Monthly Archives: December 2005

Embrace the Outcasts

2 Replies

I’m not entirely sure I understand the problem. Isn’t the Church supposed to be the epitomy of grace, love, and understanding? Then, why are there so “many”:http://scatteredwords.com/ who are so alienated from Christians, who “feel”:http://willfulgrace.blogspot.com/2005/10/my-blog.html as though they have to keep their struggles secret? Aren’t we supposed to be the _first_ ones to reach out to those in need so that we may provide support, aid, and comfort? Yet, one of the biggest areas of ministry is being ignored and overlooked in so many of our churches. Tim Wilkins, founder and CEO of “Cross Ministry”:http://www.crossministry.org/index.htm and a former homosexual has devoted his life to reaching out to the homosexual community. One of the most important pieces of wisdom he provides is that the opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality, but righteousness. The reason that this is so key is that most Christians seem to think that the way to bring a homosexual to God is by turning them into heterosexuals. Unfortunately, this approach has never worked, but apparently few ever realize this. This creates a certain level of pressure on the struggling homosexual, who is already wrestling with unwanted attractions to members of his or her own gender. Coupled with the discomfort of heterosexual Christians who are not sure how to relate to and interact with the homosexual, this generates a lot of tension, further alienating the homosexual who finds it easier to stay away than to continue interacting with ineffective Christians.

Most unbelievers are quick to “accuse”:http://btalbot.blogspot.com/2004/06/fear-and-self-loathing-in-dc-is-topic.html Christians who are wrestling to overcome homosexuality of being fakes, frauds, and pawns of the ex-gay movement. They simply “do not understand”:http://www.deeperwants.com/cul1/homeworlds/journal/archives/002784.html that homosexuality is wrong, that God has something better in mind, that it _is_ actually possible to overcome homosexuality and live a life of righteousness. Tim Wilkins is a prime example of what God’s power can do in a person’s life.

As a result of Christian impotency in ministry to the homosexual (as well as those who respond with “condemnation”:http://dyinginchrist.blogspot.com/2005/12/homosexual-agenda-most-americans-do.html and “anger”:http://open-dialogue.com/blog/index.php/archives/64/) and the ridicule that originates from the unbelieving community, the struggling homosexual is left with no support group. He is rejected at every front, and so the only solace is to hide his ‘secret’ from everyone but God and himself. It is so refreshing and encouraging to “hear”:http://scatteredwords.com/d/2005/12/light_years.php about good groups of Christians who are willing to come alongside the struggling homosexual and embrace him — physically, as well as emotionally, spiritually, and psychologically — accepting him as he is and helping him to work through his struggle. So few Christians are able to overcome their own discomfort (a product, I believe, of the lackadaisical society in which we live) to reach out to the homosexual, and that is why I support and approve of organizations like Cross Ministry, who work to jostle people out of their complacency and provide teaching and encouragement and a summons to righteous living. They take a lot of flak from every side, sadly, and theirs is a difficult job, but they provide a model for us all by which we should live.

We as Christians need to make a concerted effort to ignore our discomfitures and model ourselves more after Christ by reaching out to those whom we may consider undesirable but who are in such a state of need and support and encouragement and to whom Christ has mandated we reach out. God loves them. Shouldn’t we also?

Professional Weaker Brothers and Christian Diatribes

2 Replies

bq. (Whether their points are valid or not is often irrelevant, as their approach to criticizing the generalization usually stonewalls further discussion.) “#”:http://open-dialogue.com/blog/index.php/archives/65/trackback/

“Professional weaker brothers”:http://www.rmcrob.com/?p=2459 are those Christians who are not so weak in their faith as they would have everyone believe, but who fake and exaggerate their weakness and claim offense against other Christians. We’ve all seen and experienced it to some degree, I’m sure. “iMonk”:http://www.internetmonk.com, aka Michael Spencer, “writes”:http://www.internetmonk.com/index.php/archives/the-tyranny-of-the-offended at length on the subject of how to deal with such individuals and how we as Christians are to live and express our faith in the face of those who are easily offended by just about everything.

