Decompressing Faith

Does Religion Matter?

2010-07-21T15:58:00.000-07:00

Let me be clear again; I'm not here to convince you. I'm only hoping to share some of what I have learned and to pen my thoughts for my own clarity. If it is helpful to you, then wonderful.

In my last post, I ended with the statement that everything depends on what or who a person believes God to be. That cannot be summed up in one post, but I'll start here.

Since embarking on this journey outside of traditional (sometimes known as "institutional") Christianity, my beliefs have changed a great deal. I have come to the point that there is nothing that isn't worth questioning. This doesn't mean I have tossed out every traditional belief, only that I have questioned each and every one of them; coming to conclusions on some and feeling fairly undecided on others.

Before I delve into any of that, though, there is a question that is increasingly on my mind. Summed up in a sentence or two, it might look something like this:

"Does what I personally believe about God:...who God is, what God is, how God works...matter at all? Because, in all fairness and honesty, what I believe, for that matter, what anyone believes, doesn't change the truth, does it? We just don't know with any certainty what that truth is."

Whether my truth be a biblical concept of God, a pagan or Neo-pagan concept, a Muslim concept, a Buddhist concept, or even an atheist concept....none of that changes the reality of God/no god.

Put another way, no one can definitively prove the existence of God, nor can they prove what interpretation of God is true. Nor can anyone definitely disprove the existence of God. For as long as we walk on the earth, God is simply a human perception. I can believe God exists, but does that make God exist if God actually does not exist? Or, if I believe God does not exist, does that make God not exist, even if God truly does exist? If I believe in the Christian God, but God truly exists in more of a polytheistic or pantheistic way, does my belief in the Christian God make the Christian God exist?

See what I'm saying? What I, what ANYONE believes about God, even if a person believes they know the absolute truth, it is still only a human perception. Any one person can insist until they day they die that they know the truth, but what do they actually find out when they die? No one knows.

So, then, what does this mean about the existence of God? Not to be too philosophical, but what if God is something humans have made up, continue to make up, to help us deal with our existence? What if God is just a figment of our minds? I know most atheists would agree with that. Then again, if so many people for so many millenia continue to feel that some kind of religious beliefs are beneficial to their lives, maybe there is something to it?

This is why I have come to the belief that discussion about religion is ultimately futile. It's up to each individual to decide for themselves. Granted, some people aren't afforded the freedom to decide for themselves, but for many people what I believe or what you believe has no bearing on what someone else believes. Yes, you can try to change their minds, and maybe you would be saving a soul (if you believe that), but it still doesn't change what the TRUTH is. However, we don't, can't know that truth, so we are only ever operating under assumptions.

Then, I think, looking at the sheer volumes of people all over the world who hold to devout religion (not including the spiritual-but-not-religious types, the agnostics, and the atheists) how could so many people all over the world be wrong? But, then, if the Hindus are wrong, who is right? The Christians? The Muslims? The Jews? The Druids? The Buddhists? The Rastas? The Pastas? Is rightness determined by the numbers of adherents? If so, then it is equally likely that Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism is the "true" religion. Is it determined by how long a religion has been in existence? If that's the case, it is Hinduism, hands down. Is it determined by money? We all know the answer to that.

The one thing that the majority of people in the world hold in common is the belief in some kind of higher power. However, atheists would say the argument against believers is simple: that science hasn't yet trumped tradition, and most anyone with a thinking mind would have to disbelieve in God. But again, does any of it matter? Why?

I have already rambled too long, so I'll try to wrap it up for now.

What good is religion, then? If we can't agree, if we can't know for sure...why do we bother?

I have come to the conclusion that valid religion (or non-religion) is anything that moves one person to treat another person with greater kindness. Conversely, I do not believe that any tradition that aims to belittle, oppress, marginalize or abuse any segment of the population has anything at all to do with God. I don't believe that morality needs to be determined by the confines of religion, with the distinct exception that any belief or behavior that creates a victim is, collectively, not of God. I believe that any religion (or non-religion) that moves an individual or our society more toward equality, kindness and grace is a good religion and serves a good purpose. For some people, that motivation is God. For some people; their intellect.

As soon as a religious belief causes one person to harm another person, either physically, verbally or mentally, it is no longer of God. Of course, we all make mistakes that hurt others. I'm speaking of those who make it a mission to use religious beliefs to abuse others.

Obviously there is no religion that doesn't marginalize or abuse some segment of the population (including self); if there were, we would probably all be following it. Hence, the religion you choose to follow (assuming you have the freedom to choose) depends more on who you personally marginalize or what behaviors/beliefs you consider to be wrong than it depends on the religion's "rightness".

After this post, you might wonder what I, personally, believe. Or you might wonder why what I believe matters at all.

For over five years I have repeatedly been told not to throw the baby out with the bathwater...meaning, don't leave church just because people are human and make mistakes. I have cringed every time someone has said that gross over-simplification of why I left.

However, I'm finally at a point where I have chosen not to throw the baby out...it's just a different baby.

More on why I continue to follow Jesus...even if scripture has been manipulated, even if what I've been taught about his life isn't true; even if he never existed in the first place...later.

The De-Gendering of God

2010-07-14T07:59:00.000-07:00

You'll have to forgive me as I ramble here. I am primarily recording these thoughts for my own peace of mind, as part of my personal process; they are not meant to be theologically sound arguments. I am far beyond caring about theological accuracy as the religious set would have it. For me, God and divinity are more clearly experienced by my own spirit than dictated by some ancient and culturally irrelevant text or some doctrinal surety.

That said, I'll continue my train of thought from the previous two posts.

Humans have always had the tendency to break the divine down into terms we can understand. We attribute a thousand human characteristics to a God who holds none of them. Maybe I'm a mystic at heart, but attempting to define divinity by any human concept or language will fail to bring us any closer to the God we seek. Whether it be gender or justice or mercy or love or faithfulness, our understanding of God is pitifully limited by the best and worst of human language and experience.

The problem with gender inequality isn't that we know God as being male. The problem is that we know God as any gender at all. To say that God is both male and female is inaccurate. To say that God is neither male nor female is too enigmatic for us humans to have a meaningful relationship with, leading us to assign God a gender -- traditionally male. God does not have a form that could be assigned a gender, but 'genderless' suggests to us some kind of eunuch. We struggle to understand a formless God, but there it is, and try we must.

Depending on your view of the bible, you could argue that the ancient Hebrews wrote that God was a "He", and that was inspired of God, therefore it must be true. However, just about everyone knows that Hebrew has no neuter pronoun, so the choices were "he" or "she". Neither was entirely appropriate, but 'he" was more in line with their culture. So "he" it was. If you want to argue semantics, I suggest you look at the Strong's for Genesis 1:2, ruwach, or spirit, is a feminine noun. So you can't have it both ways. If God is a boy, then His Spirit is a girl. The Hebrews could have been inspired to choose a male noun for 'spirit', but they didn't. I believe this was purposeful, with more intention than we might realize, either by God's inspiration or human word selection; evidencing balance, or gender partnership. Not suggesting the possession of actual gender, but as an example for us that one cannot operate independently of the other in the process of creation. God (Genderless) required Christ (male) and Spirit (female) in order to create.

In my math class, we often solve simple equations or conversions using imaginary terms or units. This is to reinforce to us that the process for is not dependent on our understanding of what the equation actually means. Some people simply cannot wrap their minds around this because the numbers and units and terms have to mean something specific in order for them to even begin to tackle a solution. For others, just knowing that there is a process is reassuring enough, even if the end result of that process is meaningless. Neither is ideal; we need both kinds of people: those who believe it is more important to have meaning than answers, and those who believe it is more important to have answers than meaning.

