Pages

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Friday, April 21, 2006

The Divine Lovectomy

Sometimes I try to look at the world and listen to the world as if I were not a Christian. It's a challenge for me since I have been a Christian since I was a fetus. But sometimes it really pays off.


This evening when I was listening to the radio, I gave it a try. There was this radio preacher preaching about love. He said something like this:


"You do the right thing in relationship with that person because you love God, even if you don't love that person..."


Wait a minute here. This is something I have heard before, but it always sounded so spiritual, so good. But tonight it hit me all wrong. This is opposite of the teachings of Jesus. Jesus did not say, "Love God and be nice to your enemies because God really likes it when you fake them out with fake love." No, Jesus said, "Love your enemies."


This radio preacher just gave his audience to hate their enemy, so long as they are nice to their enemy. He just gave his audience to reject the teachings of Jesus. He just gave his audience permission to disregard the second greatest command. When God said that Christians should love people, he did not say that so God would get the benefit from it. It was so that person would get th benefit from it. I think Christians sometimes got so interested in impressing God that caring about people gets lost.


Here's the deal, God loves that person just as much as he loves Christians, so we don't really get on God's good side by being nice to the person without investing love.


As I was pretending to be not a Christian, this preacher sounded like he was talking to his insiders club who have special access to the Divine and teaching them the tricks of how to hate people without them knowing it, or maybe how to get in good with God without really caring about people. Ugh, the more I think about it the worse it gets.


When I hear things like this the more I realize why Christianity has a bad name with so many people.

Space For Grief

One thing I have noticed since my father died is how many people have lost someone they love. People I have known for a long time are just now telling my about a loss they have experienced. When we get to talking about my father, they feel the freedom to talk about their mother, brother, child, or whomever that they lost.


This has happened so many times that I don't think it is just people trying to connect with me. I think, rather, that it is they are already more connected to me by virtue of this terrible loss. They feel that connection and there is freedom for them to grieve a little more. When I say grieve, I don't mean cry and get sad, though that can be involved. When I say grieve I mean they get this little chance to remember their loved one and honor that person and learn a little bit more about what it means that they are gone.


So much of this life allows no room for grief. It allows room for initial sympathy follwng a loss, but not grief. I spend most of my days feeling OK, or even good at times, but then there are times when I want to find a context that allows for grief. It's kind of hard to find one when you want it.


One friend of mine took me to breakfast. All he wanted was for me to talk about my father. That is a good friend. We concluded breakfast with him saying he wanted to hear more about my father. That is a good friend I tell you.


When I first heard the emerging church folks talking about friendship, I really thought it was a light weight thing to hang your hat on. Yes, friendships are important, but really, isn't church, faith, theology more important? Nope. Friendship is the new family. Friendship is the new church. I am finding out now more than ever that good friends are worth their weight in gold.


Friendships are space for grief - and of course a whole lot more.

Practical Postmodernism

I first leanred about postmodern philosophy in graduate school. I learned it in the context of doing therapy. So, it was both exciting and disturbing.

So, in therapy, what the philosophy of postmodernism does is to loosen the concept of diagnosis, depathologize people, normalize behaviors, contextualize to give meaning, and promote creativity for treatment. There is something very forgiving in applying postmodern philosophy to therapy.


And since all modernism had to offer was diagnosis and specific treatment (which sometimes worked and sometimes didn't) and there you are - good therapy. If the treatment worked, "good doctor," but if the treatment didn't work it was the patient's fault. Professionals were privileged and patients were seen as resistant if they didn't do what they were told. Yes, modernism did give us some terrific treatments for mental disorders, but it is sometimes a little bit like the tobacco companies doing no smoking ads. The same people creating the problem are offering the solution. It's not that mental health practitioners create mental disorders, but onthe other hand, before there was the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manul of Mental Disorders), people were worried or sad or up and down. Now they are Depressed, Bi-Polar, or have Generalized Anxiety Disorder. I firmly believe that the mentla health indistry had pathologized some very normal human experience and then offered some terrific treatments. That's modernism at it very worst.


