My Marriage Testimony

I thought I would share here what a large part of the impetus was for me to start researching all that Greek that I've referred to in earlier posts, about how husbands and wives should relate to each other. The impetus was my own marriage.

First of all, my husband suffers from clinical depression. He's usually okay when he's medicated properly, but sometimes he builds up a tolerance to the medication and it simply stops working. His depression isn't expressed as sadness or feeling "down" -- it's expressed as anger. All anger. He is usually the most laid-back man around, but when he goes into a depression all bets are off. He has never been violent to me or our son, but he starts fantasizing about random violence to strangers... ALL the time.

Anyway, it was during his last MDE (Major Depressive Episode) that we actually started to work all this stuff out. When we first got married, he was a new Christian and had never been exposed to "Christian" sexism before, and I had been attending a secular university for 6 years. We married as equals and functioned very well that way. If anything, I made more of the decisions simply because of the two of us I'm the more "Type A" -- he just doesn't care about the same stuff I care about, or as much. It worked out very well for us.

Then I got involved with a patriarchal church and a couple of spiritually abusive message boards. Hearing the message from all these sources that we were in sin and shirking our God-given responsibilities made us start questioning our relationship. Even though it goes against the grain of both our personalities, we gave in to the "peer pressure" of the church and decided that we should try to be more like we were being taught husbands and wives should be like; that we should fight our "sinful" personalities and sublimate them so that he could "lead" us and I could "follow".

So I backed off. When we had to make a decision, I would do all the research and legwork required, all the information-gathering, and then present it to him and he would make the decision.

When he got angry and yelled at me, or at our son, for no reason, I "submitted" and tried to be self-effacing. I did what he asked me to do. I ventured opinions, sure, but always left the final decision up to him. According to the teachings of our church, the people on those forums, and the likes of Debi Pearl, our marriage was finally "in line with God's will."

Living like that caused so much grief and discord in our lives and household that we very nearly split up. It even affected our sex life. He would get angry, actually angry, when I tried to initiate, an HE never initiated anything at all. The results of some of his bad decisions came back to haunt us, and knowing that he was the one who had made them made him even more depressed. Mind you, those few times when we had both done the info-gathering and decided things together, those decisions had great results! But living like that, with him being the boss and my unilateral submission, nearly killed our marriage... and definitely did kill our joy, love, and pleasure in each other.

It wasn't until I lovingly told him, "The next time you snap at me or our son for no reason, I'm taking him out of the house and you won't get to see us for the next [span of time]," that he discovered lo and behold! He didn't HAVE to yell and berate us all the time! (Thank you, Cloud & Townsend!)

He hadn't wanted me to even bring up the topic of medication for his depression, so I hadn't. Until things got so bad I just decided "This is insane. I'm doing everything according to God's will and not being rewarded for it. If not submitting is a sin, then I'll by golly sin and take the consequences for it, but I'm not going to continue like this anymore."

About the same time as I made that decision, my husband (during an angry outburst) told me he didn't WANT a submissive wife anymore! He loved the wife he used to have, doggone it, and why couldn't I be her anymore? If we were going to go against God's will in going back to the way we were when we married, then if he was the leader, he'd take the consequences for it, but he wasn't going to continue like this anymore.

Hmmmmmm.

So after that, I started mentioning his medication more often. As I said, he NEEDS antidepressants in order to function at a human level. He'd been off his meds, or on the wrong ones, for a long time. He didn't like hearing that he should go back to the doctor and get new ones, but I kept mentioning it and kept mentioning it persistently (and lovingly) until he did. A month later it was almost like I'd gotten my true husband back.

Worried that now that we were being true to our own personalities and each other's desires, we were outside the will of God, we started to research and study the scriptures about it...

Only to discover that what we'd been taught was the "will of God for marriage" was only the teachings of our church for marriage... and that God's will is something VERY different. Not only that, but it was something of a "duh" moment when we realized God gave us our personalities, too! And we had been rejecting that gift thinking we were more in line with his will by calling them sinful. God made us this way for a reason, and it was very wrong of us to try to preempt God and tell him how he should have made us.

That's our story. We walked together through the valley of the shadow of patriarchy, and God be praised, came out egalitarian on the other side. Hallelujah!

Further Thoughts on Husbandly Headship

My good friend on TMB, Dena, posted this idea once in a thread talking about the husband being the "head" of the wife, and whether that entailed authority over her or not, and if it entailed any authority at all, what would it look like? The thread got fairly heated as I recall, but I stopped paying much attention when I read Dena's post. Literally -- her post was so thought-provoking that I had to walk away from the computer and think about it for an hour or so. And the best part is, she discusses authority in the church as well as in a marriage. Here's what she had to say (with emphasis mine -- pay special attention to it, at the end!). Check it out!

Within the house church, we don't have titles, or positions, or offices... we have individuals whom God has called to various functionings... those who function as deacons (practical servants), those who function as elders (spiritual servants), those who function as teachers, shepherds, evangelists, prophets, apostles...

None of them are "over" anyone else... they're servant-leaders (servants who lead by example). There's no hierarchy -- just Jesus as Head, and all the other brothers and sisters functioning, as called, under HIM - in unity.

They don't have "special rights" to be above anyone else... but they do have "special responsibilities", as called by God, to serve others in their various capacities. We don't so much submit to the person, or the position, or the title... we submit to the calling that the Lord has on that person...! Because that calling is for the blessing of the rest of the Body -- it's the Lord Himself, working through that person, and it's really to HIM that we're submitting!

And the PURPOSE of their servant-leading is to bring the whole of the Body into full, functioning maturity -- to reflect Christ.

So, within marriage, God has called the husband to a particular responsibility ... he's usually larger, stronger, and therefore more able to be a protector of the wife than vice versa. He's designed by God to focus, to zero in, to concentrate, on one specific thing (while the woman is more global, balancing several things at once - each has it's strengths and weaknesses), and to take initiative in a particular direction.

We're designed to work in concert -- not with him as the "boss," but with him making a way for me to go (as he would if he were literally leading me through a dense forest/jungle... getting rid of the obstacles, making it easier for me to navigate.

Perhaps, since this world, the cultures, even the historical Church, tends to be suppressive of women, and God would know this would happen, as a result of the Fall, He designed men with the task of creating an environment for his wife to thrive... to protect her, to lift her up, to encourage her, to present her to others in a way so that others would respect her and receive what she had to share... so that she wouldn't be sidelined...?

It's not because I'm "less than", it's because the enemy has sought to destroy the influence of women, and thus, my husband's responsibility is to present me as a person worthy of equal honor in the Body ...

And, I'm to submit to what the Lord has called him to do... to not get in the way, but to cooperate with what He is doing.

Because the PURPOSE of the husband's servant-leading is to bring the whole of the marriage into full, functioning maturity -- to reflect Christ.

