So if the type of self-denial which Jesus calls for and which Paul attempts to describe is to bring a sense of freedom, what in the world does this mean for someone like me who lives alone? I’ll be honest that I do really try to live and be for others even in the times of my aloneness and my singleness, but it is really easy to either despair when others do not also give of themselves (and therefore making me feel like an unpaid laborer) or to even become self-righteous in my attempts of self-denial. Being alone can make one more prone to loneliness, but it is important to remember that we can also feel lonely while in a crowd, a marriage or a Church setting. So I realized that even though self-denial is meant to be other-oriented, I can still practice and receive the benefits of self-denial when I am alone so that it can tackle my loneliness and hopefully keep me from the edge of despair.
Here is a scenario. I hate doing the dishes. Absolutely hate it! I think that the easy answer in this culture is to say that one day I will be married or live in a communal setting where someone will do the dishes out of love for me. I could say I will do the cooking (which you hate, and I love) and you could do those pesky dishes because you either like it or don’t mind it. I could say that we could do the dishes together and experience the fruit of quality time over something that is menial, exchanging the negativity of something I do not like for something that is life-giving like conversation, presence and co-suffering. Or I could realistically say that I would do the dishes, something I hate, out of love for someone else. I could do that as a means of showing my love by doing something I don’t like or I could do it because I don’t want someone I love to have to do something that I would not want to do myself. All of these things are fine and good in themselves, I do believe, but at the end of the day as a single, living-alone person, the dishes are my responsibility.
Currently my dishes are piled up high in the sink and around the kitchen counter. I have a brilliantly mapped out 2 week plan for cleaning the house on my fridge which many other singles (and not-so-singles) compliment me on. But the reality is that I have never accomplished my brilliant plan! It seems that singleness and living alone gives me the advantage of getting to live solely unto Christ and the Church (not a bad thing at all), but sometimes I still think that it gives me the right to live unto myself in a way that compromises my discipleship. Let me take a step back to say that one of the beautiful advantages of living alone is that if there is a crisis at hand (sickness or death in the family) or something of importance that I need to give my time to (research or volunteering with an organization that builds up the Church and the world) then I do not have to worry about keeping the house clean or even functioning for that matter in way that a home with other people may need. But the point that I am trying to make here is that sometimes we can let the freedom of being responsible only to ourselves be a means to keep us from learning to follow Jesus by diminishing our egos.
Granted I know that sometimes the marriage partnership and even communal living can provide certain benefits and various meeting-of-needs that come with mutual submission and mutual self-denial. I also know that the pain of the single (especially when friends are married and find most of their fulfillment in that relationship, other friendships and duties) is the pain of feeling worn out, giving of yourself all day with no one besides God to pour into you while the rest of the world seems to get the fulfillment of God and others. When we get home, we feel justified in saying, “now it’s time for ‘me.’ I don’t want to go home and do the dishes—and I don’t have to because not doing it affects no one else but me.”
If the road of discipleship is self-denial—especially a self-denial oriented toward others—I am obligated to practicing this virtue not only toward others, but to practice it in a way that orients me toward Jesus. I don’t think that necessarily means I should get off my rear and announce to the world that “I am doing my dishes for Jesus,” that just sounds silly and over-religious. But I do think that there may be something to learning self-control as a fruit of the Spirit. What if I were to catch myself when my mind says, “I don’t want to do that.” Or what if I was able to let Jesus save me from the reality of despair in a world of isolation (even when the Church plays into that reality) by saying “Instead of comparing myself with others, I will not grow weary in doing good, I will not grow weary in following Jesus. Rather, I will do those dishes for the very reason I don’t want to do them—because my self-absorbed nature says that I don’t want to do it.” I think that that is a very different reason than saying that I will “pick myself up by my boot straps and do it,” different than “I’m a strong, confident woman who can take care of myself, thank you very much,” and different from saying “I’m an uber-responsible android who believes in doing things perfectly and I will keep myself busy to avoid feeling the depths of my humanity” This is about self-control and dying to the self.
I’m going to try this over the next few weeks. Of course my gut instinct is to always go hard-core immediately, but I think I’m going to start by doing one task a day that I don’t want to do. It might be doing the dishes. It might be cleaning the litter box. It might be writing an email that I fear writing for some reason. It might be turning off the television. It might be heading to the library to get some work done. It might mean taking the time to cook a healthy meal rather than an adequate one. But I’m going to try it…recognizing when there is something that I don’t want to do (which is good for me) and doing it as a means of expressing allegiance to Christ and denial of self.