There are dangers in a postmodern view of therapy as well. If there is no psychopathology, then any and all behaviors, emotions, or thoughts are acceptable. Marginal or even dangerous treatment options are allowable. With pure postmodern philosophy, destructive beahviors will be supported as equal.


Where I find postmodernism useful is to create intellectual, emotional, or theological space for creativity. It's useful in the realm of pretend and imagination - as a tool to imagine that the current restraints don't exists so that the God-given creativity can be accessed. It is especially useful right now because modernism has had its terrible grip on people for so long that it offends their inherent sense of freedom. Postmodernism is good in that it can be used as a tool to help loosen up modernism, but as a philosophy to actualize in one's life, the end is quite terrible.

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Logan's Run: A Story of Emergence

One year before Star Wars, there was Logan's Run. This 1976 Sci Fi thriller had us on the edge of our seats. With stunning costume & make-up, award caliber acting, and a soundtrack to die for, this movie rocks.

Despite its low budget and weak 20th century concepts of the 23rd century, the story actually gets some traction.

Logan is a Sandman, a cop, whose job it was to kill "runners." Runners were people trying to escape the enclosed world of perfection and pleasure. Logan is a true believer in the system, in the world he lives. He is dedicated to it. It was the perfect world, except for the fact that you die at age 30 - or take you shot at getting renewed throught the fire ceremony. On each poerson's hand was a implanted a jewel that served as a "Life Clock." When it blinks red, you are about to hit age 30.

Logan learns that people don't get renewed - they die in the ceremony (somehow the spectators don't realize these people are getting fried right before their eyes). Some of the people, as they approach 30 years old, do not want to be renewed, so they run. Through a series of events, Logan finds that he can no longer support the system. He becomes a runner.

There is a secret society of people who do not long to be renewed; they long for Sancturay. Sanctuary is this place they have heard of, have faith exists, and know that it is worth believing in since they know what "being renewed" really means.

Logan escapes with a local hottie and sees the sun for the first time. They swim buck naked in a lake. Then they realize their life clocks are no longer blinking red, but are clear. They aren't dying. Then Logan says, "We are free." He doesn't say that they are safe, far from it, but they are free.

Logan's best firned and fellow Sandman follows them out to Sanctuary. A fight ensues. Logan trying with all his might to convince his friend that he is free, too. But his friend refuses to believe him. But the fact is that no matter what his friend says, the fact that he left the city means he is free, whether he wants it or not. Logan beats the snot out of his friend, out of love. Logan's friend dies in his arms. Dead, but freed. Love, oh yes, they learn to love.

Logan gets missional.

"We're going back."

"We can't. They'll kill us."

"I have to tell them the truth."

So, Logan stumbles into freedom and learns a new way of living. Then he decides to take freedom back into the tyrrany. He is not avoiding culture, but he is not embracing it either. Logan engages culture, the culture he knows so well, and seeks to insert change into it.

Logan is rejected and punished, but never hedges on his faith. When Logan can't be turned, chaos reupts in the city. Perfection, as they knew it, could not contain the truth. The city was destroyed and everyone was freed.

And, if you're not hooked yet, look below and see what else you get.








And if you are still with me, casting was done by -and I kid you not - Jack Bauer.

Sinking In

As most of you know, my father passed away three weeks ago. I thought I'd be more up and down emotionally than I am. I mean, I thought I'd cry more, but rather, I am more easily distractable. Concentration is more difficult in conversations with people. For some reason, I can blog just fine, but conversation is tough. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that my computer doesn't care and people do, or at least can.

Anyway, today is one of those days when the thought, "Oh my God, my father is dead," has crossed my mind. It wasn't a sad feeling, but more like a micro-panic, like there is something I forgot to do and now I can't. The feeling doesn't match reality, but feelings seldom rely on reality. I've got my next trip to Minnesota slated and maybe that has something to do with it.

When death crosses your path, it's not a break or a time out. It's over. Yes, I will be with my father, but that reconnection will require either my death, his resurrection, or the second coming of Christ. There is no real certainty about the timing of any of these events.

I guess mentally I ran across one of those million little holes left in a person's life who loses someone they love to death.

