Churches as a safe place

I was thinking this weekend how important my gym is to me. Being single means that you definitely have to fulfill your need for safe, supportive interactions in places other than romantic relationships. For me, one of those places is my gym. One of those places is not my workplace. When there is an upset at the gym, or the guys are off because of a loss, it disturbs me. I expect safety and a measure of  support. I've come to realize I've learned not to expect that at church.

We're reading the book Boundaries in the college group, and the chapter we did last week talked of how important it is for the church to be a safe place to singles and widows/widowers. Tonight, only one girl was able to make it. She's an obvious introvert. She told me about how she was teased to the point of tears about being quiet. This just shouldn't happen. I have a lot to say on the matter, but I think it's all summed up by saying that churches don't spend enough time teaching/encouraging people to be decent and not be bullies. It shows in our behavior both inside, and outside of the church walls. 

Anti-institutionalism and the Church

I was talking to my father the other day, who mentioned that one of the main reasons young people leave the church is because of evolution being taught in schools. This idea--the thought that the great forces of the American educational system are pulling people in droves from the pews--is one that's come to ring a bit misguided on my ears. I honestly don't believe most people think that deeply about their existence for evolution vs. creation to be the make or break decision that keeps people in bed on Sunday mornings.

I was talking to a friend at the gym yesterday--one who used to attend church but no longer does--about the concept. He said he didn't go because he never left with anything useful. I really had to think about that, since so many people I know who no longer attend church...well...they're not doing a lot of deep thinking about the origins of life. Most people are working their way through every day life the best they can and a result of that in the US has left a large number of people turned against institutions, all institutions. 

It started back in the 60s and 70s. People stopped trusting business, government, the police, the church, marriage...the list goes on. I've been reading Chris Hayes' Twilight of the Elites, and well, I think he's hit on something. The the moral leaders, the sports heroes, politicians, doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers,  priests, police officers, ambassadors...they've all let us down. The bond has been broken and I doubt will be easily rebuilt, if it can be at all.

That lack of trust in the institution and the very concept of hierarchy is what I believe the church is seeing manifested in its dropping attendance numbers. These days I don't believe most people will even get close enough to the church to reject its teachings. They mistrust the structure itself--a structure I don't believe is even necessary to the faith (especially considering the structure of the early church). 

The big problem there though, is what the alternative is. I've had this discussion with my best friend before--both of us being single, childless and unmarried. Society, religious or secular, has no connection points for us. No home base. We are not married, we are not mothers and therefore we are not. The church also reflects that. I don't know if any society has been able to promote connection based on anything deeper than demographic check boxes. I believe most societies actually discourage it for the sake of their own preservation.

So yeah...no one knows how to answer our question and our question is spreading into the world of the non-singles. How do people bond if marriage, procreation, family, home and career are no longer a trustworthy? Until that question is answered and the answer applied within church walls, those outside the church, those coming up as children in the church and those considering leaving will find little reason for connection beyond commandment. 

Hurt feelings and an off morning

Sundays sans church have become weird for me. My alarm went off this morning and was greeted by a lovely case of vertigo. By the time I stumbled out of my bedroom, Melissa Harris Perry's show was on MSNBC.

I'm really enjoying it and hope it has a long life on the channel...it's simultaneously smart, deep, relevant and light, covering everything from the impact of the death of the Notorious B.I.G. to economic policy reform. Harris-Perry, a professor at Tulane, is openly Mormon and liberal. One would expect to to hear explanations of Palm Sunday and quotations from the book of Samuel from more conservative stations, but no, this was happening, and does happen, on the most liberal of the cable news stations. 

I believe Harris-Perry is a bit of a special case...being Black, the world expects her to be a member of the faithful, despite political alliance...and I think she opens up an important door in Christianity. The one labeled "Liberal Christian"...or at least "not-Republican Christian." She facilitates the discussion of faith in politics from a seldom-heard perspective and has kicked off the discussion of how liberals can frame political discussions around faith, an area where they are particularly weak. 

I've watched the Christian Left since their inception as an organization jump, dive and parry with the Christian right over many issues, hoping that, even in their occasional misguided steps (there are quite a few issues and concepts I disagree with them on), they would redirect the focus of what it means to be Christian in America toward something deeper than a shared cultural expereince. I saw this morning's show and discussions of climate change policy as a function of Biblical stewardship as a step in that direction. 