**Self-denial doesn’t mean not having an identity. If self-denial is the way of discipleship not only because Jesus and Paul said so, but that Jesus also was the embodiment of this virtue (Philippians 2) then it involves acknowledging what you are giving up and what pains you are taking on. It is knowing how much we love a Snickers bar that brings pain when we give it up. It is someone else knowing how much we love that Snickers bar and therefore give it up for someone else to have and to enjoy which communicates our love for that person. This is the beauty of self-denial. I think my current attitude is finding that we can practice self-denial even when others are not around to receive the benefits. I can practice self-denial in a way that will pave the way for better relationships, a better view of myself (because I am not letting my ego get the best of me…and my chores will be done and my home will be prepared when someone wants to come over and is in need of love or if they want to come and love and enjoy me), and ultimately a cleaner heart that can love God better.
***Also, if my gut reaction is to alienate myself from others because of the stench of their self-absorbtion, tackling my own ego problems can be helpful for me. 1) Taking the log out of my own eye first in accordance to Scripture 2) Loving the sinner, hating the sin 3) Re-establishing relationships 4) Gaining humility by recognizing that I do the very things I condemn others for
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
Independence Day vs. Self-Denial
In the past few weeks, I have poured over issues of the self. I watched documentaries, I read books, I analyzed ethical issues, pondered my own “self” and attempted to find some help from the Scriptures. Now keep in mind that I did not turn over every rock and every stone, but I think I have come to a few conclusions. Yes, as Americans, we have an almost narcissistic view of the self and our discussions of ethics and politics often center on individual rights, thoughts, feelings, ideologies, etc. And as American Christians, we are often no different, assuming that our status as members of a heavenly Kingdom gives us entitlement in various areas. And perhaps the most alarming way in which we argue for ourselves is saying that “we are free in Christ.”
Yesterday, the 4th of July, the United Methodist Church lectionary landed us on Luke 10 and Galatians 6:7-16. Now the passage in Luke concerned Jesus sending out the seventy with a harsh word about how to do “ministry.” The seventy are told to take nothing with them on their journey and to rely on other people to provide for their basic needs. Jesus said that “the laborer” or those sent out “deserved to be paid” for their efforts but his instructions implied that the disciples would both be rejected by some (perhaps those they would expect to provide for them) and accepted and provided for by others (perhaps those they would not expect to provide for them). It demands a roller coaster experience for the ego of being rejected and received (even for our basic needs).
The Galatians passage seemed to give much comfort to those who would easily “become weary in doing good.” I can only imagine that the discipleship roller coaster would bring about such a feeling that could lead to despair and giving up of doing, practicing and being good. But Paul says to the Galatians to not grow weary because there is a real time where the fruit of our labors will appear. And that seems to assume that those who reaped bad things will eventually get their due as well. I wondered what provoked Paul’s words here and I was also struck by the appearance of the word “freedom” throughout the letter—a popular word to notice on Independence Day. When I scrolled backwards from my place in the lectionary passage, I came across Galatians 5:13, which read very differently to me than it had before.
"For you were called to freedom, brethern; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another"
It seems that “our freedom” is not something that is really meant for ourselves, but it is supposed to be oriented toward another. I think this is an extremely foreign concept for American Christians given the suppositions that I highlighted above. It causes one to pause and think, “you mean, I’m not free for myself?” Or perhaps it makes us respond by saying, “I thought we were freed from the law by grace so that we would not have to do things anymore?” I think the answer is a definite “yes” with Paul when he says “It was for freedom that Christ set us free” (Gal 5:1a) but our freedom may not look how we want it to be. I think part of what we forget is that Christ is coming to set us free from ourselves. Our freedom, according to Galatians 5:13 is opposed to the self, the flesh or the old sin-nature which was a preoccupation of self.
