Today we had Latin music on the quad. Let me tell you something: mediocre praise choruses sung in Spanish is NOT Latin music! Luckily it got better - almost, I would say, good. Not Kinky or Cafe Tecuba, mind you (who are touring together this summer - must go!), but my toes were tapping.
We got to have class with The Mime today. It was a decent talk, but he had to lead off with a mime set to a Ray Boltz song. Anybody remember "Watch the Lamb?" Whew, that's some stinky cheese! [incidentally I just learned that he did the same exact piece at my friend's church...when she was 8 years old...17 years ago]
Doesn't it defeat the purpose of mime to always do it to music with words?
I shouldn't get started on The Mime. Too many people read this now. The Mime is the beloved of my department. He's been "in residence" for many years and has been given his own Directorship of our dramatic program. People who I truly respect think he is the greatest thing. So I must tread carefully.
Can we at least agree that there is a problem with miming to 20-year-old Christian cheese songs? Why does Christian art equal crap? Why can't we reveal the real truth of the universe without resorting to proselytizing or silliness or obviousness or just being lame?
The quality meter of the average Christian has gotten so low that we accept, even celebrate, that which we'd never allow from Hollywood or the concert hall. Then again, I may misspeak. Britney still sells and reality shows still rate great and what will be the biggest box office movie this summer? Probably not Hotel Rwanda.
*sigh*
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Sunday, April 17, 2005
The Feminarian Goes to Mosaic
First I must ask for your prayers, as my dad today resigned his pastorate, as is his associate, leaving their church with no pastors, and dad & mom w/no jobs, friends, or house. This was the recommendation of the oh-so-helpful survey people who came to "evaluate" the church a while back.
But I want to share with you about my trip to Mosaic, a church here in Pasadena. In the spirit of Ship of Fool's Mystery Worshipper, I'll just list some questions and my answers to sum up the experience (this is going to be long).
The Basics
Name of the church: Mosaic
Denomination: Southern Baptist (so I’ve been told, it’s not made known by the church)
Origin/Mission: Their welcome packet included a confusing five-part mission statement (their “Core Values”):
Wind – Commission: Mission is why the Church exists.
Water – Community: Love is the context for all mission.
Wood – Connection: Structure must always submit to Spirit.
Fire – Communion: Relevance to culture is not optional.
Earth – Character: Creativity is the natural result of spirituality
It sounds pretty but I don’t get how these are connected (the element, “C” word, and sentence of each, that is).
Name of the service: None as far as I could tell, just “Mosaic” or maybe the name of the sermon series, “Imagine: Creating the Life of your Dreams” which was on a huge banner above the big screen. Today’s session, which was introduced by a little film, was entitled “Adapt.”
Kind of service: Sunday morning worship
The cast: Musicians, skit actors and dancers, a preacher, and a guy who did announcements.
The manner of the worship leaders: The musicians were accomplished but when they tried to encourage the crowd it sounded a little weak and forced. Besides this they only sang, didn’t pray or talk. The actors were “in character” so it’s hard to guess their manner. They were trying to be funny and mostly succeeded. The preacher was very loud, yelling at us most of the time, except when he’d affect a hoarse, “meaningful” tone in his voice. The announcement guy was a little dorkier than the rest but he was warm and welcoming.
Description of the congregation/Demographics: The congregation was almost entirely 20-30’s (most looked in college or just out), although there were 2 or 3 older folks (elderly) and maybe 10-15 boomers. I saw one baby, one young child, and one older kid who came in at the end. The musicians looked about 20 (except the boomer playing the bongos), the preacher mid-30’s, and the announcement guy mid-40’s. It was almost entirely white people, although the band was half Koreans. There were a few people of different ethnicities in the group but they were mostly one of a kind. Definitely there’s no problem here with a “hip” look (dyed hair, funky clothes, etc.), so it was hard to tell how wealthy people were. They seemed to be more from Pasadena than LA (not cutting-edge). The majority of people were in casual clothes – not preppy, but clean and pressed.
How full was the building? About ¾ at the start but seemed mostly full by the end. It was hard to guesstimate but I think about 500 were in attendance.
Did anyone welcome you personally? The parking guy, two people at the welcome table (where we purposely hung out – one was a nice young Asian girl who answered our questions and the other was a boomer who seemed a bit nervous of us), and the person handing out programs at the door.
What happened when you hung around after the service looking lost? I was accosted by a woman who gave me a flyer for the women’s breakfast, telling me 6-700 women attend and I should bring my non-believing friends (I don’t know how she knew I was a believer).
How would you describe the after-service coffee? They had lemonade and coffee to drink, and bagels and pastries to eat, all at a charge. We saw a sign for “1 free drink for 1st time visitors” so I asked for a lemonade and was told I had to fill out a guest card. I drank my lemonade with guilt.
How would you describe the pre- and post-service atmosphere? People seem to be there to get church done – not really a feeling of anything in the air. There were many small social groups talking, 2-3 people, but just about shallow things. Most people got inside to get a seat and when it was over they checked out a few tables and talked to friends. It wasn't an especially excited place but it was pleasant enough.
The overall mood or atmosphere of the service itself? It felt mellow…almost to the point of disinterestedness. It was all very loud.
Level/type of participation by laity? I was really surprised that the people didn’t sing (not that they could have heard themselves). They all stood up and listened to the singing, then sat down and listened to the sermon, then left. There were no opportunities to talk, pray, greet one another, or say anything as part of the liturgy. If you didn’t want to sing, you could keep your mouth shut the entire time, and a lot of people did. They were, however, engaged in listening to the sermon, taking notes and/or using their Bibles (the verses were also projected on-screen).
Clergy? One preacher and one announcement man, neither identified themselves, and no other clergy were visible. I don’t know who the clergy were, although I was offered a “Backstage Pass” to talk to them and invited to the “10-Minute Party” afterwards where I could have someone answer questions.
Vocal/Visual/Body cues of leaders: The musicians raised their hands when singing some parts of the songs (words like “Hallelujah”). They mostly stayed standing in one place. The preacher used his hands a lot when talking and paced the stage, obviously wanting to draw the crowd’s interest into his message. He held up his Bible when reading from it and the Harvard Business Review when quoting from it. The announcement guy used a hand-held mic (as opposed to the preacher’s Secret Service-style earpiece) and also paced a little.
What does the congregation do in response? They stood every time we were singing, they clapped for the peppy songs, a few (less than 10) lifted hands (especially when the leaders did), some hugged themselves, some hunched over in prayer. One woman was signing through the songs (to the side, not a leader). Two people at the left were painting. All of the congregational actions, except for a couple holding hands, were individualistic – eyes closed, many hands folded, standing straight up.
What action(s) does the most work in the service? This is a toss-up between the singing and the sermon, but judging by the level of congregational participation, I would say the sermon was most effective for the laypeople.
What is the dramatic high point of the service? I think the congregation most enjoyed the skit, because they whooped for the dance moves (it was about hip-hop dancers) and laughed at the jokes. Most of the service was on an even keel and I didn’t feel especially moved by any of it.
What does this moment say about what is valued? The congregation values being entertained. The clergy value their music and their sermon and maybe can’t decide which is more important?
Which part of the service was like being in heaven? If heaven is anything like this, I don’t want to go.
And which part was like being in... er... the other place? Most especially the music.
Did anything distract you? These glowing orbs on silver pillars that were set about the stage (they glowed through the blackouts, and even changed color).
Are they clearly exhibiting an adherence to any cycle of Christian time? Not that I could tell, although they were in the middle of a nine-week sermon series.
What does the church’s schedule look like? Services at 5 pm Saturday and 9 (two locations), 11, 5 and 7 on Sunday. They have a lot of small groups that meet at various times.
Outline of the worship service: There was no written program (the brochure I got was just an offering envelope, a guest card to fill out, and a list of their services). The service went: five songs, short computer-animated film that introduced the sermon topic, a skit, the sermon (intro, prayer, exposition with scripture interspersed, closing prayer), a greeting to guests, the offering (canned music and announcements on screen), announcements, closing song (same as opening song). The offering and announcements went on for 10 minutes.
Is it linear or layered in progression? Linear.
Do things happen spontaneously or are they carefully planned? They want to seem spontaneous (hence no printed order of worship) but obviously it’s planned because the PowerPoint followed everything perfectly. Even when the preacher said “By the way…” and went into what might have been a tangent, the slide came up with the scripture he was quoting.
What were the exact opening words of the service? The opening of the service was extremely loud music (especially the drums and bass) and a song. The first actual spoken words were “Thank you, sit down” after the songs.
Closing? “It was great to see you, look forward to seeing you next week. Why don’t we have a closing song?” and we did.
Describe the segues: Lighting was used (blackout or change in light) to indicate changes in mood and between worship elements. The short film was a segue from singing to skit. Canned music was used during the offering, during which there were announcements on the screen.
Does anything unexpected or surprising happen? We were really unsure about when the service was ending. The sermon was done, and the preacher closed it in prayer. Then he welcomed the guests and told us not to feel obligated to give to the offering. Then the offering began (people passed paint cans) and several people left. We weren’t sure if that meant it was over. The canned music had come on, as had the announcements that were running before the service, so we thought maybe it was over. But not everyone left so we stayed put. Then the guy got up with the microphone and gave some verbal announcements (which were also put on the screen), and took us into the final song. People were having conversations during all of this, and the audience lights had come on, so it was really hard to tell if it was part of the service or just the coda. After the final song, though, most people left, so we did too.
The neighborhood: Residential, one of the middle class Pasadena neighborhoods.The building: Auditorium of William Carey University
Is there another location(s)? Mosaic has four locations in LA (and seven elsewhere in the country).
Gathering space: The “Connection Village” which is a bunch of tents set up. It looks like an arts fair. Each tent has info about a group or event, or food, or stuff to buy. It’s where people hang out before and after the service – not a lot hang out in the auditorium.
Worship space: A large auditorium (seats probably 1000) with the sides and back rows corded off. Some theater seats were available, but we sat in the front where there were folding chairs. In the very middle in the front were maybe ten cushy armchairs and two café table setups (three wicker chairs around a little wicker table). These seats went first!
The leaders are on a raised stage, with a second raised area behind the main platform, where the non-singing band members reside. Behind is a black backdrop curtain. To the sides of the stage are large silver pillars, probably 30 of them. To the left facing the stage is the area for artists with canvases and lights set up for them. Onstage are large triangular shapes that are lit in blue, and smaller silver pillars topped with glowing orbs. On the back wall is a huge banner that says “IMAGINE,” a smaller one that says, “Creating the Life of your Dreams,” and two huge vertical banners with sketched human figures, a man on one and woman on the other. These are all spotlit.
Subdivisions of space: The theater seats vs. the folding chairs vs. the “coffee shop” chairs; the painters’ area; the two levels of the stage; the pillars which hide the unused parts of the auditorium.
Where congregation/clergy facing? They face each other (with the stage raised).
What liturgical furniture is in place and when/if used? Halfway through the singing I noticed a plain wood table at the front of the stage. It was stark and unfinished and had a white towel on it. I thought it might be their altar or something that the pastor would use. But it turned out to be part of the skit – they actually broke it. Which had a meaning all its own.
Was your seat comfortable? Yes, it was nicely padded for a folding chair, but the length of sermon tested my limits.
What, if any, printed materials are used? None whatsoever.
Describe the prayers: There were two prayers said aloud by the preacher, one at the opening and one at the close of his talk. They were not read but had probably been thought through.
To whom are prayers addressed and how is that person spoken to? The prayers were definitely addressed to the congregation. They were prayers of thanks and request regarding the points of the sermon. Example: “God, thanks that we are adaptable…you know we allow ourselves to be shaped by the wrong things…help us to be pliable…shape us to be your people” etc. Basically he asked that God help us take on the challenge of what he was about to say, and then that God give us the things he just talked about.
Same questions about the sacraments and other parts of the liturgy (i.e. creeds). The only other liturgical elements were the songs and announcements. They did do a warm welcome for guests.
Who is preaching? I have no idea.
In a nutshell, what was the sermon about? God made us adaptable and we have to be able to adapt to be what God wants us to be and to live the life of our dreams. BUT, in order to be adaptable, we must engage the culture, be flexible, and hold strongly to our core convictions.
What is the point (conversion, teaching, narrative, topical)? The sermon was a teaching sermon, using stories from the Bible and a few from life, to give people tools to make their own lives better.
Exactly how long was the sermon? 39 minutes, though it should have been 20. The natives were restless around 33 minutes.
On a scale of 1-10, how good was the preacher? 3: I appreciated his use of Scripture, and the message was good, but he didn’t seem to believe much of what he was saying. It was more like a performance than a personal talk to us.
What is the response(s) to the sermon? There is no corporate response, and since we went straight into the intermission/offering/conversation time, it was kind of chaotic.
The style(s) of music used and from where/when is it? I didn’t know any of the music and there wasn’t any information about it on the screen. It was a pop music style.
Who leads? One female and one male leading singer on each song (two men switched off the male role).
What musical instruments are played? Keyboard, bass guitar, electric guitar, acoustic guitar, drum set, bongos, tambourine, shaker.
Who is participating? Not very many people are singing but there is a lot of movement (mostly bopping along to the music). The congregation’s singing, if there was any, was absolutely inaudible over the drums and bass. If the mics weren’t turned up, the leading singers couldn’t be heard either, which happened when you could see their mouths moving but not hear anything. The building completely absorbed the sound such that I couldn’t hear myself at all (and I can sing pretty loud). Looking around, I noticed most people were not singing, but they were listening to the music and participating with their bodies.
Who is the intended audience? The first four songs were to God and the fifth was more to one another (lyrics like “Together we sing, everyone sing”) and then to God during the chorus.
How does the music fit the order of worship? I had a hard time telling one song from another, but near as I could tell, there was no rhyme or reason to the order of the songs or when they were placed in the service (case in point: the opening/gathering song was the same as the closing/sending song!). They did have four peppy, one mellow, and one peppy again.
Where is the eye drawn? Usually to the big screen, which showed announcements, screen savers, the lyrics of the songs, the band members (in a concert-video style with weird fades and wipes), the actors, the preacher, and the scripture readings. Also to the painters, and to the glowing orbs.
What do you hear? Indian music when we entered, then generic, funky, ethnic music. Drums and bass during the songs. Mercifully at one point there was just keyboard – that was the only time I could hear people singing. Recorded music and talking during the intermission/offering. One thing I did not hear that I’m used to hearing is the noise of children and babies.
Do you use any other senses (smell, taste, touch)? Nope, except the sour taste in my mouth.
What type of sacramental objects are used and to what effect? The only objects I saw were personal Bibles, pens and pads of paper, the paint cans for the offering, and the preacher used a stool as a table and to sit on when praying (and his aforementioned Bible and magazine).
Is art used intentionally? Definitely – there are fancy screensavers behind the song lyrics, the whole stage looks like a set of a futuristic sci-fi film, the painters are there. The preacher brought up a painting of a butterfly, which stood behind him during his sermon. The skit combined acting and dancing (the dancers were not actors, unfortunately).
Does the visual and dramatic environment make an independent contribution to the flow of the service? The lighting and the video segments were used effectively to signal changes in the service mood, but they were intended to do that work. Just the painters, who had no specific correlation to the worship, were independently contributing (although they didn’t really fit into the flow).
How is art used to endorse/undermine the church’s theological values? Putting the painters up front shows that they are welcome and encouraged to worship God with their art. The church wants to be an impressive, moody show, and the sets, lighting, and screen play into that. The drama was silly, which may have undermined its purpose to lead into the sermon. In fact, when they smashed the table, I’m sure that didn’t reflect the church’s feeling about the Lord’s supper. The table wasn’t supposed to represent the altar – it was just part of the skit. I don’t think they intended the correlation I made. But I’m used to seeing a table in church used for the purpose of Eucharist, not to do a cool stunt (a guy in a ninja suit broke it with his hand...don't ask).
How is this church distinctly different from my own tradition? In every possible way, except that we might both believe in God.
Were there new, interesting, unusual liturgical elements? Smashing the table was definitely unexpected. The painters were new to my experience. The kinds of music (especially the ethnic, funky, and techno that played us out) were interesting.
Theological congruence – does the service do what it purports to do? If it means to teach a little and entertain a lot, then yes. If they hope people will come to a deeper relationship with Christ, I question their rather shallow offerings. There’s not much ritual to get into, and I couldn’t see any reason to come back.
What is the level of laity empowerment and laity awareness of their empowerment, such as it is? The laity do run many of the programs and ministries, but it seems that the majority of attendees just come for the show.
How would you feel about making this church your regular (where 10 = ecstatic, 0 = terminal)? 0
Did the service make you feel glad to be a Christian? I have to go with my husband’s comment: “If I thought that’s how Christians are I would never want to be one.”
But I want to share with you about my trip to Mosaic, a church here in Pasadena. In the spirit of Ship of Fool's Mystery Worshipper, I'll just list some questions and my answers to sum up the experience (this is going to be long).
The Basics
Name of the church: Mosaic
Denomination: Southern Baptist (so I’ve been told, it’s not made known by the church)
Origin/Mission: Their welcome packet included a confusing five-part mission statement (their “Core Values”):
Wind – Commission: Mission is why the Church exists.
