spiritual or religious? no, thank you

here’s the ideology hidden within the seemingly hip conversation of ‘ or ’ – which neither can exist apart from the other. they both are under the umbrella of some sort of transcendent experience outside of one’s self. not that these experiences do not occur, these are found in the promise of the mystics. the inherent in both is that some exists to impose some sort of belief system or ethical system by which to measure one’s path – therefore, in reality, there is no difference between the or religious person cause they both need that Big Other to exist and to be on the other side of the same coin…

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
Share

unnaming god.

Elephant fetus

once we name we become homeless.

(a philosopher, semiologist) thought disconnected us from the object we want to know. She referred to this process as estrangement or exile. She had this idea that we are connected to people, places and things when we aren’t fully aware of their label. That somehow the label, the word, the idiom of choice would create an exilic experience. That we would become outsiders. I know this is a deep concept, I am still wrapping my head around it. Her premise for this idea is that we are emotionally connected to thing when they don’t fit a mold. When they are outside of a construct we are fully connected to that ‘thing’. Once we name the distance begins to matieralize.

The emotional distance is in process of separation.

If you think of it in terms of umbilical chords; when we’re born, we are connected in many ways to the womb within our mother. This is when we have yet to be exposed to the outside world, to the constructs placed upon us (where we have no choices whether to accept them or not-as a baby that is). We are nameless. Our identity rests in simply being. When you think about it, it is a simpler . Names, labels, titles, language all of this introduces us to a world framed and formed by constructs. Its when we succumb to these constructs that we begin being formed by the construct rather than being in a safe place to discover who we were meant to be. In the womb we are safe, we are cared for, we are present there. When language enters our mouths, we then begin one-by-one distancing ourselves from things around us, included. The idea behind Kristeva’s thought is that we are home without language, once we use language, we become homeless.

We become stripped from the womb.

This isn’t to say that we don’t need language, but it is to say that we must realize our relationship to others, objects, and God based on this conclusion. That the less we say about something the connected we are to it. The less we about an object, the space there is to know it.

Because once we label something it then becomes that object, it then has only that potential, it then can only effect us as that object. This is the same with God. Maybe to re-discover God we have to unname him. Maybe we have to silence thousands of years of theological construct to find him/her waiting on the otherside. When we begin this process, the distance between us and God can be repaired. It can be renewed. We can remember what it looks like to be alive again.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
Share

Losing Our Muchness: A Chapter from the New Book

Alice in Wonderland - I´m Late - ReEdit

Hey everyone here is a to my first chapter of my called Colloquial : Outside of Theology

Feel free to leave thoughts, critiques and praises. Thanks for stopping by and taking the to read it, and try to be nice as possible…thanks!!

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
Share

i am interviewed over at something beautiful podcast. check it out below….

http://www.somethingbeautifulpodcast.com/podcast/043010.mp3

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
Share

a review on Karen Armstrong’s ‘The Bible: A Biography’ by CharisManglican

The Bible, A Biography

(1) Tell us a bit of your story.

I became a Christian at the age of 12 at a camp run by independent, ‘non-denominational’ evangelical churches. From that time on I was always been in volunteer ministry, whether as a youth coach or a worship leader, and the church of my youth grow from about 80 to 800.

In the late nineties I began to engage postmodernism through popular Christian authors. First came Soul Tsunami by Leonard Sweet. I read Finding Faith by Brian McLaren a bit late. Thus began a seven-year deconstruction of my faith. I self-identified as part of the emerging church. I read voraciously. I started to ‘get’ why me and my friends, all dedicated to Christ, nonetheless were restless and dissatisfied with the churches and the Christianity that we grew up with. In some ways it felt liberating: I didn’t feel alone in my dissatisfaction. I was getting rid of all sorts of ‘bad faith’. In other ways it was intimidating: what would remain at the end of my deconstruction? Because everything I believed was under scrutiny, I had no idea what faith would look like or if it would exist at the end of the journey. I had confidence in what I did NOT believe, but I wasn’t sure of what I DID believe. I had a vague feeling that wanted me to actually do something. When and how would I fit some ‘construction’ in? When I shared my anxiety with a good friend of mine, he casually quoted Ecclesisastes: “There’s a time to tear down, and a time to build.” It was a relief somehow.

A time to build would come.

