Dirty Work

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."  James 1:27

The term "dirty work" conjures images for each of us. Waste collection. Undertaking. Sewage treatment. Trafficking. Assassins. Essentially it is any task or activity that is viewed as unpleasant or dishonest and given to someone else to do. We all have different ideas of what that phrase entails. The common goal of any dirty work is to clean things up. We attempt to leave things better than we found them when no one else will.

For this reason I will put pastor at the top of my list of dirty jobs. Pastoring is exactly that. An unpleasant task we expect someone else to do. I think we have lost sight of what it means to pastor in our prosperity centric mainstream westernized churches. And we are spreading our notions like cancer throughout the body. Ministry positions are seen as glamorous and luxurious, roles of status and prestige. Be a pastor. Commandeer a mega-church. Gather thousands to line your coffers, buy you homes, and fuel the most magnificent pyramid scheme ever devised. I am here to tell you that nothing could be further from the truth.

The word "pastor" comes from the latin verb pascere and means "to lead to pasture." It is the word for "shepherd." In Greek it is the word ποιμήν (poimen) also meaning shepherd. It is one who serves the flock, tending to their needs for care. It is a person who will do whatever it takes to keep each member of the flock in good health and standing. It is a person who will sacrifice their own comfort for the safety of others. A shepherd must be willing to descend into the muddy ditches of reality, away from the pulpits and pedestals of Sunday morning. A shepherd lives daily in the fields with their flock. A shepherd is dirty work. 

The prophet Ezekiel had strong words against irresponsible shepherds. "Woe to the shepherds of Israel who feed themselves? Should not the shepherds feed the flocks?  You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool; you slaughter the fatlings, but you do not feed the flock. The weak you have not strengthened, nor have you healed those who were sick, nor bound up the broken, nor brought back what was driven away, nor sought what was lost; but with force and cruelty you have ruled them." Eze 34:2-4

While living in Denver I volunteered weekly at a food bank for the homeless and financially disadvantaged. I met face to face every week with suffering of some sort. That work taught me more about the beauty and complexity of humanity than any other job ever has. This year I once again found a food pantry to serve and my heart is broken daily with the magnitude of suffering many of us willfully ignore.

Most people do not have time to be bothered with feeding or clothing the poor. We have better things to do. Are there not government programs to do all that dirty work for us? Can we not pay someone to do the deed? Pain and suffering make us uncomfortable. What could we possibly have in common with them? I am so clean. They are so dirty.

Several years ago I participated in a mentoring program that asked me to identify certain character issues in which I desired to see growth. I recall one of those being compassion. I felt my skills for sympathy and empathy were sorely underdeveloped. On most occasions, when confronted with suffering or pain, I would awkwardly focus elsewhere and thank my lucky stars it was them and not me. Then I would praise God for how blessed I was. Ah, what a life of luxury. I am so comfortable. I am so blessed. God must love me so much.

But what is that really saying? I will tell you how others hear it - those who are suffering.

If I suffer, it is my fault.
I have done something wrong.
God is displeased with me.
He is trying to teach me a lesson.
I am worthless.
I have nothing to offer.
I am a drain on society.
I am a drain on others.
They mistreat me when I ask for help.
They make me feel dirty.
Is there a magic formula that will make God love me more?
If I had more resources would people be friendlier? Would I have more friends?
I will never be one of them.

Eventually they grow bitter. They begin to resent everyone and everything. Every advantage of those around them glares at and mocks them. The prosperous hand them food with their perfectly manicured nails ($60), coiffed hair, vibrant highlights ($140), and purposely ripped designer jeans ($200). The impoverished want to reach out and take the $2.00 meal, but they find it difficult to do so without the intrusion of bile rising to choke them. The do-gooders drive off in their air conditioned vehicle, patting themselves on the back for a job well done.

Queries of indignation and confusion arise.

Did they even bother to ask me a question? Find out about my situation? Learn the sequence of events that led to destitution? No. I was just a face. A feel good for an empty heart. An opportunity to once again walk away thanking God for all the blessings bestowed. Did anyone bother to sit down and walk me through a step by step process for how to get myself into a better place? Most likely not.

We are insensitive. I was insensitive. Now I seem to feel everything. And it is painful. Helping no longer makes me feel good about myself. It makes me hurt. The phrase "give until it hurts" has an all different meaning to me. Most of us will never know what that means. We think the phrase refers to some sort of impact on our wallet. Money has nothing to do with it. To give until it hurts means to give of yourself, your person, your time, your emotion, until you are physically pained by the plight of others. Until your heart aches in your chest.

That is what it means to be a pastor. To be a shepherd. It is to be willing to do the dirty work. To get out of your fancy clothes, off your pedestal, out from behind your pulpit, and roam the fields with your sheep daily. To see to their needs, feed them, clothe them, bind their wounds, sit in their grief, hold them, comfort them, and love them. Until it hurts.

Don't Panic!

I haven't shut down my blog; I simply moved addresses. Update your bookmarks! And look forward to an all new update soon about what I've been doing the past few months. I think you'll be as excited as I am!

What's Your DNA?

Last year my daughter made the proud announcement that she was going to be a geneticist. She’s twelve years old. Most people might find a tween’s fascination with molecular make up and genes surprising. Not me. It’s in her DNA. No really. It's quite literally due to her DNA. Twelve years ago I got the call every new parent dreads. You need to bring your newborn in for further tests - something’s not right. I subsequently discovered my sweet little girl had a rare genetic disorder. I explored the few options available for treatment, both accepted methods and exploratory methods. There’s nothing more disturbing to a parent than having a sick child and not knowing what to do to fix it. As I soon found out, there is currently no cure for this disorder, but there is treatment through diet. She started the diet immediately and it will be a lifelong discipline for her. Dietitians, geneticists, and phlebotomists have been part of her every day life and have shaped who she sees as being influential and life changing in the world. It has shaped who she wants to be - it is her DNA. 

