I have spent the last few weeks writing a new story. I love writing. I've written in another post that I am childless by choice. I also don't have an expectation of having children either. I knew in high school that I didn't want to have children. My sisters wanted to have children and have families; I wanted publication. Since I have a hereditary condition that cause procreation in my life to be nearly impossible, I just decided that I wasn't going to give myself grief over it. I am okay with it.
I became okay with life through writing. I have always done this as far back as I can remember. Words are pretty to me. They are pretty to me in a way that sunsets and flowers are pretty to painters. They are pretty to me in the same way that muscle cars, lightning strikes, and roaring fires are pretty. Words draw me in like life on fire. I love words.
Words have always been my friends. I never had an imaginary friend whom I didn't want to publish and immortalize. In a sense, my imagination is my favorite playground. I have been spending some time creating in the past few weeks and have been really happy doing so. I have been so happy about it that I have now blogged through my phone.
I think words are prettier than some colors. I just love words.
Monday, October 27, 2014
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Evangelistic Duo
Sometimes, when I am waiting on the bus, evangelists show up. Most of them just give me the tracts that they are carrying, but some take the time, because I use public transportation, to try to proselytize me into their social paradigm. I find most religious tracts to be useless. Every single one that is given to me winds up in the trash. I don't believe in trying to force my belief or my social construct on anyone else.
It usually happens that someone shows up and this time it was ridiculous. I am standing there waiting for the bus, and the man in the due says "Are you waiting for the bus to go to work?" It is probably the most obvious statement someone could make at that point in time. The young woman who was there then says that she would like to leave a tract with me. I said what I usually say. I understand that some people have a belief in doing what they are doing. So, I said ok to receiving the tract. Then, the man looked into the covered bus stop where I had my belongings for my daily travels, and he said, " I see you have a Bible." Then, she says "Then there's just three questions left..." She said it in the most rehearse obviously staged robotic manner. My mind immediately thought, "Wait a minute.... I agreed to receive the tract not your quiz."
So while a lot of people wouldn't agree, I took her tract and threw it away into the trash can where we were standing. It is exactly where the tract was going anyway. This man claimed that I was rude.
I would like to address this accusation. You interrupted my life. I didn't go to you; you came to me. The longer you stayed standing near me, the more you began to intrude into my life. Just because I am using public transportation doesn't mean that you have permission to start going eyeballing everything I own that I have with me. I agreed to let you leave a tract not search my heart with your "come to Jesus" questions. I don't appreciate your quiz. It is probably one the main problems with Christianity. It is not for you to intrude into my introverted life with your extroverted activity. I am merely waiting on the bus.
This couple was the third or fourth set of evangelists at this bus stop. They seem to show up for me.
So, while I realize that you think that killing trees for no reason, using non-biodegradable ink, sucking away my life in the morning with your obviously overly coached statement, and converting me to your stepford ideology of rude is evil; I think waiving my fee for your impermance lesson was important. Waiving my fee to even talk with you about evangelism when you show up is enough. I was waiting to go to work.
Surely, they must realize that their tract was headed for the trash. They are offended by seeing it. Don't give it to me then. I didn't choose for you to show up in my life. It was courtesy to these people to have a conversation with them. One yes, and they started intruding far beyond their need to. If it is about giving me the tract, then keep your eyes out of my stuff.
It usually happens that someone shows up and this time it was ridiculous. I am standing there waiting for the bus, and the man in the due says "Are you waiting for the bus to go to work?" It is probably the most obvious statement someone could make at that point in time. The young woman who was there then says that she would like to leave a tract with me. I said what I usually say. I understand that some people have a belief in doing what they are doing. So, I said ok to receiving the tract. Then, the man looked into the covered bus stop where I had my belongings for my daily travels, and he said, " I see you have a Bible." Then, she says "Then there's just three questions left..." She said it in the most rehearse obviously staged robotic manner. My mind immediately thought, "Wait a minute.... I agreed to receive the tract not your quiz."
So while a lot of people wouldn't agree, I took her tract and threw it away into the trash can where we were standing. It is exactly where the tract was going anyway. This man claimed that I was rude.
I would like to address this accusation. You interrupted my life. I didn't go to you; you came to me. The longer you stayed standing near me, the more you began to intrude into my life. Just because I am using public transportation doesn't mean that you have permission to start going eyeballing everything I own that I have with me. I agreed to let you leave a tract not search my heart with your "come to Jesus" questions. I don't appreciate your quiz. It is probably one the main problems with Christianity. It is not for you to intrude into my introverted life with your extroverted activity. I am merely waiting on the bus.
This couple was the third or fourth set of evangelists at this bus stop. They seem to show up for me.
So, while I realize that you think that killing trees for no reason, using non-biodegradable ink, sucking away my life in the morning with your obviously overly coached statement, and converting me to your stepford ideology of rude is evil; I think waiving my fee for your impermance lesson was important. Waiving my fee to even talk with you about evangelism when you show up is enough. I was waiting to go to work.
Surely, they must realize that their tract was headed for the trash. They are offended by seeing it. Don't give it to me then. I didn't choose for you to show up in my life. It was courtesy to these people to have a conversation with them. One yes, and they started intruding far beyond their need to. If it is about giving me the tract, then keep your eyes out of my stuff.
Monday, October 20, 2014
The Power of Choice
In a previous post, I stated that I don’t believe in
choosing for other people. I would like
to clarify what I think about believe about the power of choice. Choice is freedom.
It has been my experience, except in three different people’s
cases, that when someone has decided to give a gift to me, or when I needed it,
gave a form of charity to me that it has always come at a price. That price is usually rooted in the statement
“beggars can’t be choosers.” We have
social programs in place in the United States because people need help. I don’t believe that everyone who gives a
gift is out to control another person. I
can honestly say that I have met three people in my life who gave to give and never
once made me feel like I was a charity case or less than they were. It saddens me to say that only one of those
people is a Christian. I am now 36.
I have been given gifts by a lot of people. I am an American; we thrive on
consumerism. Because we do, it has been
my experience that even a gift which isn’t requested requires some form of
payment. Usually the emotional cost
comes in something along these lines.
“Do you still have ____________ that _________ gave you? Cuz I’m just checking that you still have
it.” I find this kind of behavior to be
one of the most annoying things people can do in my home. Essentially, to me, that is shopping in my
house. I don’t live in the mall.
When I give things away, it doesn’t cross my mind to ask
what happened to it. I gave it away, and
with it, the ownership of the object. Everyone
I know likes gifts. There is a
difference between gift giving and choosing for another person.
Someone gave me ride the other day and the gift came with the
oddest conversation. She was driving a
Hyundai Accent that she said she just got in Arizona. I asked about her family, and she said she
didn’t have one. We shared a moment of
unity over not having our own nuclear families right now. She had been out shopping for a house, and I
thought to myself “she must have won the lottery.” I couldn’t buy a car and go house
shopping. I don’t know many who
can. She then said to me, “that man
already had a family. The right one
will come along for you.” Huh? Where did that come from? I didn’t say anything about trying to find
one. I’m not on the hunt. It was an enormous communicative disconnect. She jumped from her car and shopping to the right man for me and that other one wasn't. What other one? It was a fun ride and a fun car though. I would have picked something just like
it. Because I accepted a ride, I was
thought of as lonely for a spouse and wrong for a nameless family man.
Thanks for the ride. It was interesting.
At least no one said “hang in there.” That phrase to me means “I realize that you
have been hung out to dry on a cross but you can make it! The Lord died and God brought him back. Just keep thinking about suffering better.” The reason people say that is that they understand and recognize that you are being crucified for some reason by something or someone else. Instead, I wish others would do as the
Apostle Paul has taught us and say, “Keep the faith!” I have a few friends who do. We help where we can. God bless them.
Blessing another with the ability to choose is one of the
best freedoms that can be bestowed on that person.
