Great book! I highly recommend!!!

My husband, who attends a different church than I -- one that is fairly new: just over a year in a permanent location and a year or so before that renting space in various spots, proudly boasted about how much their numbers were growing, and I couldn't help respond to his statement, silently, in my head, with a "so what?"

Now, if he'd instead bragged, "We have a lot of folks at my church who actively serve..." ...the needy, the environment, the disenfranchised, etc., or had bragged that their membership actively models the example of Jesus in their daily lives. Then, I would have cheered. But, you're popular and/or good marketers, so what? Lots of things are popular, some good and some not so good. Popularity tells you nothing.

Also, I suppose to the evangelistic, soul-saving set, you might earn bragging rights if you'd brought faith to non-believers. But the vast majority of new members in his church (and most American churches of my experience) are not new believers. Mostly, they're only "converts" of choice or convenience from some other denomination. Again, so what? (...unless you're one of these kooks who thinks their denomination is the only one going to heaven, in which case there's nothing in this post to interest you. surf somewhere else.)

This "so what" thought brought to mind an excellent blog post, entitled What if the church was invisible?", which sparked lively conversation when I posted a link to it on facebook. Boiled down, it asks, "What if church were not a weekend thing, but a people who radically lived behind the cultural scenes bringing God’s kingdom to earth?"

Church as institution makes less and less sense to me the more I ponder it. And when I say church, please include all spiritual traditions' equivalents.

Corporate worship has value as do communities of faith that support one another in matters of spirit as well as body. But the INSITITUTION of church? The acquisition of property, it's upkeep, improvement, marketing, management, internal politics, etc.? And once so much is invested in this PLACE, the allegiance to it as a THING and the subsequent search for validation of the value of this THING and all that entails: insiders/outsides, ours/yours, tenure/newbie status, popularity or lack thereof, ad nauseam. Isn't all of this a huge time and energy investment in something peripheral to the point?

Now, we could concede that in order to enjoy the value of community and corporate worship for groups that have outgrown smaller start-up venues like home churches, there could be justifiable need of a large-ish shared place. But, why be so proprietary about it? Couldn't several groups share one space? Could these groups be of different denominations or even different faiths? Shouldn't the facility be as in-use as possible to minimize investment? Wouldn't the shared nature also avoid a lot of the ego issues of "mine" mentality? Wouldn't it be greener, even, if different congregations each took a day or half day of the week as "theirs" instead of having different churches that are just empty vessels much of the time? Couldn't sharing like this make us better people, more cooperative, more accommodating, more in touch with needs of the broader population that's not part of our own subset?

Also, in the interest of not investing a lot of time, energy and money into something that is meant to facilitate the point rather than BE the point, isn't a minimalist mentality for this shared space preferable? If it's really THAT important to have an icon, statue, or whatever, does it have to be the Venetian Marble, professional artist-made, expensive thing in a store/catalog or could it be paper mache that you made with friends who you consequently SPENT TIME WITH? So what, it's not very pretty or professional, but doesn't it have more meaning, more personal history, didn't it bring you closer in community? Isn't that part of the REAL point? That is, community and loving one another, which requires knowing one another.

Yes, worship can also be the point, but isn't worship not just prayer but how we choose to live? Whether we are in accordance with what God wants or not? And would God rather have an ugly paper mache thing that you made or the expensive pretty thing you bought. Parents: Would you rather have your child's nearly unintelligible drawing that they poured their heart into or something they bought you? Would you rather they invited you over more often even though their house was kind of shabby, or would you rather be invited only when they had time/money to make the place immaculate for you?

And, does God really give a hoot if you're popular, have lots of fans/members, and a fancy meeting place? If it causes people to live more giving, loving, serving lives, then probably. If it doesn't, or worse, stands in the way of those things, then probably not. So, I say to the church-minded set, don't brag about numbers. If you must brag, brag about hearts. Or better yet, don't brag. Demonstrate.

I've really had it up to my eyeballs with right wing Christians being the loudest voices against healthcare reform. Yeah, yeah, yeah, they SAY they're not against healthcare reform, just against the Obama version of it. But, sorry, I just don't buy it. Any healthcare reform idea I've ever run across would in some way violate right wing free-market principles, or small federal government ideals, or their aversion to taxation for ANY reason. Even reforming tort law would vex many folks on the basis of due process, free speech, and human rights protections.

And on the anti-tax issue, their inability to see that redistribution of wealth in SOME form is good for EVERYONE, is just mind boggling. Are they just not able to use deductive reasoning to see that educating the poor helps them not stay poor; improving the health of the poor helps them not stay poor; affordable housing, job placement, and other social services can help the poor OUT of poverty. And, you know what happens when a poor person isn't so poor any more? They PAY TAXES, they are less likely to commit crime, less likely to fill up jails, can ENHANCE their communities. Etc.

