Julie Clawson

onehandclapping

Menu
  • Home
  • About Julie
  • About onehandclapping
  • Writings
  • Contact
Menu

Category: Worship

Worship, Money, Crisis

Posted on October 27, 2008July 10, 2025

I recently saw a promo piece on The History Channel for their show “Cities of the Underworld.”  At first one sees an overview of a busy commercial street teeming with professionals and consumers.  The captioning states – “A pagan ritual is taking place on these streets.  Can’t see it? Look deeper.”  The premise is that some secret society once met in the abandoned tunnels below the city that you can hear all about on the show, but the irony of the commercial struck me.

Of course there is a pagan ritual taking place – the daily oblation of ourselves to the idols of money and stuff.  Now I know there is nothing necessarily pagan or evil with buying, selling, and trading, but the obsessive way we commit our lives to the pursuit of such things reveals a devotion akin to worship.  We acquire stuff and build our wealth often without thought to our religious beliefs and guidelines.  Instead of caring for the least of these among us, we look out for number one.  Instead of loving our neighbor we love our possessions – often at the expense of our very neighbors.  This religion of consumerism isn’t hidden underground; its rituals take place in broad daylight.

The problem is that with the economic crisis the intensity of these rituals doesn’t diminish, in fact they simply becomes more sinister.  People are not giving up on the desire to have more stuff.  They just want to find the stuff more cheaply.  So instead of rethinking our addiction to consumerism and the global impact of our shopping habits, we become more focused on finding the things we want at a lower price (apparently Wal-mart is doing quite well these days).  Chanting our mantras of “it’s all about me,” we face the economic crisis with a determination to live just as well as we always have.

This is truly a worship that glorifies the self.   Feelings of financial strain generally do not have the effect of pushing us towards compassion for those hurting more than we do.  We cut back on our giving and increase our propensity for supporting systems that oppress others for our own personal sake.  We want a cheaper product, which pushes the stores to find cheaper suppliers, who then must find cheaper labor.  And these laborers are the ones who worked to the bone in sweatshops or kept as slaves (the cheapest labor possible) pay the real price.  The strain of the financial crisis trickles down to choke those at the very bottom.

Even amidst the pressures of the economic crisis we need to remember that true worship doesn’t involve rituals of self-seeking consumption that exploits or ignores those around us.  Instead as we are told in Isaiah that the faithful are implored to “spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed.”  So instead of using troubling financial times as an excuse to turn inwards perhaps it could motivate us to lend a caring hand to others who are hurting.  Abandoning our self-centered pagan rituals in favor of loving our neighbor might perhaps be the best response we can give to a hurting world in crisis mode.

Read more

Singing Theology

Posted on October 5, 2008July 10, 2025

So earlier today I was doing that whole sing/dance/abandon all dignity thing with Aidan in the nearly futile attempt to entertain him (i.e. keep him from screaming). The iPod was in and I was going with whatever song shuffled through – mindlessly singing words I’ve heard dozens of times. So after “I Kissed a Girl” and “Carry on My Wayward Son” (seriously apropos for babies…) I launched into Jars of Clay’s version of “I’ll Fly Away.” I was halfway through the song doing the chubby baby leg disco when I thought – “I love this song, I know it by heart, but I don’t affirm this eschatology.”

Now growing up I always heard the lecture in church that one shouldn’t lie in song. You know the whole “don’t tell God you love him and want to give your life to him unless you really mean it.” Just because the words are powerpointing across the screen and everyone is singing doesn’t give you license to lie to God. Over the last few years I took that sort of idea to heart, but pushed it beyond the personal spiritual application to a theological level. If I had an issue with the theology or message of a song, I just wouldn’t sing it. And in all truth it surprised me how many hymns and praise choruses had me shutting my mouth for one line or another. It wasn’t so much that I didn’t want to lie, but that I didn’t want to be compelled or manipulated into affirming things I didn’t believe just because everyone was doing it.

What amused me today was that while I had no problem belting out the lyrics to “I Kissed a Girl” or “Puff the Magic Dragon” (although I have never kissed a girl or frolicked with a dragon), being untrue to myself theologically did bother me. I am not a dualist eagerly awaiting the day I can leave this mortal life and escape to God’s celestial shores. I don’t buy that theology, but, I realized, as with the other songs I can affirm a certain story. The song’s origin in the story of slaves seeking a joyous end to a harsh and oppressive life makes sense and is something I can affirm. It becomes about telling the story of particular theology in its historical context.

