Back in the early ’90s I was pursuing a masters in secondary education. I never quite finished it. I’m lacking a couple of credits in geography. Pheh! BUT … during my pursuit of said degree, I had to take a course in called tests and measurements. This was a thinly veiled statistics course about how to write standardized tests for your classes and why standardized tests could test all levels of learning. Well. As the daughter of a man who was a statistician for psychological research I knew quite a bit more about how and why statistics are used for these sorts of things than the average student. As the daughter of a teacher I also had some very strong opinions about standardized tests. I was also in my early 30s at the time, which was above the average age in the classroom. I bet you can see where this is going 😉
The professor was of the very stern and unmoveable opinion that standardized tests could be used to test anything. Anything at all. Including the higher levels learning in Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Yeah … I’m sure you know what that is. Here’s the short course:
Read those and try to imagine standardized tests that can really measure a person’s ability to “creatively or divergently apply prior knowledge and skills to produce a new or original whole.” Or a person’s ability to “judge the value of material based on a personal values/opinions, resulting in an end product, with a given purpose, without real right or wrong answers.“ On a conservative estimate I’d say I argued (and lost) with the professor at least every other class period. I think I scraped by on the skin of my teeth in that class because I just would not bend to his way of perceiving the world. He was not happy when I raised my hand.
Standardized tests measure the ability of a person to take the test. Get that? If you do well on standardized tests, congratulations … you know how to take a test. You’re not that smart, you just know how to find the right answers in the right amount of time. You know how to sort facts and read. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the evidence is now beginning to be out there that those who do well do so because … they can. I’m one of you. I’ve always done well on those tests, including the SAT. My scores weren’t astronomical, but they were good, better than most. I was very proud of them at the time. Then I started to realize that I always did well on tests. All the time. It’s not because I’m so smart, it’s because I know how to take a test. I know how to sort out the important stuff. But did I learn the material? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The reason for testing is to measure the amount of learning … but I was always doing just enough to take the test.
So why do I feel vindicated? Read this article about why the SAT should be abolished. It should be abolished because independent studies have shown that it’s ability to predict how well a student will do in college is nil; Educational Testing Services did their own studies and cannot refute those claims. Students who do well on the test do so because they do well on tests; those who don’t, don’t do well on other tests. Ce va.
There’s a new blogger in the circle. She’s been commenting here and there. She’s brave to join in with us. Her name is Che and she hails from BC (as in British Columbia). She wrote a piece recently about regaining the rights to her identity. It’s quite good and worth the time to read. In it, she writes about the tension of daring to step out of the mold of being “nice” for it’s own sake and being herself yet being well-mannered. Not being a doormat anymore. I’m not sure quite what it was that she said, but something tickled the back of my mind and sent me on a hunt.
I didn’t have to hunt far.
Good old Merriam-Webster had what I was looking for. The etymology of the word “nice.” Here it is:
NICE – Etymology: Middle English, foolish, wanton, from Anglo-French, silly, simple, from Latin nescius ignorant, from nescire not to know
Well … now … that’s just super. All my life I’ve been told to be a nice girl. I’m not alone in this. All of us women have been told this.
“Nice girls don’t smoke.” “Nice girls don’t drive like that.” “Nice girls don’t … ” fill in the blank … OR
“Nice girls wear dresses to such and such.” “Nice girls don’t wear swimsuits like that.” “Nice girls …. fill in the blank.”
So … really … what we’ve all been told for a couple of generations now was … foolish, silly, simple, ignorant girls blah, blah, blah … We’ve been told that the best our women should aspire to was to be foolish, silly, simple and ignorant.
If ever I’ve heard a curse word I believe “nice” is one. I’m so fucking pissed … I could just spit. And I’m NOT going to be nice.
This headline caught my eye this morning … “Passenger hid monkey under hat.” Since it came through BBC, I thought surely it was in another country. With the new, improved and outstanding security measures in place in our country since 9/11 that could not possibly have happened here.
(Pardon me … I need to pause and pull my tongue out of my cheek before I get gangrene.)
What? No … it DID happen here. Passengers saw a man with a monkey in his HAT (for godssake) on a flight from Florida to New York. So they inquired, “Sir, do you know that you have a monkey on your head?”
I am NOT making that up. Read it for yourself.
First it was take off your shoes while going through security … now it will be take off your hat. Next thing you know we’ll all be issued hospital gowns. As LightHusband says … “It’ll give a whole new meaning to sitting next to strange people on the airplane.”
