Category: Emerging Church

Priestess Clawson Responds

Posted on

nd now for today’s entertainment… The anti-emergent mafia strikes again granting me a place of honor (dubious though it may be). Over at the fairly new diatribe of hate entitled Wonky73 – A Crazy Man’s Utopia (I am so not kidding) the author lists offenders guilty of “emergy oozy chaos.” After reading the trashing the Open Source Theology blog and Emerging Women, I came across a rather amusing description of myself (isn’t it lovely what strangers can tell you about yourself?) Anyway, here is what I discovered about myself, starting with the end of the reaction to the Emerging Women blog –

Clearly, this is a blog of people moving down the train tracks of apostasy. Once you’ve removed the scriptural authority the gates are blown wide open for every kind of error to flood in.
Down those tracks, deeper and deeper, we go where in we find (strap in and hang on folks) the Onehandclapping blog. This can be a very frightening place, if you don’t have experience in radical liberal theology. The writer describes herself as: (read my blog profile)

As an aside it’s sad to see Wheaton’s fallen so far as to produce a person like this. A quick perusal of her blog makes it clear. She is a radical liberal femi-nazi. No concern for God or the scriptures will be found here. She’s far to concerned with spreading a feminist agenda, babbling nonsense about social justice, eating ethically, and buying a “just” bra. Most importantly she holds a special contempt for the scriptures and their authority.
Gotta admit I had fun writing this. Let’s finish with a flourish of quotes from Priestess Clawson: (recent quotes from my posts).

Wow – Priestess. Now that’s just too fun. But honestly this serves as the perfect example of the fear I see around us these days. The fear that criticizes a group of women for reading a book that some disagree with (because reading something one disagrees with could be dangerous). And to utterly reject any form whatsoever of social justice and environmentalism – I just don’t get it anymore. I understand tempered limited forms of caring for people and caring for God’s creation, but to reject and mock them entirely? What sort of theology encourages that? This message of fear and hatred is wrapped in Christian language and baptised by Christian theology. This my friends is the church. And people still ask why we emergents think things need to change…

Read more

Women in the Emerging Church

Posted on

To clarify my post below and to address (some of) Brother Maynard’s good questions (since this is way too long to post in the comments). Yes, the last post was a rant and therefore did make use of hyperbole. I know that there are men in the EC who do support women (and there are some who don’t). But nevertheless there is still an ongoing perception by women that the Emerging Church doesn’t support women. I’ve somehow stumbled into a strange position where I think I hear more about that than many people (which of course influences my perception). Because of my involvement with Emerging Women a lot of people seem to think I’m an authority on women in the emerging church. So I get emails, questions about women in the EC, confused inquiries about what is going on, and complaints, lots of complaints. Responding to the women who contact me is weird because I am not the authority (not that one exists) and the EC is such a fluid thing that one can never give a definitive answer for why things are the way they are. That being said, I do try to respond, but often in responding I feel torn. Half the time I do my best to defend the EC and explain that anyone who wants to step up to lead is more than welcome to and all that. But the rest of the time I find myself sympathizing with the frustration and confusion these women are expressing.

So what am I hearing and who am I hearing it from? First I should say that I have had good conversations with women in leadership within Emergent (all from mainline backgrounds) who don’t think there are any problems at all. I respect their experiences, but also hear too much from women who do think otherwise. From other mainliners who have already been through the fight to gain respect as women in the church and who have pushed for inclusivity in the church, I hear a good deal of shock at how patriarchal the EC is. They only see male figureheads, male authors, male bloggers, male speakers, and worse yet only hear male language used in reference to believers and to God. To them that is really offensive and implies that women are not wanted or valued. They have been through the struggle before and as much good that they see in the EC, they aren’t sure if its worth it to join in with a group that is so far behind in regards to women. Why go where they are “obviously” not wanted? Then there are the evangelicals. Many of those women are just beginning to believe that they can have a voice in the church and are still being met with much opposition in their churches and families. They want to find a place to belong in the EC because it has helped them so much, but are often afraid to join what looks like the typical boys club they are used to experiencing or are unsure if they are even welcome in that world. They want to know before they sign on that they will be accepted for who they are (and not condemned because they are female) and that the invitation to join is for them as well. So while the official message may be that yes of course women are respected and welcomed, if they do not hear that message or see it displayed (actually lived out) then they do not feel like they are wanted. This of course does not apply to all women interested in the EC, but is a theme I’ve heard too often to ignore.