Christian Diatribists are, I think, in the same camp as the Professional Weaker Brothers. These are those “individuals”:http://dyinginchrist.blogspot.com/ who twist their faith and their beliefs so that they allow them to fuel their own personal “hatred”:http://scatteredwords.com/d/2005/12/feeling_i_dont.php#c22638. Often, these are the same people who hold such a narrow view of Biblical truth that they, 1) misunderstand the truth of their ‘pet’ Scripture passages, the ones they quote regularly as proof for their anger, hatred, and animosity; 2) rail against any who believe differently, using abusive, bitter language; and 3) “complain and rage”:http://scatteredwords.com/d/2005/12/nostalgia.php all the more and claim offense when they are called onto the carpet for their actions (even when the confrontation is peacable).

Both the ‘brothers’ and the ‘diatribists’ share this in common — they are easily offended, often use strong, abusive language when making their arguments, are driven by personal anger, and destroy any valid points they _might_ hold in their offensive approaches to confrontation. Perhaps it is merely human weakness, to see something that frustrates and aggravates you so much that you let your anger take over and control everything you say and do. Yet, for Christians, even this benefit-of-the-doubt excuse fails to justify such behavior. As Christians we are called to a higher standard of peace and love. Christ Himself says that we are to love all men, demonstrating this so well by associating with the worst of society’s sinners. Always His tone and His manner expressed grace and love. There is no place within the Christian faith for the level of hatred, anger, and animosity that we see proceeding out from the Professional Weaker Brother and the Christian Diatribist. No dialogue or discourse can take place with such individuals, either, because they are unwilling to listen and learn. The most we can do is present them with the errors of their ideologies, love them and respond to them in grace, pray for them, and continue to encourage them to think and to change their aggressive behaviors. Unfortunately, most of us would probably rather respond in kind (and sometimes do), which makes ministering to these individuals and helping them grow in their faith that much more difficult. Yet, it is our responsibility to come alongside these people (if they will let us), teaching with patience and grace, striving to help them open their hearts to the work of the Holy Spirit, rather than letting them continue on in their anger and their ignorance.

Oh, that grace would abound!

“Generally Speaking…”

2 Replies

bq. Don’t tell us over and over again how something’s a generalization and doesn’t apply to everyone. Duh. Some use of generalities are necessary with these topics. “#”:http://scatteredwords.com/meta/faq.php#q000379

Generalizations. We all use them. They’re a necessity inherent to the world of interpersonal communication. They facilitate conversation by allowing people to make their points easily and quickly by pointing to observable trends. Whole sections of social psychology textbooks (and others) are devoted to the concept of generalizations and stereotypes and their uses. It is probably impossible to get through an entire conversation without at some point using at least one generalization. It is simply the most efficient way to handle the vast amount of information at our disposal. We have to categorize it, mentally placing each bit into groupings with other bits of information that are very similar. We make mental estimates of behavioral trends based on our own experiences, knowledge, and observations. I doubt that there is anyone who readily has actual quantitative data on hand for every subject under the sun, who can point to such statistics and say definitively, “This is the way things are.” So, we generalize, a habit that is obviously limited by the availability of relevant data.

In theory, it is understood that generalizations do not speak to every person in every situation under every circumstance. Statistics themselves are only probabilities, based on past behavior, predicting what is most likely to occur in the future under similar circumstances. In actual practice, however, we find that the problem with the human makeup is that we often forget this margin of error. On the one hand, we make generalizations and begin to think that this applies to a far larger segment of the population than it actually does. This is, of course, somewhat necessary, as stated previously because if we were to point out every possible exception to the ‘rule’ all the time, no productive communication would ever occur. In many cases a compromise is reached by pointing out only those exceptions that are most relevant to the discussion at hand. But even then it is sometimes all too easy to dismiss them perfunctorily, whether because they don’t fit our generalized model or because we don’t like the implications or because they are too difficult to deal with or for some other reason.

