As I return to this post I will offer this caveat, I am not a parent, however what follows is not abstract reflection but reflection on how I was parented.
When I say that parents may be missing the point of raising Christian children if their priority is on protecting their children, I am not advocating some reckless parenting where the child has no place of safety. I am suggesting that providing safety is not the same as doing all in ones power to keep one's child from all danger. Rather parenting is teaching one’s child to learn to negotiate the world such that the child identifies danger on his or her own. This does not eliminate protection from parenting but qualifies protection under another goal, pedagogy.
If pedagogy, "the training up of the child in the way she should go," is the goal for the Christian parent then teaching the child about her identity in Christ has priority over all else especially for those who baptize infants. In this sense "What Would Jesus Do?" is good Christian pedagogy (even if there are obvious lacunae if used as some absolute principle). The point is to teach the child what it means to be identified with Christ, and to recognize that one's child isn't properly one's own but belongs ultimately to God Christ and the Church. This is not an abdication of responsibility but again the right ordering of the true responsibility of a Christian parent. This means that even if other adults the child encounters are involved in "dangerous" activities or if there is "identity confusion", if the parent is training the child in her true identity in Christ, these "dangers" aren't things to avoid but opportunities for learning.
Lastly it does not seem to me to be truth telling to present the adult world as a stable unchanging and unambiguous world. From my own experience I knew the adult world was imperfect from a very early age, largely because my parents did not hide the imperfections of that world, or the dangers of the world at large from me. As far as I can tell I was able to make the transition from child to adult much more smoothly than my peers whose parents attempted to protect them from the ambiguities and dangerous realities of the world. However, I also always knew that there was a deeper reality of being identified with Christ in the Church through baptism and faith. I was taught from a toddler to discern the Mind of Christ that was my parents' first priority. Their parenting served Christ in me. Protection was then not their priority.
Being a (new) parent (of an almost-seventeen-month old girl), I must take strong exception to the notion that pedagogy has protection as some secondary aspect. Pedagogy itself is an act of protection, suffused through and through with it. The whole point of pedagogy is to recognize what a child is ready for and when, and to do all in one's power to frustrate anything that would alter/speed up that process.
ReplyDeleteClueless Christian I agree. I think I might have said things differently had not certain comments on Reconciler's Blog seemed to indicate that protection and not pedagogy should be a parents primary or only concern.
ReplyDeleteWhere we may disagree is what is appropriate to a child and/or when exposure to certain things is appropriately allowed to Children being trained up in the way of Christ. As I imagine we may have differing views of the details of what it means to be identified with Christ. Though I believe we are in agreement in the general outlines.
My point was not to suggest that children should be exposed to anything and everything at all times without descrimination or discernment but that judgements about this should not be motivated out of fear but positively from the perspective of raising the child to live in the world and follow Christ.
It seems to me that if protection preceeds thoughts of pedagogy that we teach the child self preservation, and not the abandoment of self to Christ.
I will conclude by saying that although you and Atilla seemed to insist on a fairly torid view of our churches environment and discussions etc., such views are simply inacurate, the reviews Atilla used as exhibits to criticize our choice of space do not accurately reflect its normal functioning of the Cafe, they are extraordinary circumstances in my experience of the Cafe (I have known of the place for over a year now). In fact in the past couple of weeks we have been the only thing happening on Sunday. And last week the Cafe was only open because we were there.
Clifton:
ReplyDeleteI do not believe it is an accurate interpretation to equate my saying that protection is qualified by emphasis on pedagogy with sayign taht protection is a secondary aspect of pedagogy. I think my presentation in fact argues for a discerning use of protection as a necesary tool in the process of pedagogy.
Though, given that I was responding to an argument on Reconcilers blog that seemed to present a parents sole concern in proper raising of a child as protection, without any real sense of attention to pedgogy, some of my emphasis may have lead you astray.
