The Earth Is the Lord's - a Bible study written by yours truly

Ever since we arrived at our little church here in Fort Collins, we've been an anomaly. We're reformed, just like the rest of the congregation, but we're environmentalists. We've studied the Bible for years, but we sometimes come to different conclusions on what it's saying. (Our Sunday school lesson two summer's ago on taking the Lord's name in vain is a perfect case in point. It was an entire hour in which I felt like no matter what Rob or I said, we might as well have been in a sound-proof box because no one seemed to hear us. To my great delight, you can now read some of the things that Rob and I were saying in our new pastor's blog (even though he wasn't in that Sunday school class to hear us say those things).)

Though Rob and I will bring up our differences of interpretation on occasion (like when we explain why we bike to church with our family when we can, rather than drive), we try not to make a big deal out of it.  But in March of 2007, I decided that there was one difference of opinion that, while I still didn't want to make a big deal out of it, I did want to address.  After an unexpected outburst about how silly global warming is, I felt compelled to address the issue--not global warming in particular, but the whole topic of the environment and the role of Christians regarding it. 

So I started reading books. I read saving God's green earth, by tri robinson.  I thought it made a very well reasoned case as to why Christians should be concerned about the environment and so I recommended it to the session (which is the ruling group for the church -- the pastor and the elders). All I ever heard back from the pastor was that the elders had quickly shot the idea down. But he suggested that perhaps we could read Francis Schaeffer's book, Pollution and the Death of Man, instead. So I read through that and, while I liked the book, it seemed rather thin compared to the other book I had already started reading at that point, Redeeming Creation: The Biblical Basis for Environmental Stewardship, which took Schaeffer's same ideas but fleshed them out much better. But I knew that I couldn't suggest that book to the session because it talked too specifically about issues and I didn't want to go there until we could all agree that the Bible had something to say on the topic first. 

By this point I realized that none of the books I picked up were going to reach the intended audience very well.  The only book that had a chance of making an impression was the Bible. So I started searching for Bible studies on the topic.  I found a few, but to put it bluntly, they all sucked.  So I decided to write one myself.  (Hopefully it doesn't suck.)

I wrote specifically with an audience in mind that reflects our congregation: reformed, conservative, and leery of anything that smells even a little bit liberal. I know that liberals have taken up the environmentalist banner and waved it gleefully. But just because liberals wave that banner doesn't, in my mind, mean that conservatives can't also be concerned about many of these same issues.  No one wants their children to be poisoned by toxins in their foods.  No one wants to die of a disease caused by air pollution or water contamination. There are points we can all agree on.  And the Bible speaks not only to these points but to many other environmental concerns as well. 

I recently finished putting together 10 chapters focusing on various topics for study. I pulled from multiple resources including not only my own studies of the Bible, but also from the books mentioned above and even a Teaching Company class on the book of Genesis (which I highly recommend, by the way.  And it's even on sale right now.)

I've uploaded the study book to Lulu.com, where you can download or order a copy. But though it's written, and it's even on Lulu, I think it could still use a thorough editorial review. So I thought I'd invite anyone who is interested to get a copy (I'd actually be happy to order one for you so you don't have to pay for it. But you'll need to send me your address (in a PM).) and go to town on it.  Tell me where I'm not clear, where I don't make my point very well, where my typos are, etc.  You don't have to be a Christian, nor an environmentalist, to try doing the study. You do, however, have to keep in mind who the intended audience is and tell me when you think I'm missing my mark in addressing them. (You don't even have to have a Bible.  The Bible Gateway is an easy way to look up the verses.)  If you're not interested but you know of someone else who might be, please send them a link to this post. If the study can't stand up to serious scrutiny, then it's really not worth me suggesting to the session that we study it at some point. In fact, if it can't stand up to serious scrutiny, then I might as well throw it in the trash bin.  The last thing the world needs is another piece of junk. But I do think it'll (mostly) stand up to scrutiny and so here I am, setting it on the firing line. Fire at will!

Edit: (1 June 2009) The second edition of this Bible study is now out.  I've fixed several typos and a wrong Scripture reference and while I was at it I gave it a new cover (thanks to Lulu's handy premade cover themes).   ------>

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

A friend of mine recently brought this phrase up in an email.  She says:

K is doing well. She asked me what the opposite of "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is.  In fact we couldn't agree on what TRHPGI means. She thought it means your intentions don't count, its whether you succeed which counts, as in, if your good intentions bear fruit, you will not go to hell.  

I actually can't get my head around that concept, although I know the expression is not in the Bible, maybe it comes from someone who believes doing good gets you to heaven, and is a warning against promises and ideas which never lead anywhere.

I always thought TRHIPGI means that there is no point doing good and having good intentions, that is the road to hell, and the road to heaven is Trusting in God, Jesus, accepting God's blessings whatever they might be and trusting God through the trials He sends, and doing things you love for the people around you.  If your life is filled with all those things, it is the road to heaven, but as soon as you start trying to "do good", you're on the wrong track.

Given that we couldn't decide what the original means, we haven't yet come to decide what the opposite is!!  K thinks the opposite of her interpretation would be something like:  Try try again.  I.e, your intentions are what counts, as long as you are trying it counts.

The opposite of my interpretation of  TRHIPWGI is that the way to get to heaven is by trying to do good.?? which no one would agree with!

I am interested in your thoughts. 

I've always taken the phrase to mean something like, "You can intend to do the right thing and never actually end up doing what's right."  For example, I could have the best of intentions in trying to get my son, who is terrified of spiders, to get over his fear by confronting him with the next spider that I find.  But if the end result is that he jumps several feet in his fear and ends up hitting his head against the corner of a table and getting hurt (which he did last night, in fact, though it wasn't because of a spider), then it doesn't matter how great my intentions might have been, they're worthless considering what came of them.  

According to Bartleby.com, it means, "Merely intending to do good, without actually doing it, is of no value."

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153) apparently said, "Hell is full of good intentions or desires", which may be the origin of the phrase. (source)

The opposite of TRTHIPWGI? How about, "Do Be Do Be Do."  Or maybe "Just do it." Or perhaps, "Don't just sit there. Get off your duff and do something!"  Despite the fact that hell, a religious term, is included in the phrase, I don't think it's meant to be a theological statement so much as a reprimand against those who think simply wanting good things is enough to make a person good.  (I don't mean "good" in the theological sense, either.  I just mean "good" as in, "he's a good person.")

