Dumb Up, Brother

Lately I've been trying to limit my habit of reading and learning about theology and instead just praying and trying to be who God wants me to be. Too much time is wasted and way too much conflict arises out of arguing over points that, in the end, don't mean a damn if you aren't living as a Christ-follower. So I've been skimming or skipping most long, involved theological discussions and concentrating on people who "just do it", and trying to "just do it" myself. Michael Spencer does a splendid job of saying this better than I can. Check it out.

Laugh with me

Lately there's been a lot of furor over various intra-faith satires about Christians - what's funny, what's spiteful, whether satire can even be "Christian" at all. I let most of it wash over me. I am willing to decide on my own what's hurtful, what's wry and what's truly funny, and won't wade in on the debate. For the record, I think humor has a place in our hearts as Christians, and that we shouldn't all be the dour Puritans most non-believers make us out to be. As the movie "Dogma" says:

"You don't celebrate your faith, you mourn it."

I do not believe God gave us a sense of humor to bury it! When times are good, He wants us to enjoy ourselves and be able to laugh. When times are bad, maybe He wants us to lift our spirits with a little laughter, too.

There's a saying (I am not going to bother looking up) that all humor is based on someone's pain - either your own or someone else's. If you analyze it, it's true. Some humor can be hurtful if it takes joy in the mishaps of others. But often a joke is based on self-deprecation (part of a humble heart, after all) or the self-recognition in the "pain" of some fictional third party ("That could be me!") In those senses I think humor and satire can be a powerful tool for helping us let our guards down, not be so self-important and ultimately even teach us something about ourselves.

So on that note, I've recently stumbled across LarkNews, a sort of "The Onion" for/toward Christians, and found it to be quite funny, but also having quite a good message. I am sure some think it's the site of the Anti-Christ (which, I've noted, is somewhat the substitute for Hitler in terms of Godwin's Law on Christian blogs). For an example of a parable I think we can all learn from, here's an article (quoted in full) from a few year's back:

Homeless man the most excited person in Ohio church

CINCINNATI — It's common on Sunday morning to see Lenny Bovrach, 39, whooping and praising God with abandon on the front row of Glocester Presbyterian Church on Maple St.

But the rest of the congregation is a little wary of their newest member.

Bovrach, homeless for the past 14 years, has slept in the doorway of a nearby business for longer than he can remember, and recently started attending church out of boredom. One afternoon he met with pastor Bill Hunter and they discussed the gospel.

"It seemed to take," says Hunter. "He got really excited, started crying, hugged me, then read the entire Bible that week. He's got time to do that."

Now Bovrach is "easily the most excited person in the church," despite not having a job or a home.

"This is what life's about!" Bovrach says, turning and shouting to the rest of the congregation with characteristic enthusiasm one Sunday morning. As usual, they watch him with some reservation and a few faint smiles. During the sermon he often says "Amen!" and "Go, pastor Bill!" Sometimes he turns and says, "Is anybody hearing this?" to his fellow parishioners.

"The kids were scared of him at first," says one mother of three. "Now they kind of like him. I guess he brings a spark."

Bovrach, who roams the town with a Bible and tracts and calls himself a street evangelist, says he can't understand why other people aren't as excited as he is.

"It's weird that I'm the happiest guy here, with all my problems," he says. "But like the song says, I've got the joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart."

Anyone think that's mean-spirited? I don't! I think it's a valuable lesson.

In the same vein of gentle self-parody, I am not a big fan of "cool" Christian t-shirts. If we aren't supposed to have the fish symbol on our cars, then what makes us think a t-shirt's going to cause any conversions (or even conversations), either? Instead, it is what economists call "signaling", a way to show "I'm in the club" and either you're not, or you also are because you have a cool God t-shirt, too. So for a bit of shake-it-up parody I ordered the following two t-shirts for Leslie and I to wear to our cool-Christian-t-shirt-full contemporary services at church. The first one was already a big hit. The second hasn't debuted yet.




For lots of other LarkNews shirts you probably will be the first to show up in at church, see here.

As Reverend Dan sez, "Peace out".

Devoted after all

For the longest time I've thought about daily devotional reading, but every time I've tried I have fallen off the effort pretty quickly. Usually it comes down to not having the discipline (or schedule) to pick a specific time of day to just do it. And yet I've wanted to do it - I think there's value in the practice.