I have a rule of thumb that I
follow. If I don’t think that I can give
it and walk away, then I don’t give it.
If I think that I will tell the receiver how to use my gift, then I
don’t give it. The power of choice is
ownership of a person’s own life. It is
more important to choose to keep something than to try to enslave another with
it. If you can’t give it and leave it,
then don’t give it.
Anonymous presents are the best
ones!
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Forgive and For Get
I was asked the other day by someone if I believed in forgiving someone for their emotional sin again me. After further conversation, it was shown that by that the person meant: forgive and forget.
A quick answer to that is "no," and I didn't come to this conclusion on my own. The example that the person used was is someone shot my dog for no reason. My explanation is this. Forgiveness is a conscious decision not to allow someone else's circumstance or behavior to control or impact your own decision-making anymore. From my point of view, forgiving another person isn't about the other person.
Forgiving is For Getting Freedom from the situation. When I forgive someone else, I benefit from it. I don't believe in Forgive and Forget because it gives the person the opportunity to do the same thing again. Now, this is not a demand for perfection in another person's life. I apply this when enough emotional harm has been caused to me or another person that the culprit cannot ever fix.
Following the example, I would not be able to go to enough therapy to cause my dog to become reanimate after someone murdered it. Forgive and Forget undoes our ethical, legal, and justice system. If a murderer just apologizes, should society let him or walk off of death row? Probably not. If Charles Manson just says sorry, does he get out of prison? No. Does it mean that the people whom have been harmed in domestic violence, sexual assault, and hate crime just need to get over it if the abuser apologizes? No. Damage still exists.
Forgive and Forget causes the cycle to continue. Forgiveness doesn't mean that the person isn't held accountable. At the same time, there are levels to what people do to other people. If someone shoots my dog, I will press every charge I can against that person as a citizen of this country. If someone sends me "too many" emails that I start having to consider whether or not there's a much bigger problem, then I just put a check mark by them and delete them. I don't delete the person. I certainly don't think that sexual touching as a form of discipline for it is ethical or Godly. Some people think it is okay to punish people legally in order to publicly completely emasculate and sexually humiliate others and make a show out of it for the rest of the people in a group. Essentially, if I am a leader and I can humiliate someone in order to flex my leadership power then I am really doing it to 1) intimidate others, 2) feel powerful, and 3) set the example for others to follow. The fastest way to do that is to demean that person through a humiliating situation in front of something like a church congregation.
People get into battles of power and control when they have to have it for themselves. I don't believe in forced public confession because some people are out to humiliate others through it. Some people would argue that when someone is in a community that the whole community is privy to that person's whole life. I don't. I spent about 15 years of my life in therapy for 1) learning how to live in an extroverted world, 2) repairing my life from the damage that had been caused in it, 3) sorting out boundaries with my birth family, and 4) learning to compartmentalize parts of my life. I am pro-therapy for everyone. Finding the right one is the difficult part.
For about 8-10 years of that, I was retrained through Gestalt Therapy and spiritual direction. This is what causes me to have this boundary that my family doesn't understand. Forgive and Forget doesn't work in Gestalt Therapy or in actual repentance. More people, I am convinced, commit sin against themselves more than other people. Every person has the responsibility to forgive other people, but every person needs to learn how to forgive themselves first for the harm they have done to themselves. It's impossible to learn to forgive others without self-forgiveness. That means things like: If I am an alcoholic, then I forgive myself for my higher risk of cirrhosis of the liver AND stop placing myself at risk. Another example: getting divorced from someone whom refuses to stop having unprotected sex with other people.
If I don't have a boundary, then that person won't. It usually means that the person demanding his or her own way in my life says "Forgive and Forget because you are just holding a grudge." Then, someone usually says that I have to learn how to respect my parents, colleagues, students, or church leader whom needs everything to revolve around that person. Boundaries are not disrespectful. Our society thinks that they are.
I believe in Forgive and For Get, but I don't believe in Forgive and Forget by any stretch of the imagination. When I forgive, I also create a new place for a new boundary. If I want to choose to live life, then I have to choose to live my life and not someone else's life. I have to choose to be me and be content with me first. So, when I find that I need freedom someone or something, I forgive and choose whether to stay or walk away.
This is yet another place where grace and the law have to find equilibrium in a person's life.
A quick answer to that is "no," and I didn't come to this conclusion on my own. The example that the person used was is someone shot my dog for no reason. My explanation is this. Forgiveness is a conscious decision not to allow someone else's circumstance or behavior to control or impact your own decision-making anymore. From my point of view, forgiving another person isn't about the other person.
Forgiving is For Getting Freedom from the situation. When I forgive someone else, I benefit from it. I don't believe in Forgive and Forget because it gives the person the opportunity to do the same thing again. Now, this is not a demand for perfection in another person's life. I apply this when enough emotional harm has been caused to me or another person that the culprit cannot ever fix.
Following the example, I would not be able to go to enough therapy to cause my dog to become reanimate after someone murdered it. Forgive and Forget undoes our ethical, legal, and justice system. If a murderer just apologizes, should society let him or walk off of death row? Probably not. If Charles Manson just says sorry, does he get out of prison? No. Does it mean that the people whom have been harmed in domestic violence, sexual assault, and hate crime just need to get over it if the abuser apologizes? No. Damage still exists.
Forgive and Forget causes the cycle to continue. Forgiveness doesn't mean that the person isn't held accountable. At the same time, there are levels to what people do to other people. If someone shoots my dog, I will press every charge I can against that person as a citizen of this country. If someone sends me "too many" emails that I start having to consider whether or not there's a much bigger problem, then I just put a check mark by them and delete them. I don't delete the person. I certainly don't think that sexual touching as a form of discipline for it is ethical or Godly. Some people think it is okay to punish people legally in order to publicly completely emasculate and sexually humiliate others and make a show out of it for the rest of the people in a group. Essentially, if I am a leader and I can humiliate someone in order to flex my leadership power then I am really doing it to 1) intimidate others, 2) feel powerful, and 3) set the example for others to follow. The fastest way to do that is to demean that person through a humiliating situation in front of something like a church congregation.
People get into battles of power and control when they have to have it for themselves. I don't believe in forced public confession because some people are out to humiliate others through it. Some people would argue that when someone is in a community that the whole community is privy to that person's whole life. I don't. I spent about 15 years of my life in therapy for 1) learning how to live in an extroverted world, 2) repairing my life from the damage that had been caused in it, 3) sorting out boundaries with my birth family, and 4) learning to compartmentalize parts of my life. I am pro-therapy for everyone. Finding the right one is the difficult part.
For about 8-10 years of that, I was retrained through Gestalt Therapy and spiritual direction. This is what causes me to have this boundary that my family doesn't understand. Forgive and Forget doesn't work in Gestalt Therapy or in actual repentance. More people, I am convinced, commit sin against themselves more than other people. Every person has the responsibility to forgive other people, but every person needs to learn how to forgive themselves first for the harm they have done to themselves. It's impossible to learn to forgive others without self-forgiveness. That means things like: If I am an alcoholic, then I forgive myself for my higher risk of cirrhosis of the liver AND stop placing myself at risk. Another example: getting divorced from someone whom refuses to stop having unprotected sex with other people.
If I don't have a boundary, then that person won't. It usually means that the person demanding his or her own way in my life says "Forgive and Forget because you are just holding a grudge." Then, someone usually says that I have to learn how to respect my parents, colleagues, students, or church leader whom needs everything to revolve around that person. Boundaries are not disrespectful. Our society thinks that they are.
I believe in Forgive and For Get, but I don't believe in Forgive and Forget by any stretch of the imagination. When I forgive, I also create a new place for a new boundary. If I want to choose to live life, then I have to choose to live my life and not someone else's life. I have to choose to be me and be content with me first. So, when I find that I need freedom someone or something, I forgive and choose whether to stay or walk away.
