Lone Prairie Studies

Guilt and confusion.

2009-04-01T23:52:00.007-05:00

My friend Naomi shared something that I wrote down and immediately took to heart. It was something a friend of hers, a missionary to India, told her.

The enemy will excuse you when you're guilty, accuse you when you're not, and confuse you between the two.

I know I have a lot of guilt. Most of the time I joke that I have a lot of "unnecessary guilt" because some of it is of the second variety. I feel accused even though I've not done anything wrong. Guilt that cripples and condemns.

A friend had told more than once, when I've said that I felt guilty about something that "guilt is not from God!" but I wonder at the truth of that statement.

Yes, there is no condemnation for those in Christ (Romans 8:1).

But sometimes there is a purpose for a guilty conscience; that's when I go and take care of something that I've done wrong or needs to be righted.

I've lately wanted to run back to the internal solitude I used to know, the way I worked out what was going on in my life through writing and study and without intense drama, for I felt that I had less confusion and more clarity. A new influence in my life is bringing a certain kind of chaos that I'm not sure how to quantify or categorize or even deal with. I don't know how to do it without hurting another person.

I feel guilty about it.

Muddy waters.

2009-03-23T22:11:00.021-05:00

A recent occurrence in my life, which has mushroomed into what I had never imagined, has given me the chance to think about dealings with people. Though I can't give details (nor do I want to) on what is going on right now, suffice it to say that it isn't a real happy thing.

I. Muddied Water and Dumping Grounds
I recently touched on one aspect of the situation in a post over on my main blog, in regards to all the well-meant advice of friends. In the post, I am essentially working my way to the conclusion that, after a while, the noise and clamor of so many people wanting to help is little more than the scene in Pilgrim's Progress where a once pristine pool of water was made muddy. Any chance at clarity in the situation, of hearing God's tendency to whisper instead of shout, is negated by all the racket. In this case, I am learning the benefit of knowing who I am to talk to (i.e. whose business I make my life become) and who to not fill in on details. It is unwise to let everyone in, to talk excessively freely, and to give, essentially, permission for others to judge the situation and tell me what I ought to do. In other words, if I want the silence, I need to learn to be silent myself.

This is difficult.

It is natural to want to talk to people, to tell them what is bothering you, to hope for some kind of help. As always, however, I am reminded of what I wrote earlier about the response of my mother (in this example). Rather than attempt to be "helpful", she listens, lets me finish, and offers no specific advice but encourages the person I am becoming. That is the listener I want to be, and the one I need to remember to seek out. I must choose my "dumping ground" (i.e. the friend I unload all of my grief and garbage on) very carefully, preferably choosing one that doesn't have a card in the game. An outside, uninvolved ear of someone who loves me.

II. Avoidance
I have been told more than once to refrain or avoid connections with a person on the basis that (and I may not get this wording exactly right) he or she is "evil." Putting aside the fact of Ephesians 6:12, and who our battle is really with, I believe it isn't necessarily Biblical to outright avoid people based on what seems to be obvious negative outward aspects.

"Why would you have anything to do with them?!" I was asked. "You're only going to get burned. You are to have nothing to do with evil!"

Evil is sly.

Evil is avoiding what ought not be avoided, sometimes. Evil tricks us into seeing people as they aren't, and thinking that their personality is who they are instead of seeing what may be causing them to behave as they do. Evil refuses to try again to see. Evil tells us to avoid the hurt. Evil disguises itself as good. Maybe its masking itself as what is "right for me" when the painful lesson is what would have truly been right for me.

Why would God tell Hosea to marry a prostitute? It brought him nothing but pain and embarrassment. She certainly had the appearance of evil. Jesus knew the road he was to follow, and its ultimate conclusion (and even asked if there was a way He could be spared from it!), but he walked it anyway.

I don't want to get in the habit of hurt-avoidance, and, if taken to the logical conclusion, people-avoidance. People will hurt you. Sometimes you still need to walk the road even if you know it is likely or even certain to happen. It makes no sense, grabbing a hot pan you know will burn you, but sometimes we're asked to do it anyway. That's a moment of faith, and also a likely lesson in humility.

"See, I told you that you would get burned," you'll hear from the same well-meaning friends. "If you'd only listened."

Humility. Knowing it's coming, doing it anyway.

In the end, I come back to some very basic principles that I use in such situations where clarity is hard to find and the path is unclear:

All people need Jesus, no matter who or how they are, and it is often a surprise how Jesus is made known.
I do not understand what or why God is doing what He is, and where He is leading me.
I will continue on despite #2 because of #1, and not let the noise on the side of the road persuade me otherwise.

I have to believe that when I have been praying for wisdom all these years, God is hearing my request and answering. In the weakest of faith, I take a leap I believe is in wisdom, though it seem foolish to the eyes of man.

Waxing and waning.

2009-03-11T19:02:00.009-05:00

The latest hubub on the Christian side of the internet is a piece written by Michael Spencer*, of InternetMonk, about the coming Evangelical collapse. He provides further background and the extended version of the essay here.