Yes, I know, the rich commit crime, the rich often skirt paying taxes, and the poor can enhance their communities even when poor. But, it is PREDOMENANT TENDENCIES that I'm addressing here. It is the poor who MORE often than the rich commit VIOLENT crime. It is the uneducated that are MORE prone to prejudices that lead to hate crime. And desperation can and does force otherwise good people to behave badly.

When we help people out of poverty, it helps EVERYONE, including the rich!!!!! Yes, I know, there are some who do not wish to be helped and are content to live on welfare indefinitely. Yes, I've know a couple of those personally. It sucks. But, there are bad apples in EVERY bunch. Do you just say let 'em all rot? Well, you might be able to make the argument that, yes, yes you should let 'em all rot if those good apples don't want to take the initiative and work themselves to death trying to get out of poverty at three minimum wage jobs all on their lonesome. Maybe you'd argue that we should just build a "great wall" to keep "us" safe from "them" as they rot? Maybe, maybe you could make arguments along these lines, UNLESS you have the audacity to also say that you're a Christian.

And that's what gets me more than anything is that the most holy-rolling Christians who would like to ram a bible down every throat and save everyone's souls really couldn't give a crap about your EARTHLY welbeing, or I should say, they give a crap up and until you try to tax them or cost them anything more dear than some talk. Oh, but that's not it, they'd argue. The rich give lots to charity, and we should let private sector charity handle these issues. Oh really? So, if you lived in an area not served by a charity, you can just go starve somewhere, preferably quietly and out of sight? The point of having something done on the federal government level is to ensure that everyone is served, everywhere, as equitably as possible. Just "leaving it to charities" would NOT accomplish this.

Nevertheless, I can almost buy hearing these arguments coming from a right-wing atheist, but from a Christian? Of ANY political affiliation? But ESPECIALLY the right-wing bible thumpers? The very ones that are perfectly fine with blurring the lines between church and state if it means prayer in school, perfectly fine with blurring the church/state lines if it means outlawing abortion, perfectly fine with blurring the church/state lines when it comes to gay marriage, but OHHHHH NOOOO when it comes to taxes, THEN we don't want to use the state to enforce Christian values. WHAT???!!! Christians are the very people who are supposed to love their neighbor (which is everyone, even enemies), help the poor A LOT (you know .. . you shouldn't have two coats if your brother has none? that's equivalent to saying you shouldn't have anything over the bare minimum if your brother has less than the bare minimum and, again, brother is EVERYONE).

I know, how judgmental of me to point fingers when I have multiple coats and other things way beyond bare minimum. I know, ranting like this doesn't fall into the "loving" category. But, I don't claim to be anywhere near perfect and I'M NOT THE ONE WHO'S BEING DUPLICITOUS ... I WANT healthcare reform (even if it's imperfect, even if I pay a bit more in taxes, and not for religious reasons, but for the "survive/thrive together or die/suffer alone" principal that is just common sense) =AND= I want church and state UTTERLY separate.

So, no, sorry right-wing Christians, you gotta decide if you're going to advocate inserting ALL your values into politics, in which case arguing against taxes to help the less fortunate is TOTALLY HYPOCRITICAL. Or, if you want church and state separate entirely, then you have to shut up about gay marriage and abortion until you can come up with NON-RELIGIOUS-BASED and SOUND reasons for being against them. Oh, and totally toss out school-led prayer of course. Stop cherry picking and pick ONE!! Then the rest of us can at least respect your reasons and your integrity, even if we still disagree with your conclusions. Then, we might be able to have a civil dialog, find some common ground, and move forward at least a little. But this moving target, change your stance when it suits you thing is dishonest and UNchristian.

It's very rare for me to stay up late because I just can NOT put down a non-fiction book. Samir Selmanovic's "It's Really All About God" reels you in with its raw truthfulness, wit, humor, and deep emotions such that it's really quite a page-turner.

This is not a preachy book. It's the story, questions, and conclusions of one struggling believer. Samir has had a variety of experiences in his still-ongoing spiritual development: Croatian, American, Muslim, Christian, and he would say atheist too, though I would have instead labeled what he describes of that era of his life as agnosticism.

You might look at a history like that and say, "Hey, doesn't this guy believe in anything enough to stick with it?" And you might be right in asking that question. But that's sort of the point of Samir's journey: his allegiance is to God, wherever that takes him. He tried having walls of protection around his faith to keep people who didn't share his views out or at least at a safe distance. But that was not making God the center; that was making religion the center.

