here's an interesting thought from tony myles/don't call me veronica - go to his blog, it's thought provoking (link to the side, b/c i'm not smart enough to put a link right here):
Fiery opinions are all about your grip on life; Christ-breathed grace is all about God’s grip on you.
10/28/2006
10/23/2006
shells
I’ve had two interesting conversations lately with two different individuals. Ease drop with me.
Conversation A:
I have to be honest. The first conversationalist, I think, assumes much: to know more of me than they realize and where I’m at on the ‘journey’ of healing and hard inner work. It’s has if they got a peek, a momentary but revealing peek, and they know “understand” me, “get” me. But nevertheless they pointed out something that hints at a reflection of what’s inside. Perhaps, what’s inside comes outside and perhaps, what’s inside isn’t what should be. How do I really view myself and God’s grace? And maybe the question of importance isn’t so much how I view myself or the issue of God’s grace, but whether I’m even interacting with God’s grace in the deep recesses where myself says, “Self (as my friend Kelsey believes one must address oneself), you’ve gone so far, too far.”
Now I would never deny God’s grace or power. I believe and assert that God’s grace extends to anyone, anywhere, and in any situation. Name me a person, name me a place, name me a situation and I’ll hold irrevocably that God’s grace is there for the taking. The lights are working; you just got to turn them on. I worked with juvenile sex offenders and I believe God’s grace extends to them. I believe God can alter them, change them and shape them for his glory. In fact, I believe that hope for them does not exist in the tiniest of forms outside the grace of God. Yet, in my day to day life I wonder if I live, as someone I heard term it, as a practical atheist. I believe in the theory, the idea, and love to see it applied…in other’s lives. And I believe on paper his grace extends to me but when played out in reality I must admit I think his grace, while it might reach the deepest caverns, I imagine it to be a distant light that cast shadows on the wall rather than the all encompassing light that sheds the darkness like decaying moss and provides a tangible warmth to my soul.
Conversation B:
The second conversation was more intimate. Intimate because it discussed issues of vulnerability. You know the whole let’s expose my sin to the burning flames of another. That is, of course, my definition. Webster’s definition: capable of being physically or emotionally wounded, open to attack or damage, liable to increased penalties but entitled to increased bonuses after winning a game in contract bridge. It comes from the Latin word mean ‘to wound’ and is probably close to the Latin word which means to ‘pluck’.
Pluck describes it best. I’m tired of having people ‘pluck’ at me. Take from me what they need. Take from me what they want. Analyze me. Assume to know me. Criticize me. It has felt like lots of hands coming up and ‘plucking’ at my skin and my reaction has become to slap anything that comes within my parameter. But I am honestly at a loss at what to do as the heart is not an immortal object. It is not invincible. And survival kicks in. And I’m tried true fan of the “suck it up” philosophy. So what do you do when you crave the touch of another, the kindness of someone to speak comfort and balm to your wounds, to sit with you in the murky waters and have the biggest pity party (and while we’re at it let’s invite the neighbors), but hands keep flapping and your bootstraps are worn from being pulled up so much and you’re just tired. Sure, the obvious response is to “let it go and let god” (trite phrase #426, even Solomon found trite phrases nauseating – see Proverbs 25:20). But again reflexes are reflex. You can think all you want that the doctor’s mallet won’t make you knee move, but if he hits the right spot that legs coming up.
And somehow this all led to talk of living in a shell. And I who lusts after words went looking to good ole Webster. And here’s some interesting thoughts I’ve come from this little research:
- it can refer to a hard rigid covering that is calcareous. Now calcareous probably involves a whole other research project but it gives the image that this shell, this covering, is a part of whatever it is covering. It’s growing. It’s a mineral. It’s an element. It comes from somewhere.
- it can refer to a ‘framework or exterior structure, especially a building with an unfinished interior’. It may not even resemble what’s inside.
- it can refer to a ‘casing without substance” which the only response I can elicit is “ouch”.