I can't help but wonder at the connection to Spencer's thoughts and what J. Lee Grady wrote about "greasy grace" and the embarrassing yet-again adulterous crash of another charismatic preacher:

We charismatics still seem to have a habit of elevating gifting above character. It's almost as if the end justifies the means.

I can't help but be disgusted and disappointed and find myself wondering what keeps me even involved.

I know, without a doubt, that it is my home church and the people and example they have set for me my entire life. If not for these people and the way God used and placed them in my life with their realness and excellent example of accountability, faith, honesty, character, dedication, and love, there is absolutely no way I would have stuck with the church to this point in my life.

Too many Ted Haggards and mega-church monstrosities and exasperation over youth ministry shallowness and tacky handling of singles and placating church services have made me really want something less charismatic because of its seemingly prone nature to certain types of leaders with certain kinds of weaknesses. My own philosophies and thoughts and absolute distaste for the slimy, circus-like spectacle church has become would have made it impossible beyond a sheer miracle of God that I've still been waging some kind of battle to find a way to get to church with a job that has me working nearly every single Sunday.

I understand the appeal of the Catholic or Orthodox churches and the strange phenomenon of Evangelicals converting, leaving the enslavement of too much freedom badly handled and abused under their leaders, and trading it in for tradition and man-made rules. Too many charismatic leaders are so led by the spirit that they forget there are all kinds of spirits to be led by and latch onto the wrong ones in their weak moments. The church can't seem to handle freedom without running amuck, and the counterweight is excess of man-made tradition.

One church has too many rules and the other has none, and we don't seem to be able to live in the middle.

UPDATE: Frank Viola reviews Spencer's essay.

* I was interviewed by Michael Spencer several months ago.

Pastors and blogging.

2009-02-16T14:48:00.003-06:00

My friend Will has a good post about pastors and blogging over on his blog, One Thing I Know.

Of particular interest to me was the concept of "plundering the Egyptians", the history of that and Methodism that I had not known before.

It's a good post, particularly if you are a pastor and have a blog.

The geography of the matter.

2009-01-01T12:21:00.003-06:00

I have a friend who is always talking about going here and there, to all the "hot spots" of where God is moving or doing some kind of revival. I know it is a common thing in America for Christians to make some kind of pilgrimage to a place where something is happening so that they can get a bit of a taste or experience.

I appreciate that hunger to want to be where God is in such an obvious way. I know it, and am always tempted to go to such things and get that emotional boost. I know there is Biblical support of it, the traveling to see Jesus and ask for his touch or blessing or healing. It's all a sort of grander version of the woman reaching out to touch Jesus' hem.

But that was as Jesus was passing through, and part of me wonders at this ever-growing concept of chasing after the next hot move of God in hopes of being blessed and bringing it back is, actually, the same thing. We run around to prayer house after prayer house, conference after conference, gushing about how we were blessed and change and renewed and...we head to another shortly after we only just returned. Where's the staying power? It sounds more like a sugar fix that crashes, than anything. Why do we have to keep going?

I know the feeling of not wanting to leave that presence, but we are meant to be in the world and not hunkered down in a spiritual sauna, unable to take the cold for any length of time. God gives us strength and staying power, no?

God is the same yesterday, today and forever. And, if he is everywhere, the same God who is pouring out his Spirit in one place is the same one I'm praying to in my apartment. It's less dramatic, less emotional, less big-event-mountaintop-experience -- it's more work and requires more faith, in fact -- but He is still the same.

I am to the point where I don't want to hear about the next big temporary Christian Mecca of the Moment. God can and will move anywhere. The geography of the matter is of little importance. I want to see the fruit. If it really is what it is, shouldn't it stick?

Those crazy holidays.

2008-11-30T22:59:00.011-06:00

"...I really enjoy offending Christians."

So do I, but it usually involves a rant and the use of the word "ass" somewhere in it, and I'm not talking about the little donkey that appears in Christmas songs, either.

Speaking of Christmas, the above quote is from a blog post by a Worship Arts Director of a church that sponsors a light show at Christmas. This year, they are calling it a Holiday Light Show so as not to offend non-believers.

"I took Christ out of Christmas!" he says, and then goes on to try and explain it.

While I appreciate a good headline and lede, and I'm not one to go ape if a secular store uses the word "holiday" or "seasonal" in their promo material, we're talking about a Christian church and an event they put on.

I've come across several stupid ideas in my time. Six of them have been mine, actually. This idea -- not mine -- is particularly ridiculous.

When the proof of the theorem (which arrived after thinking "long and hard" about the concept, the writer notes) involves a theoretical situation where two conflicting-scheduled Holiday Light shows were to occur, one named as such and the other a Hanukkah Light Show, and that the Holiday Light Show was less scary sounding and so people would go to that one, and that's why instead of using Christmas...what? That's part of the proof?

(I'd probably go to the Hanukkah Light Show. After all, it is the Festival of Lights and I bet it'd be lovely.)

Did you know that people who are prone to gettin' freaky about the use of the word Christmas are probably not gonna be real receptive to the Christ-centered message of a Holiday Light Show, no matter what you call it?

Here's what it is.

