This is not a new or unique idea. What is watered grows, what doesn't get water eventually dies.
I'm a very challenged gardener. I frequently forget to water. I have a number of dead plants in my kitchen, currently, and about 4 that are doing very well. I also have an ivy plant in the bathroom that is doing quite well. I water it twice a week when i take a shower.
In my faith, my belief in God, i frequently have doubts. A few months ago i probably would have said, "struggle with doubt," but the truth is, i have begun to embrace the doubt. Tho i am sure there are Christians who do not doubt, it is hard for me to imagine a thinking person NOT having doubts. The world is just so contradictory. There are just too many questions. Many of the "promises" that Christians claim are taken out of context or do not come true. How can i not doubt the nature of a God that says so many of the weird and bizarre things in the Old Testament. Even many of the things Jesus said are difficult to grasp.
I read a number of different blogs, many of which are Christian or written by folks who are Christian. A few are about struggling with, accepting, or fighting doubts. One of these is O Me of Little Faith. There is also a book by the same title. I've spoken of it before. I would like to write about it more extensively, but haven't gotten around to doing so.
Now, i know in the eyes of some folks, including our former pastor, doubt would usher me straight into hell. I don't believe that. But this is a discussion for another time.
The fact is, i have faith, such as it is. It doesn't look like the faith of an Evangelical or Fundamental Christian. Those particular branches of Christianity espouse things and do things that make me very uncomfortable. But i have faith all the same. It gives me some comfort. It is not the type of faith that will blow away all doubt. I think my faith will have to co-exist with doubt indefinitely.
However, it recently occurred to me that i can choose my focus. If i spend too much time at blogs that espouse doubt, then that is where my thoughts will be. Blogs that embrace doubt are not harmful, they can (for me) be very helpful. But anything that dwells too much on seeking out more doubt, more negativity, will have too much effect on me in a negative manner. There is lots of research literature in psychology stating what a strong effect our minds, thoughts, and beliefs have on our physical and mental well being.
(BTW, if i am already reading your blog, i'm not talking about dropping it! I'm only speaking of not further seeking that which will make me doubt, scientific data, etc.)
The fact is, none of us know. That is where faith comes in. People can claim to know, but they are not able to provide any kind of proof that would stand up in scientific testing. People can claim an experience, but that is not something reproducible, nor is it something that anyone else can experience with them.
I find, for me, that having some kind of faith, even if it also embraces and accepts doubt, is comforting. Certainly there are many scriptures in the Bible that encourage living in a way that will bring peace: Love your neighbor, being a peacemaker, being meek, pure of heart, or merciful. It seems to be these are only negatives in the way we sometimes translate (or preach about). I think that living as a follower of Jesus is the way to have a life that is more about peace and caring about others and being less self-involved. Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. (Although, i recognize that if i lived in a place that persecuted Christians my faith would either have to grow to something more and become stronger, or die.)
Self-involvement is natural, of course, but when taken to an extreme it seems to be the root of most mental illness.
Too much of the Bible is incomprehensible, too. Except it does seem that Jesus is telling us that the fairness by which we measure is not very important to God. Look at the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20). All i can do with something like this is to trust that the God who is so beyond me is a God who will care, even when things seem unfair to me.
When i focus too much on things that encourage severe doubt (which seems to go hand in hand with unhappiness for me), it does make sense to me to remember:
1 Corinthians 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
And, Proverbs 3:5-7 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him,and he will make straight your paths. Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord, and turn away from evil.
While i am not stupid, i am not terribly smart, either. I think accepting that there is much i don't understand, and choosing not to believe my own brain is the ultimate to make decisions and understand everything leaves me the room to believe and trust in God, even if he is incomprehensible to me. I've a feeling that all my own "wisdom" is pretty foolish.
There are so many things in our culture, our churches, our nation, our world, our universe, which make little sense to me. Trying to make sense of them makes it worse! It is comforting to me to believe that even if God seems unfair, unjust, and just simply weird, a God who created us and sent his son to be our bridge to him probably is incomprehensible. That is where my faith comes in. I choose to believe that i can't understand because it is beyond me and that all the unfairness in our world will make sense in the next, if it is even important enough to think of there. And if i'm wrong (about the next world), well, i won't know, will i? Or, i'll deal with that when i have to.
For me, it doesn't hurt to focus on these verses:
Philippians 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
I can choose which plant to water, doubt or faith. I can choose to focus on positive rather than negative. I've a feeling that when i water one, the other is getting some of that water, too. But i think i want to focus on watering faith as much as possible, and accept that doubt grows there as well. But i don't want to focus on what would make the doubt grow to the point it chokes out the faith i have.
(All these scriptures make it sound like i'm quite the Bible scholar, but it isn't true. I don't actually do a lot of Bible reading, most of these i did a Google search, tho i did have the basics in my head to know what to search for.)
43
27 November 2010
11 November 2010
Words
I've had this page open for forever. A month or more. I was trying to write about my current struggle, but the words just were not coming. It is saved, perhaps i will use it at a later date.
Let me just say, i'm really having trouble with the concept of God in our world. I'm coming to more strongly believe that "fairness" - at least the way as it is conceived by humans - is entirely a human construct not one from God. At least, that is how it looks. I think that our construct of "fair" is entirely foreign to God and not part of his nature at all.
Now, somehow i do think it is hardwired in us to be "fair" because even small children grasp and hold the idea. If you give a couple of kids 4 years old each a piece of pie, but one piece is noticeably bigger, tell me that the one won't yell, "That's not FAIR!" Probably even younger than 4.
Yet, over and over i see in the Bible that God does what he will, regardless of our concept of "fair."
That's all i've got to say about it right now.
_____________________________
We were at "the other" Lutheran Church this weekend. We saw another couple from our original church, E and S, but i knew that they had not been attending there for a long, long time. More than a year.
These folks are actually neighbors of ours, about 3 houses away, but i never see them outside so i've never really approached them. Their son T (who is about 15-16) walks thru the neighborhood and says hello to us when we are out.
What i learned was this: They went thru a family crisis a couple of years ago. They weren't able to attend for a while because of this and no one from the church ever contacted them. No one. Not once.
S and E were very hurt. I feel very badly for them. I also feel responsible to some degree of not trying to make more of an effort, although they don't see it that way. We had only been attending for a short while when they stopped coming.
But more. T was going thru catechism with Pastor G. G preached from the pulpit at least once "that you cannot be a Christian AND a vegetarian." Yep, he said that. I took him to task for it. I was quite upset with this rigid view. Of course, it is HIS view, but when he preaches he never says, "In my opinion . . . " He preaches as if what he was saying (his opinion) is gospel.
However, it has further consequences than my being upset. The SON had just become vegetarian and heard G say this. Evidently they discussed it and T chose not to continue with catechism and refused to attend there any longer. His mama says he has gotten into paganism.
Now, i do believe that if that is where he wanted to go, if he was drawn to paganism, he probably would have ended up there. But if nothing else, G gave him a push.
And more, another couple that attended erratically, T and K, had issues as well. I guess they were having some marital problems and T was seeking counsel from G. At some point G told T that his marriage was over and he needed to divorce K. K was quite put out with G over this and they stopped attending much at all. (BTW, G is not the first pastor that i've heard of saying something like this. It may even be good advice on a rare occasion, but i don't believe a pastor should ever be pushing a congregant in this direction!)
From my understanding, this was several years ago. They are still married. K is having some fairly severe medical problems. I think they moved away. What is hard for me to grasp is that they attended at all ever again! If G had told Duane something like that, you can be sure i would never step foot in the church again.
And, i've a confession. In both of these cases, i rather stood in judgment of these folks who rarely attended church. I had no business doing this, and i knew it. But i know that i still felt a bit smug and superior knowing i was in church weekly when they "couldn't be bothered" to make it.
I won't say this in my defense, for there is no excuse, but G encouraged such thought. He often preached in church that "If we really loved the Lord . . . " the church would be filled, or we would be in those pews every week, or some such thing. He frequently preached things that would encourage the congregation to feel superior to other folks, whether other members or other churches.
This disturbed me a lot. I didn't like it when he preached this. I disagreed with it. I saw it as manipulative. It even made me feel guilty and (at that time anyway) we were there every week. Why was i feeling condemned for something of which i was not guilty? It was because of the manipulation. It was when he began preaching such things that i began to be quite uncomfortable with that church. (I took this up with G once, too. About the manipulation and use of guilt. He budged not at all on this issue. His take was that if someone feels guilty about something of which he preaches, then the arrow hit the mark and they ARE guilty and need to repent. Um, not so much, thank you. I am NOT guilty on this point.)
This does not excuse my attitude at all. I repent and ask forgiveness because even as i was doing this i knew it was wrong. But (not "but" about my behavior, i am responsible), it wasn't clear to me that even tho i disagreed with G on this, my thought processes were lining up with his when i felt self righteous on issues of which i had no right to feel superior. Speaking with these folks made it clear to me that i'd been offensively smug (privately, i never shared this even with Duane) when it was not justified and wrong for me to do so.
I'm coming more and more to see how dangerous G's church has become. And i continue to be sad about it, but i am healing. Time and distance does help heal.
41
Let me just say, i'm really having trouble with the concept of God in our world. I'm coming to more strongly believe that "fairness" - at least the way as it is conceived by humans - is entirely a human construct not one from God. At least, that is how it looks. I think that our construct of "fair" is entirely foreign to God and not part of his nature at all.
Now, somehow i do think it is hardwired in us to be "fair" because even small children grasp and hold the idea. If you give a couple of kids 4 years old each a piece of pie, but one piece is noticeably bigger, tell me that the one won't yell, "That's not FAIR!" Probably even younger than 4.