Yesterday, the 4th of July, the United Methodist Church lectionary landed us on Luke 10 and Galatians 6:7-16. Now the passage in Luke concerned Jesus sending out the seventy with a harsh word about how to do “ministry.” The seventy are told to take nothing with them on their journey and to rely on other people to provide for their basic needs. Jesus said that “the laborer” or those sent out “deserved to be paid” for their efforts but his instructions implied that the disciples would both be rejected by some (perhaps those they would expect to provide for them) and accepted and provided for by others (perhaps those they would not expect to provide for them). It demands a roller coaster experience for the ego of being rejected and received (even for our basic needs).
The Galatians passage seemed to give much comfort to those who would easily “become weary in doing good.” I can only imagine that the discipleship roller coaster would bring about such a feeling that could lead to despair and giving up of doing, practicing and being good. But Paul says to the Galatians to not grow weary because there is a real time where the fruit of our labors will appear. And that seems to assume that those who reaped bad things will eventually get their due as well. I wondered what provoked Paul’s words here and I was also struck by the appearance of the word “freedom” throughout the letter—a popular word to notice on Independence Day. When I scrolled backwards from my place in the lectionary passage, I came across Galatians 5:13, which read very differently to me than it had before.
"For you were called to freedom, brethern; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another"
It seems that “our freedom” is not something that is really meant for ourselves, but it is supposed to be oriented toward another. I think this is an extremely foreign concept for American Christians given the suppositions that I highlighted above. It causes one to pause and think, “you mean, I’m not free for myself?” Or perhaps it makes us respond by saying, “I thought we were freed from the law by grace so that we would not have to do things anymore?” I think the answer is a definite “yes” with Paul when he says “It was for freedom that Christ set us free” (Gal 5:1a) but our freedom may not look how we want it to be. I think part of what we forget is that Christ is coming to set us free from ourselves. Our freedom, according to Galatians 5:13 is opposed to the self, the flesh or the old sin-nature which was a preoccupation of self.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Reflections on my Month of Documentaries
1. Supersize Me
After two years of trying to push through a thyroid disorder, I have been amazed at the importance of the relationship between food, our bodies and God. As Dr. Wirzba says, eating reminds us that we are still creatures, reliant on God and God's creation. Supersize Me shows the underside of what eating the wrong things can do to you. And to make things even worse, marketing plays a role in skewing information and leading us off course into territory that has us degrade our bodies.
2. The Century of Self (BBC)
I highly recommend this one. It comes in 4 parts.
The first section focuses on Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud and the founder of "Public Relations." Not long after Freud had compiled and sythesized all of his thoughts and ideas on the power of the unconcious, underlying animalistic desires, and a certain depravity of humanity that is a danger to society, Bernays brought those ideas to American business. I can almost see it happening so innocently, an appopriation of knowledge that is dangerous. Ironically, I think that the Church had probably tapped into some of that for years. Anyway, Bernays used this information to get people to buy into various ideas. One of these ideas was consumption. Bernays was already "in bed" with business so to speak, so he used psychology to get folks to buy more products. Part of the idea behind filling folks with products is that the products could represent their desires and the people could assume that they were happy. Meanwhile, folks wouldn't worry about things like democracy if they were chasing "stuff" or thought that "stuff" made them happy. Keep in mind that Bernays was originally was in charge of "propaganda" but he changed the name to "public relations" because it had been closely associated with Nazi Germany. Yet again, when you think about it, this is the same information that the Bible has been telling us for a while: idolatry, love of money, treasures on heaven vs. treasures on earth, etc.
Part 2 focuses on Freud's daughter, Anna, as she attempts to carry on her father's work. While Freud seemed to be very pessimistic about society, Bernays saw the information as something to exploit (to become incredibly wealthy and politically powerful), Anna honed in on child psychology and pragmatically believed that society could shape us in such as way as to tame our inner badness. Her teachings reflect the leave-it-to-beaver era of the 1950s and which slowly began to be questioned throughout the 60s and 70s. By those later periods, psychologists were beginning to advocate letting the devil out of you rather than trying to repress it. While this is a fascinating shift, I wanted the BBC to follow that lead to how we deal with ideas about our inner badness, but it didnt' go there. However, they made a shift toward explaining that whoever you are once you release all of your inner badness and society's pressures, then you both arrive at the real self or you can be so stripped of self that you can create a new self. Either trajectory resulted in people who now sought out a certain means of self-expression, a need which advertising would eventually pick up on. Part 3 in particular goes in depth of how business could now target not just a general audience, but could focus in on particular subsets "the prep," "the hippie," "the jock" and people who buy stuff to fit their lifestyle as a means of self-expression. Yet again, advertising, marketing and consumption would be able to manipulate the inner workings of the human desire--in this case to be oneself. I think these two segments should speak to the Church in how we describe the self. The only way I can pull my head around it is using the language of the old and new self as described by the apostle Paul. The new self does bring freedom and the old has to be stripped away. I think the Church might actually have a lot to say about this.
