A few days ago the US Congress cut veterans' benefits. Veterans are men and women who have served in the United States military and who have been promised that when they exit the military they will receive adequate compensation. The group directly affected are military retirees. For about what's happening please read this blog http://mickeyinthemiddle.blogspot.com/2013/12/open-letter-to-united-states-senate.html.
I could stop there, as I am not as well informed about what's happening as I should be, but I believe there's more to this issue then what the US government does or does not do. I ask the question, "What would Jesus response to the men and women in the armed services be? How would he treat them?"
In Jesus day, the Jews did not have a professional military. They were occupied by the Romans. There was enough hate and displeasure among the Jews about the Roman occupation, that it would have been entirely reasonable for Jesus to have a negative attitude towards the military. But he never did. Jesus treated the Romans soldiers the same way he treated everyone else. He healed their sick and he was amazed by their faith (Matthew 8:5-13). It was also a centurion who is the first to make a statement of faith after seeing Jesus death (Matthew 27:54). After Jesus death, the sign to the apostles that God cared for the whole world, not just the Jews, was through a centurion and his family (Acts 10:24-48). In the New Testament, God has a history of using Roman soldiers to show how much he loves the world. It's very accurate to say that God loves the men and women in and out of the military.
And that's where most of us stop. By us I mean American Christians. We remember historic military victories and tragedies, have sales and discounts on memorial day, perhaps even a service or two when we talk about the service our armed forces perform for our country and then we go silent for most of the year. This is not right.
Its not right that many men and women come back from deployments hurting and shell shocked, while the church does nothing. It's not right that many of these men and women struggle with inner demons from their experiences, and the church does not know how to approach them. It's not right that veterans walk the streets in homelessness, consumed by the weight of what they've seen and we do little to help them; they need more than a place to sleep, food each day, clean clothes and to be treated with dignity and respect. They need healing, and they need people who are unafraid to walk beside them through what they've seen and experienced. It's not only for the military to take care of its own; its our duty as Christ followers to stand with them, even if we conscientiously object.
If I were to use a word to describe how we should treat our active duty military, reserve forces, veterans and retired career military, it would be this word: brothers. We should treat them as brothers. In the New Testament to call someone brother did not always mean they were your blood relative. It often meant someone you shared life with, someone with whom there was no social hierarchy, someone who if they suffered you suffered too. A brother is not someone you let down, it's someone you always stand up for, regardless of the consequences.
My response to the government is that if you will not care for my brothers, then I will. I will support them and stand beside them. I will find a way to care for them, and make sure at any age they will never walk alone.
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Saturday, December 21, 2013
The origin and effects of sin
With the recent debates about what is and isn't sin, I'd like offer up an explanation, citation and a good story. Sin can be very confusing, especially when we take it out of context. Explanations about sin often cite Levitcal laws or the Ten Commandments. While these certainly are a guide helping us understand what sin practically looks like, I often feel we miss something valuable by just looking at 'the rules'. In order to get a better understanding of sin, we need to go back to the first time sin is mentioned: to the first time sin takes place.
What's interesting about our first account of sin, sin, as in the word, is not used. Ironic how sin isn't one of our vocabulary words when it first takes place. To follow along with the story, I'm using Genesis 2:8-9,15-17; 3:1-24. Or if that's confusing just read Genesis chapter 2 & 3.
Allow me to set the stage. God has made a garden and he has put man in the garden. This garden is full of trees that are pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden are two trees: the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As God puts man in the garden he tells him, "you are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." God makes a sweet garden with tons of awesome looking trees and tasty fruit. God tells the man he is free to eat from any tree in the garden, but that the man must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because it will kill him. Let me further emphasize that the man is FREE to eat from ANY tree in the garden, but he MUST NOT EAT from ONE of the trees because it will KILL HIM.
Personally, I wonder what was not so appealing about the tree of life. I mean seriously, its right there. But hey, living forever, apparently not important at this point in the story.
So there's this serpent, who's pretty darn crafty, but no one is afraid of snakes. Why? Because everything God created was still good at this point. The serpent asks a pretty straight forward question to the woman in the garden (apparently a talking animal was not big concern...), "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden?' " He's asking if the woman can eat anything she wants, by asking if she can eat anything at all. Clever. The woman responds with the truth, "we may eat fruit from the trees in the garden," and then adds, "but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' " At this point I give an exasperated sigh. Why didn't the man tell the woman which tree not to eat from? There are TWO trees in the middle of the garden, and NONE of the fruit from the trees will kill you if you touch it. Somebody failed to accurately communicate what God said, but no, that's not the first sin.
The serpent replies to the woman, "You will not surely die," he's actually telling the truth at this point, touching the fruit won't kill you, but eating it will. "God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Hmmm. Is he lying? No. He's just repeated the name of the tree they aren't supposed to eat from. Did I mention he was clever? However, he's put a twist on his words, that this fruit is the key to being like God. True, but not true. Why? because the way the serpent describes to become more like God is not to do what God said. Confusing, but when you don't know what God said in the first place, anything is up for grabs.
The woman looks at the fruit. She sees three things: its good for eating, its pleasing to the eye and desirable for gaining wisdom. Two of the things she sees are what she's supposed to see, the third thing is what the serpent has told her she should see. Her perspective about the tree has changed. As has a word. Wisdom. There's an experience to be gained by eating the fruit, not just a head knowledge about facts. It's the desire for wisdom, an experience, that motivates her. She wants to know what it is like to be like God.
She takes some of the fruit and eats it. She also gives some to her husband, who HAS BEEN STANDING THERE THE WHOLE TIME!!! Also not sin (the standing around doing nothing part), but really he could have spoken up and said something. Maybe clarified what God actually said?
And then it happens "then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked." Innocence lost. Sin has taken place and the lives of the man and woman have been forever changed. They have used the freedom God gave them to eat from any fruit of the garden, but that fruit wasn't meant for them to eat, even though like everything else God made, it looked good. And now they see each other in a new light, "so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves."