Yet, over and over i see in the Bible that God does what he will, regardless of our concept of "fair."
That's all i've got to say about it right now.
_____________________________
We were at "the other" Lutheran Church this weekend. We saw another couple from our original church, E and S, but i knew that they had not been attending there for a long, long time. More than a year.
These folks are actually neighbors of ours, about 3 houses away, but i never see them outside so i've never really approached them. Their son T (who is about 15-16) walks thru the neighborhood and says hello to us when we are out.
What i learned was this: They went thru a family crisis a couple of years ago. They weren't able to attend for a while because of this and no one from the church ever contacted them. No one. Not once.
S and E were very hurt. I feel very badly for them. I also feel responsible to some degree of not trying to make more of an effort, although they don't see it that way. We had only been attending for a short while when they stopped coming.
But more. T was going thru catechism with Pastor G. G preached from the pulpit at least once "that you cannot be a Christian AND a vegetarian." Yep, he said that. I took him to task for it. I was quite upset with this rigid view. Of course, it is HIS view, but when he preaches he never says, "In my opinion . . . " He preaches as if what he was saying (his opinion) is gospel.
However, it has further consequences than my being upset. The SON had just become vegetarian and heard G say this. Evidently they discussed it and T chose not to continue with catechism and refused to attend there any longer. His mama says he has gotten into paganism.
Now, i do believe that if that is where he wanted to go, if he was drawn to paganism, he probably would have ended up there. But if nothing else, G gave him a push.
And more, another couple that attended erratically, T and K, had issues as well. I guess they were having some marital problems and T was seeking counsel from G. At some point G told T that his marriage was over and he needed to divorce K. K was quite put out with G over this and they stopped attending much at all. (BTW, G is not the first pastor that i've heard of saying something like this. It may even be good advice on a rare occasion, but i don't believe a pastor should ever be pushing a congregant in this direction!)
From my understanding, this was several years ago. They are still married. K is having some fairly severe medical problems. I think they moved away. What is hard for me to grasp is that they attended at all ever again! If G had told Duane something like that, you can be sure i would never step foot in the church again.
And, i've a confession. In both of these cases, i rather stood in judgment of these folks who rarely attended church. I had no business doing this, and i knew it. But i know that i still felt a bit smug and superior knowing i was in church weekly when they "couldn't be bothered" to make it.
I won't say this in my defense, for there is no excuse, but G encouraged such thought. He often preached in church that "If we really loved the Lord . . . " the church would be filled, or we would be in those pews every week, or some such thing. He frequently preached things that would encourage the congregation to feel superior to other folks, whether other members or other churches.
This disturbed me a lot. I didn't like it when he preached this. I disagreed with it. I saw it as manipulative. It even made me feel guilty and (at that time anyway) we were there every week. Why was i feeling condemned for something of which i was not guilty? It was because of the manipulation. It was when he began preaching such things that i began to be quite uncomfortable with that church. (I took this up with G once, too. About the manipulation and use of guilt. He budged not at all on this issue. His take was that if someone feels guilty about something of which he preaches, then the arrow hit the mark and they ARE guilty and need to repent. Um, not so much, thank you. I am NOT guilty on this point.)
This does not excuse my attitude at all. I repent and ask forgiveness because even as i was doing this i knew it was wrong. But (not "but" about my behavior, i am responsible), it wasn't clear to me that even tho i disagreed with G on this, my thought processes were lining up with his when i felt self righteous on issues of which i had no right to feel superior. Speaking with these folks made it clear to me that i'd been offensively smug (privately, i never shared this even with Duane) when it was not justified and wrong for me to do so.
I'm coming more and more to see how dangerous G's church has become. And i continue to be sad about it, but i am healing. Time and distance does help heal.
41
09 September 2010
What is love?
The news is full of Christians doing things i find obnoxious. Some pastor in Florida is advocating burning of the Koran. Sigh.
It does often seem to me that some Christians feel that hate is justified when they are dealing with people who somehow threaten their faith, or that threaten the "purity" of the Church, or something. It bothers me a great deal, especially as we all folks carrying the name "Christian" tend to be tarred with the same brush.
(This portion of this post has been removed. I wasn't sensitive to the conversation with a family member in writing it and it has been sent into the ether.)
Lord, please let me love more. Please give me the love i need to share. Please help me to know how to share love & not let it be simply something within. Please help me to find ways to let the ones i love know that i care, & help me to love them more.
40
It does often seem to me that some Christians feel that hate is justified when they are dealing with people who somehow threaten their faith, or that threaten the "purity" of the Church, or something. It bothers me a great deal, especially as we all folks carrying the name "Christian" tend to be tarred with the same brush.
(This portion of this post has been removed. I wasn't sensitive to the conversation with a family member in writing it and it has been sent into the ether.)
Lord, please let me love more. Please give me the love i need to share. Please help me to know how to share love & not let it be simply something within. Please help me to find ways to let the ones i love know that i care, & help me to love them more.
40
29 August 2010
Thoughts on a Sunday Morning
Did you know that if you click on your own profile, whatever location you listed for yourself is a link. If you click on that link, it will tell you the other people who blog from your area. Now, maybe not something you want to do if your location is "Southern California," but in a small place like Big Bear (& permutations such as "Big Bear Lake" & "Big Bear City") there are only about 100 blogs listed. So, curious, i visited them. (Tho i've just discovered that if you spell out "California" you find a different listing, meaning more.)
I found a couple that i'd like to follow. But what surprised me more is that there are so many that have one post or 4 or 10 & then nothing. And quite a few who have none at all! A lot of the "bloggers" are real estate agents. And one really surprising fellow with about 8 different profiles has 10-25 different blogs at each profile. And most of those blogs had ONE post! I guess rather than having continunity in one blog, he feels each post deserves a blog of its own.
I guess some folks start a blog & then discover that it isn't their thing. Duane started a blog (Croggled) long before i even knew what a blog was. He has a total of four posts, one that i wrote.
My point? Oh, just some thoughts when i realized it has been a long time since last i posted.
Two weekends ago, when my ILs were here, we went to the Catholic Church. It turned out that it was the day in their liturgical calendar that celebrates the "Assumption of Mary." Say what? All the hymns were ones celebrating Mary. My Catholic ILs & my Catholic-raised husband were not aware of this church doctrine. It states that Mary died, was buried, was raised again, & was taken up directly into heaven. AND it became official church canon in 1950. SAY WHAT? ! ! !
So, when we got home i did some research into the "Mariology" of the Catholic church. The belief that was finally canonized in 1950 had been part of church tradition since the 3rd or 4th century. However, folks, non-traditional church info - meaning factual rather than an evolving trend - began in the first century, not long after Jesus' death & resurrection. Frankly, after listening to the songs & attribution to Mary & checking the church doctrine, the Catholic church - or at least the ones that choose to worship this way - are in great danger of putting Mary on equal footing, or even higher, than Jesus.
Duane tells me that in catechism, he was taught that Mary is the only person ever born without sin. It was about that point that Duane rejected Catholic tradition, although he continued to attend that church for many years.
Frankly, i've a lot to say that is positive about the Catholic church. My friend Jessica (His Scribe) is doing a series (rather off & on) about our "reconcilable differences" with the Catholic church, looking at the ways we are similar. But i'm rather taken aback by this Mariology. Too much for me.
I do believe that it is important for us as Christians to love others - INCLUDING CHRISTIANS! So often it seems that Christianity is so very divisive instead of presenting to loving image of Jesus i believe we are intended to reflect. I've long thought of Christianity as being a mirror. We don't have an image in & of ourselves, but we can reflect the glory of God. In doing so we can shine a light into dark places. But it seems that mirror has been shattered & we are reflecting bits of God's glory, but not a true image. I can't pick up one shard & say, "This is what it is like to reflect God's glory. It takes the full mirror to reflect the full glory. Perhaps the day is coming when God will repair that mirror.
That was one of my problems with our former Lutheran church. The pastor was so sure that his church & only his church had the full mirror & none of the others had any of it. They were all in "error." But i think that God is so much more than we can comprehend that we are ALL in error in some way or another. So we need to treat one another with kindness & love, & recognize weakness & not tear down those that struggle. I know we've had the discussion about the Catholic church before. I do think that perhaps it is too easy to get caught up in Catholic doctrine, dogma, tradition, & theology & lose the way to Christ. BUT i think that is a possibility in ALL churches. We tend to get caught in doctrine, dogma, tradition, & theology. Granted, some more than others, but those trappings tend to overshadow the simple message of Christ crucified & risen, the message that God sent his Son to be our bridge.
Too many people, in the church & out of it, tend to want to skip the bridge & see if they can't jump the gulf themselves. Some churches tend to water down the message of Christ by placing a lot of emphasis on rules & regulations, making us think that we can earn our own way. But that is not the message that Jesus brought & lived out.
Ok, much can be said on that, but i'm done. Hopefully i made my point.
We attended the "other" Lutheran church last week. We like it. It is warm & friendly. But we are not at the point of wanting to join a church, even on a regular basis.
I don't handle "authority" or politics well. When i worked hospital, i found them to be very political. I tried to make sure that i worked mostly when administration & management was NOT on premises (evening shifts). I liked to do my job & do it well without being sucked into the political management bull that often got in the way of doing a good job. I did my best when i worked 3 different hospitals part-time. I was able to go & work with folks i liked doing work i liked. I heard their stories & complaints. When i left at the end of the shift my work was done or passed on to the next shift (very good for a procrastinator like myself). I also got to leave the office politics behind. Walk away. Because it didn't effect me. The worst mistake i ever made was to go full-time at one hospital. Because then i was in the same mire day after day & it DID effect me.