Objective, Absolute, and Universal Truth

“The idea of truth as objective is simply that no matter what we believe to be the case, some things will always be true and other things will always be false. Our beliefs, whatever they are, have no bearing on the facts of the world around us. That which is true is always true — even if we stop believing it and even if we stop existing at all.” -- atheism.com

“An absolute truth, sometimes called a universal truth, is an unalterable and permanent fact.” -- wisegeek 

It's popular in Christian circles to talk about Absolute Truth.  It's spoken of as one of those defining features that sets us apart from the rabble. While all the world is going to hell in a hand basket because they're a hedonistic bunch of Relativists, the Christians sit smugly upon their stack of Absolute Truths which, conveniently enough, can only be deduced directly from the their own religious text, the Bible. So if you were ever to come to the point that you agreed with Christians on their absolute truths, you'd have to first except the absolute truth that the Bible is the only source for absolute truths.  (This has been my experience, at least, when it comes to discussions among Christians on Absolute Truth.  I'm not trying to say this is absolutely always how the topic is approached.  I'm just giving a relativistic (and snarky) description based on my own personal experiences.)

And yet, if there is objective truth, shouldn't those truths, by definition, be evident, not only to Christians, but to all people? For example: “All people will die.”  This is a basic and objective truth that I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who would disagree with you on. (Of course, Rob's answer was a prompt, "But you can't prove that." I suppose that just because everyone that's gone before us has died doesn't mean that everyone now or to come will also die. So yeah, I can't prove that. Ironic, isn't it? Something that I'm pretty sure everyone would agree to as an absolute truth can't be absolutely proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. No wonder discussions of truth often end up sounding more like squabbles than revelations.) Though the Bible addresses the mankind and death issue ("There is a time for everything... a time to be born and a time to die..." -- Ecclesiastes 3:1a, 2a), I think you can find those who have never once read the Scriptures who would also agree with this truth. In my mind, the fact that you could find people of all ages, cultures and religions who agree with this statement is a strong indicator that the statement is a universal truth (even if you can't prove it). 

In fact, as much as Christians love to try to prove that there is absolute truth (even to the point of proving that what someone hasn't said is wrong), I think the real heart of the matter is not that there are those who believe absolute truth doesn't exist, but that there are those (most of us, in fact) who simply forget these absolute truths.  

And so, when someone comes along and reminds us of some of those absolute truths, their words have the ability to strike us at the core.  They resonate with what we have already experienced to be true, and they spur us on to remember and live by those absolute truths. 

A friend of mine recently posted Steve Jobs' 2005 Stanford Commencement Address, which resonated with me not only because I think it was a well written and organized speech (and because I think Jesus would use a Mac (a computer that Steve Jobs invented)), but because it jived so well with the book that several gals and I have been reading and discussing in our Bible study group on being peacemakers. Here was a man who attributed nothing to God, who very well may never have read the Bible, and who didn't in any way claim to be a Christian, and yet what he said struck me as being true.  It agreed with beliefs (I think of them as "truths.") that I have found in the Bible.  It agreed with experiences I have had in life. In my opinion, Steve Jobs struck upon several Absolute Truths in his speech. 

He had three main points: 

1. The dots will connect.  Trust that and it will give you confidence.
2. Crap happens. Use those times to start over - to redirect yourself again towards what you love. 
3. We will all die. So choose well how you will live and don't get caught up in silly fears and pointless worries. 

OK, so point number one is the most shaky in terms of being "absolute."  Though many people believe in "destiny" or "karma" or "predestination," there are also many that believe life is random.  As a Christian, however, I find it interesting that Jobs would hit upon this point. Proverbs 3:5 says, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding."  In Steve Jobs-ese that would read, "Trust that something -- your gut, destiny, life, Karma, whatever -- is connecting the dots in your life.  Looking forward, you won't see how these dots are going to connect, but looking back, it will become clear." (That's not a direct quote from Jobs.  It's a rearranging of things he said into an approximation of the Proverbs 3:5 format.)  Jobs added that, "Believing that the dots will connect down the road will give you the confidence to follow your heart even when it leads you off the well worn path. And that will make all the difference."  

Jobs' second point, that loss can bring you around to seeking after what you love, is also something that can be found in the Bible.  Paul wrote that "when you put a seed into the ground, it doesn't grow into a plant unless it dies first." (1 Corinthians 15:36) The bounty doesn't come until after there's been the struggle that the seed must endure - burial, death, and new life from the husk that's left behind. Jobs also hit upon several other ideas under this second point: "Keep Looking, don't settle," "Sometime's life's gonna hit you in the head with a brick. Don't lose faith," and "You've got to find what you love." In other words, persevere, keep faith, and don't forsake your first love.  (Jobs sounds like a 21st century echo of Saint John as he wrote to the church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7)).

Steve Jobs concluded with the point that I've already addressed above: We're all going to die. He says, "Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything -- all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure -- these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart." This is wisdom.  Steve Jobs has stated quite eloquently here what even Saint Paul struggled to get across to the early Christians living in Rome -- "We were therefore buried with [Jesus] through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." (Romans 6:4) 

When Saint Paul entered a new city and started speaking to the people there, he often began not by pointing out all the ways in which he disagreed with them, but by pointing out a truth that they could all agree upon. For example, in talking to the men of Athens, he referenced one of their own poets, giving support to his words not by sourcing his own religious text, but by referencing something of theirs. (Acts 17) I can only imagine what our own society would be like if Christians stopped trying to prove that they had the corner on the market for truth and rather started reminding others of truths that we all agree upon (as I feel Steve Jobs has done, heathen though he might be). From there could spring other discussions, such as trying to determine the source of those truths.  But rather than pushing a cultural debate founded upon disagreement, we'd be beginning from a point of unity.  How different would our conversations be then?

Absolute Truth shouldn't be a dividing point used by Christians to attempt to chasten the world.  Rather, Absolute Truth should be that which breaks down the boundaries between us and others and enables us to speak with thoughtfulness, respect, and well... truth.

Ask Jesus into Your Heart. Or Not.

I came across a short essay that I wrote in 1996 in an attempt to answer the question, "Where does it say that Jesus is in our heart?"  (It is rather popular in evangelical circles to claim that people must "ask Jesus into their heart" to be saved.  I was wondering where they got this "ask into your heart" thing.)

I found three Scriptures that came as close as I could get to this concept.  You'll notice that not a single one mentions heart... or any other internal organ either, for that matter.

John 14:20 On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 

John 17:22-23 ... so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

1 Corinthians 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God...

I then wrote the following.  (OK, so it's sorta stream of consciousness.  Roll with that bit, eh?)