I was not as impressed with Part 4. It centers on President Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair as examples of how the techniques that were born in the marriage of business and psychology come to politics. The previous section showed that Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were able to win elections with assertions of the individual which appealed to the new understanding of the self. In the case of the rise of the New Left, both Clinton and Blair used focus groups, polls, etc. to pander to swing voters in attempt to always please the people. Although the political focus seems to be a offswing from the previous three sections premises about business, self and consumption, a certain truth rises at the end. If you try to pander to the public, then you are always at the mercy of the sway of people's opinions and desires. The individual reigns while a sense of community is demolished.
Although this documentary was made in 2002, I almost felt that Part 4 could have easily gone into the impact that "the self" has had in Church culture. All I could think about was the algining of the Christian Right with George Bush and a focus on "personal relationship with Jesus Christ," making a "decision" for Jesus, arguments concerning the individual's right to choose (and even how all of that gets into the culture wars). I'm not articulating it very well, but there is so much that we can talk about as far as the Church and the individual goes. Unfortunately today, the easiest consumers, most easily decieved consumers are Christians. Sell a piece of decorative wood with a Scripture on it, a Christian will buy it. Sell a knock-off t-shirt from a popular advertisement and substitute the logo with "Jesus," a "conservative" Christian will buy it. Sell a t-shirt that says something about AIDS, poverty, Africa with a small percentage of the proceeds going to those causes, then a "liberal" Christian will probably buy it. Why else do you think Bono chose to base the Product Red campaign on corporations? I heard him in an interview say that the market has become the way that people excersie their democracy (and I wonder if this is sometimes how we attempt to exercise our faith). Consumption has totally taken over the Church. I no longer feel comfortable in most evangelical Churches, not just because of politics or on certain hermeneutics, but because everyone dresses so nice it makes it seem like you gotta be rich to be a Christian--or at least stylish.
To be continued.
After two years of trying to push through a thyroid disorder, I have been amazed at the importance of the relationship between food, our bodies and God. As Dr. Wirzba says, eating reminds us that we are still creatures, reliant on God and God's creation. Supersize Me shows the underside of what eating the wrong things can do to you. And to make things even worse, marketing plays a role in skewing information and leading us off course into territory that has us degrade our bodies.
2. The Century of Self (BBC)
I highly recommend this one. It comes in 4 parts.
The first section focuses on Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud and the founder of "Public Relations." Not long after Freud had compiled and sythesized all of his thoughts and ideas on the power of the unconcious, underlying animalistic desires, and a certain depravity of humanity that is a danger to society, Bernays brought those ideas to American business. I can almost see it happening so innocently, an appopriation of knowledge that is dangerous. Ironically, I think that the Church had probably tapped into some of that for years. Anyway, Bernays used this information to get people to buy into various ideas. One of these ideas was consumption. Bernays was already "in bed" with business so to speak, so he used psychology to get folks to buy more products. Part of the idea behind filling folks with products is that the products could represent their desires and the people could assume that they were happy. Meanwhile, folks wouldn't worry about things like democracy if they were chasing "stuff" or thought that "stuff" made them happy. Keep in mind that Bernays was originally was in charge of "propaganda" but he changed the name to "public relations" because it had been closely associated with Nazi Germany. Yet again, when you think about it, this is the same information that the Bible has been telling us for a while: idolatry, love of money, treasures on heaven vs. treasures on earth, etc.
