it still seemed like they were skipping some large sections, particularly as the Eucharist approaches. Their liturgy book is published by a monastery, so I'm wondering if St Nick's is actually following an abridged liturgy. The wording the priest & choir used were different, as well. Just translation differences - nothing too big. I had intended to ask the priest if there might be a better book that we could buy for ourselves, but plum forgot. (Or is it "plumb forgot"? Weird expression, anyway you spell it.)

Just as last week, Fr Schmemann's wonderful "For the Life of the World" became immediately relevant to me. We were in the Liturgy and I think I started to ask myself "how much longer is this going to be?" But before I could finish the thought, his lengthy discussion on our perception of time came into my mind. And I had almost a vision of my week - the job search, going to class, studying, and all the rest of my activities - as a big Spanish galleon or a Ship-of-the-Line, crashing into the shoals of this time at church, and foundering. But not to its destruction; it merely stopped and could go no further. Whatever mission it was on, whatever deadlines it felt compelled to keep, made no difference to the mission of those rocks. Their mission, I think is, in large part, to stop those very ships, to keep them in their proper place. Those rocks announce the Kingdom and everything else is diminished to its true size. What is one week in eternity? After that, the service simply flowed - easily, peacefully and without major distraction or discomfort.

We stayed for the coffee hour and had a delightful conversation with a grandmotherly woman. She made sure to tell us several times she hopes she sees us next week. A few minutes later, Fr David came in and when he saw us, immediately came over to talk. We discussed our relative backgrounds a bit - turns out he's a convert. He had about 6 months left on his seminary ecuation at Concordia (a Lutheran school) here in Fort Wayne when he really started reading about & exploring Orthodoxy. He finished his MDiv, but was still unresolved on where he was headed, so went back into another degree program. A few months later, he and his wife decided to convert and they joined St Nick's. He did some time as a deacon before heading out to St Vladimir's for a year's worth of classes to get ordained as a priest. He pastored at a church in Michigan for a bit, but was able to come back to St Nick's a few years ago. It was encouraging to hear that he would know from first-hand experience the kinds of things the wife and I are going through - our questions, our concerns, our problems, as well as our hopes and desires. He even knows what its like to have resistant parents - both his dad and father-in-law are Lutheran clergy. He said he met a lot of resistance from both of their families at first, but things have changed over the last few years. He said they've seen the truth of it lived out in his and his wife's lives. We talked a little more about other stuff - he was in the Army as well, the deacon is from my wife's home-town, the inquirer's class, etc. It was a good conversation, one that made us feel very much at ease.

After church we went out to lunch with some family members - including uncles Bob and Brad from my justice post a couple of weeks ago. Bob, ever the inquisitor, started up with the questions after he heard we'd gone to St Nick's the last 2 weeks. No hostility or anything, but you can tell there's definitely a lack of understanding, both about Orthodoxy and why we would want to go. It'll be interesting to see how things play out with family in the coming months. I don't for one moment think there will be any hint of judgment or condemnation, but I'm certain there are going to be some rather long conversations about it.

The hits just keep on coming

First Robertson's idiotic comments, and now this. Hopefully this won't receive widespread coverage and add more ammo to the anti-Christian crowd.

First week of school

This marks the last day of my first week back to school. I was always pretty sure I'd end up back in school someday, but I generally thought it would be in a master's program - not an associates, and certainly not in nursing. God sometimes takes us on a wild ride. Anyways, I'm back to reading 100 level textbooks and I had forgotten how insipid these works can be. I've only briefly skimmed my chemistry book, but have read the first chapters of both my psych and communications books and, oh my. Surprisingly, the communications book is worse than the psych; much more oddly used relationship words. For instance, they use the word "partner" much more often than "spouse" or "boyfriend/girlfriend." I don't know of many heterosexual couples that refer to each other as "partners", so at this point I'm assuming that most of the communication to which they refer is between a gay couple of one kind or another. The first example of "partners" that uses names refers to 'Paul' and 'Pat,' and we all know - thanks to Saturday Night Live - that the latter is an androgynous name. "Its time for androgyny...its just Pat!" So three cheers for political correctness! Huzzah!

Of course, that's not the worst of it. I've always enjoyed being talked down to, but I reeeeaaaaallllllly like it when its assumed I have next to no intelligence whatsoever. At least I can look forward to a relatively easy slate of tests & assignments, though I'm already embroiled in a debate with my psych prof about a quiz question. Its almost a Zen koan - if none of the possible answers is ever discussed in the text, can any of them be right?