Water – Community: Love is the context for all mission.
Wood – Connection: Structure must always submit to Spirit.
Fire – Communion: Relevance to culture is not optional.
Earth – Character: Creativity is the natural result of spirituality
It sounds pretty but I don’t get how these are connected (the element, “C” word, and sentence of each, that is).
Name of the service: None as far as I could tell, just “Mosaic” or maybe the name of the sermon series, “Imagine: Creating the Life of your Dreams” which was on a huge banner above the big screen. Today’s session, which was introduced by a little film, was entitled “Adapt.”
Kind of service: Sunday morning worship
The cast: Musicians, skit actors and dancers, a preacher, and a guy who did announcements.
The manner of the worship leaders: The musicians were accomplished but when they tried to encourage the crowd it sounded a little weak and forced. Besides this they only sang, didn’t pray or talk. The actors were “in character” so it’s hard to guess their manner. They were trying to be funny and mostly succeeded. The preacher was very loud, yelling at us most of the time, except when he’d affect a hoarse, “meaningful” tone in his voice. The announcement guy was a little dorkier than the rest but he was warm and welcoming.
Description of the congregation/Demographics: The congregation was almost entirely 20-30’s (most looked in college or just out), although there were 2 or 3 older folks (elderly) and maybe 10-15 boomers. I saw one baby, one young child, and one older kid who came in at the end. The musicians looked about 20 (except the boomer playing the bongos), the preacher mid-30’s, and the announcement guy mid-40’s. It was almost entirely white people, although the band was half Koreans. There were a few people of different ethnicities in the group but they were mostly one of a kind. Definitely there’s no problem here with a “hip” look (dyed hair, funky clothes, etc.), so it was hard to tell how wealthy people were. They seemed to be more from Pasadena than LA (not cutting-edge). The majority of people were in casual clothes – not preppy, but clean and pressed.
How full was the building? About ¾ at the start but seemed mostly full by the end. It was hard to guesstimate but I think about 500 were in attendance.
Did anyone welcome you personally? The parking guy, two people at the welcome table (where we purposely hung out – one was a nice young Asian girl who answered our questions and the other was a boomer who seemed a bit nervous of us), and the person handing out programs at the door.
What happened when you hung around after the service looking lost? I was accosted by a woman who gave me a flyer for the women’s breakfast, telling me 6-700 women attend and I should bring my non-believing friends (I don’t know how she knew I was a believer).
How would you describe the after-service coffee? They had lemonade and coffee to drink, and bagels and pastries to eat, all at a charge. We saw a sign for “1 free drink for 1st time visitors” so I asked for a lemonade and was told I had to fill out a guest card. I drank my lemonade with guilt.
How would you describe the pre- and post-service atmosphere? People seem to be there to get church done – not really a feeling of anything in the air. There were many small social groups talking, 2-3 people, but just about shallow things. Most people got inside to get a seat and when it was over they checked out a few tables and talked to friends. It wasn't an especially excited place but it was pleasant enough.
The overall mood or atmosphere of the service itself? It felt mellow…almost to the point of disinterestedness. It was all very loud.
Level/type of participation by laity? I was really surprised that the people didn’t sing (not that they could have heard themselves). They all stood up and listened to the singing, then sat down and listened to the sermon, then left. There were no opportunities to talk, pray, greet one another, or say anything as part of the liturgy. If you didn’t want to sing, you could keep your mouth shut the entire time, and a lot of people did. They were, however, engaged in listening to the sermon, taking notes and/or using their Bibles (the verses were also projected on-screen).
Clergy? One preacher and one announcement man, neither identified themselves, and no other clergy were visible. I don’t know who the clergy were, although I was offered a “Backstage Pass” to talk to them and invited to the “10-Minute Party” afterwards where I could have someone answer questions.
Vocal/Visual/Body cues of leaders: The musicians raised their hands when singing some parts of the songs (words like “Hallelujah”). They mostly stayed standing in one place. The preacher used his hands a lot when talking and paced the stage, obviously wanting to draw the crowd’s interest into his message. He held up his Bible when reading from it and the Harvard Business Review when quoting from it. The announcement guy used a hand-held mic (as opposed to the preacher’s Secret Service-style earpiece) and also paced a little.
What does the congregation do in response? They stood every time we were singing, they clapped for the peppy songs, a few (less than 10) lifted hands (especially when the leaders did), some hugged themselves, some hunched over in prayer. One woman was signing through the songs (to the side, not a leader). Two people at the left were painting. All of the congregational actions, except for a couple holding hands, were individualistic – eyes closed, many hands folded, standing straight up.
What action(s) does the most work in the service? This is a toss-up between the singing and the sermon, but judging by the level of congregational participation, I would say the sermon was most effective for the laypeople.
What is the dramatic high point of the service? I think the congregation most enjoyed the skit, because they whooped for the dance moves (it was about hip-hop dancers) and laughed at the jokes. Most of the service was on an even keel and I didn’t feel especially moved by any of it.
What does this moment say about what is valued? The congregation values being entertained. The clergy value their music and their sermon and maybe can’t decide which is more important?
Which part of the service was like being in heaven? If heaven is anything like this, I don’t want to go.
And which part was like being in... er... the other place? Most especially the music.
Did anything distract you? These glowing orbs on silver pillars that were set about the stage (they glowed through the blackouts, and even changed color).
Are they clearly exhibiting an adherence to any cycle of Christian time? Not that I could tell, although they were in the middle of a nine-week sermon series.
What does the church’s schedule look like? Services at 5 pm Saturday and 9 (two locations), 11, 5 and 7 on Sunday. They have a lot of small groups that meet at various times.
Outline of the worship service: There was no written program (the brochure I got was just an offering envelope, a guest card to fill out, and a list of their services). The service went: five songs, short computer-animated film that introduced the sermon topic, a skit, the sermon (intro, prayer, exposition with scripture interspersed, closing prayer), a greeting to guests, the offering (canned music and announcements on screen), announcements, closing song (same as opening song). The offering and announcements went on for 10 minutes.
Is it linear or layered in progression? Linear.
Do things happen spontaneously or are they carefully planned? They want to seem spontaneous (hence no printed order of worship) but obviously it’s planned because the PowerPoint followed everything perfectly. Even when the preacher said “By the way…” and went into what might have been a tangent, the slide came up with the scripture he was quoting.
What were the exact opening words of the service? The opening of the service was extremely loud music (especially the drums and bass) and a song. The first actual spoken words were “Thank you, sit down” after the songs.
Closing? “It was great to see you, look forward to seeing you next week. Why don’t we have a closing song?” and we did.
Describe the segues: Lighting was used (blackout or change in light) to indicate changes in mood and between worship elements. The short film was a segue from singing to skit. Canned music was used during the offering, during which there were announcements on the screen.
Does anything unexpected or surprising happen? We were really unsure about when the service was ending. The sermon was done, and the preacher closed it in prayer. Then he welcomed the guests and told us not to feel obligated to give to the offering. Then the offering began (people passed paint cans) and several people left. We weren’t sure if that meant it was over. The canned music had come on, as had the announcements that were running before the service, so we thought maybe it was over. But not everyone left so we stayed put. Then the guy got up with the microphone and gave some verbal announcements (which were also put on the screen), and took us into the final song. People were having conversations during all of this, and the audience lights had come on, so it was really hard to tell if it was part of the service or just the coda. After the final song, though, most people left, so we did too.
The neighborhood: Residential, one of the middle class Pasadena neighborhoods.The building: Auditorium of William Carey University
Is there another location(s)? Mosaic has four locations in LA (and seven elsewhere in the country).
Gathering space: The “Connection Village” which is a bunch of tents set up. It looks like an arts fair. Each tent has info about a group or event, or food, or stuff to buy. It’s where people hang out before and after the service – not a lot hang out in the auditorium.
Worship space: A large auditorium (seats probably 1000) with the sides and back rows corded off. Some theater seats were available, but we sat in the front where there were folding chairs. In the very middle in the front were maybe ten cushy armchairs and two café table setups (three wicker chairs around a little wicker table). These seats went first!
The leaders are on a raised stage, with a second raised area behind the main platform, where the non-singing band members reside. Behind is a black backdrop curtain. To the sides of the stage are large silver pillars, probably 30 of them. To the left facing the stage is the area for artists with canvases and lights set up for them. Onstage are large triangular shapes that are lit in blue, and smaller silver pillars topped with glowing orbs. On the back wall is a huge banner that says “IMAGINE,” a smaller one that says, “Creating the Life of your Dreams,” and two huge vertical banners with sketched human figures, a man on one and woman on the other. These are all spotlit.
Subdivisions of space: The theater seats vs. the folding chairs vs. the “coffee shop” chairs; the painters’ area; the two levels of the stage; the pillars which hide the unused parts of the auditorium.
Where congregation/clergy facing? They face each other (with the stage raised).
What liturgical furniture is in place and when/if used? Halfway through the singing I noticed a plain wood table at the front of the stage. It was stark and unfinished and had a white towel on it. I thought it might be their altar or something that the pastor would use. But it turned out to be part of the skit – they actually broke it. Which had a meaning all its own.
Was your seat comfortable? Yes, it was nicely padded for a folding chair, but the length of sermon tested my limits.
What, if any, printed materials are used? None whatsoever.
Describe the prayers: There were two prayers said aloud by the preacher, one at the opening and one at the close of his talk. They were not read but had probably been thought through.
To whom are prayers addressed and how is that person spoken to? The prayers were definitely addressed to the congregation. They were prayers of thanks and request regarding the points of the sermon. Example: “God, thanks that we are adaptable…you know we allow ourselves to be shaped by the wrong things…help us to be pliable…shape us to be your people” etc. Basically he asked that God help us take on the challenge of what he was about to say, and then that God give us the things he just talked about.
Same questions about the sacraments and other parts of the liturgy (i.e. creeds). The only other liturgical elements were the songs and announcements. They did do a warm welcome for guests.
Who is preaching? I have no idea.
In a nutshell, what was the sermon about? God made us adaptable and we have to be able to adapt to be what God wants us to be and to live the life of our dreams. BUT, in order to be adaptable, we must engage the culture, be flexible, and hold strongly to our core convictions.
What is the point (conversion, teaching, narrative, topical)? The sermon was a teaching sermon, using stories from the Bible and a few from life, to give people tools to make their own lives better.
Exactly how long was the sermon? 39 minutes, though it should have been 20. The natives were restless around 33 minutes.
On a scale of 1-10, how good was the preacher? 3: I appreciated his use of Scripture, and the message was good, but he didn’t seem to believe much of what he was saying. It was more like a performance than a personal talk to us.
What is the response(s) to the sermon? There is no corporate response, and since we went straight into the intermission/offering/conversation time, it was kind of chaotic.
The style(s) of music used and from where/when is it? I didn’t know any of the music and there wasn’t any information about it on the screen. It was a pop music style.
Who leads? One female and one male leading singer on each song (two men switched off the male role).
What musical instruments are played? Keyboard, bass guitar, electric guitar, acoustic guitar, drum set, bongos, tambourine, shaker.
Who is participating? Not very many people are singing but there is a lot of movement (mostly bopping along to the music). The congregation’s singing, if there was any, was absolutely inaudible over the drums and bass. If the mics weren’t turned up, the leading singers couldn’t be heard either, which happened when you could see their mouths moving but not hear anything. The building completely absorbed the sound such that I couldn’t hear myself at all (and I can sing pretty loud). Looking around, I noticed most people were not singing, but they were listening to the music and participating with their bodies.
Who is the intended audience? The first four songs were to God and the fifth was more to one another (lyrics like “Together we sing, everyone sing”) and then to God during the chorus.
How does the music fit the order of worship? I had a hard time telling one song from another, but near as I could tell, there was no rhyme or reason to the order of the songs or when they were placed in the service (case in point: the opening/gathering song was the same as the closing/sending song!). They did have four peppy, one mellow, and one peppy again.
Where is the eye drawn? Usually to the big screen, which showed announcements, screen savers, the lyrics of the songs, the band members (in a concert-video style with weird fades and wipes), the actors, the preacher, and the scripture readings. Also to the painters, and to the glowing orbs.
What do you hear? Indian music when we entered, then generic, funky, ethnic music. Drums and bass during the songs. Mercifully at one point there was just keyboard – that was the only time I could hear people singing. Recorded music and talking during the intermission/offering. One thing I did not hear that I’m used to hearing is the noise of children and babies.
Do you use any other senses (smell, taste, touch)? Nope, except the sour taste in my mouth.
What type of sacramental objects are used and to what effect? The only objects I saw were personal Bibles, pens and pads of paper, the paint cans for the offering, and the preacher used a stool as a table and to sit on when praying (and his aforementioned Bible and magazine).
Is art used intentionally? Definitely – there are fancy screensavers behind the song lyrics, the whole stage looks like a set of a futuristic sci-fi film, the painters are there. The preacher brought up a painting of a butterfly, which stood behind him during his sermon. The skit combined acting and dancing (the dancers were not actors, unfortunately).
Does the visual and dramatic environment make an independent contribution to the flow of the service? The lighting and the video segments were used effectively to signal changes in the service mood, but they were intended to do that work. Just the painters, who had no specific correlation to the worship, were independently contributing (although they didn’t really fit into the flow).
How is art used to endorse/undermine the church’s theological values? Putting the painters up front shows that they are welcome and encouraged to worship God with their art. The church wants to be an impressive, moody show, and the sets, lighting, and screen play into that. The drama was silly, which may have undermined its purpose to lead into the sermon. In fact, when they smashed the table, I’m sure that didn’t reflect the church’s feeling about the Lord’s supper. The table wasn’t supposed to represent the altar – it was just part of the skit. I don’t think they intended the correlation I made. But I’m used to seeing a table in church used for the purpose of Eucharist, not to do a cool stunt (a guy in a ninja suit broke it with his hand...don't ask).
How is this church distinctly different from my own tradition? In every possible way, except that we might both believe in God.
Were there new, interesting, unusual liturgical elements? Smashing the table was definitely unexpected. The painters were new to my experience. The kinds of music (especially the ethnic, funky, and techno that played us out) were interesting.
Theological congruence – does the service do what it purports to do? If it means to teach a little and entertain a lot, then yes. If they hope people will come to a deeper relationship with Christ, I question their rather shallow offerings. There’s not much ritual to get into, and I couldn’t see any reason to come back.
What is the level of laity empowerment and laity awareness of their empowerment, such as it is? The laity do run many of the programs and ministries, but it seems that the majority of attendees just come for the show.
How would you feel about making this church your regular (where 10 = ecstatic, 0 = terminal)? 0
Did the service make you feel glad to be a Christian? I have to go with my husband’s comment: “If I thought that’s how Christians are I would never want to be one.”
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Friday, April 15, 2005
Worship Enrichment
So today I had to go to a "Worship Enrichment" seminar (required for class). Here's some food for thought that I took away from it:
Pick Your Favorite One:
O for a thousand tongues to sing
Healer of our every ill
Bless the lord my soul (taize)
We are marching/Siyahamba
Jesus loves me
Shout to the Lord
Now pick one if it was the only song you could sing for the rest of your life.
"The worship of God's people flows on the river of music." We're missing out on the prophetic voices of the other streams when we only swim in one current.
We make creative use of words, music - and more! - from many times, places, peoples, and cultures to enlarge our vision of God's kingdom and situate ourselves properly within it. When we wrap our tongues around unfamiliar syllables and our ears hear unfamiliar sounds we are dipping our toes into the river of heaven.
"The Preached Word of God IS the Word of God." (my question: Can visual art be the Word also? It's important to note that preaching isn't always perfect - it can NOT be the word of God. Whereas, an image CAN be, or a kinetic experience.)
1 John 1:1-4 (that which we have seen, heard, touched with our own hands concerning the Word of life) - John is tipping us off to the different ways that people get in touch with the Gospel (Audio, Visual, Kinesthetic).
When we talk about the Word of God, we're talking about (a little hierarchy per the seminar speaker):
1) Jesus
2) Bible (and I add tradition because you can't have one without the other - which Bible do we consult? You can't just say "the Bible" without more digging - in fact, I would say it's irresponsible to simply say "the Bible" - it doesn't exist without at least the tradition that gave us the canon, and our traditions have interpreted Scripture, you can't just say "Scripture's clear" because it's always been interpreted by the Church and we are products of that history - and for that matter, how has any of this happened without human reason? We don't have any way to read or interpret what the Bible says without our reason. I don't like this appeal to Biblical authority without acknowledging the role of tradition or reason. I'm so Anglican.)
3) Preached word of God (where do the sacraments go?)
4) Holy Spirit inside heart
A provacative question from Michelle: even though we are an image-oriented society, we still equate knowledge/intellectualism with words. Are we using the way of the world, what the world values, when we rely only upon words?
And I would add: Are we ignoring God's original revelation in creation? God doesn't tell, God shows: the Logos was flesh, not spoken; the HS came in tongues of fire, not a sermon; Revelation is depicted through outrageous imagery, not straight-up word. The old testament is full of actions and images. "This is my Son - listen to him" (yet the transfiguration is a visual event, not audio - and perhaps listen to him means look at him, at least in that moment?)
Does an image always need to be explained? Ah, do words also need to be explained? Do they mean anything? Can we really just go with words as the safe way of explanation anymore?
