I looked for love

The New Faith

2012-01-01T14:02:00.000-08:00

In [a] sense, very few people today ever trust in god. Very few people ever voluntarily put themselves in a position where, if their prayers are unanswered, or if god otherwise fails to act, they will suffer a physical or financial harm. Sure, they will pray, but it will always be in addition to doing whatever common sense, or science, tells them to do. This renders the outcome of the prayers completely irrelevant . . .

  For example, whenever anybody is sick, they would unlikely be so foolhardy as to put their money on god in lieu of medical science. They may pray on the side, as a harmless, cost-free way of doubling down, but no way in hell would a rational person ignore their surgeon in favor of just prayer. Such rational people do not “trust in god.” His existence or nonexistence is rendered irrelevant by the medical advice they follow.

InGod We (Do Not) Trust

This was written by an atheist, so i suppose it is not surprising that the writer equivocates trust in God with being mindless. But i do think they have a point about trust and science. In my opinion, most Christians these days have replaced trust in God with trust in medical science.

Maybe this wouldn't be bad if there was something to trust in medical science. The fact is, however, that most of what passes as “medical science” is a mishmash of politically-driven interest. “Medicine” as it passes today is big business. The fact that most drug studies are highly biased for the drug company and are tainted at every step of the process is overlooked by the very people who are suppose to be protecting the consumers. Properly prescribed medications kill over 100,000 people a year, and conventional medicine kills over 700,000 people a year – all legally. But you never hear of this. You DO hear on the rare occasion that something alternative creates a problem. That becomes big news. The media will tell you that alternative treatments are not safe. They are claiming that Steve Jobs was killed because he used alternative medicine. A friend wrote (Mellowsong's entry) that she felt that SJ didn't properly use either alternative or conventional medicine, and that was the problem. I think this is an accurate assessment.

My inditement of the above article written by an atheist is that the writer seems to put as much blind trust in science as he accuses Christians of having in God. His faith in science is misplaced, i believe.

I do not think Christians should be mindless. There are some conventional treatments which i suppose are needed, especially if the person is not willing to make changes in diet and environment that will help to fight their disease. But this means the person in question needs to be responsible to research treatments and not blindly trust “My doctor says . . . ” First off, doctors are not some great, infallible prophet. Second, most of the research in which they trust has been skewed and should not be trusted. Third, in this day of easy access to alternatives, this is much easier to do. It is hard, i admit, because there is so much available to read that you can be overwhelmed by the amount of info. I don't think this excuses us from being responsible for our own decisions and choosing not to capitulate to the decision of a doctor.

We have thousands of years of experience with natural, God-given plants, minerals, and vitamins in this world which treat illness and heal. But this doesn't make big money for the doctors and hospitals – or the drug companies. Instead, the scientists play with these natural things until they can create a synthetic substitute that they can then patent and sell. While these synthetic substances do seem to work more quickly than the natural one (and in our culture especially, “quick” relief is valued above all else), these synthetic drugs have a myriad of problems. First off, our body does not utilize them as well as the natural substance and as a result, the synthetic has a host of severe reactions and side effects. These can be sudden and quick (such as anaphylactic shock) or long term (such as muscle weakness or liver damage).

One example: There is evidence that calcium fluoride can help build strong teeth – if taken in very limited doses. The industry of fertilizer and other manufacturing processes had a huge surplus of very toxic sodium fluoride or other related fluorides. This type of fluoride is found nowhere in nature. But the theory (studies to back this were never completed because the results were so contrary to the theory) was that if calcium fluoride would be good, sodium fluoride would be as well. The industries could save huge amounts of money by selling this substance to the water districts and thus not have to deal with this very toxic chemical waste. However – it is still a chemical waste and if the water districts spill this stuff while they are adding it to the water, a Hazmat team has to be called in to handle the disposal of it. We want this in our water? And yet, the majority of Americans believe it when they are told that fluoride is healthy for us.

The American Medical Association was created with the specific goal to weed out all competition to their interests. Heroic medicine was already in place at that time, but the goals of the AMA were to promote it over any other system. (Don't bother with Wikipedia for the definition of “Heroic medicine.” Their answer is much too incomplete. You could try this Healthwebsite.) Supposedly, the days of heroic medicine - doing much damage to the patient in the meantime - are past, but in my mind much of conventional medicine – especially cancer treatments – are nothing but an updated version of heroic medicine.

So, my big question is why on earth would Christians blindly follow the advice of conventional medical doctors – whose track record in treating patients is really pathetic – instead of researching all possibilities? I strongly believe that nearly all illness we see these days is directly a result of the processed foods people eat, our polluted water and environment, the chemicals used in our homes and workplaces, and the medications so easily taken by people without much thought. It is time to start living as our creator designed us to live, with the good food and water provided, rather than trusting an industry to feed us or treat disease.

I think it strange that the Church (in early days it would have been the Catholic Church as there was no other) chose to fear natural medicine and healing and claim it "witchcraft" and in time has instead chosen to advocate current allopathic, heroic medicine.

This is near and dear to my heart right now as i personally know of three people who are placing their lives in the hands of these medical folks. It is hard for me to bear.

Title

2011-02-26T09:50:00.000-08:00

By that i mean, I looked for love.

Recently i wrote of the death of my grandmother (on my main blog, This 'n That From on the Mountain). I didn't write in great detail because i didn't want to be offensive, but i was honestly perplexed at much of what the family wrote. In my experience, my grandmother did not have much "unconditional love." She disapproved of the religion, actions, and choices of many of her family, and withheld approval and love arbitrarily. She could be very harsh and judgmental.

So many of the things i heard said of her confused me.

But i was told that a cousin - who lived near her while growing up - spoke of that to my sister. She said that yes, our grandmother was harsh and difficult. But at home when their family spoke of it the response was, "Yes, Grandma is that way. But that is how she is and we love her." They accepted her, and loving her was a fact, not conditional on behaviors.

Let me say that i did not experience my grandmother as harsh when i was a child. She was warm and loving. We lived a long way from her from the time i was 8 years old, and when we visited, she made a big to-do about my sisters and myself. It was not until i was a young adult and made choices of which she disapproved (i did not go to college right out of high school) that i experienced the judgement and harshness. I was completely unprepared for her way of dealing with me and to a degree, heartbroken that she would be so hard.

But i also did not live anywhere near her. I had not lived in a day's driving distance since i was 8 years old, and i was never again to live in that part of the country. So i saw her rarely, and after that visit i wasn't anxious to go back again.

I wonder if it would have been different had my family stayed in the South instead of moving 2,000 miles away. I'm not sure it would have, because saying, "That is how she is. We love her anyway" was not the way my family did things. Instead of saying, "that is how" someone else sees and deals with the world, my mother would spend hours agonizing over "what did i do?" and "why would someone respond to/treat me in such a manner?"

As an adult, i can see the limitations of this view. While it taught me a degree of responsibility and saying, "What was my part in this?" "Am i responsible for what just occurred?" it was not a balanced perspective. A balanced perspective would have included something like, "Is that how this person responds to the world? Did i initiate it, or is it something innate within them?" My mother's viewpoint blamed herself (or me, or my sisters) for the behavior of others. This created more pain in relationships than i think needs to be there, than there would be if our views had been a bit more balanced.

Still, i think part of the reason my cousins were able to carve out some relationship with our grandmother thru the years is because they were there. It is hard to build a relationship with someone when you are not present to do that.

When someone has harmed me, i'm not sure it is a matter of forgiveness (tho that comes into it, of course) but that i never really trust them again. I tend to back off.

For the past couple of weeks, the scripture readings have been on the Sermon on the Mount. Last week Tim was talking about love, and how that we are told to do so - we don't have the option of picking and choosing. I heard all of that, even tho i was trying to subdue an almost-4-year-old thru the sermon.

And i was convicted. I was holding my grandmother accountable - i was judging her for not having "unconditional love." But the fact is, neither did i. I essentially said that my love was conditional on her not hurting me or not being harsh.

Now, that is natural, but it is not Christian. Jesus told us to love our enemies and to do good to those who hate us. THAT is what makes Christianity powerful. Tim spoke of Christianity being watered down, but largely i think it is watered down because we do not have that love. As Christians, many of us have fallen into the cultural trap of trying to shield ourselves from hurt or pain. But we are not called to do that, we are called to trust (God) and to love.

I have long heard that "love is an action word" not just a feeling. Sometimes it is hard for me to know how that is to play out. But i know i'm a long way from that. I don't know how much "action" i can take/do, but i can do something.

I have been very aware that i am very lacking in love for others (and tend to be judgmental) and have been praying, praying, praying for more love. I think it is time to stop praying and start doing. (This reminds me of an anecdote in a book, i think was Christy by Catherine Marshall. An old lady spoke of praying to forgive someone for a wrong they had done her. Said she prayed for this for years until she finally decided simply to forgive. Then she did.)

There are a couple of difficult folks in my life (relatives). I've had a distant relationship with them and haven't known how to change that. But i think simply reaching out is one key. I'll probably try to send letters/cards, with no expectation of recriprocation. In the past, if i reached out 3 or 4 times and got no response, i stopped. I think it is time to let go of my ego, and simply work at loving, regardless of the outcome. I think that even with folks who are not difficult for me, i need to do more to let them know i love them.

This is not to say that i'm not still struggling with doubt/faith, and all the rest. Sometimes the way i am and feel in church is simply cognitive dissonance. Wednesdays i often attend an Anglican mass at noon. This week, the simultaneous feelings of doubting whether there is a God and simply wanting to serve him was bizarre. It isn't even ambivalent (which i tend to see as a neutral feeling). It is simply weird. But i HAVE decided that even if it is all bunk, the whole of Christianity is a myth, i desire to live a life that reflects the teachings and love of Christ. It is my desire to live a life that reflects Christ as much as i am able.

I failed my grandmother. That is gone, past, not to be undone now. But i can learn from it and change the way i respond to people in the future.
_________________________

I am very much touched by this post at O Me of Little Faith. This is the type of Christian i want to be, not what our culture perceives Christianity to be.

46

Trust

2011-02-06T08:23:00.000-08:00

Duane and i both like SciFi & some fantasy tv/movies.

I've not watched Smallville from the beginning. Shoot, i didn't even have a tv when that program began. Essentially, i missed the high school years of the program.

This is the last season for the program to run. We were watching an episode last night.

Background: Chloe, a friend of Clark's and many of the other characters, disappeared a while back without giving her friends any explanation. In this episode, she returns but her actions are confusing and it looks as if she is trying to harm her friends. Her actions become more clear as the show progresses, but each of the friends has to make a decision whether or not they will trust her. Clark really struggles with this.

I find this ironic (and the writers probably wrote it with this intention) because throughout the history of the program Clark has often done things without explanation to his friends, expecting them to trust him.

At the end of the program, Clark, realizing how much trust he has required from his friends over time, questions Chloe. He asks how she was able to place so much trust in him. (My recap of this here may not be exact, it went by quickly.) At times Clark lied to his friends, believing they were safer not to know the truth in some cases. Chloe often knew that Clark was lying. He questions how she could trust him regardless, and her response was that she was often able to see thru the lies, knowing he cared for her (and others) and was trying to protect them.

She finishes by saying, "That is the essence of trust in a person, isn't it, that you don't require them to give an explanation?"

I've long been meaning to write about the last book in the Harry Potter series. I recently re-read them. (I know a lot of Christian folks reject these books due to their subject matter. I have a lot to say on this, but that's a post for another day.)

Thru the books, one of Harry's mentors is Professor Dumbledore. At times this mentor has asked things of Harry without explanation. In one of the seven books, Harry has essentially no contact with his mentor, and when he tries to question him at times, Dumbledore ignores the attempt. At the end of that book he explains to Harry that he felt that keeping a distance would protect Harry. But of course, that raised a lot of resentment in Harry from the misunderstanding (of why this mentor would do such a thing).

In the final book, after learning more of his mentor, the info Harry gleans seems to be really contradictory and some of the choices the mentor has made seems to hold little regard for Harry's own life, Harry himself has to make a decision.

Harry really wrestles with the situation. And ultimately, he decides to follow the path he is on, the path set before him by his mentor, even tho much of it does not make sense to him.

Of course, i have much more to say on this, but i'm out of time for now.

Let's just say that my course is to explore this further. Sara's faith makes much more sense to me now, because she trusts that God is good and faithful, even if she doesn't have an explanation for all that has happened to her.

45

Happy New Year

2011-01-03T00:37:00.000-08:00

I've been meaning to write for some time now, but it seems to me that marshaling my thoughts just doesn't come that easily.

First off, i want to share two posts, both by Sara Frankl. Believe. She does. This woman has incredible faith. She places her life in God's hands each and every minute of the day. She begins speaking of the parable in Matthew 20 about the workers who were all paid the same no matter how many hours they labored. This is a parable that Duane and i have often discussed.

But what really hit me most in this post by Sara is where she says, "I'll have what she's having, please." If anyone could be discontented, it is Sara. But Sara spends her time reminding herself (thru her moment by moment pain) that she doesn't dictate to God and that God is good, all the time. As always, i stand in awe of her faith. Because i frequently want to say, "I'll have what she's having, please." (She writes this much more clearly than i'm saying here.)

The second, also by Sara, is Praise. Frankly, i struggle with the idea that God is good, all the time.

My word for 2011 is Acceptance.   I'm making some headway with this. I re-read some posts from This 'n That from on the Mountain from December 2009. I was really struggling with bitterness and resentment. I didn't say a lot about it, but enough that i remember how consumed i was with bitterness. I had been so sure that if we just were patient enough, God would give us our deepest desire of having a family.

This year was not like that, i was not consumed with bitterness. I don't think it will ever be easy for me to think, "Our Kaylee would be _ years old now." I don't think i will ever have an easy time hearing of all the new babies due for the coming year. (Three i'm aware of so far.) This year was a bit more peace about this. It may have helped that we did have children as part of the holiday (Nina's kids). I'm thankful that that grip of harsh, hateful bitterness has relaxed.

Another thing that may change this year is that we are likely to become regular attenders at the Lutheran (Spirit of Peace) church. This surprises me a bit as i didn't want to settle into one church. But we feel most at home there, i think. Although, there is some possibility that this SoP church might join in with a Presbyterian church in the area. That would be different.

This part may be a bit controversial. I have a very hard time with many Christian phrases. One that is being used currently by several bloggers i read is, "Less of me, more of Him," (or is it "More of Him, less of me"?). I think that there are some preconceptions in my background that make me respond negatively to this idea.

