At Home Anywhere

  What does it really take to feel at home in a place that is not your home?  This is one of the worrisome questions that presented itself when Kaye and I started to contemplate and then pursue the idea of downsizing and moving out of our house of 40 years.  We were not used to moving, but we were smart enough to know that there would be challenges that could either make or break our success.

  Twenty years ago, at the encouragement of our three daughters, I arranged a one-year leave of absence from the small town public school system where I had been teaching since graduating from college.  We had decided to move up our dream of visiting mission fields after retirement and offering our help wherever we could.  The girls had heard us talking and had realized that if we waited until I retired, they would be grown up and moved away.  They didn't want to miss out, so they said why not do it now?  And we did.

  We took positions (I taught 6th grade, Kaye was the librarian) at an international school in the middle of the Dominican Republic, and we rented our house to friends who were "in between" houses, and we took off for one school year, and it changed our lives.  Our kids have been spoiled for the ordinary ever since and are all frequent international travelers.

Home, Home-Home or Home-Home-Home

  A while after settling in to our new habitation in Santiago, we noticed that we needed a new way of designating our location during our conversations with each other.  We were spending the Thanksgiving holiday at a beachfront village and were confusing each other by referring to the hotel room as Home when returning from the beach - then the house in Santiago as Home, and then also making the same reference to our Home in Michigan.

The Simses at "Home" in a foreign country, ('89)

  Our youngest, 8 years old at the time, finally solved the problem:   "Home" was our hotel room, "Home-Home" was our house in Santiago, and "Home-Home-Home" was our old place in Michigan.  And that really did help us understand exactly what we were referring to when we talked about "Home".

Feeling at Home Somewhere Else

  So, in our current transition, we can look back on the experiences and challenges of moving away from our familiar home 20 years ago and setting up a new place to call home - in a foreign country no less.  But our lives have changed in the meantime, the kids are gone, and it is just the two of us.  And the answers to the original question are becoming clearer to us now that we have been out of our house for more than half a year.  Here are some of the things we have discovered to be part of our sense of home:

• Being together.  The most familiar thing about our new locations - whether in the RV in a campground or the log cabin or a hotel room - is that we still have each other.  We pursue our adventures together, and that makes every challenge or adjustment more manageable.  When someday one of us is gone, I'm not sure how much spirit of adventure will be left for the other.
• A decent bed.  When we were tucked into the loft of the little log cabin, we had a king size bed up under the eaves that was comfortable and welcoming every night.  Now that we've moved into the larger historical log house, we brought that bed with us, and it's wonderful.  In hotel rooms we seem to be blessed every time, but in the camper there is not as much room.  We are saving to upgrade the camper, because a good bed is important.
• Internet.  We both spend a fair amount of time on the web, Kaye for her writing, me for photography and journalism, and both of us for communication.  We may have scant internet access in the beach hideaway we have reserved in the tropics this winter but have decided that we cannot book places for very long that are off the grid.  It may happen in the national park campgrounds that we plan to visit next winter, but we will have to come to town often.  To connect and upload and communicate.  It's just that important.
• Family and Friends.  Since the kids have left and found husbands and jobs elsewhere, we find ourselves with an innate need to connect with them and with friends quite often.  Again, the internet has helped satisfy this need, and we are in touch with the kids almost daily through Facebook and email.  And we meet up with them in person whenever we have a chance.  We still have friends nearby when we are at home in Michigan, and we are often making new friends in the places we visit.
• Food.  It's interesting that this becomes an issue more at holiday times, because there are certain foods that are essential to the spirit of a holiday, for some psychological reasons, I guess.  Rather like snow is essential to a Christmasy feeling for all northerners.  And it's hard to make Christmas cookies in an RV, because the counter space is non-existent.  So adaptation is necessary.  Fortunately, we have been able to visit one of our daughters and make cookies there if we want to.  In foreign countries, familiar foods are harder to find and their absence can contribute to homesickness.  I don't know why every country doesn't have Kraft American cheese slices, but they don't.  Go figure.
• Favorite Tools.  Even some of the expert travelers we have read on the web have admitted that they have favorite cooking utensils that they carry in their luggage wherever they go.  Some kitchens and hotel rooms don't provide the stuff that is the most familiar to you, so you have to carry your own.  With me it's a small flashlight that I like to put on the night table wherever I sleep.  It somehow provides a sense of security and preparedness that offsets the unfamiliar air of a new environment.

  These are some of the essentials that we have found to be contributing factors to the sense of home that everybody needs.  I think we are doing a pretty good job of mixing our away-from-home adventures with our times of staying at home in the cabin and enjoying the security of the familiar.  And the cabin really does feel like home to us now.

  What is it that makes you feel at home when you are away from home?

Alone in the Middle Part 3 Creation-Evolution

A very old Spiral Galaxy.  Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.com

  Our beliefs are assembled by a number of key processes, the major ingredients being experience, knowledge, and intellect (or logic).  I believe in miracles because I have experienced them, so they are logical to me.  If I had no experience with miracles, I might dismiss them as fiction, unless of course, I gained knowledge of miracles by learning of them from the testimony of a trusted witness, perhaps a friend who had been healed of cancer or something in a miraculous way.

  When it comes to beliefs about creation or evolution, we have to rely heavily on logic, because none of us have much knowledge or experience to apply, since we weren't around at the beginning of the world or at the last ice age.

  So here we go:  I have a lot of trouble with the logic - or illogic - of the most popular versions of both creationism and evolution.

CREATION:

  Let's talk about creation first.  It is not logical to me that the universe was created in six  24-hour earth days, as most literal creationists maintain (and some of them quite vehemently).  In fact, it is quite impossible, if one takes the Genesis account literally, since the sun was formed on day four of the creation process (Gen 1:14-19).  Scientifically, day and night are produced by the rotation of the earth and the light from the sun, a sun which didn't exist until day four.  So, the first three days of creation were apparently not typical earth days.  What kind of days were they?