A few years later a trial study on gene replacement therapy attempted a procedure on a volunteer patient with my daughter’s same disorder. The risks were high, but the adult patient accepted the consequences. All proceeded according to plan until day three post op when the patient’s body ultimately rejected the gene replacement therapy and the patient deceased - liver failure. The body could not tolerate the level of change and the patient’s DNA rejected what it perceived to be foreign and dangerous. Was it dangerous? Theoretically, no. But organisms do not respond on the theoretical - only the actual. 

That study came to mind this week as I thought about change and transitions, specifically as they pertain to organizations and the Church. I read an article on church planting and felt the desire to write on this topic. The Church is a living organism. Scripture repeatedly refers to Her in terms of a life-giving, growing, animate body. That is what we are. We are a living breathing community of like-minded individuals designed to work in concert with another. We have DNA - fundamental and distinctive characteristics that define who we are, what we look like, and how we interact with others. We are genetically coded like any other organism. 

I grew up in ministry. My parents are missionaries/pastors and I have watched many transitions during the course of my life growing up in ministry - some good and some bad. We always have good intentions, but sometimes you cannot account for every factor of a church’s DNA when proposing change. Just as you would not capriciously invade the body of a patient without careful research, testing, and planning, we should not carelessly execute change in the microorganisms we call a church. DNA is fragile when tampered with, yet surprisingly resilient when handled with care. 

My church is going through a transition right now. Not a negative transition, but a transition nonetheless. As with all changes, an analysis of the existing DNA is necessary for optimal performance, risk management and continuity - fancy business buzz words for overall survivability. One can make changes in diet, exercise, composition, and structure, but consulting with a physician and making decisions based on the individual is essential to successful transition. My workout must be designed for my body and its capabilities or I’m going to end up hurt. The same occurs when we try to transplant perfectly good ideas into an environment that does not foster the nutrients necessary for the growth of that specific plan. No matter how great an ideology, if it is incompatible with the existing DNA of a culture, it will fail.The compatibility between ideology and reality is essential. I’ve seen business after business topple in this town because they failed to take the culture into account when devising a model. DNA is everything. What makes a city? How was it founded? What is the work ethic? What are the demographics? What is the pace of business? Who are the movers and shakers? How did they become successful? Who actually makes decisions? (Not who thinks they make decisions - that’s entirely different.) Is the population transient or stable? Where do the locals hang out? The list is endless as to the amount of information one could collect to analyze the DNA of a community.

I read an article a few months ago about an L.A. judge who implemented a marathon training program on Skid Row. The program was a huge success and I remember thinking what a wonderful idea to imitate. I immediately wrote up a simple plan of how that might work in my community and started to research the surrounding culture. What I found out surprised me. My city doesn't really have a homeless population - or at least they do not recognize their presence. When they find a straggler they relocate the individual outside the city limits. (I’m not advocating for or against this method - I’m just relaying what I discovered.) In addition to this method of dealing with the homeless, the city also implements a successful drug rehabilitation program for which there are only 5-6 participants at any given time. Not quite the burgeoning load of Skid Row. What did I decide to do? While a great idea full of good intentions, this plan would not work for my location. Instead I focused on the need I did uncover - a precariously balanced demographic bordering on financial destitution and poverty. This I could deal with. I’ve been uncomfortably close to this several times in my life and my empathy is great. I once heard the statistic that over 80% of Americans live just one paycheck away from homelessness. That’s reality. One missed paycheck can change a person’s future for years. In a state that prides itself on every vice known to humankind, that’s not a situation you want to be stuck in all by yourself. Your best bet for turning a quick buck is to learn to entertain or hit the slots. And trust me on this, the first thought when in a panic is not necessarily crying out to God. The church is not easily seen as a solution here. Church is where you go when you get your act together. We get all cleaned up for church. Put on our “Sunday best” and go to impress. 

Thankfully that’s not how it works. Or at least that’s not how it’s supposed to work. That’s not how it worked for me. While I was still a sinner, Christ died for me. Not when I got my act together. Not after I cleaned up. Not wearing my Sunday best. He died for me as an abject wreck. While in Denver working with a church food bank I heard a man explain that he could not bring his family to church because his children did not have nice clothes. Is that what we’re teaching? God has no place for you unless you have nice clothes? God loved us because we first got ourselves cleaned up and our act together? I don’t think so. We have plenty of organizations that function by those standards. The Church should not be one. 

I didn’t find the program support I so desperately wanted in my research. I didn’t find what I was looking for at all. But that’s ok. I found something even better - the real hearts and needs surrounding me - the need for supportive community. I found the city’s DNA. I can build programs that are not only good in ideology, but that will be good in their implementation and effectiveness. I can create designs that foster growth and life instead of stagnation. I can allocate and utilize the resources and skills available to impact others and create healthy relationships around me. Miscalculating the DNA of your church and community can be the difference between life and death. Know your people. Know your DNA.

Killing the 100th Monkey

For a period of over 30 years scientists studied the Japanese monkey, Macaca Fuscata, in the wild. In 1952, on the island of Koshima, scientists provided monkeys with sweet potatoes dropped in the sand. The monkeys liked the taste of the raw sweet potatoes, but they found the dirt unpleasant. An 18-month-old female named Imo solved the problem by washing the potatoes in a nearby stream. She taught this trick to her mother. Her playmates also learned this new way and they taught their mothers too.

This cultural innovation was gradually picked up by several of the other monkeys. Only the adults who imitated their children learned this social improvement. Other adults kept eating the dirty sweet potatoes.

Then something startling took place. In the autumn of 1958, a certain number of Koshima monkeys were washing sweet potatoes. The exact number is unknown, but when the practice of washing sweet potatoes reached that certain amount of monkeys, the culture suddenly shifted. 

By that evening almost everyone in the tribe was washing sweet potatoes before eating them. The added energy of this hundredth monkey somehow created an ideological breakthrough!

But notice: A most surprising thing observed by these scientists was that the habit of washing sweet potatoes leapt the geographical confines of the island to cross the sea. Colonies of monkeys on other islands and the mainland troop of monkeys at Takasakiyama began washing their sweet potatoes.

Thus, when a certain critical number achieves an awareness, this new awareness may be communicated unconsciously from mind to mind. Although the exact number may vary, this Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon means that when only a limited number of people know of a new way, it may remain the conscious property of these people. But there is a point at which if only one more person tunes-in to a new awareness, a field is strengthened so that this awareness is picked up by almost everyone!

