penny for your thoughts

curious to know what the (small) readership thinks of the following statement:

sunday school does not equal small group.

thoughts in the comments.

the intimacy of empathy

in my last post i laid the foundation for the subject of this post, communion.

communion, in the christian tradition, has gone by many different names: the eucharist, the lord's supper, the sacrament of the table, sharing the table, the blessed sacrament, but they all point to the same theological undergirding: empathy.

no matter your theology of communion (and it can range from transubstantiation to purely symbolic), the basis of continuing in the practice of communion is empathic. the idea that you might share in an experience that is timeless and significant, at once transformative and communal, is what guides this practice.

there are different ways to receive communion, each typically emphasizing the theology at work in the particular practice that one experiences. i have been privileged to receive communion in many of the different ways, and one thing that stands true, for me, in all of the different ways is the way in which those whom i receive the elements of bread and wine with experience something as a community that provides the catalyst for greater transformation communally.

the idea that we can experience things together, through the basic elements of the earth transformed into food, should be thought of as revolutionary. there is a high level of intimacy involved in sharing food with others, and we probably take that for granted too much and miss its potential. in order to really get to know you, i will probably ask that we share a meal at some point in order to do so. it seems logical then to suggest that we might effect more change, develop deeper relationships, or know those points of view that differ from our own more completely if we are willing to include activities that allow us a level of comfort and experience from which we can draw on later.

the intimacy of empathy is what can provide for communion with others and transformative change to occur in our own lives. and then we can set ourselves to the work of communal action for which are prepared by our empathic sharing.

ready go: open-source church

a phrase you have heard a lot lately is open-source. open-source is the opposition of closed-source. and mostly it is something you hear about in the tech world, where software and programming development is paid for at a premium. there are those out there, though, that see an intrisic value in developing software and programs such that others have a say in it, can change or modify it, or use it freely.

google and apple tend to be the two examples used in this argument. but an interesting thing is happening as we inch toward a post-christian society in america. people are beginning to talk about open-source church. there are ideas percolating that people hope will revitalize the church in a new and fresh way. i have been thinking about this idea a lot and am curious what other think when they hear open-source church.

ready go: open-source church...your thoughts, comments, questions, etc. are all welcome.

vitality of the church

i recently participated in a survey about the structure and design of my denominational church. one of the questions in the survey asked the respondents to comment on what it meant for the church to be vital. below is my response to that question.

"Vitality within the church looks like diverse populations interacting to bring about authentic worship and participating in life giving, loving, and dignifying mission, community building, education, growth, and evangelism. I would be remiss not to also mention that vitality in part is driven by a desire to seek deeper communion with fellow members of the community through communal interaction both within and without the church. Most importantly, however, a vital church is one that is not defined by the actions of Sunday, rather the robust actions of the members throughout the week in their diverse settings. "

what did i miss? where did i err? what are you thoughts about what makes a church vital?

love

i realized as soon as the idea crystallized in my head that this was going to be cliche for the month of february...but there is no turning back at this point.

our little band of community that meets at our house every wednesday night (for about the past 4 years) has been talking about love the last several weeks. we have been talking about the way in which we show love to others in particular. and to be very specific, we have been chewing on the idea that we show love through action and how that changes us as individuals and hopefully as a community. it has been great and insightful conversation. we have been open and vulnerable with one another and shared deep examples of things going on in our own lives that are challenging us to show love. because love isn't always easy.

so i put it to my few faithful readers: how do you show love? and how does love change you?

The Certainty of Doubt

I am preaching today in our university's Chapel service. I was asked by a friend to post the sermon here, so it is included below. It is perhaps important to note that it would be helpful to read 1 Samuel 1:4-20 before you endeavored on the sermon. It will help with context and illustration.

The Certainty of Doubt

“What do you do when you’re not sure? That’s the topic of my sermon today. Last year when President Kennedy was assassinated, who among us did not experience the most profound disorientation? Despair? Which way? What now? What do I say to my kids? What do I tell myself? It was a time of people sitting together, bound together by a common feeling of hopelessness. But think of that! Your bond with your fellow being was your despair. It was a public experience. It was awful, but we were in it together.”