No School Left Unfunded

From the CS Monitor, an article about the growing discontent with Bush's No Child Left Behind act. From the article:

In a separate survey, teachers cite compliance with new federal testing requirements as the most serious problem they face - more serious than lack of resources, incompetent administrators, student discipline, and personal safety issues.

"If they do not change that law, it's not if every urban school in Indiana will fail, it's when they'll fail," says Dr. Rose, who is also a consultant to the Indiana Urban Schools Association.

Eight-one [sic] percent of teachers surveyed say that compliance with NCLB is the most serious problem facing them....They also strongly oppose using academic progress of students as measured by test scores to determine whether a teacher is qualified to teach.

My mom has been an elementary school teacher for 25 years and, just this summer, decided to move up to teach 7th grade due to incredibly poor leadership at her old school. From her, I've learned about the impact NCLB has had on her and her classroom, so nothing in this article surprises me. I would highly suggest that if you have young children in public school, or if you know a teacher, ask them what they think of NCLB. Ask them what they think of an unfunded mandate that is costing local schools millions of dollars they don't have in order to meet goals that, in many cases, are all but impossible.

To highlight a point from the last quote: Many of my mom's students in her old school were from what used to be (and likely is still very close to the bottom of the list if not), literally, the poorest community in the US. Many of her students had one parent (or both) and an older sibling(s) in jail, had witnessed violent crime, had parents or guardians that never graduated high school and were involved in minor crime. My mom is a great teacher and she helped a lot of these kis improve, but by the time they reach her in the 5th grade, they've already had 5 years to fall behind their peers in the state and the rest of the nation. It matters little in the eyes of NLCB if she moved them from a 1st grade reading level up to a 3rd grade level in the year she has them. Or, in the case of one kid in the recent past, that she provides the necessary structure and discipline to normalize a kid who the 4th grade teachers described as "the next Jeffrey Dahmer." Based on NCLB, the 45 hours she has past her masters are worthless. Her skill and dedication are worthless. Its all about the points, but frankly, the points don't reflect her ability, or the abilities of many thousands of teachers working in impoverished areas. NCLB needs to be repealed, and a realistic, funded piece of education reform needs to be implemented.

First Sunday back...

Yesterday morning, the wife and I went back to an Orthodox church for the first time in probably about 2 years. I was actually somewhat surprised that we did it. The wife's brother and his new girlfriend were staying here for the weekend, and after church, we were all going to meet up with an aunt & uncle for lunch. But we decided, at around midnight, to get up earlier and go to St Nicholas'. So, arising earlier than the rest of the house, we went and managed to get there a little early. We drove around the block so as to arrive fashionably late, and to not betray our lack of knowledge by not having mobs of people realize that we weren't crossing ourselves, lighting candles, kissing the icons and such. We made it in, scooted off to the side and grabbed a seat.

The church is pretty big. Not quite as big as the church we attended in Phoenix, but its laid out differently so its actually a little hard to judge. Its basically square, with two rows of pews running down a central aisle and stained glass on the side walls. The iconostasis was quite tall and ran all the way across the front (different than St George's in Phoenix, which had its altar area kind of recessed into the east wall with the iconostasis running only a little wider than the recess). The ceiling and most of the walls were sky blue, and the dome was right over the doors into the altar and was apparently punctured by several large sky-lights given the sunlight that was streaming in. We were too far back for me to see the icon in it. There was a choir loft, but the choir was up front on the left on Sunday and the chanters were across from them in an alcove. This made them a bit hard to hear at times from our seats. The congregation was large - probably in the 150 to 200 range and well mixed - young and old, male and female. It was largely white, but there were a fair number of non-whites - mostly black, with a few people of possibly Arabic or Egyptian descent.

It is harder to describe my impressions of the morning. In some ways, it was disappointing - but only because we have St George's to compare it with. That was a beautiful church with an amazing choir. The building was wonderfully acoustic, which allowed the music and the chanting to just wash over you, permeating the entire space. Probably due to where the choir was, and I suspect its there because of a lighter summer schedule for choir members, the music didn't reach that same quality. St George's was also built on something of a slant, which gave everyone a nice, clear view of the iconostasis, altar and what was happening down front. St Nick's is flat, and because there wasn't a liturgy book anywhere handy (and because it started with a baptism of a beautiful little baby girl instead of matins), it made things little hard to follow. So in terms of those purely aesthetic things, and only in comparison to St George's, it wasn't quite what we were expecting.