If images can help interpret words, then go that way!
"Our job as preachers is not to innovate but to tell the old, old story" Why does this statement give me such pause?!
Pick Your Favorite One:
O for a thousand tongues to sing
Healer of our every ill
Bless the lord my soul (taize)
We are marching/Siyahamba
Jesus loves me
Shout to the Lord
Now pick one if it was the only song you could sing for the rest of your life.
"The worship of God's people flows on the river of music." We're missing out on the prophetic voices of the other streams when we only swim in one current.
We make creative use of words, music - and more! - from many times, places, peoples, and cultures to enlarge our vision of God's kingdom and situate ourselves properly within it. When we wrap our tongues around unfamiliar syllables and our ears hear unfamiliar sounds we are dipping our toes into the river of heaven.
"The Preached Word of God IS the Word of God." (my question: Can visual art be the Word also? It's important to note that preaching isn't always perfect - it can NOT be the word of God. Whereas, an image CAN be, or a kinetic experience.)
1 John 1:1-4 (that which we have seen, heard, touched with our own hands concerning the Word of life) - John is tipping us off to the different ways that people get in touch with the Gospel (Audio, Visual, Kinesthetic).
When we talk about the Word of God, we're talking about (a little hierarchy per the seminar speaker):
1) Jesus
2) Bible (and I add tradition because you can't have one without the other - which Bible do we consult? You can't just say "the Bible" without more digging - in fact, I would say it's irresponsible to simply say "the Bible" - it doesn't exist without at least the tradition that gave us the canon, and our traditions have interpreted Scripture, you can't just say "Scripture's clear" because it's always been interpreted by the Church and we are products of that history - and for that matter, how has any of this happened without human reason? We don't have any way to read or interpret what the Bible says without our reason. I don't like this appeal to Biblical authority without acknowledging the role of tradition or reason. I'm so Anglican.)
3) Preached word of God (where do the sacraments go?)
4) Holy Spirit inside heart
A provacative question from Michelle: even though we are an image-oriented society, we still equate knowledge/intellectualism with words. Are we using the way of the world, what the world values, when we rely only upon words?
And I would add: Are we ignoring God's original revelation in creation? God doesn't tell, God shows: the Logos was flesh, not spoken; the HS came in tongues of fire, not a sermon; Revelation is depicted through outrageous imagery, not straight-up word. The old testament is full of actions and images. "This is my Son - listen to him" (yet the transfiguration is a visual event, not audio - and perhaps listen to him means look at him, at least in that moment?)
Does an image always need to be explained? Ah, do words also need to be explained? Do they mean anything? Can we really just go with words as the safe way of explanation anymore?
If images can help interpret words, then go that way!
"Our job as preachers is not to innovate but to tell the old, old story" Why does this statement give me such pause?!
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Faux Pas
Today I asked a question in class and I heard someone say, "Why don't you take church history?" Well, they were right. It was probably inappropriate to ask, and I get bothered by that all the time. I need to stop talking so much! It's not always about me and MY education.
I guess I also goofed on the type of Quaker service I meant to refer to.
And I dumped coffee on myself.
Doing really well today.
I guess I also goofed on the type of Quaker service I meant to refer to.
And I dumped coffee on myself.
Doing really well today.
Quick post today
Today on Feminary it's Vocabulary Day! Because I learned a new word. I am not, as recently accused by my husband, a relativist. I am latitudinarian. Now you may go look that up.
Also I just have to express my surprise that a classmate told me she went to a Taize service and really didn't like it at all. And I'm thinking, what's not to like? Well, I guess if you aren't comfortable with silence or repetition or whatever. But no, what she didn't like was how planned the service was. She was unable to worship with a bulletin before her telling her everything that was going to happen. She must like twist endings I guess.
And so we learn yet another aspect of Christian worship language. Some people genuinely don't want planning - or really, don't want to know what's been planned. I should recommend the Quaker church to her.
Also I just have to express my surprise that a classmate told me she went to a Taize service and really didn't like it at all. And I'm thinking, what's not to like? Well, I guess if you aren't comfortable with silence or repetition or whatever. But no, what she didn't like was how planned the service was. She was unable to worship with a bulletin before her telling her everything that was going to happen. She must like twist endings I guess.
And so we learn yet another aspect of Christian worship language. Some people genuinely don't want planning - or really, don't want to know what's been planned. I should recommend the Quaker church to her.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Today, give thanks
Rise before the sun and watch the sky turn shades of purple, pink, orange, and yellow.
Let a cat sit on your shoulder and purr into your ear.
Notice the mountains and the trees. If there are electrical wires in your view, thank God for the light they provide.
Savor the warmth of your coffee.
Stay under the sheets a little longer, and then get up and into something warm. Be relieved that it's not hot yet.
Listen to the birds. If all you hear is traffic, be thankful that we have cars to help us get around.
Say good morning to your neighbor.
As you pick up groceries, think about where they came from. They weren't always shrink-wrapped for your convenience. Someone put them together this way to make it easier for you.
For Amelia, the most incredibly beautiful baby, who is 4 days old today.
You can read this. I can write this.
Abraham Kuyper said that there is not a single square inch of the earth over which God doesn't say, "This is mine."
My friend Sam says that there is not a single square inch of the earth through which God doesn't say, "Look at me! Here I am!"
Don't let this day go by without noticing something. God won't interrupt our busy schedules, but God will be there if we look.
Let a cat sit on your shoulder and purr into your ear.
Notice the mountains and the trees. If there are electrical wires in your view, thank God for the light they provide.
Savor the warmth of your coffee.
Stay under the sheets a little longer, and then get up and into something warm. Be relieved that it's not hot yet.
Listen to the birds. If all you hear is traffic, be thankful that we have cars to help us get around.
Say good morning to your neighbor.
As you pick up groceries, think about where they came from. They weren't always shrink-wrapped for your convenience. Someone put them together this way to make it easier for you.
For Amelia, the most incredibly beautiful baby, who is 4 days old today.
You can read this. I can write this.
Abraham Kuyper said that there is not a single square inch of the earth over which God doesn't say, "This is mine."
My friend Sam says that there is not a single square inch of the earth through which God doesn't say, "Look at me! Here I am!"
Don't let this day go by without noticing something. God won't interrupt our busy schedules, but God will be there if we look.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Oh, crapper
I said I'd write every day. So here I am, even though I must rush off to a rehearsal on the other side of town soon. On the other side of town, in LA, means I'll be driving at least an hour. Whoopee!
Anyway it's already burdensome to keep up this pace. Can I cheat since I wrote twice yesterday?
I got my grades and I'm actually doing really well. I am a little surprised. I always did great in school, but I'm not exactly in my comfort zone with the kinds of things I'm studying. Still, it turns out applying yourself (and having some brains to begin with) does the trick.
Can we talk about body image for just a sec? Because I am so obsessed at the moment. I hit that nasty time when suddenly your waistbands are cutting into your flesh. And I did the big naughty and went and bought two new pairs of shorts that fit my new giant ass. You know, I only really get bothered about my weight when my clothes stop fitting. And by then, it's usually too late to do anything except buy new clothes. I tend to be okay at maintaining weight, but losing just seems not to happen anymore. This year I turn thirty. Actually in less than a month. And I guess my metabolism is simply gone.
Anyway, as all students of any level know, it's nearly impossible not to put on a few pounds what with all the grabbing of food between classes and eating on the run and free pizza.
Speaking of free pizza, there was such in our courtyard today, with a program by a couple of guys who were in Iraq (one was a soldier but I'm not sure about the other) who are disillusioned and now protesting the war. There were a lot of people listening politely, but lots of people seemed pissed off. Like the guy would say that the media wasn't allowed to record wounded or dead soldiers being shipped away, and the person next to me said, "Why do they have to see everything?", so I suggested maybe because it's their job to keep the American public informed about what's going on over there. Then he simply said that the media are biased. Ah, that old chestnut. And it turns out that the media that he think are lefties I think are righties. Having worked four years at a journalism school, I realize that media people really try so hard not to be biased. They report what's there. And if what is there disagrees with your personal politics, then you're simply not living in reality.
More from the reality-based world later. I haven't nearly got the time to get into politics.
Anyway it's already burdensome to keep up this pace. Can I cheat since I wrote twice yesterday?
I got my grades and I'm actually doing really well. I am a little surprised. I always did great in school, but I'm not exactly in my comfort zone with the kinds of things I'm studying. Still, it turns out applying yourself (and having some brains to begin with) does the trick.
Can we talk about body image for just a sec? Because I am so obsessed at the moment. I hit that nasty time when suddenly your waistbands are cutting into your flesh. And I did the big naughty and went and bought two new pairs of shorts that fit my new giant ass. You know, I only really get bothered about my weight when my clothes stop fitting. And by then, it's usually too late to do anything except buy new clothes. I tend to be okay at maintaining weight, but losing just seems not to happen anymore. This year I turn thirty. Actually in less than a month. And I guess my metabolism is simply gone.
Anyway, as all students of any level know, it's nearly impossible not to put on a few pounds what with all the grabbing of food between classes and eating on the run and free pizza.
Speaking of free pizza, there was such in our courtyard today, with a program by a couple of guys who were in Iraq (one was a soldier but I'm not sure about the other) who are disillusioned and now protesting the war. There were a lot of people listening politely, but lots of people seemed pissed off. Like the guy would say that the media wasn't allowed to record wounded or dead soldiers being shipped away, and the person next to me said, "Why do they have to see everything?", so I suggested maybe because it's their job to keep the American public informed about what's going on over there. Then he simply said that the media are biased. Ah, that old chestnut. And it turns out that the media that he think are lefties I think are righties. Having worked four years at a journalism school, I realize that media people really try so hard not to be biased. They report what's there. And if what is there disagrees with your personal politics, then you're simply not living in reality.
More from the reality-based world later. I haven't nearly got the time to get into politics.
Monday, April 11, 2005
So here's what's been going on
This quarter is such icing on the cake. It's all classes that are exactly what I want to study. I know later when I'm taking three systematic theology classes at once from fundamentalists I will regret this. But for now, I'm so happy.
(and I was kidding - near as I can tell, no fundamentalists at Fuller, at least not in the faculty population - students are another story, but we're working on them)
So I'm taking two classes in worship (one is how to do it and the other is "let's think about it"), and Episcopal polity. Bet you didn't know we did that at Fuller! Me neither. But there you have it. The latter is a directed reading which means we don't meet regularly, just a few times, and we're supposed to be reading, but I have yet to even get my books yet. Not the best format for a procrastinator.
But the other two classes are interesting and annoying and stimulating and I think I may actually learn something. I'm really getting what I came to Fuller for - the diversity. There are people from me, ultimate high church gal, to those who are so nondenominational that they don't even know what "ordination" means. For the most part the classes vascillate between lots of questions by people who are ignorant about just about everything church-related to lots of discussion about different traditions.
And I have to admit it is really hard, in those situations, to accept that your own tradition isn't necessarily the best. Well, it's hard even to listen to other people sometimes. Especially if you think they are shortchanging their congregations by denying them the beauty of liturgy, or forcing upon them the banality of contemporary music, or any number of the pet peeves that drove me from the Evangelical church. And yet, and yet. My prof insists we can learn from one another. So we try to drop our smugness (it's all around, it's not just me) and listen.
I will say that from what I've seen of emerging church, it's a trend that will fade quickly. There is simply not enough substance there. But I haven't got time to go into it now. I don't know what the American church's salvation will be. I have a feeling it lies in the laity, though, not in the clergy. People need to be educated about what church is, what they are doing there, what the body of Christ is about. That is what I want to do - train better worshippers.
Yesterday we attended St. James, South Pasadena, and visited a newcomer event. Never have I been to a church where the people so "get" what church is really about. All of them are involved - most were recruited to usher, and even serve on vestry, inside of a year (several told stories of being asked to usher within the first couple weeks!). Nobody in that room isn't doing something at the church. They understand that they gather to serve, not simply to sit. They work with the children or youth, they usher, they LEM, they sing, they read. And as near as I can tell, it's all laity-driven. The rector isn't asking - people are just doing it. That, my friends, is a body that is getting it. They understand that their role isn't to sit by and wait for the leader to make church happen. They are the church. They make it happen. They want their church to be ministering according to the gifts of those who attend. They aren't trying to do things they are not gifted for just because it's "expected." They understand that each individual body is made up of members who were called there by God because God had a plan for putting those people together. God actually strategically plans church bodies! God puts gifts together in order to create a particular ministry. And we stifle that work when clergy force the congregation into something they are not gifted in, or when people feel like they want a particular kind of church that doesn't fit the gifts, or whatever.
It's like my parents' church, which has a committed organist and a committed piano player, yet some people are complaining that they want a praise band. There is nobody who wants to actually be in this band, nor is there anyone who could do it. They'd have to hire outside the church. Perfect example of trying to match someone's idea of church instead of going where God leads. They are extremely fortunate to have the committed musicians that they do have (who do it for free, mind you), and maybe God just gave them to the church.
Anyway, I'm totally on my soapbox now. I'll step off.
And hey, check out http://www.shipoffools.com/Mystery/index.html
(and I was kidding - near as I can tell, no fundamentalists at Fuller, at least not in the faculty population - students are another story, but we're working on them)
So I'm taking two classes in worship (one is how to do it and the other is "let's think about it"), and Episcopal polity. Bet you didn't know we did that at Fuller! Me neither. But there you have it. The latter is a directed reading which means we don't meet regularly, just a few times, and we're supposed to be reading, but I have yet to even get my books yet. Not the best format for a procrastinator.
But the other two classes are interesting and annoying and stimulating and I think I may actually learn something. I'm really getting what I came to Fuller for - the diversity. There are people from me, ultimate high church gal, to those who are so nondenominational that they don't even know what "ordination" means. For the most part the classes vascillate between lots of questions by people who are ignorant about just about everything church-related to lots of discussion about different traditions.
And I have to admit it is really hard, in those situations, to accept that your own tradition isn't necessarily the best. Well, it's hard even to listen to other people sometimes. Especially if you think they are shortchanging their congregations by denying them the beauty of liturgy, or forcing upon them the banality of contemporary music, or any number of the pet peeves that drove me from the Evangelical church. And yet, and yet. My prof insists we can learn from one another. So we try to drop our smugness (it's all around, it's not just me) and listen.
I will say that from what I've seen of emerging church, it's a trend that will fade quickly. There is simply not enough substance there. But I haven't got time to go into it now. I don't know what the American church's salvation will be. I have a feeling it lies in the laity, though, not in the clergy. People need to be educated about what church is, what they are doing there, what the body of Christ is about. That is what I want to do - train better worshippers.
Yesterday we attended St. James, South Pasadena, and visited a newcomer event. Never have I been to a church where the people so "get" what church is really about. All of them are involved - most were recruited to usher, and even serve on vestry, inside of a year (several told stories of being asked to usher within the first couple weeks!). Nobody in that room isn't doing something at the church. They understand that they gather to serve, not simply to sit. They work with the children or youth, they usher, they LEM, they sing, they read. And as near as I can tell, it's all laity-driven. The rector isn't asking - people are just doing it. That, my friends, is a body that is getting it. They understand that their role isn't to sit by and wait for the leader to make church happen. They are the church. They make it happen. They want their church to be ministering according to the gifts of those who attend. They aren't trying to do things they are not gifted for just because it's "expected." They understand that each individual body is made up of members who were called there by God because God had a plan for putting those people together. God actually strategically plans church bodies! God puts gifts together in order to create a particular ministry. And we stifle that work when clergy force the congregation into something they are not gifted in, or when people feel like they want a particular kind of church that doesn't fit the gifts, or whatever.
It's like my parents' church, which has a committed organist and a committed piano player, yet some people are complaining that they want a praise band. There is nobody who wants to actually be in this band, nor is there anyone who could do it. They'd have to hire outside the church. Perfect example of trying to match someone's idea of church instead of going where God leads. They are extremely fortunate to have the committed musicians that they do have (who do it for free, mind you), and maybe God just gave them to the church.
Anyway, I'm totally on my soapbox now. I'll step off.
And hey, check out http://www.shipoffools.com/Mystery/index.html
Announcements!
I am making a promise to you that I will try to write every day. It will probably be early in the morning or late at night, so I can't promise coherence, but I am sick of feeling so behind that I'm unable to get started again. So I'm just jumping back in.
And since I was so nicely outed on the Revealer, I can now shamelessly self-promote. My USC office is sponsoring a very cool panel discussion on the upcoming Kingdom of Heaven film. Here is the info:
Monday, April 18, Knight Chair Forum
Whose Crusade? Media, Muslims and the "Kingdom of Heaven"
Join journalism professor Diane Winston, USC Annenberg's Knight Chair in Media and Religion, for a panel discussion with scholars, religious leaders, and film critics about the soon-to-be-released film Kingdom of Heaven, directed by Ridley Scott. Panelists include Aymen Khalifa, a cultural consultant on Islamic issues; John Aberth, historian and author of "A Knight at the Movies: Medieval History on Film"; and Reuven Firestone, professor of Medieval Judaism and Islam at Hebrew Union College in Los Angeles and author of "Jihad: The Origin of Holy War In Islam."