  So those who try to be literal about the Genesis account, saying, "The Bible says it, and I believe it", are not really taking it literally, because a literal reading renders a six-day creation quite impossible.

  Twenty years ago, my dad, a minister in a conservative evangelical denomination, was teaching creation theories to teenagers in seminars at the church camp every summer.  One of the most sensible to me, of several interpretations of creation that he presented, was a theory called the Day-Age Theory.  In this theory, the first days of creation are taken to be ages of time, perhaps thousands or even millions of years in length.  As we know, in other references the Bible says that "a day is as a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is as a day." (2 Peter 3:8)  This made a lot of sense to me, because I had studied geology in college (yes, Christian college), and had concluded that the earth must be very old.  Millions of years old.  There's no other logical conclusion to arrive at when observing the earth's strata, unless God is a trickster, which I believe he is not.  He did not plant dinosaur bones in the rocks to test our faith.  They are there, under millions of years of sediment, because sedimentary rock is a product of the depositing of debris over a very long time.

  The Day-Age theory allowed for the fact that the universe could be very old, perhaps 13 billion years old as astronomers are now saying, without undermining my faith in God.  Another illogical aspect of young earth theory or this supposed literal translation of Genesis 1, is the idea that God, who has been around for a long time, would wait until eight thousand years ago to create stuff.  Christians all assert that God has always existed, having no beginning and no end, so why would he wait billions of years until he got bored and finally create the universe and man?  That view always seemed a bit humanistic to me, if you will, very man-centered.

  Once a friend of mine suggested that God had created the light from those distant quasars already on the way at the time of creation.  He meant that the light that we see coming to us from those bodies has not really been on its way for 13 billion years, God only made it look that way.  But why?  So we could believe in a six-day creation?  Again, is God a trickster?  Isn't God truth?  Why would he create illusions to pull the wool over our eyes?  This idea is just not logical.

  Creationists tend to approach their views with an all-or-nothing mentality.  In fact, many young earth creationists will question your salvation if you do not believe it.  The Day-Age Theory presents a solution that is neither heretical nor illogical or unscientific.  It allows science and faith to co-exist.  I like it, and when I first received my NIV (New International Version of the Bible), I discovered that Biblical translation allows for it too, because when I read Genesis 1:2  I discovered a footnote for this verse: "Now the earth was formless and empty." The footnote read, "became" for "was".  "The earth became formless and empty."  And there it was, some accommodation for ice ages, long eons of time when the earth existed as a wasteland before it was recycled by God to make it inhabitable for modern humans who were created (re-created?) whole epochs later in Genesis 1:26.

  The Day-Age Theory makes sense to me.  It is logical, Biblical, and scientific.  And I love science.

  EVOLUTION:

  Evolutionists employ the same blind faith that creationists do, because, as with creation,  they have not experienced evolution - they weren't there when it happened.  Evolutionary processes require very long stretches of time, and the life of a scientist is too short to observe it happening.  They must rely on the evidence they find in nature, evidence that is often hard to find because it's been lost over the millions of years, leaving huge gaps that can't be explained.

  Their favorite reply to questions about these gaps is, "We believe that science will one day find the answer to that puzzle."  It's a very unsatisfactory answer to me, the corresponding counterpart to the creationist's dismissive reply, "God said it, so I believe it," which is really no answer at all, since what God said in the Bible can be interpreted in a hundred different ways.

  And evolutionists have the same all-or-nothing approach that young earth creationists do.  With atheists, it is even more essential, since there can't be any room for a Creative Designer, so this requires the dismissal of a lot of troubling questions and the putting off of a lot of inquisitive thought.

  "How do you explain miracles and the paranormal?"

  "We believe science will someday find the answer to that question."

  "How do you account for the absence of the millions of missing links - these transitional species that should have been found in the fossil record by now?"

  "We believe science will eventually find the answer to that question."

  Hmm... (skeptical sidewise squinty look from me here).

  One of the biggest evolutional leaps that I have had trouble with has to do with the impossible evolution of the sexual reproduction system.  The last time I checked, it seemed that all - and I mean 100% - of the components for reproduction have to be present and accounted for and fully operational in the first generation... or there can be no second generation.  You don't have the luxury of millions of years of adaptation for this to happen.  It is totally impossible to evolve the reproductive systems, male and female, in one generation.  Maybe there was some other system already in place for procreation?  Budding, perhaps?  Like the amoeba?  No. There are many things that can't be evolved, and sexual reproduction is one of them.  In my mind that constitutes a major gap in evolutionary theory and a giant leap of faith if you're okay with it.  I think you have to want very much for something to be true to ignore such glaring problems in your theory, and I question the objectivity of those who do it.

  "We believe that science will one day find the answer for that question."

  Sorry, but I can't muster that much blind faith.  The idea that highly complex systems could evolve from ignorant predecessors is counterintuitive.  It's not logical.

MY HYBRID THEORY:

  I do not have an all-or-nothing stance on creation or evolution.  In matters of physics and geology and energy and matter, I agree with scientists who say the universe is old, very old.  Because I believe that God is very old.  The Big Bang is an acceptable explanation for the origin of the universe, initiated by a powerful Creator.  It makes sense, it's Biblical, and it is consistent with my knowledge of who God is and what he is like:  Old.  And it doesn't diminish his power in the least.

  In matters of biology, I am a creationist.  I think there was a definite point at which every class of organisms began.  I don't believe that real viable transitional forms - missing links -will ever be found, although I will allow for major adaptations within classes of animals and plants.  Shoot, when I look at a photograph of a caveman's skull I recognize people I've seen in my lifetime.  Neanderthal  man was in my 10th grade algebra class, and his name was Alfred. I know, because his head was shaped exactly like that, and when he bit into his sandwich at lunch, his bite was square shaped, very ape-like.  Millions of years of evolution were lost on Alfred.  I'm not kidding.