Perhaps this is a familiar opening to a sermon. Last year a feature film was made from a play that explores the depths of the psyche and relationship between doubt and faith under the title Doubt. If we had approximately 2 hours for chapel I would simply show the film because of how provocative the film is for not only matters of thought but of conversation. Since we don’t have that time, let it suffice for me to highly suggest that you find the time to watch this film if you have not already done so. In my opinion you won’t regret the time you spend doing so.

Father Flynn, played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, opens the film preaching on doubt. After his opening refrain I have quoted he tells a story of a sailor lost at sea, coming slowly to the realization that he had set his course wrong and is utterly confused and without bearing, doubting his livelihood in the days to come. He concludes the sermon with these powerful sentences: “There are those of you in church today who know exactly the crisis of faith I describe. And I want to say to you: Doubt can be a bond as powerful and sustaining as certainty. When you are lost, you are not alone.”

“Doubt can be a bond as powerful and sustaining as certainty.” Let those words soak in. They are foreign to our way of life in the West. We still linger in the hangover of Modern thinking that prizes certainty, capital T proven Truth above all other things. If reason alone cannot explain our condition, we cannot yet fully understand our condition. But progress will lead us to that reason that will explain the cosmos, the understanding of the human condition, and the faith we profess. It sounds rigid, harsh, and fearfully complete. But Father Flynn wants to proclaim the truth of the mystery of God. That in doubt we can remain faithful. That doubt does not have to be an anathema or reason to abandon our faith.

Hannah had been the wife of Elkanah for some time. Her womb had been closed by God according to Elkanah and she was barren. Her husband’s other wife, Peninnah had several children, a male heir among them, and she tormented Hannah for one of the only things that reserved her place of power and standing in the culture. Despite her barrenness, Elkanah proclaims his love for his wife, Hannah. He asks her if his love for her is not more significant than the birth of ten sons. But Hannah’s dignity is hanging on her ability to produce children. She sees her inability to have children as an inability to be completely human. She sees it as a reason to doubt.

We are not told that Hannah has any doubt. The word “doubt” is not used in the Scripture, but I would like for us to consider the characteristics she shows in this short story of her life. Year after year she endures ridicule for her condition until one day she finds herself weeping and not eating. She is deeply distressed as she approaches God in prayer and weeps bitterly. She proclaims her misery to God. And she is led to a significant and radical decision in her offering of prayer.

Doubt is defined as calling something into question, mistrusting something or someone, or to waver in opinion. Hannah seems to call her wholeness as a being into question. She sees her inability to bare children as a sign of incompleteness. She has no favor with God, and this results in a loss of dignity, worth, or value. Doubt is expressed most often in our condition as humans through confusion, fear, unhappiness, and radical action.

Consider for a moment the Christian that grows up in a conservative home where they are told that the creation narrative as it is found in Genesis is literal. The world was created in six days and that evolution is heresy and evil of the world. This individual grows up and finds little reason to believe otherwise until they are confronted with the body of evidence suggesting that humans have evolved over time from other animals. It is at this point that if this body of evidence is taken seriously that the individual begins to wonder if the faith as they know it has any real validity if the foundational story of the God they knew is no longer to be understood as literal. They question the validity of the authority given to the Scripture this literal story comes from and radically turn away from the Christian faith as a whole. I have seen this version and many other versions of similar faith stories take shape. Often doubt in ourselves, the stories we are told, and in others leads to radical action. We turn away from those things wholesale, we find and accept new stories to take the place of the old completely without critically examining the new story, and we distance ourselves from other people going to great lengths to avoid them.

Hannah has a similar reaction only she moves toward God. Hannah goes to the temple and prays directly to God. This seems insignificant in our post-Protestant Reformation setting. For Hannah to approach the temple, much less, pray before Eli, the priest, was considered unacceptable. Elkanah should have been the one presenting these requests before the Lord if they were their requests as a family. Instead, Hannah supplicates herself and asks the Lord directly for a male child. To make this even more radical she offers this male child to the service of the Lord as a Nazirite. Samson is the best known Nazirite to us, but they are characterized as those who will abstain from drinking wine, cutting their hair, and they are separated from the rest of the people to focus on service to the Lord. So the child she longs so desperately for, she is willing to give up.