This is yet another place where grace and the law have to find equilibrium in a person's life.
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
The Barna Group's Churched and Unchurched Study: A Response
Dividing people into the Churched and Unchurched is an inherent problem with Christianity. Here is a link to the most recent Barna Groups article:
https://www.barna.org/barna-update/culture/685-five-trends-among-the-unchurched#.VD7J1BF0zmL
Christianity is a living organism. The church happens most outside of the walls of a building. People are not churchless. People are building-less, and its okay. The world is not ending. Each of the five points in the Barna Groups' Study needs to be addressed.
1. Secularization is on the rise.
We went outside to play. Post-Christian means that we are not in Churchianity. Churchianity is state with the church which makes people have a dependent reliance of the proscribed party platform of a denomination. Lots of people still believe in Jesus. We also have higher educations, don't need patriarchal micro-management, and are able to pray with one another. Power structures in organizations that thrive on a top down struggle for dominance cause most people in America to think about inequality. We want equality, so patriarchy needs to turn into shared power structures where all voices can be heard.
2. People are less open to the idea of church.
Most outreach programs have hidden agendas that require the person involved to give up their own identities for a group collective. While resistance may be futile for some, most other people just stop going there. If I have to question what I am getting out of church, then it's because I am being indoctrinated into group think.
3. Church going is no longer mainstream.
It never was in my family. I didn't come to America on the Mayflower. Everything I can do at a church for a rite of passage in life I can also generally do at city hall. I don't need the church to approve of my marriage and the funeral home will bury me if I elect to have my body disposed of that way. I don't need to be bothered with going to church because I don't need a specific place to try to control God. I can be at one with God everywhere. Anyone can lead prayer. You taught us that what's important is a personal relationship with God. You taught us that each one of us can pray. You taught us that anyone can lead prayer and to lives Godly lives outside of the church services. So, we are. You got what you wanted...
4. There are different expectations of church involvement.
I am most interested in the pastor showing up when we need him to facilitate corporate worship as we would like it. Notice, I utilized the word "facilitate." Let the people choose and some of us might want to be involved. Deciding that I am unable to reach God through anything but your ideology is ridiculous. I like how my denomination uses the phrase "reimagining the church." Imagining is correct. The church's policies are all made up. WE can change them. WE are the church. Since the church exists to help us serve God and each other, they need to come to us and not the other way around. Pray with us on the bus, in coffee shops, or at a park. Stop demanding your "fair share" of our lives when we promised it to God already. The church needs to think of churches more as hub stations instead of local parishes which is a sign of the era we live in. I want to be a full member in Paris, Los Angeles, and in London if I show up in any of those places.
5. There is skepticism about churches' contributions to society.
I think churches contribute a lot of good things to society. Churches help a lot of people. Churches are good places to take you kids just like the ballpark or the zoo. We can pray at the ballpark and the zoo. I've never heard of a church that didn't want to know how much money a person made to be able to be there. Eventually, church is just going to be an account into which people give money and a place they never go. The church will be pacified by it. Church is more of a bill for people than a place for community. That's why we have community centers.
I am more in favor of church where I am not being forced to be stationary in one place. I live in a global community and have more global concerns. The problem with this in the church is that when someone says "global" it means Third World.
I am more at one with my community, especially my faith in community, by going to or watching Ted Talks, live chats and workshops with clergy and faith teachers, and communities that are focused on Oneness of God and humanity than other places. Since I am more of a humanist everyday, I find the idea that ecclesiastical titles means righteous is ridiculous. I want the human being to embrace humanness over correctness.
The creedal "one true church" is now and has always been. It is the spark within all of us. It is the soul we are given and the humanness that we all called to embrace about ourselves.
Christianity has always been a missionary faith. Technology has made us far more a missionary people. I am happier learning and believing with those in Europe, South Africa, Washington National Cathedral, and other faiths than I will probably ever be in the local church. Why?
The local church can't compete with the freedom that I have in considering the ideas of a human being thousands of miles away without the fear of retaliation if I don't agree. They cannot compete with the freedom I have of experiencing God in my own way within another faith structure while maintaining my own faith. My tradition embraces diversity. Being bound by the pastor's understanding is the opposite of it.
We didn't leave the church. We aren't churchless. We just went outside.
https://www.barna.org/barna-update/culture/685-five-trends-among-the-unchurched#.VD7J1BF0zmL
Christianity is a living organism. The church happens most outside of the walls of a building. People are not churchless. People are building-less, and its okay. The world is not ending. Each of the five points in the Barna Groups' Study needs to be addressed.
1. Secularization is on the rise.
We went outside to play. Post-Christian means that we are not in Churchianity. Churchianity is state with the church which makes people have a dependent reliance of the proscribed party platform of a denomination. Lots of people still believe in Jesus. We also have higher educations, don't need patriarchal micro-management, and are able to pray with one another. Power structures in organizations that thrive on a top down struggle for dominance cause most people in America to think about inequality. We want equality, so patriarchy needs to turn into shared power structures where all voices can be heard.
2. People are less open to the idea of church.
Most outreach programs have hidden agendas that require the person involved to give up their own identities for a group collective. While resistance may be futile for some, most other people just stop going there. If I have to question what I am getting out of church, then it's because I am being indoctrinated into group think.
3. Church going is no longer mainstream.
It never was in my family. I didn't come to America on the Mayflower. Everything I can do at a church for a rite of passage in life I can also generally do at city hall. I don't need the church to approve of my marriage and the funeral home will bury me if I elect to have my body disposed of that way. I don't need to be bothered with going to church because I don't need a specific place to try to control God. I can be at one with God everywhere. Anyone can lead prayer. You taught us that what's important is a personal relationship with God. You taught us that each one of us can pray. You taught us that anyone can lead prayer and to lives Godly lives outside of the church services. So, we are. You got what you wanted...
4. There are different expectations of church involvement.
I am most interested in the pastor showing up when we need him to facilitate corporate worship as we would like it. Notice, I utilized the word "facilitate." Let the people choose and some of us might want to be involved. Deciding that I am unable to reach God through anything but your ideology is ridiculous. I like how my denomination uses the phrase "reimagining the church." Imagining is correct. The church's policies are all made up. WE can change them. WE are the church. Since the church exists to help us serve God and each other, they need to come to us and not the other way around. Pray with us on the bus, in coffee shops, or at a park. Stop demanding your "fair share" of our lives when we promised it to God already. The church needs to think of churches more as hub stations instead of local parishes which is a sign of the era we live in. I want to be a full member in Paris, Los Angeles, and in London if I show up in any of those places.
5. There is skepticism about churches' contributions to society.
I think churches contribute a lot of good things to society. Churches help a lot of people. Churches are good places to take you kids just like the ballpark or the zoo. We can pray at the ballpark and the zoo. I've never heard of a church that didn't want to know how much money a person made to be able to be there. Eventually, church is just going to be an account into which people give money and a place they never go. The church will be pacified by it. Church is more of a bill for people than a place for community. That's why we have community centers.
I am more in favor of church where I am not being forced to be stationary in one place. I live in a global community and have more global concerns. The problem with this in the church is that when someone says "global" it means Third World.
I am more at one with my community, especially my faith in community, by going to or watching Ted Talks, live chats and workshops with clergy and faith teachers, and communities that are focused on Oneness of God and humanity than other places. Since I am more of a humanist everyday, I find the idea that ecclesiastical titles means righteous is ridiculous. I want the human being to embrace humanness over correctness.
The creedal "one true church" is now and has always been. It is the spark within all of us. It is the soul we are given and the humanness that we all called to embrace about ourselves.
Christianity has always been a missionary faith. Technology has made us far more a missionary people. I am happier learning and believing with those in Europe, South Africa, Washington National Cathedral, and other faiths than I will probably ever be in the local church. Why?
