Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches, pt. 6

last chapter, finally.

i'll admit some bias right at the start: Karen Ward, the author of the final section of this book, is the abbess/vicar of our church. i originally picked up this book a few months after we'd begun attending church of the apostles (COTA), moving it from where it had sat for months on my amazon wish list into the cart once i realized that she was one of the contributors.

Karen's chapter, "The Emerging Church and Communal Theology," is very different from all the others in three key ways. first, she uses a metaphor of cooking to describe theology and the metaphor runs throughout her chapter to describe the communal aspect of theology. second, a good chunk of her chapter is actually taken from blog posts and comments written by members of the community, thus actually incorporating such communal theology into the very fabric of the text. "This chapter has been written in communitas (in community) as that is how we operate at COTA." third, while the other chapters mention the authors' communities, they are primarily about each individual author's views, whereas Karen's chapter centers on the communal theology to the exclusion of her own, therefore even the responses to the chapter must be read as a response as much aimed at the community as to the actual content of her chapter.

there's a huge shift to move from the beginning of the book, where Mark Driscoll emphasizes scripture through the quoting the bible endlessly to reading Karen's chapter where she describes the difference in how scripture is approached in mainline churches: "In some ways we are being so immersed in Scripture within liturgy that we are like fish in water. It is all around us, and so we often seem unaware of it."

in true emergent church/postmodern fashion, the section on the atonement begins with, "First we are a bit weary of words. Somehow we don't expect that the latest framing of the atonement will help us any more than the last one did; instead, we are looking for nonpropositional ways of coming to understand the atonement, ways that involve art, ritual, community, etc."

"The closest image or analogy I have for how we do everything ("preaching," community, and theology-making) at Apostles is the "potluck," as this is how we function at our Abbey community kitchen meals, at our theology pubs, and in our weekly eucharistic gathering and other forms of community life." she explains how potlucks are not "quick or neat," yet they are nourishing and rich.

she describes the Abbey's kitchen as a constant mess (which after cleaning it once myself, i can attest to), but says that the mess is necessary as "you learn best by cooking, and it seems we learn Christian faith and life best by living it, so let the mess and the glory of community and kitchen living go on."

Karen's chapter (as do the others) covers much more than I quoted here, but the general gist is the idea that community is where faith and theology are discovered, learned, and lived-out.

responses:

• Driscoll: "For the sake of pleasantness, I will begin with what Karen and I hold in common and then explain some of our more significant differences. First, Karen holds to the essential tenets of the Christian faith as articulated in . . . [the] Creeds. Second, Karen planted her church, something that is the logical outgrowth of a truly missional theology." he then goes on to his criticisms: 1. her role as pastor because of her gender; 2. her use of Scripture (because she has three scripture references - which tend to be passages as opposed to the 700 out of context verses he quotes) and use of non-scriptural (read: cultural) texts; 3-6. continue along the same vein (but i'll spare you the length this post will become if i continue).
• Burke: likes her creative chapter "as a reminder that God invites all willing guests, both good and bad, to his party. Not all will reply, not all are suitable to stay, but his church's theology must pragmatically be lived out with this open party invitational approach."
• Kimball: found her creative approach refreshing, and allowing "the other "cooks" in her church to contribute. . . obviously lines up with what she is saying about how her church approaches theology." he continues, "I was refreshed and happy to see that a church doesn't just teach theology in a one-way format, but allows people to be in dialogue and discuss it and "cook" it together."
• Pagitt: "[within the context of her denomination] Karen is effectively seeking to bring change from within, which active theology ought to do. "

Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches, pt. 5

it's been a long time since i've posted. i wanted to finish posting on this book (Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches) before continuing on with other things. fact is, i found Pagitt's chapter went a bit over my head at times, so i was going to have Jak guest post for me on this chapter. but since he hasn't, and i'd like to resume blogging regularly, i figured i'd skim over the chapter (as it's been ages since i read it) and jump back into the blog world.

it's been said that this book was ordered from start to finish by most 'conservative' to most 'liberal,' and though i hate that those terms don't really tell us much, i'd have to disagree. i think if that order were true, i'd have to put Pagitt at the end. of the five authors, he tends to lean furthest from classic christianity (particularly as defined by evangelicals).

(btw, i recently heard Pagitt speak at the church basement roadshow and felt that what he said seemed pretty wild, but very cogent. he definitely strays from typical views of the gospel, but in ways that are refreshing. though i can't say i agree with much of what he says, i appreciate the breath of fresh air that he breathes into the church and the fact that he pushes people to think and challenges their assumptions.)

Pagitt states towards the beginning of the chapter that he is a contrarian, and that is clearly seen through many of the statements he makes. but i'll just pick out a few things he says that struck me.

in the section, "Theology is meant to be temporary," he says "Theology is the living understanding of the story of God in play with the story of our lives."

"There are far too many people inside Christian faith who feel the need to "give a nod" to the theology of their church or tribe, but it really has nothing to do with their lives. . . . In my views, this kind of disconnected theology is not useful nor should it be encouraged."

he writes a lot about the need for theology to be contextual, saying that we aren't to simply restate ideas of the past, but actually figure out what the gospel means - that we actually rethink the gospel not only in how it looks in our situation but to make sense of it in new ways.

overall, i'd say Pagitt would bring a bit of a shock to those from most 'traditional' backgrounds, but primarily because he realized that each of those 'traditional' backgrounds excludes a variety of other traditions: "When those from the Reformed tradition spoke of "traditional views," they were often not including the Anabaptist or Eastern Orthodox traditions (and the same worked the other way around). " it's easy to see our own theological lens as the correct one, and Pagitt shifts so far from all of them in so many ways, that it offers the corrective of reminding us that christianity exists around the world in different times and cultures through many different expressions - so much so that isolation in a particular tradition can cause the others to seem completely alien.

responses:

• Driscoll: finds Pagitt's chapter the toughest to respond to, "One. . . I remain uncertain of his position on these issues (Trinity, atonement, Scripture). Two, his chapter is highly conceptual on how theology is not to be done." (then he spends a lot of time critiquing an author Pagitt quoted.)
  