Assigning God human characteristics is an attempt to have answers. In fact, the bible is full of human definitions of the characteristics of God. For a person who needs answers, this would be a valuable tool. However, for those who seek meaning, it would become apparent that the original text of the bible was still limited by human vocabulary. Often, a trait that was assigned to God, even maleness, was due to such a limitation. For the people who desire meaning over answers, they would say that the vocabulary used to describe God in the bible is thoroughly limited by vocabulary, using our best understanding; but by no measure accurately describing God.

For those who require answers, the bible is often used almost as a scientific text; everything in it is true and verified, at least by God. Because the arguments for gender roles made in religious circles are usually based on scripture, I would tend to start at the beginning using the rule of first mention. It would seem clear in Genesis 1:27 that the creation of male and female genders was intentional and both genders were viewed as equally necessary for what God had in mind -- reproduction, or creation. Even if you believe in evolution, it would seem clear that humans are not the only species to have evolved into dual gender reproduction, and in fact, only a few creatures on earth reproduce asexually. Therefore, there must be some biological practicality in it.

However, when one begins to separate the genders by more than physiology, that is where things break down. The favorite proof-text for female inferiority is "The Fall"; woman (or Eve), fell victim to the wiles of the serpent (evil or selfishness) and therefore she singlehandedly 'broke' creation. Aside from the obvious problems with believing in a literal Eden, a literal Eve, a literal talking serpent, who literally tempted Eve with a fruit that she was not supposed to eat -- there are many other problems with this situation. The reality is the entire story is too complex to successfully defend with any ounce of reason. One must entirely suspend common sense and laws of science in order to literally believe this. A metaphorical understanding can be helpful, but then what is it a metaphor for?

All these arguments depend on what/who a person believes God to be. So I'll go there next.

Feminism?

2010-07-12T22:30:00.000-07:00

I happened across Already Pretty by accident, while surfing today. I think the quotes I found on this post are entirely relevant to our present discussion, so I want to share them. Just let them settle on you.

Because I am a woman, I must make unusual efforts to succeed. If I fail, no one will say, "She doesn't have what it takes." They will say, "Women don't have what it takes." ~Clare Boothe Luce

I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a door mat or a prostitute. ~Rebecca West, "Mr Chesterton in Hysterics: A Study in Prejudice," The Clarion, 14 Nov 1913, reprinted in The Young Rebecca, 1982

There are very few jobs that actually require a penis or vagina. All other jobs should be open to everybody. ~Florynce Kennedy

Nobody objects to a woman being a good writer or sculptor or geneticist if at the same time she manages to be a good wife, a good mother, good-looking, good-tempered, well-dressed, well-groomed, and unaggressive. ~Marya Mannes

You don't have to be anti-man to be pro-woman. ~Jane Galvin Lewis

Brainwashed (The Evil of Being Female, Part 2)

2010-07-09T12:53:00.000-07:00

Frankly, I don't really have any vested interest in women holding leadership positions in church. Quite frankly, I don't care about most church issues at all, and no longer consider myself to be qualified to testify to most of them, having been out of touch with church for over five years now.

One issue I do care about is far bigger than a church issue, but a faction of it does originate there: gender inequality. It has taken me most of five years to deprogram myself from the unhealthy beliefs I learned there, and the unhealthy way I viewed myself because of them. Rebuilding my sense of self and recovering from depression, redefining my marriage and my parenting style, and re-evaluating the various secular vs christian arguments that used to be clearly decided in my mind...it all has been an amazing and liberating process.

Here, it's important that I clarify that my experiences are from conservative, charismatic evangelicalism, and that is the perspective from which I speak. If you wish to tell me that your experience in your denomination doesn't line up with mine, I certainly consider that to be a possibility.

That said, I think the problems I outline are far more rampant than any of us, even women, realize or care to admit; because admitting it is an excruciating process. Looking at the men who have professed to love us: fathers, brothers, husbands, and seeing them as pawns in a ploy to separate women from their identity, to oppress them from being fully human or fully free...well, that is a kind of betrayal that we don't easily want to explore. So it's easier for women to explain it away, to justify it with God's Word, and to accept this as "the way things should be" than to stand up against it. In some ways, women are at fault, if only for choosing to accept the ridiculous justifications than to fight against them. But in all fairness, when a woman's father or husband inflicts oppressive beliefs upon her, she has little choice than to accept them and make the best of it, for her only alternative is to run. What choice is that?

The reality is in many evangelical circles, women are seriously oppressed. I'll be the first to say that the kinds of oppression found there are not usually to be equated with the more severe oppressions women experience in other cultures, but it is damaging and dangerous nonetheless. Sometimes, it leads to behaviors that we should be actively working to dismantle. Read this, and visit some of the links (especially the one at the word "example" -- I dare you not to cry), so you can see what I'm talking about. Forgive me for not wanting to link to it directly. This is "God approved" domestic violence, advocating that as a method of "discipline, the husband has the authority to "spank" his wife with his hand, a strap or a hairbrush, and the wife consents to it. Unless this is some thinly-veiled justification for S&M, it completely breaks my heart. This particular subject, when I landed on it by accident, made me weep for my sisters, but it is very clear they don't want to hear any arguments against the practice.The thing that devastates me most deeply is the arguments the wives have in favor of this arrangement. How brainwashed they are!

The general problem is the belief that God designed men to be rulers of women. With this belief, women are first subject to their father, and later to their husband. It is explained to be for the womens' own protection, and because it is God-mandated, there is no other way things should be. These beliefs are carried out to various degrees, depending on the situation and context. However, any belief that tells a woman that she is in any way "less than" a man - less qualified to lead, to make decisions, or to be independent - is evil.

Somewhere along the line it was decided that because women have the reproductive organs that bring life to children, women are best suited to domestic chores. Also, because women have cyclical and unpredictable hormonal changes, they are unsuited to positions of leadership, either religious or secular. And because women are physically "weaker", they require protection, and that protection demands submission...for their own good and because God says so. Because women have breasts and men are clearly unable to control their sexual urges, women must not preach, and must dress modestly so not to tempt their brothers. And so on and so forth. Granted, if you have never been exposed to such teaching, you might not understand at all -- the reasoning or the repercussions.

Who made these decisions? Men, of course. Some arbitrary thousands of years ago, a certain war was waged against women, by men. Your guess is as good as mine as to the reasoning, but anthropologists and historical theologians have some ideas. At the dawn of humanity, women were not subjugated but were entirely equal in their communities. However, as the human ego (as in Freud's concept of ego, or "sense of self") evolved from the "only existing as part of a group" to being "autonomous"...and agriculture began, and the need to "own" land grew, and wars began... women became a liability, possibly because they weren't as physically strong as men, and, more likely, because they are "weakened" in their ability to fight by pregnancy and childbirth and breastfeeding. Because pregnancy is a physical handicap and prior to modern contraceptive methods, women were pregnant a lot.

It's important to note that most religious beliefs and practices today have been molded and shaped by history, not mandated by God. If you want to argue about God's word being law, I would argue that you must first read the bible in it's original languages and in it's original culture and context before deciding what is God's law and what is not. My eyes have been opened to the complexity and inaccuracy of most Christian religious beliefs -- not only practices (rituals, rules, and structures), but theology, as well.

So, then, we have a very scarred system at work here. We have a system that still perpetuates the myth that the difference between the genders is more than just "difference", but that one gender is "better", "stronger", "smarter" than the other. This belief causes all kinds of grief for women today. However, because it is still considered taboo to argue with "God's Word" (or whatever is the operative but altogether human interpretation of God's Word), most of that grief is held very deeply under the surface and leads to depression, anger and mental illness. And she suffers in silence.

More later.

The Evil of Being Female (Part 1?)

2010-07-07T08:32:00.000-07:00

Or, "Why the owning of breasts should fall under the 'Christians with Disabilities Act'.

Something has changed.

