new to you friday–I have a theme

Well, Dudley went another (excellent) direction for the 2011 NACC, but I still like my theme.

This past year I worked through a few issues in therapy (best money I’ve ever spent), began editing a new magazine for young girls (more on this soon), made some new friends, tried ziplining, quit a few freelance jobs and picked up a few more, traveled to Chicago by myself, and even played on a kickball team (well, I got on base a few times). It’s been a great year, mostly because I tried some kind-of-scary things.

This Halloween weekend, fear not! What brave thing do you need to do between now and December 31 to make this a great year?

————————————————————————

It’s a safe bet I’ll never be asked to serve as NACC president, but just in case I’ve got my theme ready.


My mom teaches Human Development at CCU, and during the early childhood portion of the course she describes the “fearful, flexible, and feisty” theory, which defines three basic temperaments.

Every child fits one, and I was definitely in the fearful category. Old friends still laugh about my response to the overstimulation and forced playtime of the church nursery—I hid alone under the cribs until Brandon Abercrombie joined me there to pull my hair. I spent many mornings before kindergarten and first grade quietly crying at the breakfast table, and had a meltdown when I couldn’t write the number 2 as well as my teacher, Mrs. Pence. (My mother’s gentle yet firm response: “Jenni, Mrs. Pence is old. She’s been making 2s for a long time. You’re five.”)


And yet, as I’ve moved into adulthood, I find myself taking risks while others play it safe. I went 300 miles away to a college where I knew only one person and majored in English Lit (go ahead, you know you’re dying to say it: “How are you going to get a job with a major like that?”).

I tackled projects, like teaching myself QuarkXPress to design the NACC program book, that seem foolishly difficult in retrospect. (There is something to be said for the ignorance of youth.) I moved to California alone, then moved to Nashville alone. I helped reconfigure a company, then realized I couldn’t take another day in a cubicle and launched out as a freelance writer not knowing if it would actually allow me to pay my bills.


My fearful temperament hasn’t changed, but I’ve learned it’s okay to be afraid—what counts is how you respond.


Think about it: almost every Bible character who allowed God to use his life in a significant way did so because he obeyed in spite of fear. Abraham left everything familiar to travel to a far country, David spent years on the run from a mad king, Mary delivered a baby alone in a cave, Paul survived shipwrecks and endured prison. I’d bet my “Footprints” plaque they felt fear, but the glory—God’s glory—came from their choice to obey anyway.

So that would be my NACC theme: Fear not! The angels said it to terrified shepherds (who then obeyed by finding Jesus). “Be strong and courageous,” God told his people (who obeyed and conquered the Promised Land). “Fear the Lord your God,” he commands us, and we obey, even if it means swallowing our fear of people.

Throughout Scripture, God’s people feel fear as a noun but don’t indulge in fear as a verb, and I’d use my hypothetical presidency to remind God’s people today to follow their example. Dudley, you’re up for 2011—you can have this one if you give me a credit line in the program book.

single minded

Last week during a meeting, one of the leaders of a national church planting network remarked, “We don’t allow single men to plant churches.”

A few years ago, the committee introduced me to a minister in another state. During one of our phone calls he shared how hard it had been to find a church willing to hire a never-married, not-currently-engaged man to serve as their senior leader.

As Paul Williams has written, the pressure to “find a good mate at college” still exists, and if a man knows he won’t be able to land a preaching job before first landing a wife, it’s that much more likely he’ll marry before he’s ready. Do we prefer a growing number of unhappily married leaders to some happily single ones?


Then there’s the other Paul—you know, the one who was single but also planted a number of churches and wrote half the New Testament?

Oh, and Jesus.


I’m not saying a singleton is better for ministry (although Paul did), but I’m not sure why churches are opposed to it. You’d think they would be clamoring for a single guy—theoretically the congregation would pay less money in health care and other benefits and receive more of the leader’s focus.

Instead, there seems to be a fear that an unmarried senior pastor will be unstable (because all the married leaders are so together) or promiscuous (because the married guys are never tempted by sexual sin).

Of the many biblical teachings we like to ignore, this one really does baffle me.

