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. 

God of the Ordinary

A lot of the blogs I've been reading lately have been pointing back to the same theme...understanding...really understanding the character of God. Be it because of the challenge to pray from Carlos Whittaker to study the Bible less and pray more, or the revelations about the everydayness of God's work had over at Shrinking the Camel--lately I've been reflecting about God's imprint on my life.

I think it can be kind of difficult to see that print too early in life...you're just too close to the trees. Seeing that picture takes time and a step back that only age can provide. While I did get to talk to my grandmother about a look back on her life before she passed, I would have loved to have had the conversation again at the very end...when she REALLY knew it was over. When that peace and satisfaction hit her. I saw it on her face, but I didn't get to hear the words. No complaints though. It would have been hard to ask for a better end of life.

I read a post a month or so back at RZIM that kicked it all off and tackled the concept of "unanswered" prayers head on. Sure...I know my prayer time is probably not best spent praying for a trip to Samoa or that my cat will get better (Bamboo-Dog's fine btw) or for the health and well being of my family and friends...I know it's supposed to go beyond world peace and praying for people I don't know like Christians in foreign countries or the leaders of our world...I even know I should pray for my enemies. Beyond that though, I thought I was doing good by focusing my prayers around thanksgiving and praise and by focusing mostly on the well being of others. I thought I was doing so well with my list of needs of people in my life and beyond...and then Mr. Zacharias challenged all that. He asserted that the purpose of prayer first and foremost was to get to know God.

Now...I do take regular time to listen...TV off, mine clear of thoughts of cooking, Chinese or jiu jitsu, but until now, I'd never thought of prayer as primarily being about getting to know God. I'd always thought of it as kind of a really cool byproduct of the process or something that comes from a conversation or spending time with him.Will that slight, but important change in perspective change the format with which I pray? Probably not much. But I do think it will change the way in which I live.

I really think my life has been a lot like the Shrinking the Camel piece's description of the stock market, with the big stuff...the majority of the changes only coming from .03% of the time it's been in existence. This is the quote that really got me...

People like to think God is working through them . . . and they usually, mistakenly, mean it happens through fireworks and avalanches. But God is much more subtle than that, tending towards everyday-ness, and in leaving a long trail of kindness, character and consistency that actually adds up to something substantial over time. 


This is easy for even me to forget...I'm a person that doesn't like surprises. My best friend and travel companion likes to tease me about how I like to plan out activities in the day, and I respond that I don't like "a heart attack around every corner." I would think that God's everyday-ness would be welcome to me...and to a degree it is. I read the concept of a subtle God and my introverted little heart warmed.

...but every now and then I find myself looking back asking why I don't have more big moments...why there isn't more progressive upheaval in my life. Part of that I know is because God knows me and knows I'd likely lose a good chunk of my sanity if my life involved too much jerking and lurching...but I think part of that is a reflection of his character too. You look at his most beautiful and amazing creations, and the "fast" ones like trees and plants take months and years to form while the truly breathtaking ones took thousands, to perhaps millions to reach their current state. That aspect of God's character honestly comes at no surprise.

Helpmeets, helpmates and introvert burnout

It's been a rough week as an introvert.

We've had visitors at work, which means non-stop interraction...I'm talking from breakfast to lunch to dinner eaten with 27 other people...14 hour days with no alone time on top of presenting, presentations and discussions. I came home Friday feeling traumatized. Too beaten to even sleep. I seriously felt like I'd been assaulted at some internal level. I skipped the gym, fearing additional injury to a back that had been brutalized with 10 hrs of sitting and looked forward to a weekend of isolation...then it hit me Saturday night. Church. I felt panicked. The idea of bringing myself to talk and say hello again just felt like too much to handle. I prayed and mustered up the courage to go, which I'm glad I did, because it gave me perspective on the whole situation. The world of the corporate is really a modern day Charybdis from which I'm generally and thankfully sheltered. I forget sometimes how it can be. One week down, one week to go.

So yeah...the term "helpmeet"...never heard it until reading the comments of some of Mark Gungor's enthusiasts. It sounded a lot like "help mate", which I haven't really heard since the days in the church I was raised in., and honestly, it makes zero sense as a term unto itself. I've been meaning to get into researching the issue of gender equality in Christian marriage, so I had to do some digging.

From what I can see, it looks like it starts with a misunderstanding of the definition of the word "meet". In the phrase "a help meet for Adam", "meet" most likely takes on its second definition (English) which is equal to "fitting" or "proper", so you instead have "a help fitting for Adam". Makes much more sense.