I'm feeling the same way about joining a church at this time. People are frequently wishing us luck or blessings in "finding a home," but at this point that is NOT what we are looking for. I have too much difficulty with too many of the doctrines in the churches. If we visit on a weekend & they preach the Gospel, then i'm not involved in their doctrine or politics. Now, i know that this sounds like i'm copping out, but it is simply where i am at the moment. We seek fellowship with other believers & to worship in a church that preaches the Gospel. But i do NOT want to get involved in doctrine/politics. If we find a church that needs help on an issue, we will try to help. If we can join in an ecumenical group that is trying to _____________ (feed the hungry, house the homeless, provide) we will likely try to help. It is not that we are not willing to work, but that we are not willing to align with a particular doctrine at this point.
Truth is too, we've not made many friends here with whom to socialize. We may see folks in a restaurant or at the store & chat with them, but that is not, to me, a satisfying relationship. I'm hoping that by going to several different churches we can make some friends that cut across denominational ties. Maybe that is why i'm "seeking" Big Bear bloggers, too. :)
Have a blessed Sunday.
39
I found a couple that i'd like to follow. But what surprised me more is that there are so many that have one post or 4 or 10 & then nothing. And quite a few who have none at all! A lot of the "bloggers" are real estate agents. And one really surprising fellow with about 8 different profiles has 10-25 different blogs at each profile. And most of those blogs had ONE post! I guess rather than having continunity in one blog, he feels each post deserves a blog of its own.
I guess some folks start a blog & then discover that it isn't their thing. Duane started a blog (Croggled) long before i even knew what a blog was. He has a total of four posts, one that i wrote.
My point? Oh, just some thoughts when i realized it has been a long time since last i posted.
Two weekends ago, when my ILs were here, we went to the Catholic Church. It turned out that it was the day in their liturgical calendar that celebrates the "Assumption of Mary." Say what? All the hymns were ones celebrating Mary. My Catholic ILs & my Catholic-raised husband were not aware of this church doctrine. It states that Mary died, was buried, was raised again, & was taken up directly into heaven. AND it became official church canon in 1950. SAY WHAT? ! ! !
So, when we got home i did some research into the "Mariology" of the Catholic church. The belief that was finally canonized in 1950 had been part of church tradition since the 3rd or 4th century. However, folks, non-traditional church info - meaning factual rather than an evolving trend - began in the first century, not long after Jesus' death & resurrection. Frankly, after listening to the songs & attribution to Mary & checking the church doctrine, the Catholic church - or at least the ones that choose to worship this way - are in great danger of putting Mary on equal footing, or even higher, than Jesus.
Duane tells me that in catechism, he was taught that Mary is the only person ever born without sin. It was about that point that Duane rejected Catholic tradition, although he continued to attend that church for many years.
Frankly, i've a lot to say that is positive about the Catholic church. My friend Jessica (His Scribe) is doing a series (rather off & on) about our "reconcilable differences" with the Catholic church, looking at the ways we are similar. But i'm rather taken aback by this Mariology. Too much for me.
I do believe that it is important for us as Christians to love others - INCLUDING CHRISTIANS! So often it seems that Christianity is so very divisive instead of presenting to loving image of Jesus i believe we are intended to reflect. I've long thought of Christianity as being a mirror. We don't have an image in & of ourselves, but we can reflect the glory of God. In doing so we can shine a light into dark places. But it seems that mirror has been shattered & we are reflecting bits of God's glory, but not a true image. I can't pick up one shard & say, "This is what it is like to reflect God's glory. It takes the full mirror to reflect the full glory. Perhaps the day is coming when God will repair that mirror.
That was one of my problems with our former Lutheran church. The pastor was so sure that his church & only his church had the full mirror & none of the others had any of it. They were all in "error." But i think that God is so much more than we can comprehend that we are ALL in error in some way or another. So we need to treat one another with kindness & love, & recognize weakness & not tear down those that struggle. I know we've had the discussion about the Catholic church before. I do think that perhaps it is too easy to get caught up in Catholic doctrine, dogma, tradition, & theology & lose the way to Christ. BUT i think that is a possibility in ALL churches. We tend to get caught in doctrine, dogma, tradition, & theology. Granted, some more than others, but those trappings tend to overshadow the simple message of Christ crucified & risen, the message that God sent his Son to be our bridge.
Too many people, in the church & out of it, tend to want to skip the bridge & see if they can't jump the gulf themselves. Some churches tend to water down the message of Christ by placing a lot of emphasis on rules & regulations, making us think that we can earn our own way. But that is not the message that Jesus brought & lived out.
Ok, much can be said on that, but i'm done. Hopefully i made my point.
We attended the "other" Lutheran church last week. We like it. It is warm & friendly. But we are not at the point of wanting to join a church, even on a regular basis.
I don't handle "authority" or politics well. When i worked hospital, i found them to be very political. I tried to make sure that i worked mostly when administration & management was NOT on premises (evening shifts). I liked to do my job & do it well without being sucked into the political management bull that often got in the way of doing a good job. I did my best when i worked 3 different hospitals part-time. I was able to go & work with folks i liked doing work i liked. I heard their stories & complaints. When i left at the end of the shift my work was done or passed on to the next shift (very good for a procrastinator like myself). I also got to leave the office politics behind. Walk away. Because it didn't effect me. The worst mistake i ever made was to go full-time at one hospital. Because then i was in the same mire day after day & it DID effect me.
I'm feeling the same way about joining a church at this time. People are frequently wishing us luck or blessings in "finding a home," but at this point that is NOT what we are looking for. I have too much difficulty with too many of the doctrines in the churches. If we visit on a weekend & they preach the Gospel, then i'm not involved in their doctrine or politics. Now, i know that this sounds like i'm copping out, but it is simply where i am at the moment. We seek fellowship with other believers & to worship in a church that preaches the Gospel. But i do NOT want to get involved in doctrine/politics. If we find a church that needs help on an issue, we will try to help. If we can join in an ecumenical group that is trying to _____________ (feed the hungry, house the homeless, provide) we will likely try to help. It is not that we are not willing to work, but that we are not willing to align with a particular doctrine at this point.
Truth is too, we've not made many friends here with whom to socialize. We may see folks in a restaurant or at the store & chat with them, but that is not, to me, a satisfying relationship. I'm hoping that by going to several different churches we can make some friends that cut across denominational ties. Maybe that is why i'm "seeking" Big Bear bloggers, too. :)
Have a blessed Sunday.
39
13 August 2010
Some Thoughts
This has been rather a difficult week & i never responded to the comments on my last post. I so appreciate comments. I try to respond to them, but don't always manage.
For Mr. Geezer, commenting on the Catholic church, i appreciate your point of view. I understand what you are saying. It is, largely, the view my own mother had of that church.
However, God uses all things to draw folks to him. In my blog reading i've come across several bloggers of the the Roman Catholic flavor, & the ones i choose to follow have terrific faith. In fact, quite frankly, i've much to learn from them. The depths of their faith is sometimes astounding to me. My own husband (not a blogger, he's got 4 total posts at his blog, i wrote one) is Catholic-raised & has terrific faith. When he ran up against some of these extra-biblical doctrines, he questioned the teacher. When he was given inadequate answers, he rejected the doctrines but continued his faith.
I very much appreciate your point:
However, i believe this to be true for ALL churches. Not just Catholics fall into this trap that believing that "being good" or following doctrine, laws, rules or other ordinances set by a church will "save" them. That said, i do believe that God calls his people & that God can use all translations of the Bible to do so. Yes, some translations can have certain slants we may not agree with, but God can still use it. His Word does not return void.
Also, not just Catholics fall into the problem of having doctrine that is unscriptural. Just about every church out there tends to put more emphasis on one point of scripture over another one. Sometimes it is a mild diversion, sometimes it is a dangerous one.
We have, i believe, much to thank the Catholic church for. From the beginning of Christianity we had only the Eastern Orthodox & Roman Catholic churches. The Catholic church maintained our scriptures & teachings for 1500 years. Yes, much was done in the name of the church that was unholy, to say the least, & their doctrine took a turn that most Protestants do not accept. But the scripture was still there, waiting for us to return to it & study what was said. And it was there because of the Catholic church maintaining it thru the years.
I don't draw lines anymore saying "This church is 'Christian' & this church is not." I try to learn from the teaching. Everyone needs to be "evangelized" even if they grew up in a Baptist church. It is too easy to miss God's "narrow path" even if we have found some other narrow path that seems right.
Amrita, as always, thank you for your gentle comments & loving heart. :)
We attended the First Baptist church this last week. In general, we like it pretty well, tho to be honest, as much as i enjoy the Pastor, 60+ minutes of sermon is too much for me. But one thing he said this past week that Duane & i both struggled over was on "The fear of the Lord." He equated fear with trust. We just don't see that. This pastor said, "You trust most the one you fear most." We find a lot of holes in that thought.
I fear our government a lot, but i don't trust it at all.
I fear an out of control gang, or police department, or shark, but i don't trust it.
In reading other blogs on faith & doubt, those that struggle with those issues the most seem to be the ones who came to be a Christian due to their fear of hell or of condemnation.
So i just don't see this point at all. But i've decided that i don't mind sitting in a sermon where i disagree with someone. If the pastor had not said this, i think we would have walked away saying, "That was a good sermon," but not remembered any of it. This stuck it in my mind to study on at a later date.