This story doesn't declare "eating fruit was the sin!" Eating fruit isn't sinful. This story is full of details about what God said not to do and then the consequences of not doing what God said. The point is not what they did, its that they didn't do what God said. Sin is actively doing what God said not to do, even though we have the freedom to do anything.
Since we have identified sin, we might want to go home, but there are two more parts to this story; these are the most important parts that we so often miss whenever we talk about sin. "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day," God is taking a late afternoon stroll, which we know isn't unusual for God, because the man and his wife know what God sounds like when he walks. Instead of running up and saying, "Hey, we know what it's like to be like you." they do the opposite "and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden." The man and his wife ran from God. The effect of sin in our lives is that we run from God.
Here's the first important point, "But the LORD God called to the man, 'Where are you?' " God doesn't let humanity stay hidden; he calls out to the man. God goes looking for humanity, individual people, even when we want to run away from God. And he finds them.
The man answers, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." Sin makes us afraid of being seen by God.
God starts asking questions, even though he already knows the answers (the man is in a tree after all and God made the fruit and knows what it does), "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?" The man gives a wonderful response. He blames the woman. And he kind of blames God for giving him the woman, even though the man's first poetry is written about how awesome the woman is. Lest we blame the man, lets look at the woman's response. She blames the serpent. What a perfect couple! Sin makes us believe its someone else's fault.
God curses them all. Snakes become creepy, childbirth becomes hard and farming becomes difficult. Then God does something we shouldn't miss. "The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them." This is the second important point, God made a sacrifice to cover humanity's sin and shame. It was not humanity that made a sacrifice for their sin, it was God who made a sacrifice for humanity. This is recorded in the 3rd chapter of Genesis. God made a way and a covering for his creation. He didn't leave us in our sin. He didn't let us stay the way we were with our man-made inadequate coverings, he gave us something better, even though we couldn't stay in the garden.
The end of this story, and the first account of sin, is of Adam and Eve being banished from the garden and driven out by God. No more free tasty fruit. No more late afternoon strolls with the creator. No more talking animals. At the entrance to the garden, God places a cherubim with a flaming sword, who guards the way to the tree of life.
Here are the important parts I see about sin:
Its a choice of freedom God gives us.
Its about actively not doing what God says and reaping the consequences.
Here's the bad stuff sin causes:
We become afraid of being seen by God.
We try to cover ourselves with things that don't really cover us.
We blame someone else for our choices.
We run and hide from God.
We miss out on the world as it should be.
Here's the good news:
God comes looking for us.
God already knows what we've done.
He sacrifices on our behalf to cover us.
Note that Adam and Eve accepted the clothing God gave them. They had the freedom to reject it. Much like we do. We don't have to accept anything from God. Adam and Eve could have chosen their leaves, but the clothes of God were much better for them then the coverings they made for themselves.
There's more to the story of God's relationship with humanity, and we will see the same good news played out, but this is the sad story about sin.
What's interesting about our first account of sin, sin, as in the word, is not used. Ironic how sin isn't one of our vocabulary words when it first takes place. To follow along with the story, I'm using Genesis 2:8-9,15-17; 3:1-24. Or if that's confusing just read Genesis chapter 2 & 3.
Allow me to set the stage. God has made a garden and he has put man in the garden. This garden is full of trees that are pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden are two trees: the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As God puts man in the garden he tells him, "you are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." God makes a sweet garden with tons of awesome looking trees and tasty fruit. God tells the man he is free to eat from any tree in the garden, but that the man must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because it will kill him. Let me further emphasize that the man is FREE to eat from ANY tree in the garden, but he MUST NOT EAT from ONE of the trees because it will KILL HIM.
Personally, I wonder what was not so appealing about the tree of life. I mean seriously, its right there. But hey, living forever, apparently not important at this point in the story.
So there's this serpent, who's pretty darn crafty, but no one is afraid of snakes. Why? Because everything God created was still good at this point. The serpent asks a pretty straight forward question to the woman in the garden (apparently a talking animal was not big concern...), "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden?' " He's asking if the woman can eat anything she wants, by asking if she can eat anything at all. Clever. The woman responds with the truth, "we may eat fruit from the trees in the garden," and then adds, "but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' " At this point I give an exasperated sigh. Why didn't the man tell the woman which tree not to eat from? There are TWO trees in the middle of the garden, and NONE of the fruit from the trees will kill you if you touch it. Somebody failed to accurately communicate what God said, but no, that's not the first sin.
The serpent replies to the woman, "You will not surely die," he's actually telling the truth at this point, touching the fruit won't kill you, but eating it will. "God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Hmmm. Is he lying? No. He's just repeated the name of the tree they aren't supposed to eat from. Did I mention he was clever? However, he's put a twist on his words, that this fruit is the key to being like God. True, but not true. Why? because the way the serpent describes to become more like God is not to do what God said. Confusing, but when you don't know what God said in the first place, anything is up for grabs.
The woman looks at the fruit. She sees three things: its good for eating, its pleasing to the eye and desirable for gaining wisdom. Two of the things she sees are what she's supposed to see, the third thing is what the serpent has told her she should see. Her perspective about the tree has changed. As has a word. Wisdom. There's an experience to be gained by eating the fruit, not just a head knowledge about facts. It's the desire for wisdom, an experience, that motivates her. She wants to know what it is like to be like God.
She takes some of the fruit and eats it. She also gives some to her husband, who HAS BEEN STANDING THERE THE WHOLE TIME!!! Also not sin (the standing around doing nothing part), but really he could have spoken up and said something. Maybe clarified what God actually said?
And then it happens "then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked." Innocence lost. Sin has taken place and the lives of the man and woman have been forever changed. They have used the freedom God gave them to eat from any fruit of the garden, but that fruit wasn't meant for them to eat, even though like everything else God made, it looked good. And now they see each other in a new light, "so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves."
This story doesn't declare "eating fruit was the sin!" Eating fruit isn't sinful. This story is full of details about what God said not to do and then the consequences of not doing what God said. The point is not what they did, its that they didn't do what God said. Sin is actively doing what God said not to do, even though we have the freedom to do anything.