I consistently observer this neerly absolute empahsis on protection without regard for pedagogy in some Christian parents I observe and of some parents of my peers when growing up. Those children who were simply protected from the realities and dangers of the world simply had more trouble than I in transitioning to an adult, and tended to move toward destructive iresponsible behaviours in college. This is anecdotal based on my personal experience of how I was raised verse how some of my peers were raised in Christian homes. It doesn't tell the whole story but it is that to which I am responding.
Wow Shari, permisive? Really?
ReplyDeleteI have pretty much described and argued for how I was raised, and if my parents were permisive, then I'd like to know what you would call the parents of my peers who let them watch TV as much as they wanted, cared less if they were doing drugs or not, and cared less on how they did in school.
To say that what I am advocating is permisive is simply mind blowing. I am not, and I think I have been quite clear, advocating no boundaries, but ever changing boundaries based on abilities and age of the Child with the intent that the child is learning to negotiate the world in which we live.
I also, don't know why you think you know what goes on at Reconciler simply from our blog. I just don't know what sort things you think are going on.
BTW What is with your example of a scantily clad women who is I guess supposed to be a preist or pastor in our service. Where do you get this stuff?! First, why you as a woman would perpetuate the view of women as "temptress" is beyond me. Second, why do you assume that I (or Reconciler)would permit anything and everything to go on. I do believe there is appropriate behavior, and dress. Advocating for committed homosexual and lesbian couples is not the same thing as advocating promiscuity and imodisty, or the tolerance of those things. The lack of charity in your assumptions continues to astound me.
As per your brother's expeience, I too was thought to be gay in Junior high for similar reasons, Artistic, intelectual, tall and thin and crossed my legs "like a girl," etc. I was never tempted to submit to others evaluation of me, not because my parents removed me from the public school where some of those opinions were expressed, nor did we leave the local Covenant Church where the good Christian Kids of Conservative Strict parents also accused me of being gay and otherwise ridiculed me for being a thoughtful and artistic person. I was never tempted to submit because my parents through various means had taught me by the time I was in Jr. High to trust in my self reflection and self-knowldge my beliefs and faith and in God. I had learned this precisely because they were not overly protective parents and was allowed to make decisions as was appropriate to my development as a child.
The experience of your brother though seems to indicate to me that in the end it seems that your parents pulled your brother out of the frying pan into the fire. It seems that given their wories about late night's undrage drinking and drugs etc. that your brother was poorly trained to make truely Christ like decisions as a teenager and young adult. I too was exposed to undrage drinking, dualing (though more on the lines switch blades and guns) and drugs, and was able to see them for what they were: dead ends and momentary pleasure that would bring a high price in the end. Also, I recognised them as contrary to my relationship to God. I didn't need my parents to protect me from those things because they had instiled in me what it meant to live into my faith and baptism, pricely by being less protective, though not by any stretch of the imagination permisive.
As far as conservative parents bring their children to Reconciler, I see no reason why they would feel that we hold absolutly contrdictory values, on the whole I think there are many values I share with conservatives though certainly not all, the same is true with liberals. Of course I wouldn't wish to convince someone that they should bring their child to Reconciler. But I do think it would be iresponcible to claim that Reconciler is dangerous to children, especially if one has never attended the chruch.
So, Yes I think we simply have differing
Shari,
ReplyDeleteI am at a loss.
I had assumed one could narrow one's argument to address particular issues. It seems you are conflating various thing (I would suppose because they are all inextricably connected in your mind): the role of porper outreach and welcome in a church, acceptance of homosexuality whatever its expression, veiwing commited homosexual and lesbian relationships as acceptable, the nature of the place where we rent space on Sunday evenings, what is appropriate actions and mindsets for Christians. My personal responce to these is different and one cannot assume that a claim about one will lead to conclusion X about another.