- it can refer to ‘an impersonal attitude or manner that conceals the presence or absence of feeling’ which is funny to me because what I choose to conceal is so intense, so full of feeling. There is no absence of feeling.
- it can refer to ‘a projectile for cannon containing an explosive bursting charge’ which is how I feel most of the time.
- it can refer to ‘company or coproraiton that exists without assets or independinednt operations as a legal entity through which another company or corporation can conduct various dealing” and I wonder if I’m just existing to complete a task, perhaps even my calling and in existing just to fulfill my calling if I’ve missed why God gave the calling anyway.
The definition that gets me to thinking the most is ‘the hard or tough often thin outer covering of an egg (as of a bird or reptile)’. And what happens to those eggs, those shells. They break. They shed. They open. They serve a purpose. They protect. They allow something to grow but then they break. They aren’t meant to be permanent. They aren't meant to be lifelong. At some point they're meant to be split, to be shed, to be worked off.
Interestingly enough the word is akin to a Lithuanian word which means ‘to split’ and to a Greek word which means ‘to hoe'.
Conversation A:
I have to be honest. The first conversationalist, I think, assumes much: to know more of me than they realize and where I’m at on the ‘journey’ of healing and hard inner work. It’s has if they got a peek, a momentary but revealing peek, and they know “understand” me, “get” me. But nevertheless they pointed out something that hints at a reflection of what’s inside. Perhaps, what’s inside comes outside and perhaps, what’s inside isn’t what should be. How do I really view myself and God’s grace? And maybe the question of importance isn’t so much how I view myself or the issue of God’s grace, but whether I’m even interacting with God’s grace in the deep recesses where myself says, “Self (as my friend Kelsey believes one must address oneself), you’ve gone so far, too far.”
Now I would never deny God’s grace or power. I believe and assert that God’s grace extends to anyone, anywhere, and in any situation. Name me a person, name me a place, name me a situation and I’ll hold irrevocably that God’s grace is there for the taking. The lights are working; you just got to turn them on. I worked with juvenile sex offenders and I believe God’s grace extends to them. I believe God can alter them, change them and shape them for his glory. In fact, I believe that hope for them does not exist in the tiniest of forms outside the grace of God. Yet, in my day to day life I wonder if I live, as someone I heard term it, as a practical atheist. I believe in the theory, the idea, and love to see it applied…in other’s lives. And I believe on paper his grace extends to me but when played out in reality I must admit I think his grace, while it might reach the deepest caverns, I imagine it to be a distant light that cast shadows on the wall rather than the all encompassing light that sheds the darkness like decaying moss and provides a tangible warmth to my soul.
Conversation B:
The second conversation was more intimate. Intimate because it discussed issues of vulnerability. You know the whole let’s expose my sin to the burning flames of another. That is, of course, my definition. Webster’s definition: capable of being physically or emotionally wounded, open to attack or damage, liable to increased penalties but entitled to increased bonuses after winning a game in contract bridge. It comes from the Latin word mean ‘to wound’ and is probably close to the Latin word which means to ‘pluck’.
Pluck describes it best. I’m tired of having people ‘pluck’ at me. Take from me what they need. Take from me what they want. Analyze me. Assume to know me. Criticize me. It has felt like lots of hands coming up and ‘plucking’ at my skin and my reaction has become to slap anything that comes within my parameter. But I am honestly at a loss at what to do as the heart is not an immortal object. It is not invincible. And survival kicks in. And I’m tried true fan of the “suck it up” philosophy. So what do you do when you crave the touch of another, the kindness of someone to speak comfort and balm to your wounds, to sit with you in the murky waters and have the biggest pity party (and while we’re at it let’s invite the neighbors), but hands keep flapping and your bootstraps are worn from being pulled up so much and you’re just tired. Sure, the obvious response is to “let it go and let god” (trite phrase #426, even Solomon found trite phrases nauseating – see Proverbs 25:20). But again reflexes are reflex. You can think all you want that the doctor’s mallet won’t make you knee move, but if he hits the right spot that legs coming up.