Hannah doubts her humanness. For her, being a mother, bearing children, and honoring God are what preserve her power and dignity in a culture that has marginalized her as a second wife unnecessary for anything but pleasure. But Hannah is empowered by this doubt and approaches the Lord and the Lord remembers her when she returns home and conceives a child with Elkanah.

Hannah, like Father Flynn, teaches us that our doubt is an appropriate expression of faith. That through our doubt we have a bond with one another that certainty does not provide. In our desperation we can claim hopefulness through radical action embracing the grace provided by God in expressing our doubt before God. In our doubt we can experience the mystery of who God is. And for me there is a paradoxical certainty in doubt. That certainty does not come in the form of resolution or cure as though doubt were an illness in us that needs fixing, it is in the abiding presence of God. A God who is not fully known or fully described. A God who cannot be described in words alone or by singular experience. A God whom our doubt does not destroy. The certainty of doubt is that as a form of despair we find a bond with one another as a place where God abides, and to whom we can remain thankful for a God who does not abandon us. As Father Flynn reminds us, “When we are lost, we are not alone.” Thanks be to God.

the heathcare future: education

in response to my own posting about the healthcare debate in america, i inadvertently challenged myself. how you might ask? well, i might say, i don't like to simply leave things out there and not further ruminate on them. in short, i haven't stopped thinking about or reading about or, maybe to my own brain-drain detriment, watching coverage about the healthcare reform debate. so i decided recently that i would start a new series of posts concerning the healthcare issue. the title is above so no wasting space on that, but the post-colon space will denote what the subject of the post will be about.

today i tackle education.

americans tend to be terribly educated in my opinion. we educate ourselves based on our special interests, and this is owed largely in part, in my opinion, to our economic system of choice -- hyper-capitalism. hyper-capitalism demands that we all specialize in our niche of the economy in order to achieve maximum efficiency and output. by specializing we are creating more jobs, more job security, and in theory a greater product through emphasized knowledge, market adeptness, and an overall sense of satisfaction that we posses the greatest material goods, at the cheapest price, at questionable quality. as you can probably tell by some tongue in cheek wording here, i think our system breaks down at a point. this does not mean that i think there is some magical alternative out there that is better, simply acknowledging the limited nature of economic systems.

back to the original point -- our education is severely limited. we choose this gleefully in lieu of something more holistic most times. the holistic option takes time, effort, and brain power that we often find little efficiency for -- why in the world should i care about physics or natural science or manufacturing when i am a college administrator? the resulting, often tacit, answer of "you shouldn't. it doesn't get you any further in your professional field." is exactly the problem when it comes to healthcare reform.

in order for us to achieve something tenable in the future, we need better healthcare education. i am not even considering at this point insurance coverage, claim, and navigation education although that would be great! what i am advocating for is better education about what it means to claim healthcare for yourself. and because that was a foundationally circular argument, i will clarify. we need to be better educated about healthy living. it is my hope that through more holistic undertakings of educating ourselves about healthy lifestyles, our overall health as a nation will rise.

i long lived in one of the alternating "fattest cities in america" - dallas. i once read that where i lived in dallas, us75 and lovers ln. for those taking stocking...or stocking in general..., was the single most densely populated area in the country for restaurant to human population. so needless to say, i had all the options i could ever want, most of them with portions and food options no more healthy for me than eating ice cream every night for dinner...which isn't a bad choice every once in awhile. i lamented the fact that i was an active young adult often times in that city, and i felt city-conscious about our label. but while i can lament all i want, i also know that all those options didn't stop me from pursuing a healthy lifestyle. i ran, exercised, balanced my schedule as best i could, and created time for developing relationships with friends.