Forgive me for assuming that you were refering to a member of our congregation. I assumed that if we were talking about the regulation of behaviour and dress that we were talking about Christians and not non-Christians who might visit our church. An aside about Goths and dress, as one who has been part of the Goth scene in Chicago and L.A. for more than 12 years, I can recall seeing a man in a collar on two occasions at a club, I have never scene a Goth simply wear a clerical collar as everday dress. Lonb black flowy dresses are probably more comon or at least as common as short skirts, so I'd revise your idea of what Goth's wear, you have a completely inacurate idea if what you described is your idea of a Goth! I assume coming from an evangelical pietist background that the church idealy is a place where anyone could show up on Sunday morning. Therefore it's possible that a non-Christian coudl walk into any congregation and act in a way or wear things that might be deemed inappropriate of Christians. Now that I understand better your scenario what you redicule as good pedagogy is exactly what I would tell my son or daughter, the actions and dress of the visitor and or welcome of that vistor says nothing of our approval or disaproval of her lifstyle or dress. My child would already know that Christians live and act differently from the world.
Our presence at Chase Cafe does not equal promotion of everything that might go on there nor the acceptance of the choices of it's patrons or manegers, staff or owners. It is non-sensical to think it does. It is absurd to think that children couldn't make those destinctions. They can and I did as a child, though it takes a fairly attentive and involved parent to pull it off admitedly.
Whether a church meets in a cafe or a traditional chruch building, all should be welcome. A church that would turn away someoen who ventures through their doors because of dress or because they had a joint before coming or are socialist or hippies etc., does not have right to claim for itself the name of Christ who's mission was to seek and save the lost. I suppose your ideal church is one in which only the properly clean and moraly upstanding christians can come and worship. Last I checked we need church and Christ because we all fall short of the Glory of God. Your sounding more like the religious teachers in the Gospels than the Jesus presented in the Gospels, not a good thing for one who whishes to name the name of Christ as one's own.
Shari,
ReplyDeleteA couple of other things in regard to your previous comment:
I agree with you that:"The bottom line is, pedagogy is not about teaching children how to use cocaine or engage in anal sex "responsibly". (Nor is it about teaching children how to smoke cigarettes responsibly). Pedagogy is, or should be about teaching them that the body is the temple of the Lord, and you don't pollute the Lord's temple either with cocaine, or by taking what God ordains to sacramental marriage recreationally. However to pedagogize in this fashion, one needs consistency." though Nothing I have said would warrent an asumption that I am advocating teaching children how to do the things you mention responsibly. I don't even know what in the world that would mean. All of those things are things that they would need to make decisions about as adults. It is not inconsistent to both say one should not do drugs and allow your child to be in an environment where drugs are availble (now for clarity I am speaking of children over a certain age, from my experince had I wanted to I could have had access to marijuana since I was 10 or 11, and I have never in my life smoked a joint. My parents knew this they also were confident they had prepared me to make the wise and Christian decision.) Consistency does not necesarily mean ensuring that your child is never exposed to things contrary to what you teach your child until she is 18. Consistency has to do with what you teach your child and living according to the same standards as you teach your child. Then it shouldn't matter what the rest of the world does. I know this is possible because this is exactly how I grew up. I unlike you with more protective parents than mine never experiemented with drugs, nor did I drink wine or beer before I was 21 except at home at special dinners with my parents and relatives. My parents taught me that being "cool" was largely unimportant and although I definitely was not cool in High School I knew there were more important things like seekign the Mind of Christ and living accordingly. This was not an accident but due to the way I was raised and taught by my parents, and they did it without being "protective" and keeping me from being exposed to possible "dangers". Also, for clarity it would be completely inacurate to label my parents "liberal". Their morality, politics and Christian beliefs are conservative and orthodox.
Lastly for clarity, it is inacurate to say that Chase Cafe "supports" the events that are held in their venue. All the events Attilla described Chase Cafe rented their space to the organizations and individuals who put them on. I would never claim that chase Cafe supports Chruch of Jesus Christ Reconciler, I think the owners would agree with that assesment. Renting space and support are not equivalent. I doubt very seriously that Chase Cafe is interested in supporting the work of Reconciler.