A friend today asked me if I'd heard some song by some country musician that espoused some spiritual truth. I said no, and added that the only reason country singers periodically sang a Christian song (or "Holiday" song, if it comes out in December) was so they could then go on to fulfill the complex 1::6 ratio required by country music fans to alleviate guilt; i.e. one Jesus-y song to every six beer/sex/wreckin'-my-ex-boyfriend's-car-song.

Sponsoring a Holiday Light show at Christmas when most non-Christians aren't even offended at the word "Christmas" in an effort to attract these non-Christians and get them to hear the story of Christ's birth is some kind of similar ratio. One Jesus-y song doesn't negate the rest of the terrible messages found in the other six songs, and all the Jesus-y-ness of your light show doesn't negate the bizarrely bragging tone of the blog post and complex, ridiculous reasoning behind calling a Christmas event something other than such.

The word "holiday" is getting ruined like the word "thong" and "gay" (two words which will bring a regretful number of hits to this post off of Google, no doubt). It's supposed to apply to many special occasions as well as vacations, but is being pre-empted for use at Christmas only.

I responded to the blog post in question:

I heard there was a kind of Holiday Light show many years ago.

Had some angels or something.

The crowd was completely a blank slate -- not at all tuned into the lingo and tradition.

Ended up with the word "christ" being used, a sort of abbreviated "christian" message of the new savior -- stuff like that -- and the previously unchurched crowd headed on into town to worship.

Just an idea.

Seriously -- a Christian church sponsoring a "holiday" light show? For Christmas?

For fun, next time Halloween rolls around, you should try to find a way to churchify it and sort of do a vice versa.

What is a Worship Arts Director, anyway? I'm an art major (i.e. master of B.S. and the eloquent wordy subterfuge) and I find that title particularly cartoon-worthy.

Christian church?

Nope.

Holiday church!

I took "christ" out of "christian"! Whee!

Manifest tenderness.

2008-09-23T11:44:00.003-05:00

Added to my list of things I need to work on: manifesting tenderness. John Piper had this to say:

...I am wired to be a person who puts down stupidity [in a way that is sarcastic or harsh], and I have to work really hard to manifest tenderness.

I know I have a sharp tongue and it is easy for me to let loose a harsh word or cutting, witty comment -- I am even encouraged to do so others who agree with my stance -- when I should be focusing more on controlling it.

Disagreeing in agreemment.

2008-09-23T11:05:00.015-05:00

From here (emphasis mine):

When will these guys realize that people are done with programs, tradition for tradition sake, dry church services, music that is worshiped more than worshiped to, irrelevant teachings, politics over who can lead sunday school and what color the walls should be painted, and a once spiritual movement that looks more like a well oiled corporation (board room and all).

[...]

People are looking for community, authentic faith, an encounter with the living God and a revolution that is going to change their soul.

What is interesting is that, depending on who you are and how you try to say that very thing results in quite a different reaction from various sides. Because...I think that's what I was trying to say recently. It just flies differently depending upon who says it and in what forum.

How is it that two in disagreement are actually, as it appears here, in agreement?

I hate theology.

2008-09-21T12:15:00.004-05:00

InternetMonk brought his "I Hate Theology" essay up for air on his blog.

Go read it.

I particularly identify with the section about theology becoming the enemy of personal devotion. The story he relates is of a young person talking about a book she had read:

The gist of the post was, "I want to love God and hate sin, and this book is helpful to me in that goal." Given what I know about the Bible and Jesus' message of repentance and holiness, there was nothing to complain about in the post. It wasn't a post about the true nature of justification. It was a heartfelt, human aspiration to be more Christ-saturated and Spirit-transformed. With that sort of simple desire to love God on the table, you know there's going to be trouble.

[...]

The problem was that, theologically speaking, some could fault the theology that was cited from the book.

[...]

That 0.0003% of the population that knows theology might be "concerned." And one theologian spoke up. It was a simple glancing blow, but it burned my toast.

Oh, I've been there. I'll find that some book written by an author who someone somewhere has deemed bad or wrong -- heretic, even! -- somehow gets me to re-examine my spiritual life in a positive way. My mistake, of course, is making note of it and opening the door for "learned" religious people to point out all the errors.

It reminds me of the lesson I learned about bringing unfinished work to art critique. Don't do it. They'll savage you and your idea and make it seem worthless and stupid and you won't ever finish the painting.

Yeah. Just go read his essay. He covers so much more.

Trying too hard.

2008-09-18T12:04:00.010-05:00

JollyBlogger has an interesting post on marriage and talks about the problem of "trying to hard."

...the Scriptures show that God is comparatively unconcerned about your marriage and not focused on it much at all.

[...]

But a reading of the New Testament doesn't reflect an overwhelming concern with marriage and the family on the part of it's author (God!).

[...]

My reason for saying this is that as you look at the thousands of verses in the New Testament there's probably only a few dozen that have anything to do with marriage. The paucity of references to marriage do not authorize us to disobey God's standards for marriage - if there were only one verse in the bible on marriage we would be bound to obey it. But the paucity of references to marriage suggest that God has other and higher priorities than marriage.

