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.  

Justice

He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
(Micah 6:8)
There are two kinds of justice.  There's the justice that's meted out retroactively.  This is the kind of justice that we want brought down upon rapists and murderers and our brother when he jabs us in the side or pulls all the hair out of our Barbie doll. Then there's the justice that's proactive and seems to be more of an adverb than a verb.  It involves making an action in a way that is just to all parties involved.  God requires of his people both kinds of justice.
Why is it then that I hear ever so much more in church about the first kind and so very little about the other?  

Free to be... hateful?

I found this image in a New York Times article on an exhibit in Florida in which several artists re-thought  Norman Rockwell’s “Four Freedoms” wartime paintings.

What idiots we are as Christians when we think that our freedom of speech and religion in this country, and the freedom we have in Christ, gives us license to hate others.  What part of "May the Lord make your love increase and overflow for each other and for everyone else" allows for hate-mongering?  (1 Thessalonians 3:12)

When I read through the Bible at the people Jesus got upset with, it was the Pharisees and Scribes (whom he called snakes and vipers) and the Lawyers (because they were taking God's law and adding to it their own rules).  He certainly met up with many Gentiles, but he never said he hated them.  In fact, he had very little negative to say to them at all.  Rather, he told them to repent and follow him and by and large they did -- leaving the Pharisees, Scribes and Lawyers unrepenting in their wake.

Personality (Temperament) Types and the Emergent Church Movement

I've embarked upon a brief exploration into the world of the Emergent Church Movement.  Though the Wikipedia article sucks, imo, the book by Dan Kimball, the Emerging Church: Vintage Christianity for New Generations is actually pretty good.  Dan explains not only some of the "distinctives" of the Emergent Church (not that he'd ever use that word), but he also explains why it's called Emerging in the first place. 

What struck me, though, as I read about this Emerging (or Postmodern) generation (characterized by a lack of belief in absolutes, an interest in the spiritual and mysterious, a strong distaste for institutionalized Christianity, a longing for authenticity and a need to experience a relationship with God rather than sitting back and being told about it) is that is sounds very much like the NF personality temperament type.

An NF: "searches for meaning and authenticity, empathetic, highly responsive to interpersonal transactions, keeps in close contact with others, highly personalized, gives and needs strokes freely."  (from Type Talk at Work, How the 16 personality types determine your success on the job by Otto Kroeger with Janet M. Thuesen and Hile Rutledge.)

While on the other hand, what Dan refers to as the Modern generation (characterized by adherence to absolutes as guide-stones in life (absolutes either from religion or science), a preference for structure, systems and institutions, and putting a high value on knowledge and formal education) sounds very much like the SJ personality temperament type.

An SJ: "strives to belong and contribute, prizes harmony and service, orderly, dependable, realistic, understands and conserves institutional values, expects other to be realistic, supplies stability and structure, more likely to reward institutionally than personally (trophies, letters, etc), can be critical of mistakes more easily than rewarding expected duties." (also from Type Talk at Work, How the 16 personality types determine your success on the job by Otto Kroeger with Janet M. Thuesen and Hile Rutledge.)

Is it just that NF's often lead the way into new movements and eventually SJ's take over and institutionalize the movement?  Or is Dan thinking that he's reaching a new and emerging generation when all he's really doing is reaching a specific subset of people that have been with us from time immemorial?

- - - - - - - - - -

Another good page on NFs.
Another good page on SJs.

Modernism - a comparison

Dan Kimball, in his book The Emerging Church: Vintage Christianity for New Generations, describes modernism as follows:

"Pure modernism held to a single, universal worldview and moral standard, a belief that all knowledge is good and certain, truth is absolute, individualism is valued, and thinking, learning, and beliefs should be determined systematically and logically."

He then contrasts that with postmodernism:

"Postmodernism, then, holds there is no single universal worldview.  All truth is not absolute, community is valued over individualism, and thinking, learning, and beliefs can be determined nonlinearly."

To summarize -- modernism is concrete, certain and logical; postmodernism is flexible, uncertain and is more feeling or experience oriented.

I finished reading Kimball's book about a week ago and have been thinking quite a bit about it ever since.   So when I saw a mention of Modernist authors (such as Joseph Conrad and Henry James) in the Great Courses sale catalog, I took note.  I love the catalogs because they often include long excerpts from various classes.  The lesson I was reading was on "The Year that Changed Literature: Defining Modernism -- Beyond Impressionism" by David Thorburn.  Thorburn summarizes these early modern writers as follows:

"Part of the reason [modern narrators are no longer omniscient as their predecessors had been] is that they live in this skeptical, pessimistic, problematic, disorderly environment.  They are the heirs to uncertainty.  They are the heirs to instability.  They are the heirs to a notion of the fluidity and immense complexity of a world that no longer has the kind of stabilizing coherences that earlier religious, moral, and institutional dispensations created for people. And the beginnings of Modern novels, therefore, reflect this much more problematic, much more fluid, much more uncertain environment. ...In the problematic and uncertain universe of Modern fiction there are other compensations and other virtues, but the certainty and the self-confidence of the older-tradition are gone."

I was taken aback because everything I read sounded almost word for word something that I would have read in Dan Kimball's book -- only he would have been using those phrases to describe Postmodernism, which he finds almost antithetical to organized, fact driven, systematized Modernism.)

What gives?  Is this a case of "what goes around comes around"?  Or is something else at play?

I think the key has far more to do with personality types than defining social movements.

South Carolina plans license plate for Christians

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2409.asp
If they can't tell we're Christians by our love, perhaps this license plate will do the trick.

Snakes and Vipers

Jesus had some harsh words for the spiritual leaders of his time.  He called them snakes and vipers.

It's interesting to note that though he interacts with disobedient Jews and unbelieving Gentiles, he never calls them names.  Rather, he seems to save such choice words for the Jewish leaders of Israel -- the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.

So why is it today that Christians feel justified calling Muslims and atheists, among others, all sorts of names?  What got lost in the translation there?