My previous research on "kephale" (Greek "head") showed me that it had a connotation of the husband as "point-man" -- the first one into battle. Physically speaking, this makes sense because men are nearly always physically stronger than women. But Dena points out that part of his job as protector might very well be to make sure she gets equally respected by others who might not otherwise listen to her.

Since Grey does an admirable job of that, and I adore him for it, I am definitely inclined to agree with Dena!

Thoughts on Authority

Been thinking a lot about authority issues lately. I know that I have them -- "issues" (read: problems) with accepting someone's authority over me who in my opinion isn't supposed to have it. Especially among believers this seems to be a problem.

On one of the message boards I sometimes haunt, a poster called "Nice" has this to say: "I wanted to add my thoughts on...the difference between to have authority to do something and to have authority over somebody. I think there's big difference between these two...I think that when authority is being exercised, it’s always in some kind of context; usually an organization that contains some kind of hierarchy. Organizations and hierarchies can be either flat, vertical or both (in it's structure). Such “organization” could be the family, the workplace, the government, an association etc. It is often said that the biblical "organization" is the vertical; most often referring to the order of creation (genesis 1:28 and 1 cor 11:13 and also Rom 13:1 (that last scripture isn’t about the order of creation)).
But I think Jesus, He who himself is the Word of God, adds another perspective when he says

"If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all." (Mark 9:35)

“Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. (John 13:14)

“Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” (Jesus talks about himself as if he was” the least” in heaven??) (Matt 11:11)

“The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” (Jesus identify himself with the least) (Matt 25:40).

Some say those scriptures are about the attitude we should have as christians, and I think that's right. However I do think Jesus turns the human perspective up side down. I wonder if this could mean that there is a difference between “to have authority over …” and “to have authority to ….” if you understand what I mean with that. The first one can only (I think?) occur in a vertical organization. The second may very well be exercised in a flat (and more equal) organization.
For example if you have a spiritual gift, let’s say, to prophecy, than you have a God given mandate to do so. The person who prophecy has an authority to do so, but does he has authority over them who are receiving the prophecy? Hardly. At least I don't think so anyway.
Another example is if you’re a doctor, then you have the authority to diagnose and treat people but you don’t have authority over them do you?

In a marriage, we have different roles. The husband have the authority to be the head but does that mean that he has authority over his wife? Well, not if they are equal. That would seem contradictory to me. The children however, we can say we have authority over because they aren’t adults. When one says women can’t teach men because then they will exercise authority over men, then one must consistently say that women cannot exercise any form of prophesying, teaching or caring or anything else where the man must submit to the woman’s ministry. However, it seems to me that the Bible contradicts that (Luke 2:36, Rom 12:6 fwd, 1 Cor 11:5 )...
We are all to serve each other with the amount of talents ("authority") we've been given. Matt 25:14

And for that to be possible... We must submit to one another!

"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ" Eph 5:21

Nice has hit the nail on the head here. She is talking about authority in a marriage, while I was talking about authority in the church, but the basic principle is the same. The pastor does not have authority OVER his congregants. He has authority TO... do what? Serve them. And yet how often does he serve them without lording it over them as well?

That's one of my biggest beefs with the institutional church lately: one person (a man) has charge over the whole group. He's the one who decides who is to speak when, what songs they'll sing, how everything will fit together, and he's the one who does the preaching.

This attitude of one man being in charge of everything is TOTALLY against scripture. As is the concept of one person doing all the preaching and teaching. The Bible tells us that "each of you" is to prepare a teaching, a song, offer a prayer, etc. and then take turns so that everything remains orderly. When's the last time you attended an institutional church where that happened? Even so-called "Bible believing" churches tend not to follow the format for gatherings that is laid out very clearly in 1 Corinthians.

Every believer is anointed, yes. Every believer is also an authority over every other believer, and is also to submit to every other believer.

Re Ephesians 5: I know I've mentioned this elsewhere on this blog, but I'll say it again: I discovered that in Ephesians 5, when it says wives should submit to their husbands, it's a continuation of thought in the previous verse: we believers are to submit to each other! It's not a separate thought at all, as I had been taught: it's the same word. It's not even a repetition of the same word -- that word is used only once, in the Greek, to cover BOTH the submitting to each other AND the wives submitting to their husbands.

That seems to say to me that all believers are to submit to one another -- wives in one way, and husbands in another. Husbands get to be the servant, "point man" and protector, and wives get to be the servant, strong rescuer (gen 2:18), and rule over the household (Prov. 31).

Key point there is that both partners are servants to the other. That is where TRUE authority lies: in serving. Not in taking charge.

Out of the Mouths of Babes

This just blew me away this morning. First of all, Scot and I "went to church" this morning (poor Grey had to stay home and get some sleep--he's been working 3rd shift for weeks now), to visit with some friends who've been raving about this church. On the way home, I was talking with Scot about it. Now, we haven't "gone to church" for weeks and weeks -- usually we go only when we start missing our friends too much... and while I'm on the topic, that business of "church isn't a social club" is for crap. I am coming to think that the social aspect is the ONLY reason to "go to church" at all! The teaching is usually questionable, being based as it is in church traditions rather than in scripture; the corporate worship is lovely, but that's part of the social/fellowship aspect of it; the prayer is great and so is the meet'n'greet time... but every single aspect of "going to church" that appeals to us has to do with the fellowshipping with the Body!

So Scot and I compared this church with the one we've been attending for the last three years, and concluded they were about the same. Neither one of us was wowed by them. So just on a whim, I asked Scot what he thought the best way to learn about Jesus would be. With no prompting or discussion of home churches in his hearing or anything, this is what he said (in his own words):

"I think that we should get a whole bunch of people who all love Jesus. And we should meet them at our house. Outside. When it rains hard, we should cancel the meeting. If it rains only a little, we can meet them inside. And in the winter, we can meet them inside, and all have hot chocolate while we're exploring the Bible a little."

He went on to explain that he thought the kids should go into a bedroom and do whatever they wanted, but that they could still come out and be with their parents if they wanted to. I asked him if there should be any singing (since that's one of the things he hates most about the church we attend; the singing is quite loud), and he thought for a long moment before deciding, "There should be some QUIET singing."

I asked him if there should be a sermon during the meeting, and he didn't think there should be. "But someone could teach a little, if they wanted to," he offered. "And someone else could pray."


Wow. I was blown away. Not only is this EXACTLY the sort of "church" that Grey and I have been absolutely longing for, for months -- but he outlined fairly accurately how 1 Cor 14 tells us a church meeting should be run!

We haven't talked to him much about any of this. Can he call it, or what?

Fruits of the Spirit and Dormancy

I've been mulling over the "fruits of the spirit" lately, and recently had my whole study turned on its ear by a close friend who has studied literal fruit-growing in an orchard. I've been thinking about when you feel distant from God and not really "connected" and how that fits in with it, and my friend's information really helped me a lot.