There was quite a bit made of a very good article about the care and feeding of introverts over on Brother Maynard’s blog awhile back. I found the article fun and funny. I loved it and shared it with BlazingEwe. During a phone call. We laughed and laughed … we two introverts together. While my family listened in.
They did not find it funny.
They are not introverts.
In particular, LightHusband is not an introvert. To his everlasting credit, he tries very hard to understand me and my introversion and he does well with it. But it’s exhausting to both of us. It’s exhausting to my family.
Most people think that introverts sit in a corner and don’t speak; hermits in the public square as it were. The classic shy retiring violet, a wall flower. But that’s not Carl Jung’s version of introversion. As it’s described, introverts need downtime to “recharge their batteries.” Extroverts, on the other hand, recharge by being with people. Introverts are drained in their exchanges with people. I love people and hanging out … but it also drains me. It particularly drains me because I’m also iNtuitive and Feeling and Perceptive. So when I have interactions with people, I’m working on many different levels and I go home and process, sometimes for days (depending on the emotional level of the encounter). This is a problem for me, because most people consider the event over and done with … I usually have a lot of questions afterwards that I didn’t ask then and there because I couldn’t.
Or … here’s another description. LightHusband works from home. He has an office in our basement. It’s a lovely quiet office lined with bookshelves and painted pale green. Did I mention how quiet and calm it is? He has made a concerted effort lately to actually work in his office rather than in the family room where I have to overhear his phone calls in addition to the children all day long. This morning I went down to talk to him about something. At the end of our conversation he admitted to me that he hated his office. He drooped in his chair and said, “I’m going to try and motivate myself over the sound of my ears ringing.” I looked around and said, “What! This is the best room in the house! How could you not work in this room?!” Then we laughed at each other and with each other.
He can pick up and go on a trip, come home and reintegrate back into life just like flipping a switch. I have sidle into and out of my life slowly making sure there are no booby traps or anything.
More recently, Bill Kinnon at Achievable Ends riffed on this and linked to some very funny descriptions of the sixteen personality types. The INFP was more apt than I’d like to admit … and Friends really is a stupid show, even if I do watch it in reruns every now and again.
Still, though, I have this thing … I have to process slowly. It can take months sometimes. Some examples. It finally occurred to me that I/we had been released from our CLB. It happened during the final meeting I had with the leadership (sans my husband who was part of the team). One said that the vision for the church had always been theirs. The other person affirmed this statement by saying that the vision was good. I was rocked back on my mental heels thinking to myself, “I thought a church’s vision came from God and that anyone could give voice to it.” I said nothing at the time. I was too shaken. I’ve pondered that scene often though. Remembered the nuance. I realize now that the question in my head was a release. It was a trigger from God saying, “You are finished here. There is no more that you can do or say.” There are many times I find myself in that awkward position. Shaken. Unable to speak. Something of grave import has just occurred and I ought to speak, share something. Instead I find that I must process and think. Speaking into the moment means I will say something dangerous, or foolish or heartless. But not speaking leaves others with the mistaken impression that I am in agreement or have assented with them. Or at the very least do not disagree with them. I have attempted processing and thinking into emotionally intense situations … it ends very badly.
I think this might be especially true because I am a woman. Women do not do well being introverts. We do not do well being introverts who process for long periods of time and who need time to think things through in emotionally intense situations. Culturally, we are expected to be able to navigate emotional situations with ease. We are expected to not become angry. An angry woman is seen as a domineering bitch, but an angry man is seen as taking control of a situation. In any given situation the woman loses, the man wins. So as a woman who struggles with navigating those waters; navigating emotionally intense situations without a safety net is particularly uncomfortable for me. It brought me up short to read this in ch. 2 Patterns: spatial observations of Organic Community:
This “encouragement” may also be quietly reinforced within church leadership structures. Perhaps we’ve successfully forced everyone into some form of a small group. This in itself might be okay if we recognize that many kinds of groupings can serve the same role as “small groups.” Instead, the pressure continues when small group leaders are told that if intimate connections are not taking place within their groups, their groups are failures. We need to bear in mind that the most accurate word to describe the process of forcing intimate connection is rape. (p. 46 – italics the author’s)
“The most accurate word to describe the process of forcing intimate connection is rape.” I’ve been considering that sentence for the month or so since I read it. I’ve been reading it and rereading it in it’s context. Thinking about the times I’ve been forced to be in more intimate connections with people than I was comfortable with and praying for forgiveness for the times that I’ve asked it of others. Pondering, as I am wont, how to strike a healthy balance so that intimacy may be won and adversity lost.