The hundredth monkey phenomenon refers to a sudden spontaneous and mysterious leap of consciousness achieved when an allegedly "critical mass" point is reached. The idea of the hundredth monkey phenomenon comes from Dr. Lyall Watson (1938-2008) in his book Lifetide (1979). 

As in the case of these primates, repeatedly throughout history the same things have been invented by different people in different parts of the world at the same time without any connected knowledge or relationship to one another. The telephone is one common example as are many social movements where several people seemed to have thought of the same thing at the same time. I have noticed the same thing occurring in Church history with theological developments and social movements. In charismatic circles we refer to it as a move of the Spirit. These moves have accounted for events such as revivals, egalitarianism, and abolitionism. Today we see it more prevalent in social justice and equality movements. As believers we understand these movements as Spirit driven and vehicles of social change towards justice and equality. Carl Jung called it the collective unconscious. David Wilcock called it the source field. We invoke its noetic power with a phenomenon we call "prayer."

But today we pray to be right, rather than pray for truth. We don't want truth if it shakes our worldview or causes us to alter our preconceived notions or modify our theology. We would rather kill that 100th monkey than let the collective consciousness work towards the evolution of our ideas, worldviews and social constructs. We would rather cling to nonsensical arguments than commit to the necessary work involved in reassessing the idea and fixing what is broken. 

We idolize institutions and ideologies at the cost of our compassion and care for people. We spew hateful rhetoric instead of acknowledging that our limited ideals may have created the problem in the first place. Christ's teaching dealt with caring for and serving others, not bowing to institutions. In fact, he taught against the bigotry of pride and discrimination with parables like The Good Samaritan and The Prodigal Son. As Pope Francis says, "It is a serious illness in the Church, this of ideological Christians." It causes us to dismiss those with whom we do not agree. 

I have many friends currently writing on LGBTQ issues, both for and against. And while we disagree on a great many things and our views span a wide variety of opinions, we agree on one central issue: we do not exclude from worship or bar the way to the cross. That is a sin greater than any other. My greatest concern in this debate is the matter of method. How we formulate our arguments and the consistency and accuracy of our rhetoric. A friend of mine frequently asks me to review his work for methodological accuracy, coherency and/or inconsistencies. We don't agree on everything, but I provide him with the tools he needs to make his arguments sound. Blasting incoherent arguments back and forth is futile and counterproductive towards reconciliation. Yesterday he wrote a careful response to a flippant post by Christianity Today on Tony Campolo's support for the inclusion of gay christians. He quoted me in the fourth paragraph and when I asked why he said, "because you say smart stuff." Good! I'm tired of people saying stupid things. And I'm really tired of ideological Christians excluding those of us who do not fit their molds from worship.  

For a while I dreaded walking into a church because it always felt like people would want to fix my situation. "You shouldn't be a single mom," was the message I received. Shame on you. Shame. Shame. Shame. Political rhetoric was no different. Conservatives, of which I am one on some issues, kept telling me I was a burden on society.  They harped on the inefficiency of the single parent. Well yeah! You keep telling us we're not worth anything and a drain on society. What do you think is going to happen? I had a friend tell me recently that the ideal way to raise a family is with two parents. Of course it is. That's just simple mathematics. Three incomes would be even better! Or four! The more contributors the merrier. Oh no wait - that's socialism. No my friends. That's the Church. That's community. We take care of each other. We foster an environment where people don't have to be afraid to say, "I'm hurting. I'm in need. Can you help me get back on my feet." The problem within the Church is that we are running it like a government. It was never designed to be a government, people! The Church was created to be a social minister of healing to the world. And when the Church fails at her job, the government steps in to pick up her slack. That's the real role reversal about which we should be concerned.

Now as it pertains to the LGBTQ community, here are the issues I would like to see us work out a little better:

1) natural law;
2) gender;
3) reproduction; and
4) marriage. 

Here's how the arguments are currently failing. 

We have no idea what gender is. We try to cram our notions of male and female into compartmentalized roles that have no bearing on the majority of society. These constructs are realistic for only about 1 percent of the world's population. We base our case studies on socially constructed ideals and then claim that this is the way things are. Boys are blue and girls are pink. What we end up doing with these polarized boxes is creating confusion in people outside of the box. I like blue. If you convince me that blue is only for boys then I am going to begin to question whether or not I am a girl. Of course I have girl parts, but am I a boy inside? My daughter and I watched an episode of brain games together on the battle of the sexes. In all of the examples given both my daughter and I identified with the "male" brain. So from that we must logically conclude that we are male. Right? No. I'm a female. End of story. I'm sorry folks, but our meticulously crafted constructs of gender are what is damaging our understanding of who we are. If I bought into everything the Pipers, Grudems, and Driscolls tried to tell me about the difference between men and women, the gifts we bring, or the roles we play, I'd assume I was a man too. Because I don't fit the mold. My insides don't fit my outsides. So please stop telling people what their insides should look like to match their outsides. If you want to formulate a theology of gender then it must begin from above. God created humans in His image as male AND female. That's where the discussion needs to start. 

When it comes to reproduction, the argument for the child centric nature of marriage was tossed out long ago by all but a few extremists we typically refer to as the "full quiver" movement. This is a very small percentage of Christianity. Most Christians today practice some sort of birth control both in and outside of marriage. We no longer view children as a necessary byproduct of copulation. I am not saying the idea is right or wrong; I am saying we have thrown that argument out. So in order to use this argument against the LGBTQ community our past decisions need to be revisited. You cannot say on the one hand that children are integral to the notion of marriage and then in the very same breath say that they are not. We need to seriously revisit that one, because it is inconsistent. We alienate the barren, the elderly, the single wishing to adopt, the single parent, the couple wanting to get married yet with no desire to have children. Is this our intent? The argument is broken and we sound silly presenting it. 