Now, now, don't go lumping him in with the "spiritual but not religious" crowd either, though he does truly empathize with them. Samir highly values religion and tradition (he is himself a minister) and thinks that the "spiritual but not religious" set are missing out on something that could really add to their spiritual experience when they bypass religion altogether. But religion should be a vehicle, God the destination.

And when Samir puts God at the center, he's also putting people, relationship, and love at the center. He argues against the separation/segregation of holy vs. mundane life. Everything is holy. God is omnipresent. And love is the key to the whole enchilada.

To my eyes, the only weak point in the book was his assertion that a God who limited God-self to one religion and withheld that goodness/god-ness from so many would not be worth worshiping. It's a weak argument because it doesn't matter if God is "worth" worshiping. If he/she/it is God, then they're God. Period. And if God really is God, then it doesn't matter if he/she/it makes sense, is just, is loving, is nice, etc.

A better way Samir could have put it is that God wouldn't BE God if he/she/it were a petty, unjust, hateful being who played favorites and let billions of people in the out-crowd burn for eternity.

Samir does phrase things oddly sometimes because English is not his first language. I suspect, because of later areas of the book where he talks about the egotism of many religious systems that try to limit God or manage God, Samir was NOT trying to say God is subject to our judgment or our human/fallible/short-sighted opinions. But it does come across that way and does so in the introduction of the book, which I fear may put some readers off getting to the core of his message. Don’t be put off! Read on!!

I highly recommend "It's Really All About God." It speaks to believers as well as doubters; the religiously unversed as well as the religiously fluent. It speaks to the four faiths listed on the cover, but its ideas apply to any faith. And best of all, it was a true joy to read -- I reveled in its unpretentious honesty, its comedy, its tragedy, and its inspiration.

absolutely love this blog-tracker app i happened across on facebook. i think it works outside facebook directly from the networked blogs site as well. it's really a fabulous way of keeping up with blogs across multiple networks.

don't find the blogs you follow on their network? you can add blogs you want to track, even if you're not the author. oh, and don't forget to add your own to the network so others, even non-livejournalers, can follow you!

i've become a real blog junkie and i've found a ton of new interesting blogs through the tracker's keyword search function. and, at least with the facebook version, you can see the blogs your friends follow too.

o.k. i have a rant i just have to get out of my system...

i posted a link on my facebook page yesterday and commented that i thought the author was exaggerating and name-calling to say that the guy who shot the late-term abortion doctor was a terrorist.

i get frustrated with both the left and the right when, instead of stating reasoned, fact-based arguments, they launch into labels that are designed to be incendiary and that really don't fit the circumstances. even if the label fits, opinion writers often leave out the argument WHY they fit, just tossing out the label and assuming that everyone will agree that it's apt.

posting this link sparked quite a string of disgruntled comments from folks on my friends list (which includes conservative christians, liberal christians, pagans, atheists, agnostics, republicans, democrats, libertarians, anarchists, etc. etc.).

as you might guess, the liberal side argued that "christian fundamentalist terrorist" was completely accurate, the conservatives said it was completely inaccurate, but for (imo) the wrong reasons.

i don't think anyone argued that the guy doing the shooting was justified in his act of murder. it was the label that was argued.

merriam-webster lists the definition of terrorism as:
the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion

i think that (and the other definitions used by the liberal camp of facebook-friend commentators)is overly simplistic.

are the states that perform capital punishment terrorists? they are killing people to scare the public into preferred behavior. (note: i am against capital punishment, but i wouldn't label it as terrorism.) if we use the m-w definition alone, we'd have to say capital punishment = terrorism.

likewise, were the people who tried to assassinate hitler or other nazis terrorists?

is our country participating in terrorism when we preemptively bomb a country? what about when we bomb an area with known enemies but also innocent bystanders? i've heard several people argue that the collateral damage is a deterrent to the "innocent" who don't "take responsibility" and themselves go after the enemies in their midst ... never mind that many if not most of these bystanders are unarmed, too old, too young, or too terrorized to be able to fight these enemies themselves.

no, in practice, we don't call internationally-recognized governments or their representatives (e.g. soldiers) terrorists. we have a separate label for them when they act immorally: war criminals. even when it's something like the tiananmen (sp?) square massacre, we don't call the chinese officials that ordered it nor the soldiers who carried it out terrorists, despite how terrifying and coercive it must have been.

we also don't choose to use the terrorist label when the person is doing something that we believe is justified (i.e. trying to kill a mass murderer like hitler or his minions, or guerilla fighters who fight directly against the armies of genocidal dictatorships like in sudan or burma). so, we might say that you're not a terrorist if you are murdering to stop murder and are acting directly against the murder-ordering politician or murder-carrying-out army, gang, group, or person.

