the view from her

Reasons I love living in the U.S.A. on our 232nd birthday:

1. The 4th of July. Barbecue, parades, sparklers, fireworks.
2. We have the prettiest flag.
3. You can drive anywhere without asking permission. Even across state lines. And stay as long as you want.
4. Blue jeans.
5. You can love or hate books like The Shack, or The DaVinci Code, but they're not forbidden.
6. We have real cowboys.
7. And Indians.
8. You can freely mock the President. I think we take that for granted.
9. The Freedom of Information Act. Our government will actually give you information about itself.
10. You can send a letter to any one of over 111 million homes, and it will be delivered to precisely the right one in only about two days, for just 42 cents.
11. New England clam chowder.
12. Alaska and Hawaii.
13. You can have as many children as you want.
14. Libraries. All the free books you can read. (6 at a time.)
15. Thanksgiving Day.
16. The Bill of Rights.
17. You can paint your house any color you want. Unless of course you live in a California homeowner's association.
18. Baseball.
19. An efficient sewage system.
20. Microsoft and Apple. Um... you're welcome.
22. Jazz.
23. Gospel music.
24. Rock 'n Roll.
24. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

Following yesterday's post, I had the opportunity to hear William "Paul" Young, author of The Shack, speak last night at Mariners Church in Irvine, CA.

For those who are skeptical, critical of the book, theologically opposed, etc, I highly recommend hearing this man in person. I know - to some people it doesn't matter how "nice" someone is if their theology is wrong. And there is truth in that. What's unique about Paul Young is that he's very clear about his theology, and he's very clear about the choices he makes in writing. He's a writer, not an apologist. And he's first and foremost a father, a sinner with a humble and grateful acceptance of God's grace.

His appearance is an every-day man. Upon introduction he's a hugger, not a hand-shaker. His personality is gentle, winsome, mischievous, and he is a remarkable storyteller. He strikes me as a bit of a Ragamuffin for today.

He never intended for his book to be published, a point he reiterates. He wrote it for his children. Everything else that has happened has been because of God and others. He encourages critics to direct their complaints accordingly.

Hearing his personal story first-hand is an incredible experience, and media summaries do not begin to do it justice. If you have the opportunity in your area to hear him speak, it is well worth the effort to go. If you're in Southern California, Paul Young is speaking at Mariners Church this weekend, and you can find service times and directions at the above link.

If you haven't yet heard about The Shack, it's a fictional book by unknown author William Young that turned into a New York Times bestseller. It primarily attempts to provide a different way to understand God. As always, presenting a different way to understand God provokes cries of heresy, as well as cries of gratitude - as in, "this book changed my life!" So Christians should approach this book critically - not as in finding fault - but as in considering the views and statements the writer presents to see if they correlate to the truth of God's Word. As for me, it's the cries of heresy in fiction that always make me want to purchase the book immediately. You see how I am.

In short, this is the story of a grieving father who has a weekend meeting with God in an abandoned mountain shack, the very site of his family's terrible tragedy. According to the author, the shack represents the structure we build out of our pain and the deep secrets of our lives. The metaphor of God meeting us in that darkest place and redeeming our pain is powerful. This is not a theological treatise. It's not even the best-written book you'll ever read. But in my opinion, it succeeds in providing engaging perspectives on questions we've all asked God at some point: Where were you when I needed you? Why didn't you do something? How can you love me and let bad things happen?

The heresy-criers say, "No, God can't be a presented as a woman... Yes, there is a hierarchy in the Holy Trinity with God the Father in command." I mean no disrespect, but I find this laughable. God "can't be presented as a woman"? For a God who exists outside any physical dimension, and incorporates both the male and female fully in his nature, inhabiting the character of a woman lets us better see his nurturing and affection for us. Considering that the trinity is not mentioned anywhere in scripture, the required hierarchy with God the Father "in command" (in command?) reflects more about our human need for defined authority. I'm fairly sure God doesn't need to define it amongst himself.