There is a Doctor Who episode where a nasty villain called The Master turned all the people on Earth into replicas of himself. It is hard for me to see that when Christians talk about "less of me" that they are not trying to do something similar, only, of course Jesus being the one replicated. It feels evil to me.

The image i have of us having "less of self, more of Christ" is like having a big, big white puzzle, with every piece identical.

Again. I see this as evil.

I believe that it is Satan's doing that we feel we cannot have personality or individuality and reflect Jesus well. (Now, i recognize that the folks who use this phrase are almost certainly not having the idea that we should be identical.) We are created so uniquely and so differently. I cannot believe that God desires us to wash away all individuality in order to be a Christian. Rather, i believe that God would use us uniquely, our individuality, our gifts.

It may very well be that some of us can reach other folks better with our flaws and foibles than a perfect Jesus replica would be able to.

In contrast to that perfectly white puzzle with each piece identical to all the others, i see God's creation - including his children - as a riot of colors, textures, sizes, and gifts. To be more like Christ, to me, is to become more of the individual person he created me to be. I do not desire to be more selfish, of course, but "less of me" is a concept that is difficult to grasp. What part of myself am i suppose to discard?

While i am perfectly aware that most Christians do not have my conception of this phrase, it is often implied in churches.

The truth, i believe, is balanced somewhere between my extreme view of this phrase, and the view of a radically right-wing church.

It disturbs me that i wonder if i'm able to reject this idea and still be a Christian. Am i denying Jesus in wanting to retain my individuality?

44

Watering

2010-11-27T13:35:00.000-08:00

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

Words

2010-11-11T00:45:00.000-08:00

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

What is love?

2010-09-09T00:10:00.000-07:00

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.

My sister Elsa was visiting this past weekend. She spoke some of her recent visit with our parents & our other sister, Larkin. My relationship with Larkin is, um, almost non-existent.

Frankly, i tend to be rather critical of her. I know she is mama to many children & is very busy with them, especially now as a single mama, homeschooling the 4 that are left. But she gives me no indication that she cares to have a relationship with me at all. I don't find that very easy. I also get tired of hearing the family make excuses for her over & over. Yes, i know she's busy. Yes, i know she's had a hard time. Yes, yes, yes. But i guess i just don't understand the utter lack of any effort to maintain a relationship.

About a year ago i tried over & over to reach her. Her children are instructed by her to tell everyone she is "unavailable." I needed to reach her for some specific reason, & it took me 6 weeks until i finally was able to connect. The last week i began calling daily, just curious how long it would take before i might finally be able to talk to her (one week of daily calling). When i told her of this, she laughed. Thought it was funny i tried to reach her for 6 weeks & could not.

Larkin, to a large extent, feels that she is special. No one else has experienced the pain she has had. No one else has experienced the abuse she has had. No one else has ever been betrayed. She has a special relationship with God. She is special. I have found it very difficult in talking to her that she feels that the abuse from our family was experienced by herself alone. Um, say what? Rather than unite us in shared history, i find this attitude seems to drive a wedge in more deeply. (Please don't think i'm downplaying her pain. She has been thru more than any person on earth should have to experience. I just find it rather painful that in her pain, she seems to devalue my experiences.)

Elsa told me that Larkin had said that she "Loves people." Really, really, truly loves people. "I don't know why i have so much love for people. I think because i read the Bible every day. I just have so much love for people!"

It disturbs me that she feels this way. It makes sense of some past behaviors, but it disturbs me none the less. Elsa has made peace with it, & i don't deny that perhaps her way is better. She says that she feels Larkin does love people & that when she is with them she really cares about them & gives them 100%. Perhaps this is so. But i can't MAKE myself like this attitude of hers. Because i don't feel loved, i don't feel loved at all. The last two times we were with her, no conversation occurred between us at all. It was as if i wasn't even there.

It feels to me that this "love" totally ignores me. It feels that she has a pasteboard image in her life that says, "Sissy" & that is what she loves, not the human being that is me. And i feel like i'm being harsh when i say that.

A few years ago, before we moved to Big Bear, Larkin came out for Elsa's graduation (mid-year, Master's program). I didn't see much of her, but they did come down for a Christmas party at our home. There were some issues going on, & frankly, i was really, really angry with them both, but Larkin in particular. When she showed up at our place, she came in all gooey with "I love you Sissy! I love you so much!" She continued this thru the whole evening.

She didn't realize i was angry; i'm not sure she would have cared, anyway. She LOVES me!

But the way i see it, love is much more than some warm & fuzzy emotion (especially if the object of the love isn't even aware of it). It seems to me that love is an active word, not a passive word. She can have all the warm & fuzzy feelings she cares to have about me, or the Queen of England, or the moon, or starving kids in Africa. How are we suppose to know that?

And, then i think, maybe she is special in her love. Maybe she does have something unique.

Because i know that i'm very much lacking in love. When i think of her, i usually pray that God repair my heart, because i know that i don't have much love there. I think i'm very much lacking in love in many ways. I should love my husband more. I should love my friends more. I should love my parents more. I definitely should love Larkin more. If she's able to really truly love me, well then perhaps she is special. Because i don't deserve it.

In thinking that over, i wonder what i could do to show love to Larkin. Because it doesn't seem enough to me to grow warm & fuzzy feelings about her (not likely to happen anyway). I sometimes think that love is an "act as if" type of feeling. Because it is active, that sometimes the love follows the action. So i need to be looking for ways to share the love. I'll probably try to send her an encouraging letter. I can't imagine much else.

I think i could ramble on for quite a while. But this is enough.

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

Thoughts on a Sunday Morning

2010-08-29T12:16:00.000-07:00

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

Some Thoughts

2010-08-13T11:32:00.000-07:00

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:

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

Conversation

2010-08-07T17:12:00.000-07:00

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:

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

More Gossip

2010-07-22T09:18:00.000-07:00

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

Thinking trivial things

2010-07-20T09:08:00.000-07:00

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.)

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

Just some thoughts

2010-07-16T08:29:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-16T08:10:00.000-07:00

This is the letter we will most likely be sending out later today:

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

More info

2010-07-13T16:04:00.000-07:00

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

Yada, yada

2010-07-11T23:43:00.000-07:00

Duane & i talked quite late into the night last night about the letter & pamphlet sent to us. I'm not sure what we are going to do. Probably the simplest & most expedient way to deal with this is to simply request that our names be removed from the membership list. There is so much we want to say, but i think it is obvious that these folks can't hear it.

Duane & i are both very sad. Not so much for us. As i've said before, we both feel that we have learned so much & grown so much thru this. But we are so very sad for the people we care about.

The incomprehensible letter (undated/unsigned) makes it clear that the elders either 1. Did not read our letters (Gene called & "explained" to them what we had said & how we were so disrespectful) or 2. They did not grasp what we were saying. Or a combination of the two.

There is no way to say this without sounding rude, but we don't have a lot of confidence in the intelligence of most of the elders to grasp what we were saying. The response letter makes it clear they may not have the capacity to understand. Regardless, the elders are the ones responsible to be sure the church stays on track.

I am offended that they think our letter indicates disrespect "to the dignity of the Pastoral office." We put a lot of time, effort, editing, & prayer into that letter, striving NOT to show disrespect. At this point we can't help but have disrespect for both the pastor & the elders, but we are striving not to be disrespectful.   We have re-read what we wrote & feel that no disrespect was tendered. I'm also offended by the remarks about dissension, as that is the very thing we have worked very hard not to create.

But i'm really much more concerned by the pamphlet sent. I so wish that had been given us before we ever joined that church. In it embodies many of the attitudes with which i've struggled in this church. Jessica wrote in a previous comment she hears, "haughtiness, arrogance, self-righteousness, pride and pushing people away." and those are the very attitudes which have so greatly disturbed me for some time. I never recognized them as sanctioned by the actual church doctrine, however.

Part of the pamphlet was quoting the first president of the LCMS, C.F.W. Walther, who lived 1811-1887. According to Wikipedia, he was "vigorously opposed to non-Lutheran denominations in America." He wrote this passage, "Even one who confesses the Real Presence cannot ordinarily, except in the case of death, be admitted if he is and wants to remain, not a member of our orthodox church, but rather a Roman Catholic, Reformed, so-called Evangelical or Unionist, Methodist, Baptist, in short, a member of an erring fellowship." which i found very offensive.

The pamphlet makes it very clear that the LCMS church practices "close communion" but SITP DID NOT as they opened communion in each & every bulletin. That created a lot of confusion for us. It also creates a somewhat "secret society" because we have a number of folks who attend multiple churches & still take communion at SITP. So it comes down to, "Did we have to seek 'permission' from the pastor in order to visit other churches? And how on earth were we suppose to know that?"

I've been studying Lutheran doctrine for the past day or so, & what i've found has made me very, very uncomfortable. I guess i should have done this long ago, but as the risen Christ was being preached, i thought the doctrine not so very important. I was wrong, very wrong. I'm finding it hard to imagine that i'll ever feel comfortable "belonging" to a church again.

The things i find disturbing in Lutheran doctrine did not originate with Luther, however. What i've read of him indicates that he came to not even believe in a priesthood, but that each of us shares in the priesthood. Also what i read indicates that very soon after he began trying to pastor in a healthier way there were folks wanting to take his beliefs/theories/theology, etc. & create the doctrine which has so enslaved people today.

I remember from long ago, i used to HATE Calvin. But in college while studying the different evolutions of doctrines, i learned that what i hated was Calvinism & what the doctrine had become. In both the cases of Calvin & Luther, they sincerely desired for the people to live free & to not have fears about life & relationship to God. But we also learned that within 2 generations their teaching had evolved into doctrine which enslaved the people, robbing them of the very freedoms that both Calvin & Luther had sought to insure.

We seem to have run up against the very worst of Lutheranism without realizing it. I'm sad. Frankly, as i've said before, this church carries some very strong hallmarks of a cult. I don't think it has crossed over to that status, but it is a near thing, in my opinion. They do preach Christ died, buried, risen. But much of the preaching does not bring the freedoms i believe Jesus came to give us.

I have currently drafted a fairly simple letter to the church requesting our names be removed from their membership rolls. However, i did say some things in the letter that we may choose not to say. We may simplify it even further. But for now i think we'll just let it sit for a week or two. It took them over a month to respond to our request for clarification. We don't have to jump on this.

Anyway, just my recent thoughts on the matter.

31

For Those who are Interested, con't

2010-07-11T02:13:00.000-07:00

Back on 9 June, i posted "For Those who are Interested" the letters we sent to the pastor, G, & the church elders.

Today Duane received a letter addressed to him from one of the elders. With the exception that i'm abbreviating the name of the church at the end, this is the exact letter sent (including spelling, errors & typos). This letter had no date & was unsigned. It is as follows:

Dear Duane Dickerson,
   We are asking you to resubmit your request in a manner that shows respect to the dignity of the Pastoral office.
    Until the process of the finish of you submission you are barred from the communion table and membership activities. Note this is not because of your feelings of being excommunicated, you are not being excommunicated. It's because of L.C.M.S., position on closed communion { see the enclosed article}.
    You are welcome to attend our worship and fellowship, however if in our opinion you are causing any form of dissention among the Body of Christ you will be asked to leave and not be allowed to return.

Thank you,
      The Elder's of SITP Lutheran Church.

The article enclosed reads as follows (& if you don't want to read this whole, long thing i will try to do a brief recap at the bottom):

What About . . .

Fellowship in the Lord's Supper

Fellowship in the Lord's Supper is the basis for the practice of "close" or "closed" communion." (The phrases "close communion" and "closed communion" refer to one and the same practice). This pamphlet will help you appreciate, understand and explain to others the practice of close communion.

What does God teach in His Word?
   "Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, 'Take and eat; this is my body.' Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'" (cf. Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-20; 1 cor. 11:17-29).
   "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer" (Acts 2:42).
    "Whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:26-29).

What does the Lutheran church believe about the Lord's Supper?
    The Lutheran church believes, teaches and confesses that the Lord's Supper is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, given to us Christians to eat and to drink. We hold that the bread and the wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ and that these are given and received into the mouths of all who commune. Those who believe the promise: "Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins," receive forgiveness of sins, life and salvation. This promise, along with the bodily eating and drinking, is the main thing in the Sacrament.
    The Lutheran church rejects and condemns incorrect understandings of the Lord's Supper, such as the view that the sacrifice of the Mass delivers man from his sins, or that the substance of the consecrated bread and wine is actually changed into the body and blood of Christ. We also reject and condemn the view that in the Lord's Supper the true body and blood of Christ is not received by the mouth of the communicants, under the bread and wine, but is received only spiritually in the heart by faith, or that the bread and wine are only symbols of the far-distant body ad blood of our Lord.

How is the Lord's Supper an expression of church fellowship?
    While the Lord's Supper is always a personal matter, it is never a private matter. That is an important truth that is often overlooked. Those who commune at the same altar are thereby declaring publically that they are united in the doctrine of the Apostles (Acts 2:42). Therefore, fellowship in the Supper is church fellowship. This is what is taught by Holy Scripture in 1 Cor. 10 and 11. Here is how one our church's teachers explained this truth.
    "As there is but one bread, one loaf, from which we eat, so we who are eating of this loaf are one body. The eating of one and the same loaf of bread unifies us to one body. Our participation in the Lord's Supper is a public profession on our part that we are not only in fellowship with Christ, but that we also are in fellowship with those with whom we commune at the Lord's Table. We all eat the same bread, the body of Christ. Through that act we indicate that we belong together. All of us Christians who in the Lord's Supper eat the body of Christ and drink His blood present ourselves as one spiritual family. What we eat and drink together, Christ's body and blood, ties us together more closely than the bonds of blood. We declare ourselves to be brothers and sisters in Christ. Upon this Bible passage do e base the saying 'Altar Fellowship is Church Fellowship.'
    "This passage in Corinthians strikes a crushing blow at unionism. To admit those who believe differently to our Communion, and so to our church fellowship, is a contradiction in itself. For those who approach the same altar together profess to be one -- one in all points of Christian doctrine and practice -- while in reality they disagree. It would be shameful hypocrisy on our part if we would have those who actually profess a different faith than we do join us at the Lord's Altar" (Stoeckhardt, 1 Corinthians, p. 60-61).
   Another teacher of our church had this to say about why the Lord's Supper is an expression of church fellowship:
    "The Holy Supper is one of the marks, one of the banners of the church, on of the seals of the church doctrine and faith (Rom. 4:11, see 1 Cor. 10:21; Ex. 12:48). In whichever church one receives the Holy Supper, one is confessing that church and its doctrine. There cannot be a more inward, brotherly fellowship than that into which one enters with those in whose fellowship he receives the holy Supper . . . Even one who confesses the Real Presence cannot ordinarily, except in the case of death, be admitted if he is and wants to remain, not a member of our orthodox church, but rather a Roman Catholic, Reformed, so-called Evangelical or Unionist, Methodist, Baptist, in short, a member of an erring fellowship. For the Sacrament, as it is a seal of faith, is also the banner of the fellowship in which it is administered" (Walther, Pastoral Theology, p. 110-111, 149).