• Burke: "I find so much I agree with in principle, and yet I do not agree with how it appears he is applying some of those principles." (somewhat expected when responding to a self-professed contrarian.)
• Kimball: "Every single time you talk to Doug, you'll generally have a new theological discussion of something he has been thinking about. I suppose that is why the basic theme of his chapter is that theology changes rather than being stagnant."
• Ward: ". . . I really resonate with Doug and his views of theology as temporary, professional, contextual, particular, Spirit-led, and taking place in times of change." "So theology is not a done deal and a sealed canon written for us by others, that we need to swallow whole and espouse, but instead it is a living "art form" to which we as Christian practitioners are all given a brush."

Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches, pt. 4

i'll return to the blogosphere now to finally finish up this set of posts on Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches.

Dan Kimball fits neatly in as the middle author of this book with his chapter on missional theology.

(though, before getting into his chapter and theology i must point out that as much as he's known for his speaking and writing, he is most well-known in emerging circles for his wild pompadour hairstyle: see picture.)

while Kimball says that he would still consider himself a "conservative evangelical," he is concerned about the reputation of that term in our society.

in practice, his interpretation of being emergent consists of rethinking how we do church in light of cultural changes. "We must rethink leadership, church structure, the role of a pastor, spiritual formation, how community is lived out, how evangelism is done, how we express our worship, etc."

theologically, he focuses on the nicene creed, believing that there are a few basics beyond the creed that are standard orthodox beliefs, but is "comfortable in saying both 'I don't know' and 'this I know'" to most issues beyond the creed.

his church's (vintage faith church) tagline is 'a worshiping community of missional theologians,' as a community that comes together for worship, steps out into the community to serve (instead of remaining isolated), and where all are seen as theologians (not just the academics).

i like Kimball a lot, especially his passion for working to make the church a more approachable place for folks who don't usually go to church (i posted previously on his book They Like Jesus but not the Church), as well as his emphasis on core beliefs (like the nicene creed) instead of 'majoring on the minors.'

a quick run-through the responses:

• Mark Driscoll: Driscoll starts by saying that he met Kimball, "when he and his very cool hair picked me up at the airport," and says that he appreciates Kimball's emphasis on Jesus but that a nicene creed Christianity is not enough because it doesn't answer certain "current issues." he goes on to outline a computer-speak concept of christianity, splitting into different 'versions' from 1.0 to 4.0 christianity, saying he "fear[s] that less thoughtful Christians will agree on the need for the kind of Christianity 1.0 that the Nicene Creed provides, but will refuse to also upgrade to the Christianity 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 as needed." [comment: i won't even begin to post my thoughts on his various upgrades to christianity.]
• John Burke: Burke agrees with Kimball throughout his comments, and commends his focus on core theological questions answered, "so that we can decide if we will truly follow Jesus, not just in profession, but also in practice," leaving the rest of the issues as ideas to wrestle with after we've got the basics covered.
• Doug Pagitt: Pagitt and Kimball are longtime friends, yet Pagitt disagreed with Kimball's view of the creed believing that the creeds are "cultural theological responses," and even the core issues as defined in the creed are ones that we should still struggle with. "To suggest that these creeds constitute some sort of timeless doctrine of the finality is to put a pressure on the creeds they were never meant to withstand."
• Karen Ward: a large part of her response is quoting things Dan said that she agrees with. the first that stood out was how he defines the emerging church as "those who notice culture is changing and are not afraid to do deep ecclesiological thinking as we are on a wonderful adventurous mission together for the gospel of Jesus." the other one that felt very true to what i know of Karen was "his view of his role as 'a pastor and leader in a local church community, on a mission striving to be true to Scripture, but also engaged in the culture and thus enjoying wrestling with theological issues our culture raises.'"

Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches, pt. 3

the second author in this book is John Burke, the founding pastor of gateway community church in austin, texas. in reading this book, particularly Burke's chapter on incarnational theology, i find it helpful to recall something Webber wrote in both the introduction, and again in the conclusion. in the intro, Webber writes:

These five contributors are not scholarly theologians, but practitioners. All are currently engaged in ministry at the local church level. The question of this book is, "What kind of theological reflection motivates your ministry?

and in the conclusion, repeats the thought by saying:

First, and very importantly, the contributors to this book are pastors, not professional theologians. They are not called to the classroom, but to the pulpit. Therefore, we must read them as pastors reflecting on how theology forms and shapes their ministry. We should not look for insights into biblical, historical, philosophical theology, but for applied theology.

in light of Webber's words, Burke's chapter fits in perfectly.

Burke has found that in his ministry setting, he faces many questions regarding the exclusivity of christianity and about the differences between christianity and other religions. these sorts of questions shape his ministry and the way he communicates the gospel.

three things that Burke emphasizes are how we represent Jesus, the veracity of scripture, and acknowledging commonality with other religions. he points out that christians "proclaim that Jesus is the only way and the right way. . . yet following Jesus makes no difference whatsoever in the way these so-called Christians live and treat people, except that it makes them more judgmental and hypocritical." thus, Burke says, "We need a new job description as the church. . . we're misrepresenting Jesus if the world hears our message as a message of judgment."

for Burke, the prophecies fulfilled in scripture stand as proof of its truth, and scripture serves as an authority and anchor to theology, though "we must subject our interpretations to a broader community."

in writing about other religions, Burke balances a respect for other belief systems while holding to the uniqueness of Christ. he explains, "Some truth can be found among the religions of the world. . . . [but they] do not say the same things about God's identity." like the apostle Paul when in Athens, Burke emphasizes truth in various religions as arrows pointing to the truth of scripture and the gospel.

key ideas from the responses to Burke:

• Mark Driscoll: Driscoll disagrees with Burke's interpretation of how christianity interacts with other religions in light of a transcendent moral law. "But Jesus stands against religion and morality as enemies of the gospel because, as Martin Luther said, religion and morality are the default mechanisms of the human heart to pursue righteousness apart from him." and ". . . all religions do not have in essence the same morality."
• Dan Kimball: "I really don't disagree with anything John wrote. I can only admire his missionary zeal. But more than just having zeal, John then puts this zeal into action as he is involved in lives of people outside the church. And. . . has been forced to grapple with the[se] theological questions. . . [and] admit that we need to do some deep theological thinking."
• Doug Pagitt: "John makes a persuasive argument for making important the uniqueness of Scripture and Jesus. But i wonder if that emphasis is not a result of a culture that finds value in distinction, thinking "We are better because we are different from the other.""
• Karen Ward: ". . . I especially appreciate his acknowledgment and willingness to take on and examine the problematic tendencies of evangelicalism (harboring parochial cultural perspectives, seeing divine truth as totally knowable and "locked in" by human beings, and clinging to forms of unexamined biblicism that often come off as arrogant and patronizing).

Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches, pt. 2

each chapter in Listening the Beliefs of Emerging Churches is titled with a descriptor of that pastor's theology, in the case of the first chapter - by Mark Driscoll - it is "The Emerging Church and Biblicist Theology."

Driscoll is the pastor of mars hill church here in seattle, a church he planted in 1996 that is now close to 5000 members. we live just minutes away from mars hill, but and i have yet to go there, though many things have certainly piqued my interest in going just to see what it's all about.

i've heard a lot about Driscoll since we moved here last year, and i've read some of his blog posts and seen some of his videos. so before reading his part of the book, i knew that there were many things that i wouldn't agree with. though i agree with a lot of his theology, we do part ways in a number of places, but most of all i take issue with his presentation (in general, not just this book).

in Driscoll's fourteen pages, he clearly and succinctly lays out his calvinist views of scripture, the Trinity, and the atonement (and he references 700 bible verses) often using bullet points to refer to the bible as much as possible in a small amount of space. now, i wasn't reading this book as some sort of bible study, so i didn't check on each and every passage he quoted. but i did look up several that seemed unfamiliar by the context of his quotes. the response i had after reading some of them was that he was prooftexting (taking things out of context to make a point) quite a bit in certain parts. i found that even in some of the points that i agreed with his conclusion, i disagreed with how he got there, i just didn't find them in the context or content of some of the verses he quoted. by far, most of the scripture he used did back up what he was saying, which seemed to make the prooftexting unnecessary.

as i mentioned previously, my usual problem with Driscoll is his presentation, and once again his presentation frustrated me. Driscoll wrote with great passion, but honestly it felt as if his passion was less about his theology and more about being right and showing how much he knows.

to save space here, i'll just give a key quote or idea that stood out to me from each of the other authors' responses to Driscoll's chapter:

• John Burke: "This is why it is important that we provide space and room for questioning theology. . . . assenting to the correct doctrinal beliefs along can create that stench of the Pharisees if we're not careful, because what people say they believe is not always what they actually believe. . . . Ultimately, how we live reveals what we truly believe."
• Dan Kimball: "He is reformed to the core. . . . when we take extreme theological positions on anything, the extreme part of it actually is the weakest part of the theological system."
• Doug Pagitt: "At times I found it difficult to read Mark's chapter. . . . I am troubled by Mark's use of the Bible in what seems to be reference approach. Placing Bible passages in and around an argument is not in and of itself a proper way of being informed by the Scriptures. . . . Laying claim to part of the Bible as support for one's theological perspective needs to be done in a careful manner."
• Karen Ward: "When I read his words, I think "Wow, if Gold's Gym were a Christian church, then Mark would be the lead manager, nutritionist, and personal trainer."

Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches, pt. 1

i'd been curious to read this book for some time now, and got quite frustrated with how long it took amazon to deliver it. but it finally arrived last week and it read it in just a couple of days. part of the reason i was so intent on reading it is because our pastor is one of the five authors and i was itching to know more about where she's coming from theologically.

the book has five sections, each with a chapter written by a different pastor of an emerging church (in this case defined as a church that has a young congregation). each of these chapters is supposed to cover that person's view of theology and how it's practiced in their church (primarily their views of scripture, atonement, and God/the Trinity). after each chapter, the other four authors take about two or three pages to respond to that person's chapter, making the book much more conversational than the typical book (although it is something that has been done in a few other books about the emerging church).

i really enjoyed the format, it was refreshing to switch between the different authors voices and perspectives. since the authors' views vary so much from one another, it was also fun to wonder and anticipate how the others would respond to each chapter.

the book is edited by the late Robert Webber, who introduces the book with a discussion about historical trends and closes the book with a reminder that we live in a very different age now than the modern era and how it's important to listen to these pastors even if they seem to be speaking a different (theological) language.

it's been pointed out that the authors names on the cover somewhat reflect their theological orientations, from left (liberal) to right (conservative), though i would argue if that's the case that Karen Ward and Doug Pagitt should switch places as she seemed a bit more conservative. but, i would argue that cautiously, as i would agree with comments made a couple of times in the book that labels such as liberal and conservative should be avoided (at least in some situations).

for the sake of clarity, and to keep my posts a bit shorter, i'm going to talk about this book over the course of a few posts.

They Like Jesus but not the Church

i finished reading Dan Kimball’s book They Like Jesus but not the Church the other day. this was the first time i read Kimball beyond his blog or his comments in others’ blogs, and more than anything i was struck by his passion and compassion for the church and the world.

this book is geared mostly towards church leaders and others in ministry, while his follow up book I Like Jesus but not the Church (which is due for release in February 2008) is geared towards those who resonate with the title.

In They Like Jesus, Kimball gives several examples of positive views that our culture and those within it have of Jesus: as a man of deep spirituality, good teachings, and charismatic attractiveness. he focuses on emerging generations (essentially those in their teens through 30’s) and their criticisms of the church of today. he gives a lot of weight to those criticisms, explains the reasons for them, and makes suggestions towards correction. to make his points and create suggestions he interviewed several people both in and outside of the church and quotes them extensively.

the criticisms of the church that he focuses on (both in this book and the next) are:

• the church is an organized religion with a political agenda
• the church is judgmental and negative
• the church is dominated by males and oppresses females
• the church is homophobic
• the church arrogantly claims all other religions are wrong
• the church is full of fundamentalists who take the whole Bible literally

in each of his responses he describes why people view the church in these ways, why it’s problematic, and how the church can respond in a positive way (read: change), become welcoming and honest, while not compromising core beliefs or biblical principles.
i felt that Kimball wrote with integrity, being honest about how the church is seen in this culture, while writing with love and passion for both the church and those who find themselves outside of the church because of those reasons.

towards the end of the book he has a chapter specifically on what the people he spoke to wish the church were like, emphasizing the importance of listening to those ideas, and making suggestions for implementing them as a way of staying true to the biblical view of the church.

another thing that impressed me was that he included an appendix responding to the criticisms he received from christians regarding the content of the book, answering questions addressed to him concerned with the idea that listening so intently to those outside the church would dilute the church’s mission and message.