Saying that "Jesus is in your heart" seems to compartmentalize him, even constrict him. It puts Jesus in a part of us.  And he sits there inactively.  There is no mention of him working through us, of him drawing us to be more like him, discipling us, etc.  It's a completed sort of statement  It's a location rather than a state of being or a position of operation. 

Now consider the similar statement that one needs to "ask Jesus into their heart."  This implies that a finite creature can actually direct the actions of an (the) infinite creator.  In my recent studying of the book of John I see numerous references to belief and that Jesus came that we might believe.  No where do I see that he came so that we might put him in our hearts.  

Add to this the prayer of Jesus in John 17.  He asked that we might be in him and him in God so that we may be completely one, so that 1) the world would know God sent Jesus and 2) the world would know God loves us.  It seems to me that the purpose of Christ in us is in no way tied to our salvation (as "asking Jesus into our heart" would have us believe) but is specifically that the world would have a better understanding of God.

Today people use the "Jesus in my heart" thing as a dividing line.  There's us -- we have Jesus safely tucked away inside our blood pumping organ.  And there's them -- they don't have Jesus anywhere in them.  Not even in their livers or kidneys.  Rather than focusing on the unity that John 17's "they may be one as we are one" should point us toward, we first of all twist the concept of Jesus in us and then use it as a sword point to poke others with. 

The moral of the story?  Christians are dorks.  (Which is another way of describing the doctrine of sin, I suppose.)

One Church

As I pack up our house for a brief move (while we have work done on our kitchen and basement) I keep coming across pictures, notes, magazine articles, etc. that I've had squirreled away in boxes or cubby holes for years. 

I came across an old notebook (from about 1996?) in which I had notes from a book I was reading at the time.  As I reread my notes I hit this great quote:

"Something else you see if you spiritually belong to the church is that belonging to it means being catholic -- it means belonging to the whole church, belonging to all others who belong to Christ.  Being a church member is not the same as belonging to a denomination, or a congregation, or a theological persuasion.  If the church is the body of Christ, there can't be more than one church, because there's only one Christ.  Anyone clinging to him must cling to the others who are clinging to him." -- Taking the Word to Heart (I think it's by Robert C. Roberts.  But I didn't write the author's name down in my notes.)

I think this is something the church is constantly struggling with.  We hold so tightly to our own ideas about what church is or what we have to believe to "count" as a Christian, or what our political beliefs must be to be a "proper" Christian that we forget we all follow the same God, and the same savior, and have the same Spirit and we are, whether we like it or not, all one church. 

The Perfect Pastor? (Understanding and Relating to the Life and Work of a Pastor)

http://barefootmeg.multiply.com/reviews/item/33
Click through for a review of D. Thomas Owsley's book, The Perfect Pastor? (Understanding and Relating to the Life and Work of a Pastor).

Got Faith?

"Because when it comes to faith, everybody has it.  People often tell me they could never have faith, that it is just too hard.  The idea that some people have faith and others don't is a popular one.  But it is not a true one  Everybody has faith.  Everybody is following somebody." -- Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis

I typed up that quote a year and a half ago. I don't remember why I never posted it, but I just checked my drafts "folder" and found it there and figured I'd post it now. 

So what do you think? Does everyone have faith (even if it's just in themselves)?

The Velvet Elvis is an SJ.

While reading Dan Kimball's book, I grew increasingly aware that what the Emergent folk were pulling away from was an SJ mentality.  To be honest, I'm not sure yet what personality type they're pulling toward.  I suspect the toward has more to do with the personality types of the Emergent leaders than the personality types of the so-called "emerging generation" or "emerging culture."  (NF, perhaps?)

I started reading Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis today.  I wasn't even 4 pages into the book when Bell stated this point exactly -- except that he doesn't at all attribute it to a difference in personalities. 

Here's what often happens: Somebody comes along who has a fresh perspective on the Christian faith. People are inspired. A movement starts. Faith that was stale and dying is now alive.  But then the pioneer of the movement -- the painter -- dies and the followers stop exploring.  They mistakenly assume that their leader's words were the last ones on the subject, and they freeze their leader's words.  They forget that as that innovator was doing this or her part to move things along, that person was merely taking part in the discussion that will go on forever.  And so in their commitment to what so-and-so said and did, they end up freezing the faith. -- Rob Bell, in Velvet Elvis

SJ's are the protectors.  They value tradition and continuity.  They are the ones who remind us how things have been done in the past, who help us remember and adhere to the rules, and who help us to stay on the pathway that we set out upon.  It makes sense that they "freeze" the faith at a point because that's the gift/personality that God has bestowed upon them.  Without them it would be easy for us to lose focus and wander away from the goals that we set out toward. 

NF's are visionaries.  Their gift/personality type is one that sees new possibilities, new ways of looking at things, new means of approaching old topics.  

NT's are intellectuals.  They analyze the ways things have been done and how they might be done better.  They innovate and challenge the status quo.  

All of these (and SP's as well, of course -- people the Emerging churches are often particularly targeting) are important and valuable perspectives and all are needed to keep a balance.  When a church is made up of all SJ's then yes, it will seem very dry and boring and dead.  It might not seem dead to the SJ's themselves, but to all of the other personality types that are biding their time in that congregation, it could be quite miserable. But when a church is made up all of NF's, anything goes.  You might never know where you'll be from one week to another (theologically, emotionally, etc.) and that might be exciting and refreshing for NF's, but for other personality types, that could be quite unsettling and even disturbing.  

God made us with different personality types so that we can learn from each other, so we can balance each other, so that we can guide one another and so that we can love one another despite our differences.  We need to learn to listen to each other rather than advocating one personality type over and above another. 

Soul Types: Matching Your Personality and Spiritual Path

http://barefootmeg.multiply.com/reviews/item/31
In the book Soul Types, the authors, Hirsh and Kise, link personality types and preferred methods of pursuing spirituality. Click through on the link above to read Meg's review.

Why Pharaoh Falls Squarely Into the Calvinist/Arminianist Camp(s)

I just read Wink's post entitled, I'm Sorting It Out, on the topic of Our Free Will vs. God's Sovereignty.  I was going to add a reply there when I realized that what I'd really like to post is my "Pharaoh list" (which is in the form of a jpg). But I generally try to avoid adding html to other people's blogs (off Multiply, that is) because more often than not it's either rejected or causes the reply to get held for moderation.  So I decided to post it here along with an excerpt from the essay I wrote on the "Pharaoh list".  This excerpt was originally written in January 2002.