The local church can't compete with the freedom that I have in considering the ideas of a human being thousands of miles away without the fear of retaliation if I don't agree. They cannot compete with the freedom I have of experiencing God in my own way within another faith structure while maintaining my own faith. My tradition embraces diversity. Being bound by the pastor's understanding is the opposite of it.
We didn't leave the church. We aren't churchless. We just went outside.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Ownership
Contrary to popular belief, my calendar is my graphic organizer not a chore chart for others to fill in. If people want to fill in personal planners and calendars, then they need to get their own and fill those in for themselves. I am convinced that this happens because some people have the need to continue to create chore charts for other people at the last minute. Why? Don Williams was correct "Some Broken Hearts Never Mend."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi0vmnxM3ao&list=RDQOZSiqsMlow&index=3
Some people have the need to wallow in what never was. My schedule never was yours to fill in. You never owned me. It seems that some people think that they own everything. In higher education, this is most prevalent when it comes to adult tattle tales which appears in ugly ways when people work in groups. The tattle tale owns everything in group work and will use the childhood "drink of water at bedtime" trick to try to manipulate everything.
Group work causes people to actually work together which means that accepting flaws in a another person is actually necessary. The perfectionist student will almost automatically become the tattle tale. Essentially, the perfectionist will show up to say that someone else isn't pulling that person's weight in the group. Said student is almost always their to make sure that his or her grade is going to be pristine. This is usually my response which causes that person to think that things are being taken care of and doesn't crush that person's world. That person shows up to make sure that she or he is getting the right thing because she or he is out to do the "greater good."
The conversation goes like this:
"I talked with XXXXX about what's going on in our group because I'm concerned."
"Why is that? Is it because you think the other student needs Ritalin?"
"Yes."
At this point in the conversation, I realize it is really about getting the tattle tales' way. they don't own each other or me. It usually continues with that person running other students into the ground so that he or she can manipulate the leader. All genders of students do this, so don't think it is just women. Men do it similarly, but in a different kind of conversation. Why? Some college students decide that human nature is always wrong. That person is usually standing in front of me to make sure that I am now going to change my schedule in order for that person to have his or her way at fixing another person. I am also usually looking at another person who needs perfection in appearance and everything else. I also tend to think that he or she needs a Xanax or a therapist. Evil manipulates, has a silver tongue, and is saccharin sweet.
The job for me at this point is to test the situation. Why? 1 Thess. 5:21 states, "Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil." I usually give a simple task for that person to do like giving a message to someone else. Almost 95% of the time, the tattle-tale won't do it and will say that he or she will. Why? It doesn't benefit that person's grade, and he or she will be holding a passive aggressive grudge over something I did like using my left eye to see a tree instead of my right eye.
Usually, the accused party will have already shown up to accept responsibility for whatever the perfectionist ahs a problem with and is learning to change things in that person's life. Tattle tales usually say things like "we made amends already, but I just wanted you to know." It's really self-righteous to show up boasting about your goodness. It's really self-centered to run down another person to make yourself look better in the eyes of the perceived authority figure.
It's a game to look good. Don Williams and 1 Thessalonians 5:21 usually provide wisdom for every situation. Seeking perfection through medicating another illustrates incredibly low self-esteem and extreme vanity.
My schedule is mine. My students schedules are theirs. I have never filled in my calendar with a block of self-righteousness training. I've never needed to. I have filled in large blocks of time with confession and training to help my life. When I am my Self, I don't need to fix the world around me. Centering prayer and deep breathing keep my schedule mine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi0vmnxM3ao&list=RDQOZSiqsMlow&index=3
Some people have the need to wallow in what never was. My schedule never was yours to fill in. You never owned me. It seems that some people think that they own everything. In higher education, this is most prevalent when it comes to adult tattle tales which appears in ugly ways when people work in groups. The tattle tale owns everything in group work and will use the childhood "drink of water at bedtime" trick to try to manipulate everything.
Group work causes people to actually work together which means that accepting flaws in a another person is actually necessary. The perfectionist student will almost automatically become the tattle tale. Essentially, the perfectionist will show up to say that someone else isn't pulling that person's weight in the group. Said student is almost always their to make sure that his or her grade is going to be pristine. This is usually my response which causes that person to think that things are being taken care of and doesn't crush that person's world. That person shows up to make sure that she or he is getting the right thing because she or he is out to do the "greater good."
The conversation goes like this:
"I talked with XXXXX about what's going on in our group because I'm concerned."
"Why is that? Is it because you think the other student needs Ritalin?"
"Yes."
At this point in the conversation, I realize it is really about getting the tattle tales' way. they don't own each other or me. It usually continues with that person running other students into the ground so that he or she can manipulate the leader. All genders of students do this, so don't think it is just women. Men do it similarly, but in a different kind of conversation. Why? Some college students decide that human nature is always wrong. That person is usually standing in front of me to make sure that I am now going to change my schedule in order for that person to have his or her way at fixing another person. I am also usually looking at another person who needs perfection in appearance and everything else. I also tend to think that he or she needs a Xanax or a therapist. Evil manipulates, has a silver tongue, and is saccharin sweet.
The job for me at this point is to test the situation. Why? 1 Thess. 5:21 states, "Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil." I usually give a simple task for that person to do like giving a message to someone else. Almost 95% of the time, the tattle-tale won't do it and will say that he or she will. Why? It doesn't benefit that person's grade, and he or she will be holding a passive aggressive grudge over something I did like using my left eye to see a tree instead of my right eye.
Usually, the accused party will have already shown up to accept responsibility for whatever the perfectionist ahs a problem with and is learning to change things in that person's life. Tattle tales usually say things like "we made amends already, but I just wanted you to know." It's really self-righteous to show up boasting about your goodness. It's really self-centered to run down another person to make yourself look better in the eyes of the perceived authority figure.
It's a game to look good. Don Williams and 1 Thessalonians 5:21 usually provide wisdom for every situation. Seeking perfection through medicating another illustrates incredibly low self-esteem and extreme vanity.
My schedule is mine. My students schedules are theirs. I have never filled in my calendar with a block of self-righteousness training. I've never needed to. I have filled in large blocks of time with confession and training to help my life. When I am my Self, I don't need to fix the world around me. Centering prayer and deep breathing keep my schedule mine.
Sunday, October 12, 2014
What Teaching Does
Teaching causes me to spend my time in a community of growing scholars. Whenever I am in a community of scholars, I realize that they are the people that I have spent the majority of my life around. My life revolves around knowledge which, for me, is a good thing.
As my scholarly life has included teaching now for awhile, I have become more reflective upon the word and what teaching really is. For me, being a professor means that I approach the classroom as a fellow scholar and not an expert. This seems to be shocking the longer I teach to my students. I don't want to be their expert. I want them to learn and grow. By default, I do the same.
I can journey with my students, but they choose the destination. I can't chose how they will live their lives or how they will use the information that I give to them. My class is difficult for students until they realize that I really do want them to learn and be able to apply the information from the course in the world. It is difficult because they choose the majority of what they write about based on their own interests and their own response to what the course is giving to them. It is difficult because they are responsible for all of it.
The longer I teach, the more I am a guide and learning companion along with my students instead of trying to impart information. I spend more time wanting and trying to get them to show me how they do whatever it is that they do.
From time to time, I have a student who needs me to calculate life for him or her for whatever reason. Life is really easy: choose. Choose life. It is only through consistently choosing life that anyone can really grow, learn, and become whom he or she is called to be in the world.
Teaching is learning at a very different level than I was. It gives me a lot of practice at asking questions. I will never have all of the answers which is what I love about it, and my students dislike about it. They need to find their own answers.
Essentially, in case there is a question I am able to answer or guide students to, then I am there. I learn about a tremendous amount of things this way. Teaching is far more an art of questioning than anything else.
As my scholarly life has included teaching now for awhile, I have become more reflective upon the word and what teaching really is. For me, being a professor means that I approach the classroom as a fellow scholar and not an expert. This seems to be shocking the longer I teach to my students. I don't want to be their expert. I want them to learn and grow. By default, I do the same.