On the other hand, some people hear generalizations that other people make and will either accept them as being all-encompassing or will quickly criticize it for not acknowledging all the exceptions. The former group may quickly grasp the point being made but then generalize said point too far, falling prey to their own naiveté. The latter group all too often _misses_ the point being made in their critical frenzy, falling prey to their own cynical rationality. A balance of both approaches is, as usual, to be found somewhere in the middle — recognizing the point of the generalization while acknowledging the fact that it does not speak to all people everywhere in all circumstances. The generalization is a shortcut of sorts, facilitating the cataloguing of societal trends. The naysayers are the ones who are either insecure or who merely like to argue with any philosophy not their own, or both. (Whether their points are valid or not is often irrelevant, as their approach to criticizing the generalization usually stonewalls further discussion.)

Finding this balance is a continual effort, requiring the mind to always be engaged at all times, sifting and filtering, striving to find the truth of the matter through open discourse and rigorous study. Critical thinking is a strong skill to possess because it allows us to first be able to make better and more accurate generalizations and then to be able to reason through other generalizations and critique them for their accuracy. It is a difficult task, to be sure, but one well worth undertaking.

Just a Single Data Point

3 Replies

It’s always a little bit frightening (read ‘scary’, ‘nerve-wracking’) to “discover”:http://open-dialogue.com/blog/index.php/archives/60#comments you are being read, and then that you are being “taken at least somewhat seriously”:http://open-dialogue.com/blog/index.php/archives/60#comment-108 (but then again, isn’t that exactly part of _why_ we write?). Frankly, I find this fact to be both humbling and gratifying at the same time — humbling in that my thoughts are being shared and my words being read and that they are having some sort of impact on the world around me, and gratifying in that this fire to write is being satisfied, that there is discourse to be had about the things that interest me, and that God is using this to (hopefully) further His Kingdom.

I think that what I find so frightening about actually affecting others with my writing is two-fold. First, there is always the fear that my thinking is incorrect. This is part of why I write, though, to share my thoughts and to let other people try to punch holes in them as best as they can. How can I ever grow in my philosophy, theology, and ideology if I am never challenged to defend them? And what cannot be defended should be looked closely to determine why it cannot be defended. In the process the chaff is discarded and what is left is a pile of golden nuggets of truth. I just fear, sometimes, that in this process of discourse I will inadvertantly steer someone wrong. I can only hope that others are seeking truth in much the same way I am and that they will also critically analyze everything with hopes of filtering out the junk.

The other fear that niggles at the back of my brain is the recognition that not everyone recognizes the fact that a person’s individual writings are, generally, representative only of that individual. They are but a single data point in the entire population and should be analyzed as such. For instance, while I “believe”:http://open-dialogue.com/blog/index.php/archives/60 that worship is probably best placed at the end of a church service, not everyone is going to feel that way (hence my suggestion to mix it up). My opinion may, in fact, be in the minority, since a lot of people don’t like to deviate from tradition. My point is simply that I fear someone may read my thoughts (sounds a little bit ESPish, doesn’t it?) and ascertain from them that this is the general consensus of the population, when, in fact, I am typically just tossing out an alternative idea. (Don’t get me wrong, “cindy”:http://www.cindybryan.com — I’m not worried that you have fallen prey to this error. Your comment just reminded me of this little brain-niggler.)

These fears are probably actually a good thing, to an extent. They force me to be careful in my writing, to really think through my arguments and make sure I spell them out as clearly as I can. And then I share them and wait for the feedback that helps me shape these thoughts in an ever-better perspective. We can learn from each other, and _that_ is the real reason why I write.

What Is a Man?

Leave a reply

Scattered Words: Men, , homosexuality and the exgay movement

“Ben”:http://scatteredwords.com/ has a written an excellent starting point on determining just what it means to be a man. Before I comment further, however, I highly recommend taking a moment to give his site a read. He is extremely eloquent at describing his struggle and journey to become ex-gay under the power of the Holy Spirit, and his honesty and eloquence are very refreshing.

Ben points out that our culture seems driven to squash the man as God designed him:

bq. But still, I think the “man” question is an important one for me and a lot of other guys, gay or straight. It’s really not good to be a man, emotionally or physically, anymore. Our culture doesn’t really value guys anymore. That confuses the issue further. The things that make a guy a guy are often the things our society wants to quash.