- - - - -

At some point, in reading the story of Moses, I realized a little detail that comes up several times, but that had never jumped out at me before.  In fact, I’ve never heard this preached on nor have I ever heard anyone bring it up in discussion.  Its one of those little details that you don’t tend to notice when you break a story down into chunks to study and its one of those items that you tend to notice one side of more than the other (depending on your doctrinal leanings). The problem is this, when Moses asks Pharaoh to let his people go, at times the text says that Pharaoh hardened his heart and at other times it says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.  Here’s a chart showing the flipping flopping back and forth in the assigning of responsibility (as in, who made Pharaoh’s heart hard):

So, which is it?  Does Pharaoh have free will?  Is he able to decide when he is going to harden his heart and when he is not?  Or is he just a puppet and God can pull the right strings to make him harden his heart?

Perhaps both may be true.

First of all, let me point out that in Exodus 9:34 it not only states that Pharaoh (and his officials) hardened his heart, but the statement was also made that Pharaoh “sinned again.”  Very clearly Pharaoh is responsible for his actions.  He had the choice, he made it, he sinned, and he is therefore guilty.  If he had no say in what path he had chosen, then it would be unfair for him to bear guilt.  Pharaoh had the free will to choose whether he would harden his heart or not.  

But note that just a few verses later, in Exodus 10:1, God claims responsibility for what the text just got done saying was Pharaoh’s responsibility.  

But how can it be both that God has acted and that Pharaoh has acted in the very same situation (in the same act!)?  And how can one be responsible for what the other has done?  The Bible makes it very clear that both God and Pharaoh are fully responsible for the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart.  Now if that doesn’t give you a headache, you’re probably not getting it yet.

Those that say that people have free will are absolutely correct.  And those that say that God predestines our lives are absolutely correct.  Here, in one story, both sides are shown to be true.

Perhaps you could try thinking about it this way.  The Pointillists were known for painting pictures using only primary colors.  They would paint by using very short brush strokes (or points) and when the completed painting was viewed from a distance, the eye blended the colors bringing out a plethora of colors beyond the simple few that the artist used.  Imagine that any one of us is an ant and we are viewing the picture from several different parts of the room.  The ant on the far side of the room might see a spot of orange, whereas the ants that are crawling across that section of painting might instead see either only red, or only yellow.  Now imagine that red is predestined acts and that acts done of our own free will are yellow. The ant that sees the orange is the one that sees things most clearly, though really, its still a bit fuzzy.  Orange indicates that both colors are present. The ant standing on the red dot has a skewed view, as does the one standing on the yellow dot.

The analogy is certainly not perfect.  It might be more accurate to imagine an artist mixing both red and yellow paint together to create orange.  What is created is now predestination and free-will combined so seamlessly that they have formed a new color, or a new status of predestination and freedom of choice.  In orange, one could say that red is fully there and yellow is fully there.  And yet neither can be seen because they have become a third color.  Predestination can be “true” and free-will can be “true” but neither one is fully accurate on its own because they are only describing components of a more full reality.

Christians and the Environment

Two years ago, in a gals Bible study that I was leading, one of the gals went off on a completely unprovoked tirade against the crazies who believe in global warming.  (More details on what happened can be found here.)  That incident lead me to try to find a book that we could perhaps study in Sunday school that would help us wade through the topic of Christians and the environment. (Several of those books are reviewed here.)  After choosing the book that I thought would work best given our congregation, and then having the book shot down by the session (ruling body in the church), I decided that rather than giving up, I'd just write a Bible study on the topic.  I have high hopes that with the Bible as the primary source for the study, and our congregation as the primary audience, we might finally be able to tackle this topic in a positive way.  (I personally believe that not tackling it is only leading to disunity in our church and dealing with it will not only bring unity but a better witness of our church to outsiders as well.)

I'm just beginning the 9th chapter of the study.  I have, for the most part, kept the introductions to the chapters very short, wanting the Bible to do most of the talking.  But I'm coming to the point where I want to "pull it all together."  Part of what I hope to address in this 9th chapter is the non-Christian environmentalists' take on non-environmentalist Christians. (Wow, say that 5 times fast.)  In re-reading the introduction I've written, I wonder if my characterization of environmentalists is fair.  I "pick" on the New-Age-y environmentalists a bit, primarily because these are the only type of environmentalists that exist in the minds of many of the people in our congregation.  (You know, all environmentalists are tree-huggers and goddess worshippers right?  ... Right.  Whatever.  Let me just tell you, when they met me and my husband, and we weren't singing love songs to the flowers, they really couldn't figure out how we could call ourselves environmentalists.  We've really been a mind bend for them.) My goal, therefore, is to still "pick on" the tree huggers, but I want to do it fairly.  Does that make sense?  In other words, I want to zero in on them still, but I want to do so in a way that's still fairly accurate and fair to who they are and what they believe. 

So I thought I'd post the intro. here and get some feedback.  I'm looking specifically for first reactions.  How does what I say about non-Christian environmentalists hit you? Is it a fair representation?  Am I missing anything?  

Feel free to throw in your thoughts on the questions I ask at the end as well.  

- - - - -

Peter wrote to the Christians in what is now Turkey, saying “Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.” (1 Peter 2:12)  

Think about the pagans (or non-Christians) that we regularly come into contact with.  Given that they’re not Christians, it’s quite unlikely that they’d know anything about how we worship or what doctrine we believe in.  Those are things that they’d really only know if they attended church events with us.  On the contrary, what they see of us is the day-to-day, mundane choices that we make in life.  Non-Christians might not know which hymns we sing on a Sunday morning, but they know what car we drive (and how much we drive it).  They might not know what topic we covered in Sunday school, but they know what food we eat (and how much we eat it).  They might not know our opinions on the fall of man and the salvific work of Christ, but they know how we treat our misbehaving kids in the grocery store and how we deal with a difficult client at work. These little things that we might not even give a second thought to go a long way toward informing non-Christians about who we are and what we believe.

The purpose of this Bible study has been to focus primarily on the environment – what the Bible says about it and how we as believers should think about it.  But it’s important to know also what non-Christians have in mind when they consider environmental issues, because more often than not, no matter why the non-Christian is interested in these issues (whether they think it’s because we’re all connected to some great Mother Earth or because they recognize that environmental issues today have physical repercussions to the future of humanity), there are certain overarching values that environmentalists hold dear and that are intimately linked, in their minds, with living a moral life.