One of the more dramatic events during this period in my was that I was excommunicated from the church of my youth. Not only had my paradigm let me down…now I was actually being abandoned by my spiritual family. My skepticism was at an all-time high. I thought I still believed in the church, but I didn’t know where she was. I started to think that God had withdrawn his Spirit from the West. I tried to find another church, but most were pretty much the same. We explored a church with no that met in a kickboxing studio. We tried home church. We tried staying at home and playing video games. I can think of no better word than ‘grace’ to describe how I avoided total cynicism regarding the church. Instrumental in that grace were these five authors: Brian McLaren, N.T. Wright, John Howard Yoder, William Cavanaugh and Stanley Hauerwas. After about a year of being ‘ecclesially homeless’, my family somehow fell into the liturgical tradition. We are a part of St. Alban’s, a small Episcopal church in Yucaipa, . I just gave my first sermon as a lay witness.

In studying post-liberalism and the early church, I have come to see non-violent, self-giving, enemy- at the heart of the gospel. I call myself a Christian anarcho-pacifist as my way of teasing out the implications of this discovery. I’m attempting to live simply and to peacefully participate in giving and receiving in community with all earth’s creatures.

Last year I left my job as a top-producing mortgage consultant to homeschool my kids, work for my wife’s photography business and to begin organic farming. I told my wife once that I now know why Jesus self-identified as ‘the way’ rather than ‘the destination’. He keeps taking me on new adventures.

(2) What has influenced your belief system?

What hasn’t?

I used to make my living as a rock musician. People would ask us what style we were or who were our influences. While I have my favorite music, we were literally influenced by everything. I was influenced by John Steinbeck and by shampoo commercials. Whether I liked it or not, it influenced me. I have come to think of faith that way.

Currently I’m reading a book on home-scale permaculture (Gaia’s Garden). This is heavily influencing me. Last night I watched Michael Moore’s “Sicko”. It’s influencing me. Post-liberalism has caused me to live at peace with my historical contingency, and even revel in it. So while I can critique postmodernism as simply late western modernism, I’m not unaware at how my habits of thought are culturally postmodern. In order to understand, I’m willing to ‘stand under’ a multitude of teachers and let them influence me. Engage critically, but engage.

 
(3) What book are you reading now, and why that one?
 

After Virtue, by Alasdair MacIntyre. It’s not an easy read. I’m taking it on because of the influence MacIntyre has had on the five authors that I mentioned earlier (N.T. Wright’s newest book, for example).

Here’s a juicy bit I just read:

“Contemporary moral experience…has a paradoxical character. For each of us is taught to see himself or herself as an autonomous moral agent; but each of us also becomes engaged by modes of practice, aesthetic or bureaucratic, which involve us in manipulative relationships with others. Seeking to protect the autonomy that we have learned to prize, we aspire ourselves not to be manipulated by others; seeking to incarnate our own principles and stand-point in the world of practice, we find no way open to us to do so except by directing others towards those very manipulative modes of relationship which each of us aspires to resist in our own case. The incoherence of our attitudes and our experience arises from the incoherent conceptual scheme which we have inherited.”

He traces the history of this incoherence from contemporary philosophy back to the ancient world. This work is considered one of the most lucid deconstructions of western modernism.

(4) You just read The Bible: A Biography by Karen Armstrong. What in the book would you say agree with?

 

I’m not sure I have the standing to agree or disagree with Ms. Armstrong. My areas of study have touched on historical criticism, but only in a very limited sense. It might make more sense to say what I liked about the book.

And I did like the book. Karen is obviously a great teacher. I wasn’t prepared for the historical scope. I guess I thought she would address the beginnings of the scriptures among those peculiar nomads in the middle east, but I didn’t know that she’d continue to trace developments all the way through the twentieth century. This is the strength of the book: it is an overview of the compilation and interpretation of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures covering about three thousand years. And she tells it in such a way that is almost like a novel. It’s a page-turner.

 

(5) What are some areas you might disagree with and why?

 

My favorite authors give me a sense of their struggle, a sense of their editorial choices. For example, in A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn is very forthright about his editorial choices. In a very different sort of book (A Severe Mercy), C.S. Lewis lays bare the vulnerability of his faith in the face of suffering. The Bible: A Biography may not have been a page-turning overview if Armstrong gave a full account of her historical vision, but I can’t escape the feeling that she’s simply good at teaching other people’s conclusions. I would have liked the book more if it didn’t pretend to objectivity, if it instead revealed the author’s own struggle and choices. I’m left wondering: is Karen Armstrong aware of her own historical contingency?