Since we have identified sin, we might want to go home, but there are two more parts to this story; these are the most important parts that we so often miss whenever we talk about sin. "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day," God is taking a late afternoon stroll, which we know isn't unusual for God, because the man and his wife know what God sounds like when he walks. Instead of running up and saying, "Hey, we know what it's like to be like you." they do the opposite "and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden." The man and his wife ran from God. The effect of sin in our lives is that we run from God.
Here's the first important point, "But the LORD God called to the man, 'Where are you?' " God doesn't let humanity stay hidden; he calls out to the man. God goes looking for humanity, individual people, even when we want to run away from God. And he finds them.
The man answers, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." Sin makes us afraid of being seen by God.
God starts asking questions, even though he already knows the answers (the man is in a tree after all and God made the fruit and knows what it does), "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?" The man gives a wonderful response. He blames the woman. And he kind of blames God for giving him the woman, even though the man's first poetry is written about how awesome the woman is. Lest we blame the man, lets look at the woman's response. She blames the serpent. What a perfect couple! Sin makes us believe its someone else's fault.
God curses them all. Snakes become creepy, childbirth becomes hard and farming becomes difficult. Then God does something we shouldn't miss. "The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them." This is the second important point, God made a sacrifice to cover humanity's sin and shame. It was not humanity that made a sacrifice for their sin, it was God who made a sacrifice for humanity. This is recorded in the 3rd chapter of Genesis. God made a way and a covering for his creation. He didn't leave us in our sin. He didn't let us stay the way we were with our man-made inadequate coverings, he gave us something better, even though we couldn't stay in the garden.
The end of this story, and the first account of sin, is of Adam and Eve being banished from the garden and driven out by God. No more free tasty fruit. No more late afternoon strolls with the creator. No more talking animals. At the entrance to the garden, God places a cherubim with a flaming sword, who guards the way to the tree of life.
Here are the important parts I see about sin:
Its a choice of freedom God gives us.
Its about actively not doing what God says and reaping the consequences.
Here's the bad stuff sin causes:
We become afraid of being seen by God.
We try to cover ourselves with things that don't really cover us.
We blame someone else for our choices.
We run and hide from God.
We miss out on the world as it should be.
Here's the good news:
God comes looking for us.
God already knows what we've done.
He sacrifices on our behalf to cover us.
Note that Adam and Eve accepted the clothing God gave them. They had the freedom to reject it. Much like we do. We don't have to accept anything from God. Adam and Eve could have chosen their leaves, but the clothes of God were much better for them then the coverings they made for themselves.
There's more to the story of God's relationship with humanity, and we will see the same good news played out, but this is the sad story about sin.
Friday, December 20, 2013
A comment about social comments
In light of recent events about incidents involving a duck and a gentlemen, I, like many others, have the desire to say something. I'm not really interested in what was published in the magazine, the TV show itself or the views about religion, race or sexuality that seems to be scattered all over the place like pieces from a clay pigeon. What I am noticing, is that something seems to be broken. And I wonder "What?".
As I attempt to evaluate this question, I can't help but notice something that happened in my life about a week ago. I was reading the Bible, as I normally do, and finished reading the book of Isaiah. Instead of merrily going to the next book in sequence, Jeremiah, I took a few days off from reading. Why? Because I couldn't bear to read about the destruction of Jerusalem; it was too heavy and depressing. The hard part about reading Isaiah and Jeremiah, two of the major prophets in the Bible, is that they unswervingly point out how far from God his people have gone, tell of the coming destruction in graphic poetic detail, weep over their people, tell how much God loves them and wants to restore them if they turn to him. Basically the prophets can be an emotional roller coaster. One I desperately needed some time away from for a few days. Reading these prophets prompted me to ask what they would say to me and my country. I'm not a fan of my answer.
For starters, they would tell us how we think we're following God, but are really doing whatever we want and using his name. They would lay out all the ways in which we are hypocrites and remind us of all the ways in which God has not let hypocrisy stand. They would tell us of our coming destruction, to which we would get angry and want to kill them. In spite of our actions, they would call us back to following God, forsaking all foreign and alien ways in which we've prostituted ourselves. They would weep, cry out and get emotional over us, for how bad we've gotten and how much God doesn't want us to be this way. They would leave us with hope, hope that even though destruction comes, we can rebuild, for God is merciful and forgiving; all we need is to turn from our wicked ways.
As I write those words a part of me says, "we're really not THAT bad," to which my natural response is duh. We're arguing because we can argue; its sort of what we do. But as a part of me wants to write it all off as a bunch of silliness, another part of me answers back, 'that's exactly what Jerusalem said'. I find myself standing between a social perception and an inward conviction. That we're ridiculous and there's something very serious about the heat of our ridiculous argument. To which I want to respond, "Why so serious?" Because something very serious is at stake.
Our hearts. This whole duck vs pluck thing has gotten out of hand. It's obviously struck a nerve, and the press is loving it, fueling it and hoping to make as much money off it as possible. Facebook is also a mess. I've seen multiple comment threads with double and triple digit comments as people fight for their opinions and keep the internal fires growing. Something is wrong. And it has little to do with the particulars someone decided to publish in a magazine.
Sin is sin. Whether its homosexuality, bestiality, pornography, hatred, lying, stealing or whatever. It all falls into the same category. Our social perceptions try to tell us some sins are worse than others, and that some sins aren't sins. Regardless of our social perceptions about sin, we all sin. We all sin. We ALL sin. No one is pure, no one is blameless, we all sin and have fallen short of perfection. Anything stated to the obvious is a lie, it might be well meaning, but its a lie. It might make us feel good to think we're not as bad as other people, to grade and rank our own personal sins versus our perceptions of others, but that only shows how utterly ridiculous we are to think that we're some how better than someone else. It's false righteousness. Which was a huge problem the prophets addressed, which makes them worth reading, especially now. Especially in the season of darkness.
