I won't give up on you

Today our pastor (Jeff Byerly) said one of the traits of God's family is that it says "I won't give up on you."

God, though fully Other (not a human being, though once incarnated) manifests all the traits of the perfect parent.

The community of believers has the chance to be the prefect functional family of God. Not that this really happens, or can because we all fail, but through our imperfections, and God's love, his power and love is perfected in our weakness. Our brokenness can be mended, our hurts healed or lessened.

I believe "community" is a work in progress. You can haggle over the part of speech that it is formally, of course. But I think 'COMMUNITY" can take the form of a verb, noun, or adjective in how people that follow Jesus seek to do good to each other. Not giving up on each other plays into this.

My post from Jim's blog

I posted this at a friend's blog and I thought I'd like my readers to take a peek too.
He posted a great question about suffering. I encourage you to check out his site and his books. Jim is an amazing human being.
(Jim Palmer divinenobodies.com)


My response:
what a fantastic question.

I doubt the answers are easy... not simple...

In an abstract sense, from my purview of reality, I think it becomes painful to realize we live in a world where great suffering exists. We have a chance to be "the hands and feet of Jesus", but the structures that cause evil do not get fixed. We also participate in our own injustice each time we fail to be kind, or we pass judgment, or we, even in a small way, participate or support unfairness. As we continue in the spiritual stages of development (see E. Liebert's "Changing Life Patterns") slowly we learn to integrate the contradictions and competing truths, not enjoy them, but learn to balance them in tension, so we can live in hope, and do our best in Love.

In a practical sense, I believe, the council of God's Work as narrative, seen in four parts speaks, to this terrible conundrum as well. Within most of the narratives, but in the whole biblical work, the themes surface of Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Consummation. Creation is perfection and goodness and beauty. It tells us how good we are to God, and also how things were once, before they broke. Fall tells us the "why" of all that has and will go wrong in the world, the suffering. It does NOT excuse it, but it helps account for it. Redemption is seen right away in Scripture, in the garden in fact, we don't even need to wait long. God redeem us and loves us, and likes us. He wants to be with us.

Consummation helps us understand that there is hope to come. Redemption does solve all the problems of this world. It may not remove our suffering, and heal every wound we may encounter around each bend. A new physical earth is promised in which wrongs will be righted, all justice will reign. Sometimes this may help us bear the horrors of this world. I think this dependence on God, this faith and giving our heart to a good God in the mist of competing realities can make the difference between hope and despair.

Love to all of you.

(this is still a messy situation. but it does give a little context that can be helpful. I think it's a journey, not a destination)

spiritual development

I've been reading the very academic book by Elizabeth Liebert "Changing Life Patterns: Adult Development in Spiritual Direction".

She speaks of the phase that happens once you realize that two contradictory statements can be true. Or, a statement can be true and not true at the same time. Living with paradoxes sets a person into a "more advantaged" (though not necessarily more holy) spiritual stage, and this can be disorienting for a while. For some, they are filled will doubts and they resist growth, or lapse in some way. Other struggle badly and come out into a new spiritual stage, after a bit. It helps to have a spiritual director or guide at times like these who is there to walk with you.

When one understands the world differently then before a "meta-logic" is needed for understanding contextual situations. old answers, simple ones, don't work any longer. Life is more nuanced and requires understanding of a differently reasoned sort.

Liebert notes 6 stages of spiritual development. Most overestimate their stage. Christians, stack up overwhelmingly in stages 3 and 4, and remain there, rarely making forays beyond in a permanent way.

behavior modification and God

In reading the writings of John Wesley ("A Plain Account of Christian Perfection") I can see how much his heart, mind, and strength was directed to serving God. For Methodism, he developed methods for this to play out in others, most times in groups.

The desire was to help others love God and be holy.

But what struck me is that many of the methods involved the outward modes to reach what he called "Christian Perfection". (fasting, prayer, bible reading, chastity, church attendance, group attendance, and more) What struck me was how this could degenerate into religion made up of mainly behavior modification, albeit well-intended. At worst, it could be very oppressive, legalistic, and judgmental. In other words, not God-like.

We can still see traces of this in Christianity, and in what atheists rile against.