But in other ways, it was deeply satisfying and later in the day, I found myself rather subtly ensnared by the experience. The baptism was a beautiful event, although I must admit it was a bit shocking to see a naked baby butt held aloft in church. It was done so lovingly and with such a sweet spirit, though, I couldn't help but be moved by it. The priest gave a short homily after the baptism, talking about the importance of striving to see the spiritual reality behind what we see & experience. He focused on the spiritual reality of baptism, of its participation in Christ's death & resurrection and likened it to the Eucharist. It was a brief sermon, but powerful and passionately delivered. And though it only came to mind later, Fr Schmemmann's words in "For the Life of the World" about how true worship ascends us into heaven, how it transforms our little patch of earth from the mundane into the joyous eternal, seemed rather appropriate. The feeling of peace I left the church with radiated throughout the day for me.

After the Liturgy, my wife and I got in line for the blessed bread - a first for us, actually. I'm not sure why we never did at St George's, but we didn't. I think it was probably because Fr David had emailed me to tell me to make sure to introduce ourselves to him if we came. He was very nice and said he had a meeting to attend, but would make sure that someone came to talk to us. And within a few minutes, someone did, which was nice. Oh, and during the Liturgy, when the others were going up for communion, a woman sitting behind us brought us some of the bread as well. I'm sure it was easy to tell we were visitors and it was a nice gesture - very welcoming. We left soon after that. We both felt we needed to process things a bit and to talk about our experience, so we figured we'd stay for coffee hour next week. So we headed over to Starbuck's to grab a cup of coffee and talk. I think we're pretty much on the same page - we enjoyed it and definitely want to go back, but had a few disappointments. And we still have some major theological issues to work through, but all in all, it was good to be back.

Justice

We went to church with my in-laws on Sunday and afterwards we met up with my wife's two uncles and their wives. One of her uncles, "Bob", is a former senior pastor and former president of our former denomination. He and his wife never had children. The other is "Brad", a very humble, soft-spoken man who works in insurance. He and his wife had kids and their son, "Todd", is currently in law school after having already completed a masters in another field before figuring out he really didn't want to work in that field after all. (I know the feeling.) Todd recently emailed both Bob and Brad and posed a question about grace and prison sentences. He said that as he works his way through school, he has become increasingly convinced of the necessity of a sentencing mandate for our courts. Tough, but appropriate, sentencing is a good thing for our society, or so he has come to believe. But, he said, as a Christian, he also believes in grace and realizes that he isn't getting what he deserves because of it. So how should he reconcile these two, apparently conflicting, thoughts? Bob and Brad posed this same question to me.

I had already been thinking about this, to some extent, after reading Joseph Bottum's latest article in First Things; "Christians and the Death Penalty." I think you would be hard pressed to label Bottum's article as either pro- or anti-death penalty. Rather, he calls into question the way we think about it and the underlying assumptions that silently inform our discourse on the matter. I think a good summary of his thesis is this:

Christians would have to engage in national idolatry to suppose that all the acts allowed in ancient Israel are permitted in Connecticut...Without constant pressure from the New Testament's revelation of Christ's death and resurrection, the state always threatens to rise back up as an idol. And one sign of a government's overreaching is its claim of power to balance the books of the universe - to repay blood with blood.

Bottum believes the modern, secular state does not have the power to dispense the ultimate justice of the death penalty. It may dispense it as a punishment or as a deterrent, but it is not justice. It does not restore the lost loved ones to their families. It does not erase their pain or dry their tears. No such justice will exist, or even can exist, on this side of heaven.

So what about grace and tough sentences? Well, grace is about justice. It is about the ultimate reality of the divine (what we call justice here on earth is nothing but a pale and obscure shadow of the real thing). And criminal sentences in our courts, be they tough or minimal, are not. Where is the justice in putting a child molester in jail? How does his jail time restore his victim? How does it heal his or her pain? How does it make things right? Is the molester getting what he deserves, really & truly deserves? No, and he wouldn't be getting it even if he were killed - at least not by our hands. What he faces after death is another story entirely. He would not be getting justice because no punishment we can concoct will ever either match the pain he caused or close the wound he inflicted. So his jail time is not justice - it is punishment, it is protection of society. Perhaps for other crimes, jail, community service, heavy fines, etc, are rehabilitative. Even if they are, though, they still aren't justice. So grace and criminal sentencing exist on two entirely different spheres.