Real fruit-bearing trees will have some years when they produce a lot of fruit... but during those years, they don't do any growing. Or not very much, anyway.

During the years that they do a lot of growing, they don't produce much fruit.

Not only that, but they need the winters, the dark, cold times when they're not producing OR growing much... in order to start growing again in the spring. If they don't have that dark, cold, dormant time, they won't be fruitful later on. There is no fruit tree in the world that produces fruit and grows all year round. God just didn't make them that way.

Fruit-growing comes in seasons of dormancy, fruit, and growth. Jesus lived in an agrarian society, and it is very likely the people he was preaching to, knew this. We have moved away from that sort of society for the most part now, and lost touch with what fruit-growing is really all about... and when our spiritual walk is compared to fruit-growing, we can sometimes feel very disheartened because we're not perfectly-producing Christians all year round. We do get times of discouragement, depression... and dormancy. But the thing to remember is that, in order to continue growing and bearing fruit, we NEED those periods of dormancy.

I know from experience, and from my husband's example, that a long period of feeling spiritually discouraged and disconnected frequently results in a whole lot of growth in a short span of time, once that period is over.

I found this thought very encouraging, and hoped some of my readers might like it as well.

The Old "Help-Meet" Rubbish

This entry is a combination book review and Bible study.

I recently had the misfortune to read Debi Pearl's book Created to be His Help Meet. I had read bits of it before, excerpts, and also skimmed the whole thing; but recently I had the opportunity to read the entire book in-depth.

What a waste of four hours of my life. Honestly, I'll never get those four hours back, which would have been more successfully utilized in clipping my budgies' wings, or perhaps watching paint dry.

Extreme, I know... but so was this book. The general gist of it was that God created women to be a lowly servant to the man, and that we women can only find our true fulfillment in Christ by relinquish our own desires, skills, gifts, etc. and just living for our husbands. The author puts blame the woman for most of the problems in a marriage, and even goes so far as to say things like, "Have you done this? Well, shame on you!"

As if most women need even MORE things to feel shame over!

Most of all, her advice to women in abusive relationships is at best questionable, and at worst downright dangerous. Let me say it right here, plainly so that no one misses it:

If a woman is abused by her husband, it is always, always, ALWAYS, HIS fault and not hers.

There is NOTHING she can do that would "make" him abuse her.

If a husband abuses his wife, it is ALWAYS his conscious choice to... and it has NOTHING to do with whether or not she is "submissive" enough!

If you are in this situation, please get help and get out!

There, now that I've got that out of the way, I wanted to address the mis-translation that this whole book is based on. It is taken from the King James Version of the Bible, which I understand the Pearls use exclusively. The trouble with the good ol' KJV is that King James was Anglican, and he wanted to make SURE that this new translation of the Bible would make his subjects into good, obedient little Anglicans. So he made sure they put a distinctly Anglican spin onto it, including using cultural understandings of certain things, rather than going by what the scripture truly says.

The word that so many versions translate as "Help meet," "help mate," "helper," etc. is the Hebrew word "ezer." As it turns out, far from meaning "lowly helper" with a connotation of "servant," ezer has two root words which mean, respectively, "to rescue" and "to be strong."

So when God created Eve for Adam, he wasn't actually creating a servant. He was creating a "strong rescuer."

Not only that, but the other word that is part of that phrase -- the "mate" part of "help mate" is the Hebrew word "kenegdo" which is a word used only once in the Bible. Its meaning? Corresponding to, or opposite of. Used in other ancient Hebrew texts, it simply means "equal."

So we can learn from this that God created woman to be a strong rescuer of the man, and to be his opposite and complete equal. To correspond to him, to be parallel to him, and to complete him.

This was God's original purpose and intent for women. This was the way he created humans, for the male and female together to reflect His image... and then he said it was "very good." NLT even translates it as "excellent in every way."

And then they both had to sin and mess it all up -- and as part of their punishment (or possibly just a prediction; it is unclear in scripture), God tells the woman that her husband will dominate her.

Interesting, isn't it? that male supremacy entered the world when sin did!

Patriarchy was never God's original plan -- it's all the idea of sinful men who want to control and dominate. And sinful women, who want to be controlled and dominated, because they think this will please their husbands. Neither is scriptural, and neither is the way God intended a husband-wife partnership to be.

No matter what Debi Pearl says, her whole book is based upon a faulty interpretation of its most basic premise. With that in mind, I found very little in the rest of the book that was correct or useful either.


(The information about the Hebrew translations was taken from this article, and from the Net Bible. Check 'em out for yourself!)

Christian Apology

Deconstructed Christian has tagged me for the Christian Apology (no, not apologia) that's been making the rounds. Here are the rules:

INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Apologize for three things that Christians have often got wrong. Your apologies should be directed towards those who don't view themselves as part of the Christian community. Alternatively, apologize for things you personally have done wrong towards those outside of the church.
2. Post a comment at the originating post so others can keep track of the apologies.
3. Tag five people to participate in the meme.
4. If desired, send an email with the link to your blog post at the Christians Confess site, giving permission for your apologies to be added to the website.

MY APOLOGIES:

1. I am sorry that I've always been so worried about money that I haven't been generous with you. I've been so concerned with my self and my family, and whether we'd have enough for US, that I haven't been hospitable to you and your friends. I claim a faith that is marked by giving generously... and I've hardly given at all.

2. I'm sorry that I viewed "loving others" more along the lines of "being a good example to you on how to live," with its requisite self-righteousness of course, instead of actually showing you genuine love and caring. I've been so concerned with doing everything "right" that I've gotten most of it totally wrong.

3. I'm sorry I have judged you by standards that you don't hold for yourself, and have found you wanting and condemned you. I'm sorry that I have not accepted you the way you are, met you at your own level, and really been your friend.


Now for the people I want to tag? Hmmm... let's see...
I'd love to see what
Sensuous Wife,
Sascha,
Robin,
Faintnot,
and Eleutheros (if he ever decides to blog)
have to say about it.

Don't Complain, Unless You Can Offer Something Better

I have been complaining quite a bit lately about churches in general and my church in specific. I've been talking about how little actual give-and-take there is, how much division -- not only doctrinally, but between age-groups -- how much sexism, and how little genuineness there is. Or even how boring it is to always follow the same formula, and how hard it is to actually "get something" from the sermon every week -- while at the same time being prevented from ministering the way we feel called to do.

Well, as my grandmother once said, "Don't complain, unless you can offer something better." While I don't totally agree with her -- sometimes complaints are the only things that lead to making things better -- I have thought and prayed about it for a long time and have finally come up with something better.