One of these is justice.  In the mind of the environmentalist, pollution is not just a nasty by-product of industrialization, it’s morally wrong. It causes sickness, deformities, even death.  People who are being polluted against their will (such as those whose drinking water has been affected by a nearby factory or children growing up in high traffic areas with higher rates of asthma) are the recipients of injustice.  And those who contribute to that injustice are themselves unjust. So when a non-Christian sees a Christian who doesn’t seem to care about pollution, they believe right away that Christians have no care for justice.  Whether accurate or not, that is the perception.

Another important value environmentalists hold to is love. They tend to get mushy gushy when they talk about it (“We are all connected.”  “We are all children of the Earth Mother.”) but the value itself, love for one another, is admirable. [D] All people hold love to be important. Whether it's family, friends, faith or even the environment, everybody values some thing greatly.[/D] So think of what they see when their Christian neighbors spray pesticides on the peach tree in their own yard and the poisons float down onto the non-Christian’s raspberry bushes. The environmentalist non-Christian is immediately convinced that the Christians don’t even take seriously their own belief that they should “love their neighbor” because they didn’t take into consideration the damage their actions would cause to their neighbor.

So as you read through the following Scripture passages and examples from current news stories, put yourself in the shoes of your non-Christian neighbors.  What values do they see in you as they’re reflected in your day-to-day decisions and activities – especially as they pertain to the environment?  How does your church come across to environmentalists who live in the same neighborhood and see the regular meetings and activities of the church body?

What Social Networking Site Would Jesus Buy?

http://barefootmeg.multiply.com/journal/item/158/What_Social_Networking_Site_Would_Jesus_Buy
There's a rumor going around that the Mormon church made an offer to buy Facebook. I thought I'd run with the idea and have a little fun with it. Click through to read.

The Sacraments -- From the Shorter Catechism of Craig

The Larger Catechism of Craig was first printed in Edinburgh in 1581.  The General Assembly (that's the ruling Presbyterian body) endorsed it and asked John Craig, the author, to shorten it a bit.  This catechism was then used until the Westminster Catechism became the standard in 1649.  (The Westminster Catechism is still used by most Presbyterian (and Anglican/Episcopalian ?) churches today.)

I thought the bit on the sacraments in Craig's catechism was interesting.  I'm not a huge fan of sacraments, mostly because they seem utterly meaningless to me in the form they're often administered in now-a-days. But I found John Craig's take on them worth a double take.  I wonder if most Presbyterians would agree with him today.  The following is taken from Philip Schaff's book, The Creeds of Christendom. The bolded parts are the bits that intrigued me most. 

Q: What is a Sacrament?

A: A sensible sign and seal of God's favor offered and given to us. 

Q: To what end are the Sacraments given?

A: To nourish our faith in the promise of God.

Q: How can sensible signs do this?

A: They have this office of God, not of themselves.   

Q: How do the Sacraments differ from the Word?

A: They speak to the eye, and the Word to the ear.

Q: Speak they other things than the Word?

A: No, but the same diversely. 

Q: But the word doth teach us sufficiently?

A: Yet the Sacraments with the Word do it more effectually.

Q: What, then, are the Sacraments to the Word?

A: They are sure and authentic seals given by God.

Q: May the Sacraments be without the Word?

A: No, for the Word is their life.

Q: May the Word be fruitful without the Sacraments?

A: Yes, no doubt, but it worketh more plenteously with them. 

Q: What is the cause of that?

A: Because more senses are moved to the comfort of our faith. 

If a Sacrament is a "sensible sign" I wonder what an insensible sign was? 

In the 3rd question, he refers to the Sacraments almost as if they have a life of their own. They're not the ones that have authority, God is.  They're just followers of God's orders.  And later he says the Word is their life.  What an organic and dynamic way of referring to what many make obscenely dull and lifeless!  

I love how in the 6th question his answer begins with "yet."  Today we'd say, "Yeah, but...." It's like a little teeny slap in the face to anyone that wants to diss the Sacraments.  

And in the end, why are Sacraments so important?  Because they take the truth of the Scriptures and make them physical to the rest of our senses.  God made us sensual beings, craving taste, touch, sound, sight and smell.  Our faith should be appealed to throughout all of our senses, not through our intellect alone.  How many Presbyterian churches today would believe as much?  Not many that I know of. (OK, so they're big on music and preaching, but sight, touch, taste or smell?) 

The Emerging Church: Vintage Christianity for New Generations (a book review)

http://barefootmeg.multiply.com/reviews/item/30
Click through to see my review of Dan Kimball's book on the Emerging Church.

Believers

I'm reading Charles Baxter's book of short stories called Believers: a novella and stories.  I hit this quote and hurt.  Any time that happens, I think, is a time to stop and reflect. 

Whitman's poetry is about love you don't have to earn.  It's about love that you just have or that you just get or you give but not the kind that you did something to earn. It's not Protestant love.  It's love for being itself. If you're a father, you love your kid, no matter what.  In jail or out.  That's what I mean. 

It's a beautiful quote.  Except the hating part.  

The very name, Protestant, is a name of "against."  Granted, it's a name that, like many names, was given by the opposition.  Still, we often live up to our names, don't we?  

What is it with Protestants that we insist on continuing to protest, even when we've run out of things to protest against?

Sermon styles

While looking for a pastor, one of the things you start thinking about is sermons. Though sermons weren't a definitive factor in choosing a candidate for our church, I do believe that a pastor's sermons can tell you a lot about the person. And I realized that sermons can vary on more than just a good or bad spectrum.  There are different styles of preaching that not only reflect upon the personality of the preacher but that can be received in very different ways by the congregation as well. 

Pastors who value feelings are more likely to include stories that appeal to the listener's emotions. Pastors who value knowledge are more likely to refer to metaphors that conceptualize a point. Neither means of communication is necessarily better or worse than the other.  They're simply different. That said, I believe some people resonate more deeply with styles of preaching that fit their own personalities more closely.  The intellectual may walk away from a very good sermon that was full of stories thinking, "That was OK, but he mostly just told stories."  While the person who values feelings more highly might walk away from the same sermon thinking, "Wow!  I finally understand God in a way that I never have before.  That was a fantastic sermon!"   Likewise, the intellectual may hear a very organized, detailed, point-by-point sermon and think, "I could really connect with that.  That was well laid out and argued."  Whereas the feeling person slept through the sermon because they found it to be dry and lifeless.  Both sermons might have had great things to say, including valuable truths that would help a person in life, but if they weren't relayed in a way that the people could connect with, they might go in one ear and out the other. 