Yet we pour all this attention on it, making it appear to be some terrifyingly difficult witchery that we normal people, without all the books and tapes and conferences and helps, can't possibly get right. My view of it, through living in this peculiar Evangelical bubble of materials and helps and focus on marriage/family is that it is an almost terrible thing, about nothing but work and struggle and constantly under attack and absolutely impossible to navigate without tons of outside help and resources. That's the message I've gotten. I'm sure it's the same message other singles have gotten, which may explain why many stay...single. The image of marriage as some duty/warzone/tiring monster/foundation-of-the-church isn't really something to desire, now, is it?

All this focus on marriage in the way the church has decided to go about it seems to exacerbate some problems. It's been made to be the end-all of end-alls, excessively complex and in need all kinds of exterior assistance in order to keep it alive.

Then there are the volumes written about gender roles, and how to be a "good wife" and a "good husband."

When I am counseling couples in crisis I usually get dragged into discussions of what it means to be a good husband or wife. Usually it's the husband who is very concerned that we understand what the bible says about being a good wife, and the wife is very concerned about what it means to be a good husband.

I would be very happy if they would forget about what it means to be a husband and wife and just begin by thinking about what it means to be a human being, and how one human being relates to one another.

I recently told a Christian friend (male) that I wasn't really interested in having any more discussions on the place of women in church/Christianity. That discussion, which I am now seeing as meaningless after embroiling myself in them over the past few years, seems to be a never-ending one that only spirals downward; it is one of the reasons I am stepping further away from having interest in Christian men. It seems to be a very important topic for them, in my experience, and it bothers me that they must have this defined. What has caused them to think that this must be defined and in place -- and I must know my place -- before anything else is resolved? As JollyBlogger says in his excellent post, this is really a discussion on who will rule over whom.

Humans are to rule over animals, not each other.

I hear that.

I get the sense that, by arguing with my Christian male friends that I do not agree, they are taking it to be an example of a woman wanting to rule a man. I have no desire to rule anyone, frankly. I just don't want to be set on a square and said "that's your place, there are your limits, that's all you get."

What is the importance of worrying about roles and who is or isn't stepping out of their place? Frankly, I can't say it any better than this (emphasis mine):

John Calvin said that the sum total of the Christian life is self-denial. That's what basic Christian discipleship is about - learning to live a life of self-denial that we might know Christ. That is the sum-total of Christian marriage - marriage becomes an arena where we can practice self-denial to follow Christ. No amount of understanding communication, roles and needs can compensate for a refusal to die daily to ones self.

I'm not going to worry about all the tips, books and suggestions on improving communication or understanding my proper place and role as a woman, but instead will live as a Christian. Just save everyone the headache and do that.

Few things.

2008-09-16T22:13:00.002-05:00

"Few things are more important to church and society than marriage and family life," explained Brad J. Waggoner, president and publisher of B&H Publishing Group, in a released statement.

Huh.

Segregating by age or status.

2008-09-10T18:30:00.007-05:00

I read a comment on a post at InternetMonk, and was immediately struck by the need to say a public thank you.

First, the comment, by Aliasmoi:

A single - never married - woman is a pariah in a traditional church. After I crossed my 30th birthday people started thinking (and sometimes saying) there must be something wrong with me that I haven’t caught a husband yet. They started praying out loud - in church - for me to get a husband. But, I couldn’t get within ten feet of a man without the whole church having to stop and take notice of the fact. I really started to feel like I would have been less of an object of curiosity/pity/outright derision if I had been married and gotten divorced.

I want to thank the people of my home church for making me feel necessary. Normal. OK. Valuable. Treasured. For wanting me with them and enjoying things with them. Not making me feel like an outsider or extra or some kind of burden to have bear with. Letting me pal around and talk and laugh with the ladies and be involved in the group discussions and hang out with the couples and talk with everyone of all ages...I just never felt unwelcome or outside. I want to thank them, essentially, for not segregating the church based on age or status. For not shuffling me off to the side because of my status.

When we were in the process of getting a new pastor recently, we had the opportunity, after a meal following service, to speak up about the possibility of a person who had been in church for many years being our pastor. Many things were said, most moving and good. I spoke up and tried to say, without crying (I did not succeed), a kind of thank you for the extreme friendship -- beyond that, even -- and how it made me feel valuable. How I wanted to stay at this church even when I didn't "feel" like it or when it didn't meet my "needs" simply because of the relationship of the people and what they were to me as the body of Christ.

Truly, they are Christ with skin on. For me.

I think, in a post where I touched on the idea of age segregation, the greatest sadness that settles in when I see it happening is that we are shortchanging everyone involved for the sake of convenience and logistics. It seems to benefit us, but in reality, hurts and robs us all. I can't imagine being stripped of all the interaction I've grown to expect with different people of different ages and status.

Frankly, age segregation is not Biblical. It is not OK to be pulling out kids and youth and separating everyone out by age or status. It is not OK to train them to think that they must be only with their own kind and should not be expected to be with the older Christians in church. Barnabas mentored Paul. Paul mentored Timothy. The older women are told to mentor the young. Why cheat each other out of Job 12:12? No, some barely matured youth minister aping the culture up front doesn't always qualify as that mentor; he is likely in need of his own mentor, too. There is also a need for everyone to experience the joy (and difficulty) of being such a mentor.