What is the Lutheran church's motive for practicing close communion?
    Our Synod's Commission on Theology and Church Relations offers the following helpful explanation of why we practice close communion:
"Close communion seeks to prevent a profession of confessional unity in faith where there is, in fact, disunity and disagreement. It would be neither faithful to the 'scriptural requirements for admission to Holy Communion (1 Cor. 11:27ff; cf. 10:16-17) nor helpful to fallen humanity if the Christian Church welcomes to its altars those who deny or question clear Scriptural teachings.
    "The reasons for the practice of close Communion are often misunderstood by Christians who have been accustomed to an 'open Communion' policy. In a tract titled, Why Close Communion? the rationale for the practice of close communion is explained in this way:
    'So it is not that a Lutheran congregation wants to bar fellow-saints from the blessings of the Eucharist when they practice Close Communion. It is not that they want to be separatistic, or set themselves up as judges of other men. The practice of Close Communion is prompted by love and is born of the heartfelt conviction, on the basis of Scripture alone, that we must follow Christ's command. This means refusing the Lord's Supper to those whose belief is not known to us. It is not showing love to allow a person to do something harmful, even though he may think it is for his own good. It also means if they are members of a Christian body which departs from the full truth of the Scripture in some of its doctrines, that we must not minimize the evil of this false teaching by opening our fellowship to any and all Christians who err in the faith' [Deffner, Why Close Communion?, p.14].
    "In Keeping with the principle that the celebration and reception of the Lord's Supper is a confession of the unity of the faith, while at the same time recognizing that there will be instances when sensitive pastoral care needs to be exercised the Synod has established an official practice requiring, 'that pastors and congregations of The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod, except in situations of emergency and in special cases of pastoral care, commune individuals of only those synods that are now in fellowship with us. By following this practice whereby only those individuals who are members of the Synod or of a church body with which the Synod is in altar and pulpit fellowship are ordinarily communed, pastors and congregations preserve the integrity of their witness to the Gospel of Christ as it is revealed in the Scriptures and confessed in the Lutheran confessional writings.'"
    "The Office of the Keys is less than faithfully exercised when admission to the Sacrament is granted to all who come to the alter regardless of their faith and congregational and/or denominational affiliation. The practice of open Communion renders it difficult, if not impossible, for church discipline to be exercised in a way that honors the ministrations being carried out by those to whom the responsibility of spiritual care for a member of God's flock has been entrusted: (Heb. 13:17; cf. John 20:22-23; Acts 20:27-28; 1 Cor. 4:1-2. Theology and Practice of the Lord's Supper, pp. 21-23).

Conclusion
    On the basis of God's Holy Word, our Lutheran church continues to practice the ancient, Biblical and confessional practice of close communion as an opportunity to give joyful witness to our unity in the true faith. We practice close communion with the belief that this is what the Lord would have us to do as we faithfully administer His body and blood in His holy Sacrament.
    Close communion is not a practice unique to The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod. It is also practiced by the majority of Christians in the world who are members of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions.
    Hopefully, this brief explanation will help you, or someone else, understand that our love for our Lord and His Sacrament, and our love for the individual, is the reason why we practice close communion.
    --Dr. A.L. Barry
    President
    The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod

I have done my best to faithfully copy the original letter, both in spelling and punctuation.

In brief, it says that any church that does not believe exactly as the Lutheran Missouri Synod does is in error. It says that to take communion with someone in error is to fellowship with evil (beliefs) & contrary to the word of God as the LCMS understands it.

One of the people quoted is the first president of LCMS, who lived 1811-1887. He was "vigorously opposed to all non-Lutheran theologies." Wikipedia.

Remember, the SITP Lutheran church printed in its bulletin every week the invitation to communion to all Christians “who share our Biblical faith and understanding of the sacrament.” It does not specify baptism, confirmation, membership of an LCMS church, what the "understanding of the sacrament" involves, or any other requirement. It states only that if someone has questions about this requirement, they should ask an elder.

This is all i'm going to say for today. I'm sure i'll have much more to say, but i will stop here.

30

Something just occurred to me

2010-07-08T08:44:00.001-07:00

While re-reading my previous post.

I guess i'm uncomfortable when folks are more passionate about their church than about their God.

29

Quiet rambling

2010-07-08T08:01:00.000-07:00

Yesterday Eva & i attended a Bible study at a local church that has a big youth group. They served pizza, salad, & cake for dinner before the service.

I'm not very impressed with this church. I'm acquainted with one lady who attends there & she loves it & is very passionate about it. But i didn't find it the "friendly family" she describes. (Of course, two visits are not really enough to judge that.) The kids did take Eva into their group, eventually. Because she's so quiet, i have no idea if it was a good thing or a bad thing. She simply says "It was okay."

A couple of the churches Duane & i have visited have essentially left strangers strictly alone. This one is friendly during the greeting time (a couple of churches we attended weren't friendly even then), but largely this church seemed to be rather closed. I started to use the word "insular" until i looked up the meaning (thinking it meant "closed" or "reserved" or maybe even a bit "unfriendly"). But part of the meaning is "bigoted," "narrow," or "petty." I don't mean that.

Duane didn't like this church from the get go. I'm not quite sure why, because it doesn't seem to me to be all that different from several others we've attended.

But i will say, tho i'm going to sound very critical, i'm finding some of these churches don't seem to be much more than Christian clubs. These folks seem to be very glad to be there with the people they know & love & enjoy the time together & they do study the Word of God. However, because they are so comfortable with their setting, they do seem to be rather closed to new folk.

Now, i'm sure that if we began to attend there regularly these folks would open that circle, we'd be included & they'd be happy to use whatever we bring to the table. But then we'd be part of that inner, closed circle. Somehow, that's just not where i want to be & part of me thinks that it isn't enough. I don't want to be part of some "Christian club" where my life revolves around the church & my church friends & little else. To me being a Christian is much more than that. Again, it will sound like i'm criticizing these folks. That really is not my intent. I don't know them well enough. They do seem to be passionate about God. They are having a tent revival next week. (That alone makes me nervous, personally. Revivals have not been a positive thing in my life.)

I feel like i'm stumbling around trying to find words for a feeling i can't quite explain.

I guess it seems to me that being a Christian is more than going to Cheers where "everybody knows your name." I don't know how else to say it. On the other hand, that is a basic, human need.

In his talk yesterday, the Bible study leader touched on Romans 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus . . . " Again, my heart aches for G, who i believe doesn't understand this. It seems to me that G chooses to live in pain & sorrow when he can't embrace this. I wonder if i'm just being stubborn. I wonder if it is something wrong with me that i can't walk away from that church. I wonder if the pain i feel when thinking about them is something broken in me, or simply me being broken for them. (In other words, am i being dysfunctional & stubborn in regard to them, or am i honestly, sincerely concerned for them?) I don't have an answer to that for i don't know. Part of me wants to keep banging my head against that wall, trying to break thru.

However, from all that i've learned of Lutheran (Missouri Synod) doctrine since leaving that church, the over-use of shame & guilt (& lack of understanding that there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus) seems to be a hallmark of many of the churches belonging to this particular branch. It also seems to be that those who are attempting to break away from that pattern are being accused of being "soft on sin" & unscriptural.

We have had no word from that church now, 1 month later. It seems Duane is right & they are not going to answer our questions.

I'm finding that i'm really pulling away from wanting to join another church, or even attend one regularly. I'm much more into the "church hopping" than before. I don't even want to be at the same place more than once or twice a month. The idea of joining another church is unthinkable, at this time.

________________________________

This is completely off topic.

Anyone who has been reading my blogs for any length of time knows that it has been my deep, deep desire to be a mama. From the time i was a small child myself i wanted to be a mama. It seems to be part of the very core of who i am. I began caring for other folks' children when i was 12, & was a nanny for a while when i was a teen. I desperately wanted my "nanny baby" to be my own. I loved that child with all my heart, & wanted children of my own as well.

It seems to me to be a cruel thing that this isn't going to happen for us. I could go off on that theme for a long time. It also seems very cruel to me that my sister Larkin, who didn't even like children when we were younger, was blessed with six children. Everyone talks about how she loves babies so much & "can't get enough of them." I.can.not.even.begin.to.use.words.that.describe.the.depths.of.pain.this.is.for.me. It is almost as if she has robbed me of my own personality. (Yes, i know this is sick & selfish. Part of it goes back to childhood issues i've addressed elsewhere. I can only say that the way i was raised, if someone one in our family had a talent or emotion, only ONE person was allowed to have it. Too difficult to try to explain more without many more paragraphs.)

I didn't mean to digress here. I guess the issue is more of my awareness right now with Eva here, tho i've felt that way before in conversation with Elsa.

But my point is something different.

It often has been that i see a child on a blog or when i'm out shopping, & i think, "Kaylee would be that age." Or, "That girl is about six months younger/older than Kaylee would be."

But recently, this has changed a little. I occasionally see disabled children with their parents, & think, "That could be my child."

Now, please, please know that i'm not being critical of handicapped folks. I know that we would have loved our daughter however she was presented to us. I'm not in any way saying that disabled children are less lovable or anything of the sort. My point, however, is that i know that at my current functioning, i'd struggle to care for a child with "normal" energy/functioning/skills. To have a special needs child would completely overwhelm us & i don't know how we would manage it.

I "KNOW" all these things. But it doesn't, not in any way, not for one moment, "fix" the desire for a child which is that deep, deep part of me, my personality, my life. This seems to be a dissonance, a conflict, which is unresolvable.

28

Chapter 2 Turtles All the Way Down

2010-06-23T23:17:00.000-07:00

I'm not going to "review" the book O Me of Little Faith by Jason Boyett. Frankly, i think the book so good, all i can say is: Buy it; read it. I don't think any "review" i write would do it justice. Jason is an excellent & intelligent writer. Read.The.Book. If you're not sure you want to read a book on doubt, get the book & read the last chapter first. If you don't find it uplifting & helpful, well, enough said. He doesn't come up with reasons not to doubt; he has fine reasons why doubt & faith walk hand in hand. For many of us, at least.

Check out his blog. I recommend this post on The Problem with Asking Hard Questions. The comment section is excellent, too. (I will admit, however, that as much as i like the site, sometimes reading "doubt" day after day is a bit too much for me. Rather like looking at the glass as half empty too many days in a row.)

Obviously, the book had much in it which resonated with me. I wouldn't recommend it otherwise. I will be posting on some highlights that touched me.

Frankly, i'd very much like to send G a copy, very anonymously. (I don't think he'd read it coming from me.) I think he must be struggling a lot with doubt to preach against it (& fear & other emotion) so strongly.

In some ways i think my faith has grown to be quite strong. In other ways, not so much. I know a lot of people who see God in every moment of their lives. They walk him, talk him, regurgitate scripture every moment, pray continually, see him everywhere, & refuse to take credit for choice they make (good ones, i mean) in order to give God the credit & glory. I struggle with that thinking & mentality. Can't they see that they made a choice to do X, Y or Z, even if they ultimately give God the glory? And because this type of life/thought seems to be a "Christian standard" way of thinking, i can't help but wonder, "What is wrong with me?"

Anyway, in Chapter 2, Jason presents some of the arguments which "prove" God. The Ontological Argument, the Transcendental Argument, the Teleological Argument, the Anthropic Argument. (He covers them well enough in the book, but Google them if you wish.) I studied some of these in Apologetics in college. I find that my faith is based, in a large part, on what i would call a variation of the Transcendental Argument. That one is that ethics & morals could not have evolved; they require God. (Oh, go look it up!)

I think that man/men/mankind/people/folks could not be good, probably would not know what "good" is, were there not a God. I've never believed in "total depravity" for if that were so, the human race would have killed itself off long ago. People would not have children & raise them; they would have children & eat them. Amoral behaviors & wars would have killed off all the rest.

I am not arguing about whether sin is real, or that there are truly evil people in the world. It is, there are; that is obvious. I'm not arguing against the idea that we needed Jesus to be our "bridge" to a relationship with God. I'm not saying that people have the ability to "reach a divine state" apart from the grace of God.

What i am saying is that people know moral values. They know "good." A mother has a child & 99% of the time (i believe) falls in love with that child & wants all things good for him/her. A father wants to protect that child as well. Other folks admire the baby (they don't think, "Dinner!"). (Now, as the child grows, that ability to have patience can be another matter altogether! Oh, & yes, i know those feelings serve an "evolutionary purpose" - but that doesn't really sway me.)

People, all kinds of people - Christians, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhists, Muslim, "religious folk," Wiccan, agnostics, atheists, non-spiritual, the lot - have the ability to show compassion, do "random acts of kindness," & come to the aid of their fellow human-beings, nature, animals, where they see a need. I believe that is so because there is within us still part of the "image of God" & the "knowledge of good & evil" which tells us when our behaviors are good or not good. We also know that we've fallen short of the impossible "perfect."

I know a few atheists personally. They are "good," moral, ethical people. In some ways they are much more consistent than many Christians i know. Why would this be so? Why would they not be "out for whatever they can get"? Why are they proud of being good?

I believe it is a piece of the human race: We know when we have done less than the best, when what we have done is not perfect. We seem to be, the majority of society, motivated to aspire to be good. I don't think society would survive were it not true of the majority, regardless of their beliefs.

Now, i'm not saying that this argument would sway anyone else. I'm saying, it works for me. I also fall in line with some of the other arguments. I like the argument of a designer (the Teleological Argument). When i see the complexity of the world, it seems to me that someone must have done it - & is quite proud of it too! But this one doesn't carry the weight that "people know enough to try to be good" has for me. I just don't think this would be so apart from the imprint of God.