Working With Word Press

Since I am in the process of moving over to Word Press, I am learning about blog loyalty. I have to learn a new dashboard, new widgets, and just get familiar with the new system. I like the "categories" option that comes in Word Press. I'm not smart enough to get Blogger to do this. There is a problem though. Now I have to assign categories to 460 blog posts all the wya back to June 2004 - the day of my blog birth.

I do think Word Press is better than blogger because it gives more versititly while remaining free. I may try to get a host for a fee. Webbleyou is looking good right now. But for now, I am turning over a new leaf - Word Press.

Moving Blog Soon

The time has come, as does with many blogger, to change my location. Within 1 week, I will be posting over here at Fajita's Blog. It is a Word Press address. I will be leaving Blogger soon.

The site is working and I will be double posting for a while, here at blogger and there at Word Press. When I make the total shift, I will have one final post here, and then continue my posting there. I hope you'll continue your loyal readership when I move.

Yes, I know it is a pain in the rear to change links and feeds and all. So, I thank you in advance for your patience.

Teens and Sex part II

Many of you responded to the firs tinstallment of "Teens and Sex" post. I wish I could tell you all with certaintly what the rank order is, but I can tell you some of the research done by Dr. Ann Meier of the University of Minnesota. She did a study called, "Adolescents' Transition To First Intercourse, Religiosoty, and Attitudes About Sex."

As a review, I asked people to rank order the following influences that deter teens from having sex:
  1. Parent's religiosity
  2. Teen's Religiosity
  3. Low opportunity for sexual contact (not dating)
  4. Teen's attitude about sex
  5. Being Female

OK, this might seem counterintuitive to some, but a teen's attitude about sex is a more powerful force than their religiosity in influencing having sex fot he first time. Before some of you get all bent out of shape and think that she means God doesn't matter, you ahve to unpack this a little.

Religiosity is seen to be influential in many teens' attitudes about having sex. So, you might say, then it is religion that prevents sex. Not so fast, buster. There are non-religious teens who have attitudes that influence them not to have. So, we cannot conclude that it is religion that accounts for it all. A religious teen with a favorable attitude toward having sex is more likely to ahve sex than a non-religious teen with a favorable attitude toward not having sex.

Now, religious teens are more likely to have an attitude about sex that influences toward abstinence, so religion is important, but attitude is more important. Religiosity does have an impact (more for females than for males), but not as much as attitude.

Conversely, when a relgious teen has sex, this study says that the teen does not lose their religion. What does change, for females (who beging with attitudes favoring abstinence more than boys) when they have sex is that their attitude about sex becomes more permissive. Boys attitudes after first sex do not change.

About opportunity: Dr. Meier's study revealed that greater the opportunity for sex the greater the chance that it will happen. Well, no kidding Sherlock, anyone could have digured that one out. However, when she defines opportunity, it includes long term dating relationships.

About parent's attitudes: When the parent's attitude about sex is expressed in policing their child's behavior's, it is not as import a factor as the parent's attitude influencing their child's own attitude. So, parent's might invest more of their energies in influencing their child's attitude and not as much on their behavior.

And one final question that popped into my head: If more teen males have sex than teen females, does that mean of the females who do have sex have more of it because there is just as much sex going on between the fewer of them?

A Little Something

If you are a regular here, you have noticed that in the past two weeks I have bumped up the number of posts on this blog and have begun linking more. There are linkers and ther are thinkers. I want to be both.

So, from now on, my posts that include lots of links, often times unrelated to each other, these posts will be entitled, "A Little Something."
----------------------------------------
Dan Kimball recalls, back inthe day, that the term "emerging church" started here.

YSMarko ponders the meaning of "emergent" here.

Wikipedia will give you a little something about the "emerging" "emergent" church here.
-----------------------------------------
I guess me and John Alan Turner are not the only one debating the meaning of the term "evangelical. Look what the New York Times is talking about.
---------------------------------------
One stop shopping (not really shopping since it is all free) for Gospel of Judas information.
--------------------------------------
Attention church planters, here is a little something for you.