Every year, near the winter solstice, we celebrate Christmas: the darkest day of the year, or at least it used to be. This season was chosen because of what it represents, darkness overcoming light, but only for a time. For after the solstice light comes back into the world. Jesus is described as the Light of the world; Christmas is the celebration of light overcoming the darkness, of the darkness being revealed and cast out, of hope being restored. Hope that the world does not have to be trapped in its sinful and hateful ways, but set free. This is the true meaning of Christmas. This is what we celebrate in the darkest times of the year.
Darkness separates, isolates and tears down. Light unifies, opens eyes and brings together. That unity is found by accepting that we are all sinners and that God loves us and that he wants better for us. He wants us to walk in the light as he is the light. That light begins and ends at the cross. Because sin has a price, judgment. Not social judgment: Godly judgment. God's judgment against humanity for all the ways we've treated God, each other and the creation he put in our hands. That judgment has to exist, we can't wipe it way, or else there is nothing wrong with the way we treat each other. There is something very wrong with the way treat each other. We treat each other like we cannot change. We treat each other like we cannot be forgiven.
Every duck needs forgiveness; we are all ducks.
Forgiveness creates equality. Forgiveness is the beginning of walking in the light. Its the melting point of our hardened hearts. Its the thawing that takes place over time as we cast aside the social lies and perceptions that so easily ensnare our hearts and minds. Its the freedom to cross battle lines and call for peace, even if both sides ardently disagree. Its the awareness of our own wrongs and the desire to be free of them. This freedom through forgiveness is found at the foot of the cross. That the judgment we have earned and deserve may pass over us. That even though our world may be fraying at its social edges, we can still be united through the price Jesus paid for our forgiveness. That one day we can live in peace and harmony and leave all this silliness behind.
As I attempt to evaluate this question, I can't help but notice something that happened in my life about a week ago. I was reading the Bible, as I normally do, and finished reading the book of Isaiah. Instead of merrily going to the next book in sequence, Jeremiah, I took a few days off from reading. Why? Because I couldn't bear to read about the destruction of Jerusalem; it was too heavy and depressing. The hard part about reading Isaiah and Jeremiah, two of the major prophets in the Bible, is that they unswervingly point out how far from God his people have gone, tell of the coming destruction in graphic poetic detail, weep over their people, tell how much God loves them and wants to restore them if they turn to him. Basically the prophets can be an emotional roller coaster. One I desperately needed some time away from for a few days. Reading these prophets prompted me to ask what they would say to me and my country. I'm not a fan of my answer.
For starters, they would tell us how we think we're following God, but are really doing whatever we want and using his name. They would lay out all the ways in which we are hypocrites and remind us of all the ways in which God has not let hypocrisy stand. They would tell us of our coming destruction, to which we would get angry and want to kill them. In spite of our actions, they would call us back to following God, forsaking all foreign and alien ways in which we've prostituted ourselves. They would weep, cry out and get emotional over us, for how bad we've gotten and how much God doesn't want us to be this way. They would leave us with hope, hope that even though destruction comes, we can rebuild, for God is merciful and forgiving; all we need is to turn from our wicked ways.
As I write those words a part of me says, "we're really not THAT bad," to which my natural response is duh. We're arguing because we can argue; its sort of what we do. But as a part of me wants to write it all off as a bunch of silliness, another part of me answers back, 'that's exactly what Jerusalem said'. I find myself standing between a social perception and an inward conviction. That we're ridiculous and there's something very serious about the heat of our ridiculous argument. To which I want to respond, "Why so serious?" Because something very serious is at stake.
Our hearts. This whole duck vs pluck thing has gotten out of hand. It's obviously struck a nerve, and the press is loving it, fueling it and hoping to make as much money off it as possible. Facebook is also a mess. I've seen multiple comment threads with double and triple digit comments as people fight for their opinions and keep the internal fires growing. Something is wrong. And it has little to do with the particulars someone decided to publish in a magazine.
Sin is sin. Whether its homosexuality, bestiality, pornography, hatred, lying, stealing or whatever. It all falls into the same category. Our social perceptions try to tell us some sins are worse than others, and that some sins aren't sins. Regardless of our social perceptions about sin, we all sin. We all sin. We ALL sin. No one is pure, no one is blameless, we all sin and have fallen short of perfection. Anything stated to the obvious is a lie, it might be well meaning, but its a lie. It might make us feel good to think we're not as bad as other people, to grade and rank our own personal sins versus our perceptions of others, but that only shows how utterly ridiculous we are to think that we're some how better than someone else. It's false righteousness. Which was a huge problem the prophets addressed, which makes them worth reading, especially now. Especially in the season of darkness.
Every year, near the winter solstice, we celebrate Christmas: the darkest day of the year, or at least it used to be. This season was chosen because of what it represents, darkness overcoming light, but only for a time. For after the solstice light comes back into the world. Jesus is described as the Light of the world; Christmas is the celebration of light overcoming the darkness, of the darkness being revealed and cast out, of hope being restored. Hope that the world does not have to be trapped in its sinful and hateful ways, but set free. This is the true meaning of Christmas. This is what we celebrate in the darkest times of the year.
Darkness separates, isolates and tears down. Light unifies, opens eyes and brings together. That unity is found by accepting that we are all sinners and that God loves us and that he wants better for us. He wants us to walk in the light as he is the light. That light begins and ends at the cross. Because sin has a price, judgment. Not social judgment: Godly judgment. God's judgment against humanity for all the ways we've treated God, each other and the creation he put in our hands. That judgment has to exist, we can't wipe it way, or else there is nothing wrong with the way we treat each other. There is something very wrong with the way treat each other. We treat each other like we cannot change. We treat each other like we cannot be forgiven.
Every duck needs forgiveness; we are all ducks.