Kimball’s book is an important one for those who truly want the church to be the community of God on earth and who want to see the church move from being an obstacle in many people’s path to God towards becoming a place of invitation and authenticity.

arriving at church

Jak and i started attending a new church a few months ago (right around easter), and in the last few months have made a few decisions and changes regarding church and stuff like that. i won't go into all the details here, but just the most recent part.

i've spent over a decade feeling too catholic for protestants and too protestant for catholics. i think i've (hopefully) found a place where i can be just enough of both. a church with catholic liturgy and protestant theology. a church where theology is found through liturgy and prayers instead of dogma. a church that affirms the historic ecumenical creeds (nicene, apostolic, and athanasian) and whose catechism is just skeletal enough to allow for conversation about just about everything beyond the creeds. a church that has a lot of room for lay ministry and doesn't discriminate by gender.

no, i don't agree with everything within the church, but it's a community that's open enough to have room for people like me who disagree with some stuff.

so this last sunday, i was received into the episcopal church. a church that lets me be anglo-catholic, enjoying catholic liturgy and practices while believing protestant theology.

women in christianity

i'd love to hear some thoughts about this video from you.

[ht to emerging women - originally from Jennifer]

belief-o-matic

beliefnet has a quiz that tells you what religion you are (or should be) or at least what your beliefs come closest to. it's obviously not wholly accurate as they try to squeeze 27 world religions into about 20 questions or so. but fun and interesting anyway, and i'm curious to hear your results as well.

this is what the site says:
The top score on the list below represents the faith that Belief-O-Matic, in its less than infinite wisdom, thinks most closely matches your beliefs. However, even a score of 100% does not mean that your views are all shared by this faith, or vice versa. Belief-O-Matic then lists another 26 faiths in order of how much they have in common with your professed beliefs. The higher a faith appears on this list, the more closely it aligns with your thinking.

my results:
1. Orthodox Quaker (100%) <-- cool. though i'm sure i'm not all that orthodox.
2. Seventh Day Adventist (85%) <-- but i eat a lot of chocolate.
3. Eastern Orthodox (84%) <-- didn't expect that to rank so high.
4. Roman Catholic (84%) <-- not that surprising.
5. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (83%) <-- i'm not all that conservative.
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (70%) <-- i might be just about that liberal.
7. Liberal Quakers (58%) <-- curious.
8. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (54%) <-- no.
9. Orthodox Judaism (52%) <-- expected this to be higher. i guess my belief in the trinity knocked this one down a bit.
10. Hinduism (50%) <-- how'd this make it to the top 10?
11. Islam (49%)
12. Bahá'í Faith (49%)
13. Jehovah's Witness (46%)
14. Unitarian Universalism (45%)
15. Sikhism (44%)
16. Jainism (38%)
17. Reform Judaism (37%) <-- would've expected this to be higher, too.
18. Neo-Pagan (31%) <-- pagan? not really. heretic? probably.
19. Mahayana Buddhism (30%)
20. Theravada Buddhism (29%)
21. Secular Humanism (26%) <-- that's what i get for not being a strict creationist.
22. New Age (26%)
23. Taoism (22%)
24. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (21%)
25. Nontheist (17%) <-- some days this is probably true.
26. Scientology (16%) <-- ack. don't want it on here at all.
27. New Thought (15%) <-- what's this?

easter

lest anyone think that i believe easter is just about chocolate bunnies, i'll clarify here that i know full well that it's also about cadbury eggs and peeps. aside from the candy, i feel as if i'm trying to learn something about easter.

i don't think it's simply the baskets full of candy that i got as a kid that make easter difficult for me, but i'm not sure what it is. maybe it's that easter was simply another sunday we all went to church together, just like every other week. but easter never really struck me as anything big.

on christmas, we'd go to midnight mass as a family, so that made it different - thus special - from going to the 1130 mass every sunday. and i remain grateful for that, as it has taught me the importance of the incarnation as a pivotal theological concept.

i'd say it was around high school, that i understood the importance of good friday. though at that time i'd also read the new testament on my own, and knew it well enough to understand what scripture said about the resurrection, it somehow felt anticlimactic after good friday (which i know is a theological reversal since the crucifixion means nothing without the resurrection, and that a lot of people were crucified, but only Jesus came back to life).

my senior year of high school, while visiting colleges in Boston, i went to my first easter vigil service. it was at trinity church in copley square, one of my favorite places in my favorite city. and thinking back, i remember that the resurrection was never more beautiful to me than during that mass. we'd never seen the church's interior before, and as it was evening, the church was dark. then, partway through the mass, candles were lit, and the fire passed from one to another, so that everyone in the church eventually held a lit candle. as the light grew, the gilded ceilings reflected the glow; the figures in the stained glass windows glittered and seemed to come to life in the play between light and shadow; and the woodwork and craftsmanship of the building became visible.

during that easter vigil service, watching the light grow, played out a beautiful visual image of the light of the world coming into the darkness, and bringing life even in the midst of death.

over the last decade (okay, it's been more than a decade, but let me pretend it hasn't been that long), i have once again found that i have struggled with remembering the centrality of the resurrection.

Jak and i went to an easter vigil service this saturday. though, like trinity, also episcopalian(ish), it couldn't have been more different than my previous easter vigil service. though the style was different, i was thankfully reminded of the resurrection and it's importance.

the resurrection is the center for our hope in Jesus. the resurrection is the light that came into the darkness proving that darkness could not win. the resurrection is God laughing in the face of evil, sin, injustice, and giving us the freedom to find joy in a world that is still filled with those things. the resurrection lets us know that no matter how hard we are beaten, no matter how unfair our trials and struggles are, no matter how tough our journeys are, no matter how many fingers point at us or how loudly we are shouted down or how ridiculed we are, no matter how many betrayals we face, that none of that is the end of the story. the resurrection lets us know that after adversity, pain, and even death, we will rise again.

anyway, just my thoughts as this easter sunday came to a close.