Seriously Shari, I was not making claims about my own ability to with stand temptation as if I am some superior soul. The point was not about me but that your sense what involves proper Christian child rearing is not the only possible way to raise children in Christ nor is it the only traditionalist/conservative understanding. My point all along in this conversation was not to attempt to convince you or anyone else to raise children differently but to point out that there are good theological reasons to think and act differently than what you have suggested. I used my own life because I am basing much of my opinions on how I was raised by Evangelical parents who could be described as traditionalist. My point was that it seems that if you want to speak about differing ways of parenting in terms of what they affected and effected in children and not just how they eventually turned out then it seems that my case shows that their parenting worked.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, to say that I knew how to acquire marijuana at a fairly young age is not the same as saying that I was placed into possible temptation deliberately. Fleeing temptation as I understand it is as much if not more mental and spiritual than physical proximity, though if a particular situation or being in a particular place tempts one by mere presence there then certainly fleeing temptation would be absenting oneself from that place. Also, nothing that could be construed as unwholesome occurs while we are there. The one time that something has overlapped with our time, the Goth night, it was underage, so the organizers did not even have alcohol available, I suppose some of those attending may have brought a joint or two along, but I did not see it. However, that was a mistake on the part of those who kept the calendar and as Tripp has said we were reassured that such a double booking would not occur. So, the environment at Chase Café is no different on Sunday nights than most other café’s: People come in for coffee, and bring books to read or sketch pads in which to draw or write poetry.. Though really usually we have been the only ones present, excepting those who run the place. And inside the café not only have I not seen anyone light up a joint I haven’t even seen people smoke cigarettes inside. Excepting for its size and that it rents it’s space to various groups and organization because it is a good space to gather a lot of people together, it is not that different than many privately owned café’s.
Shari,
ReplyDeleteI do not know what to do with your analogy of the hospital and the drunken unkempt and unsanitary physician. Since my comment had to do not with behavior of the pastors (I am assuming that analogically physician should be read as pastors) but with the welcome of people into Reconciler’s midst who due to their being non-Christian would present a lifestyle and possibly even dress that one would not want one’s child to adopt. We have not been talking about the conduct of the pastors. My statement about Jesus and the Religious leaders in the Gospels had to do with your claim that meeting in a café would lead to people coming who did not fit with what you would want your child to be or act like. I said that should be given in any church that wishes to follow Jesus Christ who was sent to seek and save the lost in so doing associated with prostitutes and tax collectors and other people considered to be the dredges of society. I can hardly see Jesus (as depicted in the Gospels) saying to his disciples “Okay today we are going to have families with children, Peter, will you be sure that you keep the Tax collectors and the prostitutes away today, and especially keep away any centurions or other gentiles.. I don’t want the good people of this village to get the wrong idea.”
But you seem to not want to address this but to accuse the pastors of some indecency or incompetence. However, when I have challenged you directly about such possible criticism about our faith and spiritual lives you deny such accusations and say you are simply concerned about the environment. When I say the environment is not what you think you then return to veiled accusation about the competency of the pastoral team. All three of the pastors are married heterosexuals. We simply believe that given the life of many gay and lesbian Christians who, excepting in the area of same sex intimacy, live truly Christian and Spirit filled lives that the Church needs to ask certain questions of its traditional teachings. This openness may as you say be dissonant to some. We are asking that this and many other dissonances be accepted as we seek unity and the Mind of Christ. You may be correct in your assessment, my hope and prayer is that you are wrong.
I for one do not know where this all might lead. I do not see this as promotion I see this as being open to the possibility that God could be doing something new. Though I am also hesitant to at this point in time to speak definitively.
But really there is so much more important things than this issue in my mind at this point in time: like that it is evident to us that God has lead us from these three differing denominations to come together to break down the needless walls that stand between our traditions. I trust that as we follow God that we will discover whether or not our openness in this area is from God or not. But if we are to so discern we need be in contact with all our brothers and sisters in Christ. Now maybe not all are willing to fellowship with us, we all are impoverished by such opinion. The point of reconciler is not to create yet another Christian enclave surrounding a particular idea or teaching but to open up our traditions to the fullness of the Body of Christ.