But those spheres do touch & overlap, so grace must inform a Christian's thinking about such things. So one could argue against mandatory minimum sentences, believing that the judge should be able to offer mercy in those instances when it is warranted and could offer a benefit to society. But what if the judge is not Christian? That is an important question, because it is precisely Christian thought that keeps us from seeing any punishment meted out by our courts as justice. We as Christians know where justice resides, and brother, it ain't living on the bench. And if our courts are not dispensing justice, then our thinking about our entire legal system should change. A crime damages society. Regardless of the victim or what was done to them, it is a crime against society, against a community, and should be punished as such without being confused with justice.

(cont)

The power of music

(I wrote this Monday night, but couldn't get blogger to load to post it.)

Sometimes I struggle, as I’m sure many people do, with getting frustrated that things don’t work out more easily. That sometimes the challenges that present themselves seem almost insurmountable based solely on the circumstances I find myself in. What’s bringing this on right now is that I just got back from an information session about the nursing program I’m trying to get into. Admission is based solely on combined points of your general education classes (science & math classes count for more), stuff like anatomy and psych, and a skills test, which is worth 100 points. An ‘A’ is worth between 12 and 32 points, depending on the class and with total possible score of 188. Between the two, they said you’d need approximately 200 points to be competitive and the cutoff is the end of this semester. Don’t make the cut and you have to wait another year to try again. As my schedule & transfer credits stand right now, I’m at about 170, assuming I get all A’s and do very well on the test. That ain’t cutting it, obviously. So I’m left with having to add another science class (24 points possible), which bumps be up into the 190’s. Or, I can drop my psych class (12 points possible) and add 2 science classes, which would jump me up over 200. I’m not real keen on doing that, particularly since I’d be taking Anatomy & Physiology 101 & 102 at the same time, as well as either Microbiology or Chemistry on Saturday mornings. If I was really masochistic (or God opted to bail us out with a miracle of some kind so I didn’t have to work full time as well), I’d add the 2 science classes and keep the psych, which is an online class. That could make my total possible points 220 and would give me a very good chance of getting into the program for next fall.

So I get frustrated, pessimistic and a little angry. But then I remember – God has been good to us. My wife has already found a job that pays better than any other job she’s had in the past and has benefits. Our house just sold last night, right in the range we were hoping for so we’re actually coming out ahead on it. And since we’ve been in it less than year, that in and of itself is something of a minor miracle. We’ve also got free lodging for the immediate future at my in-laws and enough savings to last us several months – so what am I complaining about? Nothing. My mind keeps returning to this song on a CD of Orthodox chant I picked up last week – “First Fruits” by the Byzantine Choir of Boston – Psalm 33:10 of the Artoclasia Service of the Five Loaves:

“Rich men have turned poor and gone hungry,
But they that seek the Lord
Shall not be deprived of any good thing.” (thrice)

It is amazing to me how the simple refrain of a short song can be used by the Lord to encourage me in a time like this. A simple melody sung in a rich, human voice can give hope and sustain my soul.

Lord have mercy.

Vanity Fair contest

My wife was flipping through a Vanity Fair the other day and came across an ad for a writing contest the magazine is sponsoring to answer the question "what is on the mind of America's youth today?" The ad juxtaposed a picture of college-aged Vietnam war protestors with one of a host of swimsuit clad spring-breakers on a beach, and asked why the youth of the last generation became passionately involved in their society while today's youth seem to be perfectly happy to sit on the side lines. Its a reasonable question, even allowing that the editors may be overestimating the involvement of America's youth in the civil rights and anti-war movements of their day. Today's youth are definitely less involved, less politically and socially aware and less likely to have thought deeply on any of the major issues facing our society & nation today. My wife suggested that I submit an essay to the contest, given that I just came off a job that had me intimately involved with youth and because I'm clearly passionate on the issue. The deadline is September 30th and I think I'm going to submit something, so over the next few weeks I might be working out some of my thoughts here - please comment and critique on what I write. If what I'm writing stinks or doesn't make sense, by all means, tell me; I certainly don't want to embarass myself! These may be considered rough drafts, or perhaps merely a mental sorting before starting a rough draft, but your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

So what do I think is on the minds of America's youth? The same things that's on everyone elses mind, past & present - joy. But I mean that in the Christian sense of the word; a deep, abiding feeling of security, fulfillment, belonging, of rightness with the world, trust, justice, love...and it goes on. I mean it in a sense that is infinitely deeper than our modern usage - a meaning rippling with subtle nuance and lingering impressions. I use joy in its eternal, active tense - not the pale noun we use to up-sell mere, fleeting "happiness."