I’ve been reading a new blog lately. It’s a guy out in California (I think). He’s got a unique perspective on life and Christianity. And definitely a unique presentation. His recent post, titled, “Big-Ass Bibles” was both amusing and thought-provoking. I enjoy his style and his topics.
In any case, in this recent post, he spoke frequently about some dispensationalist bibles he’d had and churches he’d been to. I’ve heard that term a lot during my journey, but I’ve never had a clear understanding of what it meant. So I finally looked it up myself. I’ve often asked others what it meant, but those definitions never stuck in my brain. When I do it myself, I tend to remember a little better. Just a little, mind you.
When I looked up dispensationalism in Wikipedia, I found the following description under history:
Dispensationalism was first introduced to North America by John Inglis (1813–1879), through a monthly magazine called Waymarks in the Wilderness (published intermittently between 1854 and 1872)[citation needed]. In 1866, Inglis organized the Believers’ Meeting for Bible Study, which introduced dispensationalist ideas to a small but influential circle of American evangelicals. After Inglis’ death, James H. Brookes (1830–1898), a pastor in St. Louis, organized the Niagara Bible Conference to continue the dissemination of dispensationalist ideas. Dispensationalism was boosted after Dwight L. Moody (1837–1899) learned of “dispensational truth” from an unidentified member of the Brethren in 1872. Moody became close to Brookes and other dispensationalists, and encouraged the spread of dispensationalism, but apparently never learned the nuances of the dispensationalist system. Dispensationalism began to evolve during this time, most significantly when a significant body of dispensationalists proposed the “post-tribulation” Rapture. Dispensationalist leaders in Moody’s circle include Reuben Archer Torrey (1856–1928), James M. Gray (1851–1925), Cyrus I. Scofield (1843–1921), William J. Erdman (1833–1923), A. C. Dixon (1854–1925), A. J. Gordon (1836–1895) and William Eugene Blackstone, author of the bestseller of the 1800s “Jesus is Coming” (Endorsed by Torrey and Erdman). These men were activist evangelists who promoted a host of Bible conferences and other missionary and evangelistic efforts. They also gave the dispensationalist movement institutional permanence by assuming leadership of the new independent Bible institutes such as the Moody Bible Institute (1886), the Bible Institute of Los Angeles—now Biola University (1907), and the Philadelphia College of the Bible—now Philadelphia Biblical University (1913). The network of related institutes that soon sprang up became the nucleus for the spread of American dispensationalism. The energetic efforts of C. I. Scofield and his associates introduced dispensationalism to a wider audience in America and bestowed a measure of respectability through his Scofield Reference Bible. The publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909 by the Oxford University Press was something of an innovative literary coup for the movement, since for the first time, overtly dispensationalist notes were added to the pages of the biblical text. The Scofield Reference Bible became the leading bible used by independent Evangelicals and Fundamentalists in the U.S. for the next sixty years. Evangelist and bible teacher Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871–1952), who was strongly influenced by C. I. Scofield, founded Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924, which has become the flagship of dispensationalism in America. The so-called “Grace Movement”, which began in the 1930s with the teaching ministries of J.C. O’Hair, Cornelius R. Stam, Henry Hudson and Charles Baker has been mischaracterized as “ultra” or “hyper” dispensationalism (an actual misnomer according to the etymology of the Greek word base for “dispensation”). The contrasts between law and grace, prophecy and mystery, Israel and the church, the body of Christ were energized by Scofield, Barnhouse and Ironside in the hearts of these men and studied and proclaimed by O’Hair, Stam and a host of other “grace” teachers. Dispensationalism has come to dominate the American Evangelical scene, especially among nondenominational Bible churches, many Baptists, Armstrongists, and most Pentecostal and Charismatic groups.