It all began with a book. A book that Sue recommended to me that has changed my perspective. It has rocked my world. It made me weep. It's called Dance of the Dissident Daughter. It's no secret that I'm an egalitarian when it comes to faith. In other words, there is no place in my spiritual life for misogyny, sexism or patriarchy. There is no point in arguing with me. If you believe in those things, I don't read the same bible you do. Or know the same God. Women have been subjugated, enslaved, oppressed and every other kind of evil thing in the name of God for thousands of years. I read DDD with eagerness and tears. It impacted me, deeply and set me free. There now exist words for my pain and validation for my decision to no longer pay any homage to a religious institution that has been so genuinely evil to 50% of the population -- women (and that's not counting the other minorities that religion has been evil to), in the name of GOD.

Next, I read another book: The Fall. It's only one book, one opinion, but it makes so much sense to me. At the dawn of biblical times, something changed. As you may have guessed, I don't believe in literal biblical creation. I believe there were humans on this earth long before the beginning of the bible. But, something changed at the beginning of the bible, the beginning of recorded history. Women, who had been more or less equals in their societies, became subservient, and God became a tool with which to control them. Why? Well you'll have to read the book to find out. Needless to say, it had a lot to go with the end of the great ice age and the beginning of agriculture, and child-bearing. However, this has helped me immensely with reconciling the biblical roles and mandates to women as cultural and, decidedly, not Godly.

Then, a few days ago, "Naked Pastor" David Hayward posted a cartoon "2 Problems with Women Clergy"; (they have breasts). It may seem laughable, but I have been given this precise argument in the past: women can't preach to a mixed congregation because they have breasts. Breasts are distracting for men...men don't want to think about sex when they should be thinking about Jesus. Riiiight. Maybe those men need to put on their big boy Underoos and grow up.

Last year, my friend Pam Hogeweide was invited into a book project with Jim Henderson. This project is for the purpose of "researching how the modern American church treats women". However, due to complications with the publisher, Pam was dropped as co-author. Read more about her take on the experience HERE. I value Jim's willingness to speak to this topic, and I hope and pray that his authority as an author leads to the willingness of many men to read the book. However, I can't help but express my frustration that there is no woman co-author for such a topic, but maybe that is the path this project is supposed to take in order to be what it needs to be.

In spite of no longer being involved with the project, Pam recently assisted Jim with interviews of some women here in Portland. I was one of those women and I was humbled and honored to participate. However, this interview forced me to articulate what happened to me as a woman in Christianity, and how escaping that changed my life. It forced me to think clearly and be rational about what, exactly, it is about the widely held view of women in the church that is so damaging. In a nutshell, because women have been told for millenia that they are not as good as men, they have come to thoroughly believe it and have learned to operate within the boundaries set for them by men in order to survive.

In the process of his research, Jim commissioned the Barna Group to do a study about women's views of how the church treats them. The results were beyond fascinating, they were jaw-dropping. Jim has posted some of the results and asked for feedback. Apparently, according to the study, women who are regular church goers feel that their church treats women fairly. Say what? Because that is so far away from my own personal experience. My experience says that the majority of church going women are brainwashed. And that pisses the hell out of me. When a person is told they must hold a certain position, and that other positions are off-limits to them due to their gender and there is no other way things can be because God has mandated it that way, well, it's human nature to make the best of it, as women in church have done for thousands of years, and as the Barna research seems to suggest is still going on. But is it right? Is it fair? Is it loving? Is it of God? Decidedly, no.

I used to be one of those zombie church women. I was convinced that the bible supported complementarianism. I drank the company Kool-Aid, as Kathy so beautifully puts it. I worked my ass off to meet the criteria I was told I should meet as a woman, wife and mother, and it damn near killed me. 8/9 of my Christian women friends were on antidepressants because, as they explained it, they primarily didn't "feel good about their ability to live up to the standards they were expected to live up to", or they didn't "like their role as a Christian woman".

Ya THINK?

I didn't take antidepressants. 5 1/2 years ago I sat on the brink of suicide for the exact same reason my friends were on antidepressants. However, I didn't have the guts to kill myself because I couldn't leave my kids with that legacy, so I drank to medicate. Not surprisingly, that lead to my exit from church, and exiting church saved my life. The standard is set up to make women crazy, to make them deny themselves, to make them slaves. The ideal of the "Good Christian Woman" is hogwash, designed to make women feel like they have some measure of control, by outlining the behaviors that will gain them status as women in the church. If done properly, eventually they will earn the status of" "Good Christian Woman". But the status is only to a point, and the standards are such that no human, save Jesus, could ever truly live up to.

The idea that women shouldn't be pastors falls into the same shit-bog as the attitudes about the "Good Christian Woman". Sure, some evangelical churches give lip-service to gender equality, but it's only a false front, designed to pretend to address the problem without actually changing anything.

What is at the root of the problem?

Men.

Now, I don't mean all men are the problem, not in present day, anyhow. I mean the select few men who have the power to maintain this status quo, to preach it, to teach it, and to be heard. It's born of fear, nothing more, and it's pathetic. Somewhere along the line, men became fearful of women holding power, and for thousands of years, men have successfully oppressed half the world's population, not only in matters of religion, but in all roles, careers, and callings. It's unfortunate, and this mentality has been the driving factor for many of the world's conflicts. For, when half the population is rendered impotent...the feminine half...well, it's obvious what the historical results have been. I'm not saying that the world would be a peaceful place if women were in charge; that's a stereotype, too. I'm suggesting that, if women had historically held equal roles in religion, and in leadership in general, some things would be very different, for the better.

In the end, God does not have a penis. God created mankind in "our image". A very neuter God. A very male Jesus. A very female Spirit. OUR image. This life is not a masculine dictatorship, this is a dual-gender partnership working towards a complete picture of God. Until the church "gets" this, the world is working with a tremendous handicap.

This post has become altogether too long, and I haven't even begun to talk about the changes in my perspectives: about women, about Godde, about religion, the bible, life, my spiritual reality.

Until next time. Soon.

Without a Trace

2010-06-15T18:46:00.000-07:00

12 days ago, a 7 year old boy disappeared without a trace. From his school. Here in Portland.

This has been heavy on the hearts of everyone here in the local area. Kyron Horman attended a science fair at his school with his stepmother on Friday, June 4th, at 8:45AM. After the fair, he headed off down the hall of his school towards his classroom. That's the last anyone saw of him. At 3:30 PM, he did not get off his bus, and that is when it was first evident he was missing.

Granted, when I say "without a trace" in the title of this post, that is based on what investigators have told the public. I'm sure they have more information they are not sharing in order not to compromise the search and investigation. However, as it stands, they still have not found him, nor have they indicated conclusively that they know what happened to him.

I don't intend to speculate or to field any speculations here. I do know investigators have repeatedly interviewed all staff and students and parents of students of the school, all the neighbors and anyone who has driven by the school in recent days. They have scoured the area surrounding the school, with hundreds of professional searchers, police, and dog teams working on the search. I also know they have thoroughly interviewed the family. There are extenuating circumstances that explain why no one from the school realized he was not there all day, when he had been there in the morning, and why the family wasn't notified that he was not at school. I refuse to second-guess the experts; they know what they are doing. In fact, I am speechless by the magnitude of this investigation and dumbfounded by the resources that have been called into play to help with the search. However, everyone's best guess is that if he had simply wandered off, they would have found him by now, so it seems there is something more malicious at play here.

As much as our society is baffled and heartbroken, our spirit of giving has come out in huge ways by the sheer numbers of people who have given food and supplies to the searchers, and the outpouring of prayers and love that has been given. There is a prayer vigil this evening, expected to be attended by hundreds or thousands of people.

We are all afraid, we are all dreading the possible news to come. We have an innocent child who has been wronged, one way or another. At this point all I care is that he is found, one way or another -- hopefully safe. Only after that, after police have evidence and a proper investigation has taken place, will I care about who the guilty party is. But, until this is solved, we will all fear there is a monster in our midst.