For me, too, is the idea of personality. Babies have personality from the very beginning. I don't believe in the idea of tabula rasa. To me, personality is equivalent with "soul." From the very moment of birth, children have different ways of reacting, responding, different things upset or calm them, some have challenging personalities right from the beginning. That, for me, leads in the direction of "soul" & it seems to me that, somehow, that is something that continues. Of course, this idea gets a bit muddy when i see that most animals have personality as well. That is, frankly, why i lean toward vegetarianism. How can i eat something with personality (soul)?

Now, feeling i have bits of "a strong faith" doesn't mean i haven't doubts. There are odd times when i think, "What if it is not so? What if when we die there IS nothing more?" Part of me thinks that i'll be very disappointed. There are many places i've not gone here on Earth, because, quite frankly i'm content to wait & see them in the "New World" to come. I would miss all of that. I won't be meeting the children we've lost; i won't be seeing dear ones who have "gone before," i won't be meeting Jesus, i won't be seeing GOD. But, of course, if there is nothing more i won't know all those things. It won't matter.

But those moments of strong doubt are brief. In general, when i hear someone i know has died, my response has been, "They get to be with Jesus! They are with God!" Of course, very soon after that the reality & sorrow of loss sets in. But frankly i will admit, my first response is usually, "They are with Jesus!" (And i'm jealous for that moment.)

However, this also doesn't stop me from seeing the cruel twists of life: Cancer in children, & loss of young mothers; earthquakes & volcanoes, rain & floods that do so much damage & loss of life; serial killers & pedophiles; folks who don't want children have them, folks who desperately want them don't; some folks get to have 18 children & others none at all; chronic illnesses that devastate lives. I have some answers for some of this (usually very critical of people's choices) but in general, life of unfairness & death in innocents disturb me very much.

And if God really pulls all the strings as some folks claim, how can we understand so much of the unfairness? It seems that the flip side of "the Lord provides" definitely is that "the Lord takes away." For those he blesses with children, has he cursed those of us without? The righteous & the unrighteous alike are mowed down & sometimes it seems the righteous get it harder than those who don't honor God. How can we be intelligent, thinking beings & NOT question these things?

Yet our answer is no more than was given Job: God is not in need of the approval of his creation. He is free. Jason did a good job in this chapter of talking of how Jesus, in many ways, did not elucidate God or the nature of God very well at all. He essentially told us: God is a mystery. We cannot define him, box him, study him as we would nature, we cannot capture, hold, or pin him down. We can, occasionally feel the effects of him, but beyond that we have very little to go on.

It was my intent to write, as well, on belief systems, how & why we box ourselves &/or God into tight places.

But this is long enough.

I will reiterate: In some ways i feel i have a very strong, firm faith. I'm very thankful for it. Some of it is due to attending a church that doesn't believe as i do because it has helped me to refine/define/clarify what i do believe & what i feel is important. Honestly, i don't believe that too much of what i believe is all that important. The basic tenants of the Nicene creed do for me. The rest simply comes down to obedience.

G, when we joined the Lutheran church (this was my first red flag) wanted to insist that we MUST believe that at the moment of accepting communion, it was transformed to be both bread/wine & body/blood. Frankly, i don't care either way & i don't consider it all that important. I think the act of obedience to the command of Jesus, regardless of my belief, is what is important.

This, plus my own doubts & weaknesses would damn me to hell in the thinking of G. In his thinking, any fear or doubt or depression means lack of faith in God & is the path to hell. This is why parts of my faith are strong: I've spent over 2 years countering such thought.

I've also disagreed with G that we need to convince other people that they are bad or evil. My thought is, let them believe they are "good" all they want. Why argue? The reality is they probably ARE good people, as people standards go. Kind of like someone who can broad jump 18 feet when most of us can only broad jump 8. They are far & away better at it than the rest of us. But will that extra 10 feet make a difference when trying to broad jump the Grand Canyon? We all plummet without the saving grace of the sacrifice Jesus made. G was "offended" by my argument because it flew in the face of everything he has believed, but he could find no fault with my reasoning. It didn't change how he sees fallen man, however. Nor his preaching that we are evil little people, not worthy of God's grace & probably won't "make it" anyway, due to our fears & doubts.

I've still my weak parts of faith, & that is why i so very much appreciate the book, O Me of Little Faith. :)

27

Why?

2010-06-19T10:53:00.000-07:00

I'm not a person who asks, "Why?" often. I think in particular, i don't ask that of God. More than anything else because i don't expect i'll get an answer. Any question to God that begins "Why . . . " seems to result in a default response of "Your question in not in a form to which i can respond."

That didn't have a lot of meaning to this post, just a gratuitous thought on questioning God.

My "why" question today is a little more direct. "Why have we been going to this Lutheran church for over 3 years?"

Several times i've shared with other people different things that G has preached & with which i felt profound discomfort. More than once the response has been, "And you're still going there? Why are you still going there?"

My answer has invariably been, "Because i feel God wants me there," or "I feel we are called to be there."

I will be frank, i'm not a big believer in "the will of God," or "God's perfect plan." I tend to be more of the "lo que sera sera" ("what will be will be") mindset.

But it felt right to be at that church. There were many positive things that drew us there. So it was right, until it wasn't any more. The "it isn't right anymore" happened very quickly. We had talked about our issues, worried over them, prayed about it, etc. for months, even a year or more. Then between about the 27th of May & the 4th of June, bam! It was done.

Part of the reason that i felt it right to be at that church for so long was that i felt it was "stretching" me. Duane & i spent much time discussing the homilies G gave, & where we disagreed & why & what our own beliefs are, & what we felt the scripture meant. I think this has probably strengthened my faith more than i could begin to imagine.

I'm not boasting in my strength, but i can frankly say that i feel very strong in my faith. It rather surprises me how strong i feel. It is rather like i've been exercising a muscle for the past months/years & now, when it is called upon, it responds in a manner that is so easy i'm shocked. I know that had this happened a few years ago, i would have been devastated.

When i was in a difficult place many years ago, i used the analogy of a plant. I told someone that i had a scrawny plant of faith, maybe just a couple of wilted leaves on it. But that the root, while tiny, maybe not much more than a thread, went very, very deep & was rooted & grounded. I'm currently feeling like that plant of faith has grown a lot & maybe even blossomed.

In many ways i considered myself a "spiritual weakling**." In many ways i am. I still struggle with bitterness & disappointment. I still don't understand many of the things in the world i find so incredibly perplexing. I'm still going to be talking about the book on spiritual doubt that i've mentioned. But i do know very well the things i do believe & i hang onto them tightly.

I also see timing as critical. I don't know if what i hope to happen will happen, but the timing was important. IF we had left even 2 weeks sooner than we did, we would not have heard G's sermons that crossed from questionable into definite heresy. Because we were there to witness that, we were able to bring it to the elders' attention.

G has gone on defensive. M told me G said, "I have teeth" (from my post on the 13th).   Duane said, in response to this, that it is the dog who feels cornered who bites. If G really wasn't threatened by our charges, he wouldn't need to bite.

I don't think the changes i think this church needs & i hope will happen will occur, certainly not very soon. But we hope seeds are planted that will produce the awareness of the need for change.

We have not heard anything from the church. Duane doesn't think we will. I can't imagine that they won't respond. It seems to me that even just a letter stating that "they" (whether the elders or council, i don't know - probably not the congregation) voted & upheld G's stand. Thus far we have heard nothing.

** Oh Me of Little Faith

26

I discovered something yesterday

2010-06-15T08:13:00.000-07:00

It is probably clear that i am & have been distressed about the things G preaches. They often aren't horrible, horrible, but it does seem that even when he gives a really good sermon he has to throw something in that is manipulative in some way.

Even when we first began attending there & i felt some "glow" from the sermon he gave, when thinking back over it later what usually stuck in my head was the guilt from that manipulation. After this had been happening for some time it distressed me more & more. He is a very good speaker, & it bothered me that all i was taking away was some guilt, or shame, or fear.

It has also distressed me that he would use such tactics on the good people of that church. Except that G has re-written the English language so that there is no "good" apart from God. He would rail against the phrase, "No, thanks, I'm good," in his sermons (i'm told it is bad grammar, but my grammar skills are sadly lacking). Now, i know that people can be really, really wicked. I know none of us are as good as we want to be, let alone be good enough to come into God's presence on our own. That is why Jesus came.

We figure that G has never heard the terms, "Good, better, best," or "Fair, good, excellent." I know we can't be good enough to reach God on our own, but i've never understood why we have to be chastised or beaten up because of it. What good does it do to to rail against me because i'm a sinner? Jesus forgave me of that & i'm washed clean.

So, much of my concern over this church is that people are being taught what robs them of their joy & doesn't really feed them. I've been deeply burdened for the church as a whole because of this.

Yesterday on my way into town i realized a truth. We have done what we can in order to address this. I wish we could have shared our concerns with more people so that they'd think more critically (evaluate what is said, not just soak it in), but we shared it with folks who are responsible for the church. If they continue to allow such preaching & such abuse, if they continue to sit in the pews week after week & take it, that is their choice. I can't "fix it" & i never could.

Frankly, i too have seen them as children (as i've accused G of treating them like "stupid children") & wanted to "save them" from such abuse. But they are not children; they are mature adults. I think we've waved red flags about what is taught, but they are able to determine whether or not they choose to pay attention.

While i will always be concerned & sorry that such sad things are being done in that church, i can't do any more than i have. If they continue to allow it, that is their choice.
_________________________

I'm reading O Me of Little Faith & will probably write about that next. Maybe even chapter by chapter. I'm only part way into it & what he is saying resonates with me much.

25

I can't promise

2010-06-13T22:12:00.000-07:00

. . . that this will be my last post about the Lutheran church. Right now it has a lot of importance in my mind & so i keep going over & over it.

I will post also, when we have some answer from the church.

Part of me wants to demand (shriek, scream) at G: WHAT is your problem? HOW can you treat the children of God in such a manner?

Part of me feels incredibly sad that he must be in a bad place to preach so. I think he works under a great deal of fear & that is largely driving all that he says & does.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not speaking of what has happened to us, but to the way he treats the congregation during service. He rants & shames. He is not like that most other times. He can be very kind & considerate & is most of the time. I do believe he has a "pastor's heart."

But the way he preaches is not kind & i think he must see God as a very angry, vengeful God. I see no other way that he can preach so much anger, guilt, hate, shame & fear. He seems (in my opinion) to treat the congregation like a group of very slow children instead of intelligent, mature adults. BUT THEY LET HIM DO IT!

I ran into a member of the congregation in a store today. M greeted me heartily (i did choose to go talk to him; i'm not going to run away from folks i know). He said, "I've not seen you at church in a while."

"You're not likely to, either," i responded. "G has ex-communicated us for going to other churches."

M didn't know about it because he takes the children during the homily & doesn't hear the sermon. He did say that as he was returning to his seat that G had said, "I have teeth."

I don't know if that remark was made this week or last. If it was this week i've not much hope for a positive outcome on G's part. It would mean that he spent today's homily justifying his cause against our charge of non-Biblical teaching. It means that he won't accept what we've said but is going to rail against us & the charge. It means he will continue taking it out on the congregation. It means the elders won't put a check on him. It means things won't change.

Frankly, i'm dismayed at this idea. It bothers me.

But i've prayed thru the afternoon that whatever happens i will be able to simply walk away. Not to have my ego involved. I can't make things happen. I'm not even sure that i would know the best. I need to do my best to continue to love the people but not be caught up in the mess. It isn't my church, anyway, nor is it G's church. The church belongs to God & the people belong to God.

This isn't the first time that uncomfortable things have happened in this church. This church split in half a year or so after G arrived to be pastor. I've been told that there was a lady who wanted to "run things" & disagreed with G on a number of things & began spreading rumors & gossip throughout the church.

I can't help but wonder if some of that was spin. If she was concerned about some of the things G was teaching, did she try to confront it? Duane & i have worked very hard to severely limit what we say to members so as to NOT be guilty of spreading disaffection, but i can't help but wonder if that will be the spin that the people are told about us.

Anyway, M wished me well, "Go with God," & assured me it will be brought up at council meeting (we used to be on the council together).

The outcome is God's. I have much i would like to say to the elders, but regardless of whether i have the opportunity, i need to detach. Let go. Stop obsessing. (I don't find that easy.)

Go with God, & be assured that he promises to work all things to his glory.

24

For Those who are Interested

2010-06-09T19:07:00.000-07:00

This is quite long.

It is an exact copy of what we sent to the pastor & three elders, with identifiers removed. We are praying that these letters will make a difference to the direction in which this church is headed. There is so much more we would like to say here, like the idea of cults, & other things preached which at least border on heresy, but i think we said the salient things. We haven't much hope that this will make a difference as the elders tend to rubber-stamp what is said by the pastor. We hope that the reality of what has been said will sink in, but haven't much belief it will happen. If they follow protocol, however, the whole voting congregation will have to vote on this.

7 June 2010
Mr. G
SITP Lutheran Church
Big Bear Lake, CA 92315

Dear G -

At the time of your conversation with Kathryn on Friday 4 June, she readily agreed to your edicts without thinking through the implications and consequences. Duane was not even included in this discussion. He should have been the person to whom the call was made. We had already determined we would bring this issue to you and that Duane as the head of our household would be the one to do so.

If you were able to explain to the congregation in Sunday service why attending other churches is a serious offense worthy of ex-communication, we would very much like that explanation given to us as well. We were not aware that it was an offense against (the local) church, nor that it merited a punitive response, and we felt that we were doing this for a very good reason, which we would be happy to explain to the elders or the church at large. We have researched Lutheran doctrine and the usage of ex-communication as far as we were able and have found nothing that indicates such a response was warranted.

The only person of whom we are aware of having been ex-communicated from a church (Episcopal) was guilty of egregiously sinful behavior, deliberately spreading disaffection and dissent through the body of that church. Even so, the vestry of that church spent much time (months), pain, and prayer before they voted to follow that path. Every effort was made to bring the person involved back into fellowship before taking this very serious measure.

To our knowledge, we are not aware of egregious behavior on our part. We have worked very hard not to talk with other members of SITP of our concerns so as not to create disaffection and dissent in the body. Our understanding is that the decision to excommunicate us was made in a very rapid manner without the knowledge or vote of the elders or congregation. We are surprised and even shocked that such a weighty decision could be made with so little regard. We are also surprised in light of the weekly invitation to communion in the church bulletin that invites all Christians “who share our Biblical faith and understanding of the sacrament” to partake regardless of their church background. We took this invitation to mean that the church accepts open communion.