It is easier, I will admit, to be with people in your own situation and generation. You speak the same language, have similar angst, and understand your particular culture. I treasure my friends of that sameness because we can connect over the similarities. But at the same time, I have so come to value the advice and support and companionship of older women, married women, widowed women, single women -- my mother -- and have grown to love the chance to be that for the younger women coming up.

Because my home church is so small, we often find ourselves with one Sunday school class in the basement. It may consist of the older generation, some Boomers, me (the token Gen X'er), and some teens (Gen Y'ers). There are married and single and divorced people there. The discussion is rich and brings both the wisdom of age and the freshness of new eyes.

What a pity when we pull that apart by something age-based. There is no separate-but-equal in the body of Christ.

Angels.

2008-09-08T15:57:00.004-05:00

The Todd Bentley circus.

Yeah. Not much to say there, except I wouldn't take kindly to some minister beating the crap out of me in order to heal me.

I get really displeased with the angel stuff. There was a magazine out a few years ago dedicated to the topic of angels (I don't think it's around any more, but I could be wrong). It was solely on angels, which seems to me to be a kind of chancy and limited stockpile of material from which to write. This led to, understandably, a kind of smarmy Guideposts take on "angels" doing things like answering prayers for lost recipes and rescuing kitties from trees. It always had notoriously bad art on the cover. It's hard to churn out "real-life" angel stories every month, I guess.

J. Lee Grady has some good things to say about that whole Bentley mess, and about angels. It's just too bad that at the bottom of his excellent article we find an advertisement for a book entitled "Angelic Encounters." It's hard to be a purist when you have bills to pay.

Assembly of God General Superintendent Dr. George Wood had a an interesting take on angels:

I made an off handed comment that in the book of Acts angels did two things: jail breaks and confirmations (Acts 27:23). They did not bring doctrinal truth. Of course, in the nativity and passion, they are present for specific reasons.

Jail breaks.

That's something.

The iMonk interview.

2008-09-07T16:18:00.008-05:00

InternetMonk has a short interview with me on his blog.

I have to say that it was a real honor to be asked to do it; I've lurked on his web site off and on over the past few years. His site has quite a large and active readership.

To be honest, I wasn't sure about doing the interview. I'd grown a bit tired of the recent activity surrounding a few posts on this blog that I didn't know if I was up for any more response or questions or emails wanting me to "clarify" my position.

Nevertheless, I'm really honored that he took the time to ask me a few questions and give me a voice on his blog. I'm sure the ensuing discussion will be interesting.

UPDATE: Well, the iMonk interview brought about a link and "discussion" on this page. Can't say I'm thrilled. The debate seems less on what I said and more on who I am and whether or not (or how) I should have written it. Whatever. Been there, done that. Best quote for the money? "I gotta be honest." Sure.

I assure you, I'm not as "prickly" as it may seem.

I've been blogrolled.

2008-09-01T21:41:00.002-05:00

I appreciate this post.

After all the hassle of the past three weeks, both the supportive and the negative comments on blogs and in email, I appreciated what was written. I got to the point where I couldn't handle either the supportive comments and the kind of mantle that was placed on what I wrote ("we are using it in our small groups!" or "I posted it up at church!" or "we've been talking about it for weeks!") as well as the negative attacks (which tended toward the personal "you're old, bitter, and too ugly to date" to the "you're not a real Christian").

Imagine my surprise to find the above blog post, then. Instead of using my words to further a particular pet battle, I instead found a fairly concise summation of the whole mess and a paragraph I can live with:

What is most amazing about all this is that her post was very simple, and simple to understand. Yet many took even second hand comments on remote blogs and painted life pictures of her, like being bitter and dateless, maybe not even a Christian. It's amazing how sketchy misinformation can be used to create such wacky versions of the universe and dismiss people as meaningless.

And of course, my friend Naomi leaving a comment doesn't hurt. Let's face it: it's nice to know someone has your back. I may sound tough on "paper" but I'm pretty soft and easily mashed inside.

Who's doing the dishes?

2008-08-27T16:13:00.003-05:00

I personally prefer to see the dishes done by me.

I'm very particular.

I wish to wield power, as a woman, over the level of cleanliness seen in a dish. This is my power play.

I'm only half kidding.

They. Must. Squeak.

I would let Monk do them, but that's it.

Why all this talk? This post.

It's interesting, but, given the circumstances in my life, I can't relate.

Into pressure.

2008-08-26T22:47:00.006-05:00

I remember reading one of Monty Robert's books about horses and how a particular concept stuck in my mind.

Horses, he said, are "into pressure" animals. That is, they lean into the pressure, and not away from it. He explained this in terms of how horses would use this in regards to reacting to predatory animals. He also related a tale (all too common with those of us who have worked with horses) of a group of men trying to get a horse to move to the other side of a stall, pushing and pushing the animal only to have it push back and refuse to budge. An elderly man who knew and understood horses walked by and pushed, with one hand, the opposite side of the horse. The horse quickly moved into that pressure and, essentially, moved to where they other men were trying to move it with sweat and elbow grease.

Brute force doesn't win.