Families happen whether there is marriage or not. I'm not married, yet I have a family. A beautiful family. And we rely heavily on our community for emotional, spiritual, mental and physical support. We are not an independent little island. That's rather ridiculous. I don't sew my own clothes, spin my yarn, spool my thread. I don't grow my own food or milk my own cows. We live in an interdependent society, yet try to function under an ideological illusion. Families don't all live in close proximity. We're spread all over the globe. So we make new family - we make a community. We are not related by blood or marriage. We're connected through commonalities - location, purpose, demographics, culture. We come alongside one another and help each other out. I may be, by definition a "single parent," but there's nothing single about my life. I'm very much living in community.  

Nancy Pearcey is quoted by The Family Project as saying the following: "The biblical concept of marriage as a covenant is that it is a pre-existing social institution built into our very nature. We don't create it so much as we enter into it. The relationship of marriage is a moral entity that exists in itself, with its own normative definition. That means it confers on us certain moral obligations such as fidelity, integrity, and so on."

Oh. You mean like a social contract?

To suggest that marriage is built into our very nature as preexisting is to suggest that marriage is integral to the definition of what it means to be a human. This is false for several reasons.

1) Marriage will not exist in heaven and yet we will all still be human.

How is this possible? Or will we cease to be human? Well, we'll have glorified bodies. But we won't be human, right? Because to be human is have the pre-existing social institution of marriage hard-wired into our very nature. Is it essential to what it means to be human? Tell that to the happy single person. But singles aren't happy. Well yeah, you keep telling them there's something wrong with them! I wouldn't be happy either. What Ms. Pearcey did was make an ontological assertion that is, quite frankly, not defendable. We sabotage ourselves with these arguments. (For more on my thoughts about marriage see here.)

2) Marriage is not a prerequisite for humanity.

Humans are created on a daily basis outside of marriage. In fact the first two humans in the Bible were created outside of marriage. What they did have though, is a necessary relationship between creation and Creator that is the only essential ingredient to humanity. Scripture after scripture makes the claim that all things are created by him and through him and without him nothing exists. When Christ came and died on the cross he did not restore marriage; he restored the relationship between creation and Creator. That, people, is the gospel! Not our theology of family and marriage. Galli in his Christianity Today article previously mentioned refers to marriage as "the most intimate of covenant relationships." It is not. The most intimate of covenant relationships is the one we have with God, followed by the one we have with our fellow believers in the unity of the Spirit. These relationships are eternal and therefore, the most intimate. Marriage is temporal and not eternal and cannot be the most intimate.

This way of thinking, where marriage is how we view God, is a bottom up approach to theology. And while it is difficult to avoid this method since we live "down here" and essentially all our theology starts at the bottom, it is important that a top down approach to our theological constructs arrive at the same conclusion, otherwise they are inconsistent. And I'm afraid this argument for marriage just doesn't do that. I have nothing against marriage. I think it's wonderful. But it's not perfect. And it's not divine. The only divine relationship we have access to is that between the Creator and the created and the unique bond of fellowship that exists between those who believe in that Creator. With that in mind, a bond can exist within a marriage between two believers, but it is not a mystical bond that exists because they are sexually active together. It is a bond that exists because they are one in Christ just as we are with all believers. Everyone thinks about sex too much and unfortunately, they think a little too highly of sex.

Sex is great! Don't get me wrong. But every living, reproducing species on the planet has sex. It's not uniquely human. But now we come back to the debate of the reproductive nature of sexual relations. And while I hold a very "natural law" view of that dependent relationship, I'm afraid the Church threw out that argument decades ago as well. The reasoning is broken. So I resort to a let go and let God approach to the whole matter and guess what? We're back at the relationship between sex, marriage and reproduction being a matter between the Creator and the created. God comes to us. We do not come to Him first. We are incapable of such a gesture. Our beliefs and views on marriage and sexuality do not define God. That is impossible. God is outside of and beyond our social constructs. But because He came to us and initiated with us, the relationship we have with Him defines all other relationships. Do you see the difference? Nothing we do to the definition of marriage is going to change who God is or who He is in relation to us. Stop arguing about the unimportant things and focus on the gospel - the relationship between God and humans. Our theology of family will not get us to heaven. Think through your arguments. You are not parrots. Don't repeat arguments you have not worked through yourself. It is irresponsible. Think critically.

Ultimately, I think what we're all after is what we've always been after - a return Eden. We desire to be in a place where we can be naked and unashamed. A place where there is acceptance and love. Where we do not take advantage of each other. We do not spew hateful words. We do not attack, kill, or claw for power. The Church is a place where we should be laying open our wounds and hurts. We preach a utopia but we're so dead set against anything that would move us closer. We preach a better way - a better world.  And yet we resort to fear tactics and teach absurd outcomes that speak no love as if we have not read the end of the story.

I'm not convinced of what's going on yet as a movement. All I know is that there is a strong collective voice leading us away from harmful institutions and ideologies that have objectified and hurt people and I don't think that's a bad thing. We have abused one another for far too long and something is changing. Is all change good? No. Yet when a flood of realization sweeps through the collective consciousness, everything gets swept up with it. I'm a progressive in the sense that I want us to always be moving forward, growing and changing. People may or may not look back on my writing and know the issues we struggled with in the 21st century. I'm an ever-growing daily participant in church history. Someday maybe seminarians will look back and study my ideas. They may not know my name, because I may be one of the 100 monkeys. I do not have to be the loudest voice, or the strongest, or the most well articulated. But I may very well be the 100th that causes a social breakthrough.

Lake Woebegon

"Well, it's been a quiet week in Lake Woebegon..."

The school year is winding down to a finish. This Friday is the kids' last day. They're excited. Naomi's taking tests and Declan's doing what Kindergartener's do - recess, recess, and more recess. He's pretty stoked about being a first grader. Me too. All day school and no more preschool / day care fees! We have about two weeks of fun in the sun and then they're off to Tennessee for the summer. I'm compiling a reading list and plotting out my work/volunteer hours to stay busy. I get bored without them around. I'm also placing an inordinate amount of pressure on my significant other to keep me from plunging into the depths of despair. Good luck with that, sweetie.