One point she made was in reference to the way Rick Santorum, the candidate with the most religious platform, speaks. She made the very accurate observation that his speech is very much centered around his own people and protecting his own kind. I knew exactly what she was saying.

Why does it ring true for me? Well, I feel a lot of personal dislike for my kind and widespread disregard for humanity in general from the Right. I'm no Democrat, but the all-too-frequent cries of pro-life in the same breath as being pro-war and pro-death sentence strikes me leaves me questioning the party's true overreaching values and unable to see ties to some of the most important and self-sacrificing tenants of Christianity. 

That point though, is still a bit removed. I get reminders every now and then of the hearts of some of those who claim the title of Christianity in my life. Those reminders hurt on multiple levels. The Trayvon Martin case has been the most recent instance. I saw too many people entirely too willing to bear false witness in the form of doctored articles about the dead teen passed around Facebook. Normally, I stay out of these frays. Good seldom comes from detached arguments in cases like these, but one of the pictures passed around was an outright lie and had been outed as such by the creator. I responded briefly to one post, mentioning that it was a fake, and saying that I had learned a lot about all the people around me, Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Black, White, Asian, Gay, Straight and otherwise, by how they responded to the case. The response was that I was too hastily judging and that I couldn't know people's hearts (mind you, I didn't post what I actually thought of anyone). 

I gave that some thought, and I quite confidently believe that to be untrue. Luke 6:45 tells us that "out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks". That is where my issue with the Republican party lies...it's deeper than seeing general disdain for people who have my skin color. It lies in the core of policy and attitudes. I still though, do not measure individuals by the groups they align themselves with...people's reasons for joining things are just too broad, and anyone could find many faults with me for being a contributing member of the Christian church...my problem, is that I see callousness in policy and that same callousness in too many Christian individuals who are members of said party. 

I say all that to say that all churches and individuals, The Christian Left and The Christian Right, need to put down the political box they want to put God in. He's much bigger than either side. 

Why Good Christian Bitches doesn't bother me.

No I haven't read it and I probably won't watch it once the show is out. In all honesty, I'm just talking about the title and the premise, which seems to be what's freaking people out the most. Long story short, it's a supposedly comedic and critical work based loosely on the life of a Christian socialite, written by the ex-wife of one of the Gatlin Brothers. I did however, go and read a few of the criticisms and praises and complaints and blogs on it. Of everything I read, nothing bothered me...except the people who were offended. I had to ask why...why are they REALLY upset.

I understand the twinges of pain that come from when your faith is being criticized. I also understand all too well the twinges that come when your culture is being insulted, which is what I really think is sticking in the collective craw. No, not all Christian women are Dallas socialites, but many have little nuggets of aspiration to achieve at least part of that type of life, and many engage in or support the very behavior that's being addressed. That said, I believe many Christians are making a huge mistake in their responses. The concept of an enemy's enemy equaling a friend is one that runs deep across many cultures, and taking offense at the simple use of the word "Christian" or even the criticism of a culture that has decided on Christianity as its religion of choice is effectively validating the equation of "Christian" with, in this case, superficial, catty, soul-crushing, gossipy women. We must be careful to distinguish between our faith being criticized and when a culture is, because what we defend, we condone.

...kind of like that mother that jumps to her child's defense even when they're blatantly wrong.

On a personal level, I realized that I am even more culturally disconnected from the group that's being criticized than I realized. So disconnected that I felt pangs of insult not from the existence of the book itself, but more from the wagons that I know will be circled (and have been circled) in reaction to the work. Yes, Christians are unfair game for ridicule in today's popular culture, but I see very little effort by many Christians to distance themselves from the things that draw the bulk of the ridicule. In a case like this, I do not think the hatred is what was referred to in John 15:18. I don't often hear Christians being criticized for being too peaceful, too joyous, too loving, too faithful, too kind, gentle or self-controlled. (Too abstinent...that I do hear). I will admit though, that my race changes my exposure, because in the US, Blacks are expected to be church-goers...but still, I think the foul being called by Christians is off-base. Nietzsche disliked Christianity for what it is...teachings of caring for the weak and the poor. I see little of that in the mainstream ridicule of Christians today (though it does exist). Instead there is mass criticism, rooted in response to things that need to be cleaned out anyway.