So to my blog community, if you are the praying kind, please pray that this child will be found. This is almost unprecedented in our community and it's wearing us thin. More importantly, the family needs this nightmare to end.

Thank you.

If you would like to know more about this situation, visit Kyron's page at KPTV .

Have it Your Way?

2010-06-03T22:23:00.000-07:00

Burger King has a famous slogan: "Have it your way at Burger King now!", meaning, they will make your burger any way you like it.

Today, CNN put a new meaning to that slogan in their article "Are there dangers in being 'spiritual but not religious'"?

Here in Oregon, we are touted as the "roll your own religion" experts. Here, you are more likely to meet someone who has amalgamated beliefs than someone who sticks to one doctrine, or even one faith. You will meet a pagan Buddhist or a Christian Muslim more readily than someone who considers themselves traditionally observant of any singular religion.

So, CNN asks, "Is this a problem"?

According to the CNN article, Jesuit priest James Martin thinks it is simply born of selfishness and laziness, saying, "[If the] religious community makes no demands on you, why help the poor?..."Religion is hard," he says. "Sometimes it's just too much work. People don't feel like it. I have better things to do with my time. It's plain old laziness."

Then again, BJ Gallagher, spiritual blogger for the Huffington Post, says, "there's nothing wrong with people blending insights from different faith traditions to create ... a "Burger King Spirituality -- have it your way." She conitnues with a parable, "God and the devil were walking down a path one day when God spotted something sparkling by the side of the path. He picked it up and held it in the palm of his hand. "Ah, Truth," he said. "Here, give it to me," the devil said. "I'll organize it."

After over five years of being "spiritual but not religious", I feel I have a bit of authority to comment here. And while I agree with Gallagher, I suspect both Gallagher and Martin are off track. Or, shall I say, missing the point? Because before we can have the discussion about whether or not there is a problem with spiritual variance, we have to ask, "Why has this happened?"

Until relatively recently, religion was limited to organized and traditional systems. Generally, those who didn't subscribe to a particular religion were either atheists or spiritual kooks living in communes. There was a distinct monopoly on spirituality, born primarily of control. Then again, we asked for it. The age of reason and the birth of modernism created in humans the need for authority and objective truth in their spiritual pursuits. Rationale and evidence became gods of sorts. Religion was kind enough to answer with a renewed penchant for law, and it worked for generations, but is quickly becoming antiquated.

Today, for numerous reasons, postmodernism has moved into the neighborhood. More a philosophical evolution than an industrial one, it is commonly characterized by relativism and the social equality movements -- women's liberation, racial equality and gay rights, for instance. It's only natural that our spiritual taste preferences would follow suit. Religious institutions have a vested interest in meeting society at large right where they are. If not, religion loses money and power, and the two are dependent upon each other in a circularity. However, it is blindingly obvious that religion hasn't seen the light.

On another note, this new view of equality has spawned a renewed care for "the other". Social justice, poverty, under-education and ecological responsibility are significant priorities for today's generations, and religion has failed almost entirely to step up to bat in these issues. People are weary of churches are not taking an active role in the things that are important to them. Protecting their own interests seems to be the primary motivation for many religious institutions. Yet, churches possess so much power and so vast of resources, their failure in this is notable.

Essentially there are two problems at work here. One is that religion is still mandating conformity and status quo in a time when people are choosing their own definitions of spirituality and the greater good. The other is that religious institutions, as a whole and in general, have failed at moving forward with the social movements we have embraced as a culture. With any issue of equality, it's only a matter of time before concern for the other will outweigh religious convention, and a new level of equanimity among people is born. Religion is defined by eagerness to hold on to the status quo and sluggishness to conform to changing society. It is my personal opinion that because religious power has generally been held by a few good men, religious institutions' adaptability and fluidity is frighteningly limited. When power is held by a select few, maintaining control is not particularly challenging. Any dilution of that control spells trouble.

However, the entire nature of postmodernism is steeped in ideals such as sharing wealth, sharing power, and sharing responsibility. Because of this, it goes against any logic that the status quo can be maintained. Instead, religion, anxious not to change, is seen as judgmental, narrow-minded, and manipulative. This simply won't continue to work. Yes, for some people, it is still working, but for the masses, they are exiting religion in haste, no longer interested in bigotry, sexism, and discrimination. Gender, racial and sexual inequality is beyond prejudiced, it's downright primitive.

However, with few viable options for true acceptance and equality inside religion, people are forced to look elsewhere, out in the world, or inside of themselves, to satisfy their spiritual needs. The options, with a few exceptions, are either to continue to live in brainwashed fundamentalism that shuns anything outside the "normative" religious expression and marginalizes entire segments of society, or to live "off the grid", so to speak. At this point, for many people, solitary spirituality is the more desirable alternative.

This is the nature of present society. It cannot be avoided, it cannot be undone. We cannot go back to modernism, and any attempt to look in the mirror will cause religion to run off the road entirely. Eventually, a new evolution will take place and we'll move on to some new philosophy. But for now, it seems like religion will have to adapt to survive. This adaptation will mean a new flexibility, and a willingness to not only accept the new perspectives of an enlightened society, but to embrace them. The collapse of modern religion is clear evidence of their unwillingness to change. But change they will, or they will face extinction.

So is "Burger King" spirituality a problem? I don't think the answer to that question is relevant. The relevant question is, "Why do people see this as their best option, and what will the religious institution's response be?"

Pass the pickles.

I went to church, can you believe it?

2010-05-19T08:56:00.000-07:00

I went to a Unitarian Universalist church this weekend to hear my brother sing the baritone solos of Faure's Requiem. My brother ROCKS (he's 28, but he will always be my baby brother) and I was so incredibly impressed and proud. If you're friends with me on FB you can find a clip of him singing it a capella...but this performance was with a full orchestra and it was 100 times more powerful.

Anyhow, this performance was at a UU church. I have always been curious about UU, ever since I began this out of the box journey. I am grateful we have such people in the world, because they rock social justice and community service and acceptance like no one I know. But something about it was very strange to me, and no, it wasn't the obvious. I don't have a problem with the variety of faith traditions or the lack of any central beliefs, and I was perfectly comfortable there (at least as much as any introvert can be in a foreign place). Granted, I have always maintained that I don't want religion without the Jesus, I want Jesus without the religion, which is why in spite of my curiosity and living 3 blocks from another great UU church, I have never been. But I don't have any issue with those who practice their spirituality in any of a myriad of ways, as long as they don't harm others in that practice.

However, I have never understood why people will go to all the trouble to have church, with all the semblances of a mainline service, but wipe it clean of any core belief system. I don't mean that as a disparaging remark against UU's. I understand the sense of community and the value of the power of that community when they come together. I also value and respect the concept of acceptance and non-conformity. I get it all; as much as any outsider can.

My point is this: the service was decidedly like a mainline service. I don't mean in content, but in presentation. The invocation, the homily, the benediction...they were all there. They have a hymnal, very much like any traditional hymnal. They have responsive reading and a doxology. You get my drift. Yet, it's all been purged of almost anything that identifies with any particular religion or belief system. And what I wonder is why, if you're going to do something subversive and liberal, why do it exactly the same as something traditional and conservative? Is it a tribute to what we might have known as children? Is it for comfort? Or is it tradition simply for the sake of tradition?

Now, I understand the UU tradition goes back hundreds of years and that, like any religion, they do what they've always done. But I can't wrap my mind around this. Why work so hard to make it seem like "church", when it's not "church"? And why call it "church", giving it a distinctly traditional tone and flavor, but having it actually be something else entirely, with a vastly different mission, content, and core?

What is it about religion that causes us to wear masks? Why are we so afraid of not being accepted by others? Why wear a label that doesn't fit, or follow a pattern that doesn't do us justice?