We all relate to a mental image of God. Some of us always see him as a father. Some are more comfortable with the relational persona of Jesus. If you're a male authority on the "role" of men as authorities, you see God as male, and "in command" of the trinity. If you were abused as a child, you may prefer a nurturing, "mother hen" image of God, as Young obviously does. It's just how we are. We bring things we cannot possibly comprehend into a more manageable understanding. And this in no way diminishes God's holiness. As if we could.

It's been said that you don't go to the movies to learn history. In the same way, you don't read fiction to learn theology. But the power of story is that it helps us see truths about God in new and unexpected ways. And The Shack does that very well.

It's July 1, and if you live or are planning to visit in California, it is now illegal to talk on your cell phone while driving. Well, you can still talk on your phone, you just can't hold it in your hand while you talk. We have a new "hands-free" law by which we must all now abide.

Interestingly, you can still hold the phone in your hand to dial a number while driving, and you can still text while driving. Two things which require you to actually look at the phone, and not at the road. For however much sense that makes. But then, sense is generally in short supply among our courts and lawmakers in California.

"I saw his picture and told my friend I thought he was really cute."

I met her and just liked her right away."

There's nothing like a good "how we met" story, and (as a friend of mine used to say) that was nothing like one. It was a paraphrase of an eHarmony TV ad currently airing that illustrates what I consider to be a tragic consequence of the era of online dating: the loss of a unique "how we met" story.

We love to hear them. Especially when we meet a couple who seem particularly suited for each other. In my experience, couples love to tell them. They look at each other in amusement and finish each other's sentences - taking up familiar cues and narratives. No matter how strange, or unlikely or even plain, the significant factor is that they're uniquely ours.

The numerous couples who've met through an online dating service, and married, all have the same story: "Well, we met on the internet." It's just not that interesting. Now you might argue that the "first meeting" over coffee or whatever would qualify as the "how we met" story. But it's not really the same. You've already "met," having had conversations by email and probably by phone. It's all disjointed, even if it all does work out well in the end.

The ad I paraphrased above is trying to play on the "everyone loves a good how-we-met story." Except it doesn't really work. There's no "magic" and it somehow feels a bit contrived - after all, you were both looking for someone on the internet, you may have already met one or ten people exactly the same way. Contrived only works when you're randomly assigned a really cute math tutor, and you contrive to continue tutoring long after you've mastered algebra. (A true how-we-met story, by the way.) My sister was sitting in a Sunday School class chatting with a friend when her as-yet-unmet future husband leaned forward from behind her and said, "Shhhhh!"

It's the randomness that makes the story great. Two people brought together by friends or strangers or circumstances who discover they want to be together. We believe those random circumstances can happen to us. We believe in happy endings. That's the power of a good story. And come on... don't you want to tell one?

I heard this the other day and thought it was worth considering:

"Both praise and criticism are like gum. Chew on them... but don’t swallow them."

In case you're a single person, thinking about moving in with your boyfriend/girlfriend. Here are some things to think about. The typical reasons for moving in together are:
1. Taking your relationship to the "next level." (A level where you're still not married, but now you're not dating either.)
2. Convenience. (Particularly convenience of sex.)
3. Financial - sharing resources.

Compare these to some reasons not to move in together (From David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead's survey of all research on cohabitation available in 2002.):
1. Women in cohabiting relationships are nine times more likely to be murdered by their partners than married women.
2. Children in cohabiting relationships are more likely to be abused than children living with married couples.
3. Couples who live together are three times more likely to suffer from depression than married couples.
4. The longer you live together, the less likely you'll actually marry.
5. Actually, "no positive contribution of cohabitation to marriage has ever been found."

And in short, "Moving in with a sex partner is not preparation for marriage; it is preparation for divorce."

(via Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse)

For most of my life I've been around people who talk about the power of the Gospel to change lives. I grew up in the church, hearing missionaries, preachers, evangelists, youth leaders and summer camp speakers talk about what happens to people when they encounter Jesus.

Now, there's a new and improved version of this concept, that we in the church business like to refer to as "Lifechange." Actually, you have to say it a little breathlessly - "Lifechange!" As in, "It is when people connect with God in a small group that they truly experience Lifechange!".