So why isn’t the message of welcome and inclusion being heard (if it does exist)? The most common answer still is because most of the authors and speakers are male – they are the voice that gets heard no matter who else is out there. Even at the recent Midwest Emergent Gathering where we attempted to be very deliberate about giving women a voice, the upfront presence was still predominantly male. And we got flack for it, big time. It’s not that there is anything wrong with the male leaders, they are great guys who have taught us wonderful things and have helped us along on our faith journey. I personally greatly appreciate the work they have done and the contributions they have made. But as popular as they are and for as many people who are desperate to be mentored (in even the smallest ways) by them, we women don’t have a place. We don’t fit in with the boys clubs and the male bonding experiences (which is what even many public events seem to be). There are no female “heroes” that self-identify as emerging that we can look up to and be mentored by. The names that women in the EC look to in respect like Anne Lamott, Phyllis Tickle, Sue Monk Kidd, and Diane Butler Bass do not (to the best of my knowledge) label themselves emerging. So if there is no one to mentor us in the EC (or even to guide and open the doors), then women begin to wonder why they should even want to be a part of it at all.

Then there are the negative messages that (often unintentionally) get sent. And yes like it or not, there are a number of people who still think Mark Driscoll is part of the EC. They hear his sexist comments and assume that the entire EC agrees with him. But less radically there are constant messages that tell women you are not wanted here (even when they do not intend to do so). When the two most popular blogs on the Emerging Church (Jesus Creed and TallSkinnyKiwi) have ongoing debates on not only whether or not women are permitted in ministry but which also imply that the jury is still out on whether women are inferior to men or if we are even made in God’s image, the message gets sent (loudly) that we are not respected, valued or welcome in the EC. When, like at last year’s Gathering (and I’ve heard of similar occurrences elsewhere), women plan a workshop and then a big name male plans the exact same workshop at the exact same time (which then everyone goes to), the message is sent – your voice is unwanted and worthless. When at the Off The Map Conference last year the panel of women leaders were set in front of the crowd so that they could publicly ask questions of the male experts the message is sent – you women are inferior to us men (and granted the conference planers there admitted what a disaster that session was). And when at just about every single emerging event, it is extremely rare to hear gender inclusive language, women who have become used to being included in the broader culture are left feeling very alienated. And I don’t think anyone intends to send the message to women that they aren’t welcome, but that is what is perceived at any rate.

And what helps complicate the negative (albeit unintentional) messages is the silence by the men, the “yes,but…” excuses, the vague talk about Biblical gender roles, and the lack of positive action. When certain prominent leaders take a stand against women, it takes other popular leaders speaking out against hate language for that message to be overpowered. Then, saying “yes, but…” to women is like sending the message that we aren’t worth your time or energy. You want to help us, but it’s too complicated and might take too much work. Instead of dwelling on all the problems that might possibly arise and using that as an excuse to inaction, could you please just give us your unequivocal support for once? And when you mention “gender roles” most women mentally download some version of the barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen scenario that has been drilled into us for years. Define what you really mean. And by the way most women do not want to be told what they should be like by a man. We want to be accepted for who we are no matter how closely we fit some system of culturally defined roles. Using language like that is patronizing and demeaning.