This event is co-sponsored by the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, the Office of Religious Life, the School of Cinema-Television, the School of Religion, the USC Center for Religion and Civic Culture and the TriBeCa Film Festival. Reception follows. RSVPs requested. To RSVP, visit http://ascweb.usc.edu/asc.php?pageID=347&listID=47
5:00 pm, Annenberg Auditorium, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Maps and directions here: http://www.usc.edu/about/visit/upc/driving_directions/index.html
And I have the pleasure of presenting, for the third time, my reader's theater arrangement of the book of Revelation (yes, the entire book). It's really cool and I hope if you are in the LA area you'll come. There are seven readers and they kind of have characters, but mostly just imagine listening to a dramatic reading of the Odyssey or the Divine Comedy and you'll get an idea. It's my work I'm most proud of. Here's the info:
Saturday, April 16, 2005
7:00 p.m.
Travis Auditorium, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA
THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST
A Staged Reading
Text by John of Patmos
Arranged for Reader's Theater by Anastasia McAteer
Oops, now I guess I'm really out.
And since I was so nicely outed on the Revealer, I can now shamelessly self-promote. My USC office is sponsoring a very cool panel discussion on the upcoming Kingdom of Heaven film. Here is the info:
Monday, April 18, Knight Chair Forum
Whose Crusade? Media, Muslims and the "Kingdom of Heaven"
Join journalism professor Diane Winston, USC Annenberg's Knight Chair in Media and Religion, for a panel discussion with scholars, religious leaders, and film critics about the soon-to-be-released film Kingdom of Heaven, directed by Ridley Scott. Panelists include Aymen Khalifa, a cultural consultant on Islamic issues; John Aberth, historian and author of "A Knight at the Movies: Medieval History on Film"; and Reuven Firestone, professor of Medieval Judaism and Islam at Hebrew Union College in Los Angeles and author of "Jihad: The Origin of Holy War In Islam."
This event is co-sponsored by the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, the Office of Religious Life, the School of Cinema-Television, the School of Religion, the USC Center for Religion and Civic Culture and the TriBeCa Film Festival. Reception follows. RSVPs requested. To RSVP, visit http://ascweb.usc.edu/asc.php?pageID=347&listID=47
5:00 pm, Annenberg Auditorium, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Maps and directions here: http://www.usc.edu/about/visit/upc/driving_directions/index.html
And I have the pleasure of presenting, for the third time, my reader's theater arrangement of the book of Revelation (yes, the entire book). It's really cool and I hope if you are in the LA area you'll come. There are seven readers and they kind of have characters, but mostly just imagine listening to a dramatic reading of the Odyssey or the Divine Comedy and you'll get an idea. It's my work I'm most proud of. Here's the info:
Saturday, April 16, 2005
7:00 p.m.
Travis Auditorium, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA
THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST
A Staged Reading
Text by John of Patmos
Arranged for Reader's Theater by Anastasia McAteer
Oops, now I guess I'm really out.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Tithing, worship, book lists...
Well I unfortunately can't find the little paragraph I wrote on tithing that my church published in the following week's bulletin, but suffice to say, the feminarian is serious about it and does NOT take that commitment lightly at all. I will have to get on my soapbox another time, though.
Right now, I have to announce first that I am no longer using dialup!! Curse SBC forever! It's a long story but basically they've done something very naughty with my phone line (let your imaginations run wild) and I can't have their DSL anymore. So it's off to Time Warner cable, even though I'm unhappy about supporting a megaconglomorate, but I could not possibly deal much longer living in the stone age of internet connection.
That said, my parents are still in town so I need to spend time with them. The Feminarian is pleased that I have a really good relationship with them, although we see eye-to-eye almost never on theological issues. So as long as we don't talk about politics and religion, we get along just great. Just like most families!
I wanted to give you a little chart that resulted from the lecture in my worship class. This quarter is the pie quarter: I have two worship classes and Episcopalian polity. Nice! anyway, first I will list the chart. Then I will list some books that are on my suggested reading list for Epis polity. If you can recommend any, I am all ears. I have to read two books in each of four areas: history, theology, worship, and polity/Ang Communion. I like the recommended list but it's much too long and I don't even know which books fit in which areas. So thanks in advance for your help.
Okay, here's the chart:
Contemporary/Emergent
Word/Symbol
Logical/Evocative
Stage/Stations
Order/Choice
Group participation/Individual participation
Content/Ambiance
Linear, Progressive music/Ambient sound, chill track
No sacrament or symbol/sacramental, sacrament-ish
And here's the books:
Geoffrey Cuming, A History of Anglican Liturgy
Pamela W. Darling, New Wine: The Story of Women Transforming...Episcopal Church
Leonel Mitchell, Prayer Shapes Believing (BCP commentary)
Charles Price and Louis Weil, Liturgy for Living
Weil, A Theology of Worship
Robert Prichard, A History of the Epis Church
Ibid, Readings from History of Epis Church
Timothy F. Sedgwick, Sacramental Ethics
Ibid, The Christian Moral Life
Ibid (ed.), The Crisis in Moral Theology in the Epis Church
"The study of Anglicanism" by Sykes, Booty and Knight
"Richard Hooker: Prophet of Anglicanism" by Secor
Right now, I have to announce first that I am no longer using dialup!! Curse SBC forever! It's a long story but basically they've done something very naughty with my phone line (let your imaginations run wild) and I can't have their DSL anymore. So it's off to Time Warner cable, even though I'm unhappy about supporting a megaconglomorate, but I could not possibly deal much longer living in the stone age of internet connection.
That said, my parents are still in town so I need to spend time with them. The Feminarian is pleased that I have a really good relationship with them, although we see eye-to-eye almost never on theological issues. So as long as we don't talk about politics and religion, we get along just great. Just like most families!
I wanted to give you a little chart that resulted from the lecture in my worship class. This quarter is the pie quarter: I have two worship classes and Episcopalian polity. Nice! anyway, first I will list the chart. Then I will list some books that are on my suggested reading list for Epis polity. If you can recommend any, I am all ears. I have to read two books in each of four areas: history, theology, worship, and polity/Ang Communion. I like the recommended list but it's much too long and I don't even know which books fit in which areas. So thanks in advance for your help.
Okay, here's the chart:
Contemporary/Emergent
Word/Symbol
Logical/Evocative
Stage/Stations
Order/Choice
Group participation/Individual participation
Content/Ambiance
Linear, Progressive music/Ambient sound, chill track
No sacrament or symbol/sacramental, sacrament-ish
And here's the books:
Geoffrey Cuming, A History of Anglican Liturgy
Pamela W. Darling, New Wine: The Story of Women Transforming...Episcopal Church
Leonel Mitchell, Prayer Shapes Believing (BCP commentary)
Charles Price and Louis Weil, Liturgy for Living
Weil, A Theology of Worship
Robert Prichard, A History of the Epis Church
Ibid, Readings from History of Epis Church
Timothy F. Sedgwick, Sacramental Ethics
Ibid, The Christian Moral Life
Ibid (ed.), The Crisis in Moral Theology in the Epis Church
"The study of Anglicanism" by Sykes, Booty and Knight
"Richard Hooker: Prophet of Anglicanism" by Secor
Monday, April 04, 2005
Moralistic Theraputic Deism
Sorry not to have time for a proper entry, but I wanted to point you to this story about a new book that's come out:
http://www.therevealer.org/archives/main_story_001837.php
I heard the authors at a conference and it's pretty convincing stuff.
http://www.therevealer.org/archives/main_story_001837.php
I heard the authors at a conference and it's pretty convincing stuff.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Holy Week
You want to hear about Holy Week, huh? OK, here's a rundown:
I moved. Thus, I suffered. Not really like Jesus suffered, but it was difficult. It is very hard to remain a good Christian when dealing with idiots. My movers overcharged me and wouldn't do anything about it; my phone company has completely screwed up. It's tiring to work with people who simply don't care and/or are incompetent.
So I spent a lot of Holy Week not really in the season. I blissfully missed out on the news, so was not bombarded with 24/7 Schiavo/Jackson coverage. I think CNN has a camera permanently in her room so we can all be there when she dies. Because that's what death is all about - having millions of people watch and snarky politians and activists making an example out of you. I just watched Citizen Ruth and it's so similar! Anyway, I kept away from it except when I got an email from Christianity Today which suggested that the comparison of Terri's and Christ's sufferings is "unavoidable". Oh, that made me cringe. Come, now. Do we really want to go there? Would this be such a big story if it wasn't going down during the passion week? I wonder...
At any rate, speaking of passion, we did the passion narrative at my church on Palm Sunday and at the church I attended on Good Friday, and the thing that struck me (no pun intended) was how very little time is spent discussing the flogging of Christ and how much more focus is on his being mocked. And I thought about how the reverse is true in Mel Gibson's film. I am personally much more disturbed by people mocking God than by someone getting the shit kicked out of them. The latter we see all the time and it bothers us, yes. But the former happens probably more often and doesn't bother us...which should be a problem.
What else? I got to sing the Easter Vigil, which was fabulous. And three services on Sunday. That is tiring. Clergy work freaking hard. Choirs do too. And you know, people just don't get it. I mean, many people thanked the choir, but I wonder how many thanked the clergy. These services, even when it's all written ahead of time, are a lot of work. I even heard choir members saying that the clergy don't do much, and mocking our poor clergyman who cantors. They just don't get no respect. I'm ultra sensitive to it now (well I have always been, because of my dad, but now I'm really internalizing it).
These are such random thoughts - I am sorry I don't have a pretty narrative for you. The stuff of life really has gotten in the way this time. But I thank God every day for my beautiful new apartment, with a view of the mountains and its light-filled spaces. And this quarter I get to take 2 worship classes and Episcopalian Polity - all of which will be such fun. And my parents are coming to see me this week. Life is good.
I've got to get going - class starts today. I promise to be more regular here now that I'll be back on a schedule. Peace and blessings to you. The Lord is risen! He is risen indeed!
I moved. Thus, I suffered. Not really like Jesus suffered, but it was difficult. It is very hard to remain a good Christian when dealing with idiots. My movers overcharged me and wouldn't do anything about it; my phone company has completely screwed up. It's tiring to work with people who simply don't care and/or are incompetent.
So I spent a lot of Holy Week not really in the season. I blissfully missed out on the news, so was not bombarded with 24/7 Schiavo/Jackson coverage. I think CNN has a camera permanently in her room so we can all be there when she dies. Because that's what death is all about - having millions of people watch and snarky politians and activists making an example out of you. I just watched Citizen Ruth and it's so similar! Anyway, I kept away from it except when I got an email from Christianity Today which suggested that the comparison of Terri's and Christ's sufferings is "unavoidable". Oh, that made me cringe. Come, now. Do we really want to go there? Would this be such a big story if it wasn't going down during the passion week? I wonder...
At any rate, speaking of passion, we did the passion narrative at my church on Palm Sunday and at the church I attended on Good Friday, and the thing that struck me (no pun intended) was how very little time is spent discussing the flogging of Christ and how much more focus is on his being mocked. And I thought about how the reverse is true in Mel Gibson's film. I am personally much more disturbed by people mocking God than by someone getting the shit kicked out of them. The latter we see all the time and it bothers us, yes. But the former happens probably more often and doesn't bother us...which should be a problem.
What else? I got to sing the Easter Vigil, which was fabulous. And three services on Sunday. That is tiring. Clergy work freaking hard. Choirs do too. And you know, people just don't get it. I mean, many people thanked the choir, but I wonder how many thanked the clergy. These services, even when it's all written ahead of time, are a lot of work. I even heard choir members saying that the clergy don't do much, and mocking our poor clergyman who cantors. They just don't get no respect. I'm ultra sensitive to it now (well I have always been, because of my dad, but now I'm really internalizing it).
These are such random thoughts - I am sorry I don't have a pretty narrative for you. The stuff of life really has gotten in the way this time. But I thank God every day for my beautiful new apartment, with a view of the mountains and its light-filled spaces. And this quarter I get to take 2 worship classes and Episcopalian Polity - all of which will be such fun. And my parents are coming to see me this week. Life is good.
I've got to get going - class starts today. I promise to be more regular here now that I'll be back on a schedule. Peace and blessings to you. The Lord is risen! He is risen indeed!
Thoughts on your thoughts
In response to a couple of the comments:
"While it's true American Christianity has suffered as a result of the anti-intellectualism of evangelicals, I also know plenty of very effective spiritual leaders without seminary degrees. The lack of that education doesn't signify much, even if we'd prefer to have our leaders go to sem. "
I think that effective spiritual leaders without degrees are the exception, not the rule. At least I hope so. Because yesterday I got to thinking: we require all kinds of certification for our teachers in other walks of life. Would you let your child attend a school where all the teachers weren't educated in what they are teaching? Much less would an adult want to learn about something from a person without a degree in it, or at least some kind of certification. Why is it that frequently in spiritual matters do we leave our brains at the door? Why is it acceptable to not have any training and be teaching others about the most important things in life?
We wouldn't let a person teach math or science without them having some formal training in it. We wouldn't take literature from a person who'd just read a bunch of books and had their own ideas about them, nor biology from a person who'd gone walking in a park a lot of times and thus felt they understood creation. So why do we let our most important, life-changing subject - theology - be instructed by people without formal training or at least some spiritual direction from a wiser person?
I worry when someone feels qualified to found a church when he's only attended a Rick Warren seminar and done a couple online classes. This guy's a great businessman, to be sure - and perhaps that is his vocation! - but I don't think I would want him in charge of my spiritual development.
"Here's a guy who gives his parishioners the most watered-down version of God possible and a quarter of his congregation tithes! Is this God's sense of humor?"
Well, this is true, but again, I'd say it's more because of his business acumen. People are receiving valuable services from him: counseling, a place for the kids to play laser tag (that was the Easter special service for them), Krispy Kremes, etc. I could see how people would feel obliged - actually not even mind - to tithe. In fact, here's a scary thought: is it because the church is offering them so much that makes them happy, is servicing them so well, that they are willing to pay for it? Often people complain about tithing because the church doesn't "do" anything for them - the rewards of the spiritual walk are not easily seen, and frequently don't make you happy (although they do make you fulfilled). So perhaps the problem with tithing is our culture of capitalism - I pay to get something. Tithing means paying to give something...which is completely weird to our minds. I'm supposed to give money and time and my gifts and maybe I'll be more fulfilled but my life probably won't get any easier - just more busy, with more difficult choices, and I'll start looking stranger and stranger in this culture? Doesn't sound like something many people would want to buy. But the things offered by Radiant (the website is hilarious - their "commitments" and "mission" are making people happy, comfortable, etc.) are things that we all want and are willing to pay for.
I am just not sure they are what Jesus' followers are supposed to be looking for.
"While it's true American Christianity has suffered as a result of the anti-intellectualism of evangelicals, I also know plenty of very effective spiritual leaders without seminary degrees. The lack of that education doesn't signify much, even if we'd prefer to have our leaders go to sem. "
I think that effective spiritual leaders without degrees are the exception, not the rule. At least I hope so. Because yesterday I got to thinking: we require all kinds of certification for our teachers in other walks of life. Would you let your child attend a school where all the teachers weren't educated in what they are teaching? Much less would an adult want to learn about something from a person without a degree in it, or at least some kind of certification. Why is it that frequently in spiritual matters do we leave our brains at the door? Why is it acceptable to not have any training and be teaching others about the most important things in life?
We wouldn't let a person teach math or science without them having some formal training in it. We wouldn't take literature from a person who'd just read a bunch of books and had their own ideas about them, nor biology from a person who'd gone walking in a park a lot of times and thus felt they understood creation. So why do we let our most important, life-changing subject - theology - be instructed by people without formal training or at least some spiritual direction from a wiser person?
I worry when someone feels qualified to found a church when he's only attended a Rick Warren seminar and done a couple online classes. This guy's a great businessman, to be sure - and perhaps that is his vocation! - but I don't think I would want him in charge of my spiritual development.
"Here's a guy who gives his parishioners the most watered-down version of God possible and a quarter of his congregation tithes! Is this God's sense of humor?"
Well, this is true, but again, I'd say it's more because of his business acumen. People are receiving valuable services from him: counseling, a place for the kids to play laser tag (that was the Easter special service for them), Krispy Kremes, etc. I could see how people would feel obliged - actually not even mind - to tithe. In fact, here's a scary thought: is it because the church is offering them so much that makes them happy, is servicing them so well, that they are willing to pay for it? Often people complain about tithing because the church doesn't "do" anything for them - the rewards of the spiritual walk are not easily seen, and frequently don't make you happy (although they do make you fulfilled). So perhaps the problem with tithing is our culture of capitalism - I pay to get something. Tithing means paying to give something...which is completely weird to our minds. I'm supposed to give money and time and my gifts and maybe I'll be more fulfilled but my life probably won't get any easier - just more busy, with more difficult choices, and I'll start looking stranger and stranger in this culture? Doesn't sound like something many people would want to buy. But the things offered by Radiant (the website is hilarious - their "commitments" and "mission" are making people happy, comfortable, etc.) are things that we all want and are willing to pay for.
I am just not sure they are what Jesus' followers are supposed to be looking for.