  

  Okay, I have only brushed the surface.  This has been a very simple and concise explanation of my basic views on the subject, nothing very complex.

   But let me add one more thing.  I don't think it's fair to ridicule people who don't hold the same views as me.  I have heard stories of students being mocked in class by teachers who dismiss their simple questions about evolution science.  If this has really happened, I expect that the obvious is true: this professor doesn't have the answers.  Maybe there aren't any logical answers.  Ridicule is a weapon that is wielded by insecure folks who are standing on a platform of uncertainty.  It would be more honest to admit to the uncertainty, but to be fair, economics may be at play here as well.  Secular scientists are human beings, and job security is important to them.  They don't get respected positions without towing the evolutionary party line.  Of course, it's the same in religious institutions.  Teachers who do not sign the doctrinal statement on creation do not get the job.  If they have questions, they must keep them to themselves, because their job security may depend on their ability to be quiet and stay under the radar.

  Yep, there's a lot of politics in the struggle between creation and evolution.  Fortunately, there are guys like me who have nothing to lose who will put it all out there and question the dogma of both sides so that those who come behind will not be so afraid to ask questions and challenge the logic of a given ideology.  To them I would say, if an idea you hear in the classroom doesn't make sense, question it.  And do the same with what you hear in church.  Institutions, by their very nature, are inclined to perpetuate poop.

  Have a nice epoch.

Alone in the Middle, Part 2 - Religion

  This is the second entry in my series, "Alone in the Middle", in which I am describing a few settings where I am a misfit.  Part 1 was on Politics and can be viewed by scrolling down to the next post below.

  

Robert on the Road.  Alone.

  When it comes to religion, again I am on the outside, and not to my regret but rather to my delight.  I believe that the institutions of the church are not what God had in mind and are man-made entities.  This doesn't make them inherently evil as some of my friends maintain, it just predisposes them to be infected by the sinful inclinations of man, starting with the early churches and increasing exponentially with Constantine in the fourth century when he first established Christianity as the state religion.

  In practice and orthodoxy, I am neither a conservative nor a liberal, religiously speaking, since I am not a participant in any church or denomination.  The Church Universal that is all believers, or the Body of Christ, exists and functions both within and without the religious institutions.  There are wonderful Christians in every church, and there are wonderful Christians who never go to church.

  I am a part of a growing movement in the western world that is a modern exodus from organized church.  In fact, the only church group that is growing in America is the house church movement, and it defies categorizing.  Many have tried to describe it, but with varying success, since there is no central leader or spokesman other than Christ, it is virtually void of hierarchy, and the doctrines and practices vary from one house to the next.  There are characteristics which seem to be common to most house churches, starting with the tenets of the Apostles' Creed but then diverging from there to a refreshing diversity that encompasses a plethora of ideas.

  There is also a plethora of critics who have sought to demonize the movement, and this is not surprising, as humans just normally resist change, and especially religious humans.  Some critics say it is heretical, but the same was said of Christ when he departed from the established religion of his day.  Many of the exiles who are part of this migration maintain that it is the next great movement that God has initiated, since the institutional church has largely lost its way.  In their thinking - and some of them have said this:  Jesus has left the building - and we're following Him.

  The church has become something of a political party with its own unique platform characterized by hypocrisy, bigotry, criticism, and legalism.  It is infected with a general oppressive air that demeans women, the underprivileged, and gays.  And all in the name of Christ who was a friend of women, the poor, and was often called the Friend of sinners.  No wonder so many have left with a bad taste in their mouths.  I think Jesus wants to gag as well, and so he has staged a modern day exodus to rival the original exodus of his people from their slavery in Egypt.

  One of the endemic tyrannies of the organized church is its powerful addiction to the doctrine of hierarchy, an oppressive orthodoxy specifically banned by Christ himself (Matt 20:25-28).   To many it is the cardinal sin of the church that victimizes millions every day.  I would say that at least it is the leaven of the Pharisees that has worked its way through the whole batch.  Jesus said the leaven of the Pharisees was hypocrisy, which makes me ask the obvious question: How is it not hypocrisy for any Protestant to preach submission to authority in the church when the entire Protestant tradition was born out of protest against church hierarchy?  The word Protestant means, "One who protests".  By teaching submission to authority, you deny your Protestant roots.  Yet millions cower under this dogma every Sunday having never realized the hypocrisy of it.

  In his book, Was Church God's Idea?, Marc Winter says, "So much of the devil's subversion, of those assemblies who are called by the name of Christ, has been through the useful tool of titles. When Jesus said, call no man "Teacher, or Father", I think He meant do not give positional headship to any man, that position belongs to Christ alone. When Jesus said it is finished, we no longer needed ANY human intermediary. Now we ALL are a kingdom of priest. Do not let a human usurping Christ's headship, via their title, interfere with you hearing God's voice."

  Watchman Nee is another scholar and writer who asserts that whenever we designate a leader in the church, we displace the headship of Christ.*

  

  But my own philosophy on the displacement of Christ by the organized church points to legalism as the ultimate culprit, a salvation earned by man's own self-righteousness.  The work of Christ is freedom (Gal.5:1), but the work of the church is slavery to a new kind of law that replaces the Old Testament law but that is just as oppressive and bypasses the cross of Christ.  Most Christians just don't get it: we are living in the age of grace and are free in Christ.  "By grace we are saved, not of works, lest any one boast (Eph. 2:8)."   There is no list of rules to live by, no law but the law of love.  "The entire law is summed up in a single command, 'Love your neighbor as yourself'" (Gal. 5:14)  We are at liberty to  experience Christ more fully every day, and it's not done through human effort.  The church cannot save.  In fact, all too often it does the opposite: it condemns us to an alternate hell of human effort, the same as every other religion in the world.