There is an opportunity for Christians at foot. There is an opportunity for Christians to distance ourselves from all the dirt and grime that being the powerful majority in a powerful country can bring. An opportunity to clean house and return to the Christian roots that new Churches in places such as China and India are tending so well. I genuinely wonder if people will stop indulging their umbrage and surprise, and take a look.

Oh, and the "Bitches"? Well, that was changed to "Belles" for the TV series...which I really don't think is much better, just less profane.

Apparently, Black churches don't have youth groups.

So I ran across this guy's videos today. I'd never heard of "Messy Mondays" until a friend made me aware (through Facebook of course)...





He's a little really high energy, but I'm enjoying his sarcasm. About 15 minutes after getting stuck in a loop of his videos, I ran across this one on youth groups.


I watched. I laughed. I couldn't relate. Don't get me wrong, I get the "coming of age" deal that comes with being a kid in church. The single most massive crush of my life happened there. This dude made my stomach do back flips and was the last man to truly make me nervous.

But yeah...I realized that my youth in a Black church was WAY different than what goes on in White churches. I always kinda knew this...I went to a predominately White school and the church stuff they would talk about was completely foreign. We didn't do games or trips or the like. Well...MAYBE in Sunday school, but it wasn't ever anything major. We mostly worked in groups. Don't get me wrong, there were plenty of teenage hormones to go around, lots of hugging and the "side hug" had not yet been invented, but apparently there was more supervision and less freedom (what I think is a direct effect of hippie culture never hitting the Black church).

I don't think the reason is anything more complicated than the fact that Black churches are just more formal than White. Look at the clothes, the seating, even the schedules and service formats...much more structured, much less loose. The funny thing is, neither approach seems to make much of a difference regarding sexual behavior or subsequent adult involvement in the church. Makes ya wonder...

Prejudice against Business-folk

And no, I'm not talking about people who are labeled "socialist" simply because they don't bow at the throne of capitalism.I'm talking more about the idea that those who work in artistic, human service or any lower paying job are somehow inherently more caring, driven, passionate or Christ-like than those who sit behind a desk. It springs from the same vein of the oft misquoted "money is the root of all evil". The actual verse being...

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. (As usual "love" makes a big difference). 

I was on Facebook today and saw a friend's post that got under my skin a bit. He admitted to being eluded by the intricacies of business and continued on to marvel at the fact that every toothpick, shoelace and bathroom deodorizer came from a business effort, headed up by companies with specific goals. Fine...though I've learned to think about these things involuntarily, I realize that most people don't. What got me though, was that he followed up by questioning the manufacturers' love of said toothpicks, shoelaces and deodorizers and then to pose the question of them being motivated by money instead of love for a product. I've run into this attitude in many areas of my life, and I find it entirely off base for multiple reasons.


First off, some people love weird things. They're in the minority, but there is that guy who's running a paperclip factory that's deeply in love with the paperclip...just as in love as the one composing symphonies or helping children. If we're going to evaluate the altruism of an act based purely on internal emotional feeling, they would come out tied. 


Second, just because a job serves people, or is counter culture, doesn't make it inherently beneficial. It took me a second to realize and accept this, but there's a lot of selfishness in my martial art. I see no difference in working 50 hours a week to build a bank account and make CEO than I do working 50 hours a week to improve a skill and win a competition. In both cases, you work to serve yourself. Those goals are not wrong, but the path you walk to get there is what makes the difference. 


Third, a job being inherently subservient does not then make the people performing said work universal martyrs. I've met some twisted human service people. It's not frequently admitted, but while human service jobs seldom offer much pay, the do offer a LOT of power. A VP can fire, cut pay, and cause some serious emotional damage...but still...a teacher can derail a child's progress in life permanently, a counselor can sexually manipulate, a social worker can ruin lives with one decision, a missionary can abuse the very people they were sent to help. The difference? Vulnerability. People do not open up their souls and emotions in the world of the corporate. Of course those things are affected by sheer exposure, but there is little expectation that a supervisor is trying to improve someone's overall life. That's one very honest things about the coldness of business. It's a contract...work in exchange for money. That contract limits damages to a degree...but in the human services, people are openly and rawly exposed to those around them.That why a person being apathetic about their job in business doesn't bother me too much, but in human services, I find it offensive and irresponsible...possibly even malicious. 