Monday, March 28, 2005
One more thing
One of my Fuller professors thinks that the Protestant church is indeed undergoing a big change - she thinks it won't last another century in America. If everyone goes the watered-down way of the civic megachurch, she may just turn out to be right. What is there, really, to distinguish this church from any other social institution? Especially with a pastor who blatently states, "I WANT to look like a mall!"
Could it be the end of the church as we know it? I can only hope so. Only because I want people to take God seriously enough, respect God enough, to be Christians for real, or not at all.
Could it be the end of the church as we know it? I can only hope so. Only because I want people to take God seriously enough, respect God enough, to be Christians for real, or not at all.
Did you see the NYT Magazine??
This is a great commentary: http://www.therevealer.org/archives/main_story_001819.php, much more reasoned and thorough than mine, but at any rate, here were my thoughts:
First, scary, that this is being held up as some kind of example for churches to follow. Some guy who didn't even get a seminary degree, just took a few classes, thinks he can actually lead people spiritually? Yikes. Reflects that anti-intellectualism of the church (touched upon in the article when referring to Assemblies of God) that has screwed us up so bad for a century.
The story seems to be making the irresponsible equation Christian = Republican Voter
Also Christian Success = money and numbers - it read more like a business page story than religion (which may have been the purpose)
It's kind of a tired subject - been seeing megachurch stories for 2 decades. Not sure they succeeded in squeezing any new info out of the old chestnut. Perhaps recycled it b/c of the election results?
Celebrating the success of this church (from a business perspective) makes good news, but it is bad for religion.
Where are the experts questioning this guy's credentials? It doesn't present any dissenting opinion! No Christian interviewed who says this IS NOT the way church is supposed to be. What about other denominations who try the same thing but aren't successful? Or other non-educated pastors who've failed?
For that matter, what gives this place, which for all outside appearances is just a social center, the right to call itself a Christian Church?
The reporter does ask a few good questions, but leaves them at questions - I wonder if he even asked them of his experts? All he has from experts are sound bites that support the story - but nothing of substance, just quotes repeating what he's already said.
It definitely did get a reaction from me, but not a positive one. I think a typical evangelical would be mostly pleased with the article, although it seemed to me that the pastor (successful or no) comes off looking kind of irreponsible (in his spiritual growth and education, I mean), and the church isn't really acting like a church. I doubt very many evangelicals would be proud to be associated with a church like this, although interestingly, most evangelical churches are pretty similar to this (in services offered, etc.), just not as brazen about it.
First, scary, that this is being held up as some kind of example for churches to follow. Some guy who didn't even get a seminary degree, just took a few classes, thinks he can actually lead people spiritually? Yikes. Reflects that anti-intellectualism of the church (touched upon in the article when referring to Assemblies of God) that has screwed us up so bad for a century.
The story seems to be making the irresponsible equation Christian = Republican Voter
Also Christian Success = money and numbers - it read more like a business page story than religion (which may have been the purpose)
It's kind of a tired subject - been seeing megachurch stories for 2 decades. Not sure they succeeded in squeezing any new info out of the old chestnut. Perhaps recycled it b/c of the election results?
Celebrating the success of this church (from a business perspective) makes good news, but it is bad for religion.
Where are the experts questioning this guy's credentials? It doesn't present any dissenting opinion! No Christian interviewed who says this IS NOT the way church is supposed to be. What about other denominations who try the same thing but aren't successful? Or other non-educated pastors who've failed?
For that matter, what gives this place, which for all outside appearances is just a social center, the right to call itself a Christian Church?
The reporter does ask a few good questions, but leaves them at questions - I wonder if he even asked them of his experts? All he has from experts are sound bites that support the story - but nothing of substance, just quotes repeating what he's already said.
It definitely did get a reaction from me, but not a positive one. I think a typical evangelical would be mostly pleased with the article, although it seemed to me that the pastor (successful or no) comes off looking kind of irreponsible (in his spiritual growth and education, I mean), and the church isn't really acting like a church. I doubt very many evangelicals would be proud to be associated with a church like this, although interestingly, most evangelical churches are pretty similar to this (in services offered, etc.), just not as brazen about it.
Friday, March 11, 2005
Practice makes it wonderful
Don't make your prayer a job. It's a gift. Don't make it a grim and costly ticket you must buy in order to gain admittance to the divine love -- you're already there. When you begin to exercise it's hard. You don't feel well. You don't like to sweat. Moving hurts. Everyone else is stronger and faster and looks better. You know that years of not moving have been bad for you, and now you feel like you're being punished for it. But you keep going. And soon you begin to feel different. Wonderful. Soon you love to move, even love to sweat, soon your body loves it -- it's what your body's made to do. Soon you feel strong. Soon you don't care what other people look like. Soon you don't feel guilty any more -- you're doing good things for the body God gave you, and you're being blessed every time you do them. Spiritual discipline is just like that. It can be hard at first. You can feel guilty and inadequate at first. I should have been praying and reading scripture already, you think. I don't do this right. Other people do it better. But prayer's what you're created to do. You are naturally good at it -- God made you that way. Soon you don't care what other people do, how long they've been doing it, whether they're better at it than you are. Soon you just love it for its own sake. Soon you hardly remember what made you feel guilty about it. If you have trouble with the word "discipline," you won't later on -- not after you get going in a routine that blesses you. In the meantime, use the word "practice." It's the same thing.
Copyright © 2005 Barbara Crafton - http://www.geraniumfarm.org
Copyright © 2005 Barbara Crafton - http://www.geraniumfarm.org
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Let Him Kiss Me With the Kisses of His Mouth!
Here is my book report (well actually chapter report) on the Song of Songs. I personally wasn't bowled over by it (and J thought it was simply terrible) but I got an "A" anyway.
In his enlightening book, The Bible in History: How the Texts Have Shaped the Times, David W. Kling spends a chapter discussing the Song of Songs. This may seem strange to us, as the church today rarely reads or teaches from this book: growing up, I got the sense that it was sort of a “dirty” book that was included in the Bible by accident. Kling illumines the history of the Song, helping the modern reader to see the long, rich traditions associated with it and the way that interpretation through the centuries has been variously influenced by “views of sexuality and the self, hermeneutic assumptions…, theological emphases and conditions in the church, and socio-economic circumstances.”[1]
The Song has always been a very popular book in the canon, particularly with monastic communities. Only in the last century or so has it fallen out of regular use in liturgy and been relegated to the pre-marital aisle of the Christian bookstore. There have been two basic approaches to its reading: literal and allegorical. The latter is older, originating with Origen in the middle of the third century ce, and has been upheld by Jewish and Christian scholars alike, who interpret the book as a metaphor for the love of God for His people or His church, respectively. Nowadays, the book is nearly universally seen as literal, which is due largely to our modern exegetical practices (we will deal critically with this assumption below). The chapter is a lesson on what happens when exegetes bring their own theological assumptions and cultural ethos to the text they study.
Kling briefly explains the various reasons scholars have given to explain the Song’s fascination to the monastic community, and why they hold to the allegorical viewpoint: everything from their unhealthy sexual repression to modern theories suggesting that monks read it as a story between themselves and Jesus to satisfy homoerotic desires. A compelling explanation is offered by Roland Murphy in his 1990 commentary: the allegory “facilitated the construction of a Christian worldview,”[2] helping early scholars bridge the gap between the Old Testament and the New by testifying to God’s immense love for humankind, to be fulfilled by the Christ event.
Kling spends the rest of the chapter on a history of the interpretation of the Song. He begins with Origen, father of the allegorical interpretation. Origen was heavily influenced by Plato, and brings his beliefs to the text when doing exegesis: wanting to describe the “soul’s enlightenment to the divine mysteries,”[3] he found portions of the text which supported his argument. Origen’s five-step allegorical explanation of the book was highly influential for many centuries. Interestingly, he also touched on the idea of the Song as a wedding drama, a concept more fully explored later in history.
The Latin fathers and later medieval scholars expanded on Origen’s concept, keeping the allegorical interpretation. They used the Song to support their own convictions about the ideal state of virginity, the holiness of Mary, the institution of baptism, and various disputed church doctrines. Throughout, Origen’s remained the seminal interpretation in the West from the 5th – 11th centuries.
The rise of monasticism, coupled with Europe’s rise out of the Dark Ages (with attendant prosperity, population growth, rise of cities, etc.), led to new ways of expanding upon Origen’s commentary. Origen had focused on knowledge of and communion with God through intellect, but monastics (starting with Pope Gregory I) preferred to know God through the heart, and began to see the loving elements of the Song as the desire of the soul to commune with God (keeping the allegorical framework of God and human, not man and woman).
This interpretation was most profoundly developed by Bernard of Clairvaux, an early 12th century mystic who is a hero of that tradition as well as much beloved by everyone from Martin Luther to the Puritans to Popes and seekers. Bernard enjoyed a happy childhood, and at age 21 he decided to enter the relatively new Cistercian order, a group devoted to regaining the pure Benedictine Rule of Life with an extremely ascetic way of life. His popularity is attested by the fact that he entered not only with his family (father, uncles, brothers) but also brought in 30 friends. He remained a very effective recruiter for the order throughout his life, and was also quite influential in the political arena of his day.
The Cistercians were unique in that they only admitted adults, many of whom had already been married or had experienced love. This brought a whole new dynamic into the previously entirely celibate – and sexually ignorant – monastic system. The Song of Songs worked well for Bernard as a teaching tool, as his monks could understand the expressions of desire within it from firsthand experience. Thus, Bernard wrote 86 sermons on the Song over an 18-year period, which influenced opinion of the book for the next 400 years.
Bernard’s exegesis was quite new, in that he added personal passion to his work: his own stories, thoughts, and life experiences. He was steeped in Scripture and also the Greek Neoplatonic mystical tradition.[4] He studied the Song, but not with scholastic method – rather, he used it as a way to explain his own mystical ideas about the soul’s ascent to God. For this, many call him the last of the fathers, for after his work the study of Scripture became much more rigorously academic and would not have allowed for Bernard’s mystical contemplation.
In Bernard’s work, the Song is seen as a description of the encounter of the human soul with the living God. The Scripture is a veil, adaptable to human understanding, hiding a deep spiritual experience. His sermons use the Song to describe human desire for God, mystical ascent, Imago Dei, free will, the incarnation, and God’s deep, abiding love for us. Bernard, Kling attests, created a “new genre in exegesis”[5] by applying the Scripture to the life situation of those in his day. This caught on and was quite popular through the 16th century.
While spending the bulk of the chapter on Bernard, Kling goes on to briefly overview the reformer’s and present-day scholar’s thoughts on the Song. The Protestants, Kling points out, were adamant about the literal interpretation of Scripture – except when it came to the Song. Luther added some historical thought to the exegesis, removing the mystical elements. In the 17-18th centuries, there were dueling interpretations between Catholics (whose scholars were celibate) supporting the mystical views of Bernard, and Protestants who, personally experiencing the intimacies of marriage, knew quite surely that human marriage couldn’t hold a candle to God’s love (this makes one wonder about their marital health!). At the end of the 18th century, the idea of the Song as a dramatic poem or wedding text, first proposed by Origen, caught on, due largely to the rise of modern literary theory.
In the 20th century, the prevailing scholarship has followed the historical-critical method, which has confirmed the Song as a collection of romantic poems, celebrating and affirming married love. The first half of the century saw the rise of an interesting cultic interpretation having to do with fertility gods and goddesses in ancient Near Eastern religion, but that has largely been discounted. Recent feminist thought has provoked new discussion about the authorship of the book, and the equality between the sexes (including the woman frequently being the instigator of intimate encounters).
In conclusion, Kling sums up that from the 3-19th centuries, the allegorical tradition held sway, and it was really only in the last 100 years that the literal interpretation has been the dominant thought. He closes by asking some tough questions about our methods of exegesis: can we have it both ways: giving credit to the historical-critical method’s literal interpretation while also appreciating the less exegetically sound allegorical view? Did God actually inspire Origen and Bernard to add to our understanding of the Song? Must we always defend every interpretation only from the text itself, or can current ideas inform the reading of a text as well? Kling leaves the questions open-ended, giving the reader rich food for thought.
The main point that Kling is making throughout this chapter is that we must examine our assumptions about poor standards of exegesis. We automatically assume that to start with a theology we want to prove, like Origen, is irresponsible. Or to bring more of our own experience to the text than may actually be warranted, as Bernard was wont to do, is not appropriate. It is considered especially bad form to use Scripture to uphold our own beliefs when both sides of an argument can do so, as in an example Kling gives of Augustine and the Donatists.[6]
And yet, Kling points out the incredible popularity of both Origen and Bernard’s interpretations – and how they kept the church, and monastics especially, interested in the Song of Songs for centuries. In the 20th century, the Song has lost its mysterious meaning, leading to its general disuse. Could it be that in fact Origen and Bernard had hit upon something that we should reconsider in our exegetical practice? Perhaps our modern methods are inadequate to deal with the artistic writings of the Bible, or we must find ways to use them while emphasizing, not losing, the metaphor and poetry of certain Scriptures (as has been done with some success in exegeting Revelation, for instance).
(At any rate, the majority of modern exegesis, at least in the common preacher’s use, seems to draw wildly from experience, modern events, social circumstances – pretty much everything except the text itself. So perhaps we have not lost the tradition of Bernard after all.)
A major problem with Kling’s overview is that he does not discuss Jewish interpretation of the Song in any detail (though he mentions it in passing). While we can appreciate that he is attempting to cover the Church’s history of exegesis, it seems sloppy to ignore the Jewish roots of Old Testament documents in particular.
It is also important for us to consider the Protestants’ interpretation of the Song as allegorical when they insist on literal interpretation of everything else in Scripture. Clearly the carnal lusts described in the book did not fit their view of proper human relations, so they relaxed their rules just this once. As Kling makes clear, this is a rather obvious mistake – and one that we continue to make today. For though we now accept the literal reading of the book, we basically ignore it or are even ashamed of it.
The 20th century interpretation of the book describing married love is interesting for two reasons: one, it never says the lovers are married (as Kling points out), and two, the Song clearly describes something more akin to initial infatuation than the lifelong commitment necessary for a healthy marriage of many years. Perhaps this is why the Song regularly shows up in pre-marital counseling and books, but is rarely suggested for couples that have been together a long time.
I once believed that the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs – whether one sees it as between God and the Church or God and the individual – was an unfortunate by-product of sexual repression. I see now that it is actually quite a lovely way of looking at it, if not entirely exegetically responsible. It gives everyone the ability to profit from the book, not just those in the throes of romantic desire.
I am also very intrigued by the feminist thoughts that Kling touches upon at the end of the chapter, particularly the notion of Phyllis Trible that the allegory “redeems a love story…gone awry” in the creation and fall of humans. When cursed, Eve is told she will long for her husband – but this is reversed when the woman in the Song says, “for me is his desire.” The love in the Song is a sharing between equal partners: “males are neither aggressors nor abuses, and females are neither passive objects nor victims.”[7] This is a beautiful way to teach couples about pure love for one another, and can also instruct the church community as a whole about respecting the dignity of all persons. Origen and Bernard saw the book’s human-to-human desire as a model for the desire of humans for God and God for humans. We can then carry the metaphor a step further, turning the model back again – the love of God exemplified in the Song instructs our love for each other.
Bernard’s idea of the Christian soul’s ascent to God may feel a little bit “out there,” but it is helpful for lifelong disciples of Christ who wish to find a deeper relationship with God (this is supported by the current popularity of the ancient practice of Lectio Divina, which Kling uses as the model for and example of Bernard’s teaching). The Song gives the modern-day pilgrim a description of, and great hope for, the joys of mystical connection with God.
All of this is to say that the allegorical tradition holds great truth for us, even though it does not agree with our modern exegetical standards. For it allows Christians to once again embrace the book, and teachers to find within it universally applicable teaching. It recaptures the Song’s accessibility for the modern church as a community, as well as individual members. And perhaps most importantly, it affirms the Song’s rightful place in the canon of Scripture as a document given by God to reveal Himself further to humankind.
[1] Kling, David W. The Bible in History: How the Texts Have Shaped the Times (Oxford University Press, 2004), 116.
[2] Ibid, 88.
[3] Ibid, 90.
[4] Ibid, 102.
[5] Ibid, 112.
[6] Ibid, 93.
[7] Ibid, 116.
In his enlightening book, The Bible in History: How the Texts Have Shaped the Times, David W. Kling spends a chapter discussing the Song of Songs. This may seem strange to us, as the church today rarely reads or teaches from this book: growing up, I got the sense that it was sort of a “dirty” book that was included in the Bible by accident. Kling illumines the history of the Song, helping the modern reader to see the long, rich traditions associated with it and the way that interpretation through the centuries has been variously influenced by “views of sexuality and the self, hermeneutic assumptions…, theological emphases and conditions in the church, and socio-economic circumstances.”[1]
The Song has always been a very popular book in the canon, particularly with monastic communities. Only in the last century or so has it fallen out of regular use in liturgy and been relegated to the pre-marital aisle of the Christian bookstore. There have been two basic approaches to its reading: literal and allegorical. The latter is older, originating with Origen in the middle of the third century ce, and has been upheld by Jewish and Christian scholars alike, who interpret the book as a metaphor for the love of God for His people or His church, respectively. Nowadays, the book is nearly universally seen as literal, which is due largely to our modern exegetical practices (we will deal critically with this assumption below). The chapter is a lesson on what happens when exegetes bring their own theological assumptions and cultural ethos to the text they study.