you see too many of the ways in which we run into healthcare problems for people seem to be totally preventable. we just care not to talk about those things and educate ourselves and others, because we are afraid to offend those who might be in the audience. as someone who worked in the church for three years and has preached from the pulpit a number of times, i know a thing or two of being warned not to offend people with the truth of our circumstance.

so i am calling for a holistic healthcare education that helps people make healthy choices in life. this means that all parts of life are affected. we must be willing to learn about what makes working healthy. we must be willing to learn about what makes relationships healthy. we must learn about why spirituality is a healthy outlet for people. we must also learn about un/healthy eating habits, un/healthy economic choices, and un/healthy material choices that adversely affect ourselves and most importantly others.

there is no magic bullet. there is no one plan of education that will change the way people think or interact with one another, but if we can begin to change the way we think about healthcare, mainly as a specialized field owned by doctors, researchers, and drug companies, we might be able to begin to grasp what possibilities there are for holistic healthcare education that makes a difference in the lives of those around us.

one tired, oft quoted, and unfortunately true cliche comes to mind that seems to exemplify the problem in america: europeans often criticize americans of "living to work instead of working to live". are we willing to sacrifice a slice of economic efficiency for more holistic and healthy lifestyles that benefit more than ourselves? i certainly hope so.

i am unimportant and insignificant. who are you?

gandhi is supposed to have said quite famously, "be the change you wish to see in the world." this is all well and good, but in my estimation it is difficult for most people to decide where to start that change.

last night in our community gathering we talked about a passage from matthew 25 where jesus tells to some a forlorn story. it seems harsh and as though it rails at people who are on the outside of a certain group. without boring everyone from here to timbuktu, let it suffice to say that jesus talks here of all nations being called to him. in other words, everyone has an equal shot. that is as far as i will go with this bit of exegesis, but if you want further explanation just ask.

perhaps what i think is most interesting about this passage though is that jesus suggests our actions matter. the way in which we treat one another is significant. i have studied the idea of community for the past 6-7 years. what i have learned in that time, both experientially and academically, is that it takes intentionality. so often we believe that it will simply happen. surely our desire for it to occur counts for something, but community does not simply spring up wherever we find ourselves. it is something that is developed.

more interesting still to me is that many people equate the words translated most often "least of these" in the passage to marginalized, homeless, poverty level people. i believe these people are included in this group, however i believe we let ourselves off the hook in suggesting this translation. a more accurate translation of this word in the greek could be the "less significant" or "unimportant." to be sure, any people we have marginalized or deemed beyond redemption have been considered unimportant or less significant than ourselves, but i think the meaning is broader and the implications broader still. i see this as a cultural reminder of the fact that all people are deserving of love and compassion, dignity and respect. it is as though jesus suggests that we are to treat those to whom we have no obligation in extravagant ways. we are to go out of our own way to make sure those people to whom we owe nothing and are not beholden are taken care of.

i imagine that first century jewish and roman ears would have heard this message pertaining to the cultural system set up to remind them that they had no obligation to those below them. they owed taxes to caesar and the state demanded your complete obligation. but you had no obligation to the infirm, those outside your household, and certainly to those you had no business interaction with. in our 21st century haze, the message remains the same. we talk as though we have obligation only to those we see most often, work for, or have a nationalist allegiance to, but the reality is we are called to treat all people with love, dignity, and respect.

for the pragmatists out there who are connecting the dots and want the how-to of the lesson of communal living, i suggest the following: it begins and ends with intention. we must be intentional about how we interact with other people. we too often, in my opinion, fail to recognize the amount of responsibility and creative authority we have as humans in relation to god. we participate in a grand way as co-creators with god. and in america specifically i believe this starts with vulnerability. we must learn to talk about ourselves in unguarded and authentic ways. we too frequently hide behind masks of who we want others to see us as, and then wonder how we never know the needs of our neighbors or friends. we must learn to be genuine in our presentation of who we are in order to facilitate relationships that meet needs and foster change in our communities. and then we can begin to see the change we wish to be in the world.