In our thinking, ex-communication is a very serious thing, not to be done quickly, lightly, or without the support of the church or church leaders. In every case we have found in our search to understand, it occurred in regard to unrepentant sin. This carries with it a very painful disgrace not easily accepted, especially without proper explanation. It concerns us that one man in the church has this much power and authority and has done this outside of proper channels and without check, disregarding proper protocol for such a step.

Please share the manner of our transgression, the nature of why it is misconduct, and what warrants ex-communication with us at your earliest convenience.

Thank you for your time and attention. The Peace of the Lord be with you.

Sincerely,

Duane and Kathryn

cc: elders

Here is what Martin Luther has to say on the subject in his book, Luther's Small Catechism.

279. What great care must be taken in dealing with an openly unrepentant sinner?
*****The Christian congregation must carry out church discipline in love and patience.
See: (Mathew 18:15-17)(Galatians 6:1-2)(Ephesians 4:2-3)

280. What must the congregation finally do with openly unrepentant sinners?
*****The Christian congregation must exclude openly unrepentant sinners (excommunication).
See: (1 Corinthians 5:13)

281. By what authority does the congregation excommunicate openly unrepentant sinners?
*****Excommunication is authorized by Christ and is just as valid and certain, even in heaven, as if Christ our dear Lord dealt with us Himself.
See: (Mathew 18:18)

282. What is the duty of the called minister of Christ when the congregation has excommunicated a sinner?
*****The called minister of Christ must carry out the resolution of the congregation, that is, he must exclude the excommunicated person from the rights and privileges of a Christian.

283. What is the purpose of excommunication?
*****Excommunication is not intended to punish the sinner,
A. but to lead him or her to repentance and faith;
B. prevent him or her from leading others into sin.
See: (Mathew 12:20)(Acts 3:19)(Mathew 18:6)(1 Corinthians 5:6)

284. What is the duty of a congregation toward an excommunicated sinner who repents?
*****The congregation must forgive any excommunicated person who repents and receive him or her back into full fellowship.
See: (2 Corinthians 2:7-8)

The next section can be found online at this address:

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/mosynod/web/cdis.html

A Report of the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations
of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod
November 1985

(Section) V
Specific Questions Regarding Church Discipline
in the Christian Congregation

1. What is the role of the pastor in church discipline? The pastor's role varies. Members will approach him with problems, reports, or gossip. What course should they pursue with one who has grieved them? What, if anything, should be done with gossip about themselves or others? In answering these and similar questions, the pastor serves as counselor to his flock, directing them on the basis of Holy Scripture in their dealings with fellow Christians.

In some cases, for example, when a member of the congregation has been guilty of sin against him personally, when one despises the means of grace, or persists in seeking an unscriptural divorce, the pastor may be involved from the very first step of discipline.

Officially, the pastor is more frequently a part of church discipline at the time when the problem and/or sin is reported to him, God's undershepherd, for transmission "to the church."

2. May a pastor suspend a person from communion? Although a pastor may not himself excommunicate without the congregation, he may, in the interest of a person's spiritual welfare, refuse to commune one whose presence at the altar would be a source of offense to other members of the congregation, or one living in unrepentant sin who is still being dealt with on a personal basis by himself or others. If, for example, a member has embezzled church funds and the matter is known but the problem has not been resolved (there has been neither absolution on the one hand nor excommunication on the other), the pastor may insist that the party involved absent himself from the table of the Lord. This suspension must always be temporary, however until the matter has been resolved in one way or the other. Any appeal from such suspension must be acted on properly by the congregation, with the party involved, by virtue of the appeal thereby forfeiting any privacy that may have previously been his. Obviously the pastor has no right to suspend a member simply because the member has disagreed with him, for example in some matter of church polity where the Word of God has not spoken.

(We added here - k): In every case we have looked at excommunication, SIN is the issue whether by adultery, embezzlement, or the sin of seeking to create dissension/disaffection in the body/within the church.

In no case have we found any indication that attending (or even communing with) another church falls under the classification of a sin justifying grounds for excommunication.

Nor have we found any support of a pastor making this decision to excommunicate without a vote from the elders, council, and/or full congregation.

Based on this, the excommunication implemented solely by G can not be considered valid until it has gone through proper channels and voted on as outlined by standard church protocol.

7 June 2010
Mr. G
SITP Lutheran Church
Big Bear Lake, CA 92315

Dear G -

We find that there is no way we can send the first letter without including a second with it.

There have been a number of things said from the pulpit in the past months which we have had difficulty grasping. One thing above all continually stands out, however, and we cannot leave this church without bringing it to your attention and that of the elders.

While you always preach the power of Christ crucified and resurrected, we find that often things are said which undermine that doctrine and the security of our salvation with other things.

Specifically, salvation is never based on one's own feelings or emotions. We can find no scripture justifying such preaching. Allowing emotion and the emotional state of the person to dictate whether they (believe they) are saved is leaving a huge gap for the person to fall into doubt and perhaps unbelief. Allowing emotion to dictate is choosing to allow ourselves to be “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” Ephesians 4:14

Life has a number of challenges and changes which effect our emotions. People tend to be tossed to and fro, and emotions change. God is unchangeable, and it is to him and his promises we must cling in order to survive.

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death . . . What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? . . . Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? . . . For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8 : 1, 2, 31, 35, 38, 39 KJV

Emotion is not mentioned specifically in these verses, but neither can we find anything that justifies the idea that emotion on our part can rescind our salvation. Jesus himself said,

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. John 10 : 27-29 KJV

Outside of the book of Psalms, we find no reference to “the joy of my salvation.”

We believe it dangerous to tell people that their salvation is dependent upon whether or not they feel the joy of their salvation, or if they fear death. Saying these things is manipulative and shaming. Producing unwarranted shame in the children of God does not serve a purpose. Unjustified feelings of guilt is nonproductive and brings fear of the loss of their salvation. Guilt or shame for real sin is legitimate. Guilt for emotion or doubt is harmful and serves no purpose and often much harm. Human emotion is fickle and cannot be trusted as a guide to the Christian life nor to the assurance of salvation.

Even if this was not the meaning of the finale of your sermon of 30 May, G, this is what was conveyed: My salvation is at the whim of my hormones, moods, feelings/emotions, and whether I am having a “good day.” Leaving the belief in my salvation up to my feeling that joy is setting up the people of God to be tossed about at the whims of these very human states. But we have been promised that nothing can snatch us out of the hand of Jesus, that nothing can separate us from the love of God. That Christ crucified has pardoned us and nothing will stand between us and that salvation. To teach a doctrine contrary to this is to promote heresy.

Once a person has made a decision to align themselves with the crucified and resurrected Jesus and makes the choice to believe and live what is expressed in the Apostles' and Nicene creeds, the only thing that can rob them of their salvation is for that person to tell God that they no longer want a part of him or his kingdom. Encouraging people to believe that they can easily or lightly remove themselves from the kingdom of God is to encourage them to live in constant doubt, fear, and enslavement to the very things from which Jesus came to free them.

Specifically, I (Kathryn) never felt “joy in my salvation” for many, many years after I prayed to accept Jesus as my Savior and to enter my life, many years post-baptism. As a child, I often cried about this lack of joy and believed that it was an indication that somehow I was not saved, that God had not honored his promise, and that I would not join him in heaven. As I matured as a Christian, I came to recognize that God's promises are true regardless of what my emotions would tell me. Relying on an emotion as a gauge for my Christian walk or salvation status is a very dangerous thing. Rather than checking my emotions, I choose to cling to the Cross and the promises made. Happily, joyfully, recently for the first time I experienced this overwhelming joy. It is transient, however, and not a constant in my life. What IS constant is the promise of God. I cling to that and not to emotion.

Hearing sermons continually week after week which encourage the listener to question and doubt their salvation is not productive to the life of the Christian and we both strongly encourage the leadership of SITP to examine these teachings and where they lead. We are concerned that the way this has been preached, people have not been able to differentiate between opinion and gospel.

We were told when we joined this congregation that if at any time the “teachings are no longer Biblically sound” that we should leave. Holding the Bible as the compass, we cannot continue to support such preaching. Also hearing continually from the pulpit and in personal conversation that “the other churches” no longer honor Christ, we could not let this go without researching it further. The other churches we visited may have a form of worship with which we are not comfortable, we in no case found that the churches which hold to conservative beliefs have stopped preaching the power of the resurrected Jesus. We find it ironic that in researching the truth of these claims, we find ourselves excommunicated.

Please do know that we hold you and STIP in the highest of esteem. This is not meant to be a personal attack on you or on the church itself. We are merely very concerned of the direction of such preaching that result in bondage to emotion, doubt, and fear instead of encouraging the freedom Jesus came to provide for his people.

While we very much love this church and her people, we cannot support the doctrine that (certain) feelings are essential to salvation. To leave salvation to the whim of emotion is to negate the power of Christ crucified.

Sincerely, and with the love of Christ,

Duane and Kathryn
cc: elders

23

Ed. I had some problems with this in the new format & so had to delete it & repost. Sorry. Also, here are the comments, so i don't lose them:

Amrita said...: Well done Kathryn. Both letters are thoughtfully and sensitively worded . I back you in this.You do not deserve ex-communication. The Pastor and elders should have had a discussion with you before pronouncing this judgement.You never got a chance to express your feelings and opinion. This is unfair.Undemocratic.The light is about to go off. I will come back; Wednesday, 09 June, 2010
David said...: well done, and artfully constructed. I can see that you have put much thought and a lot of love into these letters. We can pray that they have a good result; Thursday, 10 June, 2010
Jessica Renshaw said...: Hallelujah and Amen!!!! God is glorified in your clear Biblical stand for truth, regardless of how it is received! But I'm glad you sent copies to board members other than G himself, so he can't just toss the evidence and pretend he never received it. These issues are too important and the consequences of the charges you make too serious for this to be swept under a rug.; Thursday, 10 June, 2010
Amrita said...: Do tell us if you get a response from the church board.; Thursday, 10 June, 2010
David said...: i was musing on how CLOSED societies and DARK religions keep their people with walls or the threat of punishment for 'going outside' the group. How is this 'shunning' different than imprisonment or lashings in the muslim world? I am sorry for SITP - they are good people, with a difficult leader.; Friday, 11 June, 2010

Shock is rather numbing

2010-06-05T09:11:00.000-07:00

The reality of what was said set in a bit later for me.

We have been ex-communicated. So i looked it up to see what it means, & also tried to find it in a Lutheran context. The only person i've ever known to be ex-communicated before (& until then i didn't know it was still done) was guilty of egregious behavior. As far as i know, the only thing we did was to visit other churches (in part because of the unbelievable claims made from the pulpit of how no other churches are honoring Jesus anymore). I would like this explained to me.

Duane didn't like some of what G preached, but it didn't eat at him as it did me. However, he has not taken this well. Meaning that while he didn't have a problem with this church before, he does indeed now.

While i have no desire to have my membership "saved," i very much would like to have the justification for this explained to me. Truthfully, if this is G's whim with no church (doctrine) history but the elders back him, that moves the status of this congregation from "church" to "cult" in my book.

So, i had thought of trying to get an explanation out of G, since he said he will be preaching this on Sunday. But i don't think that is the best way to go. As he mentioned bringing the elders into the conversation, i think drafting a letter to him with copies to the elders is probably wise. Again, this is not to "save" my membership, but in the interest of fairness. And if the elders back his decision, i will be shocked to learn i've been a member of a cult for the past 3 years.

22

Resolved - & relieved

2010-06-04T16:00:00.000-07:00

Yesterday after writing, i called G (the Lutheran Pastor) & made an appointment for us to meet with him for lunch next Saturday. Except Duane informed me he wouldn't be available due to SAR commitments. So i intended to call G back & reschedule, but looking at Duane's calendar, it wasn't going to be easy to find a date.

I got a call from G today. He said he had an uncomfortable conversation/question. Someone had told him we were attending other churches, which took him quite by surprise. Is it true?

Yes, i said that was one of the things we wanted to talk to him about but hadn't known how to approach it. He said that if we want a meeting now, it will have to be in the presence of all the elders.

He also said that we will be welcome to worship & have fellowship at the church now, but we are no longer able to take communion or to vote at meetings.

"That's fine." I responded.

We actually had a better conversation than he & i have had for a long time. I told him i'm very disturbed by some of the doctrine being preached (& that the issue is mine, not Duane's). He told that although we are attending another church doesn't mean that we "are going to hell" & that while other churches have different forms, that doesn't mean they are wrong. I did not point out to him that this is, well, not 180 degrees from what he has said from the pulpit, but it is about 150 (maybe 170) off.

He also said that if i'm struggling with the doctrine preached, that his church is not the one for me. It was all very cordial. My adrenals didn't go crazy (as often happens for me when i'm confronted). My heart rate didn't go up nor did my breathing get shallow. I did not confront him with anything but simply said that we wanted him to know that the reason we are leaving is not because we're angry over an incident. (There have been plenty of incidents, but largely they have happened a day or two after we have decided to make a big change. The incidents only confirmed what we had already decided.)

He said he will be preaching on this on the coming Sunday because the folks who knew we were attending other churches didn't see a problem with it. (Honestly, we don't either.) He said he was more disturbed that they saw no problem with it than to find that we've been doing it.

I would, frankly, be interested in knowing what he says, for i don't understand the issue.

Also, it occurs to me that while he has preached from the pulpit a lot - negatively - about other churches & how they are not "doing it right" or that they've removed the crosses (which we have found not to be true) that he is preventing people from learning the truth about this if attending another church means the threat of ex-communication. We didn't know that it was an ex-communicable sin to attend another church. We were uncomfortable because he didn't know, but didn't know how to tell him. Also, we know some folks who are "members" - they grew up in the church & show up maybe twice a year. If they should find this church not satisfying, they are being prevented from attending another?

I think we both are a little stunned that we have been told that we can attend but not receive communion. (This Lutheran church is far more like a Catholic church than they are ever willing to admit.) We knew that we might be told we weren't welcome there any more. But attendance without communion is a surprise.

I have an old bulletin here. I think the wording has been changed some, but this one states: "Holy Communion is being celebrated here today. We welcome those who share our Biblical faith and understanding of the sacrament." This is stated in some form in each & every bulletin.