That said, there's a lot of debate around what that word "help" was translated from and whether it even connotes a subservient position. You have the word "help", taken from the Hebrew "ezer"  which can translate to "aid", "protector" or even "defender", followed by "neged" which can mean "in front of" or "parallel to" or a few other things. Having studied four languages in my life, I'm well aware of where debates over translation can go and this one has some decent legs online (Google "ezer kenegdo). I'm not going to make an argument either way on a language I don't come close to understanding.

...I'm not 100% opposed to the idea of the man being head of household, and that's mostly because I'm a strong believer in the concept of servant leadership...a direct result of my business studies, work experience and most importantly because  of the example set by Jesus (you know...the guy who washed his disciples feet?). I've never been one to equate "leadership" with "dictatorship". Servant leadership is a concept developed by Robert Greenleaf and is summed up well here...

"The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions…The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature."
"The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived?"

Greenleaf's book was required reading in a management symposium I took and I think everyone...yes, everyone, not just potential leaders, should read this. As a friend of mine says quite frequently "everyone's leading someone". On top of that though, you learn how to recognize those who are leading or want to lead to assuage and acquire. It's a good way to decide who's worth following.

The VP I work under now has been one of the best leadership experiences I've run across in my work life. I respect him and genuinely know he's on my side and will defend and protect my best interests (which he has consulted me on) when necessary. He's given guidance when he had insight and asked my opinion when he knew I had more experience in an area. I've been frank and open with him about my personality, concerns and fears and have been met with acceptance. He seldom tells me what to do...I say seldom, because I'm sure he has, but I don't remember ever actually being given an order...and I think that's because once a level of respect and trust has been established, his final say no longer feels like force.

Everyone in a household should be submitting to someone..children to parents, wife to husband and God, and husband to God and family. I'm always wary of any church, book, or, person that emphasizes the "help mate"/"head of household" teachings to the exclusion of a husband loving his wife as Christ loved the church. That emphasis, I believe reflects a bias that I have yet to see supported by actual Biblical teachings, and not just cultural extrapolations from ancient civilizations. While I don't think the Bible is totally clear on whether so called 50/50 marriages are the way to go, it is, I believe, quite clear, that all out domination is not the intended model. 

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. 

Irresponsible Giving

In any question of giving there is one fact that does not change regardless of the situation. Good or bad, trust or mistrust, the giver does not know what will happen with the gift. Yes, a person could have bought food a hundred times with a donation, but this time, they could use it to go buy drugs...or the opposite. Even if you give food or clothing, it can be sold for other uses or given to help someone else in even greater need. You simply never know.

What we do know though, is what our stance says about us. In this situation of uncertainty, what you actually have is a choice between two risks.

1) You risk depriving someone in need.
2) You risk enabling someone's destructive behavior.

The big question is, why are you willing to choose one over the other? I personally believe that, especially in situations where you cannot be sure you're enabling someone, risking depriving someone is the greater of the two evils.

I've gotten into this discussion with a lot of Christians, and I know it's a common source of conflict. I ran into a new version in the post of a fellow jiujitsuka asking for donations to UNICEF for the crises in eastern Africa. If you'll take a look, one of the first comments is, in a nutshell, "Their government is the problem. We need to solve that problem first."

I agree that social institutions are frequently the problem. (I also believe that the either/or fallacy is a complete cop-out). Amartya Sen  has produced some compelling essays on the the concept of famine. One of the recurrent themes is that famine is not an issue of supply, but instead, access to supplies. While I do believe it is imperative that we not ignore the big picture, lets be honest--most of us have very little chance of influencing foreign governments...and honestly, God calls us to do what he's enabled us, which in 99% of cases, means doing small things to make a difference in people's immediate, short-term lives.

Batman, Bacteria and unBelievers

So the recent threat of a MRSA infection in my face, and subsequent trip to the ER, and even more subsequent isolation from the general population have given me a lot of time to:

1) Think about my faith, which...judging by my first night of freaking out, and subsequent relief at the reassurance of doctors/friends...is weaker than I'd care to admit.

2) Watch WAY more TV than normal

The recent financial issues of the world have produced all kinds of reactions in people and the people that lead those people and the people that follow those people...reactions that are very telling regarding the amount of weight people put on life on this earth.