God isn't trying to modify our behavior. He is trying to love us. No, wait! He DOES love us. Sin bars that. But not behavior (that's not the whole picture). That process means we get cleaned up, but loving him is really the true aim. We think it could be about performing suitably. It's sad to see things misplaced, especially Love and reconciliation.

poisoned God language

Christians sometimes tend to push their agendas. People with bad experiences with Christians and church have poisoned views of church, religion, Christians, and God. But really we all long for love, beauty, truth, justice. In our attempts to dialogue, I contend we should builds bridges, and realize our common longings, not pick at other's wounds, or pound them with apologetics.

Here is some interesting dialogue I encountered.
Weigh in with your thoughts.

------
from x:
lisa—you’re absolutely correct that [certain] reality is in the eye of the beholder. Seeing a perfect rose one day might impress upon me the beauty of the world at large one day and the next depress me because of the shallowness of what is accepted as “beauty”.

I don’t read Craig as being any less insistent upon his version of reality than anyone else, but perhaps I’m wrong. Each of us experiences the world and crafts our own reality from it. The dinner I just ate was “okay” to me but “great” to my husband. These are, I suppose, competing versions of reality and neither of us will be able to change the other’s mind. There may be no “neutral standpoint”, but that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss our experiences and both come away richer for it.

I’m not sure that science produces elitism any more than any other discipline (talk to any theologian, philosopher, or historian—or their armchair varieties). I’m not certain that science & religion are so at odds, I just think they describe vastly different matters. Just as philosophical logic is ill-suited to maths, mathematical logic is ill-suited to philosophy. Religion and science are similarly compatible but separate. I think a scientific approach to the Divine is idiotic—and a religious approach to science is criminal.

So we’re left with experiences. My experience of the Church of my parents is one of oppression, violence, and hatred. I’ve met wonderful people whose experience of that same religion is uplifting, peaceful, and holy. I’m baffled by that, but I respect it. My experience of atheism has been a community of disaffected ex-religionists who, in community, find solace, comfort, and safety away from the violence that religion has done to us.

Personally, I think it’s irresponsible of AA to preach God as a way to get over addiction. That’s not getting over addiction, that’s replacing a physically damaging addiction with a mentally damaging one.

I agree that there probably isn’t an “absolute truth” or definite answer to life, the universe, and everything (unless it’s 42), but I also think that you can touch truth, beauty, and perfection to know it exists. Sometimes, knowing that Justice is out there is the only thing that gives me hope. But I don’t pray to her, or worship her. I find it difficult to believe that any god needs my worship and adoration, or cares enough about my puny human problems to intercede & change the universe so that I’m happy. I think meditation/prayer are useful tools for me to get a grip on my own psyche and that ritual serves a need for routine. Just about every other aspect of religion (besides community) seems inherently dangerous, disingenuous, and, for want of a better word, evil.

26Craig // Nov 2, 2008 at 8:51 pm

x, it’s actually “47″.

But other than that, I agree completely.

27lisa // Nov 3, 2008 at 6:29 am

I just loved your post x. I totally agree with your “touch truth” sentence.

I’m surprised that you say that your atheist friends are made up of people who are just people who been hurt by religion. I should say I’m not surprised, too. I’ve been hurt by Christians too, and churches. Not good ones, though. Problem ones. It is a broken world. Free choice = potential problems, but also opportunity to do good freely as well. It so sad when people fail the God they supposedly love. It does much damage, I agree very much.

I guess to me it just seems like an emotional reason to not believe in God, not a very logical one, though the logical reason I guess get thought of later. I thought your group would be more thoughtful, coming from a more neutral spot. That’s so sad to hear, and my heart goes out to you and your friends. That totally sucks. If I had the chance I would love to speak to those who hurt you and tell them a few things.

I’m so sorry those things happened. They did the opposite of Love. In a community of love, those things are fought against. I experience the best and closest, most beautiful friendship you could imagine. My family was screwed up, but now I get to experience true Love, and I can tell you it’s very life changing. It’s not based on a rejection of another group for bonding and solace though. I truly hope you can find healing for the evils done against you.

Have you forgiven them?

28
x // Nov 3, 2008 at 3:20 pm

I guess I wouldn’t say that my atheist group is “just” people hurt by religion but that, having been hurt by religion, these people left it. My husband, as I often say, is the most a-theistic person I know, having been raised in an environment that never mentioned God. He’s also one of the most well-adjusted when it comes to religion. But he has no need of the atheist community like I do.