So what would actively working to improve things look like? A few biggies that might help – Make sure that women are asked to speak at your events. Get women publishing contracts. Work jointly with women on the big writing projects and event planning teams. Get used to using gender inclusive language. And don’t always refer to God as male (not that you have to go so far as using the feminine names for God, just that you don’t always default to the masculine). Add women to your blogroll. Discuss the ideas women are talking about on your blogs, in your sermons, and in your books. Stick your neck out and publicly stand up against sexism and demeaning language. Publicly admit that you respect women and support them in ministry for that matter. It isn’t “affirmative action” or “lowering your standards” as I have heard it described. And some of it might sound silly if you do it already (but it obviously hasn’t been heard). But it does involve being deliberate about being inclusive. And I know that there are a lot of guys out there who are doing this already. But when there is still an overwhelming perception on the part of women that they are not welcome more obviously needs to be done.

And I will say again, I am not the “authority” to address this issue. I’m just reflecting on my experiences and my somewhat unique position of hearing from a wide spectrum of women involved in the EC. Not all women feel this way or think there is a problem. I know that. But it is for the many that do, that I made the plea to the men of the EC to loudly and without reservation demonstrate their support for women in the Emerging Church.

Read more

To the Men of the Emerging Church

Posted on

So after reading Dave Fitch’s article on why he isn’t an egalitarian over at the Church and Postmodern Culture blog (and then Makeesha’s great response), I am just left wondering what the deal is really with men in the Emerging Church. So you get these high profile men writing stuff that equality isn’t biblical (but that they still support women in ministry) and that women should be allowed to live out their God given roles. One one level that might sound good, but it’s just the same old oppression in a different packaging. Others tell me point blank that they won’t waste energy working to help women in ministry because our ministry structures aren’t biblical to begin with. So why waste time working to get women involved in a system that they are working to change? But the obvious problem is that the system is not changing, the boys keep it going as is, and the women remain on the sidelines. Others give an ample space for the fight over whether women are fully human on their blogs, but never really stick their necks out and actually support women. And then when certain leaders degrade and objectify women as mere sex objects, the men of the church remain silent or pat him on the back. WTF? This is the response we get from men in the Emerging Church.

What are you guys afraid of? Controversy? Having to share power? Having to talk to women? I just don’t get it. When they say they “support” women, but don’t actually ever do anything to about I have to question if they really do respect women. Are we just a nuisance that they can placate with kind sounding words? If they give enough platitudes and asides (I really do support women in ministry, really) will we shut up and pretend that everything is okay? I know a number of women who have given up on the emerging church as a joke because of the way women continue to be treated.

Hey boys guess what. We don’t want to be treated like a piece of meat or piece of art. We don’t want to treated like second class citizens and be endlessly tokenized or debated. We want to be a part of the conversation and respected for who we are. We can have our own conversations, but it would be really nice of you to make just the slightest effort to treat us as human beings and let the world know about it.

So what I would like to see is one, just one, male leader in the Emerging Church come out in complete support of women. No debating our worth. No stereotyping us into assumed roles. But complete and open support with a commitment to action to do whatever you can to help the women’s voices be heard. That isn’t too much to ask is it?

Read more

Emerging Church Demographics

Posted on

To address a question from one of the comments below. Is the emerging church just a generational thing? Is it just something for young people?

When the first stirrings of what has turned into the emerging church began, it was just about generational ministry. It was obvious that the church was missing an entire generation (which implied that the next generation would be missing as well). So people began to ask why Gen Xers had left the church and what it would take to bring them back. As usually occurs with such strategic plans, the initial answers were surfacy. Change the style of church to be relevant to that demographic. So churches abandoned the choirs and organs of the grandparents, the praise bands of the boomers, and went alternative. They added coffee and candles, brought art back into the church, and re-introduced liturgy to the low church. It helped bring some Xers back in, and really pissed off a lot of Boomers and older folks that church wasn’t being done the way they liked anymore. Since when church becomes all about what one particular demographic likes it becomes about consuming a commodity and not about being the body of Christ. So went the ongoing worship wars that divided churches into generational clubs based on personal “worship” preferences. It wasn’t intergenerational. It was selfish. And yes some “emerging churches” stayed in this realm and are just about relevant worship. Others perhaps get labeled that, but are really much much more.

