Gotta Have It...

I was reading a WSJ commentary that recounted an anti-war newspaper editor lamenting the fact that her son had signed up to fight in Iraq. The editor, obviously sincere and anguished, nevertheless tipped an interesting mindset in her narrative as she described how surely her son joined up neither for "arrogant patriotism" nor "murderous bloodlust." In other words, secular progressives tend to think of pretty much any war effort as being motivated by one of those two cited reasons. My opinion is that this simplistic thinking (people may join the army for a multitude of reasons) comes from, ironically, a form of fundamentalism.

By fundamentalism, I don't mean a view of Christian orthodoxy. Surely I am a fundamentalist when it comes to believing in God and that the Bible is His inerrant Word. I mean an attitude of must-have outcomes that distorts logic and decision-making.

In the Christian world, that attitude informs a political activism that, ironically, has a teeny weeny aspect in common with the Taliban--fusion of church and state. That way, the government can "make sure" we are behaving morally. The desire for a Christian state, misplaced in my view, emanates from "must-have-outcome" thinking. For many reasons, I, probably like you, am not for that kind of state. I want to inspire, not require, morality.

I think Paul would say that secular progressives are "religous in every way." They are addicted to must-have outcomes: you must be a fool to be anything but anti-war; you must commit to "diversity" or you are uneducated/unenlightened; you must believe in corporate conspiracy theories or you are "pro-rich" and "anti-poor." The list can go on.

I would suggest that the only must-have outcome we should embrace is this: to fear God and keep his commandments; and this, in our own personal lives--let's inspire it and not worry about requiring it.

Molecular Vindication

Over the years, I've intermittently attempted to understand the meaning of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (don't we all?). I have no idea why, but for some reason, I really wanna get it. I wasn't a physics major, so it's hard to explain the curiosity. But not harder than explaining QM. I've asked all kinds of scientists and engineers to explain them in "layman's terms," but they can't do it. I think their brains are just too large and mine too apt for a pinhead.

Anyway, I finally came up with my own general simplifier: relativity is a way of looking at things when, from our perspective, they're way too large (universe, planets, etc.) and QM is a way of looking at things when they're way too small.

Yesterday, in between classes at SPU, I was recalling all this to a classmate. When we sat down in class, our professor had us watch a film on string theory (so named because after thinking about it you'll feel really strung out, and without drugs). In the movie, the narrator spent the first 30 minutes explaining relativity and QM with almost the exact same words I had used with my classmate.

I will need a new theory to explain how it is I could feel so proud of myself and even a little ingenious about something I don't even understand.

I need to take my brain out now and go soak it...

Note for Alan

Alan, for some reason this blog won't allow me to enter a subsequent comment, so I'll just post it here. I'm thrilled to hear that you guys are cooperating. I will recommend to Roger Lamb to post your congregation as a cooperating one unless you tell me a reason not to do so. Is there anything in the content of the UPC that you guys don't agree with? I assume not. Please advise me at greenland1@comcast.net

love from Seattle

Cooperation Steps in LA

See Jay's cool pictures and account of the 2007 ICOC International Leadership Conference below...

Two days before the conference began, delegates from around the world elected from churches and regional leadership synergy groups met for a series of meetings to confer on how to better meet our trans-congregational needs. We had been relying on a few conferences and on a Steering Committee of nine last year to try to keep track of this, but that arrangement quickly proved obsolete.

This year, and heartily approved by the delegates, we all elected to replace the Steering Committee with 10 different specialized committees, including a "Strategic Building Committee" on which I will serve for the next two years--it's particular charge is to solicit/bring voice (esp on the web via Disciples Today) to commended brothers and churches who are setting an example for us all in maturity and missions. Hopefully some tremendous stories, interviews, and in-depth church building articles will emerge from this collaboration.

Other committees included: Campus, Teen, Single, HOPE, Teacher & Ministry Education, Shepherding and Advisory for churches in need, and Missions Support.

What a step! Pray for all our passionate efforts to bear good fruit and serve the churches.

SG

What a Conference in LA! by Jay Kelly

There is so much to say about our time at the International Leadership Conference in L.A. last week. Over 1,000 church leaders from all over the world kicked off our conference with the entire Los Angeles Church last Sunday. The Anaheim Convention Center was full of the Spirit as thousands of disciples followed Brian Craig’s lead in worship. The atmosphere was full of faith, hope and love.

Carol and I lived in Redondo Beach and led the Peninsula Sector of the L.A. church from 1993 to 1997 before moving to Seattle. This trip became a touching ten-year reunion for us. Old friends were around every corner in the fellowship. We didn't sleep much, but we were deeply refreshed. Here are Doug & Angela Wens, Brian & Dessa Craig and Gary & Chris Simmons hanging out with us.

Tully's Memory

Tully is our 9 year old border collie (one of three, and we live in a medium size house with no yard in the U District = we are dumber than our dogs). Like most dogs, the meaning of her life can be summed up in four letters--food, chow, something like that. Watching her endless drooling gaze at whatever we might be eating, regardless of how many bites we've already given her, I suspect that she has no real short-term food memory. Her response to any treat seems to be a look of "and when's dinner?"

It reminds me of the film, "Memento," in which the protagonist (am I remembering this right?) has lost his ability to make new memories past the date on which his wife was (he thinks) murdered. So he spends the whole film writing down clues to himself about his investigation into her murder. He has progressive tattoos done to leave permanent "facts" about what he has uncovered since he tends to quickly forget everything. Needless to say, he's pretty vulnerable to manipulative people around him.

I've started my Masters degree this fall in Psychology and feel rather in awe of the volumes (literally) we are assigned to read. Blundering around the library the other day, I was simply amazed at how many books there are, how much info there is, and wondered how teachers and professors ever find a way to choose exactly what to emphasize within a field. And I thought this: what if there were no books? What if we couldn't write anything down. Imagine a world in which an education based on testimony outside your generation is impossible--you only can learn what a person has time to learn within one lifetime. Would each generation even be able to go much beyond the discovery of the wheel?

What we are privileged to learn and know stands on the shoulders of our parents, our long-term culture, and all antiquity. Without that, I'd be writing my blog on cave walls with ink made from blood, bugs, and berries. We're not smarter, just blessed with extensive collective memory.

We should try hard not to forget that...