Dispensationalism was first introduced to North America by John Inglis (1813–1879), through a monthly magazine called Waymarks in the Wilderness (published intermittently between 1854 and 1872)[citation needed]. In 1866, Inglis organized the Believers’ Meeting for Bible Study, which introduced dispensationalist ideas to a small but influential circle of American evangelicals. After Inglis’ death, James H. Brookes (1830–1898), a pastor in St. Louis, organized the Niagara Bible Conference to continue the dissemination of dispensationalist ideas. Dispensationalism was boosted after Dwight L. Moody (1837–1899) learned of “dispensational truth” from an unidentified member of the Brethren in 1872. Moody became close to Brookes and other dispensationalists, and encouraged the spread of dispensationalism, but apparently never learned the nuances of the dispensationalist system. Dispensationalism began to evolve during this time, most significantly when a significant body of dispensationalists proposed the “post-tribulation” Rapture. Dispensationalist leaders in Moody’s circle include Reuben Archer Torrey (1856–1928), James M. Gray (1851–1925), Cyrus I. Scofield (1843–1921), William J. Erdman (1833–1923), A. C. Dixon (1854–1925), A. J. Gordon (1836–1895) and William Eugene Blackstone, author of the bestseller of the 1800s “Jesus is Coming” (Endorsed by Torrey and Erdman). These men were activist evangelists who promoted a host of Bible conferences and other missionary and evangelistic efforts. They also gave the dispensationalist movement institutional permanence by assuming leadership of the new independent Bible institutes such as the Moody Bible Institute (1886), the Bible Institute of Los Angeles—now Biola University (1907), and the Philadelphia College of the Bible—now Philadelphia Biblical University (1913). The network of related institutes that soon sprang up became the nucleus for the spread of American dispensationalism.
The energetic efforts of C. I. Scofield and his associates introduced dispensationalism to a wider audience in America and bestowed a measure of respectability through his Scofield Reference Bible. The publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909 by the Oxford University Press was something of an innovative literary coup for the movement, since for the first time, overtly dispensationalist notes were added to the pages of the biblical text. The Scofield Reference Bible became the leading bible used by independent Evangelicals and Fundamentalists in the U.S. for the next sixty years. Evangelist and bible teacher Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871–1952), who was strongly influenced by C. I. Scofield, founded Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924, which has become the flagship of dispensationalism in America. The so-called “Grace Movement”, which began in the 1930s with the teaching ministries of J.C. O’Hair, Cornelius R. Stam, Henry Hudson and Charles Baker has been mischaracterized as “ultra” or “hyper” dispensationalism (an actual misnomer according to the etymology of the Greek word base for “dispensation”). The contrasts between law and grace, prophecy and mystery, Israel and the church, the body of Christ were energized by Scofield, Barnhouse and Ironside in the hearts of these men and studied and proclaimed by O’Hair, Stam and a host of other “grace” teachers. Dispensationalism has come to dominate the American Evangelical scene, especially among nondenominational Bible churches, many Baptists, Armstrongists, and most Pentecostal and Charismatic groups.
Soooo …. read that little list of bona fides. Whew. It makes me tired. But here’s the thing. When I look at the time line and put it next to the time line of what was happening in U.S. secular culture at the time, I see that these men were doing the same thing in church/theology that the industrial barons were doing in industry … that is they were streamlining, standardizing, typing, instituting. They were making theology efficient. It happened throughout western Christendom … oh, excuse me, Protestant Christendom.
Please don’t think I’m picking on the dispensationalists. They weren’t the only show in town to do this. I think the millenialists did it too. Or maybe they didn’t. My point is this, it was culturally relevant during the latter part of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th to codify and systematize everything. Everything included Christianity. It’s how Darwin proved his theory of evolution. It’s how Dewey created his decimal system for cataloging library books. It’s how Piaget based his educational theory and Freud his psychiatric theory. It’s how we manage our understanding of the life, the universe and everything today.
What we are discovering in many of these disciplines is that while systemization may work well in the hard sciences (i.e. the periodic table of elements for chemistry), the soft sciences must be more pliable and flexible. The systems that people create look more like a dance than a chart. Push button Y and reaction Z will not necessarily always happen. We are finding that is particularly true in our public education system these days. People are individuals and they learn in different manners. Trying to force them to learn in lock step with thousands of others is creating a disaster on a large scale.
This is also particularly true in church and with God. We are finding that there is a great deal more mystery to God than was previously understood. S/He cannot be reduced to a few propositional truths that are easily found in scripture. While the Bible is God -breathed, we must never make the mistake of thinking that that is all there is to God.  We might have a few difficulties with our picture of God, because we don’t have all the clues. In fact, I believe that the Apostle Paul said it best in I Corinthians, “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face” … we don’t have it all yet, we just know a little. There is more to come, a great deal more. Relax, be still and know that S/He is God. Everything else is just chafe.
Tomorrow this blog will be silent and dark in honor of the victims of violence at Virginia Tech and around the world. It will sit quietly in memory and prayer for their pain and suffering.