  To some who are reading, my position sounds really liberal, doesn't it?  And by definition it is, since the word means "marked by generosity: openhanded, free from bigotry".  In that case, I don't mind being identified as a liberal, as I'm thinking that  Jesus was the original liberal.  He came to free us from the law, from legalism, from an obligation to obey the rules.  He became our righteousness so we are accepted by God.  Unconditionally.

  If not, then the cross of Christ is good for nothing.  And if the cross is good for nothing, than the church is also good for nothing more than a social gathering, so either way we are in for a good time.  Rejoice!  And be free!

  So this kind of talk is rejected by religious conservatives... and liberals as well but for different reasons.  Either way that makes me a reject.  A reject from all religious institutions.  But I'm not really Alone in the Middle like the Monkey in the Middle, 'cause I'm not even in the game.  Thankfully.

  I reject Christendom.  I embrace true Christianity:  Jesus Only.

* Watchman Nee in his book, The Normal Christian Church.

Alone in the Middle - Part 1 - Politics

Oddball?  Or goofball?

  I am a misfit, a non-conformist, an oddball, a foreigner in my own country.  As a child I was a loner at school, and I got used to being alone in the middle of a crowd.  It must have been a sort of foreshadowing if not a preparation for my adult life, because I still don't seem to fit very well in a lot of settings.

Politics

  The shunning by my friends is especially evident to me during an election year.  In a conversation about politics I have few comrades, since I do not have an allegiance to any political party.  My candidate doesn't exist.  During every election campaign I hear the rallying cry, "Vote your values!"  and I realize again, that if matters of conscience govern my political involvements, than I cannot vote at all, because the major parties in my country represent values that I think are a long way from what Jesus would want.  As a life-long pacifist, I cannot vote for either of the major political parties in America.

  I cannot vote for a Democrat because they support abortion and are too militant and put the interests of America over the interests of citizens of foreign countries on their own soil, basically trespassing on foreign lands around the world.  Jesus said to love your enemies and do good to those who abuse you.  This flies in the face of military retaliation against terrorists.

  I cannot vote for a Republican because they are even more militant than the Democrats and seem eager to advance the national interests, exploiting the citizens of other countries to do so.

  Republicans also seem to have little interest in helping the poor, either at home or abroad.  They yell, "Socialism!" if government programs are proposed to spread out the wealth.  But Jesus helped the poor.  A simple look at the New Testament reveals that the early Christians were all about sharing the wealth in a sort of sanctified socialism that was aimed at making sure nobody went hungry - and nobody had too much.  It was nothing like capitalism, but it was Christ-like.

  I'm not a Christian conservative, because I don't think it would be a good idea to put prayer back in the schools or the Ten Commandments on the wall of the courthouse.  Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution and prevents any religion from levying its beliefs and practices on the unbelieving citizen.  If Christian prayer is permitted in school then so would be Muslim prayer.  A fair compromise would have to be reached.  Hmm, maybe Christian prayer on Mondays, Muslim on Tuesdays, Hindu on Wednesday, Satanist on Thursdays and Atheist on Fridays.  That oughta work.  No really, it's best to keep religion out of the schools and the government.

  And on the flip side of that, I think it's best to keep the government and politics out of religion.  I think it's a bad idea (and against the law) for preachers to speak on political issues as they alienate their constituents who are of a different persuasion.  One of the major reasons that people are leaving the church is that it has become too political.  Voters should not be made to feel that they are partnering with the devil if they want to vote contrary to what their pastor says or if they see that there are other valid issues to be considered than just abortion and gay rights.

  One other observation about religious conservatives: They are the nastiest, meanest people in America during an election year.  Check Facebook to verify this.  Yep, the most unloving, unChrist-like people I know are conservative Christians.  The Bible is clear that God puts governments in place and Christians are to respect their government leaders (Romans 13:1).  But is that what you see happening among your Christian friends on Facebook or at breakfast at the local diner?  Not so much.

  Jesus was not involved in politics during his life on earth.  He seemed more intent on promoting a Kingdom that was above all earthly kingdoms and a citizenship that was not of this world.  He spoke of treating others the way we want to be treated (the Golden Rule) and loving others ahead of ourselves (the second Great Commandment). But that's not the American way.  And it's the opposite of what I see happening in American politics.

  Christians in America equate patriotism with faith in God.  Pacifists in the evangelical church who have the audacity to criticize the war in Iraq or Afghanistan are made to feel as though they are traitors to their country and to God.  That doesn't seem very Christlike.

  

  Okay, so now you see why I am an outcast from all major political groups.  And that's just the beginning; politics is only one of several fields that has me on the outside because of conscience and my ability to think for myself... and my determination to pursue the life of Christ.  Really.  No, not the way the local church preaches it or the way the Republican Party promotes it.  I  mean really!

  There's more coming:

  

  

Alone in the Middle - Part 2 - Religion

  Religiously speaking, I'm neither a conservative nor a liberal.  I think Christianity has reproduced the leaven of the Pharisees in its organized institutions, a virus that permeates every denomination and parish, putting them right back to where religion was when Jesus preached against it.  I'll write about that next time.

Alone in the Middle - Part 3 - Creation/Evolution

  You guessed it, I believe the most popular versions of both creation and evolution are scientifically flawed.  I will tell you what hybrid view I think makes the most sense in this future post.

Alone in the Middle - Part 4 - Topic to be announced

  There are several other ways I'm out of the mainstream; I'll decide later which subject to share.

Redemptions-R-Us

  This is the back side of the previous post in which I complained about the inappropriateness of the pat answers we give when our friends encounter tragedy.  It doesn't feel like "God is good all the time" when we have lost a loved one.  And when we are hurt at the hands of another human being, it's hard to believe that "God is in control".  We know who was in control, and it wasn't God.