And somehow this all led to talk of living in a shell. And I who lusts after words went looking to good ole Webster. And here’s some interesting thoughts I’ve come from this little research:
- it can refer to a hard rigid covering that is calcareous. Now calcareous probably involves a whole other research project but it gives the image that this shell, this covering, is a part of whatever it is covering. It’s growing. It’s a mineral. It’s an element. It comes from somewhere.
- it can refer to a ‘framework or exterior structure, especially a building with an unfinished interior’. It may not even resemble what’s inside.
- it can refer to a ‘casing without substance” which the only response I can elicit is “ouch”.
- it can refer to ‘an impersonal attitude or manner that conceals the presence or absence of feeling’ which is funny to me because what I choose to conceal is so intense, so full of feeling. There is no absence of feeling.
- it can refer to ‘a projectile for cannon containing an explosive bursting charge’ which is how I feel most of the time.
- it can refer to ‘company or coproraiton that exists without assets or independinednt operations as a legal entity through which another company or corporation can conduct various dealing” and I wonder if I’m just existing to complete a task, perhaps even my calling and in existing just to fulfill my calling if I’ve missed why God gave the calling anyway.
The definition that gets me to thinking the most is ‘the hard or tough often thin outer covering of an egg (as of a bird or reptile)’. And what happens to those eggs, those shells. They break. They shed. They open. They serve a purpose. They protect. They allow something to grow but then they break. They aren’t meant to be permanent. They aren't meant to be lifelong. At some point they're meant to be split, to be shed, to be worked off.
Interestingly enough the word is akin to a Lithuanian word which means ‘to split’ and to a Greek word which means ‘to hoe'.
10/12/2006
networking with God, replacing names and changing particples
there's so much going through my thoughts these days. these are the ones that seem to be seeping in lately...causing me to think, which should, in my humble opinion, always be a dangerous task to take on.
networking with God:
if you haven't read Nickel and Dimed by barbara ehreneich, well... you should. you may not agree with everything or her take but it makes you think. i just finished another of her books, Bait and Switch - The (Futile) Pursuit Of The American Dream. her approach as a journalist fascinates me, going undercover in various places to learn what it means to "live on minium wage" or to "survive the corporate world". while her books are not religious in nature, in both she encounters situations/times where religion interesects with poverty, the corporate life and those living in those worlds. she is an atheist and yet when she speaks on the issues that intersect with religion and God i find that there is a truth there that is so profound and spiritual that my spirit rises to say amen.
here is just an excerpt from her book, Bait and Switch. she has been trying to find a job in the coporate world and the advice she is given by those in that realm is to network, network, network. network being the connecting with people with the end result always in mind, engaging people for an outcome. the goal of networking is the return on time spent with a person - what did i get out the encounter. she is sent to various networking sessions and finds herself among a group of christian mostly men with a few women in networking/business groups. the following is her response to Francois, a fellow who is sharing the importance of networking, and having a prepared "elevator" speech to sell oneself. He states that our first networking target should be the Lord.
"I'm sorry, this is too much for me. I endured the Norcross Fellowship Lunch as an atheist, but now, at the Mt. Paran Church of God, I discovoer I am a believer, and what I believe is this: if the Lord exists, if there is some conscious being whose thought the universe is - some great spinner of galaxies, hurler of meteors, creator and extinguisher of species - if some such being should manifest itself, you do not "network" with it any more than you would light a cigarette on the burning bush. Francois is guilty of blasphemy. He has demeaned the universe as I know it."
i wonder if we, us, me, I have blasphemed the person of God? have we, us, me, I seen him as something to be networked, to work over to get something out of in return? if an athiest can so address in, my opinion the grandor and splendor and sovergienty of God, do I, in my arrogance and "knowledge" of God have a clue? you see i'm not surprised that an "athiest" came up with that thought but i fear that in the christian world today there exists a certain arrogance - as if we have a corner on the market and the reality is that we haven't a clue.