This, I believe, is one reason why certain types of people are drawn to certain types of churches.  Philip Douglass studied this in detail in his book, What is Your Church's Personality?: Discovering and Developing the Ministry Style of Your Church (which I haven't read yet, but it's on my "to read" list). After studying churches specifically in the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) he determined that 80% of the churches in the PCA were either ISTJ/ESTJ (which he calls "Organizer" churches) or ISFJ/ESFJ (which he calls "Fellowship" churches) in personality (and the people both leading and members in these churches were often also predominantly these personality types.  This holds true in our church where our two elders are ESTJ and ESFJ and our incoming pastor is an ESFJ.  I'm an anomaly as an INTJ as is Rob as an ESTP.)   ... Wow, I'm rather digressing here.  I'll have to tackle this topic again in another post.  Back to sermons....

There were essentially three styles of sermon that I came across in the many sermons that I listened to from our candidates: 1) Loud, 2) Lectured, and 3) Personal. The Loud style reminded me very much of our youth group pastor when I was at a church in Colorado Springs. He had very simple messages to get across, but he spoke very loudly and with great enthusiasm that gave his simple messages more grandeur than they otherwise would have carried.  As an intellectual teenage brat, I didn't think much of them.  I discovered during our pastoral search that I still don't think very much of them.   The Lectured style is what I predominantly hear from the pulpit.  It tends to proceed according to a series of points that, if you were to take notes, would fit neatly into an outline format. It addresses the Bible very much as a professor would address a textbook. The Personal style seems to center around the preacher's interaction with the Biblical text. The speaker often begins from a point of "When I first looked at this, this is what struck me."  Preachers using this style often delve deeply into context (historical, social, theological and personal).

I think this Personal style is the tack Dan Kimball is calling for in his descriptions of preaching in his book on the Emerging Church.  And I find that I agree with him that it's an engaging and relational style of preaching that I find really refreshing.  Ironically, when I described it to my mom, especially Kimball's suggestion that pastor's need to lose the "fill in the blanks" sermon notes, my mom looked shocked and cried out, "But I love filling in the blanks!"  Like I said earlier, different preaching styles appeal to different personality types differently.  It's not good or bad, it's just different. 

Stories vs. Facts

I watched an episode of LOST last night in which one of the characters told another one that he loved her.  There'd been a tension going on for awhile in the show, then other characters entered in as possible love interests further muddying the water, and then this -- an out and out declaration. 

The fact that love was declared isn't really the most interesting tidbit, though. What I find interesting is that that scene kept running through my mind, unbidden, while I was stuffing laundry into the washing machine.  I'd most recently spent about an hour working on the church finances and sending out work related emails.  My mind had many other facts and figures it could have settled on.  But it settled on a story.  It wasn't even a matter of recalling the "fact" in the story (that love was declared) but recalling the whole scene, the trees, the looks on their faces, the words themselves.  

Stories are like that.  They contain facts, or details.  (I should point out that I'm using the word "facts" somewhat loosely here.  It's a "fact" that the statement was made in the show.  But given that the show is entirely fictional, how much of a "fact" is that really?) But stories contain so much more -- context, images, actions and reactions, feelings.  When I was stuffing laundry into the washing machine, it wasn't just an impersonal detail that drifted into my mind, it was a whole feeling that seemed to expand in my chest, an image that flashed before my eyes, a sensation of reliving the moment in all of its joy and angst. 

D recently posted something along the same lines (although the concern was rather different). Stories stay with us differently than facts do.  They seem to nest within us, occasionally flapping their wings to remind us of their presence.  

It's interesting to note that dreams come in the form of stories -- not necessarily coherent stories, but stories all the same.  We don't wake up and think, "Wow, that was quite a dream about the periodic table." If we're going to have a dream about science, it will involve action and people and some odd plot line that we'll later try to explain to our spouse or friend or roommate and we'll struggle because we recognize that we're simply not doing the intricate twists and turns any justice.  We don't dream in lists or outlines or powerpoint presentations. We dream in stories. And when I wake up, I'll feel that story in a way that I just don't feel facts and figures. 

I think facts are important. The right set of facts can build up into a compelling story eventually.  But to remember something, to connect with it and respond to it, what works best is a story. That's exactly why the anecdotal evidence is often believed despite facts to the contrary.  It's not scientific or precise, but it's compelling.  It connects to my being in a way that facts simply don't. 

Trust

Our church has recently gone through a  bit of turmoil as our last pastor, well past 70 and exhibiting symptoms of Alzheimers, left in a huff when it was suggested that the church should hire a part time assistant pastor who would take over the preaching responsibilities and would eventually become the head pastor when he finally decided to retire.  That left our little church (40 people on a good day -- including kids) looking for a new shepherd for our flock. 

So a pastoral search committee was appointed -- 5 guys (all Ss) and me (an N).   (More on S/N here.)  We met with 6 candidates either in person or on the phone and it was absolutely fascinating the differing reactions we had.  Though in general we had similar responses to candidates, there were occasions when I wanted to stop and say, "Wait.  Were you and I in the same meeting just now?"  It became very clear to me that the differences in our perceptions regarding the candidates fell right along S/N lines.  While I would be reading between the lines and getting an overall sense of how our future as a church would look with such-and-such candidate, the guys would all be listening to very specific details in what the candidate said.  They were also much more likely to consider what I think of was resume-details -- how much experience does this person have, where has he worked before, etc.

The day finally came to sit down and figure out who we, as a committee, wanted to pursue, and who we felt wouldn't be a good fit.   It was a very tense meeting and one in which these differences became utterly apparent.  While I had read between the lines and decided that one candidate was an excellent match, they had looked at the specifics and seen that he was a no go.  And on the flip side, several of them were very gung-ho for a fella who, when I pictured where he'd take the church, in my opinion would have had a great honeymoon with us and then the relational issues would begin.  

As we sat around the coffee table giving our pro's and con's for various candidates, we could have shouted, argued, fussed and fumed about our positions.  It could have torn us apart as a committee and it could have prolonged our search and perhaps led us to call someone who would be a very poor match for our congregation.  But instead, it became very clear that despite our strong stances on candidates, we were committed to agreeing.  

None of us articulated this at the time, and I don't know that we even thought it through while in the midst of it, but our actions were clear.  As strongly as we felt, we all knew that this was not worth risking disunity over. 

As well as the meeting went, it was still incredibly hard and when I came home afterwards I risked waking my kids up just because I needed the hugs.  

We had several meetings after that point, some with our culled through set of candidates and some without, and we eventually unanimously and wholeheartedly agreed on a guy who, I feel strongly was Providentially appointed to join us (and he, his family, and his current church even agree on this).   He'll be arriving in September as our full time pastor. 