  But here's the other side of this thing that I did not address in the previous post: God really does very often seem to redeem tragedy and bring good out of it.  I'm not saying it happens every time, and I'm not saying it's what God had in mind in the first place, but I have personally experienced many times in my life when apparent good has come on the heels of a terrible calamity, rather like the story of Job in the Old Testament, but for me, never on such a grand scale, thankfully.  Job lost his wealth, his family, and his home all in one day, but later it was all restored to him, and several times over.

  One of my favorite names for Jesus is "Redeemer".  I think it's his middle name, perhaps, because this characteristic has been so evident to me so many times in life.  I don't understand how God can relinquish control of his human creation by granting him free will, then when things get totally messed up, employ his redeeming power to save the day.  It's one of the mysteries of existence that seem to be impossible, yet real.

  One small example that is very much on my mind, as it was the catalyst for this blog, was the experience of my own exile from the institutional church.  When my local congregation blew up, forcing 150 exiles into the religious wilderness, it was evidently the result of the selfish actions of a few power mongers in the church leadership who had to have things their way.  They told us that God was in control, but it was obviously not the case; they were firmly in control and expecting the submission of all their underlings (see my earlier posts on Harmful Hierarchy and others).

  I was absolutely sure that God had not had his way, that men's free will had trumped the will of God, and that scores of displaced believers were victimized in the process.  You know this if you have read my earliest posts, 'cause you can see my disgust with the behavior of these people.

  But now, several years after the fact, I am in a place of unimagined freedom.  I have a completely new understanding of the role of the church in the world and the standing of the individual believer with the Lord.

  All my life I sang songs about the glorious freedom of the believer, and while experiencing that freedom in my personal life, I wondered why it didn't seem to exist within the walls of the church.  I would exult in my relationship with the Lord when I was alone, only to have my salvation taken away on Sunday by men who preached a works-based redemption that somehow depended on my ability to pull myself up by my own bootstraps - with God's help, of course.

  Staying outside the walls of the local church has been the best thing that could have possibly happened for my spiritual well-being.  There really is no more condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus and who aren't inside the church building (Romans 8:1 - sort of).  Go figure.  When my friends and I were ejected, we were confused and bewildered at first.  But no more.  We are loving it.

  And here's the thing:  Many of us are wondering if God had this in mind in the first place.  Would he purposely blow up a congregation in order to get us out into the community like he intended?  Did he intentionally harden the hearts of the church leaders like he did with Pharaoh at the original Exodus so that he could accomplish a mini-reenactment at a little country church in rural Michigan?  (Actually this is happening everywhere.)

  Or was this a redemption of a sorry situation where out-of-control church leaders blew up a church and then God brought good out of it anyway?

  We are still not sure, but many of us are saying he meant for this to happen.  One thing is for sure: We are in a wonderful place, and we will never go back to the old life.

  Okay, nobody died in the scenario that I just described, so maybe it wasn't a serious enough example of tragedy being redeemed by God.  But it was a life-changing experience for my friends and me, and it serves to raise the question about how much of the bad that happens to us is the will of God in the first place or whether it is instead, the redeeming work of God bringing good out of evil.

  Anyway, I'm not changing my position on my earlier post; I still think we should be careful to mourn with those who mourn and not devalue their heartache with our pious platitudes.  I just thought I should acknowledge that these pat answers come from somewhere, and maybe they are rooted in the truth.  God really does have the power to bring good from bad, and he often exercises that power.

  Have you seen this happen in your life?  Is this God's built-in antidote for the destruction that's caused by human free will and our existence in a fallen world?

God is Good All the Time - or NOT

   (--or this could be subtitled, "Destructive Pious Platitudes".) 

  We met them at the huge flea market where they had the booth next to ours and were selling a zany assortment of trash and treasure from Model A tires to gooseneck lamps.

  We had been eager to press on with our downsizing and pursue the gypsy life, so in an effort to lighten our load of inventory left over from the Christmas store at our former Christmas tree farm, we had set up shop at the annual Thumb Octagon Barn Fall Festival where we thought our mix of antiques and photo art would be likely to sell to the thousands of visitors. 

  Rick and Mary were in the next booth, and they were as friendly a couple as you might find anywhere, very soft-spoken and unassuming, and we were three days into our four-day weekend of camaraderie, trading watermelons and fried cakes across the tables, before the subject of spiritual journey came up.

  It came about in the most off-handed way, but it seemed as if Rick had been waiting to share all along, and he started into a tragic story, telling of a disastrous head-on crash years ago that had taken the lives of his first wife and 18-month-old daughter.  It seems that some drunken teenagers had been on a wild spree that started as a joy ride that turned into a high speed chase propelled by the police sirens and flashing lights in their rearview mirror, and a few miles down the road, destiny met destiny in a pile of twisted metal and glass where blood and antifreeze ran together to the curb.

  Somehow Rick and his son survived the crash, and shortly the local parish priest arrived at his bedside in the hospital to minister to the broken man in his hour of grief, and that's where Rick's spiritual journey took a drastic turn.

  "This is part of God's plan for you," said the priest in comforting tones, but Rick didn't see any comfort in it, and his heart was repulsed by God's apparent cruelty to him and his family.  After a while he recovered physically, but he never regained the same spiritual fortitude and quietly slipped away from the Catholic Church never to return.

  His theological platform is a simple one now, and it's a long way from the Catholic catechism. "Believe what you want to and believe it well, and you'll be fine," is what he asserts now, and it seems to be working for him, though his second wife, Mary, says she hasn't abandoned her faith but seldom attends church.

Mary & Rick, former Catholics

  Before we parted company, I told Rick that his story was an unusually tragic one, but that in one way it wasn't uncommon in that many folks have been put off by pious platitudes coming out of the mouths of well-meaning friends and family during times of grief.  People don't know what to say, so they revert to the familiar pat answers.