I can journey with my students, but they choose the destination. I can't chose how they will live their lives or how they will use the information that I give to them. My class is difficult for students until they realize that I really do want them to learn and be able to apply the information from the course in the world. It is difficult because they choose the majority of what they write about based on their own interests and their own response to what the course is giving to them. It is difficult because they are responsible for all of it.
The longer I teach, the more I am a guide and learning companion along with my students instead of trying to impart information. I spend more time wanting and trying to get them to show me how they do whatever it is that they do.
From time to time, I have a student who needs me to calculate life for him or her for whatever reason. Life is really easy: choose. Choose life. It is only through consistently choosing life that anyone can really grow, learn, and become whom he or she is called to be in the world.
Teaching is learning at a very different level than I was. It gives me a lot of practice at asking questions. I will never have all of the answers which is what I love about it, and my students dislike about it. They need to find their own answers.
Essentially, in case there is a question I am able to answer or guide students to, then I am there. I learn about a tremendous amount of things this way. Teaching is far more an art of questioning than anything else.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Wag More, Bark Less
In addition to teaching, prayer, writing, music, reading, and my schnauzer, I volunteer serving people at a food pantry where I live. I've done this off and on for over twenty years now. I have been there for a little over a year and am happy that I have been doing so. I would like to be able to say that there was some kind of philanthropic, humanitarian, or slightly spiritual reason that I began to do so. There really isn't one. I started serving there because the community college where I was teaching and making a livable wage cut back on our allotted credit hours to teach while claiming that it was the new Obamacare that we were being required to buy that we couldn't already pay for. All of a sudden, I had too much time on my hands and was winding up with cabin fever in my apartment.
It has drastically changed since I began there through changes in leadership almost completely. Some of those changes have been really good and some of those changes are perpetual.
Just like my ongoing quest for balance in law and grace, I find that from time to time I meet someone stuck in the "Us and Them" false dichotomy. I am not the only person, by any means, seeking for and learning about this balance of grace and the law, and I don't think that I ever will be finished with it. "Us and Them" mentality is at the core of grace and the law. The problem that continues this false dichotomy is "the end." Where do I end and the next person begin?
This year we began serving with a new graduate brought to the area through an awesome organization called the Border Servant Corps. I am native of El Paso, Texas and was born on the Fort Bliss Military Reservation. Army brats are a little different from a lot of other El Pasoans, and the same, in the sense that we have usually lived in several other places. Our new intern and floor manager is a brand new university graduate or so he claimed. I don't know him much. He went to school just outside of Philadelphia and he's Hispanic. He has a minor in Latino Studies, or so he claimed.
The first thing that I noticed that he said to me was that he decided to serve in El Paso to experience Latin culture and not just study it. My inner thought was that I realized the need for experiential education; however, most of El Paso is Chicano. He didn't know the difference and moved across the country to immerse himself in a culture that isn't primarily there. Since then, I have just kept reminding myself that he is new.
Yesterday, he talked with me about wanting to get a ristra for the reason it was intended which is drying them for future use and a sign for open hospitality which I found to be interesting. As the day went on, he had the need to question whether or not I was there to volunteer. I'm always there to volunteer as that's why I go there, and when I brought it up, he immediately said that he didn't think that I was a client. There are people who volunteer and are clients there.
The more I am there, the more a "beggars can't be choosers" philosophy is instituted into our lives. I used to be there without someone having a control issue. There is always a control issue there now. What it really was yesterday was the fashionable way to get that person's way. We were leaving and people have always had the choice as to leave through the front or back door based on where that person was parked. Now, the hours have changed from closing at 4 to 3, which I don't agree with as people work and have to pick up kids from school, we were asked which way we were leaving the building and then newbie decided that people going through the front door were wrong when they chose it. Why?
A man had shown up outside of the building, and the pantry had just closed. Therefore, having a man standing outside of the pantry whom he had decided was a late client was now too dangerous to go through the front door over. My thought was "Newbie, it's time to go." Trying to instill fear as a leader in the volunteers is not the way to fight hunger in America. Instilling fear when you would like to create hospitality is disgusting. When one of the volunteers tried to leave through the front door due to disability and how close she parked, he claimed that he was concerned all of a sudden about her "well-being." He then thanked me for leaving through the back door. He cared that he got his way with me which is why I was thanked and completed the othered the man outside while trying to instill fear in the volunteer inside of the pantry. He doesn't want to open to door, so I was treated well because he got his way and she was belittled for choosing what was actually better for her.
I usually leave through the other one because it causes me to walk a little further to the bus stop. I also walk three or four bus stops away just for the walk and the time it gives me to reflect upon the experience is invaluable. I really can't stand this person. He's still in a stage of internal childhood that really only understands the world in very strict lines of black and white unless it suits him.
I find it to be completely pathetic for people to claim that when they don't get what they want or something isn't convenient that another person's well-being is in danger. Instilling fear through othering whom you understand to be clientele is bad for all of us.
Wag more, bark less new graduate. You're leaving in a year. Namaste.
It has drastically changed since I began there through changes in leadership almost completely. Some of those changes have been really good and some of those changes are perpetual.
Just like my ongoing quest for balance in law and grace, I find that from time to time I meet someone stuck in the "Us and Them" false dichotomy. I am not the only person, by any means, seeking for and learning about this balance of grace and the law, and I don't think that I ever will be finished with it. "Us and Them" mentality is at the core of grace and the law. The problem that continues this false dichotomy is "the end." Where do I end and the next person begin?
This year we began serving with a new graduate brought to the area through an awesome organization called the Border Servant Corps. I am native of El Paso, Texas and was born on the Fort Bliss Military Reservation. Army brats are a little different from a lot of other El Pasoans, and the same, in the sense that we have usually lived in several other places. Our new intern and floor manager is a brand new university graduate or so he claimed. I don't know him much. He went to school just outside of Philadelphia and he's Hispanic. He has a minor in Latino Studies, or so he claimed.
The first thing that I noticed that he said to me was that he decided to serve in El Paso to experience Latin culture and not just study it. My inner thought was that I realized the need for experiential education; however, most of El Paso is Chicano. He didn't know the difference and moved across the country to immerse himself in a culture that isn't primarily there. Since then, I have just kept reminding myself that he is new.
Yesterday, he talked with me about wanting to get a ristra for the reason it was intended which is drying them for future use and a sign for open hospitality which I found to be interesting. As the day went on, he had the need to question whether or not I was there to volunteer. I'm always there to volunteer as that's why I go there, and when I brought it up, he immediately said that he didn't think that I was a client. There are people who volunteer and are clients there.
The more I am there, the more a "beggars can't be choosers" philosophy is instituted into our lives. I used to be there without someone having a control issue. There is always a control issue there now. What it really was yesterday was the fashionable way to get that person's way. We were leaving and people have always had the choice as to leave through the front or back door based on where that person was parked. Now, the hours have changed from closing at 4 to 3, which I don't agree with as people work and have to pick up kids from school, we were asked which way we were leaving the building and then newbie decided that people going through the front door were wrong when they chose it. Why?
A man had shown up outside of the building, and the pantry had just closed. Therefore, having a man standing outside of the pantry whom he had decided was a late client was now too dangerous to go through the front door over. My thought was "Newbie, it's time to go." Trying to instill fear as a leader in the volunteers is not the way to fight hunger in America. Instilling fear when you would like to create hospitality is disgusting. When one of the volunteers tried to leave through the front door due to disability and how close she parked, he claimed that he was concerned all of a sudden about her "well-being." He then thanked me for leaving through the back door. He cared that he got his way with me which is why I was thanked and completed the othered the man outside while trying to instill fear in the volunteer inside of the pantry. He doesn't want to open to door, so I was treated well because he got his way and she was belittled for choosing what was actually better for her.