Today, however, I’d like to quibble with words. It bothers me that the incident has been coined a “massacre.” I have issues on a number of different levels with this. First and foremost is that Virginia Tech has and will continue to contribute many stars to the galaxy of engineering universe. It is a top school for engineering in the country. Henceforth now though, it will be known as “that massascre” school.
Secondly, the incident was not, NOT, a massacre. Yes, a large number of people were killed by someone who was more heavily weaponed than they. Yes, he came upon them when they did not expect him. They had no defenses. However, the word massacre implies a certain sense that the forces of killing have the support of higher authority (government usually). A massacre usually occurs during a state of war. The MyLai massacre is a modern occurence. The Anfal Campaign was a several years long massacre undertaken by Sadaam Hussien to punish the Kurds in northern Iraq. The Battle of the Little Big Horn is another well known episode. In a wonderful turnabout the U.S. government is attempting to right the wrongs done in the Sandy Creek Massacre 142 years ago by establishing a memorial to the Cheyenne there. A massacre is also undertaken by many who have full control of their faculties. They are following the logical (if misguided) precepts upon which their way of life is based.
The incident at Virginia Tech ought more properly to be coined a tragedy (an event resulting in great loss or misfortune), or a catastrophe (a state of extreme -usually irredemediable- ruin and misfortune). Seung Hui Cho very clearly did not have full control of his faculties for quite some time before April 16 and likely for years previous to the event. This was no military campaign which was following the logical (if misguided) precepts based upon a way of life. This was anger, frustration, howling rage, fear, and evil personified and it ended with the taking of his own life, something that true massacres never end with.
When we call an event of this nature a massacre we separate the shooter from his community in such a way that the community is no longer responsible for him or to him in any fashion. He must exist outside of the community in order to wreak such destruction. And yet, Seung existed within his community. What can we learn from this about the nature of community? About the nature of this specific community? What must change within that system or other larger systems to prevent these sorts of brokenness from occurring in the future? This was no massacre because Seung was part of these people. This was a tragedy, a heartwrenching, gut twisting failure on the part of our whole system to help the Seung Cho’s of this world find their voice.
My most beloved television program is “Law & Order.” I’ve been watching it for years. I first discovered it in re-runs on A&E during the day. I was breaking a very naughty soap opera habit and looking for something to replace them with. I was newly home with a baby and bored out of my skull. I know that the proper emotion to express as a new mother is delight and everlasting joy at your new child. But housework and infant care are also boring beyond belief, especially if one is accustomed to daily adult interaction and stimulation. So, I began watching “Law & Order” reruns during the day … 1 o’clock in the afternoon on A&E. Then I’d turn the television off, in an act of supreme self-discipline. Sometimes.
Imagine my delight when I discovered that this television show was in production on NBC! WOW! What you have to understand is that NBC is not on my radar. It just doesn’t exist. Well, it exists, but you see … we don’t get that channel. It broadcasts on the other side of the mountains in New York, so we don’t get it. I know, now there are the wonders of cable and satellite (not to mention that I currently live in Virginia not Vermont), but I forget about all of that and just discount NBC. It’s just not on my radar. Other people watch it, because they get that channel. I don’t. Weird wiring from my childhood strikes again. So anyway. I watch Law & Order very nearly obsessively. I watch it in reruns on TNT. I watch Special Victims Unit on USA. I watch Criminal Intent on Bravo. If it’s on, I find it and watch it. Some of the episodes I know so well, I can begin to recite the dialog. But there is one episode in particular that haunts me.
It’s one of my favorites and, yet, it makes me cry every time it airs. It was first aired in season 6, entitled Pro Se. It’s about a homeless man who went on a murderous rampage and killed 3 people. It turned out that he was schizophrenic and off his medication. Once he was in jail and on his meds, he calmed down, stopped hearing voices and turned out to be a brilliant attorney. He defended himself during the case (hence the title of the program) and was well on his way to winning when suddenly he threw it all down, decided to allocute and spend the rest of his life in a mental institution.
During his allocution it became apparent that his inner demons were back, indicating that he had stopped taking his medication some time during the trial. He had been faced with Hobson’s Choice. He knew that having freedom meant that he was responsible for himself and he was unlikely in that instance to reliably take his medication. Being institutionalized meant that he would be medicated and therefore aware and able to function, yet in an environment where he was unable to use his faculties. Or be institutionalized and not medicated, yet others would be kept safe from his delusions. There was a lot of dialogue concerning this decision and all of the ramifications; whether or not an adult can be forced to take medication against his will when not taking it meant that he became harmful to others. There was even a small part of his mind (soul or brain) which knew this, but could not overcome the power of the delusions caused by the schizophrenia. On the other hand, taking the medications caused such a fog to come over his thought processes that that was not who he was either. In one particularly gripping scene, he said to ADA Claire Kincaid, “It’s taking every single ounce of energy I have, just to hold this conversation with you. When you leave, I will be exhausted.”