the united states of LeBron

apparently what LeBron James does on the basketball court matters, a lot. at the end of the series the Cleveland Cavaliers played against the Orlando Magic, LeBron walked off the court without shaking anyone's hand. he didn't stick around for the post-game press conference either. he quickly showered and made his way to the team bus, and he waited there to leave. in the next days a national furor went up from all kinds of media outlets. sports writers and commentators alike have excoriated LeBron for not sticking around and showing "good sportsmanship."

cue the dilemma. or maybe more appropriately, cue Charles Barkley. i remember when i was growing up and Charles Barkley was a hell of a basketball player. he was fierce under the basket and gave 100% effort 100% of the time. Charles Barkley was also a bit of a conversationalist, and his views weren't always politically correct. when called to task on one occasion for actions unbecoming of a role model he had this to say: "i am not a role model...just because i dunk a basketball doesn't mean i should raise your kids." that is sage advice if i have ever heard it. and i don't say that because i think Sir Charles would do a bad job raising kids. i think he simply understands the religion of sports.

you see sports are a religion in america. we worship athletes as though they will pass the money they make on down to us. we ritualize everything in sports from the celebrations to the way we become superstitious and especially if our team makes the playoffs (the playoff beard for example). there is a lot of good stuff out there by people who have studied this subject if you want a more in depth examination. that sports is a religion is not a problem for me in many cases. that we begin to construct athletes as role models on the other hand becomes idolatrous. and idolatry within any religion is inappropriate and destructive.

i say this because more often than not our idolatry of an individual makes them into something more than human. (although i might not argue that LeBron is more than human...but i would argue that he is a freak machine and not a god!) we forget that they are subject to the same laws as we are, that they are simply human, make mistakes, or are not morally impeccable whether or not we want them to be. our culture has set us up to expect the impossible from certain sports athlete individuals and when they fail to hold those standards we cry foul as though the moral fabric of america is at risk.

only in a voyeuristic culture where we value living vicariously through athletic superstars and holding them up as false role models higher than identifying with the humanity of them as individuals do we get ruffled that someone like LeBron James failed to shake hands with the other team and not show up to a post-game press conference. i ask why should we care whether or not he shakes hands with someone? i am willing to bet that a lot of other people didn't shake hands nor do we in the work place or in daily life when things don't go our way.

here is generally where people suggest that if kids are watching it sets a bad example. i am guessing that the argument here is predicated on the fact that sportsmanship is shown by shaking someone's hand after victory or defeat, some call this having grace in defeat. i wonder if we think the same thing as we see players trash talk others, disrespect stadiums and other teams in celebration dances, etc. it seems singularly selective to suggest that sportsmanship or graciousness is exemplified in a 20 second handshake after a game. as a person who played sports their entire life growing up, there is not a lot of authenticity in those events. you only line up because someone is telling you have to do so. i would suggest that if we want to examine sportsmanship we must look at the humanity of the player. and i would argue that if there is no intention of authenticity in a "congratulatory" handshake on LeBron James' part after a game, he exhibits more sportsmanship than others who falsely display "sportsmanship" by leaving the court. all we are doing is creating an idol akin to the superstar role model out of sportsmanship wherein we value the display of accepted sportsmanship ritual over the true humanity of an individual in a sporting event. in other words, we don't value sports athletes as humans, we only value them for the entertainment commodity we have made them.

perhaps Sir Charles was right so many years ago. true role models should be people who are actively participating in shaping the lives of our children. and as a culture we should recognize the idols we have set up for ourselves and identify the destructive nature of those idols.

it takes balance

life takes balance.

balance is not something we are good at in the good ole' u s of a. as a matter of personal opinion, i believe it is to blame for a lot of our problems in our country. think about it for a moment.

corporate greed -- out of balance contentment with sufficiency
failing marriages at alarming rates -- our of balance sense of commitment, what relationships should be
increasing and alarming rates of obesity -- out of balance self-care and dietary knowledge, not to mention marketing strategies of those companies promoting fast food
unchecked consumerism -- again out of balance sense of contentment with sufficiency
poverty in a country with more wealth than just about any other country in the world -- unbalanced sense of wants vs. needs on the part of those with wealth and power

i could go on for awhile, but i think the point has been made. we are out of balance.

in my own life this has shown up in several recent encounters and events.