The apology on behalf religionists who cause injury is something that I come across rather frequently and I respect the place from which it comes, but I have to say that I find it rather disingenuous, since I would bet money that the people who apologize participate in the same hurtful actions that those who should apologize do. And as a sister once told me, an apology means nothing if there is intent to do it again.

Forgiveness is a very religious concept; one of many I’m trying to get out of my psyche. I can say that they acted in the way that they thought was right and that, when they stand before their God in the Court of their Heaven, they will have nothing to answer for. This does not make my wounds any shallower, but it helps me in my daily interactions with those who caused them.

Religion as a thing of beauty can exist only in the mind of one of its adherents. As soon as it enters two minds, its beauty is destroyed and it seeks only to cause pain. Jesus once said that he is there, wherever two or more are gathered. I think the real Truth of religion is that the Divine is only there in the silence of our hearts—in Beauty, in Love, and in Truth. But never collectively.

29lisa // Nov 3, 2008 at 6:57 pm

Well, x, you bring up an interesting point, and I also think a contradiction.

You said, “I think the real Truth of religion is that the Divine is only there in the silence of our hearts—in Beauty, in Love, and in Truth. But never collectively.” You also spoke of Justice in a similar way earlier. I think you are speaking of ideals. Yes? I think that you understand these to be something that you consider to be real, not fictitious. Yes? Things to give hope, to aspire to, and these things actually point “off the map.” Really they are not just found within. For instance, if you extinguished human life and creation, in an instance, Beauty and Truth and Justice and Love would not cease to be real.

Many people consider this to be spiritual language for that reason. If these things are beyond us, and infinite, perfection, and not fictitious, what are we really speaking of?

To know of these things and then to box them down as only infinite, and not powerful enough to be both infinite and also personal, smacks as ironical.

Beside that, I think people do share these ideals between others, not just in the silence of their hearts, but also within them as well. Part of loving someone can involve a deep shared love for these things and increased intimacy that grows between the two. My experience reflects the unity of community toward the divine, I believe, enacting the Trinity, in fact, if done properly.

To forgive really only means to cancel a debt. I’m not sure I understand why you think it is religious. Do you think people should not forgive each other? people should not apologize or offer others forgiveness for wrongs? Maybe you could unpack that for me, I guess I don’t understand your take on that one. I think, “Why carry a grudge? It’s like carrying around poison, no? Forgiving never validates an offense, but it does release the victim from more pain.”

---

There is a lot of hurt out there. christians and church has done a bunch of it, too I've heard the pain first hand. What are ways we can reach people with God's love, in ways that really matter?

NOV 4: what it can't solve

I'm excited for the election!!!!!! .... to be over.

But I think it'll degenerate into dismay and lawsuits. I hope not...but this time things have gotten very weird. Obama is not the Messiah. McCain is not who we've all ben waiting for either. The answers don't come quickly. The people in office are not magicians, and they can't keep their promises, and by can't, I mean are not given that power. And also, they often don't expect to keep them all. This is reality. Nov 4th can't solve too much.

Politics runs by the engine of $, power, and fear, really. If you get people afraid of something, they can vote for you, and calm themselves.

I remember hearing one of the best things ever... "Perfect love casts out fear." That's what I'm taking to the polls. Yes, I'm voting. I'm not endorsing. I'm not confident about how this election cycle is going, or how this country is thinking. There are a few crisis 'out there", not least of which is that we think the President should solve our problems. I read a bunch of 4th graders essays tacked to the wall, and they all said what the would do if they were President. Most of them would "be kind", "help the earth", "lower taxes", and "give people money"... but are they learning what the job entails? No. Most of us don't know all it entails. We find it's easy to complain though.

Bigger than that, what is our "job", our mission, in our corner of the world? I really think we don't get beamed up to heaven once we become reconciled to God because we are the hands and feet of Jesus. God uses us to get things done.

The New Book

I just bought this image (over there) for the book I'm working on called "Outsourcing Jesus: Culture, Emerging Christianity, and the Stained Glass Ceiling".