But some of the initial voices in the EC soon realized that there was a greater cultural shift occurring in our culture. People were moving from the dominant philosophy of modernism to the dominant philosophy of postmodernism. It wasn’t about choosing the believe in such a thing, it was the general air that we were breathing – the culture that shaped who we were. Granted, higher percentages of younger people were more immersed in postmodern thought than older people, but it was a culturally pervasive thing. That made a lot of people think about how our assumptions about how we do church were influenced by our cultural philosophy. And then even to think about how our theologies were influenced by such philosophies. So yes, church eccessiology started to be questioned. The habits and trappings of church were questioned. And many began to take a historical perspective on the interpretation of scripture and examine how culture has influenced how we read the bible. Things started to change and it involved people of all generations.

So for example, in our small church plant we have representatives from 8 different decades (and aren’t too heavy on the under 35 group either). Church isn’t about reaching a certain demographic, but we still do things differently than many churches. We “worship” with hymns, praise choruses, art, dance, liturgy, lectio divina, walking labyrinths, and prayers of saints ancient and modern. We understand that the sermon is the least effective form of teaching. So we open the teaching time up to discussion. People ask questions, challenge interpretations, and contribute examples. So instead of the pastor contriving examples that generally work for middle age men (golf, sports, retirement plans…), the church becomes involved in understanding how the scriptures fit into their lives. “Elders” and intergenerational learning isn’t contrived or hierarchical, but just part of what it means to all interact together and be a church family. Of course its not perfect and really freaks some people out. Some show up expecting to just sit, watch a show, and “be fed.” We don’t think that is what church is about at all. And apparently people of all ages seem to think similarly.

So yes, there are emerging churches that consist of college students being college students. Just like there are seeker sensitive churches full of Boomers and traditional churches full of the elderly. Then there are churches with people of all ages that look new and different. There are traditional mainline churches that are embracing emerging theology and worship ideas. For many it is about new way of doing church, exploring theology from a broader perspective, and being the church as opposed to having church imposed upon oneself. And it involves people of all ages. I would recommend that the stereotype of the EC being just for gen Xers be dropped, and people take the time to see what is occurring within this very diverse movement.

Read more

Faith, Certainty, and Tom Cruise

Posted on

A few days ago Erin put up a great post about “Things I Learned From Church (That Didn’t Prove True And What I Am Learning Lately)” It was part of a new synchroblog stared by Glenn Hager. As he describes the purpose of this blog – “I am tackling this issue not because I have an axe to grind with church as we know it, not because I am bitter, and not because I think people who are into attending and supporting conventional churches are inferior. Rather, it is to help me to understand my own thinking…” I was intrigued by the concept and have appreciated some of the posts the participants have put up so far. Then after reading Scot McKnight’s post on certainty and faith yesterday I was reminded of an experience in my church background that I have since learned to regret.

I grew up in a traditional, conservative, Texas dispensational church (I’m sure they would merely call themselves a biblical church, but then again so would just about any church…). Most of my experiences there occurred in the youth group. But this was no games and cool music youth group. It was a sit and listen to hour long sermons, read lots of books, attend seminars, and make fun of those not like us type group. Being a Christian meant one crammed oneself with knowledge about the Bible (oh, and avoided sex at all costs as the youth pastor frequently reminded us by recounting his sinful youthful sexual exploits…). We had to know exactly how to argue people into the faith and how to show them that whatever they believed (be they atheist, pagan, catholic, or baptist) was completely wrong (implying we were completely right). I loved it. As an intellectual nerd who prided herself of getting good grades, this was a religion I could relate to. My “faith” was all about facts and knowledge. So while most of the youth group dreaded attending (their parents made them), I and my small group of friends loved being the know-it-all star Christians.