and it's here on this last point where i felt that "christian extremist TERRORIST" was an inappropriate label for the guy who shot the late-term abortion doctor. because, despite what the dictionary may say, we just don't apply the term "terrorist" in the broad context that such a simplistic definition suggests.

was this guy a christian extremist? i'd say "yes" because i think it's pretty extreme to murder someone based on one's religious beliefs. do i agree with this guy's thinking or what he did? no. i'm not defending the guy AT ALL. but, given that he shot a specific person that he felt was a mass murderer -- he didn't bomb his church, he didn't go into the guy's home and stab the whole family, he didn't walk into his clinic and gun everyone down, etc. etc. THOSE would have been terrorist acts because they were targeting not only the specific person(s) judged to be committing mass-murder, but would have also taken out the uninvolved in an attempt to make people fear even being associated or near someone of that nature.

personally, i'd like to see "terrorist" dropped as a label altogether and certainly left out of our legal code. like "hate crime" and other terms that seek to qualify THOUGHT as a crime in addition to the related action, i find the whole notion of thought-crime to be ridiculous.

am i less dead if someone killed me free of prejudice? am i more dead if they killed me because of prejudice? should we really give someone a lighter sentence if they blew up the restaurant because they like killing people versus someone who blows up the restaurant because they want to instill terror for the purpose of coercion?

shouldn't we just be against killing? period?

yes, i know that there are many out there that feel the abortion guy was killing babies and that the killer HAD to act to "save innocent life". but that's a separate, humongous tub o' worms.

the point here is that, whether he was a "protector of the innocent" or a "religious wacko" breaking the law, the shooter wasn't a "terrorist". the reporter that used that label didn't provide an argument to support the label and common use of the label also doesn't support it's use in this particular instance. but using the label sure does get people (including me) all riled up into arguing about semantics and diverts attention away from the deeper issues. it's also harder to later have reasoned, fact-based arguments about those deeper issues and truly be heard when the incendiary label has caused so much of the audience to recoil from the get-go.

wouldn't it be better to say "Joe Shmo killed Plain Jane. Shmo did this because he believed Jane was a murderer and based that judgment on his interpretation of brand-x scripture" and let the reader decide what to label the guy? the report can be strictly factual and likely lead the reader to the same conclusion the reporter came to without the label-mongering. but once you throw the arguable label in there, you're just preaching people who already share your opinion and have lost those whom you MIGHT have otherwise been able to convince on the REAL point -- and the REAL point is that christians can be every bit as extremist as adherents of other belief system (be they religious, political, or economic belief systems). and i think THAT was the REAL point, which was undermined and obscured by the "terrorist" label. and it's this obfuscation of a VALID point that spurred me to take issue with the arguably erroneous, inflammatory label-slinging to start with. the long string of argumentative, inflamed facebook comments proved this already. sheesh!

P.S. here's an example of an article that uses the same label but does so in a reasoned, non-inflammatory manner. i still don't agree that it's an appropriate label in this criminal instance, but i DO at least respect this writer's argument.

my husband and i watched Bill Mahr's "Religelous" a couple nights ago. it wasn't as extreme as i'd expected. instead of arguing for hard-line atheism, he argued for hard-line agnosticism. and while i disagreed with 95% of the movie, i agree -- to an certain extent -- about the importance of doubt.

the complete absence of doubt is what i see as the root cause of extremism. it's hard to be extreme if you have any doubt. i imagine it would be hard to follow through on a suicide bombing in the presence of doubt; to kill in the presence of doubt; to hate in the presence of doubt.

when we finished the film, i told my husband that there are only three "statements of faith" that i can make with absolute certainty: (1) there is a creator who is still involved; (2) existence is greater than what we perceive (i.e. existence beyond "our" reality, and that this life is not all there is); (3) the purpose of life is to love.

really, #2 is more a subset of #1. so, essentially, i do truly believe the "great" commandment of Jesus -- boiled down: love God & others ... boiled down further: LOVE.

i suppose that's what drew me to emergent christianity. first, they're more willing to accept doubt, to not demand confessions of faith or creeds, to be happy that you're there and searching. second, they seem more focused on people, here and now, rather than the here-after. it's not "you should love so that you'll be obeying, which you must do to get past the pearly gates"; it is instead "you should love because heaven is/can be here, now; love because we are the eyes/ears/hands/feet/heart of God; love ... love for love's sake, love because love is just so freaking beautiful."