I see it this way. Life...is kinda like college. The afterlife is like the "real world" (a term I loathe) and there are four groups of people.

• Those that study because they enjoy studying
• Those that study because they feel it will prepare them for life after college (I'm thinking this is where Christians are supposed to generally fall...Matthew 6:20 and whatnot.)
• Those that party because they enjoy partying, and figure everything will just turn out ok
• Those that party because they feel that college is their last shot at an enjoyable life, and they've got to get their jollies in while they can.

When I first thought about this, atheists and agnostics immediately ran through my mind as falling under the party category--then I realized a non-belief in God or a questioning wouldn't necessarily preclude a person from belief in a life beyond the one we know now and that it's quite possible to see many tenets of Christian behavior lived out in non-Christian lives. Of course, the transverse is also true...there are party elements in the behavior of many Christians too. As much as we condemn people for partying, drinking, gambling, sex, drugs, and whatever else is that really that much different than expending efforts to leave a legacy to grandchildren or establish a career reputation? Aren't they both just stocking up experiences/items for enjoyment in this world?

least horrifying picture of the newest Joker I could find

I think it's part of the INTJ package, but I frequently wonder why people do things...not just why they buy Honda over Toyota or sit in the front of the room as opposed to the back. I mean the large scale stuff. The stuff we invest their real time and energy into. (Working in a business environment, I find myself wondering more and more every minute of every day.) I'm at the point where I think that's about the only question that matters. Democrat? Republican? I don't care. I want to know what kind of America you envision. Livid about Casey Anthony going free? Not concerned. I want to know how you feel about child welfare in general.

That's the real difference between people, and I believe there are fewer people out there that do things "just because" than we would like to admit. I simply don't believe that most people are just dogs chasing cars. Most of us have an end game in mind, whether we admit it or not.

Christianity and Evolution

So I've been reading about evolutionary Christianity today. On a side note, I don't really like that title. I would think reversing it would be more appropriate, as to not imply that the faith is altered by the science...but then I guess the reverse would imply an entirely different branch of study altogether, and I'm assuming it isn't. Anyway...reading about evolutionary Christianity and it got me digging again back into my questions about Charles Darwin's faith and thoughts on theism.*

                                           

I'm honestly really excited about getting the newsletter. The relationship between Christianity and the study of evolution is something I've always wondered about, and it's nice to see people with the research chops to do it justice moving it forward. The movement can easily be dismissed as Christians living in a modern world trying to reduce at least one area of friction...understandable, because there are many. I thought that myself for a while, but I don't think it's entirely true. I believe a quote taken from the site more accurately describes what's going on:

“Studying evolution is like following cosmic breadcrumbs home to God."


I know the concept of even considering evolution is sacrilege to many believers...something I only somewhat understand. I know that evolution has been a primary weapon used against those that do believe...and I do know that some of the findings of researchers directly contradict Biblical teachings, but you could say that about any field of study. I don't know how, but the Christian junior high school I went to managed to teach us both creationism and proper science. Because of this, I never learned to see the two as conflicting with one another. Difficult to resolve? Yes, but not entirely incompatible. I believe that science and nature, like any work of art, are tangible insight into the character of their creator. One hallmark of the growth of my faith came to me early one morning in a physics lab. We were studying torque and it hit me how beautiful a science it was. Poetic. Graceful. Balanced. Infinitely complex and ever moving. Characteristics I immediately saw as a reflection of the being that had put them into motion.

What I do not understand is the desire, especially of believers, to reduce God to a being simple enough for us to understand with minimal effort...like Santa or a magician.  I think this is part of the reason so many Christians react so negatively to even the discussion of the adaptation of any species**. It is very possibly laziness. Faith aside, we as Americans are a generally lazy, undisciplined culture. We see it visually in rising obesity levels, but I think that's the least of our problems. Laziness of thought and behavior worries me much more.

I'm sure some would say it's simply better not to question, not to ask, but I don't think asking is a sin. I went through a period in my life where I seriously doubted my own existence. And I don't mean in a "what's my purpose?" kind of way. No. I'd moved past agnosticism and into hard core doubting of the existence of self. Honestly, questioning the existence of God doesn't come up on the radar of a person who questions if there is even anything there to do the questioning. In that still, small voice we always hear about, God told me it was ok. He created this creature that was doing all the doubting, and that doubting was a not-so-positive outgrowth of one of the gifts he'd given it, but it was ok and part of the process.