What do you think? Why this stigma against singles?

new to you friday–to be and to have

It’s been a heavy week here on the ‘ol blog, so let’s end with some smiles. This is still one of my favorite movies and one I still think should be required viewing for anyone who works with kids.

In the time since the original post, YouTube yanked the video I first linked to—which is great because it forced me to look for this one, which is even more wonderful. Take eight minutes out of your Friday to enjoy it.

————————————————————————————————

I love action movies. But I also love kids, good teachers, and laughing, and this slow-paced, reflective movie is full of all three.

To Be and To Have is a documentary which follows a small classroom of students and their wonderful teacher George Lopez throughout the seasons in rural France. The big ones learn geometry while the little ones practice their numbers—all in the same classroom.

It sounds idyllic, and it largely is because of Lopez’s skill at keeping the fifteen or so students quiet and on task whether he’s giving them personal attention at the moment or not. He accomplishes this by communicating high expectations and treating the children with respect—as a result, the kids don’t want to disappoint him. When the inevitable squabbles happen, he models conflict resolution. And he finds the teachable in every moment.


I highly recommend this if you have kids, teach kids, or want to do either one. Your Blockbuster should have it, and if not, impress the Netflix people with your savoir faire. (It’s in French with English subtitles. Don’t be scared. You forget after a few minutes.)

To Be and To Have is a great example of the impact of one life—plus there’s JoJo, the delightful 4-year-old who needs help washing his hands and sticks pencils up his nose.

just asking–part three

This one can be emotionally and politically charged, so—in the words of one of my mentors—let’s “maximize light and minimize heat.”

Just a few observations.

In several passages (start here, here or here) the Bible condemns homosexual behavior.

A variety of studies indicate genetics play at least a major if not the major role in determining one’s sexual orientation. (Here’s one and another with this viewpoint, and one and another from the other perspective).

More liberal denominations have reacted by dismissing the scripture. Some conservatives have reacted by ignoring the science.

If we’re not willing to do either, how do we reconcile scientific discoveries with traditional church teaching?


Is it okay to experience same-sex attraction, because theoretically it is largely out of one’s control, but wrong to act on it? Can a Christian leader be homosexual if he or she is also celibate?

“Most human sexuality researchers who are not religious conservatives regard homosexual orientation as a trait like left-handedness,” says one article. “Child psychologists can interview children at [age 5] and determine with excellent accuracy who will grow up to be gay.”


What do we do with this?

just asking–part two

Yesterday I alluded to this one, so let’s just go there.

I understand many of the arguments against women preaching or otherwise leading a church (serving as an elder, for example). There are the scriptures like 1 Timothy 2 (which beg questions not only of biblical interpretation but also definition of terms like “authority”). There’s the argument from the created order (equal but different roles assigned to the male and female in relationship to each other and within the home). There’s even the argument from Jesus’s own ministry (only male apostles, for instance).


I get it. But I still have problems with these explanations.

For one thing, this position automatically disqualifies 50% of the population from contributing their full giftedness in the life of the church. Are we okay with that?

For another, this disqualification means many smart, talented women are left out of the discussions and decisions of local church life (but still expected to staff the nursery and provide cookies afterward). Granted, many men are similarly uninvolved in church leadership, but at least it’s not because they have the wrong body part.

Finally, let’s just be honest. Some male pastors are strong leaders and communicators. Some aren’t. Some of the female preachers I know are even better. (Priscilla Shirer, I’m talking to you.)


Now, on the other hand, I will be the first to admit that many of our programs, buildings and even worship songs already skew toward the feminine. And studies have shown that if you get the man to church, the family will follow.

And no, we don’t get to choose our theology based on our feelings about it. Scripture is full of hard teachings.


So I don’t know.  I don’t want to preach.  I certainly don’t want to be involved in anything that’s not scriptural. But I also have to acknowledge that some of the traditional answers just don’t fit with the reality of how God seems to have gifted his people—of both genders.


What do we do with this?

just asking

There are some issues for which I can recite the evangelical position point by alliterated point. The problem is, some of these answers are no longer working for me.