At one point when I was in high school (here comes the Tom Cruise part), the youth pastor choose a new motto for the group. Taken from the popular movie A Few Good Men (back when Tom Cruise still had a career and wasn’t the Hollywood freak of the week), our rallying cry became – “it doesn’t matter what I believe. It only matters what I can prove!” We were treated to sermons about certainty and correct hermeneutics. We were told that if we do not have 100% certainty about our faith then we are not real Christians. Forget saying a prayer and accepting Jesus into one’s heart, this was the gospel of intellectual works. Knowledge, evidence, and proof were what got one into heaven when we died (the whole point of Christianity of course). Belief and faith meant nothing, all that mattered was proof.

When I mentioned the new motto to a friend at school, he looked at me quizzically and asked me if such a stance undermined the whole idea of faith in the first place. I’m sure I parroted something about rationalism and absolute truth back at him at that point, but over the years since then I have come to see that he had a better conception of true faith than I did. I was Thomas demanding proof and not accepting that “faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” I cared more about CSI style investigations and converting people to creationism than I did about actually serving others or following Christ.

Now as the idea of certainty or absolute knowledge seems so utterly impossible I laugh at my arrogance in assuming I could ever grasp them. But it was a long journey to move to that point. My grip on certainty held me tighter than my grip on Christianity itself. I couldn’t tell if I was more afraid to give up my philosophical system (which defined my religion) than I was to question my faith itself. Or perhaps, I just assumed that they were one in the same. That if I gave up trusting in certainty and empirical proof, I would no longer be a real Christian since I would then have doubts and incomplete knowledge. So the process of letting go was exceeding difficult, but I had to let go in order to discover faith. To discover the mystery and the trust that it takes to believe. To walk by faith not sight.

Now I am sure there are those that will mock me for not being a rationalist. Others who don’t see room for doubt and faith in the Christian faith. Perhaps their experiences work for them. This is just my experience of what I learned from church that didn’t prove true.

Read more

Motivation or Ridicule?

Posted on

So the blog buzz over the weekend were the anti-emergent motivational posters and then Emerging Grace’s beautiful response. She took what was an attempt to tear down others, and focused on the true message of the gospel. I found the anti-emergent set to be disturbing and cruel and not just because I disagree with the sentiments they express. Some of them just completely miss the point of the emerging conversation which I hope is the result of ignorance and not malicious misrepresentation (one can always hope right?), but others demonstrate seriously harmful attitudes of prejudice and intolerance. While of course many who like these posters are the types that uphold intolerance as a Christian virtue (its all about the hate man), they so miss the point of the Christian message it’s not even funny.

For example the following two posters were created to ridicule emergent and anyone who is not a middle aged white middle class yuppie –



The unspoken assumption that those people are crazy, they are wrong, and that they need to change is heartbreaking. It made me recall a few years ago on The Ooze when I got into an argument with one of the many men who post there in order to tell the rest of us why we are wrong. He was going off about how dress codes in schools are good things because khaki pants and polo shirts really are the most appropriate clothing for everyone. As he saw it, yuppie middle class white America males are the majority in the world and therefore make the most godly choices (flawless logic of course) . All people (of any culture or ethnic group) should emulate him in how they dress if they are to be good Christians. He was serious. And he got really pissed when I mentioned that his ideas were racist, classist, ageist, and sexist among other things. It’s great if he personally wants to dress a certain way and worship a certain way, but to assume that we all have to become like him in order to be real Christians is not only absurd but it is hurtful to the millions of people who don’t fit inside his myopic view of Christianity. To say that the people in these posters cannot really have an authentic relationship with Jesus until they change their appearance and taste in music is one of the most sad warpings of the Gospel I have ever heard.

I love the poster Emerging Grace created in response –


If the Gospel is truly good news, then it is good news for this person right now. Not after he gets his life straight and comes to church looking like he just came from the golf course, but right where he is at. And the gospel is good news for people no matter the length of their hair, the number of piercings or tattoos the have, or if their clothing is made from hemp or stain-resistant wrinkle free cotton/polyester blend. The gospel is relevant to all people. That is the message of Jesus Christ, so its really no big surprise if it happens to be the message of some in the emerging church (or anyone in the entire history of Christianity for that matter).