** He is risen **

Sex God . . . part ii

i said i'd write more about Rob Bell's book Sex God once i finished it, and well, i finished it pretty much just after writing the last post a couple of weeks ago, so now i have to see what i remember about it.

i enjoyed it, and - like Velvet Elvis - it was easy to read as he writes in a very conversational style (and without religious jargon). it does seem though as if he leaves half of the book (including some of the best parts) for the footnotes at the end (including the footnote that refers to an included Monty Python quote - where he comments that a book wouldn't be complete without at least one).

i know a lot of conservative christians like to bash Bell, and had a blast doing so after Velvet Elvis since Bell said a few things that irked quite a few people considerably. i don't think that this book is quite as easy to criticize from that perspective. i think the biggest complaint from that camp would be that he never clearly articulates a specific morality for sexuality. what i mean by that, is that his whole premise is that sexuality (our relational nature) and our spirituality are wound up in each other, and obviously since that's his premise, he's puts a high value on relationship and sexuality. but, since he never outright says anything such as, "sex outside of marriage is sinful," i know that many are going to tear apart this book.

the thing is, it seems that by avoiding specifics like that, Bell has actually written a book about relationships that gets to the heart of the matter. it's not a book about dating, or marriage, or even sex. it's really a book about how people are created in the image of God (imago dei) and ends up sounding a lot like the great commandment (love God / love others) and the story of the sheep and goats in Matthew (whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto Jesus).

so Sex God isn't really about it's title, and it's not nearly as controversial as his previous book. but i think Bell's got the right idea as to what relationships are really about, so that's good. i think it's worth the few hours it takes to read.

Sex God

yeah, i know, strange title. but it's not mine, it's Rob Bell's. it's the title of his newest book which was just released. i'm reading it right now, and i'm sure i'll have more to post about it once i finish. but, after reading the first chapter online, i couldn't wait to get my hands on it. so i thought i'd share the link to that first chapter, and hope you read it. the book is all about sexuality and spirituality and how interlinked the two are. the first chapter talks about divinity and humanity, dignity and depravity, us and them, lipstick and genocide, and heaven and hell. i know, it sounds like a lot. and it is a lot. but Bell writes in a very conversational style, he's easy to read, while at the same time, he hits you with a lot of information and makes you think.

so, i hope you read at least that first chapter. if you do, i'd love to hear your thoughts. and, as i said, i'll post more on the book once i finish it.

Darkness is My Only Companion

i recently read, Darkness is My Only Companion by Kathryn Greene-McCreight. i think it's actually the first book i've seen that addresses mental illness not simply from a christian perspective but that does so in such a way so as to address the spiritual and theological implications of mental illness.

i've read a few secular books about mental illness in general, and many on particular illnesses; i've read memoirs from those who suffer from mental illnesses, and articles that look at the scientific, psychiatric, or psychological aspects; i've read christian books that look specific issues such as abuse or abandonment within from a christian framework, and ones that discuss psychology or counseling or theories from a christian perspective.

this was the first book i've seen that approached it from within a christian framework, taking personal experience into account, but focusing on the theological and spiritual implications of mental illness. the author dealt with questions of the soul and personality, and the effects of mental illness on each. she wrote about the consequences and ramifications of suicide from a biblical standpoint. and peppered in virtually every page were scriptural references and/or prayers, poems, and other such expressions of the faith throughout the centuries.

what this book offers is invaluable and a necessary introduction into a conversation that is well past due within the church. she has marvelous and beautiful things to say throughout the book that make it a helpful book for those who struggle with a mental illness and a valuable reference for those in pastoral vocations, with family or friends who are mentally ill, or who seek to care for the mentally ill in some other capacity.

unfortunately, the book was not edited as well as i would have liked. there were so many beautiful and needed things interspersed throughout the book, yet the way the individual paragraphs were ordered often made it feel chaotic in such a way that much valuable information could easily be lost to a reader because of the sense of disorganization within the book. though, i guess for those who have never personally experienced a mental illness, paying attention to the disordered nature of the book could help illustrate what it can be like in the mind of someone who is struggling with a mental illness.

even with that complaint, i would highly recommend this book as i feel that it offers some opening words to a conversation we must have within the church. and the fact that she is open about sharing her experiences while simultaneously addressing spiritual and theological implications seems to only give her greater credence and an ability to stand as a clear voice calling the church to reform its treatment and beliefs of the mentally ill.

Romero

in class (impact of abuse) on friday night, we watched the film Romero (1989). i'd seen the film about a decade ago, and have studied enough about liberation theology and nonviolent action to remain familiar with the story line long after having forgotten the details of the film itself. it's based on the true story of archbishop Oscar Romero, who was assassinated/martyred in El Salvador on march 24th, 1980.

according to the film's portrayal, Oscar Romero was an introverted, academic, catholic priest who - when promoted from bishop to archbishop - would have prefered to remain in a study with his books than dealing with the political, economic, and humanitarian crises occurring in El Salvador at the time. the upper class Salvadorans urge him to remain theirs, as the reigning political parties have tended to have the church's support (at least outwardly via those in leadership), yet he is drawn further and further into the plight of the poor as he encounters the violence and injustice they face each day.

in the midst of a movie filled with injustice, abject poverty, violence, greed, and oppression, one scene in particular has stuck with me over the past week or so:

the Salvadoran government has occupied a town and turned the church into a barracks for the soldiers who are now in charge of the town. as the soldiers have overtaken the church and are not permitting Mass, Romero goes to pick up the consecrated (blessed) hosts (communion bread) of the Eucharist, because they cannot be left in this place that is no longer a church. as he enters, an officer confronts him and does not let him pass towards the altar. when Romero makes to step past him, the officer fires his automatic weapon at the tabernacle (where the hosts are stored) and the crucifix. Romero, frightened by this encounter, leaves the building. as he's about to enter the car, he realizes that he cannot just leave. in Catholic theology, once the host has been consecrated, it is believed to become the body of Christ, and is treated with the utmost reverence and respect. therefore, this archbishop proves to those around him that he is a man of God because he cannot allow the body of Christ to lay on the floor, but instead risks his life to pick up the pieces of the hosts - the body of Christ - that have been shot and now lay on the floor. he enters the church, walks past the officer, and on his hands and knees, begins to pick up the pieces of the fallen hosts. the officer, to instill fear and prove that he is the one in control, begins firing just over Romero's head, filling the wall behind the altar with bullet holes. Romero flinches, but continues to gather the pieces from the ground. eventually, the soldier pushes him over, and walks him out of the church at gunpoint. Romero gets in his car and leaves the village. but, just as he has passed the town limits, he returns to the town, to the people, to the church once again. as he exits the car, he begins to put on his vestments. all the townspeople have watched this encounter transpire, and their eyes are transfixed as he dons his robe and alb. once again, he walks towards the church, this time though, all the townspeople and the local priests join him as he enters the church. faced with so many civilians and religious, the soldiers step aside, as Romero stakes a claim for the church as God's house, not a barracks.