So for the next few days, I’m going to throw some out for discussion. I honestly don’t have an agenda here, other than to create a place for dialogue. As I learned when I expressed my boredom with church, I’m not the only one wrestling with these questions.


So let’s talk about them. First up?

Tithing.


Traditional position I can recite: We are commanded to give 10% and it must be to the local church where we are spiritually fed. We should then be as generous as possible to the other missions, ministries and charities we believe in. If you do this God will bless you—maybe financially, maybe with relationships, health, professional success, or any other way he sees fit. You can test him in this; you will always receive more than you give.

My experience: 2010 has been the best year I’ve had in a decade—professionally, personally and financially. But I stopped tithing to my church in 2009 because it hit me just how many thousands of dollars I have given in the last 12+ years and how little I agree with how they’ve been spent. As a woman I don’t get to be on the team that decides such things (more on that later—you’re welcome) but I’m still expected to write the checks.

I just can’t keep giving money to maintain a building that sits empty most of the week, buys supplies for programs I find misguided or wasteful, or funds initiatives championed by elders with whom I disagree. Instead, these days I give money to support individual missionaries, I sponsor children in need, and I donate my time and professional services to good causes.

Some of you may shake your head at this admission, but some of you are nodding in agreement, too. Tithing to the local church when the local church seems ineffective isn’t working for me, and despite the traditional teaching on the subject, I don’t seem to be experiencing any adverse effects.

What do we do with this?

new to you friday–fleeced

We’ll talk about this more next week, I think—the differences between what we hear from the pulpit and what we experience in our own lives.

For now, I’m interested in your take on this specific issue: when (if ever) should we ask God for a sign? Is there a danger in relating to God this way? How often do we simply believe what we want to believe?

————————————————————————————

This week at the National Missionary Convention, Florence Muindi shared the story of seeking God’s will in a ministry decision. After praying about whether to stay in Africa or move to the United States, she asked God to confirm the right direction with two things: if her brother wore a green shirt to lunch the next day, and if she woke up to exactly 16 emails in her inbox, she would stay in Ethiopia. If not, she would move to the States.

The next morning her young son, aware of the terms, woke her up to announce she had 16 emails. Later that afternoon they both stared at the green shirt Florence’s brother “just felt like wearing” that day.


In Christian circles, “laying out a fleece” is not often encouraged. It’s true we aren’t to test God, and there’s a danger in constructing arbitrary circumstances and viewing them as divine intervention. But no one in the Tulsa Convention Center on Thursday night would argue Muindi was wrong to pray that prayer, or that it wasn’t conclusively answered.

How do we know when, or if, it’s okay to “bargain” with God this way? Is it a matter of sincerity? Muindi was truly torn about her decision, truly seeking God, and truly committed to obeying no matter what His answer. How many of us can claim the same thing when we ask for specific confirmation? I wonder if our desire to receive such tangible responses to prayer is actually a lack of faith which “fleeces” God of the opportunity to build our spiritual muscles.


I’ve only prayed this kind of prayer one time. Several years ago during a trip to the beach, I prayed that God would change the heart of a man I loved who didn’t love God. “If he will become a Christian and this relationship has a future, let me see a shooting star,” I prayed while walking along the sand one evening. I knew the odds of glimpsing one of these nighttime visions was rare. Not ten seconds later, seriously, I looked up to see a star shoot across the sky with a gleam of light. Inside, I beamed as bright as the star, certain God had answered my prayer with a yes.

Later that year, the guy told me he would never change his mind about Christ and we ended the relationship. Maybe I should have asked to see a green shirt instead.

things I don’t understand, part 10

Having 19 kids and counting.

Having 9 kids and counting.

How pastors at churches offering 17 different Bible study options, a Mother’s Day Out ministry, seniors’ trips to Branson, a bookstore, Financial Peace University, scrapbooking nights, exercise classes, a preschool and 43 staff members still believe they are leading a “simple church.”

Eyelash perming.

Eating bean sprouts.

People who brag about getting drunk.

The portion of the population apparently looking to flea markets and roadside stands as their primary source for socks.