It's about the nature of how we come up with an understanding of reality...how it unfolds, and why we all tend to pair off the unpleasant things of Christianity, and other aspects of life. In what ways does our experience help to love and understand our Creator, and in what ways may we attempt to "study" such a mysterious Being? How does the Narrative of God express his uncompromising goodness and love, and the ongoing longing and cry of our heart, which is, in reality, God's longing for us, (since he loves us first). And what has Christianity (on the left and on the right sides of things) failed to take into account about what is very crucial to living our spirituality, namely, redemption?

Maybe Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin aren't the only ones who should shatter glass ceilings, I'm ready to weigh in.

Stay tuned for many more bits of info coming. And please, I welcome your thoughts!

Thought on spiritual formation

thought for the day:

" We would not be so prone to self-deception if we did not hope that by that means to avoid shame."

(pg 87. Spiritual Direction and the Care of Souls. Moon and Benner, InterVarsity Press 2004)

Interview / Dialogue with Ed Cyzewski author of "Coffeehouse Theology"

Thanks for taking the time for this interview and dialogue Ed!

As I mentioned before, feel free to post additional comments, or respond to comments. The nature of this medium is great for this sort of fluid exchange.



me: What was your main purpose in writing Coffeehouse Theology?

Ed: I took a swing at this one at the Emergent Village blog, but I'll swing again here. You don't have to read a lot of theology books to know they're not accessible for average people in the church, even the emergent books that claim to be easy reads. So I set out to pull together the various ideas out there for theology, but to also make them as accessible as possible. In addition, I wanted to help Christians move toward greater unity in the midst of theological diversity because we are united in our common love for Christ our Savior.



me: As a means of knowing God, Scripture isn't minimized in your book, it's given primacy. In postmodern times, where authority in general is seen with suspension, why do you posit to view Scripture with such authority, over experience, and other means?

Ed: Ha! I'm glad you asked the question that way. I use the word "primacy" to avoid the word authority. Scot McKnight just gave a great talk at Biblical Seminary on October 10th where he spoke about scriptural authority contrasted with the centrality of relationship, stating that God wants us to obey out of relationship, not out of authority. So scripture is primary, but it's primary because it leads us to a relationship with God. As we discover the love of God and love God as well, we'll obey scripture and we won't need an authoritarian view of scripture because it's leading us to obedience through a relationship with God.

I start theology with God at the center because the Holy Spirit is the one who teaches us from scripture. So we ultimately look to God, though scripture is primary over our traditions and other Christians. Our traditions and fellow Christians provide insights to guide our readings of scripture, meaning that scripture is primary and connects us with God, but we always need to interact with perspectives outside our own. As we interact with other perspectives and the Holy Spirit empowers us to live in the truth of scripture, we are better able to stand up under the suspicion of postmodern times.



me: Your take on lived out theology seems to be that a number of factors play into how we live out our belief and knowledge of God, and that’s it's important to see several things well to love God, understand him better, and live out our calling. How do you think we should rate their importance? (i.e. Scripture, culture, tradition, church, and so on.)

It's hard to really rate these things since it's an ongoing dialogue where we're always learning, interacting, shaping, and then reshaping our theology. I begin the book with culture not because it's most important, but if we don't understand culture and how it influences us and how we need to fulfill our prophetic calling in the world, then we are severely limited in our theology. So I wouldn't say culture is more important, but it can be a problem if not understood. Having said that, I'd say that we being theology with a relationship with God, then follow that with scripture, and then the traditions and global church.

me:
I appreciate your perspective about an "ongoing dialogue" which is involved in continually reshaping our theology. It seems these are dynamic, not stagnant, factors, and their interplay is what causes growth and lived out faith.

One common view of our times is that we can't arrive at truth solidly, (this occurs in Christian circles too). As we live out our theology (with the factors you’ve mentioned) what can we know?

Ed: As far as truth goes, we can know quite a bit. However, there have been shifts in the way we know, and the amount we think we know. Instead of digging into the Bible with an ahistorical approach seeking out absolute principles that are always true (I'm painting with broad strokes for the sake of brevity), we face the challenge of entering the Bible as participants in a theological conversation over 2000 years and across continents. We're not the only ones doing this, and our perspectives face the limitations of our context. Therefore, I'm interested in understanding my context, and the ways it shapes me so I am prepared to be relevant and prophetic, but also so I can seek out the perspectives of Christians throughout history and the world in order to bring balance and help sharpen my ideas. Perhaps my take on the truth will change, maybe it will not.