  Kaye and I have both been through cancer a couple of times, and have been surprised at the insensitive things that people say in their eagerness to help.  I told Rick that the Bible says we should "mourn with those who mourn." (Rom. 12:15)  The Bible does not say we should try to cheer each other up when we are going through tragedy.

  Here are some pious platitudes I've heard that have not been all that helpful to me:

• "God is in control."  This really has an entire theological school of thought behind it, but I would simply counter that when God gave man free will, he gave up control.  And so there can be Hitlers and Gaddafi's and drunken teenagers in the world who take the lives of innocent people.  So it may not have been God's will that Rick's wife and child were wiped out in a grinding crash on a lonely blacktop; it was a result of the choices (the free will) of some carousing teenagers high on weed and alcohol.  In the Lord's prayer, when it says, "your will be done on earth as it is in heaven"(Matt.6:10), it alludes to a future time and dispensation when God's will may be done on earth.  Until then, the will of God is very often not done in the world, and many people suffer because of it.
• "God is good all the time, all the time God is good."  This is an American Christianism that comes out of an affluent society without regard for the rest of the hurting world.  Tell the two million Christians who were systematically murdered by the tyrannical government of the Sudan that "God is good all the time" and see the puzzled looks in their eyes.  Tell the descendants of the six million Jews wiped out by Hitler that "God is good all the time", and see if they agree with you.  Tell your friend or family member who has just been told they have terminal cancer that "God is good all the time", and see if you get an affirming nod in return.
• "I don't know how I would get through this without the Lord."  It's been my experience with folks who do not know the Lord, that for the most part they get through things just as well as the faithful.  They just call it luck or fate, not the Lord, and they adjust.  On the other hand, not everybody who has the Lord recovers very nicely either.
• You fill this one in with a Comment below.

  If I'm making a point here it is not whether these statements are true or false; I'm saying that they may not be the best things to bring up when someone is grieving.  People may simply need someone to cry with them.  That's all.  You know, in Bible times when someone lost a loved one, mourners would show up at the house and weep and cry and wail and help the person grieve.  Their job was not to encourage, at least not at first.  Maybe we should revive that old tradition; it might be more appropriate than telling people, "I know how you feel, and believe me, you'll get over it with time."

  Okay then.  Kaye and I have been enjoying the folks we've been meeting on the city streets and country roads this summer, and Rick and Mary were a delight to associate with while at the Octagon Barn Festival.  Oh, and we all made a few dollars too!  We went with two pickup loads and came back with one.  Praise the Lord!  -- or praise the people who needed all that junk we were selling!

Loving Gay Jesus

  Okay, I managed to stay out of the controversy for several days, but finally ran out of patience.  I can't sit by quietly while Christians appear to be so unloving and unChristlike - while thinking they are standing for Christian principles or trying to keep America a "Christian" nation (an urban myth that I wrote about in an earlier blog).

  I'm talking about the whole Chick-fil-A fiasco in which thousands of conservative Christians came out in support of the restaurant owner, Dan Cathy, who came under fire from gays for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech when he made a public declaration of his opposition to gay marriage.  Cathy had also donated millions of dollars to organizations whose main purposes are to oppose gay rights.

  The point that I want to make in this writing is that there is a better way - a more Christlike way - to defend Christian principles, and that is to ask ourselves all over again, "What would Jesus do?" and then thoughtfully and deliberately act on the answer to that question.  Jesus did not judge the sexually immoral in his time; he loved them (Jesus did judge the self-righteous religious leaders of the time).

  In fact, a foundational premise of Christianity is that of love and respect, putting others ahead of ourselves as presented in the Golden Rule and the First and Second Great Commandments.  The Golden Rule says, "Treat others the way you would like to be treated,"(Luke 6:31) and the Great Commandments state, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind, and Love your neighbor as yourself."(Matt. 22:37)

  How is it that human nature - and conservative politics - carry us so far from the heart of Christ?  How are followers of Jesus so naturally inclined to behave in ways that are contrary to his commands?  He says, "Do not judge or you will be judged" (Matt. 7:1) yet we think we are helping Christ when we judge gays.  Exactly what he said not to do.  He said, "Love your enemies, do good to those who abuse you, and bless those who curse you," (Luke 6:27-28) yet in our demonstrations of opposition to gay rights, we very clearly convey to every homosexual, "I hate you."

  Let me be clear:  There is not one gay in America who understood the actions of Chick-fil-A supporters as a demonstration of Christian love.

  Now before you "de-friend" me, let me explain how I got where I am.  There are really four people responsible:  Jesus; my parents, Gene and Betty Sims; and my gay brother, the late Ron Sims.

  Ron came out when he was in his thirties and was HIV positive for fourteen years before he died of AIDS at the age of forty-five.  Fourteen years for the Sims family to live with him, react to him, love him.  My parents set the example of Christ for all of us.  In a very conservative household, as a pastor and wife in a very conservative evangelical denomination, they loved him unconditionally.  They met every one of his gay and lesbian friends that he brought to family gatherings.  They shook hands and hugged every partner he lived with.  They traveled hundreds of miles to visit him in his home and befriended all of his companions.  Never once did my folks preach at him; they saw it as unloving, and besides, as a former champion Bible quizzer, he already knew the references by heart.

  And the rest of us followed their example.  All four of his siblings traveled great distances to be next to him on his death bed.  We hugged him, we sang to him, we held his hands until he breathed his last.

  Those attending him were wide-eyed in astonishment.  As hospice workers in a diverse community, they had attended the passing of many gays, but this was the first where a gay man's entire family were at his side, loving on him till the end.  "They always die alone," they told us, "especially the ones from religious families."

Ron Sims,  1954-1999

  And I thought to myself, "Where is the love of God in that?"  Followers of Christ, of all people, born and bred in the church, taught to memorize the Golden Rule on the heels of John 3:16, should be able to summon a little more of the love of Jesus from deep down in their hearts.  That's what Jesus was all about.