Forgiveness creates equality. Forgiveness is the beginning of walking in the light. Its the melting point of our hardened hearts. Its the thawing that takes place over time as we cast aside the social lies and perceptions that so easily ensnare our hearts and minds. Its the freedom to cross battle lines and call for peace, even if both sides ardently disagree. Its the awareness of our own wrongs and the desire to be free of them. This freedom through forgiveness is found at the foot of the cross. That the judgment we have earned and deserve may pass over us. That even though our world may be fraying at its social edges, we can still be united through the price Jesus paid for our forgiveness. That one day we can live in peace and harmony and leave all this silliness behind.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Restarting
In a few days January, the month of resolutions, will arrive. As I reflect on some of the goals I set in 2013, I wonder if I set worth while goals. One of those goals, increase my muscle mass (while keeping my fat mass to a minimum), defines many generic goals. My body weight and composition has changed over the years; I no longer have the pressure of a sport to endless increase my size, speed and strength. I know what it feels like to be bigger, faster and stronger. I also know what it feels like to be out of shape, to rebuild and consequently remember what physical motion feels like. Exercising regularly makes fitness fun and enjoyable. Coming off a month of not doing much feels like I can hardly move. Motivation drops to zero, at which point we ask ourselves the all important question, "Why am I doing this?"
How do we honestly answer this question? I look inside. Inside my head, inside my heart, inside my life. Why do I pursue fitness? I need to know how I define fitness before I can answer why I do it. Fitness is the sum total of activities I practice in order to be healthy. Great, that sounds like it came out of a dictionary. Regardless of my definitions origin, I now need to define what I consider healthy.
This creates a problem. What is health? I see numerous advertisements for health, and as I look at the ads I often find myself thinking, "that doesn't look like health." Either the image is too perfect, photo-shopped or makes subliminal claims about how it will enhance my non-existent sex life, which I am currently happy with. As I ponder why advertising focuses so much on sex appeal, it makes me wonder if sexy equals healthy. To which my honest answer is no. Why? because I know many people who are healthy, but not considered sexy. Some forms of fitness are very sexy, especially when done in hot and sweaty environments while wearing curve caressing clothing. Or are they? When we really sit down and think about it, most sports and exercise activities are not sexy in the nit and grit of daily practice. We glam up competition, taking lots of photos that we then photo-shop, but practice isn't advertisement worthy material. It's too real, authentic and human. Which makes me ask another question, "Why do we focus so much on the end result and not how we arrive there?"
When we think about end results, temptations arise. Temptations to cut corners, take enhancers, quit and try too hard. I believe quitting, trying to hard, cutting corners and taking enhancers all fall into the same category. The category of I'll never get there and I won't get there fast enough. To which my response is, "What's the rush?" Why do we worry and try to change too quickly?
One thing I know about fitness, it takes time to develop, and the more we develop fitness the more time we have. Fitness is an anti-ager, unless we work to hard, then it accelerates aging; it creates dis-ease and dis-comfort. So if fitness is something best taken slow, letting it develop over time, then shouldn't we approach health the same way?
Approaching health requires a steady and consistent pace. On this journey we discover our capabilities, limits and hindrances. One of my personal limitations, attaining goals through the nit and grit of practice while keeping my body healthy, means I won't do more exercise if my body hurts. Pushing my body into the hurt zone is easy, staying out of it while pursuing my goals is not. The answer to gauging the health and pain balance? Community. The deeper the community I find myself in, the easier I find a balance between health and pain. I also find it more motivating to work out when I have friends to work out beside me.
Which then creates a conundrum. Should we all go seeking this mythical stronger community? Or should we build one where we are? And how do we build deep community? My answer to our first question, "Why am I doing this?" is a communal one. We do specific activities because our communities accept them. Which is a logic circle. We do activities because they are okay and accepted, and they are okay and accepted because we do them. So how do we introduce something new into a community?
Someone, at some point has to try something new, either by themselves or with a group of friends. We positively and negatively influence each other to try new activities. Why? Because we want out of our mindless circling. We either try to keep it all the same, and thus all agree nothing is wrong because we agree nothing is wrong, or we admit something is wrong and try to change.
What changes first? The individual or the environment? I can't give you a straight answer because my mind sees a conflict with this statement. Why does the individual need to change before the environment does? As soon as someone chooses to act differently, those actions spill out into our environment, and thus make us consider our own actions. Consider my above statements about my sex life. I mentioned something about the way I live, why did you react negatively or positively to my statement? We are communally wired, and we desire our community of influences to be unified. We dislike dis-unity. It starts to feel like dis-comfort, then we label it a dis-ease and then we try to eradicate it. Which makes me stop and ask, "Why are we trying to eradicate people?" or my preferred way of asking this, "Why are we trying to eradicate human behavior?" or simply "Why don't we like being human?"
I believe there is something deeply wired into us that longs for our behaviors to be set right. Not eradicate the ways in which we feel, move and healthfully change, but to satisfy our desire for wholeness. Our desire to be united internally and with those around us. I believe these fundamental questions lies at the core of our common experiences. How do we come together? Can we stay together? I believe these are the essentials of building health.
At the core of my health is my spiritual connection to God, even though it often gets challenged, I practice less often then I should, and like many others I struggle to know what 'following God' means. Part of my journey is asking questions, and having open thoughts for others to see. Not because I want to hammer someone into my position, because that violates my definition of health (and I believe following God should be practiced healthily). But because I see a decline in my world of asking questions about God. I see a rise in judgment toward the religious. I see a rise in judgment towards sexuality. And in the midst of rising tides with emotions rising high I want to ask a very small question, "What are we doing to each other?"
As I ask this question I look 'up'. I don't understand why we are so bent on making each other into a perfect image, when our perfect images aren't healthy. I don't understand our obsession with wanting everyone to move and think like 'I' do. The concept makes me want to vomit. I fervently don't want a bunch of people to be like me, but I desperately want community with at least a few like-minded people. And I want that community to be okay with asking questions about God, that as we consider all the logical ways in which we might be able to change our world, we also consider that logic isn't the answer. Perhaps there is more to life than measurable changes and paces. Perhaps life is full of seasons of growth, harvest and decay, which means its okay if our weight doesn't measure the same every day. And perhaps when we think about health we shouldn't be thinking in measurements, but should be considering our qualities and philosophies on life.