Here it is:

When you gather for worship, each one of you be prepared with something that will be useful for all: Sing a hymn, teach a lesson, tell a story, lead a prayer, provide an insight. If prayers are offered in tongues, two or three's the limit, and then only if someone is present who can interpret what you're saying. Otherwise, keep it between God and yourself. And no more than two or three speakers at a meeting, with the rest of you listening and taking it to heart. Take your turn, no one person taking over. Then each speaker gets a chance to say something special from God, and you all learn from each other. If you choose to speak, you're also responsible for how and when you speak. When we worship the right way, God doesn't stir us up into confusion; he brings us into harmony. This goes for all the churches—no exceptions.

If this sounds familiar to anyone, that's because it's not really my idea. God had it first. This is The Message's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14: 26-33.

I read this to Grey tonight, asking him to keep in mind our usual church-going rituals. I asked him, "When is the last time we gathered together with everyone having the opportunity to share a song, prayer, or teaching as he or she was led? And with no one taking over? He pointed out that our church, the "worship team" sings... and we listen to them and sing (always following their lead of course). Then someone else gets up and prays... and we listen to him and agree. Then someone might give a testimony... and we listen and applaud. Then the pastor gets up and preaches... and we listen. That's an awful lot of listening, my friends.

So when did being the Body of Christ become a spectator sport? All the references in the New Testament that I've ever found talk about how inclusive and involved the early believers were with one another, and how very much into giving, sharing, and mutuality they were. So why do we go to church and sit there like bumps on logs (or saints on pews) just to listen?

I've been studying 1 Corinthians for a while now, trying to learn about Body life. Here's another little gem that I've gleaned from it, also from The Message (1 Cor 12: 14-20):

A body isn't just a single part blown up into something huge. It's all the different-but-similar parts arranged and functioning together. If Foot said, "I'm not elegant like Hand, embellished with rings; I guess I don't belong to this body," would that make it so? If Ear said, "I'm not beautiful like Eye, limpid and expressive; I don't deserve a place on the head," would you want to remove it from the body? If the body was all eye, how could it hear? If all ear, how could it smell? As it is, we see that God has carefully placed each part of the body right where he wanted it. 19-24But I also want you to think about how this keeps your significance from getting blown up into self-importance. For no matter how significant you are, it is only because of what you are a part of. An enormous eye or a gigantic hand wouldn't be a body, but a monster. What we have is one body with many parts, each its proper size and in its proper place. No part is important on its own.

So now that we've established that the order of service pretty much disempowers all the congregants to being a bunch of little ears, just sitting there and taking it all in -- what about the pastor? If we're the ears, he's the mouth. Is he the mouth of God? Hmmm. Now, there's a question, isn't it?

This morning my son and I actually went to church, to the same one we've been attending for three years. Our pastor got up and gave a little talk and as usual, he went off on a rabbit trail. He said, "There, that's a sermonette." Then he laughed and went on, "You know what you get when you have sermonettes, don't you? You get 'Christianettes.'"

Oh, I can't even begin to count the number of things wrong with that little joke of his. I'll try, though, because it bothered me too much to just let it rest.

1) Sermons make Christians.
2)Sermon-listening turns Christians from miniature ones to being full-size.
3) It puts the entire responsibility for spiritual growth onto the shoulders of the pastor.
4) It completely discounts the ability of the Holy Spirit to help Christians mature.
5) It diminishes all other aspects of Body life, making sermon-listening the only thing that helps Christians mature.

That's enough for now... and ordinarily I would just laugh it off as a joke of his... except this wasn't the first time I've heard it.

But while we're on the subject, let's talk about the pastor. Specifically, let's talk about the idea of a group of believers hiring someone to come and teach them week after week. Where is this idea found in scripture? Scripture shows us lots of examples of early believers sharing responsibilities equally -- each one according to his gifts, yes, but there is not supposed to be any external judging of gifting. No one person was supposed to be in charge of how things were run -- they were to depend solely upon the Holy spirit's leading to keep order... and the thing is, Paul tells us that if they do, then order is kept. No one else is supposed to be telling others to teach, or sing, or whatever; they're supposed to depend on the Holy Spirit's leading to prepare something for themselves, to share with each other.

There's that "each other" phrase again, implying mutuality, turnabout, and deferring to one another. Grey and I were wondering today just how that would look, in our church. The pastor is very much in charge. He shares the responsibilities with three elders (two now, since one moved away), but with this church so heavily into the unscriptural "Covering" doctrine, everything has to pass by him and receive his OK before it becomes part of the "order of service." So really, he's doing the Holy Spirit's job. And he's also doing the congregants' job, whose responsibility it is to bring the teaching. And with him putting his head together with the worship team, they're doing the congregants' jobs as well, who are supposed to be the ones preparing and bringing hymns and songs for the corporate worship.

No wonder the poor man's burned out. Not only is he doing the job of 50 people, but he's doing God's job too!

And yet, if I were to tell him this, it would be considered borderline heretical.

The Rules of Christianity

I have come to realize that there are certain things that Christians tend to do and say, mostly for the purposes of having other people know that they are Christians. There is a whole big expectation of things that Christians are "supposed" to do. I grew up in the Conservative Baptist church of the USA, so for years I was taught that you couldn't drink, smoke, dance, or listen to secular music (heaven forbid it be rock'n'roll!) and be a Christian. Had to have a "daily quiet time," and it had to be first thing in the morning. Had to have a ready answer to the Christian school principal's question of "How's your walk with God lately?" and God forbid it be anything except a verbatim quotation of the scripture that you'd read that very morning.

Christians are supposed to be involved with politics, but nothing as messy as giving a home to an unwed mother, adopting a child, or donating one's time or money to the Crisis Pregnancy Centers. No, it's much easier to simply picket outside the abortion clinic, and say ugly things to and about women who wear "I Had an Abortion" t-shirts. One of my closest childhood friends had an abortion, and she tells me it was the hardest thing she'd ever done -- not least because of the stigma and ostracism she knew she would face if she ever returned to the Christian community (which, to date, she has not done). She did tell me that my reaction of heartfelt sympathy went a long way towards helping her to heal from the wounding she experienced from other Christians about it.

Christians are supposed to show gay people the love of Christ, but at the same time make sure they know at all times what abominable sinners they are. Sure, put a huge weight of guilt, shame, and condemnation on 'em -- that'll lead 'em to Jesus for sure!

Lately there have been things added to the list of rules: Christians don't read Harry Potter. This reminds me of a very funny story about when my pastor and his wife came over to dinner once, and she was talking a mile a minute while he was perusing our bookshelves (don't ask me why). He noticed our boxed set of the Chronicles of Narnia, and drew her attention to it.

"Oh, what a great series that is!" she exclaimed, beaming. "Ever so much better than that nasty Harry Potter series--those books are nothing but occultic! Christians ought to have NO truck with the devil!" she told me with a wide smile and a decisive and self-righteous nod.