Affirming and celebrating those particulars in such ways is part of my journey of the moment. Overcoming the sour taste leftover from those particulars being pushed as absolutes is a harder endeavor. But primarily I’m enough of a pragmatist these days that whatever calms the baby gets affirmed in my book – so I just kept on singing.

Read more

Life of the Mind – Part 1

Posted on February 19, 2008July 10, 2025

Over the next few days I want to put some thoughts out here on my blog about the life of the mind. And yes, I like to think and read books so this will in many ways be a defense of intellectualism. I’ve just encountered various accusations recently that attempt to ridicule or at least make one feel guilty for being intellectual, so I feel the need to address some of those ideas.

The first topic came up as part of our conversation at up/rooted last night. The accusation what that emerging church leaders are all too intellectual and focused on cognitive ideas. They try to change people’s hearts by presenting ideas instead of helping people have a relationship with with Jesus. It was mentioned that the books and the blogs are heavy on theology and ideas and not on worship and contemplation. These books give theological reasons for why we should say help the poor instead of encouraging us to pray for conviction or just go out and serve. Someone also mentioned that they were really disappointed in how at the Midwest Emergent Gathering last summer all the big name leaders skipped out on every worship session to blog or hang out. In essence, the charge was that the EC is just about ideas and not about being in a relationship with God.

I personally saw some underlying truth in that argument, but disagreed with some of its assumptions. The basic flaw in the argument, in my opinion, is the assumption that people can’t worship or connect with God through books, discussion, and theology. Those things apparently teach one about God, but only prayer, contemplation, and worship can help one actually get to know God. This is an argument that I’ve heard many times before and one I strongly disagree with. I do connect to God through things like books and theology and I find things like singing and contemplation forced and hollow. I’ve been told my whole life that the only real way to connect with God is through those acts and that there must be something wrong with me if it wasn’t working for me. And when I did draw closer to God through intellectual pursuits I was informed that I wasn’t really engaged in worship or true relationship. It all served to make me feel rather inadequate as a Christian. But those assumptions just aren’t true. My experience and the experiences of others I know demonstrate that intellectual paths are just as meaningful and valid ways of relating to God as the more emotional and mystical. Discovering things about God and what he has done does connect us to him. I won’t deny that basic reality any longer and I refuse to let others invalidate my spirituality just because it doesn’t look the same as theirs.

That said, I think there are a lot fewer people who connect to God intellectually than emotionally or mystically. And most of us who do connect intellectually have ended up in positions where our voices are the ones that get heard – pastors, speakers, bloggers, writers… When people hear emerging church leaders, the life of the mind is generally the primary option presented. Add to that the voices accusing us then of not being truly spiritual and problems arise. Unless we want to be utterly ineffective in our message or scare away those with different spirituality languages, more of a balanced perspective needs to be presented. I don’t like the false accusation that I am not spiritual, but I also can’t assume that everyone should connect to God intellectually (although intellectually learning about God is necessary, but that’s another day’s topic).

So what does this mean on a practical level? I think it will take some willingness to accept others by everyone. It might take some leaders affirming practices they might personally find trivial (praise choruses and prayer journals spring to my mind), but it will also take the majority of Christians being willing to expand their conceptions of spirituality as well. Continuing to dichotomize the life of the mind and spirituality is not healthy for the church or the emerging movement. Affirming these different paths to God so to speak may be the only thing that will lead to mutual understanding and appreciation. At least it will acknowledge that God is God and isn’t limited in how he connects with each of us.

Read more

Excellence, Worship, and American Idol

Posted on January 24, 2008July 10, 2025

If you live in USA it is hard to ignore the fact that American Idol is back in full swing for its new season (and stop grumbling about silly television or our worship of popular culture – you know you watch it). As the season gets going viewers are subjected to the horrifically enthralling auditions. Amongst the handful of contestants that can actually sing there are those who are merely there to grasp their 15 seconds of fame (and yes I am still disturbed by the guy in the Princess Leia slave-girl costume). Then there are those who contrary to reality truly believe they have some ability to sing. Their confidence is high, their friends and family have praised their voices, and then they are shocked and generally incredulous when the judges reject them. While I assume the purpose of highlighting such contestants is to mock them, I am left feeling awkward.