But it is precisely this paucity of meaning that makes the lack of joy both so acute and so damnably difficult for us to define against the backdrop of our lives. Our minds are structured by language, shaped by it. We think in language, and if we are thinking in hollow words then we are thinking hollow thoughts. A language bereft of meaning, of poetry, of the eternal, cannot provide us with the tools to grasp the meaning of our lives, the poetry of our existence, the eternal dimension we all share. Thus, we lose the ability to articulate what we want and what we need. We become mute, though maddeningly, we can still hear the siren song of joy, but are now powerless to direct our course there. This generation, however, has gone a step further - they have lost the ability to even determine the general direction from which this haunting melody is coming, leading them to jump to every point of the compass to find it.

Today's youth are addicts through and through. They seem to constantly seek the next hit, the next high - whatever their "drug" of choice. And like an addict, what did it for them last time doesn't offer the same thrill this time, and so they seek after more. This is why there is so much excess and dissolution in today's youth culture. It is why celebrities are worshiped and wealth & fame are considered the highest calling. (Maybe joy is found in money and being loved by countless fans?) It is why sex and debauchery reign supreme. (Maybe joy will be found in sleeping with that hot guy/girl, by being the object of attention, by throwing myself into "love"?) It is why drugs are used so casually and yet so feverishly. (Maybe joy will be found in that high?) It is why the neverending cycle of consumption only spins faster and faster. (Maybe joy will be found in having the latest thing, in having better style than other people, in being the trend-setter?)

Even now, I am hesitant to use the word "joy" for this essay because it has become trite. People will take on look at the word "joy" and dismiss what I'm writing as, perhaps, an emotional appeal. Or worse, as a religious one. Thankfully, though, I think so many of today's youth, and hopefully the editors of Vanity Fair, are so divorced from any real spiritual heritage that they will likely not link "joy" with faith and therefore will not dismiss it as quickly.

Pray tell, what is a "hoosier"?

So we've successfully made it to Fort Wayne and unloaded the van. We've dropped the price on the house $2000 in hopes it will move things along and I got registered for school this morning. Which was an interesting experience. The school is a community college, formerly a "state college" - a distinction that is lost on me, I must say - and offers a pretty wide range of classes, from nursing (which I am pursuing) to business & accounting and a healthy host of industrial programs. I think after having gone to a 4 year school, I have utterly taken for granted the fact that most folks don't go to college and many really aren't cut out for higher education at all. I had to sit through a 30 minute advising orientation and from the near baby-talk level of instruction coming from the front of the room, I had some doubts about my choice of schools. Thankfully, though, my wife was told the nursing program is actually quite competitive while interviewing for an admissions position at another (and apparently rival) school. That school apparently gets a lot of the dropouts from my school - I felt marginally better.

I am hoping to get past this transitional period rather quickly and move into blogging about some actual, real-life stuff; like our first try at an Orthodox church here. I emailed the priests from the 2 churches we're considering - St Nicholas - OCA and St John Chrysostom - Antiochian. I was hoping to try the Antiochian church first, but the email got sent back to me as undeliverable. I tried another address on the site, but haven't heard anything back yet. The priest from the other church, though, immediately sent me a rather lengthy reply answering all of my questions and providing lots of information. Plus, while lost in the freakish thunderstorm we got yesterday, I drove right by St Nick's and it is very close to my school and to my in-law's house (where we're staying for the time being), so St Nick's it is. We still may head over to St John's at some point, though.

The wife and I got into a conversation on the drive out about the way Orthodox views people not yet accepted into the church and it was something I really wan't sure about. How would the Orthodox church view those who had converted, ie, repented, turned to Christ and declared their desire to join the church, but who die while still catechumens? Assume they've come from a pagan/irreligious background and were never baptized - are they in heaven/hell/limbo? And what about those who were baptized but not chrismated - what would their status be?

Template change

Been blogging for over a year and I finally got around to chaning the template! And now that I've found a free image-hosting service (yes, I know they've been around for a very long time - I just never bothered to check into it until now), I might actually post a few pictures now and then.