Kling briefly explains the various reasons scholars have given to explain the Song’s fascination to the monastic community, and why they hold to the allegorical viewpoint: everything from their unhealthy sexual repression to modern theories suggesting that monks read it as a story between themselves and Jesus to satisfy homoerotic desires. A compelling explanation is offered by Roland Murphy in his 1990 commentary: the allegory “facilitated the construction of a Christian worldview,”[2] helping early scholars bridge the gap between the Old Testament and the New by testifying to God’s immense love for humankind, to be fulfilled by the Christ event.
Kling spends the rest of the chapter on a history of the interpretation of the Song. He begins with Origen, father of the allegorical interpretation. Origen was heavily influenced by Plato, and brings his beliefs to the text when doing exegesis: wanting to describe the “soul’s enlightenment to the divine mysteries,”[3] he found portions of the text which supported his argument. Origen’s five-step allegorical explanation of the book was highly influential for many centuries. Interestingly, he also touched on the idea of the Song as a wedding drama, a concept more fully explored later in history.
The Latin fathers and later medieval scholars expanded on Origen’s concept, keeping the allegorical interpretation. They used the Song to support their own convictions about the ideal state of virginity, the holiness of Mary, the institution of baptism, and various disputed church doctrines. Throughout, Origen’s remained the seminal interpretation in the West from the 5th – 11th centuries.
The rise of monasticism, coupled with Europe’s rise out of the Dark Ages (with attendant prosperity, population growth, rise of cities, etc.), led to new ways of expanding upon Origen’s commentary. Origen had focused on knowledge of and communion with God through intellect, but monastics (starting with Pope Gregory I) preferred to know God through the heart, and began to see the loving elements of the Song as the desire of the soul to commune with God (keeping the allegorical framework of God and human, not man and woman).
This interpretation was most profoundly developed by Bernard of Clairvaux, an early 12th century mystic who is a hero of that tradition as well as much beloved by everyone from Martin Luther to the Puritans to Popes and seekers. Bernard enjoyed a happy childhood, and at age 21 he decided to enter the relatively new Cistercian order, a group devoted to regaining the pure Benedictine Rule of Life with an extremely ascetic way of life. His popularity is attested by the fact that he entered not only with his family (father, uncles, brothers) but also brought in 30 friends. He remained a very effective recruiter for the order throughout his life, and was also quite influential in the political arena of his day.
The Cistercians were unique in that they only admitted adults, many of whom had already been married or had experienced love. This brought a whole new dynamic into the previously entirely celibate – and sexually ignorant – monastic system. The Song of Songs worked well for Bernard as a teaching tool, as his monks could understand the expressions of desire within it from firsthand experience. Thus, Bernard wrote 86 sermons on the Song over an 18-year period, which influenced opinion of the book for the next 400 years.
Bernard’s exegesis was quite new, in that he added personal passion to his work: his own stories, thoughts, and life experiences. He was steeped in Scripture and also the Greek Neoplatonic mystical tradition.[4] He studied the Song, but not with scholastic method – rather, he used it as a way to explain his own mystical ideas about the soul’s ascent to God. For this, many call him the last of the fathers, for after his work the study of Scripture became much more rigorously academic and would not have allowed for Bernard’s mystical contemplation.
In Bernard’s work, the Song is seen as a description of the encounter of the human soul with the living God. The Scripture is a veil, adaptable to human understanding, hiding a deep spiritual experience. His sermons use the Song to describe human desire for God, mystical ascent, Imago Dei, free will, the incarnation, and God’s deep, abiding love for us. Bernard, Kling attests, created a “new genre in exegesis”[5] by applying the Scripture to the life situation of those in his day. This caught on and was quite popular through the 16th century.
While spending the bulk of the chapter on Bernard, Kling goes on to briefly overview the reformer’s and present-day scholar’s thoughts on the Song. The Protestants, Kling points out, were adamant about the literal interpretation of Scripture – except when it came to the Song. Luther added some historical thought to the exegesis, removing the mystical elements. In the 17-18th centuries, there were dueling interpretations between Catholics (whose scholars were celibate) supporting the mystical views of Bernard, and Protestants who, personally experiencing the intimacies of marriage, knew quite surely that human marriage couldn’t hold a candle to God’s love (this makes one wonder about their marital health!). At the end of the 18th century, the idea of the Song as a dramatic poem or wedding text, first proposed by Origen, caught on, due largely to the rise of modern literary theory.
In the 20th century, the prevailing scholarship has followed the historical-critical method, which has confirmed the Song as a collection of romantic poems, celebrating and affirming married love. The first half of the century saw the rise of an interesting cultic interpretation having to do with fertility gods and goddesses in ancient Near Eastern religion, but that has largely been discounted. Recent feminist thought has provoked new discussion about the authorship of the book, and the equality between the sexes (including the woman frequently being the instigator of intimate encounters).
In conclusion, Kling sums up that from the 3-19th centuries, the allegorical tradition held sway, and it was really only in the last 100 years that the literal interpretation has been the dominant thought. He closes by asking some tough questions about our methods of exegesis: can we have it both ways: giving credit to the historical-critical method’s literal interpretation while also appreciating the less exegetically sound allegorical view? Did God actually inspire Origen and Bernard to add to our understanding of the Song? Must we always defend every interpretation only from the text itself, or can current ideas inform the reading of a text as well? Kling leaves the questions open-ended, giving the reader rich food for thought.
The main point that Kling is making throughout this chapter is that we must examine our assumptions about poor standards of exegesis. We automatically assume that to start with a theology we want to prove, like Origen, is irresponsible. Or to bring more of our own experience to the text than may actually be warranted, as Bernard was wont to do, is not appropriate. It is considered especially bad form to use Scripture to uphold our own beliefs when both sides of an argument can do so, as in an example Kling gives of Augustine and the Donatists.[6]
And yet, Kling points out the incredible popularity of both Origen and Bernard’s interpretations – and how they kept the church, and monastics especially, interested in the Song of Songs for centuries. In the 20th century, the Song has lost its mysterious meaning, leading to its general disuse. Could it be that in fact Origen and Bernard had hit upon something that we should reconsider in our exegetical practice? Perhaps our modern methods are inadequate to deal with the artistic writings of the Bible, or we must find ways to use them while emphasizing, not losing, the metaphor and poetry of certain Scriptures (as has been done with some success in exegeting Revelation, for instance).
(At any rate, the majority of modern exegesis, at least in the common preacher’s use, seems to draw wildly from experience, modern events, social circumstances – pretty much everything except the text itself. So perhaps we have not lost the tradition of Bernard after all.)
A major problem with Kling’s overview is that he does not discuss Jewish interpretation of the Song in any detail (though he mentions it in passing). While we can appreciate that he is attempting to cover the Church’s history of exegesis, it seems sloppy to ignore the Jewish roots of Old Testament documents in particular.
It is also important for us to consider the Protestants’ interpretation of the Song as allegorical when they insist on literal interpretation of everything else in Scripture. Clearly the carnal lusts described in the book did not fit their view of proper human relations, so they relaxed their rules just this once. As Kling makes clear, this is a rather obvious mistake – and one that we continue to make today. For though we now accept the literal reading of the book, we basically ignore it or are even ashamed of it.
The 20th century interpretation of the book describing married love is interesting for two reasons: one, it never says the lovers are married (as Kling points out), and two, the Song clearly describes something more akin to initial infatuation than the lifelong commitment necessary for a healthy marriage of many years. Perhaps this is why the Song regularly shows up in pre-marital counseling and books, but is rarely suggested for couples that have been together a long time.
I once believed that the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs – whether one sees it as between God and the Church or God and the individual – was an unfortunate by-product of sexual repression. I see now that it is actually quite a lovely way of looking at it, if not entirely exegetically responsible. It gives everyone the ability to profit from the book, not just those in the throes of romantic desire.
I am also very intrigued by the feminist thoughts that Kling touches upon at the end of the chapter, particularly the notion of Phyllis Trible that the allegory “redeems a love story…gone awry” in the creation and fall of humans. When cursed, Eve is told she will long for her husband – but this is reversed when the woman in the Song says, “for me is his desire.” The love in the Song is a sharing between equal partners: “males are neither aggressors nor abuses, and females are neither passive objects nor victims.”[7] This is a beautiful way to teach couples about pure love for one another, and can also instruct the church community as a whole about respecting the dignity of all persons. Origen and Bernard saw the book’s human-to-human desire as a model for the desire of humans for God and God for humans. We can then carry the metaphor a step further, turning the model back again – the love of God exemplified in the Song instructs our love for each other.
Bernard’s idea of the Christian soul’s ascent to God may feel a little bit “out there,” but it is helpful for lifelong disciples of Christ who wish to find a deeper relationship with God (this is supported by the current popularity of the ancient practice of Lectio Divina, which Kling uses as the model for and example of Bernard’s teaching). The Song gives the modern-day pilgrim a description of, and great hope for, the joys of mystical connection with God.
All of this is to say that the allegorical tradition holds great truth for us, even though it does not agree with our modern exegetical standards. For it allows Christians to once again embrace the book, and teachers to find within it universally applicable teaching. It recaptures the Song’s accessibility for the modern church as a community, as well as individual members. And perhaps most importantly, it affirms the Song’s rightful place in the canon of Scripture as a document given by God to reveal Himself further to humankind.
[1] Kling, David W. The Bible in History: How the Texts Have Shaped the Times (Oxford University Press, 2004), 116.
[2] Ibid, 88.
[3] Ibid, 90.
[4] Ibid, 102.
[5] Ibid, 112.
[6] Ibid, 93.
[7] Ibid, 116.
Diary of a Bored White Woman
Okay, tonight you're going to get some real-time classroom action. I'm in the killer giant lecture class that meets three times a quarter (oh the horror) and we are subjected to some person telling us some large amount of information that we usually do not care about. In the 6 times I've had this three hour class, I would say maybe 2 hours of it has actually been interesting. Maybe 3.
It's sad because I so thoroughly enjoy my other classes. This one is so beneath my degree and my school.
Today was my last day of Exegesis and Theology and Art. I gave, with a brilliant partner, a great presentation on the religious imagination of Andy Warhol. We could have gone on for hours - and the class was really into it too. I was especially touched by someone who I'd never spoken with coming up to tell me what a great speaker I am. Bodes well for preaching!
And the last day of Exegesis...I nearly cried. That class has been everything I hoped graduate school would be. And it wasn't really the content, although I definitely grasped the subject better than in most classes. It was the privilege of sitting every day in the presence of this giant in the field, who would spend the majority of the class time telling us stories. It was so incredible. I was honored to be there every day.
Anyway after this super-high day of wonderful class I am listening to someone give me the Bowen model of...something psychological. Man. I don’t' know if I can deal with the counseling part of being a pastor. It's one of the things that keeps me from wanting to just be a parish priest. I find this so completely boring. Can't I outsource the counseling and just preach?
I'm going to see about working on my final paper for this class now. Around me, there is one person reading a magazine (amusingly, behind a notebook like it's porn or something), several people reading other books, several playing computer games (God bless the laptop), and actually quite a few more than usual who seem to be paying attention. Even taking notes. Yikes.
Oh, wait, no, that guy is doing his Greek workbook, not taking notes.
OK, on to the paper now.
I'm back. The paper is exhausting. It's a "family autobiography". Geezu, I've been through all this in therapy HOW many times? I know, it should be easy. But it's tiring. This is why changing therapists sucks. You just want someone to know you. Maybe I can just hand over this blog to my next therapist.
It's been all of 18 minutes since I started this little tome. And went off to write a few paragraphs and came back. Ay yi yi!
Isn't this kind of an interesting social experiment? Those of you who are teachers, be warned - it can be soooo painful if you are not interesting. I know, it's really me, not the teacher with the problem here. And yet. Sometimes you are listening to someone and you really would rather pull out your hair (I pull out my neck hairs, usually).
Tomorrow is my last new testament class. And that's it. Classes over for my second quarter. They were so good (except this one). I loved New Testament - the teacher, my first lady teacher, was very knowledgeable - you could throw anything at her and she could speak to it. And she'd give us an hour of her time every Tuesday to talk about whatever.
Oh, wow, not only are my classes nearly over, but I am almost done with all my work. I got another paper back today (I should post it - it's about Song of Songs), with a nice A. At this point, after turning in the Warhol thing today, I am down to 1 final (multiple choice), 1 paper (7-10 pages exegesis of 1 John 3:1-10 - I know, it's a killer passage, I might reconsider), and then this dumb class - the family autobiography and reactions to my small group sessions (which we did in two Saturdays instead of overall 10 weeks).
Plus they turned off my DSL. We called to tell them that on March 21 we want to switch to our new phone service at the new apartment. So they turned off our DSL on March 1. Nice. Which means that it's very hard for me to get online and post things like this and my papers. Because I am dealing with...get this...DIALUP. Holy shit. How did I ever deal with this? I can't remember life before DSL and I frankly don't want to. It was a dark, dark time.
Don't you just love the people who blatantly sleep in class? I am completely unable to do that. The natives are getting restless in here. There is rustling of papers. There is some talking. There are many blank stares. I think I will spend the last hour of class (yes, this class goes until 10, and I've been in class since 1) playing Solitaire. I kind of wish I had another game. I used to have a casino game but I got rid of it. That would be ironic, playing the slots during seminary class.
Just kill me now.
He's one of these who has a powerpoint, which he passes out, then he proceeds to read the slides. People, don't read the slides. I can read the damn slides for myself. I had a nice glass of wine before I came to class: a 2002 Sterling Vintner's Selection Central Coast Cab. It was a very cabby cab. Do you know what that means? Maybe a little too cabby. But if you like cab, a decent choice. I paid $8.50 for a glass. I'll bet the bottle doesn't cost much more at Beverages & More. But I only paid $1.95 for a burger, so dinner was still under $15 with tip.
Anyway I discovered early on that a glass of wine helps this class tremendously. Takes the edge off, as my neighbor says. He's playing games on his phone. The guy next to him stopped taking notes and is sleeping, and oh, shit, we have to talk to the people at our tables! I better pay attention to the topic.
Ha ha! He's not sleeping, he's playing games too! He's an old man and even HE'S bored!!
Well I got to sit with my own group and talk. Luckily we didn't talk much about the assigned topic. None of us, except the person who's had the speaker's class on the same topic, is enjoying this at all. Mr. Old Sleepy Game-Player Man is gone. My friend Pete seems to be able to write his paper now (he and I discussed at the break our inability to write papers while this speaker is yammering in our ears). That's my shout-out to Pete since he's a reader. : )
I'm hitting critical exhaustion. The headache begins. Oh, this is one of those classes in which attendance counts. And you have to sign something saying how much of each class you attended. Just in case you were wondering why so many people (100+) would sit through this excruciating experience. That and it is a required class (a 3-quarter long requirement!) for MDivs, and it's an easy A if you can take the lectures, so we all kind of band together and in solidarity we face the pain. Perhaps this is some kind of test from God. I have a friend here who thinks everything is a test from God. Can't say I can deal with living life that way - I guess tests are too negative. And give the impression you could fail. I don't think you can. That's why I'm studying I John 3:1-10! Ha ha!
Seriously, seriously, this is the most horrid thing ever. This is NOT what I came to grad school for.
Well he said something useful: if a pastor is asked to leave a church, it is almost never because of preaching or theology, it is because of emotional issues. Churches are like little family systems. With the attendant neuroses. I can tell that there is something good going on, my brain is just simply mush at the moment, and there's too much jargon for me. It's much too much for 9:24 p.m.
And who knows when this will get posted - I have to go home and collapse tonight and be back here at 8 am and then I'm even taking the day off to work on the exegesis paper so there won't be much time for DIALING UP and loading this into blogger.
Hey if anyone knows any outstanding commentary on I John I am all ears.
I have won solitaire three times in a row. I have been playing for several weeks (sometimes my attention needs the help) and never won once, now I've won 3 times. I should go to Vegas after this. I should go right now.
So basically I'm learning that theology is pretty much never the reason that churches split. It's because there is an emotional dynamic that needs to be satisfied - people can't deal with conflict directly and therefore need to split.
OK, I think he's going to go until 9:50. We usually get some grace and get out early (the class starts at 6:30 after all). But this dude ain't slowing down. It's 9:29. I am not sensing relief in my immediate future.
This reminds me of an illustration that my husband uses to help me deal with my insane fear of eternity (remind me to go off on that sometime): time moves so painfully slowly in classes like this and so unnervingly quickly in classes like my others. The fear is that the time in eternity will be more like the former. I try to think of it like the latter. Like when you go to Disneyland and you don't wear a watch (because that's part of the rules at Disneyland) and before you know it your 14 hours are up and the park is closing. Time really can fly - or actually, it's more like time just stops. It's inconsequential. It's happened during great movies, great conversations. But it's never long enough. And I suppose when it's eternity, it may finally be long enough. Is it possible for you to want something to go on really forever? I don't have anything on earth that I can think of (though I can think of things that I'd like to go for a really long time) but I'll bet God has something up His sleeve.