I usually leave through the other one because it causes me to walk a little further to the bus stop. I also walk three or four bus stops away just for the walk and the time it gives me to reflect upon the experience is invaluable. I really can't stand this person. He's still in a stage of internal childhood that really only understands the world in very strict lines of black and white unless it suits him.
I find it to be completely pathetic for people to claim that when they don't get what they want or something isn't convenient that another person's well-being is in danger. Instilling fear through othering whom you understand to be clientele is bad for all of us.
Wag more, bark less new graduate. You're leaving in a year. Namaste.
Friday, October 10, 2014
Millennials
Age is not an excuse for extreme selfishness. It seems to me that whenever someone doesn't like or needs to excuse whatever is happening in society that the excuse is "it's the millennial generation." Technically, I am in Generation X by three years and most of my life is lived the "millennial way." I'm not stuck locked up in a specific church, I use public transportation, and spend more time simplifying and streamlining what seems puzzling. My life is more technological than anything else, and I know what a typewriter is. Not everyone shirks technology.
It seems to be that the way Millennials are looked at is as babies still. Maybe it is because I don't have children that I think they are able to succeed. I think that Millennials are just as capable of working and succeeding in the world. Sometimes, I think the generations' use of technology makes them more capable in the global society we really have. While at the same time, dear Millennial, I don't need to bribe you with a toy to get you to eat your lunch or show up to class. I want you to be functional throughout your life and not completely dependent upon another person to do everything for you.
I am going to be spending more time directly writing about this generation. It seems to be that it is okay to be a shallow Millennial and the whole world needs to bow down to a superficial need to like everything. Millennials have been stereotyped in ways that are socially self-defeating for a functional global economy. While consumerism is on a rise, Millennials didn't cause the issues that they are being stereotyped by.
I've taught face to face, hybrid, and fully online courses in higher education. The vast majority of Millennials are used to school. They are able to highly function inside and outside of the classroom. Some, from time to time, can't handle the classroom environment. Those students need to accomplish everything at their own pace when they want to do the work and changes are that they want everything up front so nothing changes. Some people have an incredible need to control change. These Millennials need online classes.
Distance education requires a lot of personal responsibility and discipline to be able to really thrive in it. Most Millennials are able to run their lives online. Some can't do it any other way. The more that I am told that the problems in the world are due to Millennials, the more that I am convinced that it is the way that an entire generation is being told that they are that is causing the problem.
People are people. Ultimately, deciding that someone has to learn a certain way due to age is self-defeating within scholarly communities. All of us use technology. Some of us like it and thrive with it. Some need it. Some people want to click what they don't like away regardless of generation.
I like the Millennials I work and learn with. Most of them are not shallow and can handle things like books, pens, and tablets. To most of them, thinking outside of the box is an old concept as global society wasn't ever packaged for them in one. Global citizenry and education has brought more people together than split them apart. Millennials are thriving in it.
It seems to be that the way Millennials are looked at is as babies still. Maybe it is because I don't have children that I think they are able to succeed. I think that Millennials are just as capable of working and succeeding in the world. Sometimes, I think the generations' use of technology makes them more capable in the global society we really have. While at the same time, dear Millennial, I don't need to bribe you with a toy to get you to eat your lunch or show up to class. I want you to be functional throughout your life and not completely dependent upon another person to do everything for you.
I am going to be spending more time directly writing about this generation. It seems to be that it is okay to be a shallow Millennial and the whole world needs to bow down to a superficial need to like everything. Millennials have been stereotyped in ways that are socially self-defeating for a functional global economy. While consumerism is on a rise, Millennials didn't cause the issues that they are being stereotyped by.
I've taught face to face, hybrid, and fully online courses in higher education. The vast majority of Millennials are used to school. They are able to highly function inside and outside of the classroom. Some, from time to time, can't handle the classroom environment. Those students need to accomplish everything at their own pace when they want to do the work and changes are that they want everything up front so nothing changes. Some people have an incredible need to control change. These Millennials need online classes.
Distance education requires a lot of personal responsibility and discipline to be able to really thrive in it. Most Millennials are able to run their lives online. Some can't do it any other way. The more that I am told that the problems in the world are due to Millennials, the more that I am convinced that it is the way that an entire generation is being told that they are that is causing the problem.
People are people. Ultimately, deciding that someone has to learn a certain way due to age is self-defeating within scholarly communities. All of us use technology. Some of us like it and thrive with it. Some need it. Some people want to click what they don't like away regardless of generation.
I like the Millennials I work and learn with. Most of them are not shallow and can handle things like books, pens, and tablets. To most of them, thinking outside of the box is an old concept as global society wasn't ever packaged for them in one. Global citizenry and education has brought more people together than split them apart. Millennials are thriving in it.
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Social Media Discussion Final Thoughts (for now)
I actually spent a little time on Facebook today. I had a fairly good combination of thoughts and conversations about different topics to include one where we started defining hell.
Hell, like heaven, from my point of view is fairly undefinable. It is almost impossible to define something that isn't really tangible. I consistently return to the idea of hell and not a place but a state of existence. We use the word hell in a lot of contexts.
While I agree with my friend as far as choosing help for ourselves as a behavioral issue at some point, I think that there are further circumstances that are usually just understood as the "illness" or "personality traits" of other people.
I love several alcoholics in my life, and this is my example. I understand alcoholism as a medical illness. I am weary of a lot of the ways and programs that people use to treat alcoholism just like any other illness. I am not directly anti our current medical community in the United States; while at the same time, I think books and data can't tell someone's whole story and a one size fits all medical practice doesn't work. For example, some people will say that they cannot live without Alcoholics Anonymous. I believe that they believe that, but I think you can't live without air. What would some of them do without AA? They would find another way.
I am a person who also believes that those programs work really well and can be used for brainwashing like everything else. Alcoholism is not about alcohol. It is far more about decisions and how people make them when they are sober that helps them to have fully functional lives. The 12 Steps are a critical thinking and decision-making program which includes a Higher Power. Essentially, something outside of the Self. Alcoholics who don't find help are in hell on earth. So are their families and their adult children. The systematic influence on people of that disease is devastating.
It is possible to go from one hell to another. For example, if an alcoholic allows himself or herself to be controlled by alcohol is it much different to trade the drink for the program. Some people become as addicted to the program as they are the drink and don't change any of the behaviors. This is hell as well. Trading one hell for another is still hell.
What is the opposite of hell? Is it necessarily heaven? Perhaps, it is life. Some people are happy to have survived the drink. Other want to learn to live. The question is what is a life worth living. I don't think that a simple "the examined one" will really suffice at this point. A life is worth living, from my point of view, is the life we are called to live. One person may be called to be a mom and another person a dog lover. It's what God calls each one of us to be that defines living for us and heaven on earth for us.
I think heaven and hell have a lot to do with what controls your life. It has a lot to do with perception and, for me, identity as a child of God first. If I am not living from my child of God identity, then I am not living a life that is worth it to me. It is from that position first that I care about heaven and hell and then from the other parts of a holistic or "wellness" identity. If I am a child of God before I am a student in my list of priorities, then for me, I am living heaven on earth first and can succeed in school. If I am a student before I am a child of God, I am in hell. I won't know how to succeed to the best of my abilities.
So, thanks to my friend for the Facebook prompt about defining heaven and hell. It was a fruitful experience.
Hell, like heaven, from my point of view is fairly undefinable. It is almost impossible to define something that isn't really tangible. I consistently return to the idea of hell and not a place but a state of existence. We use the word hell in a lot of contexts.
While I agree with my friend as far as choosing help for ourselves as a behavioral issue at some point, I think that there are further circumstances that are usually just understood as the "illness" or "personality traits" of other people.