This is one of the respects in which the world of Brazilian jiu jitsu (which I practice), reminds me very much of the church. The bulk of the practitioners align closely with surfer culture and there's a distinct air of self-righteousness in their having "rejected" more traditional life-styles. How does that line up with church culture? Well, while the institution does carry the hierarchical worship of those with higher incomes, when it comes to the morality of the actual work, those that work in business (not all of whom are bringing home huge paychecks) are seen as moral bystanders, not doing anything wrong, but not carrying on the work of God in their daily lives, though they may be following God's calling on their lives to the letter. The ones who have given up corporate work for the sake of missional pursuits are praised without question. Those who work as teachers and counselors and house-wives are seen as sacrificial and holy (though oddly at the same time looked down upon, which I attribute directly to churches picking up and welcoming in broader cultural norms). 

I've known all this but it was nice to see it articulated in Why Business Matters to God. I'm still working my way through, but it's a great read for anyone working in business and anyone who knows someone who is. 

Are you sure you want to be a Christian? Really sure?

Jesus asks Christians to give up a LOT of stuff in this life. Control of life choices, what we do with our bodies, money, time...it's a big decision.

When I first started training Brazilian jiu jitsu...it was quite an experience. The people were insanely warm and welcoming...and they threw me into a vomit inducing warm up. They were supportive and patient...and they paired me to spar with a bear of a man within a week. As an art, Brazilian jiu jitsu has an insanely high rate of attrition--it's estimated around 90% at each belt level. People aren't getting kicked out or failing. It's just that hard to stick with. I couldn't understand why, two months into training, I was begging to sign a contract, but the head instructor still wouldn't let me. "Are you sure?" I was asked over and over again.

I sometimes wonder what would happen if churches functioned in a similar manner. I'm not saying they should...I'm not even sure how you'd implement that, but to this day, I wonder. 

The married people in my single life.

Slightly off topic, but still on, I just read a quote from a great blog that sums up so much of my wonderment at the church's focus on marriage and procreation...


"but I’m also wary of the church’s intense focus on coupling up, as if getting married is the pinnacle of Christian life. That seems odd for a faith that follows the example of a homeless bachelor." 


My theory on that is the church has WAY more of a Victorian influence that we'd care to admit, but I digress... 

I gotta say, I am genuinely thankful for a few of the married Christians in my life. Why? Because talking to them, you can tell they haven't chosen "a team". They're focused on their marriages, they talk to you as an equal, they're dedicated to their spouses, and you can tell that they don't worship their marital status...that their individual relationships with God take ultimate precedence. And while I'd rather get a cavity filled than sit through a romantic comedy or romance flick (I'm dead serious), when I see couples in movies working as teams to accomplish something bigger (The Mummy, Harry Potter) it does make me feel all warm and snuggly.

I've come to believe that people choose a team (married or single) well before marrying age and it's completely independent of their actual marital status. Some singles worship their freedom just as marrieds worship their wedding bands. People that worship neither, but appreciate the status for the role it plays in their lives? ...them I really enjoy. 

10 Myths about Introverts

I ran across this on another blog, and it bears repeating. I remember having each and every one of these labels applied to me as a child in church. I'm hoping people in all circles of life will become more aware of the very basic and elemental differences between introverts and extraverts, and come to see that both are valuable to the church in their own way.

Myth #1 – Introverts don’t like to talk.
This is not true. Introverts just don’t talk unless they have something to say. They hate small talk. Get an introvert talking about something they are interested in, and they won’t shut up for days.

Myth #2 – Introverts are shy.
Shyness has nothing to do with being an Introvert. Introverts are not necessarily afraid of people. What they need is a reason to interact. They don’t interact for the sake of interacting. If you want to talk to an Introvert, just start talking. Don’t worry about being polite.

Myth #3 – Introverts are rude.
Introverts often don’t see a reason for beating around the bush with social pleasantries. They want everyone to just be real and honest. Unfortunately, this is not acceptable in most settings, so Introverts can feel a lot of pressure to fit in, which they find exhausting.

Myth #4 – Introverts don’t like people.
On the contrary, Introverts intensely value the few friends they have. They can count their close friends on one hand. If you are lucky enough for an introvert to consider you a friend, you probably have a loyal ally for life. Once you have earned their respect as being a person of substance, you’re in.