In either choice he was caged. In one by his illness, in the other by the state. There were no choices left for him and if he chose physical freedom, he was likely to harm others again. A fact which he knew and abhorred. But neither could he abide the fog the medication caused. I can understand that. I take medications for combined seizure disorder, depression and anxiety disorder. Sometimes it takes all of the energy that I have just to hold a conversation. To keep my thoughts in one place and have them come out of my mouth in a cohesive organized fashion. I did not used to be this way. So I empathize with the character in this episode, even though my problems are an anthill compared to his fictional issues.
All of which is to say that I did not make the comparison between a person with multiple personality disorder (e.g. mentally ill) and the Bride of Christ lightly yesterday. Nor did I do so in criticism of one thread of memes (People Formerly Known As …). My criticism, if any, was aimed at the increasingly shrill commentary coming out of blogs more associated with the institutional church than with the emerging conversation. I am sad because for two years now I still hear the same complaints and criticisms. Yes, indeed we are, many of us, terribly hurt. I’ve been hurt by two churches now; the second badly enough to increase my medications. I’m not for one moment suggesting that the conversation take on a plastic positive spin. I am suggesting that we remember a couple of things.
The first is that we are all of us, both hurting and whole, institutional church and emerging conversation, all who claim the name of Christ as Savior, are part and parcel of His Bride. When we engage in this name calling and so-called Truth bearing, we are harming each other and putting distance between ourselves (Christians) and those we want to invite to the wedding feast. People, for good or ill reason, fear the mentally ill and they are sequestered on the fringes of society. I’m not terribly concerned with being on the fringes, but how can we invite people in to the banquet, if they’re looking askance at us?
The second thing we need to remember is that we have a Lover who is anxious to heal us. So while there is no magic touch. No miraculous cure. He is there is to gather us up under His wings as hen does her chicks; giving consolation and comfort from He who can provide it. I’m not calling for false bravado, but real grace which comes from Living Water. That as the healing takes place we will each encourage one another to stand in forgiveness. That this grief, hurt and anger will indeed be a journey and not a stopping place.
Last, we all in all of our separate communities are standing separately before God. As with my meds, the insanity is taking every ounce of our energy just to think about the conversation. There is very little left for moving forward or even more importantly looking around to seek reconciliation with our brothers and sisters. We were given a commandment by Jesus (to love God and love others – our neighbors) and a Commission (to go out, taking the Gospel to our neighborhoods, our towns, our cities, our countries, to the ends of the earth) and deliver it in a winsome fashion, not beat people over the head with it. What is there about the Gospel that is inviting? We know what is inviting, but we need now to make the venue welcoming. Our human equity has long since vanished. So the time has come, I believe, for us all … every last one … to be humble in repentance for the wrongs we’ve done each other and ask for healing within the Body, the Bride. That the meek will be lifted up and carried forward to receive comfort and blessing. That those without a voice, will be given an open throat and ears willing to hear.
There is a Promised Land somewhere out there and we must stumble towards it together, because separately we are hearing voices and slowly but surely losing our way.
Prologue
It all began with Bill, and his rather delightful polemic, The People Formerly Known as the Congregation. Bill was thinking out of the box a little and using a rubric that had been used in another format in order to get our collective attention. He accomplished that. Several others jumped aboard the train (Grace, Jamie A-R, John, Lyn, Greg, Dan, Heidi, Copernicus, Sola Gratia, Brother Maynard, and Paul) and wrote other pointed pieces that continued in that vein and I think we are now up to parts 9, or perhaps 10. I don’t know, my reading turned to skimming somewhere around part 5. I just got sad. I began to see backlash on institutional church blogs; people who are linking to these in anger and bitter humor. (UPDATE: several hours after posting this I read the second of Brother Maynard’s three part series in this meme. Dear Reader, you really need to as well.  My post is but a shadow on the wall.)