1. my wife and i are close to closing on a house. we struggled a lot with what was enough space and how to best make a decision about location, layout, and design in order to promote a healthy balance in our lives and impact in the world. i hope we have made a conscientious and appropriate decision with the house we have chosen. what i do know is that this experience stretched me to think beyond myself. it forced me to think about how this decision would affect the unborn twin boys my wife is carrying and our relationship as husband and wife. it is by no means our dream home, but what i realized very early on is that i can be content in just about any home, but finding the balance of where contentment meets functionality is what would be significant in our search. this meant that there would be compromise on things and outright rejection of selfish wants on others.

2. i ran a relay marathon last weekend in coprus christi, tx. in some very irreverent yet genuine way, i felt that running in a city named for the body of christ was appropriate for the suffering that i inflicted upon myself. i knew i was going to run about 4.6 miles for months. i had done decent training leading up to the race, but with life surrounding me i let down the couple of weeks leading up to the race, and i paid for that. i ran poorly; i realized i was out of shape; and i came to the understanding that i have allowed my life to get out of balance in regards to exercise and self-care. i am trying to commit myself to more balance in that area in order to be a better person to be around, because i have learned that you cannot love your neighbor or your enemy if you do not first love yourself. that is why when christ tells us to love one another as we love ourselves it should have a shocking ring in our ears. we tend to love ourselves so extravagantly compared to the way we love others, but fail to do so for others. balance in our lives can lead to more authentic and significant service with and for others.

3. finally, a couple in our bible study is contemplating a job offer and move out of the area that we live in. while i have a lot of selfish reasons for wanting them to stay (i.e. i like them and they are cool people), i believe that the struggle they are experiencing in reaching a decision in the matter is one fundamentally of balance. they must find the balance of what is worth striving after and how to best care for their family and relationship. my best piece of advice is this: decide what balance is for you and make yourself resolute to maintain that balance. i believe in some ways god cares much more about us living wholly balanced lives of service in love than lives of erratic support. weighing the options of promotions, moves, family and friend connections can all seem overwhelming, but only two people know whether those things will be detrimentally out of balance if choices are made one way or another.

and in all of this, balance is not a juggling act so much as it is an exercise in self-knowledge and discernment. we must find what balance is for our own lives and protect that, even if it means, as one of my mentors once said, "saying no to jesus," because life takes balance.

a theology of consumption

my wife and i are searching for our first home. with the expectation of our twins arriving sometime in august or september, we need more space than our current situation gives us. buying a new home has brought up a lot of considerations we had not previously thought of, mainly because we have not had them be of imminent concern.

one of the pressing issues at stake for me is what is enough house? what amount of space do we need, and how much are we willing to spend to procure that space? we have gone back and forth as we have been on a tour of homes and neighborhoods. some we think are way overpriced, others no character, some verging on too small, and yet more, wondering if we could make the amount of space work.

another issue at stake is what we want in a house. we know we spend a good amount of time in the kitchen, and eating meals with other people is important to us both communally and theologically. so that is one area that we really look to see what things are like and whether or not we feel we could make it work. we jokingly always told people that we would need a double vanity in our bathroom since we always seem to be bumping into one another at the sink in the morning or any other time that we are getting ready together. but it has struck me that this is perhaps one of the joys of not having a lot of space: that we would have to make sacrifices and compromises for one another. having a lot of space to spread our stuff out on seems great on the surface, but it also simply seems to be a way to separate ourselves, if only in the smallest of senses.

all of these issues and questions are issues of consumption. we live in a country besieged by consumption of all things material. if it isn't one thing that we are coveting after it is the next best thing to that thing, and i have to ask myself when it stops. consuming less takes intentional action on the part of the consumer. maybe one place to start is at the base of what we have built our culture on: the place we call home.