With a sweet smile, I pointed to our entire set of Harry Potter books. "Those are one shelf up," I told her. She changed the subject rather gracelessly, and I tried not to laugh. I doubt she has ever read any of them.

(I can assure you that my obsession and admiration for Professor Snape does not negatively impact my faith at all; in fact, with my great fondness for redemption stories, I think he illustrates the concepts very nicely.)

So it's apparently part of the rules that Christians have to have other people do their thinking for them. They aren't allowed to read books that other Christians say are bad; they aren't allowed to watch movies with any sex, swears, or nudity (although violence seems to be universally accepted; I wonder why the double standard?); they aren't allowed to do, say, think, or experience anything for themselves that they've heard other Christians say are bad for any reason.

The upshot of this is that Christians seem to have their own little sub-culture wherein they can stay happy and comfortable -- and be perfectly worthless and useless to the outside world around them. And woe to any Christians who break the "rules" -- they get castigated by all the rule-followers and accused of not even being Christians. It's as if, to be a Christian, you're supposed to just ignore all the ugly and gritty aspects of living in the world, in favor of keeping up appearances and pretending everything is fine. And if you don't pretend everything is fine, then you ARE the problem.

Might as well move to Pleasantville.

8 Things

I don't usually do these sorts of things, and I want to make another church-related post, but my brain is mush lately since my uncle's death last weekend. I have way too much on my mind and verging on a nervous breakdown, so I'll make this one a light entry, especially for Alise who said she thought an "honest" list would be interesting. I just won't tag anyone else.

The rules: Each player lists 8 facts or habits about themselves; the rules of the game are to be posted first; at the end of the post, the player then tags 8 people and goes to their blogs to leave a comment, letting them know that they have been tagged.

You ready for this, Alise?

1) I make beaded jewelry, and absolutely love it. I even gave up crocheting and knitting for beading -- gave away all my hooks, yard, and needles to make room for my beads. When I figure out a way to take a good digital picture of them, I'll be putting them up for sale on Etsy.

2) I like cats very much, but only shorthairs. I like dogs a whole lot, but only large breeds -- the small one are just too dang yappy and puntable to be good companions. But my favorite animals are horses; I've wanted one since I was three years old. Haven't been able to get one yet. My current pets are a pair of little boy blue budgies. Cute, but not in the same league as a furry pet.

3) I stay up too late, sleep too late, work on the computer too much, am not organized enough, and have an absolute HELL of a time dealing with paperwork. I currently work as a caregiver for a developmentally disabled man who is a friend of the family, but I don't enjoy it very much. Having to pick him up and drop him off every day, having to fill out reams of paperwork for every day I work with him -- well, let's just say it's not what I want to do when I grow up.

4) I used to be conversational in American Sign Language. In high school I studied it, worked as an interpreter for the Deaf folks at my church, and when I graduated I planned to study to become a Certified Interpreter for the Deaf. Unfortunately, I was working as a cashier during this time, and all the repetitive motions from signing and ringing register ended up burning out my wrists with tendinitis and I had to start planning for a new career.

5) I've lived in two other countries, one short-term and one long-term. As a teenager I lived in Jamaica for a couple of summers while my parents did missionary work, and as a married adult with a child, I lived in the Netherlands for a year while my husband fulfilled his computer contract. I had an odd situation arise with a Jamaican friend of mine, which led to my not returning since then. But I absolutely loved living in the Netherlands, or would have if I hadn't had Post Partum Depression at the time. Having got over it now, I would love to return and live there again... but my French friend wants us in France or Belgium instead.

6) I love to sing, took 2 years of voice lessons, and am told I sing well. The voice lessons first began because my three years of piano lessons... simply didn't "take." My teacher and I were both frustrated, and when I started just singing a piece instead of playing it, she just looked at me with this speculative gleam in her eye and told me she was going to talk to my mother about my taking voice lessons instead.

7) I'm a writer who got my start in the shady and disreputable world of fan fiction. I have written stories based on many different universes ("fandoms"): Star Trek, Hannibal Lecter, Harry Potter, and Buffy, to name just a few. Not to mention the Phantom of the Opera, which is in the public domain and therefore fair game. One of the "Phantom" stories I wrote a couple years ago, I have revised and am planning to publish as a novel this fall. After that, I've got to get back and finish up some of my unfinished fanfics, so my readers will stop buggin' me! :)

8) I like sushi. Salmon sushi is my favorite. I also like seafood in general: my idea of heaven definitely contains de-shelled lobsters, steamers, shrimp, scallops, and salmon. I also really like brie smeared on crackers. Moose meat is a newfound favorite, and I really like brined chicken. Strawberries are divine, and apples with peanut butter are a very common snack around here. My all time favorite thing to consume, though, would have to be fresh, raw milk from the farm. Grey calls me a "dairy slut," and he's not far wrong. I would live on nothing but milk, if I had to, and be quite happy.

There, there are my eight things, and if you were expecting brevity from me, Alise, then you really don't know me that well. ;)

Legalism and Freedom

Legalism is all about rule-following, especially in a religious sense. The undertone of the idea is, the more rules you can follow, and the harder it is to follow them, the better "Christian" you are, and the more "religious" you are (well, I can't argue that last one, actually, but just being "religious" is never a good thing).

But think about this: Christianity as a whole, the entire concept of being a Jesus-follower, is based on the Bible.

Here's a direct quote from the Bible, from the Man we all claim to follow religiously: "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."

Now, although a lot of people (including Christians) seem to think that Christians aren't supposed to use their brains, I assure you I've thought a lot about this. I've turned that statement on its head, inside out, and run it backwards... and you know what I've figured out?

That the converse of it is also true: If a certain belief or opinion isn't setting you free, then guess what?

It ain't the truth!

Jesus wants His people to enjoy the freedoms that He died to give us: freedom from sin, freedom from bondage to anything or anyone but Him (and he has even told us that the "burden" of following Him is easy, and the "yoke" he puts on us is light), freedom from being bound by the letter of the law. He even tells us not to allow ourselves to be bound up by the laws of others (government excepted)!

So can someone tell me WHY some people consider it their bounden duty to try and make other people follow their personal convictions as if they were laws? We're not bound to follow man-made rules--we're meant to follow Jesus alone.

To do anything else is unscriptural... just as unscriptural as their trying to impose their rules on us in the first place.

That Offensive "S" - word

Tell any intelligent, modern, non-Christian woman that if she accepts Christ she will have to start submitting to her husband, and she will very indignantly tell you where to stick your "submission." Crumpled up so it's all corners first, just exactly how far in, and sideways.

And very rightfully so.