Taking anyone to Disneyland who still requires an afternoon nap and/or rides in a stroller.

How 20% of Americans still think Obama is a Muslim.

How 20% of Americans (undoubtedly the same ones) can’t find the United States on a map.


This is just my latest confusion.

new to you friday–the winter of my discontent

I am still trying to be more positive about the change of seasons. This week, for example, I bought my weight in hay bales, gourds and mums. I’m hosting some friends and family for the weekend and planning menus that include things like apple/pear/cranberry crisp and pumpkin ginger muffins. I’m trying to be as enthusiastic as my Facebook friends about cooler weather and changing leaves (although Nashville’s gone so long without rain, most of our leaves skipped the pretty phase and went right to brown. You’d think that flood would have counted for something.)

So I’m giving it my best shot. But I already have cold feet, and I don’t mean that metaphorically.

————————————————
In my quest to become more positive, I am trying valiantly to look forward to the upcoming winter season, otherwise known as The Five Straight Months of Cold Feet. In that spirit (the positive one—didn’t you identify it in the previous sentence?) I have attempted to brainstorm some good things about winter:

1. Sitting by the fireplace TO GET WARM

2. Reading a good book while snuggling under a blanket TO GET WARM

3. Wrapping great scarves around my neck in jaunty positions TO GET WARM

4. Burrowing under the covers with my hot water bottle TO GET WARM

5. Enjoying cafe au lait and hot chocolate TO GET WARM

6. Wearing soft merino wool sweaters TO GET WARM

7. Cuddling with a nice boy TO GET WARM

8. My fun peacoat with gold buttons I bought TO GET WARM

9. Steaming hot baths with essential oils TO GET WARM

10. Fuzzy chenille socks that I wear TO GET WARM


Yeah, this is going well.

need to know

If you avoid Facebook, Twitter, and all online news it’s possible you missed the stories last week with headlines like “Americans don’t know much about religion.” (Of course, if you successfully avoid all social media and news sites you probably don’t read blogs, either.)

Anyway, if you need them, here are the links:

US Religious Knowledge Survey

AP news story


Now let’s talk about this.

Here were some things I did not find surprising:

–That atheists and agnostics scored highest on the test. It’s still more difficult to be an unbeliever in this country than it is to be a cultural Christian. Most people don’t just slide into atheism; it’s usually a conscious choice made after some amount of thought and study. On the other hand, many people do slide into a catch-all Christianity. (To be fair, evangelical Protestants did score higher on the Bible-related questions. Although not as high as the Mormons.)

–That many Americans do not know the current legal restrictions (and lack of them) on religion in public schools. What, some people in this country loudly defend opinions about issues they haven’t taken time to understand? Say it isn’t so.

–That evangelical and mainline Protestants ranked lower than other groups on their knowledge of world religions. After all, we don’t need to know about the other ones—ours is right.

Here’s one thing I did find surprising:

–For comparison purposes the survey also asked questions about current events, literature and history. Only 59% of Americans knew the name of our Vice President. If anyone would like to make some money, buy stock in Ambien, because I will now have trouble sleeping for the next year.


Here’s what I found completely unacceptable.

All of it.


I’m not pointing fingers. I could ask what the churches are doing if our people can spend lifetimes in them and know so little. But many churches have slowly discontinued  Sunday school classes and mid-week Bible studies because people aren’t interested in attending (or teaching) them.

I could ask why parents don’t assume more responsibility for teaching their children, but this assumes those parents (who don’t want to learn at church) have studied on their own and made biblical instruction a priority. How many families in your church are doing that?

So instead of asking why other people aren’t teaching us, let’s ask why so many of us are content to know so little. How can so many people claim allegiance to a belief system they barely understand? I know I uberanalyze and overthink everything, and it’s a sign of God’s goodness in the world that not everyone shares my temperament. But it saddens me that for many people in our country being a believer just means having an uninformed belief in God. And I find it scary that despite this ignorance so many Christians use a religion they don’t know much about as an excuse for the causes they endorse, the beliefs they reject and the votes they cast.

We like to crow about being a Christian nation. Does that even matter if no one knows what it means?