While I understand that the driving force behind American Idol is fame, I have to question where the line of “excellence” can be drawn. If a person can’t sing then being famous and having a career based on one’s singing ability isn’t an option. But what about worship? In churches today worship is generally associated with music. If a person can’t sing can they participate in worship? What about lead worship? Does excellence and skill matter in those areas or do enjoyment and giving glory to God trump the ability requirement?

I know in many ways this is a silly question (of course if people want to sing to God they should be able to), but as I watched yet more worship leaders and choir members get mocked on American Idol the question came to mind. I know I’ve personally sat through some very painful “special music” moments and have sat silently through worship because the leader was so bad it was impossible to sing along. There is the part of me that wants to be generous and accept the messiness of it all. I want to say that having a good heart and a willingness to try is more than enough. But then I find myself squirming to some off-key song, or faltering sermon, or sappy poem, or amateur art, or stumbling dance done in the name of worship and I don’t know what to think. Do I lie and pretend it’s good?  Do I tell the truth and defeat the entire purpose of the act?  And this isn’t some snobbish condescension about someone not being classically trained or having sufficient(??) theological training, just that I’m so uncomfortable that I often go hide in the bathroom to escape. (and before I go further let me say that I know I’ve forced others to suffer through my junk, so this is about me too).

Maybe I’m just self-centered and judgmental and I should just shut-up and deal with it. I’m sure the typical poor singer given the mic on a Sunday morning doesn’t harbor delusions of grandeur, so I should just be more generous in appreciating sincere effort. This isn’t about me, it’s about God, so I just need to get over my distraction. Or perhaps I can lay all the blame at the church’s obsession with performance driven worship. (Come on, if it’s a performance at least it can be good…) In our misunderstanding of what it means to worship we’ve laid expectations on it that were never meant to be there.  I honestly don’t know.  Is this just me being weird or is this a question others have as well?

Read more

Sacred Space and Revolving Christmas Trees

Posted on November 25, 2007July 10, 2025

Recently Scot McKnight over at Jesus Creed posted some thoughts that touched on the physical aspects of churches and how that affects our worship. While that conversation focused on whether the church’s sacred space hinders the diversity of the church, I had to reflect on just how important space really is for worship.

I understand that the space one enters into in a church can set the tone for worship. Very different messages are sent with a room full of stained glass and pews all oriented to a pulpit as compared to a room full of couches arranged in a circle. The latter focuses one on receiving blessing, instruction, and edification from those privileged to occupy the pulpit. There are benefits to such an arrangement as it can serve to draw one’s attention to grander things outside of oneself. The former arrangement of couches invites community and promotes equity in the worship experience which is welcomed by some but avoided as uncomfortable by others. But regardless of how the worship is approached, it remains worship in both settings.

So while worship might be different depending on the setting of where you worship, I am uncomfortable with the idea that any particular setting could create better or worse worship. Is God more present or more glorified in a cathedral in Rome of hand-hewn stone and stained glass to lift one’s eyes to the heavens or in a tin roofed cement block structure in Haiti where all the hymns are sung in French (not Creole) because all they could get are cast off hymnals from France? How about in a mega-church stadium that seats 10,000 with the only symbol present being an American flag or in a rented bar with neon signs and pin-up girl calenders on the wall? Sure the theologies may differ and each church might be far from the path of actually serving God, but if individuals in each church are seeking to worship God in their particular setting, I can’t see how a value judgement could be made as to whose worship is better.

These sort of discussions remind me a bit too much of the questions the woman at the well asked Jesus regarding whether one should worship on the mountain or in Jerusalem. Jesus of course replied, “Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.” (John 4:23) So while aesthetics and setting and the message our worship space sends are all valid considerations, if discussions of such get in the way of our worshiping the Lord in spirit and in truth, then we’ve run amok somewhere. And for that I am grateful because our worship space today was filled with tacky 1980’s Christmas decorations and revolving Christmas trees.