Being an intelligent, modern, Christian woman, the daughter of teachers, I must confess that I had a similar reaction. Then after getting involved with a certain extremely conservative message board, I came under "conviction" that I'd been all wrongheaded about it, and began "submitting" to Grey the way they told me I should have all along. Don't get me wrong; I wasn't a slave, and I was still free with my opinions and all, but I began leaving the final decision-making up to him the way the church told me I should. (Note: this is a classic example of "false conviction," which is that state in which you're hearing nothing about the issue from the Holy Spirit, but plenty about it from people who speak with enough authority that you start to wonder if they're right. They almost never are!)

Well, he hated it. The pressure started building up more and more in him, until finally he blew up like Mt. Vesuvias (and if you know Grey, you know he is NOT usually an angry or violent fellow) and demanded that I STOP submitting to him. He wanted his wife back, the equal partner he had married.

Feeling like he was asking me to go against the Bible, I tentatively started speaking up more, making more decisions, that sort of thing... and I also began researching the submission issue on my own. The more I delved into it, the more I realized that I'd been sold a bill of goods by the church. Submission means nothing like what I'd been taught: it isn't subjection, obedience, or anything that even implies bowing to authority. Here's what I came up with:

The Greek word for "submission" in the Ephesians 5 passage is "hupotasso," and it has two meanings. One of them is military, and it means "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". Yes, I know this does sound like obeying authority, but hear me out. The other meaning of "hupotasso" is a non-military one, and it means: "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden".

You show me the couple whose marriage is based in the military, and I'll show you an unhealthy marriage. I think it's safe to assume that we can go with the non-military meaning here, given above: which, if you think about it, sounds like a recipe for a very healthy marriage instead of one based in the concepts of commands and obedience.

It gets better. You'll notice it mentions "assuming responsibility," doesn't it? This tells me that submission has much more of a connotation of helping by shouldering part of the load than it does of accepting someone else's commands. Assuming responsibility is something a leader does, is it not? And yet, that's one of the definitions of "hupotasso." So, Biblically speaking, wives are to "submit," among other ways, by leading and assuming responsibility.

Hmmm. Doesn't sound much like obedience or subjection to me. But hey, don't take my word for it: one of the Greek lexicons I used to look this up is located here. Feel free to check it out for yourself.

And just for fun, after I worked out the whole "submission" gig, I wondered hey, what about the passage that says the husband is head of the wife? What's up with that, if we're not talking about an authoritarian relationship? Here's what I found out about that:

The Greek word used there for "head" is "kephale." I checked it with a secular Greek-English lexicon and discovered something surprising. In all the different contexts of the word's use, nowhere does it come across as "leader" or "authority." Some definitions were: crown, completion, consummation, sum, total, head of man or beast, generally, top, brim of a vessel, source of a river, mouth; generally, source, origin, starting-point. (These ones were especially interesting in light of the fact that Adam was the "source" of Eve in a very literal sense: God made her out of his body.)

Most of these definitions apply to Christ's relationship with the church, but not a single one of them implies authority. I especially like the ones that mention crown, completion, and sum total; if this is what the husband is to be toward the wife, then that goes along very nicely with 1 Cr. 11:6, which says that the woman is the "glory" of the man. One of the definitions of "glory" here is "a most glorious condition, most exalted state," and another is "magnificence, excellence, preeminence, dignity, grace."

That sounds like another fine example of Greek parallelism, saying the same thing in different words. The husband is the consummation of the wife, and the wife is the exalted state of her husband.

Here is an excellent site that explains this concept much more fully, and also goes more deeply into the Greek literary technique of parallel writing. Very interesting reading, it is! Now that I'm learning more about the scriptures in their original languages, I'm discovering all sorts of nasty little secrets that the translators have kept to themselves over the years, that the church has taught as doctrine for centuries.

Feminists and the Church

In recent years, there is a huge schism between feminists and the church. Christians who believe in equal rights and respect for women are afraid to call themselves "feminists" because of hate-spewing bigots like Andrea Dworkin who literally gave feminism a bad name... and feminists who believe and worship Jesus are afraid to call themselves Christians because of misogynistic (and racist) bigots like Bob Jones and his ilk.

But in the roots of feminism, there were very close ties with the Christian community; in fact, the Salvation Army was especially active in promoting women's rights (and many of the first-wave feminists were active in the church as well). It seems that the first-wave feminists and the church of a hundred years ago were both a lot more enlightened than we are today.

Modern feminists, however, hate Christianity because it's so "patriarchal." The reason it is patriarchal is that there have been centuries' worth of wrong teachings concerning certain passages mostly penned by St. Paul. Women being silent in the church and not usurping authority over a man -- that was a directive for one particular church that was having a problem with the women shouting questions to their husbands (men and women didn't sit together), having them answered (loudly) by other women who didn't know any better than they, and just generally being disruptive. Women submitting to their husbands was essentially the same thing that husbands were being asked to do for their wives. Yet people have misinterpreted these passages for hundreds of years and used them to essentially enslave women through spiritual abuse.

What's happening, though, is that even in this modern age, churches are still preaching these mistaken views of women -- and it's proving a real hindrance to the educated, modern, thinking woman who doesn't know Christ.

Don't get me wrong -- many churches and pastors will spout the party line of Galatians 3:28. They'll say that men and women are equal in Christ, but that God has given them different "roles" -- to men, a leadership role, and to women, a subordinate, helping role. Umm... correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't sound too equal to me... or if it does, it's only equality in the Orwellian sense.

So when Christians start to witness to feminists, they have to be aware that feminists are even less likely to like Christianity because once the church starts telling them how equal they are in Christ -- "You're equal, but you've gotta submit to your husband. No, he doesn't have to submit to you; it's a one-way street -- but don't worry! You're really equal!" -- they're not gonna go for it.

They're not going to listen to anything that has to do with how "sacrificial" the husband's love is; they're going to hear "he gets to make the decisions," and "you have to do what he says." Not only that, but many churches would also say, "Oh, you're equal to men in Christ -- but you can't teach them anything; your ministry is limited to women and children. Maybe boy children if we're feeling magnanimous. But don't worry-- you're really equal!"

Might as well be sitting around chanting "Two legs, bad! Four legs good!" and "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Orwellian church? I'll pass, thanks.

Missionaries and Respect for the Native Culture

I found this comment on another blog, and it struck home for me. The commenter, Egana, said: If we were missionaries in a foreign culture, we would be very careful to learn the ins and outs of that culture for the sake of our representation of Christ to them. So how does one reconcile Biblical mandates and cultural expectations in ones own native culture, for the sake of the gospel?

If foreign missionaries go to school, classes, and have intensive, in-depth studies on how to relate to whatever culture they're going into -- and how best to introduce the gospel in that particular culture -- then why, oh, why, don't home missionaries have the same thing?