 
(6) Do you think Karen Armstrong has something to say to the Church (at large)?
 

It’s a shame that so many Christians have a ‘magical’ view of the scriptures. (It’s also important to note that this is not always the case in traditional churches; Pope Benedict and Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams come to mind as church leaders who publicly engage historical criticism.) If I were teaching an introductory course on the history of the scriptures, I wouldn’t mind using this book.

However, I would want to balance it out with other works that address the theological and philosophical choices we make and why. Why do we think the way we do? History, theology, philosophy and politics were impoverished in the modern age by their isolation as separate disciplines, engaged only by ‘experts’. Zinn has demonstrated that history should be understood politically. Wright says that “Christianity appeals to history, so to history we must go.” Slavoj Zizek the atheist philosopher critically engages John Milbank the social critic…and both do theology.

When a theologian doesn’t understand ‘the history of theology’, or a historian doesn’t understand ‘the philosophy of history’ and so on, error is immanent. That Christians have a ‘magical’ view of the scriptures is not likely to be cured by historical facts, but rather by a wider engagement with other disciplines.

 (7) Do you think she represents a scholarly version of the postmodern conversation?

I actually think that Armstrong is vulnerable to postmodern critique. As I said, she seems to speak from objectivity rather than historically contingency. And because ‘the postmodern conversation’ has collapsed the neat boundaries between the disciplines (history, ethics, science, theology, philosophy, the arts), I’m not sure Armstrong’s book has the breadth necessary to be considered scholarly in our context.

In 1996 Jack Miles won a Pulitzer Prize for God: A Biography. To me this symbolized the mainstreaming of a postmodern shift in regards to the scriptures. The prominent questions have become more broad than mere historical accuracy: “What kind of book is this? What does this have to say? Why is this book here?” It’s the difference between studying a frog by dissection and studying a frog by observing it in its natural habitat.

I’ve been participating in a course from The Teaching Company in which Amy Jill Levine teaches the Old Testament as myth, saga and history. I’ve been reading William Cavanaugh’s radical visions of Christianity (ironically not proposing anything very new, but rather born of a deep exploration of Church history). Zizek uses Lacanian  Psychoanalysis to discuss how German toilets differ from French and American toilets. MacIntyre published After Virtue in 1981. In comparison to these, Armstrong’s book (published in 2007) seems neither very scholarly nor postmodern. In fact, it seems quite conservative, hearkening back to the time when history, like science, had its own inviolable corner of the truth.

(8) Anything else you would like to add/thoughts/critiques/questions/challenges
Because Armstrong doesn’t make explicit her viewpoint, I couldn’t help but detect what I thought was an implicit bias.

In her last chapter (“Modernity”) she reviews the thought of Michael Fishbane, Professor of Jewish Studies at Chicago University and author of The Notion of a Sacred Text. She quotes a passage from Fishbane where he presents Isaiah’s eschatological vision of all the nations converging on the city of peace, then another pasage where the prophet Micah talks about each nation going forward “each in the name of its own god.” Armstrong says: “It is almost as though Micah foresaw our own time of multiple visions converging on a common truth, which for Israel had been expressed by the idea of their god.” I thought the idea of mankind ‘converging on a common truth’ has been discredited by continental philosophy and postmodern deconstruction.

And what is the ‘common truth’ being offered to us? I can’t tell if Armstrong is quoting Fishbane approvingly or disinterestedly. But I can hazard a guess.

Armstrong seems delighted throughout her book when she writes of Jewish and Christian communities whose exegesis of scripture appears as proto-democratic liberalism. This thread of thought is thoroughly steeped in modernism. What does the Enlightenment mean, after all, but that Western Civilization has the true light…that we represent progress, peace and freedom? In the words of Francis Fukuyama, democratic capitalism is “The End of History.” But what do you do if history refuses to stop?

In regards to Philosophy: The meta-narrative of history as progress and enlightenment has been discredited.

In regards to Theology: The belief that the ancient Jewish prophetic tradition was an appetizer for the prophets of Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson is idolatry. In regards to Politics: This false universality shows no signs of culminating in Isaiah’s eschatological vision. Instead, it has led to violence and empire.