Myth #5 – Introverts don’t like to go out in public.
Nonsense. Introverts just don’t like to go out in public FOR AS LONG. They also like to avoid the complications that are involved in public activities. They take in data and experiences very quickly, and as a result, don’t need to be there for long to “get it.” They’re ready to go home, recharge, and process it all. In fact, recharging is absolutely crucial for Introverts.

Myth #6 – Introverts always want to be alone.
Introverts are perfectly comfortable with their own thoughts. They think a lot. They daydream. They like to have problems to work on, puzzles to solve. But they can also get incredibly lonely if they don’t have anyone to share their discoveries with. They crave an authentic and sincere connection with ONE PERSON at a time.

Myth #7 – Introverts are weird.
Introverts are often individualists. They don’t follow the crowd. They’d prefer to be valued for their novel ways of living. They think for themselves and because of that, they often challenge the norm. They don’t make most decisions based on what is popular or trendy.

Myth #8 – Introverts are aloof nerds.
Introverts are people who primarily look inward, paying close attention to their thoughts and emotions. It’s not that they are incapable of paying attention to what is going on around them, it’s just that their inner world is much more stimulating and rewarding to them.

Myth #9 – Introverts don’t know how to relax and have fun.
Introverts typically relax at home or in nature, not in busy public places. Introverts are not thrill seekers and adrenaline junkies. If there is too much talking and noise going on, they shut down. Their brains are too sensitive to the neurotransmitter called Dopamine. Introverts and Extroverts have different dominant neuro-pathways. Just look it up.

Myth #10 – Introverts can fix themselves and become Extroverts.
A world without Introverts would be a world with few scientists, musicians, artists, poets, filmmakers, doctors, mathematicians, writers, and philosophers. That being said, there are still plenty of techniques an Extrovert can learn in order to interact with Introverts. (Yes, I reversed these two terms on purpose to show you how biased our society is.) Introverts cannot “fix themselves” and deserve respect for their natural temperament and contributions to the human race. In fact, one study (Silverman, 1986) showed that the percentage of Introverts increases with IQ.

The arranged marriage of my faith.

First let me say the tradition of arranged marriage is unfairly demonized. And yet I feel it's a pretty bad idea overall...it's just that it seems no less effective in accomplishing whatever the ubiquitous "institution of marriage" is trying to accomplish, than its free-wheeling, Western-styled sister is out to do.*

Today, I had another, subtle change in attitude toward something I'd once perceived as mundane, necessary or even somber. My first was probably at age 16 when I looked at my Bible sitting on its marble windowsill and I no longer saw a textbook. Instead I saw a guidebook that had been given to me for my personal benefit. This time, it was communion. I looked up from my chair, saw the wooden trays and thought "yay communion!" and then "did you really just think 'yay, communion'?" As I child I...had mixed experiences. When I was very young, it meant my mother would be singing in the choir, so my brother and I got to sit with her over in the corner. To this day, I tear up when I hear "Come ye Disconsolate" or "Turn Your Eyes upon Jesus"...songs I've come to associate with my mothers's gentle, second soprano voice and its framing of my childhood. As a teen, it became the part of service that took church from long to REALLY long and left all us kids itchy in our seats, passing notes back on forth on TI-82s. Today though, I came to genuinely see it for what it was. Time to commune with someone I love and am learning to love more...and I was excited.

I make the comparison to arranged marriage because Christians that are raised in the faith have similar orientations to those who entered into marriages that were decided for them by someone else. They don't get the big, "impressive" stories of how they met completely by accident on a plane to Nevada or stories of constant, new and exciting revelations about seemingly superficial details about the lives of their partner.  They end up forming a relationship not of their choosing and working through it for years, sometimes for better, sometimes for a lot worse.

Still though, there persist stories of couples, who, despite not having left their romantic lives up to fate, found loving and fulfilling relationships. Like a woman betrothed, I didn't choose to go to church on Sundays as a child. I didn't choose to attend a school that included a course on Biblical study. I didn't choose to pray with my parents. All of that was chosen for me. I really didn't start executing choices until I was in high school. And yes, it's something for which I am grateful. Not because of the direction it was pointing me in...though that I am thankful for, because I had parents that pointed me toward the faith of Christianity moreso than the religion...but mostly instead because it makes the transition easier.