Shari,
ReplyDeleteTo begin with we vest for our service which means our dress is about the same as the Nigerian clergy you describe. Cassock, surplice, alb, or Geneva Gown, are what we wear for worship as pastors.
You are attempting to slander us by guilt by association. You are stuck on that one time (As far as I can tell the space was rented for this purpose once and one other time part of a all day lesbian event that occured in various venues also used Chase cafe) "Gay perfomance art" occured at Chase cafe. I don't know what that was. All I can tell you as you have been told both here and on Reconicler's blog is what in fact we have encountere when there, usualy nothing else but a church meeting on Sunday nights.
How please explain, is black jeans doc martins black shirt spiked hair (sometimes died black or bleached blond) and silver jewlery sin affirming. The Goth scene is no more affirming of sin than is corporate America or any other sub group america (non-religious I mean). No more no less. I do not dress in sexualy procative ways, nor does my wife. Given that your contact with us and knowledge of us is completely viertual you have no grounds to speak to our appearance. I reject your guilt by association argument.
Larry said: "How please explain, is black jeans doc martins black shirt spiked hair (sometimes died black or bleached blond) and silver jewlery sin affirming. The Goth scene is no more affirming of sin than is corporate America or any other sub group america (non-religious I mean). No more no less. I do not dress in sexualy procative ways, nor does my wife."
ReplyDeleteI agree that your garb is not sexually provocative. However. it is also true that it is typical of that section of Goth culture that affirms Satan worship. For this reason, and I'm sure that as a Baptist, you would agree, most Baptist schools would not permit their schoolchildren or school teachers to dress in that fashion. Similarly, most places of work would not allow anyone on the executive track to dress like that, because it would offend the customers. It seems to me that you choose your venue and dress to offend traditionalists, and then are offended that they are offended, blaming it on their hardness of heart. Jesus never dressed like a prostitute in order to make it clear that prostitutes were welcome.
Attila
Well Attila your claim that Goth's (or a section of Goth's) that dress in the particular way described "affirm Satan worship" is outrageous. As I said I have been part of the Goth scene for sometime both in LA and in Chicago and I have never run into explicit Satanism. Let alone encountered an environment that could be understood as explicitly the worship of Satan. Unless of course you mean that any worship or belief that is not directed to the Triune God is ipso facto to be attributed to Satan. There are all sorts of religious beliefs found in the Goth scene from Wiccan, Buddhist etc to agnostic and atheistic. And in my experience most Goths tend towards being agnostic, not much Satan worship among those who don't believe he exist and are uncertain of the existence of a God. Of course there may be instances of individual Goths claiming to be Satanists, or even vampirism but they are not what the Goth scene is about. In terms of vampirism it’s more hedonistic and nihilistic than religious as far as I have encountered it. However, I can't speak definitively because I do not walk in those circles. The nearly exculsive association of Goth with Satanism and Vampirism are largely due to sensationalistic media attention as opposed to the reality found among the majority in the scene.
ReplyDeleteAlso, again I am not Baptist, and so I do not know much about Baptist schools. I do know that Roman Catholic schools require uniforms. Though I don't think private school uniforms exist to target Goth dress per see.
People who base opinions of outward appearance upon stereotype and false information, yes I consider them judgmental, not only that but prejudicial. It is precisely why the church fails to connect with large segments of American culture because it has a disdainful and ignorant judgment of numerous subcultures.
I see no reason why I should care what corporations demand: I hardly see why Christians should take their cues from people who make decisions based on profitability and the bottom line. To me the suit is the costume of those who serve mammon. I however do not assume that everyone who wears a suit is in the service to money and not God. However, those who devote their lives to making money certainly tend not to wear anything but the business suit and many of them do in fact serve mammon and not God. I however, would be unwarranted to assume that I know for a fact that a suit is indicative of such a service to money. I could though prejudicially make such a judgment. It would be a false one.