I finally finished Kathleen Norris' Acedia and Me. Took long enough. I think a byproduct of taking on that book is subjecting oneself to the noonday demon's attacks on a regular basis. It's almost as if some dark force didn't want me to finish it! And rightly so. Norris threw me for a loop towards the end as she expanded the definition of acedia to include not only the absence of motivation and concern, but also the presence of and preoccupation with things and activities that just don't matter. That rocked my world. I took a quick inventory of my life and discovered I have an overabundance of pursuits about which, frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

And so the last few weeks I have been consumed with plans to make a little more sense of my direction and purpose and to focus on the things I actually care about. I'll post more shortly on what that entails, but it's enough to say - I'm excited!

My parents, brother, and sister-in-law were in town recently. It was great having them here. They're always so supportive and encouraging. The kids loved hanging out with Uncle Danny and Aunt Rene.  This was their first time meeting Aunt Rene and it had been five years since they'd seen Uncle Danny.  Grandpa and Grandma stayed all week and did what they do best - gave a tired mom some company and rest.

I'm finally starting to feel like my self again after being sick for several weeks. Fatigue is slowly ebbing away and my energy is coming back. The news is trying to kill me on an all different level though. Sheesh! The south is flooding. I got a message from my best friend in Texas saying Dallas and Houston are under water and Lake Travis in Austin is almost up to level. Sure would be nice to have a little of that in our 100ft bathtub ringed Lake Mead (pictured above in 2006 before the drought). Bitter? Little bit. Ah well. Water under the bridge. Too soon? The conservative evangelical poster child, Josh Duggar, turns out to be a child molester - shocker. Mark Driscoll is back on a platform somewhere feeding his narcissism - predictable. Some Texas mega church leaders attacked one of their female members for pursuing an annulment from her newly discovered pedophile husband - seriously? You can't make this crap up! Bruce came out as Caitlyn and infuriated the patriarchal, purity culture infused, shame based order as they all shrivel in self flagellating horror at how provocative and enticing she is. Talk about a stumbling block. Wowzers! But seriously though. Welcome to womanhood, Caitlyn. If you plan on staying please don't inhibit our battle towards equality and freedom. And please find yourself a counselor because you're going to need one with all the additional struggles you're about to face as the perceived weaker sex.

On the reading front I'm tackling two pieces at the moment: The Father's Tale by Michael O'Brien, a modern retelling of The Good Samaritan and The Prodigal Son and Recovering From Unbiblical Manhood and Womanhood by Susanna Krizo, a response to evangelical patriarchy. Krizo's writing structure is brilliant. The entire book is a conversation between a christian and a theologian. It's very engaging, yet challenging. You'll know what I mean if you've ever tried to write dialogue. In my opinion, writing dialogue is the hardest part of storytelling. Kudos Krizo.

In other news, my man took off to Sao Paulo, Brazil for 10 days. WITHOUT ME! Just kidding. The trip was planned long before we crossed paths. I'm still rather envious though. I didn't think I would be until I started putting together a list of a dozen or so things he needed to see and do while there. The message I got this morning, "I'll never miss breakfast here! Fruits, coffee, that yummy cheese bread you make, meats, cakes, cheeses. I even had cashew juice this morning!" Rat. I know it's amazing!!! I grew up there! There better be tons of pictures when he gets back.

"Well, that's the news from Lake Woebegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking (at least mine is), and all the children are above average."

I Want to Be Like Who

I missed blogging last week. I was sick. Icky sick. Tonsillitis sick. Or some such nonsense. It was miserable. 3 days of fever and it's still hard to swallow 6 days later. Takes me a really long time to eat stuff. In fact, that's why I'm blogging right now. I'm trying to eat and I got bored chewing my food incessantly. With all my down time if I wasn't sleeping, I was reading. I read more on acedia, which is kind of a dumb idea while sick. You feel lethargic to begin with and to pile conviction of unproductiveness on top of that just compounds the guilt. Guilt was short-lived however, when I came across an interesting quote.

"True sloths are not revolutionaries, but the lazy guardians at the gate of the status quo."

I wrote last year on several aspects of the status quo that I frequently encounter, but there are many others. I realized quickly that my frequent confrontations with the status quo pretty much negate any suspicion of slothfulness. I'm a pretty hard worker and downright revolutionary in some circles!

The weekend before last I took a trip down to Mexico with my rotary group to volunteer in a housebuilding project. I enjoyed it immensely. I learned a ton about building a house and hammered more nails than I could possibly count (my forearms reminded me for days after). I was amazed at how much we accomplished in 9 hours. I was also amazed at how much fun I had working on a roof. I was a little nervous at first, but adjusted quickly. I'm not afraid of heights exactly; I'm afraid of falling. There's a difference. Anyway, fear conquered and mission accomplished (yeah, that's me on the roof there). I got to meet and work alongside some amazing people. I've always enjoyed projects like these as they require physical exertion and time well spent with others. I'm not really the "isolated in a box" sort. That's an understatement. I pretty much wither and die. I've always needed to work with and around people.


I've been picking through episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation for a while now. I watched an episode from season 3 titled Hollow Pursuits that was pretty insightful as to what happens to a human being when they can no longer work with real people due to either intentional isolation and fantasizing or apathy. It's an easy habit to fall into. We fantasize about people all the time.


What should we say?
What should we do?
Wouldn't it be great if...
Oh that person made me so mad!
I should have said this or that!

Relationships and interactions begin to happen within our heads instead of in the real world. Expectations are managed in our heads with nary a word spoken. Arguments begin, climax and end leaving us with the full range of experienced emotions without even a face-to-face encounter.


Barclay, portrayed by Dwight Schultz, takes to spending most of his time on the holodeck rehearsing scenes he'd rather have played out with members of the Enterprise crew. Unfortunately, Barclay can no longer function in the real world. When he attempts to engage with the real crew members he freezes up and recedes into awkward silence. Finally frustrated, he returns again to the holodeck where his expectations and engagements can be managed to his satisfaction. Losing the ability to talk to real people is a shame.  Disengagement or detachment is an immature emotional response to human relational skills we've never taken the time to develop and do not have the courage to pursue. It's new. It's uncomfortable. And inside we're like cowering little children afraid to come out of the closet. As adults it manifests more as poor conflict resolution skills. Conflict's not really something that troubles me though. If I'm thinking something you're going to know about it. But I know people that disengage and detach and it saddens me. It's acquiescing to the status quo. It is a failure to be revolutionary. To be daring. To be bold and courageous. Have I mentioned I don't deal well with the status quo? Nor do I deal well with its slothful guardians. If the only change affected is your own status in the world then there is nothing revolutionary about your endeavors - no matter how noble they may seem. You are merely the status quo.