So Pyromaniacs and Ken Silva can use the emerging church as the butt of their jokes if making fun of people is what entertains them, but I want to go on record here in asking them to stop making fun of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Read more

Experiential Worship vs. Simple Living

Posted on

During the Midwest Emergent Gathering, I got to attend most of Lilly Lewin’s workshop on creative worship. I am fascinated by what she does and how she uses art to help people connect with God. I wish more churches could learn from her and incorporate experiential worship into their services. We learn more and make deeper connections when we are engaged in experiences that engage our whole self instead of just passively sitting and listening to a person preach. And she helps people enter into experiences where that can happen.

All that said, as she spoke I found myself torn between conflicting ideals. One of the most common elements of experiential worship is that of giving a person a physical object to touch that relates to whatever the point of the lesson is. So as Lilly suggested, let people eat Swedish fish or goldfish as you talk about Jesus providing the disciples with fish. Or hand out cotton balls or foam cut outs – whatever can be tied into helping people remember what they are hearing. It works – it generally works quite well. The physical objects drives the abstract thought home and serves to help a person remember what they have heard. Of course that isn’t the only (or best) form experiential worship takes, but it is an easily employed technique. What bothered me was how it seemed at odds with simple living.

I guess what I am wondering is if one is striving to live simply and ethically (i.e. not over consume, respect the environment, buy fairly traded items) would being able to better understand and remember a concept be a sufficient enough excuse to collect piles of junk. As Lilly mentioned (and as a former children’s pastor I can attest) all those little take aways collect on your desk, the bottom of your purse, or in the back of some drawer. Lilly saw that as a collection of good memories and meaningful lessons, but try as I might I have a hard time seeing them as anything other than clutter and junk. I don’t want my life filled with items made from petroleum products in a sweatshop in China that take up space and increase chaos (I have way too much of that already). I don’t think that I can see something like that as an aid to worship.

But then the question gets raised – where do I draw the line? So perhaps a little plastic cross is unnecessary, but what about a stained glass window, or a cloistered garden, or an art installation? I take pleasure in such things and often see them as an aid to worship. Or what about having children making bricks as they learn about the slaves in Egypt or building a manger for a Christmas play? What about the Christmas tree itself? What is really necessary? What can be justified? Should it have to be justified?

I have never considered myself an iconoclast. I have no problem with the idea of letting art and beauty move us into worship. But I am beginning to feel uneasy with the consumeristic nature behind such things. I guess I am seeking a balance for myself here. I am not ready to throw out art or other aids to worship in favor of barren striped down intellectual encounters with God, but I am seeking a form of justification. I love music and art (and most other new forms of experiential worship), but I am struggling with supporting the expense (in the broad term). Is there a way to enjoy and employ such things justly? I know this issue has been a constant struggle for the church as a whole, for while some found the great cathedrals to lift them into rhapsodies of worship, others saw the golden trappings next to the starving masses and walked away from the faith. Is it all worth it? Can it be justified? And where is the balance?

I have no answers. I am just beginning to ask the questions. Have others struggled with this? What have you learned in that struggle?

Read more

SynchroBlog on Utopia: Being Content in the Present

Posted on

The Bright Field
by R. S. Thomas

I have seen the sun break through
to illuminate a small field
for a while, and gone my way
and forgotten it. But that was the pearl
of great price, the one field that had
treasure in it. I realize now
that I must give all that I have
to possess it. Life is not hurrying

on to a receeding future, nor hankering after
an imagined past. It is the turning
aside like Moses to the miracle
of the lit bush, to a brightness
that seemed as transitory as your youth
once, but is the eternity that awaits you.

So this is my first contribution to the SynchroBlog community. I always enjoy reading the posts this group puts out and am glad for the chance to contribute. And as luck would have it (another strange serendipitous occurrence), this month’s topic is one that is closely related to my recent musings on sacred places and the longing for home – Utopia.