I wonder if the word "fear" as in "the fear of the Lord" is different than the way we use the term fear today?
38
For Mr. Geezer, commenting on the Catholic church, i appreciate your point of view. I understand what you are saying. It is, largely, the view my own mother had of that church.
However, God uses all things to draw folks to him. In my blog reading i've come across several bloggers of the the Roman Catholic flavor, & the ones i choose to follow have terrific faith. In fact, quite frankly, i've much to learn from them. The depths of their faith is sometimes astounding to me. My own husband (not a blogger, he's got 4 total posts at his blog, i wrote one) is Catholic-raised & has terrific faith. When he ran up against some of these extra-biblical doctrines, he questioned the teacher. When he was given inadequate answers, he rejected the doctrines but continued his faith.
I very much appreciate your point:
Catholics need to be evangelized. They need to hear the true Gospel. They need to hear that they are not made right before God by being in a church, or by being baptized, but by receiving Christ . . .
However, i believe this to be true for ALL churches. Not just Catholics fall into this trap that believing that "being good" or following doctrine, laws, rules or other ordinances set by a church will "save" them. That said, i do believe that God calls his people & that God can use all translations of the Bible to do so. Yes, some translations can have certain slants we may not agree with, but God can still use it. His Word does not return void.
Also, not just Catholics fall into the problem of having doctrine that is unscriptural. Just about every church out there tends to put more emphasis on one point of scripture over another one. Sometimes it is a mild diversion, sometimes it is a dangerous one.
We have, i believe, much to thank the Catholic church for. From the beginning of Christianity we had only the Eastern Orthodox & Roman Catholic churches. The Catholic church maintained our scriptures & teachings for 1500 years. Yes, much was done in the name of the church that was unholy, to say the least, & their doctrine took a turn that most Protestants do not accept. But the scripture was still there, waiting for us to return to it & study what was said. And it was there because of the Catholic church maintaining it thru the years.
I don't draw lines anymore saying "This church is 'Christian' & this church is not." I try to learn from the teaching. Everyone needs to be "evangelized" even if they grew up in a Baptist church. It is too easy to miss God's "narrow path" even if we have found some other narrow path that seems right.
Amrita, as always, thank you for your gentle comments & loving heart. :)
We attended the First Baptist church this last week. In general, we like it pretty well, tho to be honest, as much as i enjoy the Pastor, 60+ minutes of sermon is too much for me. But one thing he said this past week that Duane & i both struggled over was on "The fear of the Lord." He equated fear with trust. We just don't see that. This pastor said, "You trust most the one you fear most." We find a lot of holes in that thought.
I fear our government a lot, but i don't trust it at all.
I fear an out of control gang, or police department, or shark, but i don't trust it.
In reading other blogs on faith & doubt, those that struggle with those issues the most seem to be the ones who came to be a Christian due to their fear of hell or of condemnation.
So i just don't see this point at all. But i've decided that i don't mind sitting in a sermon where i disagree with someone. If the pastor had not said this, i think we would have walked away saying, "That was a good sermon," but not remembered any of it. This stuck it in my mind to study on at a later date.
I wonder if the word "fear" as in "the fear of the Lord" is different than the way we use the term fear today?
38
07 August 2010
Conversation
Our dear friend JT was here for a while yesterday. He lives a couple of hours away. He came up to help Duane take down the tree that is half gone & needs to come down. They didn't do it, they decided they need equipment (rented) like a lift to work the top of the tree separately. Without that, there would be a good chance that taking down the tree would also take down our front upstairs deck.
So we got to visit.
He was raised Catholic (like Duane) & his wife Protestant (like me). They have been searching for a church. He feels drawn back toward the Catholic church, but is having real issues with it. He spoke to the priest in the parish where they live. He would have so much to have to do before he could return to the Catholic church. His wife had been married before & so she would have to go thru annulment on her previous marriage & they would have to be remarried in the Catholic church. The priest told JT that he would "confess him" but "Only face to face. I have to see your eyes to be sure you are sincere" ! ! !
His wife is confused by the veneration of Mary & praying to the saints.
It seems to me that it is human tendency - & this comes thru so clearly in churches - that we say "This is good" or that or this or whatever, & we slap a coat of varnish on it & call it done. But that is NOT how life is, nor do i believe it to be what God intends for the Christian life to be.
If we have a truly living faith we can't slap varnish on it, or allow it to become petrified, & claim, "This is what God wants of me in my life." Or worse, "This is what God wants of all Christians."
This is not an exact analogy, but think of a tree & the way it grows. It is not usually symmetrical. It is influenced by the availability of water, & how the wind blows. Now, we can make all the trees look alike. Southern California especially is well known for extreme pruning. Often a tree is difficult if not impossible to distinguish the species from the shape of it because the pruning causes it to look nothing like a naturally-grown tree. I do believe that God does allow for some pruning in our lives. But if we followed the pruning of man (the church), we would all be identical, perfectly symmetrical, show trees. I do not believe that is what God would call us to be.
It is stated in the Bible that we are all different members of the body with different jobs to do. But sometimes i think that the different churches are all trying to force us into a mold where we will be identical members.
The Catholic church has a long, long history (& much of it very ugly) & what has happened over time, i think, is that the different things they have "added" have become petrified.
I had a piece of petrified wood as a child. Wood turned to stone thru mineralization. It was fascinating. But even if it had still been part of the tree, it was no longer living. I think that often the church is in danger of falling prey to this.
Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians that he wished the unmarried to remain so, but he did not command it. But by the 4th century, the Church made it a requirement that ordained priests be single. They took what Paul suggested & petrified it into law. By doing so, they condemned some people. Some people may have felt that they were called to priesthood, but not to celibacy. To require this of them meant that they had to force themselves into a mold that God had not required.
The Catholic church has done the same with dogmas of Mary & of the transubstantiation (bread & wine becoming body & blood). What is more, because of the belief around this second dogma, for many years the laity did not receive wine in communion. I've heard two reasons for this: One, wine may have been difficult to obtain in some climates. Two, there was the fear that the laity would spill the "holy blood of Christ." This largely is changed again, & most communicants receive both bread & wine. But if the reason was the second one, again, man has petrified something & made it so "holy" that it i out of reach for the majority of folks.
Now, i'm picking on the Catholic church here, largely because these examples are easy for me to lay out & because that church has the longest history. But essentially all denominational churches have done something similar. When they state, "These are the important things to us" they are in a sense petrifying their stance. This isn't all bad. It is good to say, "This is what i believe."
But there are other churches that take this elsewhere. The Southern Baptist convention, when i was in college (about 1992?) split because there was a branch of the church that was putting much emphasis on what would be a social gospel - that of trying to help people eat & have shelter. The staunchly conservative part of the church wasn't concerned about this - they felt the $$ should go toward more missionaries & building programs. (This, i am sure is a very biased & simplified version of that split.) But what really hit me when i was reading about this at the time, was that soon after that split the Southern Baptist convention was in danger of having another split, this time over the ratifying that a Southern Baptist had to believe in a 24 hour day, 7 day creation. Legalism. Rigidity. No room left for any question or doubt. No room left for humanity.
It seems to me that the Council of Nicaea did all this work for us in 325 with the Nicene Creed:
I guess i will never understand why we need a doctrine beyond this. Many doctrines revolve around things like what will happen, exactly, in "the End Times" & did Noah really take 2 of each of the animals on the Ark, & is Mary sinless (so that she would be an appropriate vessel to mother our Lord).
My question, does it really matter? Won't God work this out to his glory & we will know what we need to know in his presence? Why should we fight about it now?
Much is being said currently about Anne Rice distancing herself from Christianity. I often would like to do that myself. There is so much done in the name of Christ which i truly dislike. I'm very much outside of what is called "Christian culture" & i didn't actually know that Anne Rice had professed Christianity until this began hitting the blogs. All i knew was that she'd written vampire books that i've never read.
The best i've read on this subject so far is Matt from The Church of No People:
More is written there, but this is the part i really like & that convicted me. Much as i'd like to walk away from the title "Christian" it isn't an option. He also said in this post, somewhere, that the term "Christian" was a pejorative when it first began to be used. It still is, of course, but i tend to think that we've changed the reason it is an insult, & not for the better.
He also wrote the post, "Christians of a Dying Breed" that was good & started much interesting debate in the comments.
Then there is this vid: Reasons Why People Don't Go to Church
I'm not promoting this last one. I'm afraid to say i had hoped better things of it. Maybe i'm missing something, but it seemed to be a very shallow rendering of why some people are no longer part of a church. There are reasons, good reasons, serious reasons why even older Christians no longer feel the church to be filling a need or even being relevant to their lives. We are struggling with some of those very reasons.
I do feel that for me the answer is to no longer look to fill my needs so much as to find a place where i can work. Frankly, i've lived much of my life in depression & depression is little more than looking inward. God has healed so much of that & i believe it is time for me to look outward & try to do more. Have been working on that for a few years now. However, that is something i find difficult & it rather backfired on us at the Lutheran church for the whole reason we joined that church was so that we could serve.
37
So we got to visit.
He was raised Catholic (like Duane) & his wife Protestant (like me). They have been searching for a church. He feels drawn back toward the Catholic church, but is having real issues with it. He spoke to the priest in the parish where they live. He would have so much to have to do before he could return to the Catholic church. His wife had been married before & so she would have to go thru annulment on her previous marriage & they would have to be remarried in the Catholic church. The priest told JT that he would "confess him" but "Only face to face. I have to see your eyes to be sure you are sincere" ! ! !