What an insane notion. Where do I get these ideas? Well, I'd like to think they're christocentric. The only other alternative persona I have for an altruistic individual humbly sacrificing his life for the human race is Who? Doctor, that is. I want to be like Who! Most people want to be a companion, but not this girl. I want to be Who. Because the only way you can be a good companion is by being just like Who. If I'm constantly setting my sites on being like one of the companions I'm never going to be in tune with my Doctor. I think this is an important principle people! Especially when I flip it back to a christocentric approach. I get annoyed when people say things like, "I want to be more like Moses, Abigail, Priscilla, Peter, Abraham,  or Mary." Why? They're just companions. The only reason they were even remotely successful in the parts they played is because they were following their Doctor. They were being Christ-like. Trying to be like just one of other followers is, well, blah. No one cosplays the cosplay. That's just silly. Likewise, you don't become a disciple by following someone else. The only way to become a true disciple is to follow the Master. I remember watching a pastor preach and pray once. Something about him just seemed off and fabricated. A few weeks later I met one of his mentors. I watched the mentor preach and pray and suddenly realized what I was seeing. I was seeing the mentee mimic the mentor instead of being a genuine demonstration of himself. It was almost comical. I see it a lot around me. Not just in ministry, but everywhere. We start sounding like those around us, changing, melding, molding into those we admire. We become collective replicas of one another, kind of like the cybermen. We forget who we are. We forget Who. (Ok, enough on my Who rant.)

Now back to acedia, sloth and revolutions - I think I'm ok in the grand scheme of things.  I think all my worry about acedia is for nought. I've spent way too much time worrying about appropriate levels of motivation, ambition, and drive only to realize that their focus was the very path towards acedia in the first place. Acedia is not merely inactivity; it is the often overlooked practice of being overly busy with the wrong things. Being busy with things about which we are not passionate or gifted. Acedia distracts us from our purpose in life, the role we should be playing for personal and spiritual growth and fulfillment. Acedia breeds boredom and discontent with everything. I've said it many times, but I guess I need to say it again to remind myself. My purpose and calling in life doesn't change. My roles and responsibilities may grow and change as life changes, but the underlying theme that gives me meaning doesn't change. And that is reassuring. If the source of our purpose and meaning is alterable, then it's not legitimate to begin with. However, if we perchance misinterpret our meaning and that alters, well then, that can generate an outright existential crisis. You don't want that.

I've thoroughly enjoyed my ongoing study into acedia. It has aided me in refocusing on the things in life that do indeed motivate me and drive my ambition. And just in time too! I've got family coming in town next week and I need to get stuff around here ready. Well, that's about all I've been up to the last 2 weeks offblog. Got a new piece coming soon on monkeys, man, and management. I realize this blog was a little helter-skelter, but I'm just going to blame it on my physical discomfort. I'm just glad I wrote it.

House of Mirrors

"The mountains and hills may crumble, but my love for you will never end." Isaiah 54:10

I read this verse tonight. I found it to be well timed. I think it is easy to forget why one has faith. We are bombarded day in and day out with logical reasons we do not necessarily need faith or God. There is an explanation for everything. And while those explanations do not negate the existence of God, they can at times diminish our dependence or need of God.

Love always reminds me of the reason why I so desperately need my faith in Him. It is the one area for me that is completely irrational, illogical, and unscientific. It begins. It thrives. It tapers. It dies. For a being to exist that can make an absolute statement such as everlasting love? Well, I need that being in my life. I need faith in that. I need to know what that looks like. What that feels like. But it isn't just for me. I need to know these things not just as a recipient. I need to know so I can be a giver as well.

One thing I have realized over time is that brokenness begets brokenness. We have all been hurt at one time or another. We have all been neglected, ignored, mistreated, abused, forsaken, and abandoned. If we know nothing else then this is all we are capable of mimicking in return. Even in light of lofty ideals we are incapable of actualizing those ideals without some sort of practical application or demonstration. The only way we are capable of expressing love is because we have been loved.

Were I to love others in only the fashion in which I have been loved by those that have crossed my path in life, I'd be a pretty shoddy lover. That isn't to say that I have not been loved. But it is to say that none of us are capable of loving perfectly. The end result is that we are always going to hurt others both purposefully and accidentally. It will happen. It is extremely distasteful when people fail to realize or admit they are broken and that in their brokenness they inevitably hurt others. I don't know how others function, but I can't work with that. However, to hear an admission of imperfection... Aha! That I can work with.

There is a tremendous amount of weight that lifts from my chest when I remove the burden of endless love from those around me and let it rest on the shoulders of the only being capable of such infinite expression. There is freedom to give without the unrealistic expectation of perfect reciprocity. I am no longer attempting to mirror someone else's love; I am channeling a source of infinite love. Of course that does not mean I am capable of demonstrating perfect love. Because, guess what? I'm broken too. And while I am unable to love perfectly, I can at least do more than join the house of chaotic mirrors that perpetually distorts reality.

If all we ever do is mirror love, the world would be a dark and desolate place. And some days really are faint and lonely. Even in the presence of many who love, it can seem like a barren wilderness. Yet for me, the knowledge of the existence of perfect love by a perfect being makes that wilderness bearable.  The more we learn to redirect our expectations from the imperfect to the perfect the better we become at caring for one another.  We cease to mirror the brokenness - our own and that of others - and become vessels and conduits of something greater than ourselves. Something infinite. Something perfect. Now that's a lofty ideal. Perhaps irrational, illogical, definitely unscientific. But it's mine. And I love it.

Call to Prayer

"An elderly, sympathetic priest said a saving thing, 'Your typewriter is your alter.'
'I can't go to church. I can't pray.' I said.
'Your poems are your prayers. Come on back to the typewriter,' he said." ~Anne Sexton

I love this.