There are spiritual disciplines and concepts that are hard. They just are. Financial discipline, serving, Biblical study, prayer, personal sacrifice, controlling of the tongue, controlling of the body, regular service attendance, patience, forgiveness and understanding with other members of the body of Christ. Those take time, effort and sacrifice to learn, put into practice and make habits of and I'm willing to bet none of them come instantly with salvation. Kind of like love seldom comes instantly in arranged marriages. Sometimes it grows. Sometimes it never comes. Sometimes the relationship turns into resentment and hatred of something familiar and confining.

In any case, I'm an thankful for the arrangements that have been made...and honestly for how they were made...in my life.

*I make a very stark personal distinction between marriages God has "endorsed", and those that are done simply for the sake of being married or not being single. The latter is what I'm referring to in this post.

Tingles and Goosebumps and MMA

"Who doesn't like the tingles and goosebumps?"

That was a question posed at our last small group in reference to the exhilarating experiences that growth as a Christian has to offer. At first I thought "yeah...tingles are nice." But then I REALLY thought about it. While most emotional experiences are too complex to be simply liked or disliked um...tingles and goosebumps... not my favorites.

I believe that Christians all come from different starting points and we grow toward different goals, for which God has equipped us and customized our paths. Mine...well it goes a little something like this.

I'm naturally a pretty stoic person. One of my father's favorite memories is of his father openly admiring the emerging personality of my two-year old self. "She's not always smilin' and laughin' like other children." I wasn't one of those bubbly, endearing children. Some of my earliest memories are of people talking to me in kiddie voices and my not understanding why. Though extroversion and expressiveness was highly prized in my culture and extended family, I was raised to appreciate logic and reservedness.

When I was a teenager, my long time pastor died and my church home took a turn for the more charismatic and emotionally expressive. This came under leadership (a series of pastors) that was more interested in status, possessions, social clubs and attention. I was younger and not as in tune to social environments, but I remember a lot of fruitless conflict, scandal and division.

During that period I learned a lot of mistrust. I developed a distaste for gospel music that persists to this day...part of that is the musical character itself, but part is also a simple association with an unhappy corner of my life. I learned to mistrust emotional expression and in turn, began to mistrust emotional experiences (something that bled into all areas of my life, of course). Multiply that by my aforementioned nature and I ended up in a place where I've had to learn to re-trust, and re-appreciate emotions

To be completely honest, I find almost all emotional extremes to be slightly stressful, so of all the experiences that God brings into my life, I prefer the peace and still waters to the exhilaration and exuberance. I experience excitement very similarly to anger. Yes, excitement is preferable, but I find it tiring and, after a few moments with it, I'm ready for it to pass. I prefer exploration to adventure... fulfillment to elation...sadness to despair. .

On a side note, I took a break to see the results of one of the fighters from the gym and he talks about his recent disappointment and a prayer he prays before every fight. In the same study, we'd discussed the importance (and difficulty) of praying for not just what we want, but also for God's will and guidance. It was nice to hear that sentiment reiterated.

Being an introvert and attenvion vs. interraction

I remember my first solo musical performance in front of a large audience...it was done at the height of popularity of my church in the community. We had a new, dynamic pastor that kept the building (that seated over 500) packed to the point people that people had to be sent to satellite areas downstairs to watch the service on a closed circuit feed. It was the Sunday before Christmas, and I'd been asked to reprise my performance of The Little Drummer Boy (that I'd played for the kids program) for the whole congregation. It was a beautiful, rich arrangement that did an amazing job of reflecting the meaning of the song. I spent the whole performance, terrified by the church's deafening silence while I played. (There aren't many instances in Black sacred music where there is not either clapping or singing or yelling...constant feedback from the audience, which is honestly characteristic of our culture as a whole.) 

I finished the song, stood, turned to bow and saw the entire congregation on its feet, roaring and clapping. It was a nice feeling to know that people had appreciated something I did so much, but honestly, not enough to draw me back. 

That's my favorite performance of the song. Bowie's voice still surprises me in its non pop-funk form.

At the church I was raised in, kids basically had two options for service...you sang in the choir, or you ushered. My temperament in no way fit the energetic, attention-loving environment of the kids I knew that sang, so I became an usher. We had quiet meetings to coordinate our sitting, standing and door blocking, which I didn't mind too much, because we only met once a month, the meetings were only about 30 min and I had a massive crush on one of the guys.