Today it hit me I actually have been doing it, thanks to the miracle of RSS feeds. I don't count every religious blog I read (35!) as devotional reading - some are just personal reflections of people I've grown to like and admire, some tend to be too long (not to say "windy" ;-) to fit into the "devotional" category (and to be honest, sometimes I skip over the really long tracts - not that they're not interesting but simply because I have other things to do that day). But one blog in particular hit me today as really filling the devotional reading gap in my life, and that is Greg Laughery's Living Spirituality. His posts tend to be short, to the point, and perfect for that bit of quiet devotional thought and prayer. While reading these two today, it hit me that without me trying, the Spirit has led me to devotional reading through Greg's blog. So thanks, Spirit! And thanks, Greg! (And thanks to the creators of RSS, who allow me to be reminded as opposed to having to remember :-).

Are there any blogs that fill a devotional reading role in your life?

Oh, a wise guy, are ya?

I get a newsletter every quarter from St. Augustine's House, a small monastery in Oxford, Michigan. One of these days I want to go there for a retreat. They follow the Rule of St. Benedict, but are "affiliated with the Lutheran tradition" (go figure). Anyway, there's always a reflection/essay by Father Richard Herbel that opens the newsletter, and I really liked this month's, on the difference between intelligence, which we moderns value, versus wisdom, which God values. Following are some excerpts, but go read the whole thing.

To my knowledge the Holy Scriptures do not think of intelligence as innate brain power. The concept the Scriptures use is wisdom is not so much something we are born with as something we are to seek. It is to be found in revelation and in the experiences of life. The organ of the body with which it is associated is the heart and not the brain. This does not make sense in our current understanding, but as an organ located centrally in the body it does signal for us that wisdom is a broader concept than quick thinking. It implies awareness of the breadth and depth of human existence and being able to respond appropriately in life’s different circumstances. It includes practical ability and skill, and it does not look down on what is earthly and everyday. Wisdom can be exercised in every occupation of life: eating and drinking, friendship, politics, marriage and raising children, agriculture, construction, moderation and good judgment, investment and trade, and sound sleep.

We often equate intelligence with being creative or original; behavior that is independent, non-conformist, even rebellious is considered smart. But wisdom as it is presented in the Scriptures points in the opposite direction. The wise man treasures tradition, respects the elders, and studies the ancient writings. Wisdom is time honored and not novel. Like truth it does not need to be reinvented by clever minds. It is a grace, a ready gift to be humbly received by hearts that are open and receptive.

This means that obtaining wisdom is far more democratic and egalitarian than the way we usually rank intellectual ability. Even the “simple” are called to the table of wisdom and have there an equal opportunity. We are not all bright enough to think up something new and outstanding, but we all alike can be silent and learn to listen and to follow.

...

There is also a necessary moral component to wisdom. Intelligence by itself can be somewhat ambiguous. Out of context we do not know if calling a person clever or smart is a compliment or not. Intellectual prowess when not joined to a good will and restrained by an informed conscience can be a terrible thing. The “mad scientist” is the representation of this in many stories; however it is
in actual history that we have the most horrifying examples of individuals who have set their wonderful minds to evil purposes. There is a sort of anti-wisdom that St. James describes as “earthly, unspiritual, devilish.” He contrasts it with “the wisdom from above” which is “first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainly or insincerity.” These elements make up the most important part of what it means to be wise, and no mind can ever be great or noble without them. Wisdom is to have good sense.

Sat on the park bench like bookends

Last weekend I drove from Jefferson City, MO, to Ellsworth, KS, which, as the saying goes, is not the middle of nowhere, but you can see it from there (to be fair, you can say that about both endpoints of my trip). I drive there once or twice a year to meet my friend Kim to play chess, discuss politics, philosophy, current events and the like, and to see what there is to see in the centralest of central Kansas. Why Ellsworth? Because it is midway between "Jeff City", where I now live, and Denver, where Kim lives and I used to live. When I lived in Colorado we got together monthly for chess nights. Now we split the unpleasantness of each of us driving five to six hours one way and only meet a few times a year. I'd say it takes true friends to do something like that - to go nowhere in particular simply because the other will be there. To both be "put out" equally to meet up and get some good "face time".