I think my faith is a lot like a sine wave. It peaks and plummets. I go through highs. I go through lows. Neither really bother me. I know they are temporary. I am in a trough at the moment - the valley Anne depicts.

I can't go to church.
I can't pray.

I am thankful for the words of that priest. I realized after reading those words that I do pray. I pray often. Others will not always see it. I write notes to myself. I journal for myself alone. And I write here. I pray. I take great comfort in that thought.

More of us go through these phases than we will admit. For some reason we fear reproach. I would say we shouldn't, but that would be a lie. We should fear reproach, because it happens. People are mean, unforgiving, and ignorant. They do not know the heart, the thoughts, the internal agony that brings one to this place. If they could understand, they would know to sit in silence with the tormented instead of lend their voices to the cacophony.

I have met numerous individuals over the last few years who arrive at this place. They live in fear of others finding out where they are.

"What do you mean you're not on the mountain top of ecstasy?!"

"You missed a Sunday of church attendance?!"

"You want to take a break from leadership?"

Poor unfortunate soul. How can I heap guilt and shame on you to complicate this journey you're on?

I tend to ignore the interrogations. They are never helpful. It's a process. When I have questions of my own I will ask. When I need help working through an issue or wading through a rough patch in my faith I reach out for help. I have an excellent network for this. It just takes the initiative on my part. I'm not worried about it. I'll get there. I may work at a slower pace than someone else would be comfortable with, checking out scenery and picking daisies, but I'm moving.

One thing we forget is that the ascent is always harder and slower than the descent. Some of this just won't pray away in a day, a week, a month, or even a year. When I run downhill I can usually hit a 6:30 min per mile pace. Running back up that same hill, we're looking more at 8:30. You get the point.

I feel sorry for people who try to get through these times on their own or more so who feel that they have to in order to avoid an onslaught of guilt, shame, and persecution. I'm not that prideful. Anymore. And to be frank, I don't care what your uphill/downhill pace is. I'm running my own race. Your encouragement is appreciated though. If you feel the need, throw a prayer my way. I never turn down road support.

Putting Lipstick on the Pig

I had someone ask me awhile ago to write a blog on marriage. I have no idea why. I hardly consider myself an authority on the topic. Unless a subject matter expert entails having a history of failure. Oh wait. It does. Excellent. I'm an expert.

Today an engaged friend questioned whether or not she should even get married. She couldn't understand why one would bother. Then she thought she was getting cold feet. I explained to her that she was not getting cold feet and that maybe the reason we so frequently question the appropriateness of the institution is because something inside of us senses there is something innately wrong with it. Now before you think I'm heading in a marriage bashing direction, I assure you, I am not. I merely want to inquire into the nature of what exactly we think marriage is or is not. And of course, you're going to get a piece of my mind, which is never really set in stone; it's just where I happen to be in my thought process at that particular moment.

So let's start with what we know marriage is. Marriage is a covenant between two parties. Correct! Next question: what is a covenant? A covenant is a legal agreement between two or more parties. Nice! So far so good. We're well on our way. Moving on. Historically covenants were typically treaties between parties to protect against war and division. Biblically, covenants were both the treaties between people groups and the added agreements between God and humans. What covenants do we find in the Bible? Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Palestinian, Mosaic, Davidic, and New. Interesting fact about these covenants. They all have one thing in common - sin. They are all a means to survive and live in a fallen and sinful world. Covenants are a means to protect and guard people from being wronged, hurt or abused. They exist because we are fallen. What does this mean for marriage? Marriage exists because we are fallen. It is a legal agreement between parties that serves as a protection from the abuses of each other. It doesn't protect you from anything external to your relationship. It's not some sort of mystical guardrail to all that is wrong about sexuality. As such, the covenant itself is not threatened by anything external to the relationship. The only thing that can threaten your marriage is YOU. That is all you have power over. Nothing else. No one else.

Marriage exists because we sin against each other. We hurt, abuse, neglect, and dominate one another.  In light of this continual sinning against our fellow humans we needed the institution of a covenant. Enter marriage stage right. Exit edenic freedom and the fullness of relationship.

OMG. What just happened?

I deconstructed marriage. You're welcome. Now let's reconstruct. Trust me. It'll be fine. I've been doing this since I was kid - taking apart toys and putting them back together. If it doesn't work then it was a poorly constructed toy to begin with and our toy box will be better off without it. Certainly safer.

Let's look at what we have now. Marriage is a covenant instituted to protect humans from one another because we're a sinful lot and we needed a system set in place to keep us from killing each other. Yeah. Pretty much. Is that a leap? Nope. How do I know? Because it won't exist in eternity. Just like every other covenant instilled throughout biblical history, marriage goes bye bye. Why? Because we won't have sexual relationships anymore? Doubt that's it. The human capacity for sexuality precedes any fallen state as does the divine directive to be fruitful, multiply, and replenish the earth.

OMG! Sex in heaven? What just happened again?! Just kidding. That's not what I said. I'm merely pointing out that, as humans, we have the capacity for reproduction and sexuality. I'm not even going to get into the "like the angels" bit, because scripturally that just supports my point further.

Anyway, moving on. Marriage did not exist as an institution until after the fall and not even in the form of a covenant until the Mosaic covenant. Before that it was just a legal agreement to define the parameters of one's property. If that doesn't reek of fallenness I don't know what does. Property?! It's only taken us several thousands of years to come to terms with this tidbit of truth: People are not property. While we may agree with that statement, we still struggle with this notion as we fight the atrocities of human trafficking. Clearly we do not condone slavery of any kind. We've fought the battle for human equality for centuries. Yet it persists. How? Because we're fallen! We do jacked up things to each other. We're selfish. We're greedy. We're prideful. We sin against each other. We break the terms of our contract. We divorce. God hates divorce not because of divorce itself but because of the path it takes to get there. God hates our mistreatment of one another.

There is no such thing as a perfect marriage because marriage itself is defined by our propensity towards sin. If we were perfect and without sin then marriage would not exist. But we're not. And it does. Now before you damn me and my thoughts to the ever burning inferno of bad ideas, let's sort out the good here.