I have to be clear, I didn't have any problem with it all and there is probably good reason for the system. It just got me to thinking about the comparisons. And then, I wonder too...we watch the "emerging" church movement, insisting they are something vastly different, but so often, they are just the same old theological thing, just wearing different clothes and with different presentation.

So here we have a traditional thing wearing a liberal mask, and a liberal thing wearing a traditional mask.

Why?

Because here is what I wonder. Are we, as a religious humanity, really that incapable of doing something truly new? Must we always keep one foot anchored in the old thing in some manner, while timidly stretching beyond the borders of it? What are we afraid of out there in the wild blue yonder? Why pretend to be something that is still within the confines of "acceptable", even as we venture out beyond convention?

I must interject here that I do know some people who are doing entirely new things. But they are so rare. Why?

And again, I don't mean anything against the UU system. Just that it got me to thinking, which is always a dangerous thing. There are so many metaphors here, I don't even know where to start.

Speaking of Change

2010-05-04T22:18:00.001-07:00

It was time for a change of clothes here on Decompressing Faith.

Let me know what you think, or if anything doesn't seem to work right.

Thanks!

Embrace Change

2010-04-27T16:12:00.000-07:00

Five years ago, I had certain expectations about life, love, parenting, faith and friendships. I naively expected things to remain the same, indefinitely. Back then I didn't even own blueprints for what life would look like today.

Life dictates that we expect the unexpected. Plan for the future, sure...have specific expectations for the future, not so much. Life could be boring, safe, simple...and I'm sure it is for some people. But for most of us, there are twists and turns, sorrow and joy, peace and conflict, safety and insecurity. Keeps us on our toes, keeps it interesting.

Learning to adapt to changes in life is half the fun. Fun. Yes, FUN. It's ugly, messy, angry, painful, frustrating. And we adapt. However, not becoming bitter and cynical in that adaptation is really where it's at. It's far easier to be angry, to point out faults, be self-righteous, to say "it's not fair!" when things don't go the way we expect them to, than it is to say "I'll adapt, I choose to embrace the change". Yes, it's more challenging, but more rewarding in the end than harboring bitterness. Bitterness just makes us old.

Certainly there are different types of change. Some changes come at us entirely unexpectedly and knock the wind out of us, devastating what we thought was the future. Others can be seen as opportunity if looked at the right way. Sometimes it takes awhile to learn to breathe again, sometimes it's a breath of fresh air. I understand that, and I'm not suggesting that letting go of expectations and embracing change is always easy. In fact, it usually takes concentrated effort.

However, holding tight to our expectations can seriously retard our ability to enjoy life. Instead we can choose to be fluid, to move with the future, and to embrace the changes. Of course, as many expectations as I've learned to move in harmony with, there are still some where I struggle to find peace. I am trying to recognize and improve upon those things.

Right now, the change I'm embracing is parenting a teenager. Anyone who has had one knows what that change means. Learning to let go, knowing I cannot retain the same level of control as I used to have. Making room in my life for the man he is becoming while still allowing him to be a child when he wants to. This is a change I have known was coming for so very long, so it is not unexpected, and it is an opportunity to examine the way I relate to this person. He is an individual now, no longer simply an extension of me, and I have to respect him.

But this change is only one area of life that has moved away from my expectations. Still, some of those changes are exciting, not always a struggle. And some of them produce stress, worry and fear.

The world is always shifting under our feet, and sometimes we have to dance to remain standing. But joy is found in the learning, if we dare.

What change are you embracing?

Women & God

2010-04-22T19:44:00.000-07:00

I know I've been missing around here...but I'm all out of excuses! Still, know that I haven't quit writing, I'm just taking a break -- busy with CC, busy with school, busy with the relay team, busy being a mom, not necessarily in that order!

My new friend, Cheryl Ensom, is guest-editing the Porpoise Diving Life for 2010. Many of you know about PDL, if not, ask me for more details.

The May issue of PDL will be on the topic of "Women and God" (in a broad spectrum), and Cheryl is looking for submissions. Here is Cheryl's post with all the details. I told her I'd let my faithful readers (if there are any left???) know about this opportunity. The deadline is May 1st.

If you are interested in submitting something, please contact Cheryl at:

cheryl ensom dack at gmail dot com

(You know the drill, no spaces, "at" = @, "dot" = . )

And don't forget to tell her I sent you!

You can also see Cheryl blog at Living in a Beautiful Mess.

You can always contact me with questions, as well.

Thanks for reading! As you were.

What is Lost, What is Gained, Part 2

2010-03-10T04:00:00.000-08:00

Part 1 HERE.

If you've ever seen a newborn baby "startle", this is a result of their realization that there is no womb holding them tightly anymore, and they fear they are falling. However, babies learn not only to live in this wide-open environment we call the world, they learn to thrive in it. They adapt, and as a child matures, this "startle" will happen less frequently.

The same is true of leaving church. Please understand my analogy. I don't mean to imply that those who remain in church are infants still in the womb, and those who leave are "mature". My implication is only that, for those who do leave "church", the transition will feel very much like an infant's transition from the womb to the world.

Personally, I learned to embrace the freefall that I experienced when I left church. It was terrifying at first, but eventually it became less frightening, more comfortable, even precious to me. To me, freefall translates as freedom. The words are interchangeable, simply different perceptions of the same thing.

Make no mistake, many people would rather retain their certainty than gain the freedom, because it is such a difficult, confusing, painful process to undergo. However, those people usually realize that once they have taken the red pill, they simply cannot go back. They must move forward. This doesn't mean a return to church is impossible, but a return to the old paradigm, the old belief system, is very nearly so.

My desire is to encourage those who are in this place of spiritual freefall between what was once certain and the freedom that will come after it. My best advice is simple: know that God can take whatever we can dish out. Be it anger, bitterness, doubt, confusion, or fear, there is no emotion he didn't create and nothing we can do to drive him away. He will never let go of us, at least not until such a time as we come to the conclusion that he does not exist. God is faithful, and as long as we continue to seek him, to seek understanding of who he is to each of us and what faith means for our own lives, he will be there.

I have actively tried to cause God to leave me. For a season after I left church, I decided I would prefer believing in no God at all rather than face uncertainty. Faithlessness seemed preferable to doubt. I hoped he would let go of me so that I would not have to make the exhausting effort to reshape my faith into something livable and workable. But he was there, and no matter how I tried, I couldn't shake the peace and love he brings to my spirit. My perception of him is extraordinarily different than it used to be, but to me, He still exists as a foundational part of my life.

For many (most?) people, this searching leads to a renewed, refreshed faith. Therefore, what I am about to say next is not something to be feared in the journey. However, it is important to know that sometimes a person's path might eventually lead to the inability to believe in God as Christianity knows Him. Sometimes this means belief in no God at all, and sometimes this may lead to the following of another kind of God. I see these as a valid outcome for some people, so I do not wish to imply that all searching will lead to belief in a new version of the Christian God. As well, don't fear it, because if that is you, by the time you get there, you will have peace with it.

It's also important to know that this certainty-less place in faith, well, will remain so. For as soon as we form new certainties, we will find ourselves in a new box. Instead, it is better to accept that faith is fluid, always in transition through the life experiences we are forced to learn from. So don't expect you will simply come to a new list of certainties; you probably won't.

Maybe a few of your uncertainties will become new certainties, but many of them won't. Just ask yourself these questions, "Do I really need to be certain on this issue? What does it mean for me if I'm not certain? Can I really know God's heart on this issue? Do I believe God has a definite opinion on this issue?" Etc. Don't be afraid to ask yourself, and don't be afraid to decide that you don't know.

I'll leave you with my personal motto that has led me to my own conclusions about faith:

God is Love. Therefore, if it is not loving, it is not of God. Not to say that one cannot have Love without God, but it is safe to say one cannot have God without Love.