what struck me so deeply about this scene, was watching Romero handle the Eucharist - believed to be the very body of Christ - with such reverence, care, and adoration, with bullets flying over his head. it was beautiful to see him care for Jesus's body in such a way. but greater still, was his return to the town. in that, it showed Romero realizing that more sacred than the bread - the hosts - as the body of Christ, was the fact that the very people themselves -the church - were the body of Christ. well, maybe he didn't see it as more sacred, but it took until that moment for him to don his vestments, so maybe he did. but it was a visible reminder of the biblical passages regarding the church as the body of Christ, as well as Jesus's words that "whatever you do unto the least of these, that you do unto me." each person who entered the church with Romero upon his final entrance, each represented Jesus, in the flesh - and all of them together, as the church, were the very body of Christ. so Romero went to the town to retrieve - save - the body of Christ in the Eucharist, but found that the body of Christ was greater than the consecrated hosts because it was the living, breathing, community of believers that surrounded him.

it was a truly beautiful scene. and, if seen with an awareness of Catholic theology, and thus what Romero would have been thinking upon seeing the Eucharistic hosts shot at and laying on the floor, it adds an entire other dimension to watch his conversion from seeing only the bread, to the people as well, and to move to a place of understanding that he could not abandon the living, breathing, communal body of Christ that lived in that town just as he had not been able to leave the Eucharistic hosts laying on the ground exposed.

and more hermeneutics

as i mentioned previously, i'm in the midst of the final days of this first term at mars hill.

this weekend, i have to come up with my personal hermeneutic, written out in a coherent enough form to turn in by monday afternoon. i know i've had all semester to think about it, and wrestle with the idea of how i view biblical interpretation. but at the moment it seems a monumental task.

i find myself asking these sorts of questions:

do the words on a page mean different things depending in which book they are included? and if so, how does one decide which meanings they have, and what gives them greater or lesser importance? what, for instance, makes the bible different from other texts? yes, i believe in the inspiration of scripture, but as that is a matter of faith for me, i don't know how to explain how or why it is the case.

do we, or should we, interpret texts differently from one another? when we engage a text, should we look to interpret it in different ways because of what the text is? should we try to interpret the bible differently than we would a text of fiction or an encyclopedia or a philosophy book or another book from the same time period? and if so, how and why?

how has my understanding of a text changed due to the knowledge of the author? do i hear or read a quote differently when i know it comes from the bible or a favored author or someone i've never heard of? i think i do. i think when i hear a quote attached to someone i like or respect, i suddenly like the quote more than i may have upon first glance. why is that? what gives that credibility and how does or should that look different when dealing with biblical texts versus other texts?

why is it that i view the words of the bible as having greater authority than those written in other texts? how do i hold my faith in the inspiration of the bible with the knowledge that the canon was put together - chosen - by men? if i hold to the truth of the bible, then i would believe that all men are liars, all have sinned and fall short of God's glory, that our hearts are deceitful - yet it is men who chose which books would be part of the canon of scripture and which wouldn't. yes, i do believe in God's power, in the Holy Spirit's work, but i can't deny the tension that lies there either.

and i wonder about the whole chicken and egg argument i've been having in my head, which came first, the church or the scriptures? i mean, obviously we had the Hebrew scriptures before the church existed, but what about the new testament? the church met before those texts became canon, so the church existed without the bible as christians know it. the canon came about due to the work of the church working (under the guidance of the Spirit) to select the texts. so, knowing that it was the church that brought the texts together, how tightly can i hold to sola scriptura? please don't immediately hear that as heresy. it's simply that what we consider the bible is such because of the tradition of the church to call it the bible. so can we truly say sola scriptura, and ignore tradition, when the text themselves are considered scripture because that, itself, is the tradition of the church. in that case, which traditions are okay to hold on to, and which aren't? can we hold to other traditions that aren't in the bible just as we hold onto the tradition of the bible itself?

so these are some of the questions that i feel i should answer in my paper, while also knowing that they are questions not so easily resolved, especially over a weekend.

a hermeneutic of hearing

okay, so you're probably not interested in this, but it's a paper i just wrote for my hermeneutics class, and the topic really drew me in. it's brief- 500 words, as that was our limit - and somewhat out of context without knowing the biblical story of Amnon and Tamar, and especially without familiar with Trible's book, Texts of Terror. but here it is anyway.

Phyllis Trible, in her exegesis of the story of Amnon raping his sister Tamar,[1] writes, “Amnon has desired to see and touch her, for with these senses he has made of her what he wills. But to hear her voice is another matter; it disturbs the fantasies that eyes and hands have fashioned. To hear might mean repentance. So Amnon chooses to close out her voice.”[2]

Trible compares Tamar to the Wisdom in Proverbs.[3] Amnon leaves Tamar, symbolic of beauty and wisdom, broken and desolated. Thus, the story becomes a metaphor for a broken hermeneutic, one that treats the text – like Amnon with Tamar – touching and seeing, feeling and manipulating it to please the senses, rather than listening and therefore risking a call to repentance.

Comparing the Bible to the earth, Nancy Pereira writes, “Some parts are hard, and others are swampy… yet there are countless fertile places to be worked on . . . . in the same way as the land: with tenacity, determination, wisdom and pleasure.”[4] Rather than risk hearing, risking the call to repentance, it is far easier to remain in the broken hermeneutic, to avoid the hard and swampy places; it is far easier to remain in broken and desolate relationships than to hear the other, and once again, risk a call to repentance.