More than that, an ever-widening rift is developing between the old and the new. The piece of the Church that was to be “just a conversation†is hardening it’s lines or perhaps the lines are being drawn for it and the piece that is the old, the institutional Church, is calling names and making faces. Oh, it’s being slightly more dignified than that, but it’s the adult version of, “I’m packing up the marbles and keeping them for myself. Nyah.â€
So, what follows has been on my mind for quite some time now. I began writing it over a year ago. The imagery comes and goes, but I have not been able to get it out of my head (which probably is some indication of my level of insanity). I began reading the latest round of postings which began with Bill‘s TPFKATC with hope that has degenerated into sadness. We are all continuing to circle the drain with our anger. It’s not that anger or expressing it is bad, but we must begin to harness it into something constructive, redemptive, conciliatory or we will ultimately lose the true battle which we ought to be fighting.
As you read what follows, please understand that I am in NO manner attempting to speak the mind of Jesus. I am taking the metaphor of the Bride and Bridegroom and playing it out in imaginative fashion; so, dear reader, you may make of it whatever you will.
The People Known As The Bride of Christ
Jesus is coming. Jesus the Bridegroom. He is coming for His Bride. He dressed in his tuxedo. He’s been preparing the universe for this time since He called time into being. He’s longing for this Bride dressed in dazzling white. Pure. Clean. If He is to be Lord of Lords, then His Bride will be the Queen in the Kingdom of God.
What sort of Bride do we present Him with? At the moment, she is dressed in the tatters of a whore, no dazzling white here. She is behaving as though she is possessed of multiple personality disorder. In serious distress, this disorder is causing her multiple personalities to be at war with one another as she stands at the back of the church ready to walk down the aisle.
Now Jesus sees past the clothing and the MPD; He sees only His beautiful Bride. Not so the guests at the wedding. They are frightened by the spectacle of the tattered rags, ratty hair, dirty skin and raging arguments from within one person. They are leaving the church in small groups, and ones and twos. Slowly, but they are leaving. The banquet feast that Jesus has set for them is not enough to keep them there.
It soon becomes apparent that the wedding which was a central event in society, written up in all the best papers is now so insignificant that it’s barely worth mentioning by word of mouth. It was to have happened in the big church in the middle of town, but now it’s being held in the tiny little church down the road a ways. There just aren’t enough guests anymore. The Bride has frightened them all away with her squabbling, fractious nature and all of the rules she set for coming to the wedding.
Jesus opened the doors wide. The Bride started to close them. No drinking she said. No smoking. No dancing. Only come on Sunday. Wear beautiful clothes. I must have beautiful clothes. And your hair must be just so. Make sure your children behave. Raise your hands in worship. No, don’t. Yes, do. No.
These things and more are the issues She is now fighting about within Herself.More and more guests just keep slipping away. And The Bride? Well, She appears to be unaware, indifferent; far more concerned with her inner demons than with her guests. She knows she ought to be thinking of them and their needs, but she cannot seem to pull her eyes off of herself.
Epilogue
I have not written this because I feel that we ought all just get along and sweep our differences under the rug. I’ve written it because I feel that we ought to be picking our battles more wisely. There are really only a few battles that need to be fought. “In things essential, unity; in doubtful, liberty; in all things, charity.†Thomas aKempis. Is the church possessed by demons? I don’t know. But we’ve become a fringe element of society and it might be good to think about embracing that rather than continuing to act as if we’re the biggest show in town. Arguing about how to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic is a waste of time and energy. But perhaps we could learn some new patterns and begin to work together in and through our differences. Reminding ourselves of what we have in common more regularly might be a good place to start.
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, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human.
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, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who 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
According to Wikipedia, persecution is defined thusly:
… persecution seems to be the expression of a more general trend in human social behaviour, (perhaps related to tribalism ), which seeks to impose or enforce conformity. Persecution is not recognised as such by persecutors, only by their victims or outside observers. Persecutors either see no wrong in their actions, or rationalize it as a small or short-term wrong to counter what they see as a larger, more serious wrong, as in The ends justify the means. Most commonly, this is expressed as seeking to protect themselves or their families or society from what they see as the harmful influence of the persecuted group. Persecuted groups are often labelled using pejorative terms which reinforce their social alienation. For example different races are called inferior or sub-human; different religions are called infidels or heathen; political groups are called subversive; homosexuals and drug users are called immoral. Use of such terms with strongly negative connotations allows individuals to avoid examining the true nature of their relationship with the persecuted group. Since people are, in general, incapable of recognising their own prejudices, compiling a full list of all forms of persecution is inevitably controversial. For almost anything which could be cited as an example of persecution, there will be those who claim it is legitimate personal or social self-defense.
… persecution seems to be the expression of a more general trend in human social behaviour, (perhaps related to tribalism ), which seeks to impose or enforce conformity.