Fast forward 15 years and lo and behold, I'm an usher again. Our recently arrived missions pastor came to me a couple months back and asked if I'd consider greeting for a couple of special occasions. He kept talking and said something that surprised me...genuinely surprised me...and I don't surprise easily by any measure. "You have such a positive welcoming energy, I was wondering if you'd help out." I swear I froze, waiting for a punch line. I know I've become more open in recent years (though not more extraverted), but I thought there must be some other 6' tall Black woman with natural hair that only shows up on days I'm not there that he THOUGHT he was talking to. (I might have brushed it off as flattery if someone at work hadn't said something similar a few days before.)

So I'm greeting today and it started to hit me what the real difference between ushering and singing at my old church was. If you'd asked me years ago, I would have said it was people who liked interacting with people (singers) and those who didn't (ushers). But today, realizing that I'd spoken to every person that set foot in the building, and remembering the faceless mass that had been behind me during that entire performance of The Little Drummer Boy, I understood that the position of greeting/ushering requires much more interaction on a one to one level than performing does.

Attention...I'm not sure what part it plays in the introversion-extroversion spectrum...I know many extroverts that enjoy attention and some that don't...can't say the same for introverts though...I know a lot (which is a big deal since we tend to stay in our little holes) and I can't name one that actually enjoys the attention of others. Yes, there are many introvert performance artists, but they seem to tolerate the attention as more of a hazard of the job than a reward (Johnny Depp comes to mind).

All I can think is that attention can translate as a sort of one-way, social interaction...because honestly, what is conversation but a series of alternating, mini-performances with cyclical feedback and what is performance besides a conversation?

Generational Differences

With Facebook and other entities becoming larger and larger parts of our lives, there's been a lot of talk of the death of privacy. At the same time, in church lately, I've heard a lot about people becoming more isolated.

I think a friend of mine said it best yesterday, explaining that anyone who lived through the 70s or McCarthyism is used to hiding. My age on down, I believe we're on the other end of the spectrum. I believe we have a tendency to over-share to the detriment of genuine, personally enriching relationships.

Why aren't churches hooking up more singles?

On an online Christian forum last night, I read a particularly heart-felt post from a lady, who'd noticed how many unpaired people, both male and female, there were at a New Year's service at a very prominent church in the American South. She asked why churches weren't doing more to get their singles together. Responders to the post echoed the same sentiment, complaining that singles Bible studies didn't do enough to encourage couple-hood and that they were instead, run by "marrieds", dolling out the usual "be patient" and "this is all part of God's plan", to which one poster replied "walk a mile in my shoes". (I've personally heard more of the opposite...singles studies and activities turning into perpetual, drama-filled, Bible-based dating games)

At first thought, I felt as if I were more than qualified, because I have walked a mile or two in the shoes of singleness, but I've come to know that it comes in different forms, with people single for different reasons. I fall more toward the end of the "Single by choice" spectrum...not shunning partnership, but not endlessly pining for it either. It's hard for me to genuinely understand, but I know that there are Christians that deeply want to be married or don't want to be single anymore. I don't know if I'll ever understand, but I can sympathize.

That said, I do not believe it is the responsibility of churches to actively get their singles together. To do so is to imply that everyone should be coupled, or that everyone that WANTS to be married, should be. I do, though, believe that the church has certain responsibilities to singles:

1) To provide an environment that is "safe" for them. Basically, an environment where they can be single, without being accused of whatever short-comings people tend to believe "cause" singleness or left out of church activities.

2) To provide an environment that does not pity singlehood. The more it's pitied, the easier it is to view this lifestyle as something negative. It's not. It's a period where you have more room in your life for other people than if you were married.

3) To provide an environment that does not trivialize single life as a pass-through period of life. Whether you marry at 18, 30, 65 or never, being single isn't marriage's waiting room.

4) To encourage singles to take care of themselves as individuals, not just in preparation for marriage. Staying fit is about honoring the body you've been given, not just attracting, or pleasing a potential mate.

5) To create an environment where singles CAN get to know each other.

6) To maintain lines of communication between marrieds and singles. Yes, the two lifestyles do have aspects of them that should not be actively shared, but both have ideas and opportunities to offer each other, and shouldn't be completely segregated.

I also believe there is a duty to acknowledge that the title "single" also includes divorced people, separated people, those who have lost a spouse and possibly, even those who are attending church without their spouse.