Gerard Loughlin describes this broken hermeneutic when he speaks about biblical scholars taking the Bible apart – thus breaking it – leaving “little room for ideas of inspiration, divine or otherwise,” and leaving us simply with “a text like any other, a wholly human work.”[5]

Modernity offered us a way to avoid the hard and swampy places, a way to touch and see without hearing by focusing on solid answers to elude difficult questions. Don Michael Hudson says that Christians use the “methods and the thinking of modernism to project an image of a God who removes questions and doubts. Modernism, then, becomes a way of thinking which attempts to tame and reduce God to logical categories so that our worlds will be predictable.” [6] Postmodernity then offers us an invitation “to trust a God who is beyond our comprehension.”[7] This offering gives us the freedom to step into those hard and swampy places and to hear the words that are written and spoken, thus giving us the ability to move beyond a broken hermeneutic into one that may offer wholeness and grace.

The Bible is “living and active,”[8] it is simultaneously the word of God and the words of man, these are words that cannot simply be seen and ones that cannot be touched, but must be heard. We must not act deaf like Amnon, but must listen. We must not leave the text desolate like Tamar, or deaden it by removing its inspiration, but hear its words. This listening is risky, it can call for repentance, but we can do nothing less with this sacred text that calls us to trust “a God who is beyond our comprehension.”
....................................................
[1] 2 Samuel 13:1-22.
[2] Phyllis Trible. “Tamar: the Royal Rape of Wisdom.” Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984, 46.
[3] Ibid., 56.
[4] Nancy Pereira, “The Body as Hermeneutical Category: Guidelines for a Feminist Hermeneutics of Liberation.” Ecumenical Review 54 no. 3, July 2002, 235.
[5] Gerard Loughlin, “Making it Plain.” Telling God’s Story: Bible, Church and Narrative Theology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999, 111.
[6] Don Michael Hudson, “Dance of Truth.” Mars Hill Review. Bainbridge Island, WA: Mars Hill Forum,
no. 12. Fall 1998, 13-14.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Hebrews 4:12.

A Generous Orthodoxy

a while back, i made myself a little list of things to blog about when i had more time. looking at that list just now, i realized that there are a few books i read this summer that i never commented on. i think that this summer, i had three favorite theology-type books: A Generous Orthodoxy, The Irresistible Revolution, and Velvet Elvis. well, i guess aside from those, most of what i read were psych books. but it was nice to read several christian books that i thoroughly enjoyed.

i've commented (however briefly) already on Velvet Elvis, and would need a copy of Irresistible Revolution around to comment on that. so for today, i'll focus on A Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren.

to begin, i'll give the complete title: A Generous Orthodoxy:
why I am a missional , evangelical, post/Protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, Fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green, incarnational, depressed-yet-hopeful, emergent, unfinished Christian.

and we have a winner for longest book title.

so i know that McLaren is a controversial figure. everyone wants to hold some sort of opinion of him: he's a saint, a sinner, a heretic, a new kind of christian, a universalist, an unbeliever, he's too this or that. whatever. people who know him speak of his gentleness. to me, that speaks volumes beautifully. so far, this is the only book i've read by him. it's amazing that it seems i've read more pages about him than actually written by him, especially considering how much he's written.

for those who may not even want to hear a word he has to say, i offer this quote from his book regarding his take on scripture:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

What is meant by God-breathed or inspired? God's breath is associated, from the first verses of the Bible, with creativity and life-giving vitality. In Genesis 1, again and again, God breathes out (metaphorically, of course: we're not saying God has lungs, vocal cords, air to vibrate them. . . ): "Let there be. . . " And God's creative brush gives permission to whatever possibility (light, trees, fish, people) to become actual. . . actually come into being. In this primal, sacred narrative, the creative breath of God is associated with God's life-giving Spirit (the linguistic connections between Spirit and breath or wind are profound), who first moves over the chaos of the waters so they yield their creative possibilities and eventually teem with life, and who then enters humanity, making each person "a living soul," or a living person.

To say Scripture is God-breathed is, then, to elicit this primal language of creation. Think of the difference between a corpse and a living, breathing body, and you'll understand the difference between a bunch of words and words vitalized with God's breath. But even understanding this, how do we understand the interaction between God's breath or impulse and the human impulses that produced the Scriptures, including this letter of Paul? After all, it was very obviously written by one human being to another, in a certain time and place, dealing with certain situations and needs, bearing all the marks of Paul's humanity, including his personal opinions. . . and biases. . .

then he offers the analogy that of all the things that he is as a person, he is "both a creation of God and pro-creation of parents who, in partnership with friends and teachers and authors and culture in general, helped make" him all he is today.

McLaren holds a high view of scripture without ignoring the reality of human authorship. this is a delicate tension and balance, and i appreciate his honesty in the midst of it. too many of us will tend to fall to one side or the other, with a refusal to hold both at once.

this tendency to stand in the middle, to hold the tension of opposing sides is the general gist of this book (as is obvious in the lengthy subtitle).

my favorite chapter was his chapter on why he is a liberal/conservative. the beauty of it was that it is a piece that can stand on its own and speak to anyone beyond political leanings. he expresses his grief over the fact that each side tends to see their good points and contrast them to the opposing side's bad points. he challenges readers to instead focus on the opposition's good points, and see those as a cause to grow and change, and see the negative things of one's own side as things that can be worked on and changed. it really sounds to me as something that goes well beyond liberalism and conservatism and into our daily lives, how we interact with others, and how we approach others with differing beliefs. i think he expresses much wisdom.

i also appreciate his willingness to learn from traditions other than his own, to honestly engage those things in each that aren't as good, and embracing the positive at the same time.

anyway, i think it's a beautiful book. i wish that we could all have a more generous orthodoxy.

A Heretic's Guide to Eternity

if you know me, you know i'm going to like a book if it's got the word "heretic" in the title. so i was biased before beginning this book based on that. plus my bias was increased by having had the opportunity to meet the author, Spencer Burke, on monday night.

one of my professors, Dwight Friesen, invited us over to his house to meet Spencer and hear him talk about his newest book, A Heretic's Guide to Eternity. this book had already caught my attention, especially since i've been spending a lot of time reading articles on theOOZE.com lately, which is a website that Spencer created several years ago. so when given the opportunity to hear him speak about his book, Jak and i jumped at the chance.

it was a fun night. what i found most interesting was watching the varied responses in the room to things that Spencer had to say, from total agreement to utter disbelief with expressions showing that they certainly believed him to be a heretic.

so of course, since i'm in the final month of the semester and therefore have more work to do than before, i have spent this week reading Heretic's Guide and falling behind on my schoolwork.

i'll give my critique first, and then some of my favorite quotes.