Duane said, "So anyone coming in off the street can take communion there, but we can't?"

Well, it is just like their stand on confirmation. We disagree with this church quite a bit on confirmation. First off, for a long time they didn't even consider someone for confirmation until they were 14, then 12. Duane & i strongly feel some children are ready for it long before then. When we expressed this opinion, the response from the church committee was, "Well, we can't do it any younger than that, or we'd be just like the Catholics!" *Um, excuse me?*

I believe that confirmation or not, adults can reach an age & readiness to make their own decision whether or not to receive communion apart from confirmation. This church evidently didn't have anyone to do confirmation for many years, & there are some young adults (in their mid-20s now) who were raised in this church, didn't go thru confirmation, & still on occasion attend. They can not take communion. But any teen visiting from off the hill & who attends, can take communion with no questions asked, confirmation status is not questioned.

Because the church knows the ones who grew up here, but doesn't know the others. I'm sorry, that is just wrong.

That is the situation in which we are currently.

Because a liturgical service with communion is important to us, this church, while telling us we are still free to attend, has shut its doors to us.

Tomorrow will be interesting as there is a memorial service for someone who was important to us. I'm not going to skip it because of this.

While over all it went well & it made things easy for us - i now feel free to do as i need to do without being afraid of what the repercussions could be - i guess i am somewhat nonplussed.

21

How will it play out?

2010-06-03T10:46:00.000-07:00

I don't know how the church issues is going to play out ultimately. We've talked about not burning bridges, but we are ready to rescind our membership at the Lutheran church. That does seem to me like we are making an irreversible decision there.

If i were more like Duane, we wouldn't need to do this. He is much less effected by it than am i. He hears the things that bother me, sees the incongruities, doesn't like them, & can walk away because in his mind they have no authority over him. I wish i was more like that.

Yeah, i'm still angry over things that have happened & yeah, i want to go on & on about them.

However, i am pretty certain that our choosing not to attend that church anymore is the right thing to do. I don't think it is me being petty or vindictive.

Here is why: When i think of what has happened, i get mad. But just as overwhelmingly, i pray for the pastor & the church. I hurt that he believes & teaches as he does. I desperately desire for him not to be caught down whatever foxhole he is in. And i pray more. I also pray for love for him.

Sounding like shades of Yoda, Duane & i both see "Much fear in him." I think many of the things he is preaching or choosing to do is directly related to that fear. I think he yelled at the congregation about joy because he is lacking in that joy. I think he makes fun of marriage because he fears his own is lacking. I think he focuses much on the loss of heaven because he fears losing/missing heaven. I think he denied allowing me to do massage because 1. he's angry with me for not attending regularly anymore & 2. he greatly fears losing the church.

Fear is an enemy to faith. I don't think doubt is such an enemy, but fear is.

I feel helpless in this, for i cannot go to him & say, "I did experience the joy of my salvation & being part of God's family. It didn't come thru being yelled at or being shamed. It is a transiet feeling & i probably won't experience it continually or fully until i am in the presence of God. Please accept this & stop yelling."

And, "I deeply wish that you would experience confidence in your life so that you don't have to fear coming before God & can know that you are a child pleasing to him. Please stop telling the congregation that salvation is not something they can be assured of. Please stop passing on fear. Please learn to live in the knowledge that God loves you & that no one can pluck you from his hand."

And, "I sense that you fear that your faith is incomplete. I wonder if you are questioning your life as a Christian & are afraid of feeling doubts. I sense that much of the negativity of other churches & the criticisms are because you are questioning the life you have & your faith? I wonder if the narrow, rigid path you preach is because of the fear?"

So much more than this. When we deliberately began to "church hop" in January, it was with prayers for this Lutheran church. When i felt such joy & passion in March after a sermon & meditating on it, my desire was not to attend the church where i felt that but that the same passion & joy could be experienced at the Lutheran church. I deeply long for them to experience this too, & it is with prayers of longing that i pray for that church.

Don't get me wrong. I'm still hurt & angry about recent events. I still have a tendency to be critical & lacking in charity. I want to lash out angrily & point out the mistakes i've seen & the I'm tending to say, "I wish G (the pastor) would just mature in his Christian walk," as if i have achieved that! :P

Also, i honor the man. A conversation with my Sis Elsa reminded me of this recently. I used to go in & have conversations with G. And at the time i said, "He is the most unique combination of arrogant & humble i have ever met." He would listen to what i said, & would receive it graciously. Sometimes he would make changes. Sometimes we disagreed & left it at that. But i could have these conversations. I even enjoyed them. He is a very intelligent man.

I stopped doing that. It reached a point where i felt that what i had to say was just too critical & that further conversation would be pointless. That we couldn't continue on. It felt like i was simply doing nothing but going in & complaining & that i couldn't keep hitting my head against the wall. Also, frankly, i didn't like the feeling that by seeking conversations with him, i was submitting to his authority. So i stopped talking, stopped having conversations, stopped communication.

I was starting to feel that this is a rambling, pointless post.

I have changed my mind about this. I think the problem might be that i gave up on communication. I feel like i can't say this well or in the manner i mean it. When marriages begin to fail, often the problem is that the two partners have stopped talking. They've "given up" or think they know everything the other one is going to say already. When a partnership in business happens, i think often there is this lack of communication, also.

Because i don't like conflict & tend to run from it, & it seemed that most of my conversations with G were conflict, i stopped trying. Relationships die when communication stops. It is like when you stop watering a flower. I need to take responsibility for that.

It is doubtful to me that we (i) will be able to continue in this church. However, i think i do need to have at least one last conversation with G, & apologize for stopping the "watering" of our relationship. I think, that just in the writing of this post, i can see that i hold much of the responsibility for my inability to be in this church, because i gave up on it.

This conversation won't "fix" what i feel is wrong. I don't have that ability or authority. That belongs to God. However, i do feel that i can leave with the relationship somewhat still intact if i explain the problems with which i'm struggling. It MIGHT just be that we would still be able to attend there sometimes.

20

Yada, yada, whinging about the weekend

2010-05-30T17:54:00.000-07:00

I bit the bullet & had the brief discussion with the pastor regarding what happened on Friday. I'm feeling almost worse over the conversation than if i had left it alone.

I asked when he called the insurance company & he didn't know what i was talking about. When i said, "At what point did you call the insurance company & find out they wouldn't cover what i do?" he told me he never made a call. I must have looked blank.

He said, "I didn't have to. Anything not directly related to what we do here, church-related, is not covered."

(Hello??? You think your rummage sale is covered? You've a greater chance at being sued for someone tripping in the parking lot than the work i do. If your rummage sale is covered, then my doing work for donations to the church is covered as well. If i'm not covered, i can't see how the rummage sale/fundraiser would be.)

He told me "No one knew you were coming."

(??? I told the lady in charge three different times i would be there.)

He agreed that what happened would make me feel disrespected, but again stated, "No one knew you were coming." He also said that had anyone known i was coming, he probably would have said i could do it this year, but not in future years. Water under the bridge. As he never knew what occurred Friday AM, he is not responsible for the reaction of the lady who was running the show.

I told him there is very little chance that i'd ever be sued & that i have insurance. It made no difference to him. "Churches, especially conservative churches, are being sued more & more," was his response.

Don't i know it? Our church down the hill is about to be taken from the people who paid for & built it because the diocese has laid claim to it. That church did everything it could to protect itself from the position in which it find itself, but it didn't make any difference. Does that mean that God is removed from this process? The people there are distressed, but are trusting God to be in their midst.

I totally agree with taking necessary precautions. But there is also over the top. I think what he has chosen to do is over the top. If he is that concerned, he shouldn't have the rummage sale there, either.

I could have done something that was beneficial for the church, beneficial for the people i worked on, that would have raised a small amount of money for them, & would have had virtually no risk. That i was told i could not do so on some mythical risk seems to me to outline the problems i'm having in this church.

This pastor tells us to trust God & have faith in him, but then does something like this that seems to negate all the trust & faith. If i was in a profession that had a higher risk of being sued, i could completely understand the concern. That is not the case. If this dubious chance of being sued was something truly potential, then yes, by all means err on the side of caution. As there is essentially no risk, why not do good & trust God?

Amrita, you are right, we are worlds apart. In the US, folks sue at the drop of a pin if they think they can get money for it. It does happen. But again, i think the church runs a greater risk of that by having folks buy stuff from us that is used. Or by selling hot dogs. If someone really wanted to be devious & sue the church, we have cracks in the pavement they could "trip" on & have a way to sue us. It hasn't happened yet, in years of running this rummage sale. But our pastor believes that people are evil, & cannot be good. I tend to believe that most people want to be/try to be good & honest (even tho none of us can ever be as good as God).

It was kind of the final straw for me today, when in his sermon he yelled at us about not being joyful. He asked the congregation of we believe what we actually say in the Apostle's Creed. Yes, of course, was the response. "THEN WHY AREN'T YOU JOYFUL?" he shouted. "If you believe what we state in the creed, you have to be joyful. If you aren't joyful, you aren't saved." (This just after telling us that if we don't know if we are saved or not, we're not reading the Bible; the Bible gives us the hope & promise of salvation.) The fact is i do, on occasion, feel that incredible joy of my salvation, of being part of God & having him in my life & that has never occurred after being chastised like this in church.

Duane responded negatively to his joyful stuff, too. But he didn't recognize it for what it was: Manipulation & shaming.

Ok, he & i have now talked about this in depth. This is what it comes down to: This church doesn't work for us. But we've an emotional attachment to it & the people there. Therefore, we feel badly that it "doesn't work." It hurts that we need to leave it. It doesn't mean that we should stay. It means that it hurts to leave. It doesn't mean that we are judging it bad or criticizing it in a way to be gossiping or creating problems. It.Just.Does.Not.Work.

Move on.

19

Negativity

2010-05-29T10:19:00.000-07:00

It is a big part of our culture not to be negative, not to complain, to focus on the positive. There is much to be said about this, too. Trent, at The Simple Dollar wrote a post recently on The Cost of Negativity & how he & a co-worker were able to turn a difficult situation around.

To a large degree, we have a lot of choice in how we see things. Is the glass half empty or half full? Do we take lemons & make lemonade? Yet, somehow in humans it is nature to see the dark, the "off," the errors. If you look at a blank sheet of paper that has a small dark mark on it somewhere, the dark mark is what draws your attention. So is human nature. We tend to look at that & not at the rest that is good.

I read a study some years ago that said that depressed people have a more realistic outlook than folks who are not depressed. Non-depressed people tended to color things more brightly than reality actually deserved. Now, i'm not saying that we need to hold to harsh realism all the time. I think an optimistic attitude & being hopeful is a very good thing. I think it helps us get thru the dark times.

There is another side to this, however. Too much focus on "the bright side of life" can make our sight dim. (Sorry just had to throw that in.) There are times when always looking for the positive blinds us to reality. There are times we need to be realistic & not continually look for the best & the brightest, but face the situation as it actually is. For more on that, check out Barbara Ehrenreich's Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking has Undermined America. It is not my intent to go into this too deeply, but just to say that "relentless promotion of positive thinking" can get in the way of grieving & is often unkind to push when someone is going thru a loss.

This was a bit of digression to give some backstory to what i have to say.

I may be very close to being willing to walk away from our Lutheran church.

I was advised to inform our pastor that we are visiting other churches. I see the wisdom in this advice as the church currently seems to believe we are not attending due to my struggle with chronic fatigue. That feels deceptive to me. We have not acted on this advice, however. There just seems to be no way to do this without being highly critical.

I don't want to be critical, & yet i am. We have worked very hard at not talking about our criticisms (not to "complain") to other members as we do not want to create problems & divisions in the church. In talking it over, Duane & i feel we have worked very hard to see the glass as half full in this situation & have made a lot of explanations & excuses for the things that have been done.

Dear friend Cindy suggested that we stick to the factual:

I was very disturbed that pastor has said from the pulpit (& in private conversation) that none of the other churches are "doing it right" & most no longer honor Jesus & many are removing the crosses from the churches. Because this disturbed me, we decided to check it out & have found it not to be true.

I discussed this at length with John on Thursday. He agreed with Cindy's approach & suggested - very strongly suggested - that we stick to ONE point. He said that 1. we can't change our pastor or the situation 2. going in with a "laundry list" of things bothering us will not be beneficial & 3. using a "laundry list" will just make things messy.

To the above suggested by Cindy, he recommended adding, "Yes i have health issues, but they are chronic & will not be resolved quickly. There is more going on than just my health. (Insert the above here.) We need to be ecumenical & will be attending other churches." Also he recommended to keep the conversation short.

That said, if the pastor pushes for more we can go into more detail if we wish. Duane & i discussed this & decided that if we need it to be short then Duane alone should discuss this with the pastor. Both of us together in a specially arranged visit with him would give it too much weight & too much importance.

Because Duane was going to have this conversation, i passed up the perfect opportunity yesterday to say this. Pastor walked me to my car when i left the rummage sale. I should have said this then. I'm not very good at coming up with things quickly, especially when i'm stressed or angry. (I was quite angry. Gave that story at my other blog.) I'm not good at handling conflict at all.

Which made me realize i could take another approach with this conversation.

"I'm very bad at dealing with conflict. I run from conflict when i can. I have been struggling with & very conflicted over doctrine being taught here & we have been attending other churches."

Of course, that could raise questions of what in the doctrine i don't like. I'm not sure i could answer that. As i've not attended other Lutheran churches (except an occasional visit here or there), i've no idea if what i'm struggling with is actual Lutheran doctrine, or our pastor's presentation of it. I lean toward the latter. Much as i like him, i don't like many of his opinions, especially when they are preached as if they are Biblical doctrine.

It has been interesting for me to discover thru this that Duane recognizes no church authority, & i'm rather the opposite.

Catholic hierarchy places the deacons & priests above the people, the bishops above the priests, the arch bishops . . . etc. Taken literally, the Catholics have taught for a long time that you can't get to Jesus directly, you need an intermediary, whether that is a priest, a saint, or Mary. Those intermediaries are in authority of those seeking their help.

Duane long ago rejected this when he was a child. (I have told you Duane is highly intelligent, right?) When he was in CCD or catechism classes or something, he saw the problems within the church teaching. When he was not given adequate answers to his questions, he rejected the church authority over him. He essentially said to himself, "I am a Catholic Christian but not Roman Catholic. My only authority is Jesus himself. I do not answer to any other authority." I doubt he did this as literally as i'm outlining, but that was his thinking.