Considering that every single one of us is a missionary either home or abroad, we really must find a way to talk about Jesus without making the surrounding culture hate us. If missionaries have to make cultural adjustments abroad, then we should have to make them at home as well. What is the very best way in the world to share the gospel with other people? The way that Jesus Himself used: through relationships and friendships. We can't be afraid to make friends with the unbelievers, the way so many Christians are. Jesus wasn't afraid to. Why are we?

Also, foreign missionaries don't push their beliefs onto the natives. Why do we? They don't picket in front of the foreign city halls for the land to change its laws -- they know they are the foreigners, the guests, of that country. So are we, as believers in Christ. They work through befriending others and gradually introducing those people to Christ through their own examples and their own lives. So should we. They don't have smear campaigns complaining about the leaders of those countries; neither should we. They work, within their own circle of people, to change hearts through loving others. So should we.

I'm not saying that Christians shoudn't be involved with politics. I'm saying that in the USA, our involvement is all wrong. What good does it do to picket in front of an abortion clinic -- all it does is make people mad. Is that what we want them to think about people who follow Christ? It does far more good to actually befriend the young, unwed mothers; that way, not only do they actually get to see the love of Christ instead of seeing a bunch of self-righteous Christians yelling hateful things at them, but you also get a chance to offer them other solutions (Crisis Pregnancy Center, anyone?) that they may not be able to find on their own.

Why do so many pastors preach sermons on how much God hates homosexuality? News flash: God hates ALL sin. Luckily for us, he loves all the sinners, up to and yes, even including, the homosexuals. What good does it do to tell a homosexual that s/he's a sinner? Unless it's in the context of everyone being a sinner, and that everyone struggles with sin, but that God can save us from its ultimate consequences -- it does no good, and lately gets you called homophobic. It does a heck of a lot more good to actually befriend the gay people; get to know them, and demonstrate God's love for them; that way, not only can you justly and scornfully refute charges of hate speech, but also disproves the "homophobic" accusation. And even if they never come to Christ, you'll have made some good friends.

When I was growing up, I used to hear the catchphrase all the time: "Christianity isn't a religion; it's a relationship." Unfortunately, I did not see that relationship demonstrated very much as I was growing up. And now that I have grown up, I have come to realize that, alas, the Christianity that most of us are familiar with is a religion, and that there is far too little relationship of any sort involved with it.

Truly following Christ has nothing of the religion aspect to it. Truly followng Christ is ALL about relationships: us with God, and us with other people.

If you are not loving others, befriending them, getting to know them, and helping them "bear their burdens," then you're not really witnessing. And if you're not showing respect for the culture that you're a missionary in -- even if it's your own! -- then you're probably just turning people off.

They Day They Canceled Church

I was talking about this topic with Grey again (strangely enough, it tends to come up on a weekly basis...) and we both agreed that our absolute favorite church service EVER was one time a couple years ago when we got a blizzard and "regular" church was canceled.

There were some who live in the building, and some like us who hadn't gotten the phone call about its being canceled, so maybe 17 or 20 people showed up. And stayed. And it was CHURCH, I'm telling you.

Someone had put on some praise music in the sanctuary, and there were a few people in there singing along and worshipping through music and dance (people who wouldn't dare to dance in front of everyone else). One person sang a solo for whoever was there to listen. There were three or four sitting off in a corner praying together. There were several out in the lobby, just chit-chatting.

That's where I was, and that morning I got to know one of the most amazing women in the whole church -- and she's kind of intimidating, so I would probably never have spoken to her on a regular Sunday morning. Some of the guys got to talking, and when one mentioned a repair problem that he'd been having, a couple others went off with him right then to help him fix it. Grey hung around chatting with us for a while, and went off with our son for a while, and then came back and sort of flitted from one group to another. Our son had a blast; he appointed himself unofficial babysitter for one of the other younger ones (he was only 5 himself), and kept reporting to the baby's mother what the baby was doing. Usually the two kids would have been in different classes (age-segregated), but that morning they both really enjoyed playing together.

Some of the folks in the lobby were talking about lighthearted stuff, and another little knot of people were doing Bible research into a point of doctrine that they were discussing.

It was all completely unstructured, no one was in charge, and we were all there worshipping and fellowshipping together. No one had to shush the kids, no one had to do any lesson plans or come up with a sermon, and people could come and go as it suited them.

As I recall, my antisocial husband and I ended up staying far longer than we've ever stayed for a church service before. He's usually one of those "first out the door" kind of guys. And when we left, we felt this sense of total spiritual satisfaction that I don't think we've ever been able to attain since then.

I swear, I would LOVE going to church if they would only cancel it every week!

The "Covering" Doctrine of Authority

Our church is big into the concept of "covering." We wanted to offer a Crown Financial Ministries small group study to our fellow parishioners a year ago, but when I broached the topic to the pastor's wife (who is in charge of the majority of the ministries there), she took control of the idea. I had been thinking to meet in our home, but she said no, they'd rather have it there in the church meetingroom so they could have it under their "covering." They didn't want to use Crown materials, but instead use "HomeBuilder" materials instead, which apparently has a financial piece to it. She did offer us the chance to lead the finances class, but only in their building and using their stuff, and she specifically said it was so that we could be under their "covering." (Never once did she ask to see the Crown materials that we already had -- it was their way or the highway, it seemed.)

Last summer they did a whole big video series, 3 months' worth, called "Under Cover" by John Bevere. The whole point of it was all about respecting the authority which God has placed over you -- which is all right and good -- but then he said that the church (read: pastor) is the principle authority that God has placed over you.

He said that pastors should be obeyed; the example our pastor came up with was that if he asked all the men to wear Hawaiian shirts to church on Sundays, and they didn't have a spiritual, Biblical reason not to, then they should all wear them. Because he, the pastor, was placed in authority over us, and we owed him our respect and to a certain extent, our obedience.

To me, that smacks of cultism, to be quite honest.

Whatever happened to God's being our authority?

Another thing: I know several pastors and their wives in real life, and they all say that they can't have real, deep, open friendships with people in their congregation. They can't "confess their sins one to another" unless the "one another" is a bunch of other pastors. Why not? Because it undermines their authority for people to think that their pastor struggles with the same sins they do. This is a perfect example of "authority" coming between people. In order to keep their authority, they must show a different face to their congregation than they do to their group of pastor-friends. When they should be concentrating on building relationships (loving your neighbor as yourself), they concentrate on saving face.

People call pastors "shepherds" and the congregation "sheep." But really, isn't the pastor just another sheep and Jesus is the Shepherd? You can't have equality between people when one of them is constantly set up above the other as a spiritual authority. It's one thing if they take turns: If I go to another congregant and ask for counsel, then for that moment she has spiritual authority over me... but at the same time we're still peers, in that I can choose whether to follow her advice or not. AND by the end of the conversation we're back to being peers again. And then she might need counsel from me.