Part of why this is the case, I think, is because men have become demonized in our society. They are generally viewed (particularly by the liberal movement) as drunken brawlers, lazy louts, wife-beaters, rude and crude savages, etc. Unfortunately, to some extent men have brought this image on themselves, but even more unfortunately, it is, I think, the minority of men who have somehow created this image. Perhaps, a more correct view is that those men who are so boorish and cruel and ugly as to make headlines, as to draw attention to themselves, have been thrust even further into the limelight as to generate a very negative stereotype of what men are. The result is a dishonest and inaccurate definition, both of what a man is and what a man should be. I kind of doubt that this was any planned conspiracy to demonize men (except maybe for some branches of militant feminists), but nevertheless, what we have are men who have been made impotent in our society, who are not allowed to be strong and masculine, because those are the very features that are frowned upon and viewed, seemingly, as threatening.

Whatever men actually are now, there _is_ a clear definition of what men _should_ be. The Bible, particularly the “New Testament”:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205-6&version=31, spells it out pretty well, and Christ (and His Father) is an excellent example of masculinity. Here’ s a few of the characteristics that come immediately to mind: strong, both emotionally and spiritually; tender-hearted and compassionate; self-disciplined; sensitive to the needs of others; self-sacrificing; conscientious; loving. Notice, though, that just about every single one of these characteristics are also applicable to women. That is because the very traits that make strong, masculine men also make strong, feminine women. These traits bring out the best in our respective genders, allowing us to live up to the full potential of masculinity and femininity, as God designed them.

What seems to happen, though, is that men fail to be strong, in any capacity, are weak in character, show lack of discipline, are completely negligent at seeing, let alone meeting, the needs of others, and so on. Our culture is so self-centered that the common philosophy of self-servitude reigns supreme, and rather than being true men, the male species is little more than a group of very large 8-year-olds, who have not yet learned what it means to have a strong sense of character and morality.

Fortunately, not all men are like this, but enough are that it is a problem. I think the solution is to get the focus _off_ the men who fail to be men and _onto_ the men who are doing it right, the men who are very masculine, who are secure with their masculinity, and who display the kind of sensitivity, leadership, and strength of character that so many in our society lack. And what is so great about this approach is that we rarely have to look much further than our own family or social circles to find just one man who serves as a terrific role model for all. No one’s perfect, of course, but then again, that isn’t the expectation (or at least, it shouldn’t be). The expectation is that we try to live up to our potential as men, strive to fulfill our roles in society as God created them. In so doing I think we will find that our families are stronger, our morals more clearly defined, and a whole host of society’s ills made better.

Too Much Christmas Music?

1 Reply

I love Christmas music as much as the next person. But the thing I hate is when “you can’t get away from it”:http://www.rmcrob.com/?p=2452 The repetoire of Christmas songs is inherently limited, and to have them repeated hour after hour for six or seven weeks on my favorite radio stations gets old after the first few days. This year has been particularly trying as the only good Christian radio station in the area has given up its regular format for 24/7 Christmas music (“Little Drummer Boy” seems to be the dominating tune). As a result, what I miss is good music with good lyrics, rather than the rubbish on so many of the other stations. Why can’t there be a radio station that airs music only six weeks out of the year — between Thanksgiving and Christmas Day — and that plays only Christmas music during those six weeks? That way, when I want my Christian music, I can tune into that station, and when I want my Christmas music, I can flip to _that_ station?

Only one more week to go….

Emotional Sacrifice Offered, Not Taken

3 Replies

I have become a firm believer that the worship portion of the church service should come after the message portion of the service. The common philosophy has always been that worship is to prepare one’s heart to receive the message that has been laid upon the pastor’s heart, to make one more receptive, more open to the working of the Holy Spirit. And there is some truth to that.

But I think that perhaps worship is best offered when it is a _response_ to the Word of God, and may best serve both the individual and the congregation when it takes place _after_ the message has been delivered. Worship is an act of emotional and spiritual sacrifice. It is the giving of oneself toward the object of worship.