I am lucky. I have a lot of good friends. And by that I mean "a lot", "good", and "friends" all exactly. By "a lot" I mean more than one or two - in fact, somewhere closer to ten. By "good" I mean tried and true - each has helped me out multiple times, each has been there when I needed them (and hopefully vice versa). And by "friends", I mean more than mere acquaintances - people who know me for both my good and bad points (of which I have many) and who choose to stay friends with me over decades despite sometimes seeing me at my worst. I am lucky and very rich in this, I know - especially as someone who grew up as a nerdy outsider.

But while hanging with Kim this past weekend, I kept asking him, "What else?", meaning "What else do we need to cover, what are we missing, what do we need to talk about and squeeze in during the 36 hours we're in the same location before we part again for another six to nine months?" And it hit me - I have a lot of friends, but all of them are now remote from me, dispersed by the mobility of modern American life, including my own move back to mid-Missouri in 2000 to be with Leslie.

Realizing what was driving the "What else?" questions made me sad. Because while I am in pretty much daily contact with all my close friends thanks to that miracle that is the Internet, I see most of them very rarely any more. I will work on fixing that by trying to get back to Colorado more often and also to see my friends in other parts of Missouri - some in Kansas City, one down in the "Bootheel", all within two to three hours, all of whom I have neglected over years. But as I age, I realize we can't just count on people always being there. I've had friends, close friends, die in the last five years without me seeing them for quite some time before they died, assuming subconsciously that "we'll all live forever, just like this." But of course, we won't.

Also sobering was the fact that I've made no close friends in Missouri since moving back in 2000. That's odd, actually - I've accumulated friends over the years at a pretty constant pace of one every couple of years or so. Perhaps that slows with age, I dunno. Part of the lag had to do with being on the road for three and a half years. But part has to do with either me changing, or not being in environments where I feel like I can make friends any more. For example, with a few notable exceptions over the last 25 years, I've met most of my friends at work. But I can't imagine becoming close with anyone where I work now - it just isn't that type of environment. It feels very closed off and political and competitive and just...vaguely hostile, in a way. It would be career suicide to really go "shields down" there.

I have a lot of family here and I love being with them, both my folks and Les's family. I think the world of her dad and her two brothers (Les and I have often said the best wedding gift we gave each other were our in-laws). But being with family is different than being with friends, no matter how great you all get along. And being with a brother-in-law is different than hanging with just any random dude, since, for one thing, you can't talk about your marriages quite as freely as you would with a "normal friend". Pity, that. I feel a real kinship with one of Les's brothers, and in different circumstances would want him to be a close friend, and in fact already feel he is - with the limitations being in-laws naturally brings.

But here's the real kicker - I should be making friends at church, right? That's where I should be "fellowshipping". And I really just can't imagine that. I feel closer to some people I've volunteered with for a few hours a week for just over a year now than I do to anyone I've met in church. At church we all just happen to show up for the same show at the same time every week, exchange a few pleasantries, and then go home. As I work on the Web site and now on the human care board, I meet a few more people and interact with them outside of "Church - The Service", but even there I've felt no "spark". There is one person I have felt that connection with, but he's much, much younger than me, and so I don't push that angle - what's a 20-something want with hanging out around a 40-something-with-50-something-looming old fart? He would probably just tell me, "Go play with kids you're own age!" And he'd be right. But the ones that are my age...my, my, my - am I that old(-acting)? Perhaps I am. But I don't feel it on the inside.

I know the real fault lies with me. I just do not feel comfortable being totally myself at church. For one, I can't let rip a swear word. :-) Which I say smiling, but there are sometimes where that's who I am, for better or worse. I can curse like a sailor if the mood strikes or the need arises (sometimes you just need to cuss, ya know? Nothing else quite cuts it in terms of getting what you're trying to express across). So right away, I can't be who I am at church. Also, having seen multiple times the amount of gossip that goes on in an average church, there are aspects of myself and my past I would rather not share with anyone there - at least without building up a bunch of trust first. But how to build that trust when everyone, myself included, is there trying real hard not to be themselves, but to put on a good show for everyone and all pretend we've all already arrived and are in heaven? Instead of being the broken clay vessels I know we all are (well, I am being presumptious - I will just say that I know I am).

I like the people in church Just Fine. They're good people. I like our pastors, too - they're swell. But I've met no one that I feel I can be me with, and that means being able to honestly talk about things both secular (and in a natural manner, not putting on airs or self-censoring) and church-related (which is why I started this blog, and why I still keep my church's name out of it, and my denomination for that matter, although astute readers can probably guess by various allusions I make). And without open sharing there really cannot be friendship. Not real friendship. Not making "tried and true" friends.