As a small church plant we rent space that is during the week a community center for mentally handicapped adults. It is a very functional space that retains a living room feel (couches and all that), but it is, um, a bit tacky. It has bright orange carpet and the decor generally consists of artwork done by the clients (generally of the crayon and gluestick variety). But then there are the holiday decorations. In mid-September we walked in one Sunday to discover Halloween gone wild. An entire pumpkin patch had planted itself in the foyer, plastic ghosts, skeletons, witches, and black cats graced the walls, and fake spider webs hung from every available space possible (complete with glow-in-the-dark spiders). We laughed about how we must be the first (pseudo)evangelical church ever to have a sanctuary decorated with witches and ghosts and just dealt with it. Well today the Christmas decor appeared – animatronic caroling dolls, fake snow, glitz and glitter, and revolving Christmas trees. The place looked like a department store circa 1985. But it’s still our worship space. And no matter how tacky the orange carpet, or plastic skeletons, or revolving trees may be, I can’t see how any of those things would make our worship any less pleasing to God. Sure there may be issues of whether such things prevent others from wanting to worship with us (which is an interesting discussion), but if our worship is done in spirit and truth no amount of plastic kitsch can diminish it’s validity or power.

Read more

Up/Rooted Panel Discussion – Authenticity and Worship

Posted on September 21, 2007July 9, 2025

Last night the Chicago Emergent cohort, Up/Rooted, hosted a panel discussion on the topic “the emerging church critique of evangelicalism.” On the panel were Scot McKnight, Wayne Johnson, and David Fitch. The entire evening’s discussion should eventually be available as a podcast and I’m sure someone with more patience than I will post a nice summary somewhere. (update – sorry no forthcoming podcast, something about it not recording and there is a decent summary here) For now, I will point you to Dave Fitch’s blog where he posted a few of the ideas he covered last night. Scot also hinted that he will be blogging about the ideas he presented as well. Needless to say it was a stimulating discussion that did a fairly decent job of summing up most of the emerging critiques of evangelicalism. But of course the conversation didn’t stop there as the presenters worked in their critiques of emerging/emergent as well.

I heard a lot I liked last night, a number of things I disagreed with, and a few things I didn’t understand. I of course didn’t ask any questions there, because, well, I hate asking questions in that sort of setting. One can’t engage in real dialogue and the question generally gets misunderstood anyway (as evidents by the “let’s see who can ask the most convoluted and confused question” game the audience seemed to be playing last night). But given the joyous freedoms on the blogworld, I can post my thoughts, disagreements and questions here and, in good emerging/postmodern fashion, engage with dialogue with anyone who is so inclined. So I’ll try to post my random thoughts on this panel discussion here over the next week or so. That said, let’s jump right in and talk about…

Worship. In his initial presentation on the emerging critique of evangelicalism, Wayne Johnson focused on the aspect of worship. While he thought that the EC has done a good job in it’s critique of consumer, seeker driven worship, he also pointed out a few weaknesses in the EC in regards to worship. In setting up his discussion on worship, he defined the concept of worship as “our response to God’s revelation in the world” (not a direct quote, but close I think). I like that definition, but not his subsequent assertion that primary forms of worship should then be the Word and the Table. Sure those are important aspects of God’s revelation, but the God I worship is a lot bigger than just those two things. But I digress… What I really had issue with in his talk was his critique of the emerging emphasis on authenticity.

I know that “authentic” has become a buzz word in the EC and I fully agree that that which is trendy often has no real substance or meaning. And I fully agree that to push one idea of what it means to be authentic (informal, organic…) onto a person who is not those things to begin with kinda misses the point of authenticity. I get that. But then Dr. Johnson claimed that to be authentic is to promote an individualism that hinders the communal act of the body of Christ entering into corporate worship. If we so fine-tune our services into that which is an “authentic” worship experience for us, we run the risk of heightening ethnic, cultural, and generational divisions. We care too much about ourselves and not enough for others.

Don’t get me wrong, I am all for diverse churches and I think our self centered myopic worship wars have caused more harm than good in the church; but, I’m not ready to throw out the concept of “authentic.” If authentic is defined as that which is “true, real, and genuine,” would not the opposite be that which is “false or a lie”? In emerging critiques of evangelical worship (and in evangelical critiques of traditional worship for that matter) there has been a lot of talk about “just going through the motions.” In other words, participating in a false and meaningless form of worship – lying to God. I don’t think anyone wants to promote lying in one’s response to God as a good thing, but the question arises of if lying to God is justified if it helps build community. Is it okay to be inauthentic and false in how one responds to God if it helps build up a diverse body of Christ?