About Joey Aszterbaum,  a failed rock star and banking burnout who lives on a small farm in San Jacinto with his wife Jolynne (a wedding photographer) their four children, two other small families. He loves Jesus, non-violence, homeschooling, movies, post-liberal theology and farm-fresh eggs. He blogs over at , check it out: www..com

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
Share

Falling for my gay friend

Meet the author: Neil Christopher is an author, human rights, animal rights and environmental activist, and founder of evolition — an interfaith collective focusing on promoting and empowering the emerging conversation in not only churches, but in other faiths as well. Website: http://www.evolitionist.com

Being friends with people is nothing new to me; I never really thought much about it. Even though I was the son of a pastor and was raised in a very fundamentalist church setting; never really sat right in my spirit about the way they viewed homosexual and bisexual people, and even though at that I had no science or theology to back up my personal convictions – I stuck to them!

My first real encounter was as a Junior in High School. A classmate of mine, that I didn’t really know, “came out” and I found out that he was being attacked for it. It just didn’t sit right with me, so the next day when I walked into the lunchroom and found him sitting alone I came and sat with him. The rest of my friends soon followed suit (I kept good company) and we organized a little “protest” where a bunch of us “straight” guys came to school in drag. First time I ever shaved my chest, and man was that ever itchy. Not recommended.

I have also always been aware of how negative and closed minded gender role stereotypes can be. One of my first girlfriends was always classified by others gay because she was such a tomboy. She looked and acted so much like a boy that when we went out on dates people would drive by yelling “fags” at us for kissing or holding hands. I was also at many times on the other end of that sick because although I attracted to females, I must admit that I am an effeminate male. I don’t play sports, I have a small frame, I love art, music, and was involved in theatre and other such things. I normally got along with girls better than guys, and was always OK with that. I am comfortable in my own skin.

I remember as a Senior having a very popular male athlete in school ask me is I would like to hang out sometime. He was huge, scruffy, attractive… as butch as they get. Nobody would assume that he was gay, but I soon learned that he was. After I explained to him that I was straight, he said he doubted it and that I was just not “out” yet because of my not adhering to certain social roles or expectations. However, he failed to see the irony or the hypocrisy in his ; because there he was, as a very non-effeminate gay male, breaking out of that stereotype but still placing the old ones on me.

It wasn’t until I moved to San Francisco that I really got to see all kinds of walls and boundaries pertaining to this issue come down and get removed. To be honest, over there I never really knew who was what, and was pleased to be living in a place where none of us really gave a damn.

It was here that I also learned something else about homosexuality – if it really is to be taken as a valid expression of love then the same rules apply to it as heterosexuality. Being gay does not mean that you have to be promiscuous; that’s just being promiscuous. Being gay does not mean that you have to be effeminate or butch; that’s an entirely different matter all together. Being gay does not mean that someone is loose or perverted; no than being straight makes us all faithful saints to our partners and respectful sexually to others. That’s just people being people, and has nothing to do with their sexuality.

It also means (and I know I may piss off a few people here) that if there are people out there living a heterosexual lifestyle due to “nurture” but who were actually born gay and are in the closet, that there are also cases where “nurture” has influenced people who were born straight into a homosexual lifestyle.

Now, please don’t get me wrong. I do believe and know that people are born gay or born straight. I know the ethics and the science behind that, and even before I knew the facts I already knew that in my heart. All I am saying is that since homosexuality is on an even playing filed with heterosexuality that it is possible for this situation to occur equally in both circumstances. I see no difference between the two forms of expression and therefore don’t apply different rules to them both. If I did, that would not be equality.

For example, I became friends with a girl in Arizona who identified as a , but later on expressed interest in me and decided that she must actually be bisexual, and later as straight. We dated, and through getting to know her I soon learned that she never had a real impulse or attraction to females until much later on in her where a certain circumstance happened that made her distrust men. She now in this day identifies herself as straight. I do not believe this to be the standard, but is a case of a valid exception.

To be fair, we would have to also assume that the opposite is true as well. That there are certain people who were born gay but who are drawn into a heterosexual lifestyle from social pressure, upbringing, fear, , past hurts in a homosexual lifestyle, abuse or some other matter. We have a term for this (being in the closet) and a term for getting out of this bad situation (coming out), but many fail to validate and give merit to those on the opposite side of this predicament.