There is more...I'll write Part 3 soon (I hope)!

What is Lost, What is Gained, Part 1

2010-03-08T10:45:00.000-08:00

Good grief, it's been over a month since I've been here? Wow, I never meant to be so absent, but you know how it is. I may not post here very often any more, but that doesn't mean I'm gone. And I haven't run out of things to say.

When someone leaves church, due either to disillusionment or circumstances, or both, the obvious loss of "community" (or whatever the dysfunction that exists in many churches can be called) can be excruciatingly painful. We already know that and have talked about it here at great length.

However, to rub salt in a wound, there is another tremendous loss.

The loss of certainty.

The loss of certainty of who God is, whether or not he exists, whether or not he is good, whether or not he is powerful.
The loss of certainty that there is an afterlife, what that afterlife is like, and who will have a part in that afterlife.
The loss of certainty about the role of the bible in our faith, whether or not it is inerrant, infallible, true, or whether or not any of it is metaphor.
The loss of certainty of who Jesus is, whether or not he existed, whether or not he is God, whether or not he was resurrected.
The loss of certainty about creation, evolution, the origin of life, and God's role, if any, in either of those.
The loss of certainty that religious beliefs are more important than social issues. Or put another way, do we have to evangelize the hungry to feed them?
The loss of certainty about the purpose of evangelism in our faith. Is it really imperative that we convert every person to a life with Christ?
The loss of certainty about numerous significant life issues: homosexuality, abortion, war and women's equality...and smaller issues such as alcohol, movies, music, tv, hobbies, reading material, child-rearing, education, and the place of science in our lives.
The loss of certainty about the rightness or our religion and the wrong-ness of other religions. The loss of certainty about what people should believe, how they should practice faith, whether or not their path leads to God, whether or not people should even believe in God.
And probably the most important; the loss of certainty about identity. For many people, their identity is defined by their faith. When that faith is altered or lost, what is left can easily be a shattered, shell of an identity. This can lead to depression, crisis, destructive behaviors, faithlessness, hopelessness, and loneliness.

This loss of certainty leaves many people feeling to be in freefall, and it is terrifying. I have been there; I know. For if we don't believe in the God we have learned to follow, what is left? However, along with all the certainty that is lost through disillusionment with and/or exit from modern Christianity, there is one thing certain to be gained. FREEDOM.

The freedom to rediscover who God is. The freedom to love people whom the church has taught are unlovable (if not taught by words, it is taught by actions). The freedom to explore things that were once off-limits. The freedom to believe the things that you may have always known in your heart, but were afraid to admit. The freedom to find peace outside of the organization.

The freedom to know God on a truly personal level.

Part 2 soon!

(I'm sure there are many, many other losses of certainty than my list alone encompasses. Let me know if there are any I have missed, I would love for a more complete list.)

Introverts in the Church 4

2010-01-27T07:01:00.000-08:00

Over at Experimental Theology, Richard Beck is discussing "Introverts in the Church". In the book, Adam McHugh cited a post of Richard's from 6-19-2007, and Richard has reposted it as an introduction to his review of the book.

I wanted to include a fabulous quote that highlights the issue in a very clear way.

"Specifically, non-liturgical churches tend to be more sociable churches. So, let's call them that. That is, there are liturgical churches and there are sociable churches. Sociable churches tend to emphasize relationality among its members. For example, a large part of the sociable church experience involves lengthy greetings (being greeted and greeting others), adult bible classes that are conversational and oriented around fellowship (e.g., in my church we sit at tables drinking coffee, eating donuts, and chatting), and the in-depth sharing of personal prayer requests.

This is not to say that liturgical churches aren't sociable or don't have sociable facets to them. It's just the simple recognition that going to a Catholic mass (the prototypical liturgical experience) differs greatly from my day at church at the Highland Church of Christ in Abilene, TX. My experience is heavy on the “visiting,” as they say here in Texas.

In these highly sociable churches there is an implicit theological theme that marries sociability with spirituality. That is, being sociable—visiting intensively, and being willing to "get into each other's lives"—is highly prized. To a point, this is understandable. A sociable church is going to rely on extraverts to make the whole vibe work.

But introverts fare poorly in these sociable churches. The demand to visit, mix, and share with strangers taxes them. Worse, given that these social activities are declared to be "spiritual," the introvert feels morally judged and spiritually marginalized. As if their very personality was spiritually diseased."

And there you have it. Introverts, specifically in non-liturgical churches, tend for their spirituality to be judged by their sociability. Which is entirely, well, wrong.

I highly recommend you read the entire post, it's absolutely full of wisdom I could quote, but such is frowned upon in the writing world. :)

Introverts in the Church 3

2010-01-24T12:19:00.000-08:00

"While extroverts commonly feel loneliness when others are absent, introverts can feel most lonely when others are present, because ours is the aching loneliness of not being known or understood."

How many times have I cried out "I just wish someone understood me?" I have heard this from many of my friends who are introverts as well. The funny thing is as many of us who understand each other, we don't recognize that other introverts understand us.

Related is this quote:

"One particularly insidious behavior in introverts is the tendency to suffer alone. We internalize our dark emotions, often increasing loneliness and closing ourselves to the love and insight that can bring healing and new perspectives."

I wish I had realized this five years ago. Well, I knew it, but I thought it was just another way I was broken. If I had known it's common for the introvert, I might have handled it differently. Instead I fought it, and then fought through it, entirely alone. I couldn't let anyone into my pain and fear and dark thoughts because that would, I don't know, indicate failure or something. Because of that, it was far messier than it had to be.

I think this was especially true because of my involvement in religion, and more specifically in charismatic christianity. I was known for being reserved, but also for being wise and skilled at spiritual warfare; therefore, admitting I was struggling would have meant to show a great deal of weakness. Being an already damaged introvert, I couldn't risk it. It could be because I believed if I had told someone, they would have attributed it to demonic oppression rather than just religious burn-out. If I had spoken to someone about it, I might have found someone who said "Of course you're struggling, that's common." But instead, the darkness consumed me.

From personal experience, I think introverts can tend to the martyr syndrome, as well. That is, almost wanting not to be understood, as much as we ache for it, because being understood would devalue our uniqueness. Now, this could be only a phenomenon for the individualists, the introverted 4's and the INFP's. Which could explain the utter reluctance to share our dark places.

I'm enjoying this book, because while there are many good resources about being an introvert, there is a very unique dynamic to introversion in religious culture. It has caused me more trauma than most other things in life, and reading a book that validates that this dynamic as not only real, but common, has been very beneficial to me.

One thing that the author gets into later on is the need for introverts who are involved in religious culture to take regular sabbaticals to recharge from the demands of ministry. This one fact alone could have saved me tons of grief; if, at the height of my involvement when burn-out became apparent, I had been allowed or even encouraged to take a break, rather than chastised and harassed for stepping back, I could have ended up in a far better place. Three or four months off, completely, could have prevented the five years I'm at now.

This is not to say I could have or would have overlooked all the negativity, inauthenticity and insincerity I take issue with, in modern evangelicalism in general, and my ex-church specifically, but a permitted break could have allowed me to process in much healthier ways, possibly preventing the trauma and grief that chased me completely away.

Stay tuned for more.

*All quotes are from the book, "Introverts in the Church: Finding our Place in an Extroverted Culture" by Adam S. McHugh.

Kit Kat or M&Ms, it's Still Just Candy

2010-01-22T17:22:00.000-08:00

You know something that really bugs me? New churches that simply take an old formula, slap a new wrapper on it, and call it something new...like emerging, or missional. There has to be a complete philosophy change somewhere, you can't just do the old thing on couches and with candles.