His wife is confused by the veneration of Mary & praying to the saints.
It seems to me that it is human tendency - & this comes thru so clearly in churches - that we say "This is good" or that or this or whatever, & we slap a coat of varnish on it & call it done. But that is NOT how life is, nor do i believe it to be what God intends for the Christian life to be.
If we have a truly living faith we can't slap varnish on it, or allow it to become petrified, & claim, "This is what God wants of me in my life." Or worse, "This is what God wants of all Christians."
This is not an exact analogy, but think of a tree & the way it grows. It is not usually symmetrical. It is influenced by the availability of water, & how the wind blows. Now, we can make all the trees look alike. Southern California especially is well known for extreme pruning. Often a tree is difficult if not impossible to distinguish the species from the shape of it because the pruning causes it to look nothing like a naturally-grown tree. I do believe that God does allow for some pruning in our lives. But if we followed the pruning of man (the church), we would all be identical, perfectly symmetrical, show trees. I do not believe that is what God would call us to be.
It is stated in the Bible that we are all different members of the body with different jobs to do. But sometimes i think that the different churches are all trying to force us into a mold where we will be identical members.
The Catholic church has a long, long history (& much of it very ugly) & what has happened over time, i think, is that the different things they have "added" have become petrified.
I had a piece of petrified wood as a child. Wood turned to stone thru mineralization. It was fascinating. But even if it had still been part of the tree, it was no longer living. I think that often the church is in danger of falling prey to this.
Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians that he wished the unmarried to remain so, but he did not command it. But by the 4th century, the Church made it a requirement that ordained priests be single. They took what Paul suggested & petrified it into law. By doing so, they condemned some people. Some people may have felt that they were called to priesthood, but not to celibacy. To require this of them meant that they had to force themselves into a mold that God had not required.
The Catholic church has done the same with dogmas of Mary & of the transubstantiation (bread & wine becoming body & blood). What is more, because of the belief around this second dogma, for many years the laity did not receive wine in communion. I've heard two reasons for this: One, wine may have been difficult to obtain in some climates. Two, there was the fear that the laity would spill the "holy blood of Christ." This largely is changed again, & most communicants receive both bread & wine. But if the reason was the second one, again, man has petrified something & made it so "holy" that it i out of reach for the majority of folks.
Now, i'm picking on the Catholic church here, largely because these examples are easy for me to lay out & because that church has the longest history. But essentially all denominational churches have done something similar. When they state, "These are the important things to us" they are in a sense petrifying their stance. This isn't all bad. It is good to say, "This is what i believe."
But there are other churches that take this elsewhere. The Southern Baptist convention, when i was in college (about 1992?) split because there was a branch of the church that was putting much emphasis on what would be a social gospel - that of trying to help people eat & have shelter. The staunchly conservative part of the church wasn't concerned about this - they felt the $$ should go toward more missionaries & building programs. (This, i am sure is a very biased & simplified version of that split.) But what really hit me when i was reading about this at the time, was that soon after that split the Southern Baptist convention was in danger of having another split, this time over the ratifying that a Southern Baptist had to believe in a 24 hour day, 7 day creation. Legalism. Rigidity. No room left for any question or doubt. No room left for humanity.
It seems to me that the Council of Nicaea did all this work for us in 325 with the Nicene Creed:
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Amen.
I guess i will never understand why we need a doctrine beyond this. Many doctrines revolve around things like what will happen, exactly, in "the End Times" & did Noah really take 2 of each of the animals on the Ark, & is Mary sinless (so that she would be an appropriate vessel to mother our Lord).
My question, does it really matter? Won't God work this out to his glory & we will know what we need to know in his presence? Why should we fight about it now?
Much is being said currently about Anne Rice distancing herself from Christianity. I often would like to do that myself. There is so much done in the name of Christ which i truly dislike. I'm very much outside of what is called "Christian culture" & i didn't actually know that Anne Rice had professed Christianity until this began hitting the blogs. All i knew was that she'd written vampire books that i've never read.
The best i've read on this subject so far is Matt from The Church of No People:
. . . So as much as I’d like to follow Anne and quit Christianity, while conveniently retaining my faith, I can’t. (And really, neither can Anne.) Christ died for people who annoy the living hell out of me, and it does me no good to dwell on how much some people annoy me. Christ even died for people who would use him for personal gain, and I have nothing to say about it. I hate saying that. But I don’t get to say who Jesus has saved, and I don’t get to stop calling myself a Christian. . . Really, almost all of the pastors and Christians who irritate me are the ones getting all the attention. They are the ones teaching false gospels and protesting funerals, and generally being hateful, and maybe they represent an incredibly small minority of us, and it just gets blown up bigger than it is. I think I’m annoyed the most at Christians because my faith is the most important thing in my life. If it takes such a small number to create the problem, maybe there’s enough of us, the other Christians, to be the solution. . .
More is written there, but this is the part i really like & that convicted me. Much as i'd like to walk away from the title "Christian" it isn't an option. He also said in this post, somewhere, that the term "Christian" was a pejorative when it first began to be used. It still is, of course, but i tend to think that we've changed the reason it is an insult, & not for the better.
He also wrote the post, "Christians of a Dying Breed" that was good & started much interesting debate in the comments.
Then there is this vid: Reasons Why People Don't Go to Church
I'm not promoting this last one. I'm afraid to say i had hoped better things of it. Maybe i'm missing something, but it seemed to be a very shallow rendering of why some people are no longer part of a church. There are reasons, good reasons, serious reasons why even older Christians no longer feel the church to be filling a need or even being relevant to their lives. We are struggling with some of those very reasons.
I do feel that for me the answer is to no longer look to fill my needs so much as to find a place where i can work. Frankly, i've lived much of my life in depression & depression is little more than looking inward. God has healed so much of that & i believe it is time for me to look outward & try to do more. Have been working on that for a few years now. However, that is something i find difficult & it rather backfired on us at the Lutheran church for the whole reason we joined that church was so that we could serve.
37
22 July 2010
More Gossip
Okay, i just have so much more to say about the Lutheran church where we just resigned our membership.
We have recently been hung up on all the negatives, all the weirdness, all the bad from that church. In fact, when i've told people what was said & why i was upset, the question i often get is, "He said what? Why are you still going there?"
I know i've said some of this before, but it needs to be said again. This is why we went there & continued for so long.
When we first visited the church, it was clear to us that G loves Jesus very much. He was passionate about living for God. He was very concerned that people hold to a Biblical authority & not just whatever they feel at the moment. He was very concerned that we not "water down" the Word of God to fit our current culture.
The church wasn't just friendly, it was loving & warm. There was a depth of concern for the members that i've rarely seen in other churches.
Week after week people would be asking about us, & we rarely if ever felt it was a routine inquiry. We felt the folks sincerely cared, as we did too. When someone was missing it was felt by all.
When one of our members lost his home, the church council rallied in a very loving manner, even more so to be sure to spare the member's feelings as much as possible. When the economic downturn happened, we began collecting food weekly. That church does not have the staff or ability to distribute what was brought in, so it was taken to another church that does a routine distribution. However, every week it was said that if anyone in the congregation was in need, that they should avail themselves of the collected food before it was taken elsewhere. Eventually one of the council members suggested that the people who might need it might be too embarrassed to take it for themselves, so the announcement was changed to "If you or anyone you know are in need, please utilize the food brought in. If you know your neighbor is struggling to buy groceries, then please feel free to take food for them."
That church routinely sends flowers to folks who are ill. Not just those in hospital, & not just when they first get sick. There are some who have long term illness & the church remembers them not just at the outset. It was their sending flowers to me that let us know that we had a problem because of their perception of why we were not there.
Every week that church went beyond coffee & donuts to a small brunch-type meal (that meant a lot of work for the women). They very much desired everyone to stay for this fellowship. Also, 3-4 times a year the church would have a potluck meal at the fellowship time. Easter & a Christmas tree trimming were the large ones, but they usually had one or two others as well. This church desired to fellowship with members & visitors.
Every year they have a 3 day Vacation Bible School for the children. I know that is typical in most churches, but most churches have younger women & mamas & often teens to implement the program. I believe the average age of woman attending the Lutheran Church is probably about 62 (& that is a low average because of me & maybe 2 others others). Most of the women doing a VBS are 70 or older.
G, the pastor, was able to be very compassionate to those in grief or stress. He deeply desired to comfort those who were hurting.
We prefer a liturgical church & that form of worship. This church has liturgy, tho not the exact liturgy to which we are accustomed. Liturgy fills a need in me that i have not found in other forms of worship.
Also, & this cannot be overlooked, being part of a church that the doctrine does not fit where we are at sharpened us. Toward the end of our being there, nearly every week we spent our drive to OC discussing what had been said, whether we thought it Biblical or not, & whether we felt he was taking verses out of context. This, far more than a Bible study where everyone agrees on all points, helped us to grow more than anything else i can imagine.
So, while we struggle with the harshness & the things we see so glaringly wrong, i do want to keep all the good in mind. These are the reasons we stayed so long, & these are the reasons it is difficult to leave.
36
We have recently been hung up on all the negatives, all the weirdness, all the bad from that church. In fact, when i've told people what was said & why i was upset, the question i often get is, "He said what? Why are you still going there?"
I know i've said some of this before, but it needs to be said again. This is why we went there & continued for so long.
When we first visited the church, it was clear to us that G loves Jesus very much. He was passionate about living for God. He was very concerned that people hold to a Biblical authority & not just whatever they feel at the moment. He was very concerned that we not "water down" the Word of God to fit our current culture.