By the way I am not offended I just reject the method of judgment you and Shari employ, and I see nothing in it of Christ. This is not a blanket statement simply concerning this particular judgment(I am not say that all of your judgments are wanting of Christ like judgement, If I beleived that I would not be in conversation with you as sisters in Christ). I object to the judgment because dressing like a Goth shows an aesthetic preference it does not commit one to any particular religious or moral standard or action, or intention (as I have said above). Dressing like a prostitute, however, would most likely commit one to communicate a certain intention. Goth dress has no analogous communication, except as imposed by those who know nothing about the movement. No Goth dresses in a particular way to make a religious or ethical statement or intention. Prostitutes do dress in a particular way to communicate their availability. The difference is so great that the analogy of how Jesus might have dressed in relation to prostitutes is not only false but unintelligible.
I have been reading this converstaion and have a couple of observations.
ReplyDeleteFirst...how dare you (Shari) judge people without ever getting to know them. It is offensive that someone who claims to be filled with Christ can be so judgemental speak so spitefully against someone she has never met. I do not question your faith obviously you have a very strong one and that is great. But what bothers me is what seems to be you unwillingness to even listen to Larry's side. Basing judgements from websites...from reading your postings here I could very well make some negative judgements towards you, but that is not what this conversation seems to be about.
Secondly...As far as Reconciller goes. It is simple...you just don't get it, and seem unwilling to try. That is fine, but the condemnations seem counterintuitve to your arguments. You (and atilla) keep harping on the location and and what has at onetime or another happend in the cafe. What about the bingo in the parish halls (gambling...bad) or the Theology on Tap in the parish (drinking in Church...urf).
This has been interesting reading, but I am sorry to say that all of the harping seems to be counterintutive. Maybe, just, maybe people will come into the coffee shop and be welcomed into the church of Christ. Held accountable for actions, but not condemend. That is the job of Christ.
It is my prayer that those who ahve been hurt by the chuch come to Reconciller and find that Jesus's arms are still open and have never closed. That they can find a new life.
It is also my prayer that those, who are against Reconcliler, hearts be open to the moving of the Holy Spirt and the Holy hands of Christ. That they join our prayer for healing within the body of Christ. Though that healing, then, true miracles will begin to happen.
Shari, I think you might just be on to something though as usual you have a twisted view of it.
ReplyDeleteIt is perhaps true that I am more interested in ministering to those in American Rock and Counter cultures than I am interested in reinforcing the opinions of "traditionalists" who seem to confuse being a good Christian with bieng a good middle class consumer capitalist, and who thus imagines that anyone who doesn't dress in prepy clothes can't possibly be a good person, or is imature or whatever.
Btw, you seem to assume that being a physician is the same as being a pastor. Having worked in a hospital as a Chaplain I am quite aware of the difference. Let me just say this, I would not presume to tell you what you should do as a physician, perhaps you should aford me the same courtesy when it comes to professional decisions. BTW, I wear a casock now in my funcitioning as a pastor. It is very likely that as time progreses and I live into my calling that one will rarely find me in anything but a cassock.
You can question my maturity. That evaluation is meaningless since you only know me virtually and since all who know me including the relavant authorities in my denomination disagree with your assesment.
I admit my inital post was harsh, forgive me. My fustration at seeing the circles of the ripple of the pebble become so distorted got me fustrated. (I am natorious [sp] for speaking first asking questions later)
ReplyDeleteI just wish that you would be able to join us. As Larry posted in his comment on your blog Reconciller is not about sexual politics, as you and others seem to think. Sexuality has been mentioned once in the 8 months I have been meeting with this community.
Most of the dialogue with in our services and bible study centers on prayer life or our weekly journeys or our hymnody. The same stuff that has been discussed in my life at church since I was a tyke.
As I stated in a comment on the other blog, our worship is liturgical and is very "traditional." My mom and grandparents, i think, would feel just as comfortable in our worship as they do in their home church. Sermons are insipred via the weekly lectionary and often come at them from a perpective that is more historical than anything else. I have learned much in my time here. And my faith has grown.