I love several alcoholics in my life, and this is my example. I understand alcoholism as a medical illness. I am weary of a lot of the ways and programs that people use to treat alcoholism just like any other illness. I am not directly anti our current medical community in the United States; while at the same time, I think books and data can't tell someone's whole story and a one size fits all medical practice doesn't work. For example, some people will say that they cannot live without Alcoholics Anonymous. I believe that they believe that, but I think you can't live without air. What would some of them do without AA? They would find another way.
I am a person who also believes that those programs work really well and can be used for brainwashing like everything else. Alcoholism is not about alcohol. It is far more about decisions and how people make them when they are sober that helps them to have fully functional lives. The 12 Steps are a critical thinking and decision-making program which includes a Higher Power. Essentially, something outside of the Self. Alcoholics who don't find help are in hell on earth. So are their families and their adult children. The systematic influence on people of that disease is devastating.
It is possible to go from one hell to another. For example, if an alcoholic allows himself or herself to be controlled by alcohol is it much different to trade the drink for the program. Some people become as addicted to the program as they are the drink and don't change any of the behaviors. This is hell as well. Trading one hell for another is still hell.
What is the opposite of hell? Is it necessarily heaven? Perhaps, it is life. Some people are happy to have survived the drink. Other want to learn to live. The question is what is a life worth living. I don't think that a simple "the examined one" will really suffice at this point. A life is worth living, from my point of view, is the life we are called to live. One person may be called to be a mom and another person a dog lover. It's what God calls each one of us to be that defines living for us and heaven on earth for us.
I think heaven and hell have a lot to do with what controls your life. It has a lot to do with perception and, for me, identity as a child of God first. If I am not living from my child of God identity, then I am not living a life that is worth it to me. It is from that position first that I care about heaven and hell and then from the other parts of a holistic or "wellness" identity. If I am a child of God before I am a student in my list of priorities, then for me, I am living heaven on earth first and can succeed in school. If I am a student before I am a child of God, I am in hell. I won't know how to succeed to the best of my abilities.
So, thanks to my friend for the Facebook prompt about defining heaven and hell. It was a fruitful experience.
Monday, October 6, 2014
The Middle Way
We live in a point in time in history that thrives on labels, especially in the United States. Your label defines you and then, people will decide how to treat you based on what they think about your label. This isn't actually new. It's why human rights legislation was enacted internationally and why civil rights legislation was enacted in the United States. Words only really have the power that we give to them.
I don't anyone to mistake this posting, so I will state it bluntly: I love the Episcopal Church. What I don't like about it and what demands change inside of it is that most people have forgotten that we are "The Middle Way." More importantly, as churches have fought over buildings, property, and everything else including loved ones buried in columbariums, what they were really fighting about was who could be more selfish than the other group and could enforce their own xenophobia more. I remember when people would not call themselves Anglicans or Episcopalians because that was the other side. Worldwide, we are The Middle Way.
The actual middle way doesn't choose a side; rather, the middle way is one of full evaluation and intentional decision-making. The Middle Way is one of radical inclusion. People are not supposed to be forced to go to one church or another. It is not one of choosing what everyone around you needs to believe. We are people of the book. Our Book of Common Prayer is what holds us together not money and labels.
Now that I have actually attempted to see if the church would follow the middle way and not just fight over what they thought was important to them the most, I know that, ultimately, the institution is out for itself in a lot of places where the people feel betrayed if someone doesn't root for the right side. I remember sitting in church, the same building anyway, while priests from what we were told were opposing sides used the exact same words of persuasion. "God is on our side!" they would say. "We are doing the right thing by following God;" regardless of what they said, I kept thinking "Thank God for Medieval Literature class where we were taught that might does not make right." Essentially, God is not with you if you own something even though the prosperity gospel is alluring from time to time.
I used to think that the problem within the church was that people were more intent on their own point of view rather than wanting to reconcile what they were having problems with. I don't think this anymore. Now, I am more convinced than ever that the main problem that we have is presumption. It is presumption that allows us to choose for one another. It is presumption that allows people to continue to say "You're Welcome Here" while refusing to release memberships or even count them while using others to do the work for you. If people are welcome, then you will let them go. It is presumption that allows people to say that the poor have no place in the church or that "beggars can't be choosers." Presumption allows that saying to even exist.
The mere understanding that another person is a beggar and that you are not is presumptive. Everyone on the planet is poor in one way or another. It is only presumption that says that poor equals bad or criminal -- God forbid! Even better, an under-investigated understanding that someone is poor; therefore, that person is not giving the church money to be a member. Who is a member is based on money? Jesus was homeless. Paul was constantly taken in by the churches throughout his missionary travels. None of them carried money and most were told to not even take a cloak with them when they left the community to go to another. Scripturally, the poor and the sick are more cared for than others by Jesus. They are neither turned away nor are they forced to be there. Both are wrong.
If all of a sudden someone was never a member of your church, but only after that person leaves and tries to go somewhere else, then the church really wants a slave. If a person has to return to a church in order to make sure that people give the correct information to others in order to continue on in a denomination, then it is obvious that the group only wanted a slave. If money goes missing so that the perceptually poor can't be full members, then the group only wants a slave. If you are told that you are free to leave, but they won't give you the letters of introduction to the next place, then you are free to leave, not the parish but the denomination. Come back to our church or get out completely!
The Middle Way doesn't choose an extreme. Orthodoxy in the middle way doesn't choose Episcopal or Anglican. The Middle Way chooses liberation and freedom. The Middle Way doesn't choose to exclude; rather, it includes.
It is the ultimate name game. If I think you are an Episcopalian, then you can't be an Anglican. If I choose that you are an Anglican, then you can't be an Episcopalian because the computer, essentially, is automated. Wait a minute! People keep those records. It isn't an automated computer that has caused the problem; it's a person who knows but won't share information. Why? The human ego wants to demean as many people as possible because that is the way that the individual feels about him or her Self.
Excuses are found in presumption more than anything else. It is the viewpoint that if I sit here, then I will automatically be taken care of without having to do anything. Presumption breeds entitlement. If I think that I am entitled to exclude then I will; however, I will also have left the middle way. It is one of the most difficult things and the most beautiful thing about the Anglican Communion Worldwide. We exist for diversity. We are supposed to be able to include separationists and remnants. We include...
So, if I meet you and you don't have a job, is it okay to assume that you never got one or are stealing from me? No! In fact, data would probably show otherwise. Cooking the books is wrong though and turning collection plates into slush funds is equally wrong. Why do people do these things? Entitlement. Where does entitlement come from? Presumption; it really doesn't have any place in The Middle Way.
I don't anyone to mistake this posting, so I will state it bluntly: I love the Episcopal Church. What I don't like about it and what demands change inside of it is that most people have forgotten that we are "The Middle Way." More importantly, as churches have fought over buildings, property, and everything else including loved ones buried in columbariums, what they were really fighting about was who could be more selfish than the other group and could enforce their own xenophobia more. I remember when people would not call themselves Anglicans or Episcopalians because that was the other side. Worldwide, we are The Middle Way.
The actual middle way doesn't choose a side; rather, the middle way is one of full evaluation and intentional decision-making. The Middle Way is one of radical inclusion. People are not supposed to be forced to go to one church or another. It is not one of choosing what everyone around you needs to believe. We are people of the book. Our Book of Common Prayer is what holds us together not money and labels.
Now that I have actually attempted to see if the church would follow the middle way and not just fight over what they thought was important to them the most, I know that, ultimately, the institution is out for itself in a lot of places where the people feel betrayed if someone doesn't root for the right side. I remember sitting in church, the same building anyway, while priests from what we were told were opposing sides used the exact same words of persuasion. "God is on our side!" they would say. "We are doing the right thing by following God;" regardless of what they said, I kept thinking "Thank God for Medieval Literature class where we were taught that might does not make right." Essentially, God is not with you if you own something even though the prosperity gospel is alluring from time to time.