replace the "world" with you:
overheard a conversation recently in which a young man talked about hearing all his life that when John 3:16 is quoted, For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever would believe would have everlasting life, that he should insert his name in the place of "world".
he questioned if by making it such an individualistic verse (which is true, yes Christ died for me, specifically me and specifically you) that we lose a part of the meaning/intent and wonder of a God who loves the WORLD, whose mission was not simply to me, but to ALL.
changing the "to" to "with":
met missionaries recently who are ministering to the Muslim world and notice they do not say they are "taking" the light of Christ "to" the Muslim world or even "showing" the light of Christ "to" the Muslim world but rather they are "sharing" (signifies a mutual partaking - is it possible we could learn about God from a Muslim or that perhaps by sharing we give of our lives rather than provide a "product" to a "consumer") the light of Christ "with" (Jesus came "into"the world and not simply "to" the world) the world.
the "to" and the "with" signify a difference in theology that is as wide as the east is from the west.
networking with God:
if you haven't read Nickel and Dimed by barbara ehreneich, well... you should. you may not agree with everything or her take but it makes you think. i just finished another of her books, Bait and Switch - The (Futile) Pursuit Of The American Dream. her approach as a journalist fascinates me, going undercover in various places to learn what it means to "live on minium wage" or to "survive the corporate world". while her books are not religious in nature, in both she encounters situations/times where religion interesects with poverty, the corporate life and those living in those worlds. she is an atheist and yet when she speaks on the issues that intersect with religion and God i find that there is a truth there that is so profound and spiritual that my spirit rises to say amen.
here is just an excerpt from her book, Bait and Switch. she has been trying to find a job in the coporate world and the advice she is given by those in that realm is to network, network, network. network being the connecting with people with the end result always in mind, engaging people for an outcome. the goal of networking is the return on time spent with a person - what did i get out the encounter. she is sent to various networking sessions and finds herself among a group of christian mostly men with a few women in networking/business groups. the following is her response to Francois, a fellow who is sharing the importance of networking, and having a prepared "elevator" speech to sell oneself. He states that our first networking target should be the Lord.
"I'm sorry, this is too much for me. I endured the Norcross Fellowship Lunch as an atheist, but now, at the Mt. Paran Church of God, I discovoer I am a believer, and what I believe is this: if the Lord exists, if there is some conscious being whose thought the universe is - some great spinner of galaxies, hurler of meteors, creator and extinguisher of species - if some such being should manifest itself, you do not "network" with it any more than you would light a cigarette on the burning bush. Francois is guilty of blasphemy. He has demeaned the universe as I know it."
i wonder if we, us, me, I have blasphemed the person of God? have we, us, me, I seen him as something to be networked, to work over to get something out of in return? if an athiest can so address in, my opinion the grandor and splendor and sovergienty of God, do I, in my arrogance and "knowledge" of God have a clue? you see i'm not surprised that an "athiest" came up with that thought but i fear that in the christian world today there exists a certain arrogance - as if we have a corner on the market and the reality is that we haven't a clue.
replace the "world" with you:
overheard a conversation recently in which a young man talked about hearing all his life that when John 3:16 is quoted, For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever would believe would have everlasting life, that he should insert his name in the place of "world".
he questioned if by making it such an individualistic verse (which is true, yes Christ died for me, specifically me and specifically you) that we lose a part of the meaning/intent and wonder of a God who loves the WORLD, whose mission was not simply to me, but to ALL.
changing the "to" to "with":
met missionaries recently who are ministering to the Muslim world and notice they do not say they are "taking" the light of Christ "to" the Muslim world or even "showing" the light of Christ "to" the Muslim world but rather they are "sharing" (signifies a mutual partaking - is it possible we could learn about God from a Muslim or that perhaps by sharing we give of our lives rather than provide a "product" to a "consumer") the light of Christ "with" (Jesus came "into"the world and not simply "to" the world) the world.
the "to" and the "with" signify a difference in theology that is as wide as the east is from the west.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