i found that he was trying to explore so many things, and some of the ideas were great, but often he stopped short of explaining himself enough. i often got the feeling that if he'd spent another couple of pages - or even paragraphs - on a subject, he really could have delved deeply into some of the subjects in a really positive way. so i was often frustrated feeling like he left off the best parts of his ideas, stopping short of really getting to the meat of the matter.

his overall concept in the book is that religion (in general, but especially christianity) tries to be the gatekeeper of grace, and by doing so misses the point because God is the one who is and gives grace, not religion. he believes that religion places rules and regulations in place of spirituality and relationship. he points out how the religious leaders of the day viewed Jesus as a heretic because he didn't follow the rules of the religion but instead put people and God first, and Spencer calls us out to do and be the same. his views of grace and salvation would make many an evangelical cringe at first sight, yet i believe that if we can get past this initial reaction and hear what Spencer is saying we will find much truth in his words, and maybe begin to see him as a prophet showing us errors in our religious thinking. in line with Brian McLaren, Spencer views salvation as something that should not be focused solely on the hereafter, but on the here and now instead.

the first quote i'll place here is actually Spencer quoting Michael Dowd:

To know the joy of reconciling when I've been estranged; to experience the ecstasy of forgiveness when I've been bound by guilt; to feel passion and energy when I've been sick; to see clearly when I have been spiritually blind; to be comforted when I've been grieving; to be empowered when I've been paralyzed with fear; to be inspired when I've been depressed; to let go when I've been attached; to accept the truth when I've been in denial; to be back on purpose when I've been flounder - each of these is a previous face of salvation. And salvation belongs to God, not to any religion; it is what God offers to all His children.

there were several things i wanted to quote from this book, but i feel that this post is already too long. so i'll just add one more quote from one of his final chapters:

Mystical responsibility is a radically different take on what a relationship with God in this world can look like. Whereas traditional religion and institutional churches stress holding certain beliefs, mystical responsibility emphasizes living in faith.

Mystical responsibility highlights how broad and varied our experiences of the sacred can be. It captures our experiences of the sacred, those moments when life opens up in ways we never dreamed possible. It also focuses our lives on the future by offering paths to transformation and change.

It is by no means a complete system, nor it is a shrink-wrapped version of new religiosity. Old concepts, new ideas, and incomplete thoughts and notions mix into its unique outline. Mystical responsibility is a way of orienting ourselves to the sacred without some of the baggage we have accumulated over the years. Above all, mystical responsibility is a journey into the new shape of things.

religion is the opiate of the masses

Marx declared that "religion is the opiate of the masses," and that it is used to dull the senses. i've known of this for years, but i can't say i've ever spent much time contemplating this thought. instead of arguing here whether or not his statement is true as a general principle or anything like that, i'd rather think through how that quote applies to me specifically. remaining in my typical fashion, i'm sure that this will be more a series of questions than any answers, but i'm okay with that.

so i guess the real question that Marx poses to me is: have i allowed religion to become my drug of choice? do i allow religion to dull my senses?

if that is the case, it's quite ironic. if i'm claiming to worship, love, follow, serve the almighty God of the universe, creator of everything, the one who's given me my very self and my senses, yet i use religion to dull those very senses, aren't i really stepping far from the realm of what God would want? if i'm allowing religion to be my opiate, then aren't i allowing myself to get high on that instead of on the spirit, as God would demand of me?

maybe i should step back a bit. it seems as if a better starting point may be to wonder about ways that religion serves as an opiate for me, a way to dull my senses.

does the practice of going to church each week dull me from realizing my need for God in the everyday? (though i'm not advocating for avoiding church, nor am i stating that my attendance is near impeccable.) as much as i may complain about the state of the church today, i must admit that it is too easy for me to slip into believing that since i've been to church, i've fulfilled my duty. singing four or five songs becomes worship. listening to someone preach becomes learning, and replaces the meditations of my heart and time studying on my own. hearing other people pray in this context minimizes some of my guilt for not praying much on my own.

do i allow my sense of religion to create a false dichotomy between the sacred and the secular? does my tendency to read "christian" books or listen to "christian" music more often than those from the "secular" market cause me to shrink my thinking? granted, some of the "christian" books i've read and some of the music i listen to are genuinely good, but am i narrowing my scope, my vision, by relying so much on these? am i missing out on truth available from other sources, written, created by those outside of the church? am i setting myself up to expect too little from God by only seeking truth in certain places?

does my ability to remain (though uncomfortably) in a ghettoized christian subculture, filled with it's own music, books, t-shirts, pens, jewelry, et cetera, allow my to blind myself to the needs of the world? do i rationalize spending money on yet another cd, because it's worship music or something like that, in a way that limits me from loving justice, doing mercy, and walking humbly with my God?

i guess my fear is that i let religion replace relationship. i too often let the things that are superficial become central. i focus more easily on the legalities: going to church each week, feeling or avoiding guilt for not spending enough time with God, how i should be praying, and most of all how my life appears to others within the christian community who may judge me for not fitting into the tacitly agreed upon ways of showing christianity. these legalities, combined with a consumeristic selfishness that causes me to want more, more, more, and to spend money on completely unnecessary things, keeps me trapped in religion.

Jesus wasn't ever about religion. all throughout the gospels he's getting on the case of the religious folks for letting religion block the way to God. religion should serve as a path - or directional signal - towards God. but we have followed the ways of the pharisees, believing our religion to be the path to God.

Jesus was about relationship, with others and with God. his relationship with God made him spiritual without ever being religious. his relationship with others made him . . . i don't know. . . real? authentic? human?

it's too easy to put my spiritual life on hold for the sake of following religious rules and legality. it's too easy to drown my soul by immersing myself in selfish consumerism. it's too easy to ignore an intangible God instead of figuring out how to have a relationship. it's too easy to remain self-centered and withdrawn than to enter into the lives of others.

so yeah, religion is a drug of choice for me. and it's not an easy habit to quit. i don't believe that walking away from church is the answer i'm looking for. i don't believe that shifting my spending habits from the "christian" to the "secular" market would bring the salvation i seek. somehow, in the tangled mess of things, i need to reprioritize so that religion can step back and quit dulling my senses, so that my senses can be fully aware of God's presence and glory and so that i can become sober enough to be aware and present in that and in my relationship with others.