How do we honestly answer this question? I look inside. Inside my head, inside my heart, inside my life. Why do I pursue fitness? I need to know how I define fitness before I can answer why I do it. Fitness is the sum total of activities I practice in order to be healthy. Great, that sounds like it came out of a dictionary. Regardless of my definitions origin, I now need to define what I consider healthy.
This creates a problem. What is health? I see numerous advertisements for health, and as I look at the ads I often find myself thinking, "that doesn't look like health." Either the image is too perfect, photo-shopped or makes subliminal claims about how it will enhance my non-existent sex life, which I am currently happy with. As I ponder why advertising focuses so much on sex appeal, it makes me wonder if sexy equals healthy. To which my honest answer is no. Why? because I know many people who are healthy, but not considered sexy. Some forms of fitness are very sexy, especially when done in hot and sweaty environments while wearing curve caressing clothing. Or are they? When we really sit down and think about it, most sports and exercise activities are not sexy in the nit and grit of daily practice. We glam up competition, taking lots of photos that we then photo-shop, but practice isn't advertisement worthy material. It's too real, authentic and human. Which makes me ask another question, "Why do we focus so much on the end result and not how we arrive there?"
When we think about end results, temptations arise. Temptations to cut corners, take enhancers, quit and try too hard. I believe quitting, trying to hard, cutting corners and taking enhancers all fall into the same category. The category of I'll never get there and I won't get there fast enough. To which my response is, "What's the rush?" Why do we worry and try to change too quickly?
One thing I know about fitness, it takes time to develop, and the more we develop fitness the more time we have. Fitness is an anti-ager, unless we work to hard, then it accelerates aging; it creates dis-ease and dis-comfort. So if fitness is something best taken slow, letting it develop over time, then shouldn't we approach health the same way?
Approaching health requires a steady and consistent pace. On this journey we discover our capabilities, limits and hindrances. One of my personal limitations, attaining goals through the nit and grit of practice while keeping my body healthy, means I won't do more exercise if my body hurts. Pushing my body into the hurt zone is easy, staying out of it while pursuing my goals is not. The answer to gauging the health and pain balance? Community. The deeper the community I find myself in, the easier I find a balance between health and pain. I also find it more motivating to work out when I have friends to work out beside me.
Which then creates a conundrum. Should we all go seeking this mythical stronger community? Or should we build one where we are? And how do we build deep community? My answer to our first question, "Why am I doing this?" is a communal one. We do specific activities because our communities accept them. Which is a logic circle. We do activities because they are okay and accepted, and they are okay and accepted because we do them. So how do we introduce something new into a community?
Someone, at some point has to try something new, either by themselves or with a group of friends. We positively and negatively influence each other to try new activities. Why? Because we want out of our mindless circling. We either try to keep it all the same, and thus all agree nothing is wrong because we agree nothing is wrong, or we admit something is wrong and try to change.
What changes first? The individual or the environment? I can't give you a straight answer because my mind sees a conflict with this statement. Why does the individual need to change before the environment does? As soon as someone chooses to act differently, those actions spill out into our environment, and thus make us consider our own actions. Consider my above statements about my sex life. I mentioned something about the way I live, why did you react negatively or positively to my statement? We are communally wired, and we desire our community of influences to be unified. We dislike dis-unity. It starts to feel like dis-comfort, then we label it a dis-ease and then we try to eradicate it. Which makes me stop and ask, "Why are we trying to eradicate people?" or my preferred way of asking this, "Why are we trying to eradicate human behavior?" or simply "Why don't we like being human?"
I believe there is something deeply wired into us that longs for our behaviors to be set right. Not eradicate the ways in which we feel, move and healthfully change, but to satisfy our desire for wholeness. Our desire to be united internally and with those around us. I believe these fundamental questions lies at the core of our common experiences. How do we come together? Can we stay together? I believe these are the essentials of building health.
At the core of my health is my spiritual connection to God, even though it often gets challenged, I practice less often then I should, and like many others I struggle to know what 'following God' means. Part of my journey is asking questions, and having open thoughts for others to see. Not because I want to hammer someone into my position, because that violates my definition of health (and I believe following God should be practiced healthily). But because I see a decline in my world of asking questions about God. I see a rise in judgment toward the religious. I see a rise in judgment towards sexuality. And in the midst of rising tides with emotions rising high I want to ask a very small question, "What are we doing to each other?"
As I ask this question I look 'up'. I don't understand why we are so bent on making each other into a perfect image, when our perfect images aren't healthy. I don't understand our obsession with wanting everyone to move and think like 'I' do. The concept makes me want to vomit. I fervently don't want a bunch of people to be like me, but I desperately want community with at least a few like-minded people. And I want that community to be okay with asking questions about God, that as we consider all the logical ways in which we might be able to change our world, we also consider that logic isn't the answer. Perhaps there is more to life than measurable changes and paces. Perhaps life is full of seasons of growth, harvest and decay, which means its okay if our weight doesn't measure the same every day. And perhaps when we think about health we shouldn't be thinking in measurements, but should be considering our qualities and philosophies on life.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Functional versus the machine: the rise of communal fitness
Today I walked into a Rec Center. For $5 a year I could get access to all their activities, but for $25 a month I could use their weight room. $25 isn't a bad price, but I wanted to see what they considered worth of that fee. What I saw was a lot of stationary machines and very few free weights. Disappointed, I walked out. Now that I've had lack of sleep to dwell on what I have seen I know why; we live in a world of unthoughtful movement.
Let me explain. Stationary machines are a modern strength training invention. The first machines were generic, the modern equivalent of a cable cross; you could use them for multiple lifts from multiple angles. One of the oldest machines is Joseph Pilates' reformer. It's a total body piece of equipment, even though it looks like it only slides back and forth. Why is it a total body piece of equipment? Because Pilates believed in training the whole body, not just pieces of it. That's why his original method was called Contrology. It emphasized thoughtful movement of the body. That's still the focus of true Pilates teachers, thoughtfully moving the body. Any machine Pilates built was built for thoughtful total body movement and training. Stationary machines restrict movement and make movements thoughtless.