Any of Monty Robert's books will tell you that.

But the idea of the "into pressure" reaction is telling and useful when dealing with people.

You know, if you push me and push me and go after me on a topic, I push back. The harder you push and insist and become unrelenting, the harder I return it. I come back swinging. You'll never get me to go the direction you want by sheer brute force of idea, logic, or (especially) heavy-handed application of the Bible. Some people will, maybe, be moved. Maybe they want to be moved...I don't know.

But I won't be. I'll walk away and leave you behind before I'm moved, often becoming more set in my stance than before you attempted to move me. I simply can't abide a person setting out to move me by force. By words. By arguing. By insisting that they are right.

I push back.

My sister and I did some work with our horses using the Pat Parelli method; we spent a weekend learning to not be brutish with the horses, but to, essentially, convince them they were already wanting to do what we wanted them to.

You can break a horse. You can beat it down, crush it, and make it so it limply does whatever you want it to do. But it's not much of an animal after that; simple obedience does not mean love. Ever see a horse get turned out to pasture after a ride? Off it runs, kicking and bucking and rolling, only too happy to have you off of its back.

The trick is what that elderly man knew: gentle pressure from the opposite direction can move the animal.

So instead of coming at people head on, ready to push and force them where you think they should go, stop. Think. Come around from the other side, gently, and get them to want to go your way. Don't make them happy to get away from you and happy to get you off of their back; you probably won't get too close them ever again after that.

People, basically, are "into pressure" animals, too.

Let me tell you married people something: Part 2.

2008-08-23T00:12:00.013-05:00

::Part 1 is here. This one is written by my friend Naomi.::

First of all, I honestly want to stress that there truly are many things that I am thankful for about single life. There are many, many things that I am thankful for. I acknowledge that I have been able to experience many amazing things as a single person that I probably wouldn't have experienced had I been married earlier in life. Make no mistake, I am thankful. I also know that no human being, no matter how amazing he may be, can ever complete me or fill me. I do not expect that from a man. Only Christ can do that.

And yet, the desire remains. The yearning. The hope for experiencing the joys, sorrows, challenges, lessons, heartaches, and amazing mystery of marriage. Of all that I have experienced in my single life, there is still a great unknown--marriage. My heart's desire is to experience that and yet there is nothing that I, on my own, can do to achieve it. If I want to see the world, I can get on a plane and go to another country. If I want a career, I can register at a university and get another degree. If I want a change of scenery, I can pack up my things and move across the country. I can DO those things. But if I want a Christ-centered, God-ordained marriage...what can I do?I have no say, no control over that. All I can do is pray and wait.

difficult as it is, I'm thankful that it's not up to me. I know that God's plan is best. so I am praying. And I am waiting. As I have been doing for the past 10 + years. The first 8 years or so of praying and waiting went quite well. I was happy with single life, enjoying it to the fullest and taking advantage of all of the opportunities (in life and ministry) that the Lord brought my way (those are the "amazing things" I referred to earlier...the things that i am so thankful for) and looking forward to married life somewhere off in the future (good thing I didn't know how far off it would actually be!). But these years of praying and waiting are also filled (almost constantly) with hopes rising and hopes crashing down. Investing in friendships (usually with the opposite sex) that sooner-or-later have to change: they get married and their priorities change or a friendship gets too close for friendship and you have to step back, etc., etc., not to mention the match-making nightmares. It's a constant state of investing and losing and investing and losing. Years of that takes a tole on a person. It feels like a constant state of relational limbo. A relational nomad, never being able to have one person to settle down with and commit to. Dealing with all of that is tiring and more so as I get older.

The only analogy that I can think of is carrying a heavy box. When you first pick it up, you know that it's heavy, but you're "fresh" and you know that once you get to where you're going, you can set it down. "You can do it!"* but the longer you carry it, the heavier it feels. Your muscles get weak and start to burn and you're not sure if you can make it. Then your legs start to give out and your whole body is feeling it. Longer still, and you are certain that you'll have to set it down or collapse under the weight of it, carrying it alone. The relief of having someone come and help "lighten the load" is what I'm craving...

Being single is similar. The longer you go, the harder it gets. you start to realize your need for help and you WANT someone to come alongside you. And I want to come alongside someone to BE a help and support. None of this is to say that married people don't have difficulties and struggles and hard times...I know that there is a great deal of that in marriage. But it seems like sometimes married people think that being single is so wonderful and free. And in some ways, it is. But in many ways, being single is hard. I think married people don't usually realize that. There are good things about being single. There are good things about being married.There are hard things about being single. There are hard things about being married. I've experienced the good and bad of being single and now I want to experience something new...I'm wanting and waiting to experience the good and bad of being married.

Side note--desiring marriage does NOT mean that I am ungrateful for being single. desire and thankfulness can co-exist.

*Marathon race: you don't cheer for someone at the 1st mile** (in your 20's) like you cheer for them at the 25th mile (in your 30's and beyond). by mile 25, they're in pain and have been through a long journey. Acknowledge that it's been hard, that it's been painful, that it's been work.

**Verses from Paul

--------------------------------------

Comments on this post are closed. Comments left on other posts in response to this post will not be published, as that would fall under the idea that comments should apply to the post at hand, as is stated in the EULA.