I honestly have no idea if that is at all what Dr. Johnson was intending with his thoughts, but it is what immediately popped into my mind. Does serving others involve making weighted moral choices like that or am I way off base here? Maybe I’m just too seeped in the evangelical definition of sin as personal choice as opposed to a wider more emerging view that involves the community as a whole. Maybe I just really have an issue with the whole concept of the submission of my will to that of other people. But I can’t bring myself to say that it is okay to engage in false acts of worship solely for the good of the community. I see no problem with remaining silent and not making a scene about it if one can’t participate, but I can’t justify engaging. But maybe that’s just me. What are your thoughts? What’s your take on this whole issue of authenticity and worship?

Read more

Prayer Synchroblog

Posted on August 26, 2007July 9, 2025

Kneeling
by R. S. Thomas

Moments of great calm,
Kneeling before an altar
Of wood in a stone church
In summer, waiting for the God
To speak; the air a staircase
For silence; the sun’s light
Ringing me, as though I acted
A great rôle. And the audiences
Still; all that close throng
Of spirits waiting, as I,
For the message.
Prompt me, God;
But not yet. When I speak,
Though it be you who speak
Through me, something is lost.
The meaning is in the waiting.

In reflecting on prayer recently I have been drawn to this poem. Prayer in my life at the moment is something that is in many ways undefined. I pray, but often in ways that seem contrived or hollow. It is when I sit in those moments of silence that my communion with God seems most authentic.

To hear from God and to be inspired to speak words of truth and encouragement from God is often something I rush into. My ideas stumble over each other in the burning passion to have something to say. I might throw in a perfunctory prayer – a ritual to be performed – out of obligation rather than intentional worship. Real prayer, real communion, goes much deeper than that and is full of silence.

Silence is nebulous. It is uncomfortable. It can’t be quantified. I can’t check off that I spent x number of minutes for my “Quiet Time” and prayer. I can’t go through the mental checklist of praying the ACTS (or CATS) acronym. It was easier when I could, but it still felt hollow.

So I’m learning to accept silence. I don’t understand it. I don’t “do it” well. But I have learned that there is meaning in the waiting. And so I wait in silence.

For other contributions to this synchroblog on prayer check out Lyn or Erin’s blogs.

Update – here’s the list of participants.

Cindy Bryan Teach Me to Pray…Again?
Lyn Hallewell God, Prayer and Me
Erin Word Prayer=Sex with God
Rick Meigs Prayer Helps that Get Me Deeper
Alan Knox Pray without Ceasing
Julie Clawson Prayer Synchroblog
Heather Synchroblog Prayer
Alex (Heather’s Husband) Prayer Synchroblog II
Lydia How Do You Pray
Che Vachon My Thoughts…
Paul Mayers Praying and Learning to Pray Again
Sonja Andrews The Appearance of Holiness
Jon Peres How Do I Pray?
Paul Walker One Congregation Experiments with Emerging Prayer
Susan Barnes Synchroblog: How Do You Pray?
Brother Maynard Fear Not the Silence
Nate Peres How Do I Pray?
Barry Taylor Synchroblog:How Do You Pray?
Emerging Grace Clearance Sale on Intercession Books
Jim Lehmer Synchroblog – How Do You Pray?
Lew A How Do You Pray? – Synchroblog
Jon Hallewell When I’m Spoken To
Deb Prayer Synchroblog
Barb Prayer without Throwing Things
Patti Blount How Do I Pray
Doug Jones How I Pray
Glenn Hagar Prayer Phases
Pam Hogeweide The Art of Blue Tape Spirituality
Mary How Do I Pray?
Rhonda Mitchell Prayer SynchroBlog
John Smulo Praying Naturally
Rachel Warwick How Do You Pray?
Barbara Legere How to Not Pray
Jonathan Brink Posture – Sitting With My Daddy
Andy How Do I Pray
Cynthia Clack How Do I Pray
Makeesha Fisher The Mystery of Prayer

Read more

Emerging Church Demographics

Posted on August 6, 2007July 9, 2025

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

Experiential Worship vs. Simple Living

Posted on July 24, 2007July 8, 2025

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

Thin Places

Posted on July 9, 2007July 9, 2025

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
  • Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Next
Julie Clawson

Julie Clawson
[email protected]
Writer, mother, dreamer, storyteller...

Search

Archives

Categories

"Everything in life is writable about if you have the outgoing guts to do it, and the imagination to improvise." - Sylvia Plath

All Are Welcome Here

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook
Facebook
fb-share-icon
Instagram
Buy me a coffee QR code
Buy Me a Coffee
©2026 Julie Clawson | Theme by SuperbThemes