Back in the summer of 1998, I participated in my college’s study abroad program in England and Ireland. Basically I got to spend the whole summer reading great literature, visiting literary places, and discussing literary things. It was in its own indulgent way – heaven. We spent one afternoon wandering around Coole Park – the rich lush gardens where Irish poets (like Yeats) would come to escape from it all. A number of us expressed our delight at being in nature after a few weeks in Dublin. (a heartfelt sentiment from a number of us girls especially, who after being sexually attacked on one of our first nights there decided to remain in our dorms rooms after dark each night. We never got dinner and life was rather dull). Prompted by our expressions of contentment and the nature of the setting, one of our professors sat the group down in the middle of a field to discuss the temptations of Arcadia and Utopia. There are those who long for edenic Arcadia – to return to the innocence of nature and be content in a natural paradise. This of course was the appeal of Coole Park for those poets (and us college girls) wishing to escape Dublin. Then there are others who seek perfection through progress in the creation of Utopia – the master city as it were. We were warned that day of the dangers in either temptation and instructed in the need to place our hope in Heaven alone.

I see the dangers of centering our hope in Arcadia or Utopia, or Nostalgia and Progress as it were, but I can’t just sooth such longings with the opiate of escapism. We are rooted beings existing here and now on this earth. That is why I love R.S. Thomas’ poem The Bright Field. Perhaps the rugged Welsh landscapes breeds a different sort of poet than the Irish, but Thomas calls for a centering in and celebration of the present. “Life is not hurrying onto a receeding future, or hankering after an imagined past.” It is not dreaming of idyllic days in Arcadia or pursuing the construction of Utopia, but finding contentment in living life day to day. That is real life – where the passion, the love, the hard work, and the sorrows commingle. Thomas found that contentment in the present in his role as a parish priest in rural Wales – as difficult as it could be at times.

Instead of seeking God in the past or future, we need to turn aside like Moses to the burning bush and see God in the present. I love how Elizabeth Gilbert describes this need in her book Eat, Pray, Love. She writes, “Like most humanoids, I am burdened with what Buddhists call the “monkey mind” – the thoughts that swing from limb to limb, stopping only to scratch themselves, spit and howl… [the] problem with all this swinging through the vines of thought is that you are never where you are. You are always digging in the past or poking at the future, but rarely do you rest in the moment… if you are looking for union with the divine, this kind of forward/backward whirling is a problem. There’s a reason they call God a presence – because God is right here, right now.”

I remember in my youth being taught that certain parts of the Bible (like the sermon on the mount) didn’t matter because they would only be fulfilled in Heaven (the Kingdom of God). My whole worldview shifted when I encountered emerging thought that paid attention to the “kingdom of heaven is among you” verses. If God’s Kingdom is a present reality, life become so much more than a longing for the past or future (Arcadia or Utopia). Living in God’s presence is an everyday occurrence. We don’t have to wait for a future perfect Utopia, but can live in the Kingdom now. It’s an overwhelming idea.

The difficulty of course is understanding how exactly that plays out in each person’s life. There are places on this earth that do seem like an Arcadia (fewer that resemble Utopia). Are these sacred places just meant to be places of refreshment and respite? And what about being content in one’s present place? Is it just a matter of the will to find contentment whatever one’s circumstances, or is the longing for “home” actually God calling a person to where she can serve God best? Are all of our desires for Arcadia and Utopia just a longing for a far off heaven, a call to follow God’s kingdom now, or God pushing us to where we are meant to be?