I have participated in a lot of worship services over the years, and the ones that always bothered me most were those where the worship leader seemed to almost force worship out of his congregants. Rather than requesting that we join him in worshipping God, he was more directive and forceful (though there worship leader who is not passionate in his ministry will not be effective in it). There was not always time enough to prepare one’s heart before we were ‘forced’ into worship, the music starting, the singing begun, my heart not yet ready.

Many times there was also nothing to stimulate my heart to worship. We were seated, the lights were dimmed, the music playing, and our hearts and minds were still on the tasks of the hour previous. The feeling of forced worship would leave me feeling a bit rankled and obstinate, and so when the preaching began, it was an effort of will to listen and allow the Holy Spirit to work in me. Fortunately, by the time the message was over, often I found that I had, indeed, softened but then I would find myself wishing to worship collectively in response, such was the power of the message on my heart. But since that part of the service had occurred before the message, there was no opportunity to worship with my brethren and rejoice in the truth revealed, and I would again be left with a feeling of disappointment.

Naturally, the very nature of large gatherings means that no service is going to perfectly minister to every person every time. Often the traditional service format ministers adequately to the majority. Yet, I feel as though a single song before the preaching should prove adequate for opening the door to worship, with the main body of collective worship being reserved for afterward, after the seed of God’s Word has been planted in our hearts and has begun its work of growing, shaping, and changing. This allows the congregation to respond to the message according to the impact it has had on them, to celebrate, repent, or weep as led by the Spirit.

Perhaps church services have become far to rigid and structured (though structure in any gathering is necessary to some degree or another). I love the services where the format is a little more loose and free, where there is no hurry to get to the end, where the Holy Spirit is free to move and touch lives and lead the worship leaders to change the service mid-stride, if necessary. Those are the services that are most richly rewarding and which draw me closest to my God and my fellow believers.

Working with Snippets

Leave a reply

One of the things I have noticed over the past couple of days, as I work on tweaking various things here, is that I really don’t like working with the ‘em’ tag for formatting font size and line height. For one thing Firefox and Internet Explorer handle it differently, and you end up with two very different looks. I’ve taken to changing ‘em’ everywhere I see it in my style sheet to the ‘pt’ format. I think ‘pt’ is much easier to use, much more flexible, and much easier to control. I can create the same look across browsers, rather than the mess that results when I need to switch browsers. I know that ‘em’ is supposed to be this revolutionary coding style for Web 2.0, but for me it creates more headaches than it cures. I’m still not entirely happy with the look of my site, but then again, I’m not quite done tweaking the code.

Something else I’m learning is that, when you are installing new plugins into your web site, make sure you read _all_ the documentation first. It’s usually good to know ahead of time what features the plugin touts, what they do, and what they are supposed to look like in all their various iterations. I could have saved myself a few minutes of work this morning if only I’d read the part about the Captcha! being deactivated for registered users (I couldn’t find it to it test it until I logged out). So, read that documentation first, then do the install. It generally makes everything go a lot more smoothly.

Once More With the Housekeeping

Leave a reply

Final note, hopefully, on the comment spam and trackback issue — I found a different bot check software called “Captcha!”:http://www.boriel.com/?page_id=17 that still provides the security of random image generation to prove human commenting but that also allows continued trackback capability. Non-registered users will have to type in the code at the bottom of the comment field before submitting, where registered users will not need to verify their comments. Oh, and let me know if you find the font too difficult to read because that’s an option I can change.

Enough of this….

More Housekeeping

Leave a reply

Scratch the previous…. I decided I _really_ didn’t like forcing people to register with Writer’s Blog in order to comment, so instead I’ve added a bit of bot-check code to my site. When you want to comment, simply complete the code field as you see it above the comment field to approve your comment. I’m hoping this will be the best of all options, allowing real people to leave feedback while making it impossible (or at least a lot more difficult) for bots to leave their garbage lying around. The only problem I’m having with it at the moment is that it doesn’t allow trackbacks, so I’ll see if I can work with that.