Through all that and now, I have to say I'm grateful for my brief membership in Mensa. Though I met some rather unpleasant, superficial and self-absorbed people, through joining a national group of Christian Mensans, I also learned that the church had other people like me.

Still though, as interesting as I do find this topic, I am, at the end of the day, a pragmatist and an INTJ. I have a distaste for the debate of evolution and creation, even within the respective camps. None of us have observed any of the processes that brought us here and I genuinely believe that all our measuring and theorizing amounts to little more than very intricate guesswork. And...we have much more important things to do. For Christians, the gospels line those things out pretty clearly...so I won't be spending too much time pondering this one.



*I don't consider his periods of belief and disbelief to change the truth of his research or of God. I've seen some Christians site Oscar Wilde's rumored conversion to belief on his deathbed as some sort of proof of the wrongness of his previous beliefs...as if they weren't wrong enough at the time, or as if the converse never happens. I do think it's a wonderful thing, but no more wonderful than anyone else making that same journey at any other point in their lives.

**I admittedly carry a bit of a chip on my shoulder in this area, since for years I felt that the very mind God had given me was being denied, suppressed and demonized by the church. As if we weren't commanded in Luke to point that very mind in love toward him. I didn't begin healing until one day, during lunch, I heard Ravi Zacharias over the radio say "The church has done a huge disservice to intelligent Christians." I almost cried. I didn't know that anyone even acknowledged that we existed. With all the fights over doctrine and the trinity and homosexuals and race, I'd never heard anyone so much as mention us. Which isn't to say that intelligence falls into the same category as any of those things, but it does deeply shape the way we approach God and the world.

The crazy stuff I believe.

One of the best books I've read in the last few years is The Ascent of Money by Niall Ferguson. Put most simply, it's a book about the history of money...how humans use it, how we've changed it and it's changed us. It's won a lot of awards and attracted a lot of criticism, but one passage in it really got me thinking about faith.

...money is a matter of belief, even faith: belief in the person paying us; belief in the person issuing the money he uses or the institution that honours his cheques or transfers. Money is not metal. It is trust inscribed. 


One of the biggest turning points in my life as a Christian was accepting that logic isn't the end all and be all of human existence. A long time ago, a former pastor used to say something that confused me deeply. Quite frequently he would call from the pulpit "You have to know that you know that you KNOW that you know." I never understood how the concept of knowledge could be applied to something none of us had ever seen and could not possibly, logically "know". Sure, there are elements of logic in Christianity and you can use it to decipher issues in life and Biblical study, but at the end of the day, it really doesn't make logical "sense".

Mr. Ferguson got me thinking of other things in life I simply "believe" with little physical or experiential evidence.

• The theory of relativity: Sure, I understand it from a very basic, scientific level, but I've never personally conducted any experiments and really have no experience with its applicability across the universe. 
• Man landing on the moon: Yes. I believe we did it. I've seen shuttle launches and pieces of moon rock. Still though, I've never been to the moon myself, couldn't build a shuttle or complete the calculations needed to get a craft to the pretty round ball I see at night. 
• The existence of...anything in space. I just saw the movie Thor (which I LOVED conceptually and visually) and the most amazing part for me, were the scenes flying past nebula, planets and stars (...ok...the Ice Giants were cool too). But still, as much as I do believe they do exist, I have as much proof that they exist as I do Bigfoot or Nessy or the Chupacabra.
• Almost...all of history: I've seen quite a few historical artifacts, Dowager Empress Xi Ci's palace, Akhenaten's death mask, Ancient engravings at the ruins of Tulum...all of them amazing. The stories behind them? I'm taking people 100% at their word. I saw none of them created and have never spoken with any one who has. Considering that "history is written by the victors", and I've done absolutely no work in archaeology, that's pretty much the definition of blind belief. 

Why believe things like this? Is it because they're convenient and fit neatly into the way I see the world? Is it because belief to the contrary would label me an outsider? I'm really not sure. What I do know though, is that believe and faith, in the secular and the spiritual, require suspension of reliance on the absolute reach of your individual understanding and experiences. 

How old was Elizabeth when she was pregnant?

I don't run across many topics that I can't dig up an answer for, but this one has me lost. I've dug around, and can't find how old Elizabeth was when she was pregnant with John. I ran across 88, but in a source other than the Bible.


Luke 1:36
Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month.


How old IS "old" anyway? It must have been pretty up there for it to be used as an example to Mary of God's power to transcend natural law.