All that to say, to say we need to be humble about our take on the truth is not giving up on truth. If anything, I'm affirming what the Bible says about seeing only in a glass darkly and God's ways being higher than what we can conceive. God sees the big picture of truth, and so we seek out the Holy Spirit's lead within our Christian communities as we seek out God's life-changing truth. We don't give up because we can't be 100% certain, but rather we live by faith and continue to read, study, converse, and embody God's revelation.


me:
Can you explain briefly what you mean by "global church" how this plays into contextual theology?


Ed: [I mean] Christians throughout the world who offer different perspectives that we should consider for our theology. For example, Christians throughout the world opposed the Iraq War, while many Christians in America supported it. That strikes me as a situation where Christians in America need to ask why Christians throughout the world didn't support the war.

me:
To you, what things determine integrating global church perspectives to our own?

Ed: We look to Christians outside our own context because we'll never get the whole picture of the truth on our own. They will inevitably see things we will not. For example, in the book I talk about a study of Christians in Eastern Europe who made some striking observations about the famine and xenophobia in the parable of the prodigal son, points that Americans missed. I could read that story over and over again, but probably miss out on the nuances picked up by these Christians. Now I can see that Jesus is addressing fair wages, our treatment of foreigners, and feeding the hungry. How I live out my theology changes radically once I interact with these Christians, even if the core of Christian orthodoxy has not.

However, as we interact with Christians outside our own perspective, we should be careful to keep our central creeds in mind and always run our findings by trusted Christians who can help us process these perspectives. It's not a matter of simply dropping the evaluations of another context into our own, but rather comparing our theologies and letting these other theologies sharpen our own beliefs. Perhaps they'll merely affirm some of our beliefs, while in other cases we'll find ourselves needing to broaden some of our understandings or narrow them. This is always a matter of conversations, not a matter of making American theology win over Asian or Latin American theology. We all have limitations and have something to teach one another.

me: What one nugget of wisdom or vision would you hope to pass along from your book, if nothing else?

Ed: I think we can't overestimate the importance of making God the center in our theology. Jesus said the scriptures testified about him, so while scripture is important and even essential, scripture's main role is leading us to Christ. However, many churches make the Bible their foundation or starting point, which means disagreements on the Bible can divide churches. It's been this emphasis on pure doctrine derived from scripture over the person of Jesus that has caused so much division--we have a hard time dealing with doctrinal diversity because we have made the Bible our foundation, not Christ. While doctrine is important, and I would never leave behind the doctrines passed down throughout history in the creeds, it is the triune God we meet in the Christian faith. That means we cannot have any other starting or ending point than Christ Jesus.

me: Thanks for expounding a bit more on your book, and some ideas about knowing God. I hope the dialogue continues.

UPCOMING -Exclusive Interview with Ed Cyzewski on "Coffeehouse Theology"

I'm really enjoyed going through Ed Cyzewski's ideas in Coffeehouse Theology", and I think you would too.



Ed is open about his vantage point as being post-conservative and emerging. He approaches the topic of the lived-out knowing of God, or as he puts it contextual Theology (i.e. Coffeehouse Theology) not with the pre-fab answers Christianity, (read: evangelicalism) has grown accustomed to. He understands the post modernity cultural purview, admits the vast mystery of God, but also appreciates and unpacks the vehicles helpful for greater understanding and growth in Christian spiritually.

A graphic he uses called "a web of theology" illustrates how interconnected the sources of Christian sources and context are. They comprise, God (as a revelatory source and guide), Scripture (the primary source of God's revelation), Tradition (informs and add insights...), and the global church (informs and add insights...), and these resides within the cultrual/context and also within the purpose of the Mission of God. The Mission is the reason we do theology.

I may argue that the primary source of revelation is Jesus, the Incarnation, and scripture is the revelation revealed through the Holy Spirit, and the record of the revelation of God's revelation, and primary only in the sense that we access in this way, and not Christ in flesh. But this minor point is hardly an area of contention.

Ed gives us a lot to think about, and a ton of further reading resources. For those with little understanding of how culture effects belief, his book can be eye-opening. It also helps to better know and use the various spheres that enable us to better understand what is difficult to fully know-God. Surely we can love and know God, but fully comprehending him, that is a life long journey that won't end until the veil is gone. This entire effort is our practical theology that builds the framework for our life and mission when we are lovers of God aware of his love for us.