For persons trapped in either side of the closet, I hope that all we really want is for this person to come to love themselves, be happy, and live in an environment where they are free to be who they are: gay, straight or bi. It should be out goal to live in a society where people are free to be happy in their sexual self-expression either way, and it should not be seen as losing one from our team or gaining one to the other. There’s just one team – the human race.

I must admit though, that as open-minded as I am, and as supportive of that I am, I still have no clue what it would be like to be gay. I care, but I can’t exactly relate. As a human though, we can all identify with our common feelings of pain, loneliness, love, fear, rejection, desire and more recently the frustration that comes from not being able to express or fulfill those desires.

Let me explain… I have a crush on my gay friend. And there is nothing I can do about it.

We can’t choose who we are attracted to, no more than we can choose what colors, smells or foods we like. Not more than we can control when we are hungry, or what we hunger for. It just kind of happens, and it is anything but logical. For if it were logical, I’d just pick or decide to be attracted to someone who could assure me that they would be a good mate to me and fulfill some list of criteria that I have – being straight and actually attracted to me would be pretty high up on that list.

But there I was, minding my own business and enjoying a slam poetry night at a local bar with some friends, when she walked in. I noticed her as soon as the door opened, and just couldn’t take my eyes off her. I’m sure my jaw dropped, and my heart skipped – it raced even more as to my surprise she made her way to where we were all sitting. Oh my God, she knows my friends? And she joined us for the rest of the event.

As she plopped down on the bench and sat cross legged, as I do but unlike all the others, I immediately thought that this was my kind of person. Her shoes were even low-top Vans – hell I even liked the way she smoked and held her cigarette. Was she beautiful? Yes. Was this just physical attraction? No. No I can tell you with all certainty that it was not just that. Yes, she had physical features I find appealing, but many people do and that is not something I generally concentrate on. I don’t have a “type.”

It had more to do with some kind of instinct, emotion, or a gut feeling that she was just a like-spirit. It is more unexplainable that that. And then just to notice the way she sat, talked, smiled, dressed… the way she carried herself – gave out hints and a window into her personality, outlook or “self” that was even more appealing to me. It’s more like meeting someone and immediately knowing that you like them, and then the rest of the conversation/meeting is discovering why.

Oh, but we had not actually talked yet. I was too nervous for that.

We did eventually talk, and for me this is the point when meeting any new person that attraction flies out the window. No matter what I “feel” towards a person upon instinct or first observation, once they open up their mouths and speak if they are boring, annoying, conceited, stupid or ignorant, I no longer hold any kind of attraction towards them. Most pretty people become surprising ugly once they actually speak.

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending) this was not the case. She was engaging, captivating, and we soon delved into a conversation so deep and long that the others at the table soon dismissed themselves to find other things to do. By the end of the night, I never assumed that I had found a girl that was interested in me (because I am never that cocky), but I had been assured that I found an awesome new person whose company I certainly did enjoy and that I wanted to know more. But yes, attraction was there – although only from my viewpoint.

For as the group gathered together again to pay our tabs and walk out of the bar, her and another friend of mine grabbed hands and walked out together. Once on the street they embraced, and I came to the realization that her and my friend were dating. Not only is this person taken; not only by a friend of mine, but this friend also happens to be a female. So triple whammy: taken, by friend, and is gay.

I felt kind of stupid and embarrassed. But not shocked. I am very used to everything in life, and was at fault for assuming not only that she was straight, but also that since she was talking to me that this automatically meant there was some kind of interest on her part.

It is a very dumb, male attribute, to assume that just because you meet an awesome person of the opposite sex and feel some kind of connection to them that this for some reason means you are supposed to screw them.

I mean, we meet cool people all the time, and it is not like we apply this same “logic” the rest of the great individuals we meet. I have met many males with whom I felt were like-minded spirits, but did I try to screw them? No. Or what about a much older or much younger person? Not at all. So I slapped myself upside the head for falling into the trap of douche-bag male, and decided that I would place attraction aside and if this person still wanted to get to know me as just a person, that I was totally game for that.

Some time has gone by since then, and I never really thought about “liking” her again. That was simply off limits, and I have been really enjoying getting to know her as a person. The more we talked and hung out the more I knew my first instincts were right – she is simply an amazing person and I’m so happy to know her. I look forward to seeing her, love to hear what she has to say in any conversation, and when having a bad night out I seem to pick up as soon as she enters the room. Once we get talking about life, religion, politics… whatever – it lasts for hours and hours on end. I always walk away from those moments feeling better as a person for it and thrilled to simply know her.