Yesterday a doorhanger showed up on our front door for a new church in our area, touting itself as a new young missional church. The name sounded interesting, so I visited their website. Looked like the same old thing, but not wanting to outright dismiss it, because I've been hoping for something to turn up in my neighborhood...I decided to dig a little further.

Staff pastor(s) seminary trained men*. Check.

Having some big vision for saving the community. Check.

Moving into a non-churchy retail space. Check.

Complete with pastor and wife having a SHARED Facebook page, because that's how they hold each other accountable, you know. (Why does seeing Facebook pages called "Chris n Tony" or "Barb n Todd" really rankle me, especially when they are conservative Christians? Because it comes from that same misogynist mindset that we all love to hate.)

I know those things are great for some people, but they are all negatives in my book. Still, wanting to be open-minded, I thought I'd listen to a sermon or two, just to see. The online sermon list included messages by three different people, all men*. I looked up their names, and they are all conservative seminarians. I chose the most recent sermon.

Yep, just as I feared. Heartfelt desire to CHANGE the NEIGHBORHOOD. And then dissing on the neighborhood because it's poor and needs saving. Preaching the gamut about demonic spirits over our profoundly unchurched area.

When will people get it? First, you can't diss on how dangerous and demonic the community is...you are forgetting PEOPLE LIVE HERE. And unless you live in the ghetto, you have no automatic street cred there. You have to earn it. And dissing on it will not earn anything.

Change? You can't talk about it, it won't do any good. You can pray for it, but that doesn't feed people. You can feed people, but unless you change your attitude about their "poor unsaved gang-member criminal impoverished demon-oppressed immigrant souls", no one will care and no lasting change will be affected. The kids need coats. The moms need free babysitters. The teenagers need a safe place to hang out. They need money, not your couches and candles. Oh, and they speak Spanish. Oh, and they are Catholic. Your emergissional bullcrap isn't wanted around here.

When will something really new come around? Something where you don't have to comply with conservative doctrine, listen to stodgy worship, and be chastised by talking heads, but be among people willing to stop talking and get their hands dirty? When will someone begin to see that change means actually having to DO something, probably something unpleasant?

Granted, I'm no expert. I live in a glass house, but my heart isn't proud of it. My heart wants things to change in someone's life. Not an entire community...just one person, one family. I can't do it alone...but I want to find ways to try. I have no credibility with my community, no experience, no tools, no money...and I'm white middle-class.

But there has to be a way that doesn't involve overhead projectors and bible beating and talking out of your asshole about your intent to change the community.

Granted, they are new to the neighborhood and maybe I have it all wrong. Maybe they will put their money where their mouth is.

But somehow I doubt it.

End rant.

*I am not clear on whether there is one staff pastor and the others were guest speakers, or what the deal is. But same difference.

Introverts in the Church 2

2010-01-20T18:45:00.000-08:00

From "Introverts in the Church", Adam S. McHugh:

"Introverts are energized by solitude.We are recharged from the inside out, from the forces of our internal world of ideas and feelings. Just as a geyser finds it's power from a subterranean water source, introverts derive strength from hidden places."

"Some people misconstrue the introverted need for solitude as being antisocial. But it's not that we don't like people, it's that time with other people in the external world has a draining effect on us. We don't avoid social situations like we would a trip to the dentist, but sometimes we avoid them like we might avoid exercise, because we lack the energy for it."

As introverts, we all skip social situations from time to time. However. how many important social situations have you avoided because you lacked the energy? I have missed weddings, graduations, birthday parties...not because I don't love the person, not because I don't value the importance of the situation, but so often because I had spent my social energy in other ways earlier in the week and just couldn't muster it up.

Unfortunately, extroverts will often not understand this, and they will see it as a personal offense. So, I'll go out on a limb and admit I have made the excuse of being ill more times than I can count simply because I could not think of a "legitimate" way to explain that I was clean out of social energy.

While I still haven't found a good way to explain it, I have begun to mature to the point that I've realized making excuses a) does hurt people I care about and b) often I will have a good time if I go. So I am learning to plan ahead. When I know there is something coming up that I should attend, I have to save up my social energy by being careful how I spend it earlier in that same week. While not always ideal, this does help.

How about you?

*All quotes are from the book "Introverts in the Church,: Finding our Place in an Extroverted Culture" by Adam S. McHugh.

Introverts in the Church 1

2010-01-17T09:35:00.000-08:00

Rather than waiting until I have finished the book, I really want to highlight some things that have jumped out at me along the way. Not all of these thoughts have to do specifically with introverts in church, but are relevant to introverts in general.

"One of the big mistakes Extraverts make is to assume that if someone is not engaged with another person, that individual is simply not busy. So, it's okay to interrupt someone sitting and reading because that person is probably reading only because there is no one else with whom she can talk. You can only imagine what an Extravert thinks of someone who is sitting there not even reading but merely reflecting. Clearly that person needs to be put to some more useful task -- such as listening to the Extravert's thoughts of the moment". *

This quote sums up my own life...forever well-meaning extroverts have been trying to "draw me out of my shell", or "engage with me" when all I want is to be left alone. And making me feel somehow broken for it.

As well, this is entirely too clear to me, having two children, one of each. This example is precisely what happens. My introvert will go into his room and shut the door, needing to be alone. My extrovert, if there is no one around to talk to, will barge in to the introverts room and begin talking to the introvert. This usually results in anger, with the introvert insisting, "Get out of my room", and the extrovert saying "Why? I let you in my room any time you want."

I'm not sure why extroverts so clearly believe it's wrong for introverts to want to be alone, often making them feel abnormal because of it. Is it because the extroverts are more assertive? More common? More dominant? I think it's simply a lack of understanding.

What's more, I have learned from observation that extroverts actually feel slighted when an introvert wants to be alone. The extroverts take it very personally, and often might even react as if it is indicative of the introverts dislike of the extrovert.

You can see how this would create a problem.

I have tried very hard to educate my children about their personalities, letting them know that while it's not wrong to be the way they are, it's not wrong for the other person to be the way THEY are. If that makes any sense. Tolerance and grace for those who are different than us, a key to how I operate.

I know this post doesn't seem to have much to do with the church, but further quotes and discussion will get into that. First, this book is laying the foundation of learning and understanding the differences between the two types, so to better understand the tensions that can occur in the church.

*This is actually a quote of a quote, the source is listed as Kroger, Thuesen and Rutledge, Type Talk at Work, p.97

Chicken or Egg

2010-01-12T19:58:00.000-08:00

For my birthday, I asked for and received Adam McHugh's book "Introverts in the Church: Finding our Place in an Extroverted Culture".

I'm only partway into it, but it's proving to be a fascinating read, enough so that I hope to cover some of its content over the next several posts. Might I mention that this is the first book I have ever felt compelled to review this way?

If you have been a long-time reader, you might remember that back in 2007 there was a good deal of conversation about personality types. You might also remember that I ran an unscientific poll, indicating that nearly 75% of my blog community were introverts.

This has been on my mind ever since, and I think I've finally found a book that will help me make some sense of it.

You know that my primary area of personal interest is the disaffected christian, i.e. those who have found their way out of traditional christianity due to conflicts with the hard and fast belief systems most denominations and traditions demand. In a nutshell, we don't fit in.

I have always believed that there must be some reason the majority of my blog community are BOTH a) disaffected christians and b) introverts. Aside from the obvious but errant reasoning that we are loners and simply don't fit into community in any fashion, it has been in my heart that there has to be another answer. However, that answer has proven elusive; until now.

I don't mean to oversimplify; for the myriad of other reasons myself and others like me "leave" church are also valid, and I don't think it's as simple as having a personality conflict with the way church is "done". However, I do think that being introverted might more readily focus for us the problems within christianity, as it exists in the western world, and our recognition of those problems is simply a by-product of being introverted and therefore spending significant time in careful reflection of anything that is of value to us.