Let me tell you married people something: Part 1.

2008-08-22T22:48:00.023-05:00

::This post stems from the final straw that was the comments section in this post. The. Final. Straw. I've gotten the same response over the years, and that's it. Done.::

Before you throw scripture at single people and why they should treasure and love and just be hap-hap-happy about their single status, consider the following:

1. Why do you apply scripture in a way that take our expression of sadness and hurt and loneliness and turn it into something to feel guilty about? You got married. You didn't take Paul's advice. Why throw it back at us as a way of saying "stop feeling sorry for yourself." The way you use that scripture is showing you to be the failure, yet you get to preach at us to how we should be when you didn't even do it yourself? When you don't even know it yourself? That's the best you got? Let me tell you now: You are not being helpful. You are hurting us. If that is all you have, don't say anything. Because Christian singles are VERY AWARE of those verses, and have pondered them and flipped them over and tried to work it out in their minds for years.

2. The single life is a myth, if you think it is, to quote a recent commenter, "unencumbered." By unencumbered, I guess you mean we don't have kids or a spouse. Well, gee, let's have a look at that. We don't have anyone else to rely on. No one helps us do stuff. It's all up to us. Single people have to be, essentially, both sexes. We have to be our own husband and wife. And at the end of the day, we get to go home alone. Doesn't that sound glamorous? And surely you aren't considering your children an encumberment, not when that Bible you love to throw at us directly calls them a gift from God. What, are you hinting at a complaint about a gift from God? You know what? No life is unencumbered. The minute you think someone has it easy, you've already set yourself up for a lie that makes your own life look like that of a martyr.

3. Lest you find yourself arguing that singleness is the better option and use the usual verses, let me suggest, in a different analogy, how tacky that is. The Bible tells us to go forth and multiply. How often do you use that verse with couples who can't have children? "But, but, but..." -- hey. The Bible says it. So if you can't have kids, just hold on a second. Let me find a verse to make you feel awful inside, and feel ashamed of any sense of sadness that you have. I mean, hey, I know you can't help where you are in life, or why God put you there, but let me find some good Bible verses and apply them to you in a way that makes you feel like crap and makes you learn that you'd better shut your mouth and not express what's inside and ask for someone to help you bear the burden. Because that's what the Bible is for, right? Getting people to paste a fake smile on their face lest their expressions of pain come off as a pity party? That's that sword gettin' put to good use, cutting down brothers and sisters.

3.b. And, oh wait. Should we single people follow that command to be fruitful and multiply? No? Oh dear. Contradiction. Catch 22! Which should I follow? Surely you don't mean that things aren't so cut-and-dried, and as simple as they seem in a handful of verses out of a huge Bible, do you?

Is this an over-reaction? Not at all. It's been years in coming and I have about had it with married people throwing a few select Bible verses at single people the moment they express anything but fantastic peace and sunshine with God at where they are in life. And I'll be darned if I let some bozo (in a long line of such bozos, over the years, always married with kids) who knows zilch about me personally suggest I'm just not taking full advantage of my "unencumbered life."* And to also suggest that I need a kick in the pants when I spend about 90 percent of my existance kicking my own ass because of my real and imagined failures as a person and as a Christian.

Because, as you know, married people "never" go around and complain about their state in life to single people. That would make them hypocrites.

Stay tuned for Part 2, provided by my other "whining" single friend, Naomi. Just so you know it's not just me. And, her take will be much less vitriolic; she's good that way.

Comments on this post are closed. Comments left on other posts in response to this post will not be published, as that would fall under the idea that comments should apply to the post at hand, as is stated in the EULA.

-------------------------------------------

* Christians on the internet seem to want credentials. They want a posted creed of beliefs (or something quick and easy to access) so they know how to categorize you, and now, I guess, a short tally of what I'm doing with my life as some sort of proof of making full use of my unencumbered life. This site has over 3000 posts. There's your creed. There's your list. Do your own research.

A perfect coalescence.

2008-08-22T13:13:00.005-05:00

Two blog posts that linked to a recent Lone Prairie Studies blog post have made me inwardly chortle*:

1. "One reason Julie walked out of the church was the man shortage."

2. "I'll marry you, Julie!!!!"

Who wouldn't want to be a blogger in such times like these?

* A chortle is a more mature version of a chuckle.

Suburban Jesus.

2008-08-21T22:45:00.001-05:00

Internetmonk.com has a fabulously blunt post on the Suburban Jesus who hates him.

No one talks much about the Farm Jesus.

Hat Tip: Here.

Why so serious?

2008-08-20T10:47:00.015-05:00

I can appreciate circling the wagons. That's what friends are for.

But.

Why do I apparently have "anger issues"?

Because of this. And this. And maybe, instead of spending $100 (or whatever) on wrappers for water bottles to hand out at a parade* so people know the church "exists" and "cares", that money could be used to support a missionary through Gospel for Asia and get a lot more done. Or buy someone food. Or pick one needy family and change their lives even if it doesn't seem logical to put all the energy and money into one when "we" could help "more."