Persecution is not recognised as such by persecutors, only by their victims or outside observers. Persecutors either see no wrong in their actions, or rationalize it as a small or short-term wrong to counter what they see as a larger, more serious wrong, as in The ends justify the means. Most commonly, this is expressed as seeking to protect themselves or their families or society from what they see as the harmful influence of the persecuted group.
Persecuted groups are often labelled using pejorative terms which reinforce their social alienation. For example different races are called inferior or sub-human; different religions are called infidels or heathen; political groups are called subversive; homosexuals and drug users are called immoral. Use of such terms with strongly negative connotations allows individuals to avoid examining the true nature of their relationship with the persecuted group.
Since people are, in general, incapable of recognising their own prejudices, compiling a full list of all forms of persecution is inevitably controversial. For almost anything which could be cited as an example of persecution, there will be those who claim it is legitimate personal or social self-defense.
Hmmmm …. having recently been involved in some personal conflict, this description gave me pause. During the conflict I often felt persecuted. So did some of the others involved. Since we were at odds with one another, the question arises who were the persecuted and who were the persecutors. But, then again, perhaps that is not the important question. The far more important question might be, does the end justify the means?
We are very familiar with this concept. It was first published by Niccolo Machiavelli in his political masterpiece, The Prince in 1515 … In a brutal world, where every man is out for himself, being something other than what one actually is, for fun and profit, as long the ends are worthy, is a valuable tool:
For this reason a prince ought to take care that he never lets anything slip from his lips that is not replete with the above-named five qualities, that he may appear to him who sees and hears him altogether merciful, faithful, humane, upright, and religious. There is nothing more necessary to appear to have than this last quality, inasmuch as men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you. Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are, and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, which it is not prudent to challenge, one judges by the result.
The above quote comes from chapter 18 entitled “Concerning the Way In Which Princes Should Keep Faith.” I read that chapter at least three times. I could not find a tiny piece of it which glorified God, or spoke of learning to walk with Him. So I wondered who the prince was keeping faith with? Was it God, the people, his betters, himself?
The more startling issue is that I had to read several chapters before finding this. I was amazed at how ingrained in our culture Machiavellian thinking has become. We have all become little princes, looking after our fiefdoms. Far from being the polemic on evil that I thought it was, it merely outlined poltics and living as we have come to know it in the late 20th and early 21st century. Are we running late for an appointment? Then sure, cut someone off and potentially cause an accident (or at least cause their heart rate to go up). Our good and/or necessary ends justify the means. We’ll do penance through helping someone else out later in the week. Or slip a little extra in the collection plate at church.
Pulling back the lens a little we look at our farming practices which are causing havoc in creation and the animal kingdom. But the good and/or necessary ends are that we can feed so many more people so far away now. Do those means really add up? Do those means truly justify the ends? Are we merely gaining something in the short term which will cause greater long term damage?
Then I look at the example set by God. I see that He never, no never, not one time followed this line of thinking. Granted He is God and as I believe Him to be, He has more and greater knowledge of the way things are than I do. But He does not take the route of ends justifying the means. If that were the case, we would not celebrate Easter each year. He would have found an easier route to our salvation than condemning a part of Himself to death. He is endlessly patient, never willing that an event should happen before its proper time. Knowing when each seed needs to grow to fruition and when it needs to lie waiting.
The longer I walk down this road with my Saviour, the more I am coming to think that every time we act in line with “the ends justify the means,” we are working against the will of God and become the persecutor. But if we lay that down and earnestly seek His will for ourselves and our neighbors (whoever they may be) we continue to walk in His will. Will this open us up to becoming the persecuted? Probably. But that is a story for another day, my beloved.
Here are the rest of the Synchrobloggers and their masterpieces … which are actually more worthy than mine:
There is a Secret being told around town and around the country … here’s a brief synopsis:
“And this is really fun,” says Joe Vitale. “This is like having the universe as your catalog and you flip through it and you go, ‘Well, I’d like to have this experience, and I’d like to have that product and I’d like to have a person like that.’ It is you just placing your order with the universe. It is really just that easy.”
Huh? Well, instead of sending all our money and great ideas to the people dying of hunger and disease in Africa and Asia, we’ll just send copies of this book and tell them to imagine themselves well. I guess that’s what’s been wrong all this time. They don’t have very good imaginations. They don’t know how to think hard enough about good clean water and nourishing food. Because it really is just that easy. Mr. Vitale said so.