The churches i was raised in had a pastor, deacons &/or elders, but little other authority (certainly nothing like a hierarchy with bishops, archbishops, & a pope). Yet, somehow, when i am sitting in a service, i do feel i am "under the authority" of the person speaking, even if it is only for that hour. Which means i can become very uncomfortable in a church service in a short time. I've no idea where this view came from for me. I think it has played a huge part in my discomfort in our current church as i have felt that the pastor's opinions have some authority that gives them more weight than the opinions of others.

I think it would be much better if i could adopt Duane's philosophy, but it will be a struggle to change something so ingrained.

Since i can't say it elsewhere, here i my laundry list of things that have bothered me & i need to keep to myself. Some of these things are huge, others are not very important but simply irritating. In no particular order:

The condemnation of other churches

Lack of charity with other churches

The belief that we can't know if we will really make it to heaven to be with God

The focus on the smallness, the wickedness of people rather than on the greatness of God

A rigidness about "upholding the doctrines" that excludes other people

Rigidity at the age a child can join the church & take communion

Great pride in being "Lutheran"

Excluding others in that pride

Much use of shaming & inability to differentiate between guilt & shame

Interruption of the liturgy in order to explain the history of the liturgy

Changing the liturgy to suit the wishes of the congregation

Just an overwhelming sense of negativity

The pastor starts programs that peter out within a short time (So far, since we began this church just over 3 years ago, the programs that have died off within a short time of starting: Saturday evening service; Saturday Bible Studies; a youth drama class; an Aikido class; a book club; quarterly pot lucks; catechism classes for youth to join the church; children's Sunday school; VBS has been done but this pastor didn't want to do it; church newsletter)

I'm sure there is more. This is enough for me now.

To be fair, here is the list of the good we see in this church:

They truly love Jesus

They try to uphold the Bible as the Word of God

They are a loving church

They are a friendly church

They work to make people feel welcome

They are concerned about the needs & problems of the congregation

I have to ask myself, why don't these balance? They should, i think. Yet somehow i'm only seeing the splotch on the paper, instead of all that is on the rest of it that is beautiful. I guess, for me, that these past 3 years have been some form of water torture. I never know when that drop of water will fall on my head, & it is only a drop of water. But this has happened often enough now that my head is soaked, i'm tired, & i don't want to do this any more.

18

Interesting

2010-05-14T18:28:00.000-07:00

The class i'm currently taking is a hands-on class about healing. Some time ago now, Dr. John Upledger discovered that working with certain rhythms within the body (the CranioSacral rhythm, which much of current medical model doesn't even yet recognize) would help a person heal & often very dramatically.

Because this rhythm is very subtle, the work is gentle & also very subtle. This spills over into energy work & other "woo-woo" practices. Yet it does work & often very powerfully.

Yesterday in class i was looking at the group formations & how they were doing certain energy-healing techniques. What i found most fascinating was that the groups looked like some prayer-healing groups i have attended. (Okay, i think i've only been to 2 or 3 of these, but the groupings looked similar. Also the stance & attitude of the folks involved.)

I think i've said before that "new age" stuff doesn't scare me. I find that often they have "tapped into" something that God has created. The folks who credit "the universe" or something similar just haven't met the author & creator of the energy/techniques which they are using.

That is how i see much of the work in this particular workshop. I don't know the beliefs of Dr. Upledger, but it seems to me that he has "discovered" much of the type of healing that is done by prayer & laying on of hands.

I am not ashamed of Jesus, nor to be affiliated with Christ our Lord, but i do hesitate to identify myself as "Christian." It seems to me that the meaning of that word is largely lost in our society, & identifying myself as "Christian" can lead to many misunderstandings.

On break today i mentioned to another lady that i am a Christian & how that the work we'd done the day before reminded me of laying on of hands/prayers for healing.

Her comment was that she is a Christian, but that she doesn't believe that Jesus is the only way to God. She mentioned other "enlightened" prophets thru the centuries. I wasn't as blunt as to tell her that not believing Jesus is the only path to God by default/definition means that she is not a Christian, but i did discuss the various beliefs, & how that Jesus, to Christian belief, is unique among all the "enlightened prophets."

This does seem to be common in our culture: Believing that simply having a belief in "God" or a "higher power" makes on a Christian.

Right or wrong, good or bad, (even tho this sounds rigid & i don't like that) to be "Christian" requires more than just "belief." It isn't a vague set of values. It requires a commitment & sometimes it requires things i don't personally care for. I don't fully understand God as presented by the Bible (& you could be worried about me if i said that i do). There is much about God that i'm not even sure i like.

But i do believe that God is good. That he loves us & expressed that love by sending Jesus. That to reject Jesus is to reject God.

So, even tho i don't understand, i trust that what he says is true.

I don't know where i'm going with this post. Just recording some observations about the class & this lady's comments which i found interesting.

17

Bitterness

2010-05-03T19:32:00.000-07:00

Bitterness? How can i be struggling with bitterness just a few days after experiencing such joy & passion? Lord knows, i must just be seriously twisted.

I "freaked" out about an expense today - Highly Stressed. It zapped every molecule of energy within me.

But what i've really been struggling over is the coming Sunday. Is it ok if i just stay in bed & cry all day? I did contemplate going to the Catholic Church, where much will be said of the veneration of the Holy Mother, but much more will be said as well.

I want to post about all this, & hardly anyone is reading either blog, but i'm afraid of the whinging & whining. I'm tired of listening to myself feel sorry for myself. I don't want to live a life where each year on this one day i have to hide away. I know i'm not alone in this feeling, but it does seem the possibility that Mother's Day was created just to make some of us feel incredibly inferior & deeply depressed.

EJ just posted that she got to hear the baby's (well she said "babies") heartbeat. That simply crushes me. This year it is even more clear than ever that this will NEVER come to us. Duane is hurt & disappointed, but philosophical.

Me? Bitter. Life seems to be incredibly cruel. God seems inept. The people who parrot about "God's perfect plan" dense. The "promises" in the scriptures simply daft.

I could go on, so much has been bouncing around in my head. But, to what purpose?

I may feel bitter, but this bitterness has more to do with expectations than anything else. Too many people go on about "God's perfect plan" & the promises of scripture, & having "enough faith" & so much more.

I think they take many of those verses out of context. However, Jesus said, "My yoke is easy & my burden is light." I must be doing something wrong, for i don't find it to be so!

Never-the-less, what i HAVE to hang on to is that God is good. I may not understand all of this, & i may never be satisfied about this. But above all, i do believe that God is good. I strain to believe that, sometimes. I look at all the injustice, unfairness, & grievances, not just in my life but in the world in general. Life is so often a paradox, ironic, incongruent, illogical. It just doesn't make sense! It just isn't fair!

I believe that life is just a bundle of events, circumstances, & other weird occurrences. Some are directly related to my own choices, good & bad. Sometimes i'm effected by the choices of others, good or bad. Often i have no say or control over any of this. The promise is that God will take that bundle & weave it into something which will be beautiful & glorify him.

I think i have it hard. Yep. I do. I think many of us, most of us, all of us have things with which we struggle. It usually feels unfair. But God requires some give their very lives. People go to their deaths for being Christian. So whinging about not having the "perfect life i planned, with a wonderful career & 2.1 children" is just smack.

This is what it is. This is what we have.

I don't believe in "God's perfect plan." I do believe that somehow, all this mess, all the weird & bizarre things happening, all the senseless & ugly things, will come together & glorify God. I don't understand how or why. I don't need to. I don't run the world. Obviously i would not run it this way. But God doesn't account to me.

One of my favorite songs for a long time has been Depeche Mode's Blasphemous Rumors.

I don't want to start any blasphemous rumors
but i think that God has a sick sense of humor
& when i die i expect to find him laughing.

And, frankly, this is often what life feels like.

For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Corinthians 1.25

That's about all we can hold on to. What we see of God in our world will often make no sense. We simply have to trust. God is good.

16

I struggle with titles

2010-04-17T19:57:00.000-07:00

I always have so much to say "in my head" & have such a hard time "putting it on paper."

Duane & i have been "church hopping" as i've not been very comfortable at the church where we are members. We don't expect to find a place that fits us, which is why we don't plan to settle somewhere. We plan to continue to "hop" for some time.

I do feel kind of strange - the Lutheran Church thinks we've not been there because of illness. They sent me a flower arrangement. I told someone i felt guilty, but that's not true. I just feel kind of odd, weird.

The big problem has been how do we decide where to go on a particular Sunday? I don't really want to leave it up to how i feel any one day. When i do that, we might fall into the pattern - like last week - of not going anywhere at all. We could do it as: The first Sunday we go to X, the second Sunday we go to Y . . .

Duane suggested that we choose 6 churches (not including the Lutheran - we do intend to go there still "regularly," maybe once every six weeks or so), & assign them a number. Then roll a die. I laughed when he suggested it, & he got a little defensive, but i wasn't laughing at him or putting down his idea. It is as good as any other. I just laughed because i thought it the strangest way to choose a church i'd ever heard.

__________________________

I've several windows open on the computer because i wanted to write about what was there, but not to bookmark them. Bookmarks tend to get lost in the shuffle frankly. If i keep a window open, eventually i have to do something with it.

The first i have open in as interview at the blog The Church of No People. It is an interview with someone named Jason. He talked of his experience growing up in an Evangelical church.

Until my last couple years of high school, my biggest doubts were about my salvation. I grew up in a very evangelistic church culture. Lots of traveling evangelists came through, and they were very good at getting people worked up about whether or not they really knew Jesus as their savior, and whether or not they were going to hell. I had friends, and even parents of friends, who got "saved" multiple times. I never had the guts to get re-saved, but I spent most of my adolescent and teen years worried that I wasn't officially a child of God, in the born-again evangelical sense.

Then, once I got past the am-I-saved-or-not? doubts, I moved on to bigger and wilder doubts -- the ones about whether or not God even exists. That's where I've been for the last decade or so. The biggest stumbling block for me has been education. The more I learn about the Bible and the history of theology, the more I learn about science and the human brain, the more I learn about philosophy and psychology and sociology, the more I wonder whether religion is just something we've made up.

You’ve pointed out that your Christian background is southern Baptist. Have you found the Baptist church (or any church for that matter) to be a really good place to explore issues of doubt?

Um, no. Though of course there are pockets of grace and understanding everywhere, the Baptist church as a whole is not one that is comfortable with uncertainty. It is steadfastly conservative in politics, in theology, and in practice. Doubts are, by definition, not very conservative. But I'm part of a creative and merciful small-church community that has allowed me to play a significant role here despite my doubts and questions.

This was definitely my experience, especially the "Lots of traveling evangelists came thru, & they were very good at getting people worked up about whether or not they really knew Jesus as their savior, & whether or not they were going to hell." I don't know why it is that this seems to be the evangelical version of preaching. In my growing up, it wasn't just traveling evangelists, however. Every week the pastor would preach in a manner that indicated that we just couldn't be sure & we'd better repent. Every service would have an "altar call."

This is why i found the Episcopal/Anglican church to be such a relief to me. It is not that they didn't recognize that people need Jesus, but that they did this bringing folks to the Lord in what i consider a more responsible manner. It is also why i'm struggling some with the Lutheran Church. The Lutheran Church evidentally doesn't believe that we can be sure about salvation.

Now, frankly, i'm not a "once saved, always saved" kind of person. But:

1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus . . . 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory . . . 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 8:1;16, 17;38,39 NIV

I firmly believe that if we desire to be "in Christ" & part of God's kingdom, we have that freedom & the security of knowing we belong to God. Conversely, for the folks who want no part of God, even if they claimed to be Christians at one time, i do not believe God will force himself on them. As someone i love to read (Anna by Fynn) once said, "God is a gentleman."

I know that i once struggled with the security of "knowing" i was saved, i doubted my salvation. But God does not lie. Now, as an adult & somewhat more mature, i don't understand the preaching that makes folks feel insecure. God has promised us life with him if we are "in Christ Jesus." What is there to doubt???

______________________

I came across another post that really spoke to me. It is called "Why do they hate us?" by a blogger called The Internet Monk. Evidently he died very recently. The Jason of the last section was giving tribute to him & mentioned this post. It is speaking of Evangelical Christians.

It resonates with me. I am a Christian, & therefore i really struggle with much of my feelings (mostly negative) of the Evangelical persuasion. I've not had good or happy experiences with much of my time with that particular doctrine, & i don't necessarily agree or accept much of what they push.

(Disclaimer here, i've several friends of the Evangelical bent, & i love them very much. This is not directed at any one person.)

I think what i find difficult is that many Evangelicals tend to be so rigid. I've already run into it up here, the Baptist Church claiming, "We're the only ones who've got it right." I do not, of course, believe that "all roads lead to God." However, that said, within Jesus Christ, i believe that there are a number of different ways that God uses to lead us, call us, use us. I don't believe there is any one church that "has it all right" simply because the Gospels are too broad. We humans have a hard time with that & tend to narrow it to a doctrine we can grasp.

But i do struggle with what i was taught as a child, that is, the Evangelicals are the only ones who are right & the rest are lost. That the only way to be a Christian is to do ____, & _, & ______. Usually having to do with Bible reading & devotions & church attendance.

Um, it seems to me that we are back to law. But i know a lot of folks caught in that web. I know of 5 people who were raised in the (Evangelical) church where i was raised who as young adults left the church never to return (to my knowledge, i've not been in touch with them in years). I know another one who didn't leave the church but was so crippled by her doubts about her salvation & that God could "really" love her (she believed she had to be a goat not a sheep) that her functioning was impaired. I ached for her beliefs - tho they mirrored mine - not believing God wanted her to live in that despair. But she couldn't/wouldn't listen to my arguments, for we had been taught that the Evangelical/Baptist teachings were all that were right & true.

Again, i just don't believe God desires his chosen, his children to live in such despair & defeat. For 99 out of 100 folks attending those churches, they perhaps don't have a problem with this. For the 1 percent of us, however, it can be a real struggle.

Another post from The Internet Monk: Why I am a Christian

___________________________

I can't claim that i'm living "as i should" as a Christian. Since the end of Lent, i've struggled with devotions & even talking to God regularly. I still struggle some with bitterness that "God won't give" me what i desire. I have a hard time with Christian novels where the person struggles & struggles & struggles & then submits & suddenly life is great & they achieve their hearts' desires.