The church wasn't just friendly, it was loving & warm. There was a depth of concern for the members that i've rarely seen in other churches.
Week after week people would be asking about us, & we rarely if ever felt it was a routine inquiry. We felt the folks sincerely cared, as we did too. When someone was missing it was felt by all.
When one of our members lost his home, the church council rallied in a very loving manner, even more so to be sure to spare the member's feelings as much as possible. When the economic downturn happened, we began collecting food weekly. That church does not have the staff or ability to distribute what was brought in, so it was taken to another church that does a routine distribution. However, every week it was said that if anyone in the congregation was in need, that they should avail themselves of the collected food before it was taken elsewhere. Eventually one of the council members suggested that the people who might need it might be too embarrassed to take it for themselves, so the announcement was changed to "If you or anyone you know are in need, please utilize the food brought in. If you know your neighbor is struggling to buy groceries, then please feel free to take food for them."
That church routinely sends flowers to folks who are ill. Not just those in hospital, & not just when they first get sick. There are some who have long term illness & the church remembers them not just at the outset. It was their sending flowers to me that let us know that we had a problem because of their perception of why we were not there.
Every week that church went beyond coffee & donuts to a small brunch-type meal (that meant a lot of work for the women). They very much desired everyone to stay for this fellowship. Also, 3-4 times a year the church would have a potluck meal at the fellowship time. Easter & a Christmas tree trimming were the large ones, but they usually had one or two others as well. This church desired to fellowship with members & visitors.
Every year they have a 3 day Vacation Bible School for the children. I know that is typical in most churches, but most churches have younger women & mamas & often teens to implement the program. I believe the average age of woman attending the Lutheran Church is probably about 62 (& that is a low average because of me & maybe 2 others others). Most of the women doing a VBS are 70 or older.
G, the pastor, was able to be very compassionate to those in grief or stress. He deeply desired to comfort those who were hurting.
We prefer a liturgical church & that form of worship. This church has liturgy, tho not the exact liturgy to which we are accustomed. Liturgy fills a need in me that i have not found in other forms of worship.
Also, & this cannot be overlooked, being part of a church that the doctrine does not fit where we are at sharpened us. Toward the end of our being there, nearly every week we spent our drive to OC discussing what had been said, whether we thought it Biblical or not, & whether we felt he was taking verses out of context. This, far more than a Bible study where everyone agrees on all points, helped us to grow more than anything else i can imagine.
So, while we struggle with the harshness & the things we see so glaringly wrong, i do want to keep all the good in mind. These are the reasons we stayed so long, & these are the reasons it is difficult to leave.
36
20 July 2010
Thinking trivial things
Gossip: 1. idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others 2. light, familiar talk or writing 3. (gossiper) a person given to tattling or idle talk 4. (British) godparent 5. (Archaic) a friend, esp. a woman
babble, chitchat, defamation, hearsay, idle talk, malicious talk, meddling, rumor, scandal, scuttlebutt, slander, small talk, busybody, gossipmonger, snoop, talebearer, tattler
(The last definition - 5 - makes sense as i've often read in older books like Dickens about the "old gossips" indicating women probably engaged in idle talk, but it makes sense that the word would take its current meaning if the women were given to idle talk when friends got together.)
I'm still really struggling to "let go." It probably will be a while for me as we are people who have been very involved in church, it has occupied much of our thought & lives, & letting go of that won't be an easy thing. But it has occurred to me that to say much more about it is gossip. I have lots of theories & things to say, but they are not profitable.
I ran into a dear friend yesterday when i was in town. Elke came here from Germany as a child, so she is very Lutheran. However, she said that she's stopped going to church. The pamphlet i copied in a previous post was passed out at church. It made her angry. She said "That's not what church is about!" And, "He (G) doesn't have the right to do that!" Except, of course, he does. He is implementing some old rules that most of the LCMS churches no longer follow (Elke says that when she went thru confirmation she was encouraged to visit other churches to learn about how other churches choose to do things). But those old rules are still on the books & G has chosen to enforce them (in our opinion, in order to strengthen his rule & set fear in parishioners, but that may be my lack of charity speaking).
I told Elke that Duane & i want to start a Bible Study & she's interested. So that's good. However, she is also a busy person, frequently on the go. So, while she'd love to come & participate, i don't think commitment would be a part of it for her. Still, it is a good place to begin. (Although i have to admit that i hate the idea of starting something & having it peter out.)
We sang this on Sunday. I've always liked this song. It is repeating in my head, but i don't find it irritating as repeated music often tends to be. I really, really liked the music on Sunday. They sang some very easy to sing hymns & also a couple of praise songs. They had MUSIC in that church with a choir & all. I'm not running down "praise bands." I used to love staying for the music at St. James when the praise band led. (They called those of us who stayed from the more traditional service that had been held earlier, MOs - music only, 'cause we left when the music was done.)
But nothing that we've seen in church hopping has the heart in it like the St. James folks had. I'd forgotten how much i loved singing in a church that really knows music until we visited the Methodist church on Sunday. It also was incorporated into the service, not a "preliminary to the preaching" as is so often done in Protestant churches these days.
Somehow the way churches have developed/evolved where they have all the music at the beginning & then a long, long sermon seems to have lost heart, for me. Maybe it is just that i don't know most of the praise music they are singing now. But it also seems to have lost a lot of the "flow" that services used to have. The Baptist church Duane likes is really foreign to me. They don't even have a closing hymn. The pastor kind of says, "Bless you this week," after his prayer & we're done. Now, i'm not running down this form of service. It works for a lot of people (or they don't know what they're missing), but it doesn't work so well for me.
Anyway, just a few thoughts on things that have happened in the past couple of days.
35
babble, chitchat, defamation, hearsay, idle talk, malicious talk, meddling, rumor, scandal, scuttlebutt, slander, small talk, busybody, gossipmonger, snoop, talebearer, tattler
(The last definition - 5 - makes sense as i've often read in older books like Dickens about the "old gossips" indicating women probably engaged in idle talk, but it makes sense that the word would take its current meaning if the women were given to idle talk when friends got together.)
I'm still really struggling to "let go." It probably will be a while for me as we are people who have been very involved in church, it has occupied much of our thought & lives, & letting go of that won't be an easy thing. But it has occurred to me that to say much more about it is gossip. I have lots of theories & things to say, but they are not profitable.
I ran into a dear friend yesterday when i was in town. Elke came here from Germany as a child, so she is very Lutheran. However, she said that she's stopped going to church. The pamphlet i copied in a previous post was passed out at church. It made her angry. She said "That's not what church is about!" And, "He (G) doesn't have the right to do that!" Except, of course, he does. He is implementing some old rules that most of the LCMS churches no longer follow (Elke says that when she went thru confirmation she was encouraged to visit other churches to learn about how other churches choose to do things). But those old rules are still on the books & G has chosen to enforce them (in our opinion, in order to strengthen his rule & set fear in parishioners, but that may be my lack of charity speaking).
I told Elke that Duane & i want to start a Bible Study & she's interested. So that's good. However, she is also a busy person, frequently on the go. So, while she'd love to come & participate, i don't think commitment would be a part of it for her. Still, it is a good place to begin. (Although i have to admit that i hate the idea of starting something & having it peter out.)
Shine Jesus Shine
Lord, the light of your love is shining
In the midst of the darkness, shining
Jesus, light of the world, shine upon us
Set us free by the truth you now bring us
Shine on me, shine on me
Shine Jesus shine
Fill this land with the Father's glory
Blaze Spirit blaze
Set our hearts on fire
Flow river flow
Flood the nations with grace & mercy
Send forth your word Lord
And let there be light
Lord i come to your awesome presence
From the shadows into your radiance
By the blood i may enter your brightness
Search me, try me, consume all my darkness
Shine on me, shine on me.
As we gaze on your kindly brightness
So our faces display your likeness
Ever changing from glory to glory
Mirrored here may our lives tell your story
Shine on me, shine on me
Cliff Richard (? not sure about the credit, he may just have been the artist who preformed this; i also saw Graham Kendrick credited)
We sang this on Sunday. I've always liked this song. It is repeating in my head, but i don't find it irritating as repeated music often tends to be. I really, really liked the music on Sunday. They sang some very easy to sing hymns & also a couple of praise songs. They had MUSIC in that church with a choir & all. I'm not running down "praise bands." I used to love staying for the music at St. James when the praise band led. (They called those of us who stayed from the more traditional service that had been held earlier, MOs - music only, 'cause we left when the music was done.)
But nothing that we've seen in church hopping has the heart in it like the St. James folks had. I'd forgotten how much i loved singing in a church that really knows music until we visited the Methodist church on Sunday. It also was incorporated into the service, not a "preliminary to the preaching" as is so often done in Protestant churches these days.
Somehow the way churches have developed/evolved where they have all the music at the beginning & then a long, long sermon seems to have lost heart, for me. Maybe it is just that i don't know most of the praise music they are singing now. But it also seems to have lost a lot of the "flow" that services used to have. The Baptist church Duane likes is really foreign to me. They don't even have a closing hymn. The pastor kind of says, "Bless you this week," after his prayer & we're done. Now, i'm not running down this form of service. It works for a lot of people (or they don't know what they're missing), but it doesn't work so well for me.
Anyway, just a few thoughts on things that have happened in the past couple of days.
35
16 July 2010
Just some thoughts
The top pic is of the Santa Ana River as it runs thru Orange County, CA. The dark line running down the middle of that concrete is the actual water. The rest of all that is built is for flood control, when we have a lot of rain. And that concrete area often is FULL during flood season. And it is very dangerous. People who try to negotiate it often lose their lives. The "road" on the left as you look at the pic is a bike path. Folks are allowed to ride their bikes there when the river is low & safe.