If I go to the pastor for counsel, I go as a supplicant, someone who is constantly "lower" than he is. His advice has the ring of authority to it, and there's usually a strong undercurrent of "you must do *this* to be in the will of God," where the peer would more likely say "you must pray and figure out for yourself how to be in the will of God." And after my counseling session with the pastor, he's still the one in authority over me, and I'm still the supplicant. There's no equality there. He's never going to ask advice from me. There's no submitting one to another there, as Ephesians 5 directs us to do.

Now, a huge part of the church idea of "covering" is also protection, as I mentioned already -- specifically in this case, protection from spiritual error. Yes, the pastor's word will carry the ring of authority, because he wants me to follow his advice and wants to protect me from error...

But isn't it the Holy Spirit's job to protect us from error? And if I have this man, even as a pastor, as a "covering" -- an intermediary between me and God -- it seems as if he is trying to do too much. He's trying to do God's job. If God wants to teach me something that our pastor's ordaining denomination does not believe, then the pastor would actually be protecting me FROM GOD, wouldn't he? (And yes, there are a few issues where I suspect this is the case)

I do agree that we need teachers of the scriptures, yes. But do we need one person who is constantly in authority over us, who can't allow himself to be real with us, and who essentially comes between us and God? Whether it's authority, protection, or whatever, his "umbrella" is still between us and God.

The more I think about it, the more the concept of "covering" seems like

a) control, as in wanting to keep control of the congregation and what is taught and all, and...

b) fear and lack of trust in God -- that God won't be able to correct any possible errors that may crop up.

I see it at our church -- our pastor and his wife are very, very busy people, because they have so many ministries going on. However, they don't delegate as much as they should, because they want to stay in control of what's going on -- and they call it keeping us under their "covering."

Disclaimer: No, I'm not bashing pastors in any way; I know they work hard and can get burned out and most of them do a great job. I'm just complaining about the concept of "covering" that some of them teach. All too often I've heard people use that word when it really meant "control."

(The Baptist church I grew up in called it "male leadership" and was a lot more subtle about it... but there still weren't any women heading up any church ministries.)

It seems as if I am embarking on wilderness journey here, questioning things I've been taught by one church or another. The doctrine of "covering" just strikes me as wrong, in the sense that I've been taught by our pastor and his wife. It's like saying that Jesus' sacrifice wasn't enough; we still need go-betweens, between us and Jesus.

And here I thought the curtain of the holiest of holies had been torn all down the middle -- it really seems as though the "covering" people want to sew it back up again. Whether the covering is supposed to be the husband, for a woman, or the church/pastor/elders, for the husband -- they still get between us and Jesus.

I've also heard it taught (I think I've mentioned this before) that they view it as protection, to help protect you spiritually from demons, from false doctrine, etc. Well, for many many people what it actually protects them from is directly experiencing God's grace and presence!

I have the Holy Spirit inside, to protect me from false doctrine... I have the authority of Jesus' blood to protect me from demons (and again, the Holy Spirit to help with discerning them)... and I don't need anything getting in the way of my access to God.

Covering is starting to sound like a euphemism for "control" to me.

Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure the Holy spirit should be the only one in control.

I Have Ceased Being a Regular Churchgoer

This isn't a blog full of complaints about my church, because in all honesty I don't think that particular church, or pastor, or whatever is the problem. It's more that I've pretty much had it with the traditional "sing a while, have announcements, sing some more, have a testimony, sing some more and take the offering, and then sit down and listen to a 40 minute sermon about things that have nothing to do with what you face on a daily basis" angle of church. Where's the participation? Where's the connection? Where's the interaction, the sharing, the serving that the New Testament talks about?

We haven't stopped attending completely; we make it maybe every 3rd week or so. But it's more and more of a chore, and it's just basically so we can squeeze in a few minutes with our friends that we don't get to see during the week. And a new church is not the answer. In talking about it we don't think changing churches is going to help. Grey mentioned elsewhere that the traditional church in the pointy building just isn't working for us anymore. And our church meetingplace isn't even pointy! Mind you, they want to build a pointy one, which is part of the reason we're not happy there. When a church gets big enough to need another building, it is NOT time to build a bigger building. It's time to plant a new church! Honestly, I think it's more a point of pride with pastors, to have a bigger church, than it is a thing of them being better able to serve their congregation. Pride and control -- I've seen that in almost every church I've been in. There may be a possible exception with our current one -- I don't know if our pastor is prideful or a control freak (though I know his wife is) -- but if not, he's definitely misguided.

And when's the last time you pointed out a doctrinal error to a church pastor and he changed his mind? Nope. Doesn't happen. For the most part, they believe in whatever they were taught at Bible college, and if you disagree it's because you have it wrong. There are some who will listen to you and study it out for themselves (the pastor of the small non-denom we attended for a year, for example -- he ended up disagreeing with me, but I deeply respect the fact that he studied it for himself. He did end up in a different place from where he had begun, at any rate!). But mostly they'll just tune you out. Listening means they have to think, and most people don't seem to like to think for themselves whether they pastor a church or not.

Then again, I've also been thinking and reading about how un-Biblical the position of pastor is, too -- at least, the idea of "pastor" that we have: the man who leads the church and who preaches every week. Show me that in scripture, eh? And then tell me where it says the pastor is any more important to the function of a church body than the prophet, or the teacher, or the helper? But that's another blog for another time.

Some friends have mentioned the house-church idea, and honestly I think I'm leaning in that direction -- but there again, how do you track down a group of people who only know about it by word-of-mouth? And more to the point, how do you know it's not one of those creepy cultish groups that wears headcoverings and don't allow the women to speak? Or that worship Michael Pearl, or that think it's somehow holier to follow Old Testament Laws? (Hm, I wonder just how many of them keep a "menstrual tent" for their women?)

(Or maybe they just WISH they did!)

After the disappointment of my aunt's JW "memorial service" (which was about 3 minutes of the minister talking about her, and about 42 minutes of him explaining JW doctrine about death), I reached a real low point with religion. Basically, I've had it with religion. I don't want it anymore. I want a Mike Yaconelli-style "Messy spirituality," that isn't bogged down with what other people think about religion. I want Jesus, but I want Jesus without all the religious crap.

I want to be Jesus to people, to the best of my ability, and if that means never darkening the door of a pointy building again, then I'm all over it.

Seems like frequently, the traditional "church" does more harm than good these days anyway. We have to figure out a way to relate to the "unchurched" people -- like Jesus did! -- or else we're going to be useless in the new century. Worse than useless -- damaging.

If anyone's interested, here are some book recommendations that'll give you an inkling where I'm coming from:
Messy Spirituality
Who is Your Covering? A Fresh Look at Leadership, Authority, and Accountability
Sinners in the Hands of an Angry Church
So You Don't Want to go to Church Anymore

Happy reading!