Read other SynchroBlog Entries at –
Steve Hayes at Notes from the Underground
John Morehead at John Morehead’s Musings
Nudity, Innocence, and Christian Distopia at Phil Wyman’s Square No More
Utopia Today: Living Above Consumerism at Be the Revolution
Nowhere Will Be Here at Igneous Quill
A This-Worldly Faith at Elizaphanian
Bridging the Gap at Calacirian
The Ostrich and the Utopian Myth at Decompressing Faith
Being Content in the Present at One Hand Clapping
Eternity in their Hearts by Tim Abbott
Relationship – The catch-22 of the Internet Utopia at Jeremiah’s Blog
U-topia or My-topia? at On Earth as in Heaven
A SecondLife Utopia at Mike’s Musings
Mrs. Brown and the Kingdom of God at Eternal Echoes

Read more

Local Art to be Destroyed

Posted on

A Chicago suburbs landmark, an art instillation called the “Spindle” is facing destruction. Known to the rest of the world from its appearance in the movie “Wayne’s World,” this Berwyn (not Aurora) sculpture consists of eight cars impaled on a silver spike. And it is facing destruction to make room for a Walgreens. Yes, a Walgreens. One of those freestanding drugstores that in a conspiracy theory sort of way have started appearing on the corners of every major intersection in America. And so now instead of merely tearing down local businesses and family owned farm, Walgreens is attacking local art.

I know that the Berwyn sculpture gets a mixed reaction from the locals. Many see it as local icon, a very visible landmark for their city. Its odd, but that’s part of its appeal. Others take the yuppie route saying that its an eyesore that detracts from the beauty of their community. It’s odd and different so therefore it’s bad. They’re also probably the sort of people who complain if the neighbor’s kids leave their toys in the front yard or for other random assaults on their suburban assumptions of beauty and order. The same sort of people as those who called the Eiffel Tower and eyesore and demanded its removal. (obviously I have no opinion on this issue).

So it will be interesting to see how this story unfolds. Will the quirky local art be saved or will it be pushed aside by the rich corporation?

Read more

Thin Places

Posted on

As I continue to ponder the idea of sacred places and a longing for home, I keep coming back to the Celtic idea of “thin places.” CAOL AIT – spots in the world where the physical world and the spiritual world come close, the barrier between them is thin. This idea often refers to holy sites, but also refers to in-between places and times (dawn, dusk, forest edges, the seashore). Apparently in these landscapes that are not quite one thing or another the spirit world has an easier time breaking through. As much as I find the concept of thin places appealing, I’m not entirely sure what I really think.

I remember hearing a very evangelical pastor say in a sermon once that dusk was useless. At dusk one has neither the light of day or the darkness of night, so its obviously useless. My reaction to his words was to invoke the Celtic ideas of thin places – dusk is an in-between time, the time when the fey and fairies enter our world, a time when magic can happen! Not that I necessarily believe in faeries, just in the beauty of the concept. I like the idea of there being specific places or times where one finds it easier to connect with spiritual things, but I also have some theological issues with it.

If I don’t believe in a gnostic dualism that separates the physical and the spiritual and I think that God is present everywhere, how can there exist “thin places”? Would not all places and all times be equally as conducive to spiritual experiences? That is what I’ve always been taught – one can pray whenever and wherever. Pray in the car, pray while you run. One can even apparently find God in a state of the art, aesthetically empty, contemporary church. God truly is everywhere. But even with that theologically concept firmly in my mind, I still see evidence of “thin places.”

Certain circumstances and specific places are known to help people connect with God. Is it all just psychological, and if so what does it really matter? If escaping from the ordinary to a special place helps one put aside the clutter in one’s mind that crowds out God, then yes, God is more accessible in that place. If a person feels more at home – more at peace- in a certain physical location, then yes, they will mostly likely be able to experience God there. So is it just the results of our collective unconscious or consensual imagination that have us all naming the same places as functional “thin places” for us all? Is that how sacred places are formed?

I know I’m just thinking aloud here. And that these are only lighthearted musings in my attempts to reconcile my theology with my romanticism. But there is too much truth in both approaches for this to be a clear either/or. I see this in the resurgence of contemplative practices and experiential worship practiced in many emerging churches. The answers are more complex than many of us protestants were taught to believe. So I will continue to ponder and occasionally think aloud.

Read more