On the flip-side, I'm sure there are many introverts who are perfectly happy "in church", and so there does seem to be some even deeper issue at play with some of us. As well, one could argue that my poll is too unscientific to draw any conclusions from, because simply put, maybe the introverts are the ones who are talking about their disillusionment online, and the extroverts are talking about it in "real life", hence the poll's disparity. But for now I'm investigating the simple presumption that so many people in my blog world who are disillusioned also seem to be introverts.

However, before I begin with the book, let me ask you, my fellow introverts, one question, which approaches the issue from another angle that I'll get to later on.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

That is to say, do you think people are introverts because they have low self-esteem, or do people have low self-esteem because they are introverts?

Think about that for a minute.

I don't mean to say all introverts have low-self esteem, or vice-versa; I'm asking the question in regards to those who DO fit into both categories.

What do you think?

Looking Ahead

2010-01-03T20:08:00.000-08:00

Rather than a post meant to recap 2009, I thought I'd post about what will be happening in 2010. No real reason, other than I was just thinking about the new year and all the things I know are approaching.

Tomorrow, I'm having lunch with a friend I haven't seen in nearly 25 years. We reconnected by accident on Facebook and I'm very much looking forward to seeing her. She was my best friend in 7th and 8th grade, and it's funny that so many years can pass and we can still remember those bonds from so many years ago.

I'm starting school again on Tuesday. Like I said before, I'm taking it a semester at a time, at least for now. But my A's last semester were encouraging...not that I'll manage A's all the time, but indicative that my brain still functions on a somewhat academic level. So here we go again.

In a few weeks we will be having the first meeting of the 2010 relay team. I have elected myself captain again...or at least it feels like it. In truth, the feedback I received after the 2009 relay clearly indicated to me that no one would be opposed if I took the initiative this year to get things rolling...er...walking. So we are all rounded up and ready to get training. The relay will be the last weekend in August again this year, so we have a long time to plan and a long time to wait. I'm expecting that I won't micromanage quite so much this time as I have a much better sense of what is important and what isn't. I'm sure you'll be hearing more about the relay as our training progresses.

September will usher in a new season for our family; we will have a high school student. That is absolutely mind boggling for me. Somehow I can't even comprehend it yet, but it is fast approaching. The real irony for me is the vast number of MY high school friends who are just now having babies (my class of 1989 friends). 2009 saw three have their first or second children, and 2010 will see at least three more. So, soon, while they are doing diapers, I'll be doing driving lessons. And while they are potty training, I'll be going to college. Strange.

At the end of the year I will reach a major milestone...my 40th birthday. I don't know that I have any thoughts about that yet, other than I certainly haven't accomplished most of what I thought would have accomplished by this point in life; but I have accomplished many things I never imagined. So I guess that's good. I can say that when I was in high school I never dreamed the year 2010 would ever actually come. Wow.

Those are the things I know of for 2010...I do have dreams and aspirations for the coming year, but I know that whatever I might aspire to, chances are the reality will be quite different. So for those things, well, I'll just have to comment on them as they come.

Wishing you all far better things than you hope for in 2010!

Merry Christmas

2009-12-23T22:05:00.001-08:00

May your fire be warm,

May your candles be bright,

and may your loved ones be near.

Merry Christmas!

It's Nothing Special

2009-12-17T07:58:00.001-08:00

An excerpt from my most recent Communitas Collective post:

"Why don’t we do more? Because it always seems like there is someone who has more than we do, someone who we think should be doing more because they are more able.

It’s easy to point fingers.

The government says the church should do it. The church says the government should do it. I say my more wealthy friends should do it, the church should do it, the government should do it. Bill Gates should do it. Santa Claus should do it.

Jesus says I should do it.

Sigh.

OK, I get that part.

But, then, what exactly should I be doing?"

PCXmas

2009-12-13T09:57:00.000-08:00

I saw this cartoon the other day:

Each year our Christmas is downgraded from the year before, by choice. When my kids were small, they were showered with a million gifts, most of which they only played with a few times. It took me awhile, but eventually I realized the ridiculousness of it all. I don't want to sound like a hypocrite; we haven't done away with Christmas altogether, but we are spending far less than ever before, and buying fewer gifts than ever before. In my immediate family, we have purchased one significant "family" gift, from a locally-owned merchant. There will be a few other things, but not much.

I read a lot these days about the importance of buying fair-trade, local or "green" gifts. There is an ever-growing marked for these types of items, and many people are capitalizing on it. Especially here in Portland. I understand and respect the sentiment, and consider this a much improved plan over the Black Friday Wal-mart run. But I tend to wonder if the problem isn't really the quality of gifts we give, but the quantity?

My family was together not too long ago, and my siblings and I discussed the fact that none of us really need anything from each other, and buying for each other is just playing into the consumeristic frenzy that dictates that we must give a gift of some kind, whether it be from Wal-mart or the local Artists market, to everyone we love, lest they feel un-loved. This decision not to buy for siblings and spouses/s.o.'s eliminated the purchasing a total of of as many as 24 unnecessary gifts among us in my family alone. Carry this over to my husband's family and it becomes 34.

I'm not suggesting this is a good-fit answer for everyone. However, I do wonder if most of us give "token" gifts to many people we don't really need to exchange gifts with. Consider exchanging gifts of time or service instead, and minimize the way you play into the expectations of the season. Consider baking or buying gifts of local produce. Certainly give thought to the origin of what you give. However, I'm not naive; I realize that small children often have a heart's desire that is some toy made by a major manufacturer. I'm not suggesting we give them oranges instead. My thoughts on this apply more to adults than to children. If you do feel you want to give to everyone you can, certainly work to give one of the good-five types of gifts: local, fair-trade, green, homemade, or service/time.

I realize there are people in our lives who truly have needs that we might have the opportunity to fill. You know who they are, and I'm not suggesting you eliminate those people from your gift-giving list; just to be clear.

As well, I'm not trying to be a hypocrite. We are buying a few things. However, we have reduced our buying frenzy by about 75%, and the emotional, mental, and financial impact is tremendous. And seriously, nothing is really lost in the relationships with people we aren't buying for anymore, even though that is often a great fear.

One aspect of this that can be difficult to resolve is the non-agreement by the other party. In other words, if you decide only to give gifts to the children, but other adults insist they must buy for everyone, it can be complicated. My best advice is to discuss it far in advance, and if there is no consensus, decide for yourself if it is better for you not to buy for those who insist on buying for you, or to give in to maintain familial peace and harmony. Only you can be the best judge of this, however I would suggest sticking to whatever is best for your conscience, if at all possible.

What do you think?

Interesting Religions

2009-12-09T06:55:00.000-08:00

Jarred tagged me with Matt Stone's meme "What religions interest you apart from your own"?

That's a fantastic question, and I am looking forward to reading more answers.

List three "religions" (i.e. religion/belief system/philosophy/irreligion) :

1. which, if any, "religion" you personally identify with

2 & 3. two other "religions" that interest you.

If you're brave, explain why the other religions interest you.

1. Jesusism. I don't like to call it Christianity, because it's 98% not traditional Christianity (i.e. what percentage of the bible consists of words Jesus actually said?). But what I can say is that no matter how I have stretched my boundaries, Jesus has a grip on me that I can't shake. I have tried to walk away, but have had no peace until I have returned to him. I have no real explanation, except to say that is where I fall and I'm happy with it.

2. Druidry. For its connection to nature, which is where I find God most readily, most powerfully, and most profoundly. For the fundamental belief that all life is spiritual.

3. I don't know if this counts as a *religion*, but panentheism, which in the simplest terms possible is "a belief system which posits that God exists and interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe", as quoted from Wikipedia. I particularly like this description of biblical panentheism.

I'd love to tag Michelle, Barry, and Sue, and anyone else who is willing.

All Knowledge

2009-12-01T15:35:00.000-08:00