i found this cool synopsis of the emergent phenomenon by one pair of authors:
"Although emerging churches are diverse in their expressions, they embody a number of shared practices. In our book Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (2005), we defined the emerging church as: those who take the life of Jesus as a model way to live (one), who transform the secular realm (two), as they live highly communal lives (three). Because of these three activities, they welcome those who are outside (four), they share generously (five), they participate (six), create (seven), they lead without control (eight), and function together in spiritual activities (nine)."

why do so many people find the emergent movement so threatening? do people really need to have death-grip control (or it's illusion) to feel safe? really?

http://www.dsoyouth.org/Resources/GTNGAgapeMealscript.doc descibes the agape meal/service this way: "It is structured much like the version we see in the Gospel of Luke, which itself is clearly a Jewish meal. This meal began with a blessing of the bread and a drink blessing, and then ended with the blessing of the common cup. In between these actions were the Jewish actions Jesus would have known so well: the proclamation of Holy Scripture, the teaching of an elder, shared conversation over a meal, and singing to God."

in addition to the aforementioned link, i ran across several detailed agape meal/services online:

• http://synodresourcecenter.org/wma/worship/occasional/other/0016/agape_feast.html
  
• http://amistad-vacaville.org/agape_meal.htm
  
• http://www.newchurchlife.com/index.php/holy-spirit-prayer/agape-meal-ideas/
  
• http://www.corrymeela.org/uploads/docs/A%20LITURGY%20FOR%20AN%20AGAPE%20MEAL.doc
  
• http://thebillabong.info/otm_lent/otm07_p19.html
  
• http://www.ccws.ca/serviceplans/papers/Agape%20Service.PDF
  

websites listed these as biblical references for agape meals:
Mark 14:22; I Corinthians 11:25; Acts 2:42, 46-47; I Corinthians 11:17-34; Acts 20:7 & 11; Matthew 26:30; Acts 2:47; Jude 1:12, 2nd Peter 2:13

why am i researching this? several church folks mentioned feeling that communion as it was being done at U.G. wasn't feeling special or communal enough (i was one of those people), and then someone else mentioned that communion was originally incorporated in an agape meal/service. so, i proposed a 5th sunday agape meal, which would have the emphasis on the communion aspect--not a purely social event (social, yes of course, just not purely so).

i think we have a lot of social stuff at U.G. already. what i find really missing at U.G. is a shared sacred event. yeah, we worship each sunday in the same room, but it doesn't seem like we really worship "together". i was hoping to try something to provide that missing piece. might work. might flop. but that was the goal.

now most of the examples for this type of service that i've found online are very liturgical in nature, and U.G. is completely non-liturgical. so, i thought maybe some pieces of these services could be revised from a priest/congregation exchange into a sort of group-participation thing.

imagine, if you will, each person attending the service receives a slip of paper with a portion of the service on it so that each person in attendance says a portion -- everyone is creating the service, everyone is leading, everyone is following. no hierachy.

our pastor asked that time for testimonials be included, which would be easy enough.

since the meal and worship are somewhat mixed together, there is some question as to what to do about the kiddies. several parents have spoken up quite adamantly about the need for childcare during the worship, with kids joining for the food. i still wonder if it might be good for this blue-moon event (5th sundays are only 4 times a year) for the kiddies to join us for a change.

jesus is quite clear about how special children are. it seems that we are to learn from them to be better christians, so why not include them now and then? it also seems that children could benefit from occasional exposure to worship, rather than been segregated from it until much older. but, i don't have kids myself, so i can't speak with any kind of authority on this and will therefore have to defer to the parents.

i must say, i'm a bit frustrated by the lack of feedback on this event. i've asked for input a couple of times and have only heard from a handful of people. and most i've heard from seem to want this event to be yet another social event, with worship separate. that's not really what i felt called to do, but i also don't feel called to upset people who seem to feel strongly that meal and worship don't mix.

so, once again, i'm putting these thoughts out there for input. maybe i've just heard from the minority opinion so far??

o.k. so. washing the dishes early this morning, i had one of those conversations in my head. you know the type: you imagine debating something with some generic someone. well, maybe it's just crazy ole me who does this. but that's where my head was at, and this is where it lead...

i'm pretty frustrated with the hypocrisy of religions. at least the religions that i'm personally acquainted with. sure, it's probably all religions, but i can only talk about the ones i have first-hand experience with.

first, the various christian denominations.

for me, "The Great Commandment" in Mark 12:28-31 (and similarly in Luke 10:25-28) is the crux of jesus' message, his purpose, and his life example:
And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?”
Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” [Mark 12:28-31 ESV]

later, when asked to define what a neighbor was, jesus gave the parable of the good samaritan, where an outsider from a different denomination of judaism, a denomination scorned by jesus' own denomination and most others, was depicted as the neighbor ... was depicted as the one keeping the great commandment. [Luke 10:29-37]