Instead of just typing up a review of this book, or a fully-orbed summary, I thought if I could actually pick Ed's brain with some questions, it might be more fun and interesting. If you have questions about the topics, the book, or anything discussed, chime in.

Stay tuned for the interview!

Object of affection

Even love unrequited has an entity of affections. A beloved in fantasy and imagination, though supposed, is still an object that is other.

We can never forget that to love, we cannot be alone. God, then must be One and also three persons. Before creation, the One could be recipient as lover and beloved as such. And with creation that love could continue should the creation be aware of love bestowed, and indeed, even better, give it back.

Is love the greatest thing? Yes. St. Paul says... "The greatest of these (faith, hope, and love) is love." It may be the single thing that proves we are not alone.

It is the sole thing of communal relationship-unity and harmony.

In the case of God, TRI-UNITY.

brief thoughts on theological/philosophical matters

Given, of course, that God created us and exists:

If God is bad, then we are here for badness-sake.
(who, but the pathological, think we are here for that?)

If He is good, then we are here for goodness-sake.

If He is ambivalent, then it shouldn't matter why we are here (for what sake). And we shouldn't care either.
(but it does, and we do)

If He is absent (to our experience), then we are the ones who are lost.
So, if he is good but absent (to our experience) then we will become found.

life is like a prayer

lifted

breath

offering

beautiful

painful

sweet

bitter

transient

life

... back to God

Catherine of Siena

She said discernment helps to perceive self not as central, but as a gift we can abandon to love others properly. The learner is the "light" for the eye, needed to illuminate so we love with God's love, and not be blinded by our self love.

It's an idea of ministry not in keeping with our times.

-Edited from "discernment and truth" , Mark McIntosh, herder & herder 2004

Five things MANY Christians would HATE to admit

1. Jesus MIGHT have not looked too much like a guy.

Yikes. Don't freak out. I know this could be hard to take. But let's think about this for a second, okay. He might have looked like his mom, Mary. Joseph wasn't his dad, correct? Everyone was really short back then, but depending on the genetics the Spirit used, (maybe the Spirit mirrored her genes). Jesus could have had all her genes, and then just add the needed Y chromosome. If so, then he was REALLY short, and maybe sort of girly, and maybe he couldn't even grow a good beard.

Granted, his hands would have had calluses from hard labor, and he could have been wiry! We don't know for sure, but it's possible. (Is this a let down for wildman John Eldridge, oh, and macho Mark Driscol? He's still God though, maybe that will soothe any wounded manly pride on this issue.) No worries.

2. Jesus wasn't a Christian. He was Jewish. (Remember that came later. Sorry, it's just history, people.)

3. Jesus wasn't Republican, and didn't run for political office. (He didn't have that kind of social standing or money! Oh, and it wasn't his MISSION. He was here to die for us.)

4. Jesus wasn't an American, a Boy Scout, a Freedom Fighter (or warrior), a Passivist, or a Police Officer (We'd like to think he would have been, or that he likes those things. But, let's stick to the, um, you know, facts. Narrative. Official stuff.)

5. Jesus wasn't white skinned. (He was brownish. Think about the area of the world we are speaking about, the Middle East. It's actually gotten lighter skinned in the last 2,000 years.)

philosophy and political debates

I watched the first obama/mccain debate....

First I should say, I'm under-whelmed this election cycle. There have been ups and down, yes. But my faith in politics and the "system" just doesn't hold the glow form. People are flawed (often drunk or twisted from power too) and it takes cooperation to get things done, not just a President (with bad or good ideas).

So, let's just say the idealistic me from youth is gone. Yes, I vote. I vote every time. But I'm not so concerned anymore, and so vocal about particular people, by way of promoting them, etc. That is how to embarrass one's self, I think. Or worse become distracted by thinking politics actually solves many things. People, in the trenches, are usually the people who do that.

Now that I've said that preliminary stuff, I wanted to point out that I noticed that neither candidate articulates his core values, philosophies all that well. It's really about strategy. It's a shifting thing. It's two men, from shifting places, speaking in vague terms about assuming a concrete job position in troubled times. McCain has said the place he lived the longest in his life growing was prison camp-5 years, and Obama, moved all over the place too from Hawaii, to Kansas, to elite school after elite school, then ended up, after a bit, in Chicago. I've never seen anything like it. It's really weird, and it doesn't inspire my confidence.