Why? There's actually a good reason for this: safety. Each stationary machine is built to promote safe lifting habits and to target specific areas of weakness in the body. They are also designed to be fairly intuitive; anyone can use them. Machines have their place and they have been purposefully constructed, but there's a mindset that comes with a room full of machines: this is the best way to strengthen my body, my body can be broken down into specific parts and I can spot reduce parts of my body. As the body is a whole integrated unit, it takes more time to complete a machine based workout than to do functional movements. Functional movements require more thought and body awareness, while machines are route and fairly mindless. The mindlessness of the machines is to help keep the mindless exerciser safe. This is why they only work a single muscle group. The problem this creates is one of variety; we keep doing the same exercises and adding more weight but we're not really getting stronger, we're just improving one area of the body. That area may grow in muscle mass, leading us to believe that if we can grow our mass we can reduce our waistline. Which isn't how fat reduction works, the body picks and chooses no matter what exercises we do. To keep ourselves from dying of boredom in machine workouts, we build new machines with new approaches to the same muscle groups. These machines are expensive and they take up space. Hence the cost of access to the equipment goes up. The problem with machine based safety is that it reduces variety, the equipment is expensive and its not the most efficient way to build the body.
Efficiency is an interesting subject; what we consider efficient depends on our goals. When I consider efficiency I ask a few questions: how much of my body am I using, what are my long term goals, what do I need to do in the short term to achieve those goals? A machine's goal is very focused, workout this part of the body! Machines are great for strengthening injured areas. Machines are also good for the new exerciser who doesn't yet know how to move their body. They also are good for those who lack stability while exercising (the elderly). Outside of these areas I consider machines inefficient; the cost to space required to functional use ratio is low; too expensive for too little total body use.
But how is a new exerciser suppose to learn how to move their body/exercise? That's the million dollar question isn't it? Do new exercisers learn best on a machine or from a person? There are plenty of videos on Youtube of people using exercise equipment improperly. And there are still people in group exercises classes that don't realize they aren't moving in a health way. But who has the better opportunity to learn how to move correctly? A person working alone, or someone working in a group? I would argue that we learn best from other people, even though it takes time for us to become self aware of our movements. The more interactions we have with each other, the more opportunities we have to learn. And the more we move our bodies, the better we understand how our body functions as a complete unit. A machine does not have these capabilities. It's stuck being what it was designed to be; mono-dimensional, which is what we see taking up a lot of space in fitness facilities today.
Current fitness trends are moving away from machines and back into multi-use functional movement driven fitness: Crossfit, Yoga, Pilates, P90X, Camp Gladiator, Tai Chi, Boxing etc. I like this trend, as it means moving away from machines and back into personal interaction for body development.
I can't help myself asking the question, "What's the current trend in spiritual development? Is it machine based, or person based?" As I ask this question I look at my own traditions and the church I currently attend. When I read the Bible, which is the major teaching tool of Christianity, I conclude that we are supposed to be people based. Which means we take the time to teach each other how to move, by practicing movements together.
Is this how we live in the 21st century? Do we live with each other or have we prized independence over community? In my country, independence wins out, but I feel it wins out because it is machine based, which means that it doesn't fully develop the body; it spends too much time focusing on safety, stability and overcoming injury. This mentality doesn't win in the end because we lose the opportunity to explore ourselves in community. In essence, we get stuck doing the same activities with different labels and never make the forward progress we need because a machine cannot recreate the functional movement of the human body. It can support it, but it only goes so far. Eventually we have to step out of the machine and into functional movement alongside other people. At some point we have to say no to the big boxes with expensive machines because they can only take us so far; community takes us the rest of the way.
What does this mean for the church? Church is a word that's supposed to describe a community of people, not a building. But when I say the word church, images of friends and family don't pop into my head. I start seeing walls, buildings, signs, colored lights, projectors, musical instruments, candles, pews and chairs. There's something wrong with the way my brain has been conditioned to think about church. I don't think I'm the only one who's been conditioned to think this way. Its no surprise to me that people are giving up on the material driven church. Lack of personal interaction is more than likely the number one reason people leave the church community. I say more than likely because I don't have statistics, but I do know from a customer service perspective, the people we don't get to know are the people who go somewhere else. Part of the problem of the modern church is that we don't know each other anymore because we don't spend time together.
If church were just a social club, spending time together would be enough to fix our problems. But church isn't a social club, its a way of life. It impacts everything we do: the decisions we make, the jobs we take, the food we eat, the people we choose to live with, how we spend our money, how we save our money, how we spend our time, who we spend our time with, how we raise a family, if we choose to raise a family. Yet too often we only want to spend 3 hours a week thinking about church. We go to a religious service, we hang out with some Christian people and we go out into our community to do some kind of public aid program. Does something familiar with this 3 hour approach ring a bell? Use these 3 machines and you'll build health? Or learn how to do all of these with one functional movement? I'd say get rid of the machine and learn how to be functionally fit. Spiritually fit.
Does this mean I believe we need to jettison the modern church? No, but we need to renew our minds and transform our thinking. It starts with personal decisions and communal living. When I think about the modern church, I think its in a place of dis-ease. It's helping some with machine based practices, but the challenge to become mindful about our activities, to think and pursue our passions without being stuck in an inefficient and expensive setting is going unheard. Why? Because the literature being produced by the church is largely coming out of the expensive church settings. We're not listening to the small successful communities because they aren't materially driven. And we keep reproducing our expensive programs because we haven't accepted the personal challenge to live differently. To integrate our lives, instead of dis-integrating them.