I used to think that the problem within the church was that people were more intent on their own point of view rather than wanting to reconcile what they were having problems with. I don't think this anymore. Now, I am more convinced than ever that the main problem that we have is presumption. It is presumption that allows us to choose for one another. It is presumption that allows people to continue to say "You're Welcome Here" while refusing to release memberships or even count them while using others to do the work for you. If people are welcome, then you will let them go. It is presumption that allows people to say that the poor have no place in the church or that "beggars can't be choosers." Presumption allows that saying to even exist.
The mere understanding that another person is a beggar and that you are not is presumptive. Everyone on the planet is poor in one way or another. It is only presumption that says that poor equals bad or criminal -- God forbid! Even better, an under-investigated understanding that someone is poor; therefore, that person is not giving the church money to be a member. Who is a member is based on money? Jesus was homeless. Paul was constantly taken in by the churches throughout his missionary travels. None of them carried money and most were told to not even take a cloak with them when they left the community to go to another. Scripturally, the poor and the sick are more cared for than others by Jesus. They are neither turned away nor are they forced to be there. Both are wrong.
If all of a sudden someone was never a member of your church, but only after that person leaves and tries to go somewhere else, then the church really wants a slave. If a person has to return to a church in order to make sure that people give the correct information to others in order to continue on in a denomination, then it is obvious that the group only wanted a slave. If money goes missing so that the perceptually poor can't be full members, then the group only wants a slave. If you are told that you are free to leave, but they won't give you the letters of introduction to the next place, then you are free to leave, not the parish but the denomination. Come back to our church or get out completely!
The Middle Way doesn't choose an extreme. Orthodoxy in the middle way doesn't choose Episcopal or Anglican. The Middle Way chooses liberation and freedom. The Middle Way doesn't choose to exclude; rather, it includes.
It is the ultimate name game. If I think you are an Episcopalian, then you can't be an Anglican. If I choose that you are an Anglican, then you can't be an Episcopalian because the computer, essentially, is automated. Wait a minute! People keep those records. It isn't an automated computer that has caused the problem; it's a person who knows but won't share information. Why? The human ego wants to demean as many people as possible because that is the way that the individual feels about him or her Self.
Excuses are found in presumption more than anything else. It is the viewpoint that if I sit here, then I will automatically be taken care of without having to do anything. Presumption breeds entitlement. If I think that I am entitled to exclude then I will; however, I will also have left the middle way. It is one of the most difficult things and the most beautiful thing about the Anglican Communion Worldwide. We exist for diversity. We are supposed to be able to include separationists and remnants. We include...
So, if I meet you and you don't have a job, is it okay to assume that you never got one or are stealing from me? No! In fact, data would probably show otherwise. Cooking the books is wrong though and turning collection plates into slush funds is equally wrong. Why do people do these things? Entitlement. Where does entitlement come from? Presumption; it really doesn't have any place in The Middle Way.
Friday, October 3, 2014
What is the Edge of Ink?
Every writer contends with a blank page before that person begins to write. Just before a spot of ink is placed on the page, that moment right before creation is the Edge of Ink.
I am creating this blog to begin to share my thoughts with readers as far as I can place them into context. In essence, I wonder if you wonder what I wonder. Do you think what I think or can we create something new at the Edge of Ink?
I currently hold a Master of Arts in English and American Literature. I earned additional hours in Rhetoric and Composition. I am currently working my way through seminary in order to add to my life and not to replace my English career.
I am consistently asked, "Why did you go to seminary?" "Umm...God" is what I always want to answer. I went to seminary for a lot of reasons after "Umm...God." I entered seminary to seriously study scripture, to learn more about different kinds of faith, to learn to train myself, to become more disciplined, to build confidence as a scholar again, and right next to "Umm...God," I entered seminary to fall in love with faith again.
It was at the edge of life before I entered seminary when I realized that, for about the third time, I was quitting Churchianity. I had become so immersed in trying to fit into the church and serving other people that I no longer had a real relationship with God. "Real" in the sense that I was no longer in love with my faith. I was in church, trying to pray, fighting off the effects of PTSD in my life to contend with the imagery around me, and I realized that the relationship I once had with God was no longer worth it. I loved God and was trying to be an active person in my religious and spiritual life, but I was no longer in love with faith or living it. The demands and costs of Churchianity are much too high.
I entered seminary because I am a beloved child of God and needed to know it again.
"What are you going to do with your degree from seminary?" is usually the next question. I want to have a private practice helping to heal people who are no longer in love with their faith -- spiritual direction. I want people to love God and their faith. It seems to be frivolous to many people to do such a thing or even crazy. Well, the only answer I have to that is -- I feel called to do so.
Although I am considered by many to have fallen away from my faith because I pray with Jews and can be seen from a distance due to my skullcap as a Jew, I think those who really wanted to know about my faith journey would ask instead of judge. By the way, my faith cannot be canceled out by acknowledging my maternal grandmother's heritage. It's called DNA; it's scientific.
The balance is in the Bible. Grace and the law both have their places in my life and in my lived theology. What I cling to more often now are simple verses and thoughts. I have been wrestling with that very balance and the love of God lately. The song "Jesus Loves Me" keeps coming back into my heart when I question it the most or contend with those who have decided that, while I have been in seminary and immersing myself in scripture, I also became an apostate.
The Edge of Ink is where I want to work out those issues and others that may arise. I like a lot of things. I question the world we live in and, more importantly, how are we to live faith in a world that God created to be good. More and more, I want my faith to lead my life. Why is any of this important?
"Umm...God."
I am creating this blog to begin to share my thoughts with readers as far as I can place them into context. In essence, I wonder if you wonder what I wonder. Do you think what I think or can we create something new at the Edge of Ink?
I currently hold a Master of Arts in English and American Literature. I earned additional hours in Rhetoric and Composition. I am currently working my way through seminary in order to add to my life and not to replace my English career.
I am consistently asked, "Why did you go to seminary?" "Umm...God" is what I always want to answer. I went to seminary for a lot of reasons after "Umm...God." I entered seminary to seriously study scripture, to learn more about different kinds of faith, to learn to train myself, to become more disciplined, to build confidence as a scholar again, and right next to "Umm...God," I entered seminary to fall in love with faith again.
It was at the edge of life before I entered seminary when I realized that, for about the third time, I was quitting Churchianity. I had become so immersed in trying to fit into the church and serving other people that I no longer had a real relationship with God. "Real" in the sense that I was no longer in love with my faith. I was in church, trying to pray, fighting off the effects of PTSD in my life to contend with the imagery around me, and I realized that the relationship I once had with God was no longer worth it. I loved God and was trying to be an active person in my religious and spiritual life, but I was no longer in love with faith or living it. The demands and costs of Churchianity are much too high.
I entered seminary because I am a beloved child of God and needed to know it again.
"What are you going to do with your degree from seminary?" is usually the next question. I want to have a private practice helping to heal people who are no longer in love with their faith -- spiritual direction. I want people to love God and their faith. It seems to be frivolous to many people to do such a thing or even crazy. Well, the only answer I have to that is -- I feel called to do so.
Although I am considered by many to have fallen away from my faith because I pray with Jews and can be seen from a distance due to my skullcap as a Jew, I think those who really wanted to know about my faith journey would ask instead of judge. By the way, my faith cannot be canceled out by acknowledging my maternal grandmother's heritage. It's called DNA; it's scientific.
The balance is in the Bible. Grace and the law both have their places in my life and in my lived theology. What I cling to more often now are simple verses and thoughts. I have been wrestling with that very balance and the love of God lately. The song "Jesus Loves Me" keeps coming back into my heart when I question it the most or contend with those who have decided that, while I have been in seminary and immersing myself in scripture, I also became an apostate.
The Edge of Ink is where I want to work out those issues and others that may arise. I like a lot of things. I question the world we live in and, more importantly, how are we to live faith in a world that God created to be good. More and more, I want my faith to lead my life. Why is any of this important?
"Umm...God."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)