It seems in the quest for the "big title" there has been a misplacement of something very important.... MEANING.

We all need it. It isn't enough to have a goal. We have to have the undergirding in and through the framework of our efforts. This might be true somewhere under the mess of the electoral campaign, but it didn't come out when you would wish to see it the most. The first debate is the plug toward the undecided voter-the commercial. And it underlined the lesson for each of us just how vacuous even the most important of pursuit can look without a sound framework.

It looks like unsightly ambition, grasping... or floating, vanity, even silliness. I'd like to see some meaning.

Brief insights from the desert

Reading the desert Abbas and Ammas I've learned something profound, that the desolation of our deserts illicit from within anything that which God needs to purify. Here many battled demons. They ate little. They owned nothing. They lived alone.

These people would seek the empty places searching for wisdom and union with God. They as saints would find it, not easily. Through prioritizing, renunciation of the world and its values, obedience to God and their spiritual guides they became revered. They had purity in heart, simplicity, and a true centrality of a life devoted in prayer.

I don't suggest we transform into ascetics, but giving heed to what the desert can call out of us will change us into something much better. It may refine us quite well into single-minded, unencumbered devotees of the Savior. It seems being stripped down to only us and God draws out our dependency to God in ways we cannot know otherwise; in ways where we cannot so easily hide, among our things and habits and self-aggrandizing obligations.

Perhaps this is why -silent retreats and prayer retreats- are gaining in popularity and priority, and perhaps we'd do well to make way for one, at least a mini one.

My free book - Coffeehouse Theology

Okay, I admit it, I love getting free books.

NavPress sent me one, and it still smells lovely, right off the press. It's called Coffeehouse Theology, by Ed Cyzewski. So far it looks really solid, very applicable, and and I'm really glad to have it nearby.

It's fantastic timing as I'm in the middle of my Christian Theology class right now. We are really unpacking how theology PLAYS OUT. This book speaks to just that. Kevin Vanhoozer in his Doctrine of Drama presents Theo-drama, and it's very inspiring for those of us who believe God is not just the scriptwriters but the star of this created world. The trouble is reading Vanhoozer, which I love, is like swimming through pudding. Not many will last through it, or want.

I'll be commenting more on Cyzewski's book here periodically as I piece through it. If you pick up a copy, chime it! What has stood out to you so far? Let me know.

How a "President Palin" would reform Evangelicalism

I have a thesis in mind, and here is the short version.

The fact is Evangelicals have no idea how much culture they bring to their hermeneutic. They way they understand Scripture and the roles of women. as women have gained respect in american culture, women have gained more responsibility in the church.

Is this because God's word says so? It's because they find it in there. They mine the text for truth.

All Evangelical women should vote for Palin as VP if they want more prominence in the church then, because the visibility and stature of of Sarah Palin, will have a ripple effect for them.

What is the truth? how does God feel about it? What does the Bible REALLY say?

It's not, I believe hammered out in perfect detail by Paul for women in the year 2008 in America. It seems God settled in back in a garden, when two people still had fruit juice on their lips. He sewed them leather garments. He redeemed them both. He did not have to. He covered BOTH their shame. He made it right. consequences happened, and yes, blame started, but God redeemed women. Man just forgot, conveniently. God reminded humankind in his Laws. Man forgot, conveniently. Women forgot too.

How strange for secular culture to remind us of the rightness of things, and that women are not less than men.

Redemption vs. punishment

I had the chance to press charges today. I didn't.

I'm hoping to redeem a neighborhood situation. And not just a situation either. It's about investing, I hope, in healing, which sometimes looks like letting people get off the hook. Redemption ---working it out-- can be an ugly process, too, until it's through.I'm praying more, too.

Many people don't take the chance when they have redemption given to them. They just opt for the corruption.

Is undertaking all this community organizing? No, not really. But building bridges is the redemptive work for every Believer, and yes, this can be community organizing. Those words are buzz words, that will play out in terrible ways too soon, and used to sledgehammer, when a tweezer would do better.

It's all a work in progress. We can't give up. We can't hide in our Christian bubbles.