Marriage is our best attempt to treat each other well in light of our fallen natures. There's nothing salvific about marriage. Your sex isn't any better than anyone else's because of it. Your kids aren't better parented because you have a legal and binding contract. There is nothing about the institution of marriage or any of the ideas surrounding it that can damage the reality of your marriage. Legal contract aside, you are in a relationship with another human being and you are to treat each other well, with respect, with love, with honor, cherishing, treasuring, etc. THAT is what it boils down to. Nobody else's practice of marriage differing from yours can affect your marriage. Because it's not about the institution people! It's about how you treat each other.

Simmer down on the cake baking ridiculousness. Call off the new civil war watchdogs and alarmists. And maybe just try and focus on loving your partner. Because that's the earth shattering change that will make the difference. To make the focus of the debate about the institution instead of the relationship is to turn marriage into an idol. You're not caring about your husband or your wife; you're caring about your perceived status symbol - your picture perfect property with white picket fence and 2.5 kids. The only thing that can wreck your marriage is YOU. I know. I did it. I'm an expert.

Beers, Baths, and Beauty Sleep

I meant to get to my 500 words a lot earlier today, but alas, it did not happen. Life got busy. I'm not really stuck on the 500 words bit. I just have to cultivate a habit here. Between work, basketball games, T-Ball tryouts, updating kids' vaccines, meals (I think there were meals in there - did I forget to eat?) running, and whatever else popped up, there just wasn't enough time in the day. Oh yes, and I also had to outfit Declan for his TBall debut. Glove, cleats, bat, baseball, etc. He wouldn't take the cleats off after we got home so I let him wear them until bedtime. It was cute. Made all the rushing around today worth it.

I read a bit more from Acedia & Me. I was particularly fond of Thomas Aquinas' recommendation to cure the malady - a hot bath, a glass of wine, and a good night's sleep. That, my friends, is a man after my own heart. I'm pretty sure that's the homeopathic cure for all that ails. Leave it to one of the most brilliant philosophical and theological minds of the millennium to come up with something so basic. Of course, if it was that simple I'd have a lot of friends out of a job. Pretty sure there's an entire industry that thrives off unhealthy minds. And let me tell you, that medication is quite a bit pricier than a bottle of wine and few gallons of hot water. Nonetheless, I shall give it a try one of these days when I feel plagued by lethargy or an onslaught of The Noonday Demon. In fact, I'm going to try it right now! Only with a beer instead of wine. I'm out of wine.


I read an article today about atheists being killed off in Bangladesh. I found that heartbreaking. Everyone raises a stink when their own group is persecuted, but for some reason no one seems to care that other human beings are being slaughtered under the very same guise of "we think our belief system is the best." If you think about it, it should be the exact opposite. If we believe our system is ingrained in truth then doesn't it make sense that death of our own is not a thing to fear? I mean really. We're all going to die anyway - at least we believe we're going to a better place, or a better time, or a better dimension, or whatever. The death of others, however, if not part of your belief system, are destined to go somewhere a lot worse. Right? So why are we killing them?!? Knock it off! Well, to be fair, it wasn't Christians doing the hacking. It was Muslims. But knock it off all the same! My best friend is an atheist. I would not take kindly to anyone hacking her up. My best advice to those perturbed by atheists - get to know one. And by that I mean closer than glaring at them down the end of your nose, or chainsaw.

Ok, enough on that rant. I need to get my beer, bath, and beauty sleep going. Thanks Aquinas!

Gravity, Motion, and Perpetuity

"You know what you gotta do when life gets you down? Just keep swimming. Just keep swimming. Just keep swimming, swimming..." ~Dory, Finding Nemo

There's something to be said for efficacy and the perpetuity of motion. Standing still, conceptually, is not an option. Stillness leads to chaos, fragmentation, and disassociation. Think of gravity. Gravity exists because of continual motion. We adhere, orient, and balance in a constant state of motion. The inclination of disorientation is to stop and stand still, but I fail to see a single law of nature that supports this practice. We think of rest as the cessation of motion, but it is more realistically the constancy and normality of motion. So when life gets chaotic, just keep moving. Moving forward, moving on, moving up.

It's been 8 months since I last wrote. That's bad. I've missed it. The more time that passes, the harder it is to find any form of internal motivation. External force is needed to overcome the inertia of inactivity. The resistance would have felt much less awkward had I simply maintained forward motion, regardless of how little. Bad things happen when motion ceases. Fusion dwindles. Matter collapses. Gases combust. Stars explode. Destruction ensues.

Ok, it wasn't all that bad, but it has been ridiculously hard to write as I have not made the discipline a priority. So this is me, applying a little force to get things up and running again. I imagine there's a recommended minimum to how much I should write to be productive.

500 words.

A day.

I'm at 250.

This is lethargically painful. Must get through it. Just keep swimming, swimming, swimming.

Life doesn't really have me down per say, but I like quoting Dory. She makes me smile. I have felt somewhat unproductive lately and I need to kick that or at the very least discern its veracity. Sometimes I beat myself up unnecessarily because I interpret change or unmet expectations as failure. Sometimes true. Sometimes not. Change of motion always elicits resistance. It doesn't make it negative - just different.

I've been reading Kathleen Norris' Acedia & Me. I find it comforting to read the account of another writer's struggle with motivation and hope. I'm only a few chapters in, yet her explanation thus far of the malady invokes fear of the ensuing despair that so frequently accompanies it. Left to simmer too long and acedia can lead to the onset of depression. I'm not fond of that idea. I've been binge watching science shows on Netflix as well. Hence, the cosmic pondering of motion and change.

100 words to go.

I'm making changes. Little ones. I'm sitting here writing. I've changed my workout routine. I've modified the kids' schedules a bit. Made more time, precious little, for reading. But it doesn't have to be big; it just has to be something. The changes are to prevent stalling or burning out. They maintain motion. And motion is good. Motion fuses, coalesces, orients.

Enough of me bleeding on paper. I do have topics I intend to address. Some of them serious. Some of them not. I figure a week or two of icebreaking tidbits and I'll get into the heavy stuff. But for now, this is just me trying to amalgamate.