Part 2 focuses on Freud's daughter, Anna, as she attempts to carry on her father's work. While Freud seemed to be very pessimistic about society, Bernays saw the information as something to exploit (to become incredibly wealthy and politically powerful), Anna honed in on child psychology and pragmatically believed that society could shape us in such as way as to tame our inner badness. Her teachings reflect the leave-it-to-beaver era of the 1950s and which slowly began to be questioned throughout the 60s and 70s. By those later periods, psychologists were beginning to advocate letting the devil out of you rather than trying to repress it. While this is a fascinating shift, I wanted the BBC to follow that lead to how we deal with ideas about our inner badness, but it didnt' go there. However, they made a shift toward explaining that whoever you are once you release all of your inner badness and society's pressures, then you both arrive at the real self or you can be so stripped of self that you can create a new self. Either trajectory resulted in people who now sought out a certain means of self-expression, a need which advertising would eventually pick up on. Part 3 in particular goes in depth of how business could now target not just a general audience, but could focus in on particular subsets "the prep," "the hippie," "the jock" and people who buy stuff to fit their lifestyle as a means of self-expression. Yet again, advertising, marketing and consumption would be able to manipulate the inner workings of the human desire--in this case to be oneself. I think these two segments should speak to the Church in how we describe the self. The only way I can pull my head around it is using the language of the old and new self as described by the apostle Paul. The new self does bring freedom and the old has to be stripped away. I think the Church might actually have a lot to say about this.
I was not as impressed with Part 4. It centers on President Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair as examples of how the techniques that were born in the marriage of business and psychology come to politics. The previous section showed that Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were able to win elections with assertions of the individual which appealed to the new understanding of the self. In the case of the rise of the New Left, both Clinton and Blair used focus groups, polls, etc. to pander to swing voters in attempt to always please the people. Although the political focus seems to be a offswing from the previous three sections premises about business, self and consumption, a certain truth rises at the end. If you try to pander to the public, then you are always at the mercy of the sway of people's opinions and desires. The individual reigns while a sense of community is demolished.
Although this documentary was made in 2002, I almost felt that Part 4 could have easily gone into the impact that "the self" has had in Church culture. All I could think about was the algining of the Christian Right with George Bush and a focus on "personal relationship with Jesus Christ," making a "decision" for Jesus, arguments concerning the individual's right to choose (and even how all of that gets into the culture wars). I'm not articulating it very well, but there is so much that we can talk about as far as the Church and the individual goes. Unfortunately today, the easiest consumers, most easily decieved consumers are Christians. Sell a piece of decorative wood with a Scripture on it, a Christian will buy it. Sell a knock-off t-shirt from a popular advertisement and substitute the logo with "Jesus," a "conservative" Christian will buy it. Sell a t-shirt that says something about AIDS, poverty, Africa with a small percentage of the proceeds going to those causes, then a "liberal" Christian will probably buy it. Why else do you think Bono chose to base the Product Red campaign on corporations? I heard him in an interview say that the market has become the way that people excersie their democracy (and I wonder if this is sometimes how we attempt to exercise our faith). Consumption has totally taken over the Church. I no longer feel comfortable in most evangelical Churches, not just because of politics or on certain hermeneutics, but because everyone dresses so nice it makes it seem like you gotta be rich to be a Christian--or at least stylish.
To be continued.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Why the Church has a Dating Crisis
What can be more American than dating? Boy likes girl. Girl flirts with boy. Boy gets the nerve to ask out girl. Girl says yes. Boy wants to kiss the girl. Girl wants it to be like a fairytale. Remember, it is first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes their spawn in a baby carriage. And of course, they will live happily ever after. We laugh at this story, but I think deep down we believe it. But I’m not sure if the Church should be believing this story.
What kind of stories does the Church believe in? What do we believe about people? I think we enter a danger zone when we act as if the destiny of Church members is to get married. I am not saying that marriage is not good. Surely it is good! Jesus may have been single, but he retained the rigor of marital fidelity. Paul too was single and he promoted singleness first and foremost while also building up marriage. And clearly, Genesis tells us that leaving and cleaving with a spouse is good. But I’m not sure if getting married, having 2.3 kids, a well-paying job and a house in the suburbs is one of the promises that God gives to us.
God gives us many promises. I, the Lord your God, will never leave you and will never forsake you. I will remove your sin as far as the east is from the west. I will give you eternal life. I will send you the Holy Spirit. I will make you, as a member of my Church, my bride. These promises are good. These promises are eternal. But the promise that is made in marriage is to death do us part. We will always have God, therefore our primary relationship is the one we have with God. And although our faith is not contingent on our keeping of God’s commands, the law, but Jesus summarized the commandments as loving God and loving neighbor. These two things we can do without being married. So this is the goal, not marriage, though marriage may be one aspect of living out the Great Commandment.