  So this is why I have gay friends.  And this is why I have muslim friends (That's another story).  And this is why I stick up for the underdog, and this is why I think twice before signing an online petition or forwarding so-called Christian banners that people tell me are in defense of Christian principles.  Because it seems that in America, sometimes standing up for "Christian principles" means that I have to deny the very heart of Christ.

  

  Yesterday I posted a short comment on Facebook suggesting that if more believing Americans had a gay friend, they would put a lid on the rhetoric.  If you know and love someone who is gay, you will think twice about how your views and your comments affect them.  Mind you, we all have a constitutional right to think and say what we want, but as followers of Christ we don't have the right to hurt another human being.

  What would Jesus do?

* * * * * * * * * * * 

  Okay, I have posted my position on a Christlike response to homosexuals, but let me add some perspective on the issue itself.

  There are a total of 6 verses in the Bible that seem to condemn homosexual activity (none that condemn homosexual orientation), and there are nearly 600 verses that stress caring for the poor and needy.  This tells me that it is a hundred times more important to God that we give our attention to the poor and the needy than to give our attention to making sure that gays know the truth about their sin (Believe me, they already know what we think the Bible says about their sin).

  In Ezekiel 16:49-50 God says to Israel, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned: they did not help the poor and needy.  They were haughty and did detestable things before me.  Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."  According to this, Sodom was not destroyed because of homosexuality but because of arrogance and a lack of concern for the poor and needy.

  I think this describes many American Christians today:  Arrogant toward gays, overfed (America is officially the "fattest" nation in the world), and unconcerned about the poor and needy.

  If the Ezekiel passage expresses God's priorities, the prophets among us should be blaming our selfish selves rather than the gays the next time a destructive hurricane or earthquake wipes out a sector of our wealth and real estate.

* * * * * * * * * * * 

  BTW, my title "Loving Gay Jesus" comes from my understanding of Matthew 25:40.  "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."  Jesus identifies himself with the oppressed, not with the religious.  We should do the same.

  If you don't have any gay friends, I suggest you find some.  Do your best to befriend a gay - at least friend some on Facebook - before the end of this year.  It will change the way you think and talk and behave with them and about them.  Actually, you may not have to look very far; they are probably right under your nose but would not dare come out until they feel they are safe with you.  That means you'll have to tone it down a bit.    Thank you!


 The President of the Barna Group, David Kinnaman, in his book, unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity... and Why It Matters, says that most 16 to 29-year-old Americans see Christians as: 1) Anti-Gay, 2) Judgmental, 3) Hypocritical.  I see this as harmful to the true cause of Christ and intend to do my personal best to change this perception to something closer to what Christ intended.

  

The Win-Win of Church Splits

  I can't believe I'm writing this.  Probably my mom can't either, as well as my brother who is a pastor in the Missionary Church, and a lot of my friends who are still in the church. The title alone is enough to raise the ire of church folks everywhere.   Oh, well, that hasn't stopped me before, so here I go, publishing my unpopular opinions and then letting people love me anyway.

  This post is actually a challenge of sorts to the previous post, "Thin Walls", in which I condemned the denominational and political walls that have dismembered the Body of Christ over the centuries.  This time I am saying that divisions can be good, that they serve an essential service in the Kingdom.

  Here's the thing: human nature.  Or maybe personality types, or even spiritual gifts.  What I'm talking about is the variety of people that exists in the world and in the church:  People who get bored easily and initiate change for the sake of change, and those who resist change.  People who welcome the presence and work of the Holy Spirit, and those who resist the Spirit.  People who love noisy, animated worship, and those who retreat in quiet meditation.  People who enjoy expose' and exegetic preaching, and those who can't wait for the small group so they can finally ask questions and enter the conversation.  Evangelists, and administrators.  And so on.

  It's a good thing there are different scenarios, different styles, different types of church settings, because there are so many kinds of people.  A virtual smorgasbord of worship settings exists in America, a plethora of flavors and colors.  And that's good.

  Because birds of a feather will just normally flock together.  Naturally.  That is, in harmony with the God-given nature that is within them.  This results in harmony for everybody.  Because if very different species of birds are forced to co-habitate, there can be squabbles and even violence.  That's just the way it is.

  Okay, a personal story here.  I was active in the same church all of my adult life and held various positions of leadership as a volunteer within the church.  But on random occasions during that time, I experienced resistance and even opposition to my efforts from others in the body.  My ideas were shot down, my actions were questioned, and my individuality was challenged.  My friends of the same unconventional feather noticed the same natural phenomenon.

  It happens everywhere.  Most of the time I didn't take it personally - even when it was intended to be personal, in which case I would pretend it wasn't.  It was simply different people operating within their own sets of gifts, personality types and personal preferences.

  But a chasm started to open within the church body, a gap between two large groups who held very different values.  And over twenty-five years the gap widened.

  One group placed a high value on outreach.  They were people-minded.  They stressed missions and community service and love for all.  And they would disregard sacred practices of the church to embrace the needy, whether inside or outside the congregation (i.e: they might spend their tithe money on car repairs for a needy neighbor and then not have it to put in the offering).  They were inspired by movements and champions of movements like Frank Tillapaugh and Kennan Callahan.*  I started calling them the Progressives.

  The other group were Traditionalists.  They placed a high value on structure.  The buildings and property were important to them.  The doctrines of Wesleyan evangelicalism were sacred to them, and familiar programs were set in stone.  "If it worked in the last century it will work today!"  They  didn't just resist change, they stood in the way of progress.

  Finally, a progressive and well-loved pastor who was seen as the champion of an organic  movement was forced to leave the church.  For no good reason, except that the traditionalists, who had been outnumbered for twenty years, were momentarily in control of the governing board.  And the result was a church split.  The progressives had finally reached their limit of patience with the road-blocking traditionalists, and 150 of them left all at once.  The church went from 225 to 75 almost overnight.