One word of advice to blogger - move the "clear edits" button to an entirely different location on the template editor screen; heck if I didn't accidentally click that a couple of times, eliciting more than a few grumbled curses.

Serbs & Palestinians

Adam over at Pomomusings has spent the last several weeks in Palestine as part of an Encounter team (not sure what organization they are affiliated with). He has blogged on his summer experience here. I posted on this about a month ago, and lamented the one-sidedness of his views. This trend has continued, which is readily apparent from a scanning of his blog - though I do recommend Meeting With a Zionist for a particularly good presentation of the bias.

Normally, this kind of unbalance raises my ire because it smacks of intellectual dishonesty. If one cannot even try to appreciate the other side of the story, to see both sides in tension with each other and neither as perfect, then I cannot help but feel such ignorance is either intentional or due to some actual defect in the other person's mind. What I've come to realize, though, is that I have done the same thing in my past. I have shaken off the stigma the world has attached to a group and replaced it with my own rosy gloss after getting to know "them." I did it with the Serbs.

While serving in Bosnia, my group operated entirely within the Serb Republic and though we met with Croats and Bosnian Muslaims as well, our main dealings were with Serbs. My interpreter was a Serb. The people who worked on our base were Serbs. The people who owned and worked at our favorite restaurants were Serbs. We were surrounded by Serbs and I fell in love with them as a people. Their plight in post-war Bosnia is horrific - little or no international aid goes to Serb areas while Croat/Muslim areas are thick with it; displaced Croats & Muslims are returning to Serb areas and kicking Serb squatters out of their homes, but many Serbs are still not able to return to their homes in the Federation. Serbs are consistently vilified in the international press, as evidenced by recently discovered tapes of some of the atrocities that were committed in Srebrenica by Serb forces.

And that's the thing: Serbs really did these things. Serbs really did siege Sarajevo, they really did murder thousands in Srebrenica and elsewhere, they really did start the war. But I had a hard time dealing with that because I could not reconcile the kind, welcoming people who surrounded me with those events. They did not fit. Undoubtedly, many of them did not actively participate in the war, never picking up a weapon or directly contributing to the violence in any way. However, many Serbs deny that atrocities occurred and turned (and continue to turn) a blind eye to any evidence. They are, in essence, Holocaust deniers. It was easy, though, to forget this fact, to forget that the people with whom I interacted every day largely regarded Mladic and Karadzic as falsely accused patriots if not outright heroes. It was easy to think of the people around me as innocent and that these horrible crimes had been committed by "other people" or people who weren't really Serb. The picture of the people I met everyday was too far removed from the butchery and barbarity that marked the Bosnian war. But no - they were Serbs and Serbs had committed these crimes. I cannot deny this. I cannot deny that many Serbs felt and continue to feel as if the war was justified and do not believe such things happened. I cannot deny the victims their pain, nor the Serbs their aggression.

I think, in a way, that I am a Serb at heart. I was there when I was young enough to be formed by the experience, to be formed by the people who defined it for me. Thankfully, though, I have not been dominated by it. I can look and see the beauty and dignity of the Serbian people, as well as the festering sore of ethnic hatred & conflict. I can see both the good and the bad, but it is a view only gained by time and doing the painful work of scrutinizing that which I love. I can only hope that Adam will be able to do the same for his experience with Palestinians, and that we as Americans, will be able to do it with our own country. In this time of war and terror, it is too easy by far to fall into the Serbian pattern of denying our own failings and trumpeting our virtues instead.

House

Still nothing has popped on the house. We've had a couple of parties express significant interest, both bringing their respective parents back for a second look but no offers thus far. We're getting a little anxious, but have decided to go ahead and move to Fort Wayne even if the house has not sold yet. My wife gave her 2 weeks on Wednesday, so we'll be heading out in about a week and a half. We're hoping and praying the house will sell by then, but we'll be able to move in with her parents so (once we find jobs) we should be able to maintain the payment without too much trouble. For those of you nothing the record heat-wave sweeping through the Mid-West, know that I spent all day Thursday, Friday and Saturday, and a goodly portion of Sunday morning, engaged in painting the front & back of the house, as well as the trim, and taking care of the lawn, so yes, I can attest that it was indeed quite toasty outside. Well, that's actually not accurate - toast is dry and this was more like going through the hot-wax setting in a car wash. Or so I would assume, having never experienced a car wash on my person.

Please keep praying for the sale, for our move & finding jobs and our spirits during this time.

Exposition of the Faith

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)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.