I'm not a grammarian. Or a, a... grammarlogian. But I think when you're talking about the way Jesus can change lives, the word "change" is active. It's important. It might even be a verb. "Lifechange!" becomes a noun, a name for a specific, singular thing, that is somehow passive.

If I spill coffee down the front of my shirt, I may say something like, "Crap. Now I need to change my shirt." You would instantly understand "change my shirt" to include unbuttoning, removing, dropping in the laundry, selecting a different shirt from the closet, putting it on, etc. It's a process. It involves the taking off of something old and the putting on of something new. Or, I could say, "Crap. I need to experience shirtchange!". And stand there waiting for Shirtchange to happen. And after a few moments you would ask, "And how's that workin' for ya?"

Jesus changes our hearts in an instant. But becoming like Christ is a process of putting off things that are old, and putting on things that are new. It's active, and amazing. "Lifechange!" is just another meaningless Christian buzzword - simplistic shorthand that sucks all the joy and mystery and awe out of a profound experience. And do we really need any more of those?

Oh the tragedy. Herself, being utterly disappointed at seeing M. Night Shyamalan's new movie The Happening, which was definitely not happening. And it pains me to say it... really, you have no idea.

First, you must know I am a faithful Shyamalan fan. I am predisposed to enjoy his films - I freely admit it - and have rarely been let down. It's not just the unexpected surprises that have been his trademark. It's the elegant storytelling, and the exploration of spiritual themes. Signs is one of my all-time favorites - an exploration of two kinds of people: rational thinkers and mystics. Those who find explanations, and those who see signs. It's a study of one man's struggle to re-find a God in whom he has lost all faith. The Lady in the Water was panned by critics, and I liked it so much I bought the DVD. Through the re-telling of an ancient fairy tale, a group of virtual strangers becomes a community, joining together for a higher good, and in the process discovering the important role each plays in the community, a previously unknown identity and purpose.

The Happening feels like someone came up with a really great concept: "Hey, what if the plants decided to get rid of humans?" "Yeah, and people just started dying!" "Yeah!" And then they filmed that. Leaving out one little thing... what was the point?

Here's a synopsis:
The wind blows.
People get confused.
People kill themselves.
The wind blows.
More dead bodies.
The wind blows some more.
More different and inventive ways for people to kill themselves.
Then it stops.
Or does it...
The End.

Don't worry... there's no spoiler here. The spoiler would be letting it slip that they forgot an ending for the movie. The unexpected surprise was that there was no more movie, when the credits rolled at just over 90 minutes.

That's it. I'm bitter. I'm not seeing another M. Night Shyamalan movie for like two years or whatever. In the meantime, I'll rent Wide Awake, a sweet little film about a 10-year-old boy who searches for God after his grandfather dies.

Do not miss two important and insightful posts on church ministry.

Bill writes So You Wanna Be a Shepherd, and discusses the reality of church leaders who would consider themselves shepherds:

"Shepherds were decidedly lower class. Many writers call them a "despised class." Most were youngest sons or hirelings. (See Jesus' comments on sheep, shepherds and hirelings in John 10.) They lived with their sheep, smelled like their sheep, defended their sheep from prey (physically) and their world revolved around their sheep. They knew their sheep by name.

Shepherds only managed flocks to a size they could handle - probably in the 100 sheep range. Sometimes they would combine their flocks with those of other shepherds - and work together - while still remaining completely aware of which sheep they were responsible for. (Jesus' parable of the Lost Sheep would suggest the hearers of that parable understand the importance of each sheep.)

So. Present day Christian leaders (or wannabes) who want to be known as shepherds and want to call the rest of us sheep... if you want to be known as a shepherd - live the life. Recognize your humble station in life - decidedly lower class. Live amongst the sheep you've been called to. Smell like them. Know their names. Protect them. Carry them when necessary.

All the while realizing that you are but one of them."

Follow that with Brant's post, Ministry Without the People.

"I'd love to just go in my little room, my studio, and 'minister' without the mess.