  It was a dizzying exodus, and my head was spinning for months after as I tried to figure out what had happened.  The perennial peacemaker and an elder at the time, I had worked harder than anyone to keep the place together, sacrificing my reputation in the process.

  But I was obviously a progressive, and I was made aware that, not only were my ideas not welcome there anymore, neither was my presence.  One of the other elders told me to give it up; "You guys lost," he said.  My response was, "We all lost; there was no winner here."  Six months after the mass exodus, my wife and I reluctantly exited too, amid turmoil and pain, much of her family remaining at the church.  

  But we are loving it now, and I've changed my tune; I no longer believe there were any losers in this parting of the ways.  Three years after the split we see what a wonderful place we are in, a place of freedom in a land of opportunity.  We will never go back to working within the walls.  Here's what's good about this church split and why we are thankful that it happened:

  1. The Traditionalists have their church back the way it was 40 years ago, the way they like it.  They have put thousands of dollars into improving the property and buildings and installing air conditioning, they have re-instated old programs and practices, and their familiar doctrines and orthodoxies are unquestioned and unthreatened within the walls.  Remember, structure is their highest value.

  2.  The Progressives, who had talked and dreamed of engaging the culture in more organic, incarnational ways but whose efforts were often blocked, have now moved outside the walls of the church and are pursuing their dreams and visions with excitement and energy. Most of them are meeting in one of several small house groups... or in the park, or at the ice cream shop, or at the ballgame.  There's nobody to tell them not to.  Remember, their highest value is people.

  3. Everybody's happy.  It was a win-win situation for both groups and continues so.

  I have concluded that as long as we are unified by our belief in Jesus, birds of a different feather may be better off not flocking together.  So there will be options for everybody.  If you like tradition you have options, and if you want to try something new, you will find a place to belong as well.  Different strokes for different folks.

  That's the nature of it.  Take a look at any school playground and you'll see that from a very young age, humans will naturally cluster with others who are like themselves.  Birds of a feather.  That's our God-given nature.  That's the way it is.

*Frank Tillapaugh wrote Unleashing the Church, defining and criticizing what he called "the fortress mentality" of exclusiveness in the church culture. (Regal Books, 1982)
 Kennan Callahan wrote Effective Church Leadership, in which he explained that America was a post-churched culture where effective leaders should see their local churches as mission outposts, not fortresses. (Jossey-Bass, 1989)
 Also see The Shaping of Things to Come, by Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost, in which they analyze the Life Cycle of a Church, the focus of a church being on people in the growth stage, and on structure in the declining stage. (Hendrickson Publishers, 2003)
  
  

Thin Walls

Our 1978 Jayco

  Our camper has really thin walls, maybe 2 inches thick at most.  Recreational vehicles are designed to be as light as possible for the most efficient towing and touring.  We've been on the gypsy road for a while now and have found that thin walls are a blessing in more ways than one.  The first, of course, is that when we are climbing the long and winding hills of west Michigan, I'm thankful that the trailer doesn't weigh any more than it's registered 4,400 pounds.  The old Dodge pickup is a workhorse that doesn't mind the load.
  But another thin wall for which I am thankful is the vanishing generation gap that got so much publicity a few decades ago but seems to be diminishing as observers like David Kinnaman* point out in recent studies.  One characteristic that today's young adults seem to have in common is the inclination to engage in conversation.  They don't seem to be the least bit interested in listening to a sermon or a lecture; there is definitely still a solid wall there.  But they are drawn to real discussion, and they'll talk openly about almost any subject, even religion, if there's good-natured dialogue and an absence of criticism.

Street musicians in Grand Rapids

  Kaye and I experienced the reality of this first hand in downtown Grand Rapids, Michigan, last week when we came across a band of young street musicians occupying a square of sidewalk near the Blues on the Mall event.
  I have found that the camera is an automatic invitation for people to engage in conversation, and I had been shooting artists and bystanders and classic car owners and getting a smile and a welcoming nod from each one.  People love having their pictures taken.  As I was sitting on the sidewalk shooting these musicians, Christina approached Kaye and started talking.  She talked about her friends and what they were doing there, and Kaye talked about our new wayfaring lifestyle and the home we had left, and there didn't seem to be the least bit of a wall between them, generational or otherwise.  Christina didn't seem to notice that we were old enough to be her grandparents and it didn't matter.  It was a delightful and refreshing experience.  The two exchanged email addresses, and when we arrived back at camp there was already a message waiting from Christina.

Musicians Steven and Christina

  And that brings me back to an unfortunate thought about the walls of denominationalism that have divided the Body of Christ for so many centuries.  I don't believe that these walls are God-ordained in the slightest but are man-made.  And it seems to me that while the walls are thinning in some places as with young people - if we are really willing to engage them, the walls are thickening in other places.
  Walls of politics are growing even within the church.  The conservatives battle the liberals, the Republicans malign the Democrats, and the evangelicals demonize the main-liners for their proverbial slippery slope (Curse that  slippery slope!)  Doctrinal walls continue to be shored up and strengthened with every secular or theological "threat" that presents itself.  Hate rises while Love Wins.
  At its last general conference the Missionary Church shored up its doctrinal walls by adopting a statement rejecting Open Theism.  And the denominational walls thickened.
  If we ever expect to engage the current culture, we must move the other way.  Damn the walls.  Tear them down.  For God's sake let's get along.  A generation depends on it.
  As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord by seeking to tear down walls by cutting the theological crap, as it were, and putting people first.
  People are more important than doctrinal stuff.  Always.


What methods have you seen implemented for thinning or removing the walls that separate people?


*David Kinnaman, the head of the Barna Group, refers to 16 to 29-year-olds as Mosaics in his book, Unchristian, What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity ... and Why It Matters.