Looking back, what is remarkable is not that we found a guy in only 7 months, nor that he's as excited about coming as we are about having him.  What utterly amazes me is that the folks in that search committee, despite strong differences of opinion, with every reason to distrust, chose rather to believe that we are a body -- the body of Christ.  We recognize that the harmony and growth of that body depends upon us each, on an individual level, just as the health of a physical body depends upon the working together and growth of the individual cells.  We will grow together or we will wither apart.  

Through this time of trial, we have chosen to grow together. 

A Dandelion Wine Wordle

boopoo is the name of the font.

This is a wordle of Dandelion Wine. As best I can figure, it seems to rely more heavily upon recent posts and tends to ignore the older ones. So it would be interesting to do a wordle a month and see how it changes.

The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels

http://barefootmeg.multiply.com/reviews/item/29
Click through to see Meg's review of Thomas Cahill's book, The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels.

Is there a "Christian Presence"?

Today I was asked a question that truly stumped me.  "Is there a Christian presence in Fort Collins?"  The person asking me that question had heard that nearby Colorado Springs had a Christian presence and was wondering if Fort Collins was similar. He was thinking of moving here, but my answer to the Christian presence question was going to be part of what helped him decide whether to choose Fort Collins or somewhere else.  

What am I supposed to say to that?  I'm a Christian.  I live in Fort Collins.  So is there a Christian presence here?  I'd like to think so. If not, I had better get down on my knees and do some soul searching.

I lived in San Francisco before moving here.  I suspect this guy would automatically assume there's no Christian presence there, but there is. I know that presence.  I've lived among it. And I think the Christians that I know in San Francisco are some of the most honest, thoughtful, non-hypocritical Christians I know.  

So what exactly is this guy looking for?  What are the words beneath the words in his question?  To be honest, I don't really know for sure.  But I have some guesses.  

I graduated from high school in Colorado Springs.  The city went through a recession right around the time that I moved away to go to college.  (M go Blue! Rah Rah. And all that jazz.) Housing and commercial property became so cheap that Christian organizations from Southern Cal. began to stream in.  The Springs was a comfortable place for conservative Christians to move because it had a strong military presence and there were already a few Christian organizations located there.  Christians increasingly started getting involved in local and state-wide politics.  They were a force to be reckoned with and, I have to say, none of my recollections of that time period were at all positive. I was just glad that I could escape during the school year.

So as best I can figure, this guy wants to know if Christians run this place in the way that they've tried to run Colorado Springs.  Perhaps he wants to know if there are gated Christian communities here like there are down in the Springs.  Or maybe he's trying to gauge the political climate in Fort Collins since Republican and Christian are synonymous to many folks these days and that was his round-about way of asking. 

And now I find myself in my own dilemma.  Although I was able to give a brief reply and then shove the question off for the elder of our church to deal with, I'm now faced with the idea that this couple might come to join our church some day.  And to be honest, if it were up to me, I'd do my best to turn them away.  I don't want to have to deal with people that think like that. 

But if it comes to that (and to be honest, it already does "come to that" fairly often with the people who are already in our church) I know I'll welcome them warmly. I'll help them find their way around Fort Collins and nod and smile when they express their opinions about politics and weirdo tree-huggers. 

Then I'll proceed to be me in their presence. 

I've found that nothing is more unsettling to an insular, comfortable Christian than another Christian who is doctrinally just as reformed and knowledgeable as they are, but who's a vegetarian, bikes rather than drives to church, wants to use the Church grounds for a garden rather than nothing but a bunch of grass, and who believes that when God said, "Let there be light," the light was followed by an inflationary period in which energy turned into matter which eventually aggregated into stars and planets. 

And perhaps, as grumpy tree-hugging me learns to love grumpy insular them, and they in turn come to love me as well, then, truly, there will be a Christian presence in Fort Collins. 

Barack, Paul and Walls

"The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand.  The walls between the countries with the most and those with the east cannot stand.  The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand.  These now are the walls we must tear down."    -- Barack  Obama, speaking in Berlin

"Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all." -- Paul, to the Colossians

"For Jesus himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility." -- Paul, to the Ephesisans

Reformed Worship | Imitating God: Doing Justice as a Condition of Authentic Worship

http://www.reformedworship.org/magazine/article.cfm?article_id=1221&id=68
"Authentic worship" is one of the buzz phrases of the emerging church movement. Tired of churches that seem dead, like the congregants are just going through the motions, people of the emerging culture are looking for something true, for something real, for something authentic. (They often achieve authenticity with props and staging, but I'll go into that in greater detail in my upcoming review of Dan Kimball's book on the Emerging Church.)

So my interest was piqued when, in my study on justice, I came across this article, in a Reformed magazine no less. The author addresses what Biblically authentic worship is. It doesn't have anything to do with incense and stained glass as the Catholics and Emergents might propose, nor does it focus on the congregational reading of creeds or worship taking place in a specific order as many Reformed churches hold. Rather, the only Biblically mandated marker for authentic worship is justice. Yuppers, that's what I said. The J word. And you know what, I think Nicholas might be right on the money on this one.

What follows are the thesis paragraphs from the article:

"Everybody believes that some worship lacks authenticity. Some people believe that the use of set prayers deprives worship of authenticity; the prayers must be prayers that the Spirit leads us to pray spontaneously. Some believe that having an ordained woman lead the service deprives the worship of authenticity. Some believe that the minister’s failure to hold certain theological views deprives it of authenticity. Some believe that worship without “enthusiasm” is deprived of authenticity. And so forth. Perhaps some of these views about the conditions of authenticity are implied by Scripture; none is explicitly taught there.

Scripture does explicitly teach that if worshipers fail to practice justice in their everyday lives, then their worship lacks authenticity. What I mean by worship lacking authenticity is that God finds it offensive."

Woa, Nelly! The man doesn't pull any punches, does he?

Dungeons & Dragons (and Nathan, the cleric)

Nathan went to a birthday party yesterday in which the highlight of the party was a several hour long game of D&D.  It was the first he'd ever played it and he loved it!  Despite the fact that he's not so great of an actor, he still loved the roll play aspect.  And of course, stealing daggers, killing the bad guys, and being the only one with healing powers which made him well loved (or at least needed) by all, certainly helped.  

I asked Nathan to pray before our dinner last night and he thanked God for the food (and that's where the kid prayers usually end), then he rolled into a several sentence round of gratitude for the game Dungeons & Dragons and his chance to play it at the party.  lol!