I don't think it is real. I don't think it happens all that often. God's promises to the people of the New Covenant, to folks of the New Testament age, to Christians are the hope of new life in Christ & in the kingdom to come. I think we in the US, we of a lot of privilege forget this. Prosperity gospel is a lie.

I think we forget that there are people who die for the gospel, who are persecuted, who lose what they have. I think we forget that there are a lot of people who don't have that "happy ending" of novels here on earth.

That said, of course i want my happy ending. I struggle with my reality, but even tho i struggle, i accept that my life is not going to follow the pattern my desires would dictate.

What is more, i don't want to be a "cultural Christian." This is going to sound judgmental, & i don't mean it to be, but i don't want to attend a church just for it to become a social club for me.

Now, don't get me wrong. I want to make friends & to have more folks in my life. Duane & i seem too isolated to me. I think we need to develop more relationships. Church is a good place for that to happen. But i don't want my social & cultural status in a church to define me as a Christian. I don't know if i'm saying this right.

Some months ago i began following a blog called "Stuff Christians Like." Some of the things he said early on resonated with me & made an impact. But as time went on, i found that much of it did not, because i'm not part of that cultural Christianity, & i don't want to be. Some of what he was talking about became more clear to me in some of the churches we've visited.

I met someone else recently who commented on this. She mentioned a specific church (which we have visited) & said she was surprised at her treatment there. She said she sat in a "dead zone" with about 15 feet on all sides of her empty. The people didn't want to meet new folks, they wanted to be with their friends. That was our experience at that church as well. It also had the requsite band at the front who played half an hour of contemporary worship music before the pastor got up to do a 50 minute sermon.

Now, please don't misunderstand me. I'm not knocking this church. It does preach the Gospel, not a watered down version or some prosperity junk. I'm sure it meets the needs in the lives of many. I'm sure it helps people meet Jesus & learn about being a Christian. As i said earlier, i believe that within the Christian faith there are many different variations that honor God.

But i don't want to be part of that. To me, for me, it would be too shallow. It would be taking a cultural way of being a Christian, & that i don't want. I just don't know how to say it well, & given my current lack of real spiritual discipline it even sounds hypocritical, but i want something deeper.

That's enough for one night, i think. It is clear why i've not written in a while. I've so much bottled up inside that it has been difficult to write - & very wordy as well.

The peace of the Lord be always with you ! :)

15

Post Lent

2010-04-06T11:03:00.000-07:00

Easter has come & gone. Lent is over.

It was my intent to do a devotional reading every day during Lent. I failed.

Devotions are not something i find easy. Partly because i lack in discipline, but there are other reasons as well.

I signed up for two different ones, one Lutheran (L), one Episcopalian (E), to be sent to me via email daily. My goal was to do more scripture reading. The L devotional did use scripture, & early in Lent i would often look up (usually on the computer) the scripture & read more than what they printed.

The E devotional, however, had a number of different items at the top. On occasion they used scripture but more often a reading from a hymnal or the prayer book or another "inspirational" source. Then the devotion would be that person's thoughts. While it usually had a spiritual tone to it, frankly, it was fluff.

Sometimes i read the devotionals daily as they came in, other times i went back & did several days at a time. (Flavors of Ashleigh Brilliant, a paraphrase: I try to take it one day at a time, but sometimes the days gang up on me.) I didn't necessarily want to do deep Bible study, but i wasn't all that interested in fluff, either.

I need to find something else for me because i want this to go beyond Lent. Probably not devotionals but simply reading the scripture. However, i bought two books about devotionals & i'll write about them another time. One is bluntly honest & describes very well the feelings i've had about them.

(I find i tend to do split infinitives. Gotta work on that.)

Passion as such has gone. And i do struggle with a lot of different emotion especially bitterness Yet some peace remains. It is as if i'm open to possibilities that were closed to me before. I plan to feed that all that i can. :)

14

A week (+) later

2010-03-24T20:18:00.000-07:00

Passion is exhausting!

But, this time, i have found that as the passion burned out, peace remained. I am truly thankful.

One thing i have to remember . . . that just having such an experience is not the "end all." I used to think that way. "When _x__ happens, my life will smooth out, things will be easier." I have grown since i used to have such thoughts. There is always the next thing.

Because we are human & have to live in the moment, because we have past & future, these experiences don't "endure." We are not made to sustain any one level of something for a long period of time. So for me, that passion is gone, but the memory remains.

I've been thinking about it, & i think this is just the first of a long series of allowing God deeper into my life. I can't think, "Ok, i had that experience. I've now experienced God" & put it on a shelf somewhere. I need to allow God to continue working in me.

Too tired to continue. Hope everyone is having a blessed day. :)

13

Passion - something exciting & good

2010-03-15T13:18:00.000-07:00

I've been writing about our search for a church where we can be comfortable. I've really struggled with our Lutheran church. Our pastor, without a doubt, loves Jesus very much. He also is a passionate man & speaks with much ardor. He also speaks with authority. An authority i often feel is not warranted. He also has a history of depression, & i think i have mentioned that because of my own background, i hear his depression screaming, even screeching, in many of his sermons. I don't think most other people hear that, but because i am "sensitive" to it, it comes thru very clearly for me. I have believed this to be a "function of me" - my problem & not in general a problem with the church itself. Still, i've known it to be a problem with which i grapple for a long time.

Because of my history (depression & a worse psych diagnosis), i've worked with a therapist (John) for a long time. I now only see him about once a month; he helps me stay "balanced." Our belief systems don't match. We agree on some things, on other things we do not. He is Unitarian. I know some Christian folks feel a Christian should only see a Christian counselor, but this has worked very well for me. (Due to the severity of my previous diagnosis, there were very few Christian counselors qualified to work with me.) However, some time ago i said to John about the Lutheran pastor: "I wouldn't trust him for counseling. If i had a spiritual issue for which i sought direction, i would not go to him. I'd be more likely to discuss it with you."

John's response was, "That is a problem." Because he knows that we don't share beliefs, he could not direct me on these issues.

He is right, of course. I've just not known what to do.

I was raised in an unloving home & an unhealthy church. I learned early that being excited about something at home or church was not safe. Still, at school & with friends i was an exuberant child until i was about 12. At that time due to some circumstances with friends & with a teacher, i learned that it just wasn't safe to be excited about anything & share it. If i had been able to feel safe at church or home OR with friends or at school, i think i would have been ok. But having no safe place anywhere, i gave up. I learned to stuff any joy or delight into the cellar & stand on the trap door!

Interesting, it is about that time i began to have problems with chronic fatigue, too.

The last time i remember ever letting myself be really excited about something was when i was 21. I think i've mentioned it elsewhere & the details aren't very important, but that balloon was popped & i never let myself have (show) any kind of passion again. I think i stuffed myself into a straight-jacket & have lived in it ever since.

It had to be a straight-jacket because if i had energy i didn't know what to do with it (except hurt myself) & i would make myself lie perfectly still. I mean this literally. I was afraid to use any energy i had because my world view was so negative. My mantra was "Don't make it worse. Don't make it worse." I was often suicidal although i feared standing before God & saying, "You weren't enough for me." I was afraid anything i would do would make the situation worse (like hurting myself & becoming paraplegic or something). My thoughts & energy was so very negative. I tried to be positive & put a funny spin on my life. I could do it most of the time. I did often give thanks to God for my blessings & the good in my life. Yet i was still so very empty & i often wondered why my life was so barren.

The chronic fatigue has been very, very bad in the past 3 years. I see my ability to do many things slipping away. I've had to give up life dreams. I've had to face that i'm no longer able to do cooking/housework & have had to hire someone to come in. I've never been very good at those things, but to admit that i can't do them has been very hard. When i finally took the step, when i finally admitted that i was failing at my tasks & couldn't do them & then found someone who said she could help me, i was excited. For the first time since i was 21 i was really excited. When it didn't work out, my balloon was popped again. After all those years, nothing but a popped balloon & wasted passion. Passion doesn't feel very safe to me.

I saw myself being stuffed back into that straight jacket. It isn't safe to get excited.

I've long had a relationship with God that is very intellectual but not very emotional. I usually feel empty inside & know that as a Christian that is not "suppose to be so," but i've not known how to change it. The negativity at the Lutheran church has been getting to me.

Yesterday i attended Community Church by the Lake & Saturday night i listened to some of their podcasts. This pastor (his name is Don) has a different approach. Not so negative. Listening to the podcast, i thought, "This is someone i could go to to seek spiritual advice, if i needed it. This is someone i could trust." It is not that he is "soft on sin" as some churches accuse others of being. He knows that we sin & need Jesus, but his focus is on the greatness of God not on our smallness. It makes so much difference! One of the things he said, in talking of the failures of the Children of Israel, was that they lacked passion & wanted to be passive.

That caught my interest at the time, but last night in reviewing it, it really came clear to me that i've kept myself straight-jacketed & not let God work in me.

Suddenly, as if just realizing that i've closed my life to the passion for life, the realization opened the flood gates. I was filled with passion! If i had the energy, i'd have been dancing thru the house. It felt wonderful! (And now, it feels kind of scary & unsafe, but i don't care, i'll embrace it.)

Another thing Don said on one of the podcasts (the recent sermons have been on Israel's flight from Egypt, their sin, & the 40 years in the wilderness) was that the Children of Israel didn't trust God & complained. They believed - most of them - that God brought them into the wilderness to destroy them. They did not see that God wanted good things for them. Don said, "If you believe God is out to get you, to trip you up, to do harm to you, you're in a very bad place. God is the GOOD guy, & if you have come to see him as the bad guy, where do you go from there?"

It is true. In our quest for a child, my depression - often extreme depression - & difficulty in seeing a future for us, i have often thought that God is the bad guy, out to trip me up & screw with my head. I've tried NOT to think those things. I thank God every day for our many blessings. I talk to him frequently, even if it is just to be honest & say that i don't trust him much. But those things, even the thanksgiving, have been so empty. I've been wanting to die for a while now. I'm not suicidal. But i've seen no value in my life. I feel worthless with my lack of energy & inability to do anything. I don't want to leave my husband (die), i think it would hurt him, but i can't feel that i'm a helpmeet, or a benefit, or anything of good. I've not placed any value on my life for a long, long time. I remember at 16 telling my mother that if i was lucky i wouldn't live to be 20. (I was punished for that.)

I'm so excited, so passionate, to thankful to God for coming & filling me, i think i would burst if i didn't share it. I've so long wanted to die & my spiritual life was intellectual only. It felt too scary to embrace & love life.

I don't know where this will go. I would like to think that now i'll recover my energy (& i will have to learn discipline in how to use it if i do) & maybe even have children. But that may very likely not happen. It doesn't matter. I now can see that i do have value, even if i am bed-fast most of the time. Duane & i have a future (i'm not saying our marriage was bad, just that i couldn't see a future or a reason for a future without children) & i can believe, trust, have faith that God has good for us in store, even if it is not what my desires would give me.

What is also interesting, i don't think we will attend that church, tho i could be wrong. I think i will listen to the podcasts. I think with this passion i probably can attend the Lutheran church & not be discouraged. You see, i can now very clearly see that the problem there is not just a product of me. What he is preaching is bondage - the negativity, the criticism of other churches & their forms of faith & worship, the focus on our sins & foibles, all of it - it is bondage. God wants us to know his freedom. I'm not sure that ultimately we won't end up leaving, but for now my passion is for that bondage to be broken, to still attend that Lutheran church, knowing the freedom that is ours in Christ. (I love the liturgy. It helped me begin healing long ago & i would miss it greatly if we didn't go to a liturgical church any more.)

It was exciting to share this with Duane this AM. (Last night he shared all his fun from the SAR weekend with me, & then fell asleep as he was exhausted.) I think our lives will be deeper, richer. I'm using the same words to thank God & talk to him, but the emptiness is gone.

I know that the emptiness may return, some. This high of excitement is not really sustainable as life's realities creep in. However, just being open to having a passion for living & for being part of God's kingdom is likely to prevent the staleness, the stark emptiness from returning to that dead level.

I AM so very thankful. :)

12

Just some thoughts

2010-03-15T12:04:00.000-07:00

"We cannot become what we need to be, remaining what we are." ~ Max Depree

I tried to find out about Max Depree, but my searches weren't very productive. I'm not sure i tried hard enough, or my brain just wasn't processing what i was reading. Nonetheless, i think this is a powerful statement.

"Forgiveness is giving up the possibility of a better past." (unknown author)

___________________________

I didn't finish writing this one, either, & was interrupted, but in a good way. I'll write about that soon.

11

Everyday life

2010-03-13T19:46:00.000-08:00

I think the fact that i've been depressed shows the past couple of months in blogging. I did far fewer posts at my regular blog than what is normal for me.

I got to visit a while with my dear friend Linda on Wednesday. We talked of spiritual things mostly, although we touched on some other issues too. She gave voice to hoping that Duane & i could find a "Spiritual Home" here on the mountain. It is interesting to me that when i tell folks of the struggles i'm having at the Lutheran church, their reaction quite often is, "Why do you go there?"

Why? Well, it was our spiritual home. We love the people there. We love the friendliness of the people & the love they have for one another. We love that they are serious about trying to support those in our midst who need help. Also the pastor LOVES Jesus; he is passionate about it. In light of all this, my feeble struggles with the sermons & opinions given by the pastor seem too pale to carry weight. Except i continue to struggle. I was telling myself that this struggle was "stretching" me & helping me grow. But i'm afraid that this is no longer true. This stretching me is bring me near breaking point.

But i don't think we will find a church in BB where we will be comfortable attending every week. First off, "home" for us is always going to be liturgical. There are only 4 (full) liturgical churches up here. Two Lutheran, an Episcopal, & the Catholic church. A few others use the creeds or other forms from the liturgy, but they don't fit the category i consider liturgical. The Episcopal church we simply can't go with, for reasons i'd rather not discuss. But this was hard, for i've been Episcopalian/Anglican since college.
___________________________

I'm done. It's been a long day & this was interrupted & i'm done.

10

Guess i've a lot to say, today

2010-03-03T16:20:00.001-08:00

I think "it must be working" somehow. The desire to get closer to God & to follow what Jesus desires for us.

Why do i think so? I'm pretty depressed & find that all i want to do is crawl in bed & pull the covers over my head. This tells me i'm getting some pretty strong opposition to where i'm trying to go.

Hooray! It is working! I'm depressed!

9