The second pic is of the Santa Ana River, near the headwaters. Eva & i were there last week. It is not much more than a little creek at the moment, but i'm sure that during flood season & during the snow-melt, this little thing gets quite full & dangerous as well.
Now, this isn't exactly an apt analogy, but i rather see that what the churches have done with their doctrine & dogma is similar to what we've done to the Santa Ana River. Look at what it is when it is as God created it. Then look at what man has done. We want it to be rigid, not fluid, controllable, not controlling us.
(Please don't misunderstand me. Much of Orange County is a flood plain & had this not been done to the river, many times each decade houses would be flooded or maybe even washed away. In order to build as we did, the river had to be contained. But it is not pretty. It disturbs me, even tho i know something had to be done.)
34
Finale
This is the letter we will most likely be sending out later today:
I'm looking forward to moving on & putting this behind me. I know that i tend to obsess about things & have a hard time letting go. It takes me a while to move on. We want our names off that membership list ASAP for as long as we are listed as "members" we are under their authority, sanction, & discipline & they can claim we are working at "disaffection." Speaking to another member freely would be seen as an attempt to sabotage the church. I want simply to not have that hanging over me.
Duane had me edit this quite a bit. I had it simpler, but he wanted to make sure that this letter is clear - we are apologizing for messing up the title/address used, NOT for the contents of the previous letters. He also had me add the "We're sad that any member . . . " line/paragraph. We had to think about it a lot in order to do that, for we didn't want to look like we were taking parting shots at them (tho of course we're honest to admit between us that is exactly what we WANT to do).
Looking forward to new adventures! And may they be a little less "interesting" than this one turned out to be.
I'm probably not done with writing about LCMS background, however. I find that the history of that church is, i believe, poisonous. I'm leaning toward rejecting most organized church doctrine. The believers in the early church did not have big, fancy buildings, detailed dogma, or the other trappings we've come to see as "church." They got together, studied what scripture they had, praised & worshiped God, & celebrated together.
I've long said that i believe the statements of the Nicene creed & don't think we should be adding more. The idea that believing in a 7-24 hour creation, or whether Jesus will return "pre- mid- or post- tribulation" or any other "set in stone" belief churches have set out has anything to do with a real walk with God is ludicrous to me. Also, i was taught in school, many years ago, that we look at the base of what the different churches teach. If they are based on the very basics of what is accepted as Christianity, that the rest of the things they add on the foundation are merely window dressing. (Although, the history of LCMS is that if you do not believe exactly as they do in every particular, then you are "in error." I hate such rigidity.) Of course, that was before the homosexuality issue was so at the fore. Also, many churches still bear the name of Christ, & may even say the creeds, but what they believe & teach doesn't really align with that.
Thoughts for another day.
33
16 July 2010
The Reverend G (Last Name)
Elders of the Church
Congregation members
SITP Lutheran Church
Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
Dear Pastor (Last Name), the Elders of SITP, and Church Body -
We sincerely apologize for the appearance of disrespect in our recent letters when we neglected to properly use the title of “Pastor.” We intended no disrespect whatsoever. Neither of us was raised in a church where the title “Pastor” was used as a formal address, so the appearance of disrespect due to the lack of this title was in no way intentional. Please forgive this oversight on our part.
We are sad that any member of the congregation would be treated in the manner which we have experienced in this situation.
In light of the letter sent and the pamphlet presented on LCMS's stand on “close communion,” as well as other issues within the SITP body, it is very apparent to us that SITP is not where we feel the Lord would have us worship. Please know that we appreciate the Pastor, the elders, the council, and the members of the congregation, and love you all very much. Our time at SITP has helped us to grow and has stretched us and strengthened our faith. We thank you and you will remain in our prayers.
We formally request that our names be removed from your membership rolls.
Sincerely & with the Love of Christ,
Mr. and Mrs. Duane D
cc: the elders
I'm looking forward to moving on & putting this behind me. I know that i tend to obsess about things & have a hard time letting go. It takes me a while to move on. We want our names off that membership list ASAP for as long as we are listed as "members" we are under their authority, sanction, & discipline & they can claim we are working at "disaffection." Speaking to another member freely would be seen as an attempt to sabotage the church. I want simply to not have that hanging over me.
Duane had me edit this quite a bit. I had it simpler, but he wanted to make sure that this letter is clear - we are apologizing for messing up the title/address used, NOT for the contents of the previous letters. He also had me add the "We're sad that any member . . . " line/paragraph. We had to think about it a lot in order to do that, for we didn't want to look like we were taking parting shots at them (tho of course we're honest to admit between us that is exactly what we WANT to do).
Looking forward to new adventures! And may they be a little less "interesting" than this one turned out to be.
I'm probably not done with writing about LCMS background, however. I find that the history of that church is, i believe, poisonous. I'm leaning toward rejecting most organized church doctrine. The believers in the early church did not have big, fancy buildings, detailed dogma, or the other trappings we've come to see as "church." They got together, studied what scripture they had, praised & worshiped God, & celebrated together.
I've long said that i believe the statements of the Nicene creed & don't think we should be adding more. The idea that believing in a 7-24 hour creation, or whether Jesus will return "pre- mid- or post- tribulation" or any other "set in stone" belief churches have set out has anything to do with a real walk with God is ludicrous to me. Also, i was taught in school, many years ago, that we look at the base of what the different churches teach. If they are based on the very basics of what is accepted as Christianity, that the rest of the things they add on the foundation are merely window dressing. (Although, the history of LCMS is that if you do not believe exactly as they do in every particular, then you are "in error." I hate such rigidity.) Of course, that was before the homosexuality issue was so at the fore. Also, many churches still bear the name of Christ, & may even say the creeds, but what they believe & teach doesn't really align with that.
Thoughts for another day.
33
13 July 2010
More info
Duane & i were talking again yesterday about the church issue. He had been tired Sunday PM & took a long nap, so he didn't sleep much Sunday night. Monday AM very early (about 2.30) he got up & wrote another letter.
While i was leaning toward a brief response to the letter, his was long & detailed. But very good. Also, i tend toward more formal language in a letter of that sort. It was obvious to me that the second letter came from him & not me.
But in talking this over, i said to Duane, "My gut reaction ever since the letter arrived is that you should call R (the elder who sent the letter) & speak to him directly." Duane thought that a good idea & almost immediately picked up the phone. I did slow him down & asked him, "What is our motivation for this? What are we hoping to accomplish by this?"
Duane felt that largely his motivation is that this does not happen again. We both agree that we are strong in our faith & able to handle this (yes, of course, with God's help), but that someone newer/weaker in faith might not. He wants to be sure this isn't repeated.
So Duane called, & was on the phone with R for more than an hour & a half.
Much was said, probably more than i know, for Duane was outside (having trouble with reception on his phone). I can't begin to hit all the things Duane has mentioned, but here are the highlights.
The reason we were disrespectful "to the dignity of the Pastoral office"? Because we did not address G as "Pastor." ! ! !
Nothing we said gained much response. It was leaving out the title. I will admit, honestly, that i decided not to send the letter to "The Reverend G ____." However, i've never thought of the word "pastor" as a proper title. Evidently the elders went on & on about our disrespect in not using that title/word.
Duane said that had we simply sent another letter trying even more to explain, nothing would have been done, for they were all caught up in our disrespect & not seeing anything more.
Duane also had to have such a long conversation because he kept having to diffuse the defensiveness toward their position. But he is very good at this. He kept - not being defensive - but "on the defensive" by working very hard at not fighting, not hitting back, not going on the offensive. He said, over & over, about the respect/disrespect issue, "That was my mistake. I prayed over the content of the letter & missed the address." When Duane would say something like, "Well that's your job as an elder," R would respond, "Don't tell me my job! I know what my job is!" Duane would have to say, "You're right! I don't know your job. I was assuming."
Eventually it worked. R let lose of most of the defensiveness although it popped up from time to time, still. R admitted that he was "voted down" - for what exactly we're not sure - but the idea came across that he wanted to have us in & discuss this to try to find out what was behind it. Instead, he was instructed to send us the letter.
The reason the letter was so garbled? R tried to keep notes at the meeting on the salient points he was told to cover & the resulting mess was simply typed directly from his notes. That takes a bit of air out of our sails about the "disrespect" we felt was sent to us in that letter, because to say that in a general letter now will simply make him look, um, stupid.
Anyway, Duane shared how that we were hurt that G simply told *me* in a phone call that he'd heard the gossip that we were attending other churches, was that true? When i confirmed it, he said we could no longer take communion there. Nothing was said about how to resolve this issues, therefore, it became permanent at that point. Also, no one asked if we had taken communion elsewhere. R said that that wasn't right & that they "didn't meant to hurt us."
At some point R said that his daughter (who is in her late 30s?) had seen us at another church.
Duane asked him, "Has she been told that she can't take communion at SITP then?"
"Um, no."
"Well, if she saw us at another church, i assume she was at another church."
(Yeah, but that's different.)
What the up & down of this became was that we were considered "leadership" & therefore G decided to make an example of us. The whole congregation was given that pamphlet i posted previously. (And had we received it at an earlier time, we would have revoked our membership long ago.)