But the mess is the ministry.

'It's not realistic to be spiritual shepherd thousands of people,' -- I know, I know. And I agree. But if you're not my spiritual shepherd, why am I calling you my pastor? If it's just teaching them, I could do that on the radio. But I wouldn't be their shepherd.

I think it's really easy for Pastors, for any of us, really, to love people. At least, I should say, love People, capital "P", as in The People in Theory, the People Out There, the Sheep, the Idea of People.

It's real easy to love The People. It's much more difficult, much more challenging, much more exhausting, much more a test of the heart to love actual people: The people who work for you. The people in your home. The people who slip you a heart-rending note when you're getting ready to impress The People.

Ministry is loving people you didn't handpick."

A friend and I were walking on the beach the other day, talking about different spiritual things, and my friend said, "You know, I always kind of suspected that Peter was Jesus' favorite disciple."

Wondering which of the disciple's was Jesus' favorite is a fine tradition, going all the way back to, well... the disciples themselves. But I think we love Peter because he seems like the underdog - a big, clumsy, uneducated tradesman who was actually dumb enough to climb out of a boat in the middle of a raging storm, who failed spectacularly in the most important test of his life... three times. And yet, Peter is one of only two human beings we know of who literally walked on water. And in John 21 Jesus affirmed Peter's love three times: "Feed my sheep."

Then, just two chapters later Peter is bringing It - preaching the Gospel, and he is absolutely fearless. He is relentless. The tradesman is now an inspired orator. The underdog becomes the Rock. We love that about Peter.

Yet it is John who is repeatedly referred to in the Gospels as "the disciple Jesus loved." Apparently he thought he was the favorite. My friend and I laughed at the scenario... "hey, I get to write my version of a Gospel, so I'll be clever and not use my name. I'll just subtly let everyone know I was really the favorite... the 'disciple Jesus loved.'"

We walked a bit further, and then my friend said thoughtfully, "You know... maybe it's just that John really understood who he was. Maybe he recognized his true identity..."

I think that happens sometimes. We forget our true identity. We think we are Bob the financial planner, or Debbie the secretary or just a frazzled "Mommy," a nobody or a somebody. But as followers of Jesus, each one of us can claim the identity of "the disciple Jesus loves." Think about that.

(posted by the disciple Jesus loves at 06:22)

There's no way this study is true. They could not possibly have convinced enough women to participate.

"The guitar goddesses who are playing the men off the stage"

Ask who are the greatest guitarists of all time, and you'll probably get a list that includes Eric Clapton, or maybe Jimmy Page, or Jimi Hendrix. Me, I always vote for Neal Schon. I was a huge Journey fan back in the day. I remember seeing a video of Schon playing with BB King (another guitar champ) and he really is incredibly talented. The point is, the list of greats is predominantly male.

Are there any female guitar greats? I like Bonnie Raitt, but I guess the discrepancy in numbers is obvious. The article linked above introduces two female guitarists - one, Kaki King, was recently christened by Rolling Stone as "their first female 'Guitar God.'"

Part of the issue is that rock may be considered a "male form." The University of London's Institute of Education studied how instruments are divided along gender lines, and "found that the most 'gendered' instruments are the harp (90 per cent female) and the electric and bass guitar (81 per cent male)." Considering there are like 20 people who play harp in the entire world, and something like 2 million guitar players (no links, I'm just guesstimating here) those findings seem even more significant.

Still, King responds pragmatically on being a guitar goddess: "It was an honour to be on that [Rolling Stone] list, but not just because I'm a girl. I didn't try to be a girl. I didn't have an option; I didn't have a choice. But I've really tried to be a good guitar player, so when I get lauded for that, I'm happy."

"To you your father should be as a god;
One that compos'd your beauties; yea, and one,
To whom you are but as a form in wax,
By him imprinted, and within his power
To leave the figure, or disfigure it."
- William Shakespeare

Except on Friday the 13th.

Though actually that would be more along the lines of paraskevidekatriaphobia. I just didn't want to seem neurotic.