Now we're talking about the problems churches put upon pastor's families. This have I lived. It's part of why I fear being a pastor and also why I know it's doable. Without kids. And in a healthy church.
I think this has gotten long. And as an experiment in student thought and experience it's probably lost its luster. I wonder what our psychologist speaker would make of it. Maybe I'll email it to him.
It's sad because I so thoroughly enjoy my other classes. This one is so beneath my degree and my school.
Today was my last day of Exegesis and Theology and Art. I gave, with a brilliant partner, a great presentation on the religious imagination of Andy Warhol. We could have gone on for hours - and the class was really into it too. I was especially touched by someone who I'd never spoken with coming up to tell me what a great speaker I am. Bodes well for preaching!
And the last day of Exegesis...I nearly cried. That class has been everything I hoped graduate school would be. And it wasn't really the content, although I definitely grasped the subject better than in most classes. It was the privilege of sitting every day in the presence of this giant in the field, who would spend the majority of the class time telling us stories. It was so incredible. I was honored to be there every day.
Anyway after this super-high day of wonderful class I am listening to someone give me the Bowen model of...something psychological. Man. I don’t' know if I can deal with the counseling part of being a pastor. It's one of the things that keeps me from wanting to just be a parish priest. I find this so completely boring. Can't I outsource the counseling and just preach?
I'm going to see about working on my final paper for this class now. Around me, there is one person reading a magazine (amusingly, behind a notebook like it's porn or something), several people reading other books, several playing computer games (God bless the laptop), and actually quite a few more than usual who seem to be paying attention. Even taking notes. Yikes.
Oh, wait, no, that guy is doing his Greek workbook, not taking notes.
OK, on to the paper now.
I'm back. The paper is exhausting. It's a "family autobiography". Geezu, I've been through all this in therapy HOW many times? I know, it should be easy. But it's tiring. This is why changing therapists sucks. You just want someone to know you. Maybe I can just hand over this blog to my next therapist.
It's been all of 18 minutes since I started this little tome. And went off to write a few paragraphs and came back. Ay yi yi!
Isn't this kind of an interesting social experiment? Those of you who are teachers, be warned - it can be soooo painful if you are not interesting. I know, it's really me, not the teacher with the problem here. And yet. Sometimes you are listening to someone and you really would rather pull out your hair (I pull out my neck hairs, usually).
Tomorrow is my last new testament class. And that's it. Classes over for my second quarter. They were so good (except this one). I loved New Testament - the teacher, my first lady teacher, was very knowledgeable - you could throw anything at her and she could speak to it. And she'd give us an hour of her time every Tuesday to talk about whatever.
Oh, wow, not only are my classes nearly over, but I am almost done with all my work. I got another paper back today (I should post it - it's about Song of Songs), with a nice A. At this point, after turning in the Warhol thing today, I am down to 1 final (multiple choice), 1 paper (7-10 pages exegesis of 1 John 3:1-10 - I know, it's a killer passage, I might reconsider), and then this dumb class - the family autobiography and reactions to my small group sessions (which we did in two Saturdays instead of overall 10 weeks).
Plus they turned off my DSL. We called to tell them that on March 21 we want to switch to our new phone service at the new apartment. So they turned off our DSL on March 1. Nice. Which means that it's very hard for me to get online and post things like this and my papers. Because I am dealing with...get this...DIALUP. Holy shit. How did I ever deal with this? I can't remember life before DSL and I frankly don't want to. It was a dark, dark time.
Don't you just love the people who blatantly sleep in class? I am completely unable to do that. The natives are getting restless in here. There is rustling of papers. There is some talking. There are many blank stares. I think I will spend the last hour of class (yes, this class goes until 10, and I've been in class since 1) playing Solitaire. I kind of wish I had another game. I used to have a casino game but I got rid of it. That would be ironic, playing the slots during seminary class.
Just kill me now.
He's one of these who has a powerpoint, which he passes out, then he proceeds to read the slides. People, don't read the slides. I can read the damn slides for myself. I had a nice glass of wine before I came to class: a 2002 Sterling Vintner's Selection Central Coast Cab. It was a very cabby cab. Do you know what that means? Maybe a little too cabby. But if you like cab, a decent choice. I paid $8.50 for a glass. I'll bet the bottle doesn't cost much more at Beverages & More. But I only paid $1.95 for a burger, so dinner was still under $15 with tip.
Anyway I discovered early on that a glass of wine helps this class tremendously. Takes the edge off, as my neighbor says. He's playing games on his phone. The guy next to him stopped taking notes and is sleeping, and oh, shit, we have to talk to the people at our tables! I better pay attention to the topic.
Ha ha! He's not sleeping, he's playing games too! He's an old man and even HE'S bored!!
Well I got to sit with my own group and talk. Luckily we didn't talk much about the assigned topic. None of us, except the person who's had the speaker's class on the same topic, is enjoying this at all. Mr. Old Sleepy Game-Player Man is gone. My friend Pete seems to be able to write his paper now (he and I discussed at the break our inability to write papers while this speaker is yammering in our ears). That's my shout-out to Pete since he's a reader. : )
I'm hitting critical exhaustion. The headache begins. Oh, this is one of those classes in which attendance counts. And you have to sign something saying how much of each class you attended. Just in case you were wondering why so many people (100+) would sit through this excruciating experience. That and it is a required class (a 3-quarter long requirement!) for MDivs, and it's an easy A if you can take the lectures, so we all kind of band together and in solidarity we face the pain. Perhaps this is some kind of test from God. I have a friend here who thinks everything is a test from God. Can't say I can deal with living life that way - I guess tests are too negative. And give the impression you could fail. I don't think you can. That's why I'm studying I John 3:1-10! Ha ha!
Seriously, seriously, this is the most horrid thing ever. This is NOT what I came to grad school for.
Well he said something useful: if a pastor is asked to leave a church, it is almost never because of preaching or theology, it is because of emotional issues. Churches are like little family systems. With the attendant neuroses. I can tell that there is something good going on, my brain is just simply mush at the moment, and there's too much jargon for me. It's much too much for 9:24 p.m.
And who knows when this will get posted - I have to go home and collapse tonight and be back here at 8 am and then I'm even taking the day off to work on the exegesis paper so there won't be much time for DIALING UP and loading this into blogger.
Hey if anyone knows any outstanding commentary on I John I am all ears.
I have won solitaire three times in a row. I have been playing for several weeks (sometimes my attention needs the help) and never won once, now I've won 3 times. I should go to Vegas after this. I should go right now.
So basically I'm learning that theology is pretty much never the reason that churches split. It's because there is an emotional dynamic that needs to be satisfied - people can't deal with conflict directly and therefore need to split.
OK, I think he's going to go until 9:50. We usually get some grace and get out early (the class starts at 6:30 after all). But this dude ain't slowing down. It's 9:29. I am not sensing relief in my immediate future.
This reminds me of an illustration that my husband uses to help me deal with my insane fear of eternity (remind me to go off on that sometime): time moves so painfully slowly in classes like this and so unnervingly quickly in classes like my others. The fear is that the time in eternity will be more like the former. I try to think of it like the latter. Like when you go to Disneyland and you don't wear a watch (because that's part of the rules at Disneyland) and before you know it your 14 hours are up and the park is closing. Time really can fly - or actually, it's more like time just stops. It's inconsequential. It's happened during great movies, great conversations. But it's never long enough. And I suppose when it's eternity, it may finally be long enough. Is it possible for you to want something to go on really forever? I don't have anything on earth that I can think of (though I can think of things that I'd like to go for a really long time) but I'll bet God has something up His sleeve.
Now we're talking about the problems churches put upon pastor's families. This have I lived. It's part of why I fear being a pastor and also why I know it's doable. Without kids. And in a healthy church.
I think this has gotten long. And as an experiment in student thought and experience it's probably lost its luster. I wonder what our psychologist speaker would make of it. Maybe I'll email it to him.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Begging your pardon
I ask for patience as I am up to my ears in papers and research. I will post anything I find that is interesting, or heck, whatever I write that seems interesting too. In the meantime, here, read Bill Moyers:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17852
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17852
Friday, March 04, 2005
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Lame-Ass Post
Hello, kids, I am so busy I haven't time for a real post but I figured as long as I'm sitting here at work I'd share with you some of the stuff I'm reading.
http://www.therevealer.org/archives/main_story_001727.php
A great article today in the Revealer by a Christian woman who went to work for - gasp! - an NPR station!
Here's another revealer story about the Passion: http://www.therevealer.org/archives/timeless_001711.php
And the Godspy article that prompted it:
http://godspy.com/reviews/Wrestling-with-the-Angel-of-Strangeness-The-Passion-One-Year-Later-by-Debra-Murphy.cfm
I'm writing a paper/presentation about Andy Warhol's spiritual side and I really dug this article:
http://godspy.com/culture/Andy-Warhol-Transubstantiating-the-Culture.cfm
And at the moment I'm listening to two of my favorite (unsigned) singers, who I am privileged to have as friends:
Mike Barnet http://www.mikebarnetmusic.com/
Chris Paul Overall http://www.chrispauloverall.com/
Check 'em out, download some mp3's. These guys deserve attention. Peace.
http://www.therevealer.org/archives/main_story_001727.php
A great article today in the Revealer by a Christian woman who went to work for - gasp! - an NPR station!
Here's another revealer story about the Passion: http://www.therevealer.org/archives/timeless_001711.php
And the Godspy article that prompted it:
http://godspy.com/reviews/Wrestling-with-the-Angel-of-Strangeness-The-Passion-One-Year-Later-by-Debra-Murphy.cfm
I'm writing a paper/presentation about Andy Warhol's spiritual side and I really dug this article:
http://godspy.com/culture/Andy-Warhol-Transubstantiating-the-Culture.cfm
And at the moment I'm listening to two of my favorite (unsigned) singers, who I am privileged to have as friends:
Mike Barnet http://www.mikebarnetmusic.com/
Chris Paul Overall http://www.chrispauloverall.com/
Check 'em out, download some mp3's. These guys deserve attention. Peace.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Love & Lent
Someone asked me to write about Lent, which I'm going to do in a moment. But first I have to mention that I am very distracted because a church very close to my heart is going through some major trouble. They've had an evaluation that came back with horrible results, including recommendations that all of the pastors resign (I don't get that at all). The senior pastor, who I know very well, and his wife, the minister of music, are devastated and confused. Please send up prayers for them.
Now on to Lent. This year started with my first attempt at really keeping a lenten fast - I was going to try to fast over lunchtime, and also not eat out. Well, those both went the way of the dinosaur within a week. I was just too darn hungry at lunch (and my energy level was dropping alarmingly, not good for someone who does as much as me), and while not eating out was a noble idea, when you have two students in the house with wacky schedules and you're moving, the convenience of take out is almost a necessity. So oh, well. I was kind of frustrated by the whole rules thing anyway. It was making me focus too much on what I was missing rather than what I was gaining from the discipline (would that have gone away?).
Lent is a time for self-examination and confession before God. It is a time when we acknowledge our failings so that Christ's saving power becomes all the more real to us, and we can truly celebrate the miracle of Easter when the time comes.
I have certainly been practicing a deep self-examination this Lent, and I have you and blogger to thank for it. I have learned so much about myself from our recent conversations as I work through these desires I have. And I think I may have come to a major realization about myself.
Apart from the general married-person desire for first-time-flutters, I think that these things I am talking about are much more platonic than they may feel. Let me try to explain.
I think it boils down to this: I have a huge amount of love. I love to make new friends because it gives me the opportunity to love more people. I treasure my old friends because I've been able to love them for so long. This is probably because God pours out this amazing amount of love on me and it can only spill over to those around me. I feel so completely loved by God.
In my subconscious, then, the love is manifest in romantic ways, because that's the best way my human mind can express how strong it is. The deepest feelings we humans can muster usually manifest in sexual attraction, since that's the strongest connection and the most whole-body love we can feel. While I may not even think of someone as a potential romantic target, in my dreams he or she is that way, because I simply am so delighted to know him or have her as my friend. The best way my little mind can get around this all-consuming love that pours out from heaven is to tell me it feels like romance.
I love my friends so much. I am so priveleged to know each of you. If I know you in person, please know that I am head over heels for you. You are incredibly special and deeply loved.
And if I only know you by this blog, I treasure you so much for the way you call me on things, and examine me, and care enough to read me, and you share yourself with me. You are so very loved.
Lent is about deprivation and solitude and seems to be so dark. But it is also about the most triumphantly loving act ever performed in all of history. Let love lead you through this season, until the great orgasmic release of Easter.
Thanks be to God!!
Now on to Lent. This year started with my first attempt at really keeping a lenten fast - I was going to try to fast over lunchtime, and also not eat out. Well, those both went the way of the dinosaur within a week. I was just too darn hungry at lunch (and my energy level was dropping alarmingly, not good for someone who does as much as me), and while not eating out was a noble idea, when you have two students in the house with wacky schedules and you're moving, the convenience of take out is almost a necessity. So oh, well. I was kind of frustrated by the whole rules thing anyway. It was making me focus too much on what I was missing rather than what I was gaining from the discipline (would that have gone away?).
Lent is a time for self-examination and confession before God. It is a time when we acknowledge our failings so that Christ's saving power becomes all the more real to us, and we can truly celebrate the miracle of Easter when the time comes.
I have certainly been practicing a deep self-examination this Lent, and I have you and blogger to thank for it. I have learned so much about myself from our recent conversations as I work through these desires I have. And I think I may have come to a major realization about myself.
Apart from the general married-person desire for first-time-flutters, I think that these things I am talking about are much more platonic than they may feel. Let me try to explain.
I think it boils down to this: I have a huge amount of love. I love to make new friends because it gives me the opportunity to love more people. I treasure my old friends because I've been able to love them for so long. This is probably because God pours out this amazing amount of love on me and it can only spill over to those around me. I feel so completely loved by God.
In my subconscious, then, the love is manifest in romantic ways, because that's the best way my human mind can express how strong it is. The deepest feelings we humans can muster usually manifest in sexual attraction, since that's the strongest connection and the most whole-body love we can feel. While I may not even think of someone as a potential romantic target, in my dreams he or she is that way, because I simply am so delighted to know him or have her as my friend. The best way my little mind can get around this all-consuming love that pours out from heaven is to tell me it feels like romance.
I love my friends so much. I am so priveleged to know each of you. If I know you in person, please know that I am head over heels for you. You are incredibly special and deeply loved.
And if I only know you by this blog, I treasure you so much for the way you call me on things, and examine me, and care enough to read me, and you share yourself with me. You are so very loved.
Lent is about deprivation and solitude and seems to be so dark. But it is also about the most triumphantly loving act ever performed in all of history. Let love lead you through this season, until the great orgasmic release of Easter.
Thanks be to God!!
Thursday, February 24, 2005
About those "evil desires"...
I just wanted to finish up the discussion about my wandering eyes by reassuring everyone that in fact I'm over it. This is actually what always happens: I get restless, I wish for those "first time" feelings again, I tell my husband about it (that's key), when it's appropriate and we're close enough I tell the person I feel them for, and then in a few hours or days, I come home and see my husband and it pretty much all melts away.
I've been enjoying the lively discussion so I've been arguing for the way I felt earlier in the week, even though it was pretty much just that one day. But I want to let you know that you need not worry for the state of my immortal soul nor my mortal marriage, as both are in fine condition.
I like blogging because of the immediacy of it - the fact that you can write what you're feeling at an exact moment of time, and the neat little time stamp will record the time you felt that way. But of course our lives are constantly moving and changing, and so I thought I should bring you up to speed.
I wrote about my temptation because I want married people who've felt the same way to know they are not alone. We all struggle with this - I think it's an absolutely normal part of married life. The human being is a sensuous creature, and we long for excitement. But we also treasure the warmth, safety, and intimacy of our committed relationships. Being with one person only is difficult and requires a lot of work - even if you're deeply in love. An important part of the work is always being honest with ourselves and with each other.
And so if we are fortunate enough to be married to a person who understands all this, we will pretty much always go back. Thanks be to God.
I've been enjoying the lively discussion so I've been arguing for the way I felt earlier in the week, even though it was pretty much just that one day. But I want to let you know that you need not worry for the state of my immortal soul nor my mortal marriage, as both are in fine condition.
I like blogging because of the immediacy of it - the fact that you can write what you're feeling at an exact moment of time, and the neat little time stamp will record the time you felt that way. But of course our lives are constantly moving and changing, and so I thought I should bring you up to speed.
I wrote about my temptation because I want married people who've felt the same way to know they are not alone. We all struggle with this - I think it's an absolutely normal part of married life. The human being is a sensuous creature, and we long for excitement. But we also treasure the warmth, safety, and intimacy of our committed relationships. Being with one person only is difficult and requires a lot of work - even if you're deeply in love. An important part of the work is always being honest with ourselves and with each other.
And so if we are fortunate enough to be married to a person who understands all this, we will pretty much always go back. Thanks be to God.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Lies my parents told me
I saw a little grey kitty sleeping on the hood of a car in our parking garage. It's there to keep warm. We're having unseasonably cool weather, including the heaviest rainfall in 100 years. Most of us do what we can to cope, and kitty's no different. I see someone's left out food and water for her. Good.
I remember finding out from a friend just a couple years ago that my childhood cat had dropped out of the engine of my family's station wagon one day. He'd crawled in there to get warm and then someone turned on the car...and the rest was history for him, at least.