What a delight to not only see him enjoy himself so thoroughly, but also to savor the definite zing of irony that he thanked God for the game. 

Farewell Our Lizard Queen -- Do Animals Have Souls?

Nathan's nearly 3 year old anole lizard, known as Queen Lizard, passed away yesterday. This came soon after a sunday school class in which one of the elder's of our church announced emphatically that animals do not have souls and therefore do not go to heaven. The statement brought tears to the eyes of the girls during Sunday school, and made Nathan's grief just that much more yesterday afternoon. 

Which got me to thinking about animals and souls.  DO animals not have souls?  What IS a soul anyway?  Where in the Bible does it say that animals do or do not have souls?

The scripture passage that the elder referred to resides in the first chapter of Genesis where the writer states that "God created man in his own image."  (Genesis 1:27)  But if you look at the context of that passage, it's very clear that being made in God's image means that humans have been made to rule over the earth.  The poetic excerpt regarding being made in the image of God is neatly nestled between two prose passages that describe the role of mankind on earth.  (Adam and Eve were set in the garden "to work it and take care of it" as is described in chapter 2.  (Genesis 2:15)) There's no reference to souls anywhere in that chapter.  

On the contrary, when the Pharisees had a cow over the fact that Jesus's disciples were praising him during the triumphal entry (Luke 19:37-40), Jesus replied that, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out."  If the stones can cry out praises to God, then what is it in them that is doing the crying out?  I'm not trying to imply that there is "a piece of God" inside everything.  I don't subscribe to that form of theology.  However, I do think it's a fair question to ask, "How do we know that animals won't be in heaven? Why is a soul necessary and how do we know that animals don't have them? If God's creation can shout out in praise to him, then why would this creation be barred from residence in God's heavenly kingdom (or in the New Earth at the very least)? (2 Peter 3:13)"

Shown to the upper right are Queen Lizard and her original companion, Little Green Riding Hood, who passed on (to who knows where) about a year ago.

Soul Types - INTJ

My sister has started to give me personality type related books for Christmas.  The most recent one she gave me is called Soul Types by Sandra Krebs Hirsh and Jane A. G. Kise. The book divides people into 4 over all soul types and then breaks each of those down into two smaller subsets:

Sensing

- Extroverted Sensing (ESTP, ESFP): The Active Spiritual Path

- Introverted Sensing (ISTJ, ISFJ): The Time-Honored Spiritual Path

Intuitive

- Extraverted Intuition (ENTP, ENFP): The Catalytic Spiritual Path

- Introverted Intuition (INTJ, INFJ): The Illuminating Spiritual Path

Thinking

- Extraverted Thinking (ESTJ, ENTJ): The Analytical Spiritual Path

- Introverted Thinking (ISTP, INTP): The Conceptual Spiritual Path  

Feeling

- Extraverted Feeling (ESFJ, ENFJ): The Community-Oriented Spiritual Path

- Introverted Feeling (ISFP, INFP): The Personal Spiritual Path

Though not everything she said about INTJ's fit with my natural tendencies, many did  (not just in terms of spirituality, but in other areas as well).  I thought I'd post a few excerpts that I think describe me:

"Their paths reflect a desire to learn, know, and work out their own spiritual philosophy. Often they are most interested in exploring big questions significant to their worldview and working out their own answers, studying in depth until they reach a solid understanding."  (p. 121)

This is in stark contrast to those who hear something from an "expert" and fall for it hook, line and sinker.  I know people like that, but that is definitely, certainly, absolutely and positively not me. Although I may come to agree with something that "experts" have written, it is only because I have done copious amounts of study on my own and have decided that the "experts" did a decent job.  That said, I'm not above adding notes and corrections to what an "expert" has said.  (Well, except Jesus.  I don't know that I've ever corrected him.  He rocks.)

Here's more along a similar vein:

"While Introverted Intuitive types enjoy listening to qualified experts or participating in discussions, if they need answers to a particular question, they are likely to go to a library or bookstore, read several sources, then come to their own conclusions.  They also enjoy in-depth study of a variety of topics, retreating with a stack of books to an inspiring place to indulge in the luxury of spending time with intellectual explorations that feed the soul." p. 124-125)

This is so me... and so not Rob.  Rob likes to take a passage of Scripture, perhaps even just one little verse, and sit and think on it.  He'll repeat it and meditate on it and underline it and read it again.  But doing that would drive me absolutely batty (more so than I already am).  Reading something once is enough for me.  I want to move on and see how it fits in context.  Better yet, I want to do a study on a greater theme and see how the bits and pieces and details fit together to create a cogent whole that I can them fit into some pleasing metaphors or guiding principles.  

"Introverted Intuitive types often pursue study for the purpose of designing or planning educational materials or presentations that will help others deepen their beliefs."  (p. 125)

OMG. That has Meg written all over it.  I've worked on a devotional for years.  I've seen other people's devotionals and they're essentially just pretty bits of string tied into little bows.  There's no substance to them.  Of course, if someone else were to read what I've written, perhaps they'd think the same thing.  But writing them, that took all sorts of study and thinking and cud chewing.   That's what I love.  ... Hmmm, I think I've published the first chapter here on Multiply somewhere. Sure enough. (Ignore the dorky logo.  I just didn't want Multiply-Man standing there.)

I've also, more recently, been working on writing a Bible study.  We attend a fairly conservative church and though I tend to agree with the doctrine, the church's opinions in other areas (such as politics, the environment, and meat eating) tend to turn my stomach. (But I've willingly put myself into that congregation, so I don't make a big stink about it.  I just make occasional jabs and they all make occasional jabs back... all in good fun.  And having to relate to someone who agrees with them theologically but disagrees in other areas has been really eye-opening and paradigm shifting for some of them in a good way, imo.)  I've tried to suggest a systematized study of environmental issues and what the Bible has to say about them.  But the book I suggested was shot down faster than my dog can nab a squirrel.  So I decided that the only way to really address this issue in any way that as going to work with these folks, I'd have to write a Bible study.  They wouldn't hear anything an unknown (tree hugging) author said, but they'd listen if it came to them straight out of Scripture.

... Anyway, all that to say that I definitely fit into the soul type that wants to do research in order to educate others.  I think that also comes out in my interactions here on Multiply.  I'm often helping people figure out how to use the site or fix problems. 

Our spirituality is something that we think of as something deeply personal and unique to ourselves, but here I've been pegged by Sandra and Jane who don't even know me.  Whew!  That's a trip.