Instead of asking what marriage is, I think we have to start the conversation with what we believe about God and what we believe about humanity. Perhaps a good place to start is to insert a statement of faith, the most broadly accepted among Christians being the Apostle’s Creed. This is a good starting point for understanding what we as the Church believe about God. As far as humanity goes, we find that we are messy. We are made in the image of God, We are sinners, We are Saints and are becoming Saints. We are living in the in-between of Jesus coming to save us and the Kingdom which is coming on earth and already is in heaven. This in-between stuff is just messy.
I’ve made the claim that the Church has a dating crisis, and here is why. I would suggest that we don’t love God or our neighbors very well in the ways in which we date. Too often we give baggage to one another in ways that does not build up the Church. Forgiveness, redemption and transformation builds up the Church, but too often I think that we say that those words are too “heavy” for the casualness of our culture’s dating habits.
Here is one real-life scenario:
By the time Elinor entered the evangelical dating culture, she had waited to date, assuming that Christian dating meant that one had eyes on marriage and taking things slow. So she dated Isaac. Isaac had already dated Melody. When she first got to school, she had a crush on Evan who at the time was dating Melody. Melody eventually married Frank who was a Senior member of their college fellowship. Frank had dated Mary, another Senior, two times. Mary was best friends with Scott, who tried to date Elinor once things didn’t work out with Isaac. Scott was also friends with Frank and Evan. Scott made Elinor think he wanted to marry her, but snuck away and married Heather. Scott and Heather eventually showed up to be small group leaders at a Conference, where Mary was in charge of setting up small groups. Out of the awkwardness, Elinor ended up hanging out with Celia, Scott’s ex-girlfriend, who she had met at the Conference the year before when she still thought he wanted to marry her. Elinor and Celia never knew or spoke about their Scott connection. Meanwhile at the same conference, Elinor’s friend Anne was dating Ken, who she at one point in time also had a crush on. Ken broke up with Anne the night before Elinor and Anne headed on a mission trip that included Isaac, who still had not really resolved things with Elinor. Meanwhile, Mary started dating her eventual husband Matthew, who was best friends and co-workers with Michael. Elinor had had a crush on Michael since the year before, so she thought about asking Anne to hook her up with Michael as Anne’s job transfer made her Michael’s co-worker. A few months later, Michael and Anne start dating and yes, eventually married. And to make it all that much more bizarre, they were all part of the same Christian fellowship group.
Such a scenario looks more like a who-dunnit puzzle than the Church. Although there are safeguards about physical boundaries in dating in that subculture, dating creates a trainwreck for those relationships. And it seems that relationships, how we treat our neighbors, is what is important to God. I think it is more than just “not having sex.” It is about loving our neighbors. I’m not sure how to quell the relational awkwardness that American-style dating can have for the Church, but I think it is definitely worth thinking about the effect it has on the Church and how it narrates what we believe.
What kind of stories does the Church believe in? What do we believe about people? I think we enter a danger zone when we act as if the destiny of Church members is to get married. I am not saying that marriage is not good. Surely it is good! Jesus may have been single, but he retained the rigor of marital fidelity. Paul too was single and he promoted singleness first and foremost while also building up marriage. And clearly, Genesis tells us that leaving and cleaving with a spouse is good. But I’m not sure if getting married, having 2.3 kids, a well-paying job and a house in the suburbs is one of the promises that God gives to us.
God gives us many promises. I, the Lord your God, will never leave you and will never forsake you. I will remove your sin as far as the east is from the west. I will give you eternal life. I will send you the Holy Spirit. I will make you, as a member of my Church, my bride. These promises are good. These promises are eternal. But the promise that is made in marriage is to death do us part. We will always have God, therefore our primary relationship is the one we have with God. And although our faith is not contingent on our keeping of God’s commands, the law, but Jesus summarized the commandments as loving God and loving neighbor. These two things we can do without being married. So this is the goal, not marriage, though marriage may be one aspect of living out the Great Commandment.