As for teenagers coming into our worship services, welcome. Their parents are welcome, too. The sad truth is, and this is just my opinion and not that of anyone else, if a teenager from the neighborhood comes into our service their parents' may not even notice they are not home. The neighborhood of Reconciler is not the greatest in town...not awful, mind you, but it has the potential to be a little on the rough side. (Not that I have never felt unsafe...this just may be me living in the past history of the neighborhood.) And for the pastors teaching a "sexual theology," please see above. That does not happen.
Grace and Peace
There has been much more discussion on the blogs about sexuality than there has ever been in Reconciler.
ReplyDelete"They see tears and witness the struggle it can be to BE Christian in the midst of the world."
This happened to me growing up. This helped make me who I am today. As far as what is discussed with children present, I think common sense would prevail. Things would not be mentioned in such a way that I don't think parents would be offended. Also, the Sunday that the issue was discussed there were no children present. (And in fact the discussion was more about what was going on in our denominational (ABC-USA) struggle than anything. It lasted maybe 20 minutes.)
That being said, I think children are a vital part to community. They teach us, as we teach them. I think by seeing my parents cry when I was a child (attending the funeral of a very close family friend) taught me that my parents feel the same things I do. They struggle with what I do. Even as a child this was clear. I knew that they would be there and just because I saw them cry did not make me think they were weak. I saw how they coped, learned.
I was also sheltered. But not the way one may think. By learning of the struggles of faith as a child I was strengthend as I grew older. It sounds like I was raised a lot like Larry. I was free to explore, and touch the hot stove.
In college I struggled with my faith, but it was there. I did some things I am not proud of, but once again, I touched the hot stove and learned from it.
If it is explained to a child in a way the child understands, I do not think that them seeing people cry and struggle with there faith is bad...quite the opposite really.
"They see tears and witness the struggle it can be to BE Christian in the midst of the world." ... seems to me to be the point of the post.
Frankly Shari I don't see how your link to gohticreview.com supports claims about Goth being "satan worship" or symbolizing anything in particular. Granted the link talks about Goth stereotypes but after making it clear that such stereotypes are jsut that and do not in fact "mean" Goth they are things that can go on in the Goth scene but are not indicative of it. Cross Ankh, pentagram all can be worn. If you don't take symbols seriously you may wear them all or be oblivious to their origins. But the use of pentagram no more means that the Goth scene is wiccan or pagan any more than the presence of the cross means that the religious orientation of the scene is Christian.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me thought that it is more important to teach teenagers how to be in the world but not of the world then and thus how to be part of the culture(s) they are in so as to be able to be truely present and available to non-Christians with out communicating that being Christian is synonomous with a certain set of middle class values and dress.
Shari,
ReplyDeleteI share some of Justin's frustrations largely because you seem to simply in various ways reiterate a certain view and a particular mis-perception of myself and Reconciler.
I do though see how Tripp's language may have mislead you. However, given that our focus really isn't to get people to accpet homosexuality (whatever that means, personaly my only thought is that it might(please take seriously that word) be possible that same sex commited couples are acceptable before God. There are numerous things that lead me to consider this a possibility, including the witness of people I respect who are also partnered in permanent same sex relationships.
However, getting the church accept or condemn such things or getting people to change their minds or not is not the point of reconciler.
I am certain that when Tripp mentioned tears he was talking about things like weaping over the divisions in the church or the death of a family member. Though I don't recall much crying as of yet, I think Tripp was thinking of the possibility and that it would be possible for someone to admit struggle even in tears and that such would be a good thing in general, a sign that the Body of Christ was working as it should: That is in openness and honesty and vulnerabilty in the presence of God and God's people.
I think the information i have read here has been really useful, as i know a few friends who suffermigraine in childand one thing that has helped a couple of them is a Bioflow. They purchased them at migraine in child. It hasn't worked for all of them, but has completely eradicated the problem for one of them, and made the migraine in child much more bearable for the other. It might be worth a look
ReplyDelete