Let me explain. Stationary machines are a modern strength training invention. The first machines were generic, the modern equivalent of a cable cross; you could use them for multiple lifts from multiple angles. One of the oldest machines is Joseph Pilates' reformer. It's a total body piece of equipment, even though it looks like it only slides back and forth. Why is it a total body piece of equipment? Because Pilates believed in training the whole body, not just pieces of it. That's why his original method was called Contrology. It emphasized thoughtful movement of the body. That's still the focus of true Pilates teachers, thoughtfully moving the body. Any machine Pilates built was built for thoughtful total body movement and training. Stationary machines restrict movement and make movements thoughtless.
Why? There's actually a good reason for this: safety. Each stationary machine is built to promote safe lifting habits and to target specific areas of weakness in the body. They are also designed to be fairly intuitive; anyone can use them. Machines have their place and they have been purposefully constructed, but there's a mindset that comes with a room full of machines: this is the best way to strengthen my body, my body can be broken down into specific parts and I can spot reduce parts of my body. As the body is a whole integrated unit, it takes more time to complete a machine based workout than to do functional movements. Functional movements require more thought and body awareness, while machines are route and fairly mindless. The mindlessness of the machines is to help keep the mindless exerciser safe. This is why they only work a single muscle group. The problem this creates is one of variety; we keep doing the same exercises and adding more weight but we're not really getting stronger, we're just improving one area of the body. That area may grow in muscle mass, leading us to believe that if we can grow our mass we can reduce our waistline. Which isn't how fat reduction works, the body picks and chooses no matter what exercises we do. To keep ourselves from dying of boredom in machine workouts, we build new machines with new approaches to the same muscle groups. These machines are expensive and they take up space. Hence the cost of access to the equipment goes up. The problem with machine based safety is that it reduces variety, the equipment is expensive and its not the most efficient way to build the body.
Efficiency is an interesting subject; what we consider efficient depends on our goals. When I consider efficiency I ask a few questions: how much of my body am I using, what are my long term goals, what do I need to do in the short term to achieve those goals? A machine's goal is very focused, workout this part of the body! Machines are great for strengthening injured areas. Machines are also good for the new exerciser who doesn't yet know how to move their body. They also are good for those who lack stability while exercising (the elderly). Outside of these areas I consider machines inefficient; the cost to space required to functional use ratio is low; too expensive for too little total body use.
But how is a new exerciser suppose to learn how to move their body/exercise? That's the million dollar question isn't it? Do new exercisers learn best on a machine or from a person? There are plenty of videos on Youtube of people using exercise equipment improperly. And there are still people in group exercises classes that don't realize they aren't moving in a health way. But who has the better opportunity to learn how to move correctly? A person working alone, or someone working in a group? I would argue that we learn best from other people, even though it takes time for us to become self aware of our movements. The more interactions we have with each other, the more opportunities we have to learn. And the more we move our bodies, the better we understand how our body functions as a complete unit. A machine does not have these capabilities. It's stuck being what it was designed to be; mono-dimensional, which is what we see taking up a lot of space in fitness facilities today.
Current fitness trends are moving away from machines and back into multi-use functional movement driven fitness: Crossfit, Yoga, Pilates, P90X, Camp Gladiator, Tai Chi, Boxing etc. I like this trend, as it means moving away from machines and back into personal interaction for body development.
I can't help myself asking the question, "What's the current trend in spiritual development? Is it machine based, or person based?" As I ask this question I look at my own traditions and the church I currently attend. When I read the Bible, which is the major teaching tool of Christianity, I conclude that we are supposed to be people based. Which means we take the time to teach each other how to move, by practicing movements together.
Is this how we live in the 21st century? Do we live with each other or have we prized independence over community? In my country, independence wins out, but I feel it wins out because it is machine based, which means that it doesn't fully develop the body; it spends too much time focusing on safety, stability and overcoming injury. This mentality doesn't win in the end because we lose the opportunity to explore ourselves in community. In essence, we get stuck doing the same activities with different labels and never make the forward progress we need because a machine cannot recreate the functional movement of the human body. It can support it, but it only goes so far. Eventually we have to step out of the machine and into functional movement alongside other people. At some point we have to say no to the big boxes with expensive machines because they can only take us so far; community takes us the rest of the way.
What does this mean for the church? Church is a word that's supposed to describe a community of people, not a building. But when I say the word church, images of friends and family don't pop into my head. I start seeing walls, buildings, signs, colored lights, projectors, musical instruments, candles, pews and chairs. There's something wrong with the way my brain has been conditioned to think about church. I don't think I'm the only one who's been conditioned to think this way. Its no surprise to me that people are giving up on the material driven church. Lack of personal interaction is more than likely the number one reason people leave the church community. I say more than likely because I don't have statistics, but I do know from a customer service perspective, the people we don't get to know are the people who go somewhere else. Part of the problem of the modern church is that we don't know each other anymore because we don't spend time together.
If church were just a social club, spending time together would be enough to fix our problems. But church isn't a social club, its a way of life. It impacts everything we do: the decisions we make, the jobs we take, the food we eat, the people we choose to live with, how we spend our money, how we save our money, how we spend our time, who we spend our time with, how we raise a family, if we choose to raise a family. Yet too often we only want to spend 3 hours a week thinking about church. We go to a religious service, we hang out with some Christian people and we go out into our community to do some kind of public aid program. Does something familiar with this 3 hour approach ring a bell? Use these 3 machines and you'll build health? Or learn how to do all of these with one functional movement? I'd say get rid of the machine and learn how to be functionally fit. Spiritually fit.
Does this mean I believe we need to jettison the modern church? No, but we need to renew our minds and transform our thinking. It starts with personal decisions and communal living. When I think about the modern church, I think its in a place of dis-ease. It's helping some with machine based practices, but the challenge to become mindful about our activities, to think and pursue our passions without being stuck in an inefficient and expensive setting is going unheard. Why? Because the literature being produced by the church is largely coming out of the expensive church settings. We're not listening to the small successful communities because they aren't materially driven. And we keep reproducing our expensive programs because we haven't accepted the personal challenge to live differently. To integrate our lives, instead of dis-integrating them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)