Instead of asking what marriage is, I think we have to start the conversation with what we believe about God and what we believe about humanity. Perhaps a good place to start is to insert a statement of faith, the most broadly accepted among Christians being the Apostle’s Creed. This is a good starting point for understanding what we as the Church believe about God. As far as humanity goes, we find that we are messy. We are made in the image of God, We are sinners, We are Saints and are becoming Saints. We are living in the in-between of Jesus coming to save us and the Kingdom which is coming on earth and already is in heaven. This in-between stuff is just messy.
I’ve made the claim that the Church has a dating crisis, and here is why. I would suggest that we don’t love God or our neighbors very well in the ways in which we date. Too often we give baggage to one another in ways that does not build up the Church. Forgiveness, redemption and transformation builds up the Church, but too often I think that we say that those words are too “heavy” for the casualness of our culture’s dating habits.
Here is one real-life scenario:
By the time Elinor entered the evangelical dating culture, she had waited to date, assuming that Christian dating meant that one had eyes on marriage and taking things slow. So she dated Isaac. Isaac had already dated Melody. When she first got to school, she had a crush on Evan who at the time was dating Melody. Melody eventually married Frank who was a Senior member of their college fellowship. Frank had dated Mary, another Senior, two times. Mary was best friends with Scott, who tried to date Elinor once things didn’t work out with Isaac. Scott was also friends with Frank and Evan. Scott made Elinor think he wanted to marry her, but snuck away and married Heather. Scott and Heather eventually showed up to be small group leaders at a Conference, where Mary was in charge of setting up small groups. Out of the awkwardness, Elinor ended up hanging out with Celia, Scott’s ex-girlfriend, who she had met at the Conference the year before when she still thought he wanted to marry her. Elinor and Celia never knew or spoke about their Scott connection. Meanwhile at the same conference, Elinor’s friend Anne was dating Ken, who she at one point in time also had a crush on. Ken broke up with Anne the night before Elinor and Anne headed on a mission trip that included Isaac, who still had not really resolved things with Elinor. Meanwhile, Mary started dating her eventual husband Matthew, who was best friends and co-workers with Michael. Elinor had had a crush on Michael since the year before, so she thought about asking Anne to hook her up with Michael as Anne’s job transfer made her Michael’s co-worker. A few months later, Michael and Anne start dating and yes, eventually married. And to make it all that much more bizarre, they were all part of the same Christian fellowship group.
Such a scenario looks more like a who-dunnit puzzle than the Church. Although there are safeguards about physical boundaries in dating in that subculture, dating creates a trainwreck for those relationships. And it seems that relationships, how we treat our neighbors, is what is important to God. I think it is more than just “not having sex.” It is about loving our neighbors. I’m not sure how to quell the relational awkwardness that American-style dating can have for the Church, but I think it is definitely worth thinking about the effect it has on the Church and how it narrates what we believe.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Attention All Helicopter Parents...
...and those who who think that they don't fit that bill.
Your baby came out of the womb at his or her own pace.
Your newborn suckled at its mother's breast without being taught how.
One day after trial and error, your toddler walked when he figured it out.
She told you when she was ready for a big girl bike.
The government deemed that when they are 16 they have what it takes to drive and when they are 21 that they can handle the alcohol choice.
And the Bible says that there is a day that a man will leave his mother and cleave to his wife.
They may be put into your charge to teach them about life on the earth, but first and foremost they are God's. They came from God and are meant to return to God. And most likely, they are an important part of your sancfication. There is a time to return them over to the care of the one who Created them.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
On Time-Sickness
**Taken from an unknown source
"We have forgotten how to look forward to things, and how to enjoy the moment when they arrive. Restaurants report that hurried diners increasingly pay hte bill and order a taxi while eating dessert. Many sports fans leave sporting evnets early, no matter how close the score, simply to steal a march on the traffic. Then there is the curse of multi-tasking. Doing two things at once seems so clever, so efficient, so modern. And yet what it often means is doing two things not very well."
---
"'Time-sickness' can be a symptom of a deeper, existential malaise. In the final stages before burnout, people often speed up to avoid confronting their unhappiness. Kundera thinks that speed helps block out the horror and barrenness of the modern world: "Our period is obsessed with a desire to forget, and it is that desire that gives it over to the demon of speed..."