My parents told me he ran away. I was pretty shocked to learn the real gruesome story. Actually my parents told me all my cats ran away. To this day I'm nervous about letting my cats out because I don't want them to run away.
But I've learned that they're homebodies and they don't wander far. And somehow, with that amazing animal instinct, they can always find their way home - even to the right apartment in a big building.
Which begs the question...what really happened to all my cats?
I remember finding out from a friend just a couple years ago that my childhood cat had dropped out of the engine of my family's station wagon one day. He'd crawled in there to get warm and then someone turned on the car...and the rest was history for him, at least.
My parents told me he ran away. I was pretty shocked to learn the real gruesome story. Actually my parents told me all my cats ran away. To this day I'm nervous about letting my cats out because I don't want them to run away.
But I've learned that they're homebodies and they don't wander far. And somehow, with that amazing animal instinct, they can always find their way home - even to the right apartment in a big building.
Which begs the question...what really happened to all my cats?
Monday, February 21, 2005
More about dreaming
I want to clarify that this whole notion of taking time off has nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of love I have for my husband. It's somehow completely separate in my mind. It's more like I want to take a vacation so that I'll miss him and want him back. But I still love him as much as ever, and I still know I want to be with him the rest of my life. That doesn't change. And he understands, bless him.
Yeah, it's just that there is this experience I want to have - or I feel like I missed out on or whatever. When I was dating I was not who I am today. And the woman today wants to get a first kiss. Or just a date. Those butterflies. They come swarming in the night into my gut, and if I've dreamed about someone I see the next day, then they come back.
Being the ridiculously honest and open person that I am, I shared my dream with the star of the show. I have done this two other times. And a curious thing always happens: the other person always just assume that there's no way I could actually be serious about wanting to do this thing. I thought I had a shot with my one close friend who's not religious, but no, even he was morality man. Which is great, I'm glad that I choose to be intimate and vulnerable with such upstanding men. But there's also a little part of me that says, "Hey! I'm the married one. If I am looking past that, why can't you?" And I figure the answer is because they don't actually find me attractive enough to look past it. And that hurts a little.
I know it's all nuts and I shouldn't think about these things at all. How totally inappropriate for a seminarian to harbor thoughts of infidelity. But it's not like I want to have an affair! I don't even want sex. I simply want the chance to try kissing another person (or perhaps hugging passionately???). And you know what? I want to be the one who says no. Who says that was a wonderful experience and I'm so glad I had it, but I know I want to be with J forever. If I could find a person who had the same understanding, a no-commitment innocent makeout session...just a chance for me, for once, to be the one who stands up for my marriage.
Because I keep having these thoughts because I never get to be the one to end them. So the guy doesn't take me seriously and I chastise myself and I feel awkward for a while then get over it. But necessarily the thought will return with another new friend because the thing that caused them has not been fulfilled. So if it was fulfilled, and I got to decide for myself that I choose J, then would they go away forever?
Plus wouldn't it be cool if someone else actually felt this way about me? Now the psychosis comes out. I want someone else to feel this way. I love how it feels to have a crush, but I love even more being crushed on. And baby, you'd get a little bit, even though you wouldn't get me in the end.
Hmmmm....any takers?
: )
Yeah, it's just that there is this experience I want to have - or I feel like I missed out on or whatever. When I was dating I was not who I am today. And the woman today wants to get a first kiss. Or just a date. Those butterflies. They come swarming in the night into my gut, and if I've dreamed about someone I see the next day, then they come back.
Being the ridiculously honest and open person that I am, I shared my dream with the star of the show. I have done this two other times. And a curious thing always happens: the other person always just assume that there's no way I could actually be serious about wanting to do this thing. I thought I had a shot with my one close friend who's not religious, but no, even he was morality man. Which is great, I'm glad that I choose to be intimate and vulnerable with such upstanding men. But there's also a little part of me that says, "Hey! I'm the married one. If I am looking past that, why can't you?" And I figure the answer is because they don't actually find me attractive enough to look past it. And that hurts a little.
I know it's all nuts and I shouldn't think about these things at all. How totally inappropriate for a seminarian to harbor thoughts of infidelity. But it's not like I want to have an affair! I don't even want sex. I simply want the chance to try kissing another person (or perhaps hugging passionately???). And you know what? I want to be the one who says no. Who says that was a wonderful experience and I'm so glad I had it, but I know I want to be with J forever. If I could find a person who had the same understanding, a no-commitment innocent makeout session...just a chance for me, for once, to be the one who stands up for my marriage.
Because I keep having these thoughts because I never get to be the one to end them. So the guy doesn't take me seriously and I chastise myself and I feel awkward for a while then get over it. But necessarily the thought will return with another new friend because the thing that caused them has not been fulfilled. So if it was fulfilled, and I got to decide for myself that I choose J, then would they go away forever?
Plus wouldn't it be cool if someone else actually felt this way about me? Now the psychosis comes out. I want someone else to feel this way. I love how it feels to have a crush, but I love even more being crushed on. And baby, you'd get a little bit, even though you wouldn't get me in the end.
Hmmmm....any takers?
: )
Dream a little dream
I saw Jim Wallis last night. If you get a chance to see him on his book tour, GO! It is absolutely worth your time. What an inspiring evening. I am thinking about where my gift “meets the crushing needs of the world” – that’s how he described vocation.
I’ve also been pondering these dreams that I have. See, I’m lucky to be a vivid dreamer who frequently remembers what I dream. And my dreams almost always are the same: there is another person and me and we fall in love. Sometimes they are sweet, just like reliving dating or a first kiss, and sometimes they are erotic. Sometimes the person is my husband, but not too often. Sometimes it’s a boy and sometimes a girl. Very frequently it’s someone I know in real life. That used to cause me problems, because I’d have the dream about someone and then I’d think I liked that person. It’s amazing how powerful the emotions in these dreams are.
Here’s one from a couple nights ago:
I was on a field trip with a class (don’t know which one) to…a grocery store. And one of my friends from seminary, a guy, happened to be on the trip. And he and I met up by the sushi counter (those are normal in our markets out here), and for whatever reason, we started kissing. And it was the most wonderful amazing kiss. I remember as I put my arm around his neck I saw my wedding ring glint (sometimes I’m married and sometimes not in these dreams). But it was the kind of kiss where both of us just wanted more. It was like, wow, we have to keep doing this!
So the van that brought us there was leaving, and he and I made up some excuse to stay, and we decided to pick up some cheesecake ice cream and walk over to his apartment since he lived close by. In the ice cream aisle there was more kissing. I don’t think we ever got to the ice cream.
We got to his apartment and there were many distractions, including me seeing J and hiding from him (frequently I’m not actually in trouble or feeling guilt, I’m just hiding). But I remember vividly that the whole goal in the dream was to get somewhere where we could get back to the amazing kissing!
And that was it…nothing sexual or super-naughty happened. And I woke up wondering if it would be okay for me just to kiss this guy one time to see how it is. Maybe our lips were made for each other’s. And then I wondered how I’d go about getting him to kiss me (since he’s got a girlfriend), and that probably wouldn’t work out very well. And then I started thinking about whether a kiss is really all that bad for a married person…I mean, what if I talked to J and let him know that it was really just about my need to feel that “first kiss” again, nothing beyond that. Would it work? Would it destroy everything?
I’ve been married for nearly 7 years (uh-oh! The itch!). And I’ve really come to a place where these dreams get more and more frequent. The main theme in them is romance, it’s not sex. Sex is great when it happens, but the important thing is that I’m feeling first love again. That wonderful mixed-up knot of emotions that one has when dating someone. I think I miss dating so very much. I got married pretty shortly after another long-term relationship…I haven’t “played the field” since high school, and even then I was usually in a relationship. Did I miss out on something? Or is it natural for me to just be going through a phase in which I need something fresh?
I dream the most frequently about Joe, my first boyfriend, my first love. I am still so in love with that guy. I think he’s become majorly idealized in my dreams, but boy, do I wish I could see him again just once.
Anyway, sometimes I think that married people should get little breaks, every 5 years or so, in which we can date other people for just a couple months or something. Then we can get all the “first kiss” stuff out of our systems and realize how crappy dating is and go back to our lifelong partner. Has anyone ever been married and done this – mutually agreed that it’s okay, if not to date, to at least try kissing another person? I mean, everyone always talks about how tough it is to only have one set of lips for the rest of your life (some talk about more vulgar parts, but I’m a romantic). Is it possible to just once in a very long while try out someone else? Not for keeps, but just for the rush?
Oh, well. It will probably have to remain forever in my dreams.
There was a nice long one for you since I haven’t written in forever.
I’ve also been pondering these dreams that I have. See, I’m lucky to be a vivid dreamer who frequently remembers what I dream. And my dreams almost always are the same: there is another person and me and we fall in love. Sometimes they are sweet, just like reliving dating or a first kiss, and sometimes they are erotic. Sometimes the person is my husband, but not too often. Sometimes it’s a boy and sometimes a girl. Very frequently it’s someone I know in real life. That used to cause me problems, because I’d have the dream about someone and then I’d think I liked that person. It’s amazing how powerful the emotions in these dreams are.
Here’s one from a couple nights ago:
I was on a field trip with a class (don’t know which one) to…a grocery store. And one of my friends from seminary, a guy, happened to be on the trip. And he and I met up by the sushi counter (those are normal in our markets out here), and for whatever reason, we started kissing. And it was the most wonderful amazing kiss. I remember as I put my arm around his neck I saw my wedding ring glint (sometimes I’m married and sometimes not in these dreams). But it was the kind of kiss where both of us just wanted more. It was like, wow, we have to keep doing this!
So the van that brought us there was leaving, and he and I made up some excuse to stay, and we decided to pick up some cheesecake ice cream and walk over to his apartment since he lived close by. In the ice cream aisle there was more kissing. I don’t think we ever got to the ice cream.
We got to his apartment and there were many distractions, including me seeing J and hiding from him (frequently I’m not actually in trouble or feeling guilt, I’m just hiding). But I remember vividly that the whole goal in the dream was to get somewhere where we could get back to the amazing kissing!
And that was it…nothing sexual or super-naughty happened. And I woke up wondering if it would be okay for me just to kiss this guy one time to see how it is. Maybe our lips were made for each other’s. And then I wondered how I’d go about getting him to kiss me (since he’s got a girlfriend), and that probably wouldn’t work out very well. And then I started thinking about whether a kiss is really all that bad for a married person…I mean, what if I talked to J and let him know that it was really just about my need to feel that “first kiss” again, nothing beyond that. Would it work? Would it destroy everything?
I’ve been married for nearly 7 years (uh-oh! The itch!). And I’ve really come to a place where these dreams get more and more frequent. The main theme in them is romance, it’s not sex. Sex is great when it happens, but the important thing is that I’m feeling first love again. That wonderful mixed-up knot of emotions that one has when dating someone. I think I miss dating so very much. I got married pretty shortly after another long-term relationship…I haven’t “played the field” since high school, and even then I was usually in a relationship. Did I miss out on something? Or is it natural for me to just be going through a phase in which I need something fresh?
I dream the most frequently about Joe, my first boyfriend, my first love. I am still so in love with that guy. I think he’s become majorly idealized in my dreams, but boy, do I wish I could see him again just once.
Anyway, sometimes I think that married people should get little breaks, every 5 years or so, in which we can date other people for just a couple months or something. Then we can get all the “first kiss” stuff out of our systems and realize how crappy dating is and go back to our lifelong partner. Has anyone ever been married and done this – mutually agreed that it’s okay, if not to date, to at least try kissing another person? I mean, everyone always talks about how tough it is to only have one set of lips for the rest of your life (some talk about more vulgar parts, but I’m a romantic). Is it possible to just once in a very long while try out someone else? Not for keeps, but just for the rush?
Oh, well. It will probably have to remain forever in my dreams.
There was a nice long one for you since I haven’t written in forever.
Friday, February 11, 2005
Many questions
So many questions lately. My NT teacher took a poll in class on this one, and I'm sure she'd be delighted if I came back with more answers. So here's the stumper:
If Paul had had a son, would he have circumcised him?
Then she hands out these questions we're supposed to answer, questions like:
What is a Christian?
What is the gospel?
And other such little issues. Luckily it was not a test, more a poll.
I feel lame because I don't have my own answers anymore. My thinking has been so completely influenced by Dallas Willard. It is really not an exaggeration to say that The Divine Conspiracy changed my entire life. Lately he's been writing more interesting stuff - particularly on the crucifixion, which was one area he'd not really dealt with before. A paper on it can be found at his website, if you are interested. He gives a whole new slant to the event. Fascinating stuff. The cool thing is that he wrote it as a chapter in a new book The Passion and Philosophy (you may be familiar with the "X and Philosophy" series, they've done several TV shows, movies, and even baseball. We own The Simpsons and Buffy, and plan to get The Matrix, Seinfeld, and surely a few others). ANYWAY I was no fan of the Passion, but Willard takes the opportunity to lay out his rather radical sotierology:
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=101
So my answer to the gospel is Willard's paraphrase of Jesus' message "Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand": "Rethink your thinking in light of the fact that God's resources are yours for the taking."
Isn't that a much more exciting, pleasant gospel than "repent because you're going to hell"? And the kicker is, it is true. The Christian faith is about a new way of living - as Willard says, "The smartest man who ever lived is giving a master class in living" - and you're invited. He's taking disciples in how to live a meaningful, beautiful life.
So there, I've solved the meaning of life. We can all go about our business now.
If Paul had had a son, would he have circumcised him?
Then she hands out these questions we're supposed to answer, questions like:
What is a Christian?
What is the gospel?
And other such little issues. Luckily it was not a test, more a poll.
I feel lame because I don't have my own answers anymore. My thinking has been so completely influenced by Dallas Willard. It is really not an exaggeration to say that The Divine Conspiracy changed my entire life. Lately he's been writing more interesting stuff - particularly on the crucifixion, which was one area he'd not really dealt with before. A paper on it can be found at his website, if you are interested. He gives a whole new slant to the event. Fascinating stuff. The cool thing is that he wrote it as a chapter in a new book The Passion and Philosophy (you may be familiar with the "X and Philosophy" series, they've done several TV shows, movies, and even baseball. We own The Simpsons and Buffy, and plan to get The Matrix, Seinfeld, and surely a few others). ANYWAY I was no fan of the Passion, but Willard takes the opportunity to lay out his rather radical sotierology:
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=101
So my answer to the gospel is Willard's paraphrase of Jesus' message "Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand": "Rethink your thinking in light of the fact that God's resources are yours for the taking."
Isn't that a much more exciting, pleasant gospel than "repent because you're going to hell"? And the kicker is, it is true. The Christian faith is about a new way of living - as Willard says, "The smartest man who ever lived is giving a master class in living" - and you're invited. He's taking disciples in how to live a meaningful, beautiful life.
So there, I've solved the meaning of life. We can all go about our business now.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Hello, long time no write
I have been majorly delinquent lately. I'm trying not to do what I always seem to do with new web stuff I find, which is hit it hard at first then forget about it after a while.
I've had very little time to work on the play or anything much (including homework which is very bad) because I've been trying to find us a place to live closer to school. This is something of an obsession now. I need to cut back on craig's list. It's like a drug, that site.
I saw my psychiatrist and he seemed to think I was doing very well. I have to say that seminary has just been a shot in the arm for me. It's really quite amazing to be learning all this stuff that I actually give a rat's ass about. I can't remember that ever happening in school before.
Anyway I have to get back to work, but I felt bad for not writing for so long.
I've had very little time to work on the play or anything much (including homework which is very bad) because I've been trying to find us a place to live closer to school. This is something of an obsession now. I need to cut back on craig's list. It's like a drug, that site.
I saw my psychiatrist and he seemed to think I was doing very well. I have to say that seminary has just been a shot in the arm for me. It's really quite amazing to be learning all this stuff that I actually give a rat's ass about. I can't remember that ever happening in school before.
Anyway I have to get back to work, but I felt bad for not writing for so long.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Jesus doesn't hate sex
Well, I don't know, maybe he would, I don't think he had any personal experience with it. But most men are pretty into it.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that despite all of these stories, which are healthily discussing the damage done by well-meaning Christian loved ones, I do not believe for a second that God is down on sex. I think the comments from several people about the wonderful gift of sex are an important part of this discussion.
And God is definitely not down on sexuality - just read Song of Solomon to see that even the Bible completely celebrates the beauty and uniqueness of the sexuality of women and men.
Somehow it's all been distorted over the years. But let's remember that before the Puritans (who largely influenced this whole thing), there is a God who loves us and wants us to love ourselves, every part of ourselves, even the naughty bits.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that despite all of these stories, which are healthily discussing the damage done by well-meaning Christian loved ones, I do not believe for a second that God is down on sex. I think the comments from several people about the wonderful gift of sex are an important part of this discussion.
And God is definitely not down on sexuality - just read Song of Solomon to see that even the Bible completely celebrates the beauty and uniqueness of the sexuality of women and men.
Somehow it's all been distorted over the years. But let's remember that before the Puritans (who largely influenced this whole thing), there is a God who loves us and wants us to love ourselves, every part of ourselves, even the naughty bits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)