a holy week worth living

i have a close friend who is going through a tough time this week. it has brought back a lot of memories for me of a special person that graced my life. i do truly mean that he graced my life. if you knew him you would know that willie was not one to back down from a challenge of any sort. he was tenacious to say the least.

willie was smart and vivacious and taken far too soon from us, but what will be the most lasting impact that willie had for me will be two things. first, he refused to let you be anything but your best. once he glimpsed even a bit of what your potential was, he was not willing to allow you settle for less. he wasn't overbearing about it, but he wouldn't allow you to half-ass things through life. he called you out and made you a better person. he is a person who continues to drive my dreams in memory of who he was.

second, willie lived out loud. he would not hold back what he thought or believed to impress or hide things from people. he also took joy in the small things. my wedding was the first and only wedding he ever went to in his adult life. he was so excited that he made sure everything was just right and even bought us a gift with his very own money, rather than the money both his mom and i thought he had spent of his parents'.

i pray that in this holy week we can see that living the life that jesus calls us to is more than about simply believing a list of things. it is also about doing and being. ultimately it is about being the justice and righteousness of god in others lives. and that makes it about being grace in other people's lives.

"i have no idea where you fit!"

a student and i were chatting it up yesterday afternoon in my office. he actually had needed a copy of something that i had in my office, and i was happy to make it for him, but our conversation quickly turned to things theological. he is going to be attending my most recent alma mater and i was happy to help him with letters of reference, etc.

in the course of our conversation we covered over a great many things including my views on eschatology and salvation, what the concept of "the kingdom" means to me, and some political identifiers or labels. he informed me that he and some of his peers had been discussing a few of us older guys, alums of our fraternity, and where we stood politically and theologically. he said for several them they were easy to label. conservative, liberal, sort of moderate, and then he said the conversation turned toward me. he informed me that when my name came up and his peers asked him where he thought i stood he simply said, "i have no idea where he fits!"

labels are easy identifiers. they help us categorize people for easy use, but they can be deceptive. i told him i don't believe in traditional labels, and therefore find myself to be outside of them, generally speaking. i explained to him that on some issues i tend toward what would be considered a conservative viewpoint and on others a liberal stance. and that is ok.

after we finished talking i couldn't help but to think that part of what got us to our current economic situation has to be our need to label and adhere to those labels as though they make us and tell us who we are. and that seems to not only be trifilingly simple theology, but also simply bad logic.

a stack of books

something about books gets me. i read, a lot. sometimes my best friends describe my job to people as the guy who prays and reads all day long, and that would rule. only i think most of the time i would like to read and if that can be counted as prayer then i would be all for it. however, that is not what my job really is, and i don't get to read as much as i would like, but when i do something just gets me. i can stay up for hours on end turning pages just to find out what the words on the next page with a zealousness something akin to a child waking up on christmas morning. i also have found that i get sucked into any book i read. it doesn't even have to be good. i have this optimism when it comes to books that is somewhat fatal. even if i haven't enjoyed one word of a book, i find myself turning all of the pages until i finally reach the end because somewhere in the back of my head i believe that a book can redeem itself and become something worth reading, if even in the very last page. perhaps it is because i believe that if only one sentence, one thought, one word stands out in a book, then it has served its purpose. don't confuse this for some sort of relativity towards books though. i certainly have a ranking of books that i find to be good, important, or otherwise noteworthy. to be sure there are plenty of books out there that are total crap and don't really deserve to be published, but who am i to squash anyone's dreams?

without any further ado: a list of 10 books i have found helpful/inspirational/important/blah blah blah
(note: they are in no particular order of importance and some wouldn't make a true top 10 list for me)

1. Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell
2. Intuitive Leadership: Embracing a Paradigm of Narrative, Metaphor & Chaos by Tim Keel
3. a Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren
4. Bless Me Ultima by Rudolfo A. Anaya
5. Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire
6. The Ragamuffin Gospel by Brennan Manning
7. Moby Dick by Herman Melville
8. The Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger
9. City of God by St. Augustine
10. True at First Light by Ernest Hemingway

What would your list include?