---
"The rush and pressure of modern life are a form, perhaps the most common form of innate violence. To allow oneself to be carried away by a multitude of conflicting concerns, to surrender to too many demands, to commit oneself to too many projects, to want to help everyone in everything is to succumb to violence. More than that, it is cooperation with violence. The frenzy of the activist neutralizes his work for peace. It destroys her own inner capacity for peace. It destroys the fruitfulness of his own work because it kills the root of inner wisdom which makes work fruitful." --Thomas Merton
"We have forgotten how to look forward to things, and how to enjoy the moment when they arrive. Restaurants report that hurried diners increasingly pay hte bill and order a taxi while eating dessert. Many sports fans leave sporting evnets early, no matter how close the score, simply to steal a march on the traffic. Then there is the curse of multi-tasking. Doing two things at once seems so clever, so efficient, so modern. And yet what it often means is doing two things not very well."
---
"'Time-sickness' can be a symptom of a deeper, existential malaise. In the final stages before burnout, people often speed up to avoid confronting their unhappiness. Kundera thinks that speed helps block out the horror and barrenness of the modern world: "Our period is obsessed with a desire to forget, and it is that desire that gives it over to the demon of speed..."
---
"The rush and pressure of modern life are a form, perhaps the most common form of innate violence. To allow oneself to be carried away by a multitude of conflicting concerns, to surrender to too many demands, to commit oneself to too many projects, to want to help everyone in everything is to succumb to violence. More than that, it is cooperation with violence. The frenzy of the activist neutralizes his work for peace. It destroys her own inner capacity for peace. It destroys the fruitfulness of his own work because it kills the root of inner wisdom which makes work fruitful." --Thomas Merton
Friday, June 4, 2010
The Activity of the Activist
I do not have anything against activists. In fact, I consider myself one. I used to think that I was not a political person, but on hearing Jonathan Kozol's definition I realized that it must define me. He said, "Politics is what you do in the morning about what you thought about at night." In my increasing understanding that action is necessary to following Jesus and embodying the already-here-not-yet Kingdom of God, I have also found that changing the world cannot rest completely on my shoulders. This is God's work and God is gracious enough to let me play a part as a means of worship in God's redemptive plans for the world. I cannot do eveything and I must give honor to my status as creature: I must eat, I must rest my weary bones, I must take time to sabbath, etc. This is not simply a worldly battle and it is not simply a spiritual battle.
Granted I was not always able to be present for worship while volunteering for a conference of Christian activists, but I was overwhelmed by the sense of busyness, meetings, networking, "make it quick," gotta-have-it-now mentality of a number of the conference attendees. There is almost a spirit at times of "if God doesn't connect me with this organization or get me a network meeting with this associate, then God has no plans for me." Or it goes even further to if I don't put myself in those positions, then God can't find ways to speak to me and/or help me make connections. Or perhaps it is with resources. If I don't take that book now or ask for special permission to have it held for me while I get money, then someone else will get it.
It is amazing to me how folks who use the language of "we are one community" or "one church" as a means to becoming involved in social justice and reconciliation, yet on a personal, mundane level folks had trouble living into the virtues of dying to oneself, patience, listening, trusting in God's providence, sabbath, truthfulness, empathy, etc. I saw a lack of teamwork and a rise in exclusiveness and individualism. It seems that we as the Church have a lot of work to do in embodying the Gospel in everyday encounters and with the world and with God at large.
Granted I was not always able to be present for worship while volunteering for a conference of Christian activists, but I was overwhelmed by the sense of busyness, meetings, networking, "make it quick," gotta-have-it-now mentality of a number of the conference attendees. There is almost a spirit at times of "if God doesn't connect me with this organization or get me a network meeting with this associate, then God has no plans for me." Or it goes even further to if I don't put myself in those positions, then God can't find ways to speak to me and/or help me make connections. Or perhaps it is with resources. If I don't take that book now or ask for special permission to have it held for me while I get money, then someone else will get it.
It is amazing to me how folks who use the language of "we are one community" or "one church" as a means to becoming involved in social justice and reconciliation, yet on a personal, mundane level folks had trouble living into the virtues of dying to oneself, patience, listening, trusting in God's providence, sabbath, truthfulness, empathy, etc. I saw a lack of teamwork and a rise in exclusiveness and individualism. It seems that we as the Church have a lot of work to do in embodying the Gospel in everyday encounters and with the world and with God at large.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)