And other statements, such as those in Mark 5:43-48, say clearly that even enemies should be treated as neighbors, treated with love.

i don't understand how anyone professing to be a follower of jesus can so blatantly ignore what he himself proclaimed to be the most important of the "rules" (and the many ways in which jesus refuted anyone's justifications for excluding anyone from the love due a neighbor).

it seems to me that every schism in the church was a violation of the great commandment. that every prejudice, institutionalized or not, is a violation. and any belief or practice that causes one to violate the great commandment would have to be anathema. likewise, any practice that did not violate the great commandment, though it might be argued as a wrong on some level, would not be an important enough infraction to damn someone in the eyes of god, and if not damned in the eyes of god, what right do we have to exclude them for it ourselves?

whether it's disagreement about something as ridiculous as style of music or dress worn to worship or as seemingly fundamental as homosexuality, those things pale in light of the great commandment. those things can only be judged by looking at the heart of the person to see if their motivations violate the great commandment and no one but god can accurately judge another's heart. sure, if wearing casual clothes to church feels disrespectful of god to YOU, then for you that is a violation of the command. if homosexuality (between two consenting, loving adults) feels like disrespect to YOU, then for you it is a violation of the great commandment. again, for YOU. you can not judge another's heart and therefore can not say whether it is a violation for THEM.

but, in these opposite-ends-of-the-spectrum issues, nor most of the other arguments that lie on the spectrum, there is NOTHING inherent in them that violates the great commandment. nothing. and we can NOT judge another's heart to KNOW whether it is a violation in their own heart-of-hearts. therefore, i can see no justification for arguing these issues no less splitting over them and violating the second half of the command (loving everyone). and, because it is equated to the first, we violate the whole of the command if we violate either end of the equation.

yes, you can have different houses of worship that express themselves differently because not everyone has the same tastes. some like formality, some like casualness, some like modernity, some like antiquity, etc. etc. and for some, these are not simply issues of taste but what their hearts require them to do. i'm not saying we all need to agree on how we express our worship nor by what finer principles we choose to regulate our individual lives, but to kick out (i.e. reject as unworthy, ostracize, refuse to associate with, etc.) churches or diocese or entire denominations over issues smaller than the great commandment is a violation of the great commandment. to denigrate another type of worshiper over these issues is in violation of THE WHOLE POINT. when you can't even sit next to and break bread with someone you disagree with once a week, can you really call yourself a follower of jesus and his example?

current example ... what's happening with the episcopal church here in america and the anglican communion worldwide. on the one hand you have the episcopalians kicking people/churches/diocese out because they don't agree about the homosexual issue and can't come to some sort of compromise where the hearts on both sides are considered and soothed.

when the episcopal church began ordaining women, they didn't force it on those churches/diocese that felt it violated biblical instruction. both men-only-priest diocese and mixed-priest diocese co-existed because people were allowed to follow their individual hearts on the subject. sure, you can't please everyone and some people left over it, but as much as it could, the episcopalian church respected people's difference of conscience on the matter. but the way they've handled the homosexual bishop & marriage issues has been totally different and totally disrespectful. it has NOT loved their neighbor as themselves.

then, there's the anglican communion that is doing the same thing to the espicopal church on the world stage. they're teetering on the brink of kicking them out because they can't respect the difference of heart, the difference of conscience on this issue. the anglican communion could have exemplified the needed respect and compromise and lead the episcopal church to themselves show more love and compassion for those who could not in good conscience accept the change they proposed. but by exemplifying the SAME sort of intolerance that the episcopal church is, the anglican communion has wound up being just as wrong and has ruined their ability to moderate the extremism that will eventually tear it apart.

this is just one, recent example. the christian church is rife with this intolerance that goes against what was to be the greatest commandment. if we can't get that right, why bother arguing over the rest. in fact, why bother at all with any of it?

a couple of weeks ago my mother, veronica, and i made tameles from scratch ... really from scratch (i.e. starting with dried whole-kernal corn, making our own masa -- well, veronica and my mom did that part before i arrived ... i made the sauce and the smoked pulled-pork was left over from a pig roast).

veronica wanted the recipe for the sauce, so i'm posting it here for her and anyone else who would like a very good pork sauce.

the recipe is from the book "Tamales" by Mark Miller, Stephan Pyes and John Sedlar. according to them, "manchamantel" translates as "tablecloth stainer" and is a classic sauce from central mexico. the recipe below is 95% theirs with some modifications of my own.