Because instead of buying pencils and toys and prizes from Oriental Trading company and feeding a government that still crushes our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ just so that little kids find the Bible "interesting" for an hour on Sunday -- maybe that same money could be used in a way that furthered the Gospel instead of furthering the insatiable "give me more junk that I'll be disinterested in within five minutes" that grows in children with very little effort.

Because we spend a lot of money on buildings and staff and salary and stuff and basically feeding our already fat selves. Because we think we have more control over who gets saved (via marketing and programs -- and yes, we do think this, if you look at how we do church) than the simple power of the message of the Gospel and the Spirit making it "attractive" without any decoration on our part.

Because the American culture is disgusting and consumeristic and so bloated and gluttonous and vapid that by "working in" and "working through" it to "point people to Jesus" we become enslaved by the same pragmatic, hierarchic, corporate beast, even as followers of Christ. We see numbers and get set in the idea of saving and helping the many through attractive programs and concepts, forgetting that Jesus left the 99 sheep to get the one. And, by fighting a "culture war", we unwittingly focus even more attention on that monster.

And mainly, right now? Because in a long post about problems I saw in the church based in our shallow culture focus that I very much felt led to write, the majority of responses -- both those in agreement or disagreement -- focused on the clothes we wear.

The. Clothes. We. Wear.

Shouldn't I be angry? With myself, and with the current way things are?

It is serious. That's why so serious.

*This is an actual example from a church I went to.

I neither agree nor disagree.

2008-08-19T17:14:00.019-05:00

One of the more humorous things I've noted about the furor over my recent post on walking out church is what the people say who link to it.

I've noticed a startling number of younger-generation bloggers who tend to link but say "some things I agree with, and some I don't" and do not enumerate those specifics. Perhaps this is a way to do things now.

Whatever it is, it is a very handy caveat.

"I neither agree, nor disagree."

Well. Congratulations. You stand for nothing.

That probably comes off as a wee bit harsh. I understand what the blogger is trying to do: provide linkage for readers who may be interested in a topic that the blogger doesn't want to deal with just yet. In those cases, perhaps "here's an interesting link" would be a better selection of words.

I used to be like that, just a few years ago, a little too prone to covering all bases and not getting involved in reader reaction (and, consequently, writing bland posts that were anything but memorable or life-changing). I still do it, though not as much. Mainly because I blogged about the issue for myself as much as others.

Yes, I used to write like that as a matter of habit because I thought it made me sound less reactionary and more erudite and intelligent -- look at me, and how magnanimous I am, for I can see the validity of both sides! Plus, I had an easy escape route if the discussion got hot and heavy. Then I got old(er) and decided I didn't really care to see both sides because I realized that there are far more than two sides and I didn't have time to empathize with all of them, but by neither agreeing or disagreeing with anything meant...nothing. I could just as well shut up, as a blogger.

Frankly. Call it a link, and leave it at that. Don't waste your reader's time trying to appear even-handed while saying nothing.

No one is ever going to write something that everyone agrees with and, to be honest, if you did, it would probably end up being a chocolate chip cookie recipe. Write something that matters, even if it gets you in hot water and you wish you'd been more careful with your wording, especially when it comes to your faith. There's enough ad copy out there already. You may end up being wrong, but at least you did it with style.

Go ahead. Stick your foot in your mouth. It keeps you flexible, and keeps you from getting stiff in your writing and in your beliefs.

I'm very flexible.

Think of it like this: you're not going to hit the nail on the head if you refuse to pick up the hammer.

(You'll hit your thumb many times.)

Assault and battery.

2008-08-19T00:53:00.005-05:00

The strangest (and, oddly, funniest -- to me at least) statement I've found as of recent:

"Before I knew it, I was assaulted in the name of the Lord."

Some very funny visual images are going through my head right now... but it gets better:

"Once I watched a 300-pound man fall on a frail woman."

Read the article here. It's not really funny, when you get to the gist of what the writer is saying.

I swear, I wonder.

2008-08-15T23:30:00.005-05:00

I wonder at the number of Christians upset by the crude words, and not the message.

I wonder at the number of Christians willing to tally up the uncouthness and use that as an excuse to close their ears to the rest. They fail the test, maybe.

I wonder at the externals we're willing to use as a reason for avoiding anything internal.

I wonder at the Christians demanding a personal version of the Nicene creed on this site, or else assuming all is lost and that I believe in nothing. Because surely, if I believe, I want it hammered out into a neat list, all the foibles of humanness pounded into oblivion with that hammering.

I wonder at our efforts to water-witch for possible entrants into the Lamb's Book of Life on this side of heaven.

Sheep are very, very stupid animals. I know it from experience.

Jesus made good use of his comparisons.

Here, then, are posts of proof and posts of ammunition -- both of which are found in the life of a human struggling to understand how to follow Christ -- which will never be enough:

Poster Myths
Taking up the cross
The way is not in me
He sees we do not see
Lone Prairie Blog: "religion" category
Lone Prairie Blog: "personal" category
Searching this blog with the term "Christ" for those saying I do not use it enough. (I did not know of any quota)

These are but a few. It's late and I'm tired. You can do the rest of the work yourself. I have a search page; use it.