Duane was blunt with R. Told him that the church has not been practicing "close communion" even if they claim it. He said that it is either one or another. He called it "entrapment" if you practice "close communion" but invite anyone in the congregation to participate. (R has a background in law enforcement & Duane frequently deliberately used terms he would relate to). The intent of the pamphlet is that only members of LCMS or churches that they "recognize" are free to take communion. All churches that are not "recognized" are considered in error & LCMS considers it extremely offensive if not outright sin to participate in communion with such folks. Ok, my sister from the ECLA Lutheran church has taken communion - in direct contradiction to the LCMS standard. Also my Catholic in-laws & my Baptist parents. Probably a few others as well. Because we never knew. And, R told Duane that because we were "leadership" we were held to "a higher standard than the congregation. And when you break a law, even if you didn't know about that law, you are still responsible for the consequences."
But R recognized exactly what Duane was saying in that you can't invite anyone to communion & then still call it "close." Not that it's going to make a difference for us.
Duane also pointed out that "Pastor" frequently uses unsubstantiated urban myths in his sermons, but doesn't check them out. We have at least 3 times now found that things he claims to have been true have no basis in fact (& often are outright fabrications - tho not created by G). But he presents them as fact & often as if they are Biblical.
Duane got nowhere with the charges of "unscriptural teaching." He was told, "You need to bring that up with Pastor. That is a matter between you & him." ! ! !
In other words, no one is going to hold him accountable for these things.
It was clear to Duane in many ways that G is simply leading them by their noses & telling them what to think & how to respond.
However, he was able to say all the things he felt important to be said. He feels that something like this will not be handled in the same manner in the future. And that maybe he planted a few seeds for listening to being headed in the wrong direction. Maybe. He also told R that we feel something is wrong with G, that we see clear signs of depression & fear. (The beginning of the conversation between Duane & i before the call to R was "Do you think G has a brain tumor? His behavior has been so erratic & bizarre.") Duane had to spell out the ways we have seen/experienced G's depression, fear, & irrational responses.
R had a tendency to say, "Yes, Pastor tends to get excited & say things that might not be exactly right. He's human too." And, the expected, "He is so educated & intelligent. He must know what he's talking about, even if he gets a bit over-excited."
Anyway, we've said what needed to be said, planted what seeds we can, done as much as we can. Maybe it will make a difference.
From this point we will probably just send a simple letter apologizing for the "offense" of leaving out the title "pastor" & asking our names be removed from the membership list. Not much else for us to do. (I think that G is doing a "wag the dog" response in that their focus was on the lack of the title "Pastor" when our charges was that he has begun teaching things which are not unscriptural. However, maybe i'm just lacking in charity there.)
I'm glad that Duane called. It went a long way toward smoothing things over. We feel as good as we can about this. I definitely agree with Kathi's comment that it is sad how churches hurt people. And i'm definitely questioning the wisdom about having/belonging to an "organized church." I'll probably revisit that at a later time.
Several times during this conversation (i was not listening or even close by, but from time to time i would hear some of it as i was doing other things) i thanked God for my dear, Godly husband, head of our household, & willing to take this bull by the horns.
Thank you all for listening & walking thru this with us, your comments & support. We are not "hurting." We are sad. No more, i think. This hasn't harmed us. I can't speak for the other folks in that church.
32
While i was leaning toward a brief response to the letter, his was long & detailed. But very good. Also, i tend toward more formal language in a letter of that sort. It was obvious to me that the second letter came from him & not me.
But in talking this over, i said to Duane, "My gut reaction ever since the letter arrived is that you should call R (the elder who sent the letter) & speak to him directly." Duane thought that a good idea & almost immediately picked up the phone. I did slow him down & asked him, "What is our motivation for this? What are we hoping to accomplish by this?"
Duane felt that largely his motivation is that this does not happen again. We both agree that we are strong in our faith & able to handle this (yes, of course, with God's help), but that someone newer/weaker in faith might not. He wants to be sure this isn't repeated.
So Duane called, & was on the phone with R for more than an hour & a half.
Much was said, probably more than i know, for Duane was outside (having trouble with reception on his phone). I can't begin to hit all the things Duane has mentioned, but here are the highlights.
The reason we were disrespectful "to the dignity of the Pastoral office"? Because we did not address G as "Pastor." ! ! !
Nothing we said gained much response. It was leaving out the title. I will admit, honestly, that i decided not to send the letter to "The Reverend G ____." However, i've never thought of the word "pastor" as a proper title. Evidently the elders went on & on about our disrespect in not using that title/word.
Duane said that had we simply sent another letter trying even more to explain, nothing would have been done, for they were all caught up in our disrespect & not seeing anything more.
Duane also had to have such a long conversation because he kept having to diffuse the defensiveness toward their position. But he is very good at this. He kept - not being defensive - but "on the defensive" by working very hard at not fighting, not hitting back, not going on the offensive. He said, over & over, about the respect/disrespect issue, "That was my mistake. I prayed over the content of the letter & missed the address." When Duane would say something like, "Well that's your job as an elder," R would respond, "Don't tell me my job! I know what my job is!" Duane would have to say, "You're right! I don't know your job. I was assuming."
Eventually it worked. R let lose of most of the defensiveness although it popped up from time to time, still. R admitted that he was "voted down" - for what exactly we're not sure - but the idea came across that he wanted to have us in & discuss this to try to find out what was behind it. Instead, he was instructed to send us the letter.
The reason the letter was so garbled? R tried to keep notes at the meeting on the salient points he was told to cover & the resulting mess was simply typed directly from his notes. That takes a bit of air out of our sails about the "disrespect" we felt was sent to us in that letter, because to say that in a general letter now will simply make him look, um, stupid.
Anyway, Duane shared how that we were hurt that G simply told *me* in a phone call that he'd heard the gossip that we were attending other churches, was that true? When i confirmed it, he said we could no longer take communion there. Nothing was said about how to resolve this issues, therefore, it became permanent at that point. Also, no one asked if we had taken communion elsewhere. R said that that wasn't right & that they "didn't meant to hurt us."
At some point R said that his daughter (who is in her late 30s?) had seen us at another church.
Duane asked him, "Has she been told that she can't take communion at SITP then?"
"Um, no."
"Well, if she saw us at another church, i assume she was at another church."
(Yeah, but that's different.)
What the up & down of this became was that we were considered "leadership" & therefore G decided to make an example of us. The whole congregation was given that pamphlet i posted previously. (And had we received it at an earlier time, we would have revoked our membership long ago.)
Duane was blunt with R. Told him that the church has not been practicing "close communion" even if they claim it. He said that it is either one or another. He called it "entrapment" if you practice "close communion" but invite anyone in the congregation to participate. (R has a background in law enforcement & Duane frequently deliberately used terms he would relate to). The intent of the pamphlet is that only members of LCMS or churches that they "recognize" are free to take communion. All churches that are not "recognized" are considered in error & LCMS considers it extremely offensive if not outright sin to participate in communion with such folks. Ok, my sister from the ECLA Lutheran church has taken communion - in direct contradiction to the LCMS standard. Also my Catholic in-laws & my Baptist parents. Probably a few others as well. Because we never knew. And, R told Duane that because we were "leadership" we were held to "a higher standard than the congregation. And when you break a law, even if you didn't know about that law, you are still responsible for the consequences."
But R recognized exactly what Duane was saying in that you can't invite anyone to communion & then still call it "close." Not that it's going to make a difference for us.
Duane also pointed out that "Pastor" frequently uses unsubstantiated urban myths in his sermons, but doesn't check them out. We have at least 3 times now found that things he claims to have been true have no basis in fact (& often are outright fabrications - tho not created by G). But he presents them as fact & often as if they are Biblical.
Duane got nowhere with the charges of "unscriptural teaching." He was told, "You need to bring that up with Pastor. That is a matter between you & him." ! ! !
In other words, no one is going to hold him accountable for these things.
It was clear to Duane in many ways that G is simply leading them by their noses & telling them what to think & how to respond.
However, he was able to say all the things he felt important to be said. He feels that something like this will not be handled in the same manner in the future. And that maybe he planted a few seeds for listening to being headed in the wrong direction. Maybe. He also told R that we feel something is wrong with G, that we see clear signs of depression & fear. (The beginning of the conversation between Duane & i before the call to R was "Do you think G has a brain tumor? His behavior has been so erratic & bizarre.") Duane had to spell out the ways we have seen/experienced G's depression, fear, & irrational responses.
R had a tendency to say, "Yes, Pastor tends to get excited & say things that might not be exactly right. He's human too." And, the expected, "He is so educated & intelligent. He must know what he's talking about, even if he gets a bit over-excited."
Anyway, we've said what needed to be said, planted what seeds we can, done as much as we can. Maybe it will make a difference.
From this point we will probably just send a simple letter apologizing for the "offense" of leaving out the title "pastor" & asking our names be removed from the membership list. Not much else for us to do. (I think that G is doing a "wag the dog" response in that their focus was on the lack of the title "Pastor" when our charges was that he has begun teaching things which are not unscriptural. However, maybe i'm just lacking in charity there.)
I'm glad that Duane called. It went a long way toward smoothing things over. We feel as good as we can about this. I definitely agree with Kathi's comment that it is sad how churches hurt people. And i'm definitely questioning the wisdom about having/belonging to an "organized church." I'll probably revisit that at a later time.
Several times during this conversation (i was not listening or even close by, but from time to time i would hear some of it as i was doing other things) i thanked God for my dear, Godly husband, head of our household, & willing to take this bull by the horns.
Thank you all for listening & walking thru this with us, your comments & support. We are not "hurting." We are sad. No more, i think. This hasn't harmed us. I can't speak for the other folks in that church.
32
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Kathryn
- Wife, wanted to be a mama - not going to happen, massage therapist, child of God. I can be emailed at: 4Kat2009@gmail.com