ingredients:
5 dried ancho chiles
2 dried new mexico chiles
1 small vine-ripe tomato
3 large cloves roasted garlic
3/4 cup fresh peeled, cored and chopped pineapple
1 overripe banana, peeled and chopped
1 ripe mango, peeled and chopped
1/2 granny smith apple, peeled, cored and chopped
1/2 teaspoon ground cinnamon
1/4 teaspoon ground cloves
1/2 teaspoon ground allspice
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/2 tablespoon brown sugar
1 tablespoon balsamic vinegar (red wine or cider vinegar is ok instead)
1.5 cups unsweetened pineapple juice
1 tablespoon toasted seasame oil

ancho & new mexico chiles: remove stems, slice open, remove seeds and place in dry heavy skillet over medium heat. stir or shake frequently to prevent burning and toast the dried chiles until the darken slightly and become fragarant. transfer to non-metal boal and cover with hot water. set aside for 30 minutes. once 30 minutes is up, strain liquid and reserve two cups for use later in this recipe.

tomato: put the roma tomato on a fork and hold over gas flame on stove top, and get the skin good and blackened all around. if you don't have a gas stove, place in a toaster oven close under the broiler and blacken that way, will have to rotate a few times to blacken all around.

if you don't have an overripe banana, you can roast the banana in the toaster oven on the bake setting. leave banana in peel and be sure it's in something that will collect any juices. peel before use but do not discard juice. both banana and juice will go in the blender later.

the garlic, unpeeled, can go in the toaster oven on bake with the banana, they should both be done in about the same time (20 minutes at 350 degrees). of course, peel the garlic before it goes in the blender.

put everything in a blender (make have to do in halves if it won't all fit at once) and puree.

pour into a heavy skillet and simmer for about an hour (will need a splatter guard or a loose lid .. be sure to stir about every 10 minutes and keep simmer pretty low to avoid scorching). you can put pre-cooked pork in the sauce and simmer them together but shouldn't use raw pork because it would make the sauce greasy. you could probably get away with using drained, par-cooked pork.

we put the sauced pork into the tamales prior to steaming them and then put the extra sauce over top of the tameles just prior to serving.

"Mass On The World" by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
...wow. very beautiful and wise. makes me that much more eager to learn more about Chardin.

excerpt #1:
"What I experience as I stand in face of-and in the very depths of-this world which your
flesh has assimilated, this world which has become your flesh, my God, is not the
absorption of the monist who yearns to be dissolved into the unity of things, nor the
emotion felt by the pagan as he lies prostrate before a tangible divinity, nor yet the passive
self-abandonment of the quietist tossed hither and thither at the mercy of mystical
impulsions. From each of these modes of thought I take something of their motive force
while avoiding their pitfalls: the approach determined for me by your omnipresence is a
wonderful synthesis wherein three of the most formidable passions that can unlock the
human heart rectify each other as they mingle: like the monist I plunge into the all-inclusive
One; but the One is so perfect that as it receives me and I lose myself in it I can find in it
the ultimate perfection of my own individuality.

"Like the pagan I worship a God who can be touched; and I do indeed touch him - this God
over the whole surface and in the depths of that world of matter which confines me: but to take
hold of him as I would wish (simply in order not to stop touching him), I must go always on and
on through and beyond each undertaking, unable to rest in anything, borne onwards at each
moment by creatures and at each moment going beyond them, in a continuing welcoming of
them and a continuing detachment from them;

"Like the quietist I allow myself with delight to be cradled in the divine fantasy: but at the same
time I know that the divine will, will only be revealed to me at each moment if I exert myself to
the utmost: I shall only touch God in the world of matter, when, like Jacob, I have been
vanquished by him.

excerpt #2:
excerpt:
"The deeper the level at which one encounters you, Master, the more one realizes the universality of your influence. This is the criterion by which I can judge, at each moment, how far I have progressed within you. When all the things around me, while preserving their own individual contours, their own special savours, nevertheless appear to me as animated by a single secret spirit and therefore as diffused and intermingled within a single element, infinitely close, infinitely remote; and when, locked within the jealous intimacy of a divine sanctuary, I yet feel myself to be wandering at large in the empyrean of all created beings: then I shall know that I am approaching that central point where the heart of the world is caught in the descending radiance of the heart of God."

now i must read the rest of the book!!

seemingly related to (heavily influenced by) Chardin is another priest whose writings have gotten him into hot water with the papacy ... Thomas Berry is another man whose works i really need to read.

oh! some many interests, so little time!!!