So...what exactly does the much-discussed "fellowship" of church mean if it doesn't mean "friendship"? I frankly don't know. I show up every week, greet people by name (working every week to add another person's name to my memory), pass the peace and mean it, sing loud enough to be heard, listen intently to the sermon, take communion, and then...go home. And other than the pastors and people on the human care board, I don't interact with anyone there the rest of the week. I am in more fellowship with the wait staff at our favorite restaurant, where we eat up to three or four times a month, than I am with our "fellow" church members. I know more about their lives than with people I see 52 times a year. Huh. I almost feel like Inigo Montoya when I hear the word "fellowship":

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Ah, well - morose ramblings as I prepare to go to our small, "friendly", contemporary worship service at 5:00. There I will sit, surrounded by people I don't feel I can be friends with, and missing those friends I am rich with, all of whom are hundreds or thousands of miles away. Sigh.

Old friends,
Old friends
Sat on their park bench
Like bookends.
A newspaper blown though the grass
Falls on the round toes
Of the high shoes
Of the old friends.

Old friends,
Winter companions
The old men.
Lost in their overcoats,
Waiting for the sunset.
The sounds of the city
Sifting through trees
Settle like dust
On the shoulders
Of the old friends.

Can you imagine us
Years from today,
Sharing a park bench quietly?
How terribly strange
To be seventy.
Old friends,
Memory brushes the same years
Silently sharing the same fears.
- Simon and Garfunkel, "Old Friends"

Out of context

We are always being told to make sure and consider Bible verses in context, i.e., in the context of their times, who they were being written to, what purpose they were being written for, etc., etc., etc. And in general, I agree. But it's been bugging me lately that often context is used to explain away why this or that Bible passage doesn't apply to the church today. About how a troublesome chapter is "obviously" for the audience current at the time of authoring, and wasn't meant to be taken seriously beyond those times, except perhaps as history.

What bothers me about that is two-fold:

1) Often there are passages that are claimed to be "out of context" for modern times mixed in with passages that are "in context". I don't think it can work that way. This gets back to the picking and choosing of which verses "fit" what we want to believe versus actually taking the Bible to mean what it says it means - a problem I've wrestled with in the past (to the point of wandering away for two decades). This actually really bothers me, how someone can glibly say, "Oh, that's no longer applicable" and then later use something in the same book or chapter to proof text their point without even blinking (or thinking).

2) If the books of the Bible were meant to be contextual and set, amber-like, in a certain period of time, then how/why did they become canonical? In other words, the mere fact that books are in the Bible seems to imply a vetting process centuries, nay, millennia long in which leaders, scholars and even us mere lay people have decided those books continue to have something to teach us, continue to be the inspired Word of God, long after they've lost their "context". Or to say it more accurately, perhaps their context is eternal.

Does anyone else struggle with this, or is it just me?

Heaven

"Heaven" is one of my favorite Talking Heads songs (especially the canonical version off the "Stop Making Sense" movie - Tina Weymouth makes my inner high school dropout bass player persona go "Rowwrrrrr", Austin Powers like :-). But it's SO cynical/jaded/questioning:

Everyone is trying to get to the bar.
The name of the bar, the bar is called heaven.
The band in heaven plays my favorite song.
They play it once again, they play it all night long.

Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.
Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.

There is a party, everyone is there.
Everyone will leave at exactly the same time.
Its hard to imagine that nothing at all
Could be so exciting, and so much fun.

Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.
Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.

When this kiss is over it will start again.
It will not be any different, it will be exactly
The same.
Its hard to imagine that nothing at all
Could be so exciting, could be so much fun.

Heaven is a place where nothing every happens.
Heaven is a place where nothing every happens.
- Talking Heads, "Heaven"

Comments? What is heaven to you?

Guess I'm not that original

You scored as Anselm, Anselm is the outstanding theologian of the medieval period.He sees man's primary problem as having failed to render unto God what we owe him, so God becomes man in Christ and gives God what he is due. You should read 'Cur Deus Homo?' Anselm 100% John Calvin 93% Martin Luther 80% Karl Barth 67% Friedrich Schleiermacher 40% Paul Tillich 33% Augustine 33% Charles Finney 27% Jonathan Edwards 27% Jürgen Moltmann 20% Which theologian are you? created with QuizFarm.com