some months ago, i was reading a blog on the emergentvillage.org website posted by a south african who had attended that coutry's version of the burning man festival. several folks chastised him for attending this predominantly pagan festival, since he was a christian and they felt christians should remain apart from such corrupting influences and that by attending he was somehow supporting nonbelievers in their rejection of christianity.

one person in particular was adamant and verbose in his criticism, though he was respectful throughout. this person, screen name jacques, was what i would characterize as a hard-line fire-and-brimstone christian...the type that sends me screaming in the opposite direction and makes me question my affiliation with christiandom as a whole because i am so much the antithesis of his beliefs.

the author of the blog, did not run screaming in the opposite direction, but calmly offered alternative views in a respectful way. he showed great tact, empathy, and caring in his responses despite his sharply different views. i was very impressed and hope to one day reach a point where i can emulate his patience and openness.

i was especially integued by one of his responses to jacques. response #26 if you scroll down the page far enough, reads:

I recognise the shape of your thought, and know that I once hosted it. My move away from it was gradual, brought about by deep dissatifaction. I do not reject you, I value you, but I do not relate to aspects of your worldview. So I do not speak with any malice, just honestly:

You seem rooted in sin-consciousness. Your view of innate sinfullness is pervasive, resulting in an almost superstitious rejection of simple goodness, and ringfencing all goodness into a bounded set you define as “christian”. I have come to believe in God's often hidden involvement with and influence on this fallen world. So I reject the “fall-redemption” narrative (500 CE – present) in favour of the more ancient “Creation Spirituality” tradition. (2000 BCE – present)

Dualism is a complex subject and must incorporate many dimensions, including both what texts or mindsets predate it as well as the evolution of thought whereby new (and improved) though supeceeds it. It is not sufficient to merely say – it’s newer therfore better, or it’s older therefore better. The claim to authenticity (origins) must be held in tension with the claim of revelation (progressive and evolutionary). A “right” reading of scripture is complex and poetic – an art rather than a science.

I appreciate the tensions between justice and reconciliation. I believe that all will stand before the ultimate Throne of Judgement, I also believe that we are “judged daily”, I also believe that we can resist that judgement, for it is painful, and I also believe that mercy will be shown to all who allow themselves to be purged.

But, ultimately, that God will redeem everything, the entire cosmos, and defeat and purge it from all evil. Hence if my hope and my eschatology involve Eventual Oneness, I also have a hope that redemption involves overcoming dualism in the here and now. Us/Them, Christians/Non-Christians, Flesh/Spirit, Now/Sweet-By-and-By, Sacred/Profane – all this is affected by the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit Who calls us to Oneness. The implications of this for mission, for example being missional within Burner Culture, are profound.

You noted earlier how this view was “anathema to Scripture which declares eternal separation between good and evil”. This claim is by no means as clear as you propose, firstly the word “eternal” has been largely mistranslated, originally in the KJV, and also because this is the “separation” we suppose to be the “Hell” alluded to in Jesus’ own words (Sheep/Goats, Wheat/Tares, Lazarus) is DEEPLY, DEEPLY misunderstood.

Jacques, you may not see it this way, but your faith is rooted in the assumptions of Modernism, e.g. How “devotion, no matter how passionate, matters little in a theological debate if it is based on a spurious premise”. This may have been how Plato or his disciple-in-rhetoric Augustine would have it, but I do not think this is how Jesus would say it. His emphaisis was always on the heart, while yours seems to be on the head.

Your idea of what constitutes a “sound mind” is concerning. While I agree that some of the excesses you list are counter productive, and may lead to misery and even death, for me a sound mind is one not divided by dualism, but infused with an all pervading sense of Holiness (wholeness) and a consciousness of boundless Grace.

Have you read “The Mass on the World” (http://www.teilhard.org/panier/1_fichiers/t13;139-156The.Mass.on.the.World.pdf), or are your objections to de Chardin based on your own pejorative, “anti-new age” assumptions? I do not see why you dismiss this almost unrivaled classic of Christian mysticism and devotion so vehemently. If I could achieve a small portion of his faith, I would be a very, very blessed person.

Also, I got it wrong – he unequivocally rejects undiluted monism (pantheism).

For me, Teilhard de Chardin is a Christian prophet to the New Age, and an Archetypal Universal Burner.

i hadn't heard of Teilhard before, but the description that nic provided made me think, regardless of my not knowing of the man behind the ideas, that i must certainly been influenced by these ideas because my own view of spirituality is very much in line with what nic expressed. i wanted to further explore Teilhard, but somehow misplaced that note-to-self in the intervening months.

having dug up that prior intention from the bottom of my brain's to-do stack, this entry here is to remind me to FINALLY DO IT!!