Something happened though a few nights ago. We always hang out in public, in group settings, but the other night we just hung out alone for the first time at my place. I didn’t really think about it, but I was nervous. It was not some conscious thing, but I cleaned the house, made sure I looked halfway decent, and was a bundle of nerves. When she first came in it even took me a while to feel comfortable enough to sit down on the same couch as her. I felt very awkward, but I could not figure out why. It’s just my buddy who came over. So what’s all the fuss about?

Eventually I chilled out, and we got to our normal talking and swapping of life stories. Towards the end of the night the topic switched to her personal story of “coming out”; what lead to that, her life before that, and her life as it is now.

She talked about trying to be with guys before, and how some of them were perfectly nice guys; attractive, loving, caring, and faithful – whatever. But how there was just always something missing, incomplete, and something in her gut that was never happy, until now of course. I was trying to relate it that, as best as I could as a straight person, but I didn’t really “get it”… yet. I had sympathy but not empathy.

The conversation then changed to sexual tension and frustration. She spent some time trying to explain to me how hard it is for a gay person to really be able to express themselves in this world we live in. I mean, imaging living in a world where you feel as though you can’t act out on some of the simplest, base desires? To be that kid in High School who feels attracted to your friend of the same sex but is too afraid to even let them know. To be afraid of how they would take it, of how it could end the friendship, of knowing that it is off limits – imagine the amount of frustration and the swallowing of emotions that must take place; the suppression.

Imagine having a desire that you feel as though you can’t act out on, and not a bad one, but one as pure and simple as love itself. Imagine feeling as though it would be wrong to do it, and living in a society where the odds are that the other person will probably not feel the same way. To make it even worse, one where still many people today treat it as though it is a sickness – that it makes you either a bad person, or at least a broken one in need of some fixing.

It was then that I was hit with a realization that quickly moved me sympathy to empathy. Because as I looked at her I realized that, despite whatever I had told myself going into this, I was still attracted to her.

I felt empathy, because I realized that I know, I know without a shadow of a doubt that I feel this but can never act out on it. She will never feel the same way, I have been hiding it, suppressing it, and it has been eating me up inside. I too have been living a bit of a lie. I also understood at that moment that just as I can never change the fact that I am attracted to her, she can never change the fact that she is attracted to women, and never will be to me. I saw her, for a brief second, as a male that I was attracted to who was only attracted to females and felt a glimpse of something I never really understood before.

I cannot mentally will these feelings away, or replace it with logic; no more than she can will herself into an emotion for me or any other man. Hell, considering the times we live in and the amount of pressure and oppression to gay culture if they could, wouldn’t many have “willed away” certain feelings? For me the only risk is a bit of a broken heart, but for them it can mean a loss of family, religion, friends, jobs, fear, hate, insults and even physical harm. No. Nobody chooses to be gay.

Am I a crappy friend for finding this person attractive? Do I need to feel guilt for a certain uncontrollable impulse or emotion? For being wired the way that I am wired? I think not. No more than they can help or control their non-interest in, have no reason to feel bad over it, and cannot change or control their situation or feelings.

I have always been friends with, supportive of, and an advocate for the gay community. But it has always been as an outsider, as someone who has no way of fully understanding what it is that you are going through. And I am still that outsider, but today I can tell you that I understand a little bit more; because we are all humans, and we all share the same basic human needs and emotions. I don’t understand the scale of the things you are going though, but I know what it is like to love, to want to be accepted, desired, to feel pain, rejection or fear.

I believe in a God who loves us all, and I am thankful for this and many other life-lessons Life has put me through to turn me into a more compassionate individual. I believe that God is always trying to in this world in different ways to bring about positive change in the way we humans all get along and deal with one another. I believe that He/She is always speaking; I only pray that more people begin to listen.

So what’s next for me and my friend? I don’t really know. I have to get over the fact that I desire them and enjoy their company as a human being. I don’t believe that’s “settling” more than evolving. Hopefully they will be patient with me, and understand that there is nothing I can do about my attraction for females no more than they can do anything about their attraction towards females. Hell, there’s yet one more thing we have in common.

Thanks God for the life lesson, but maybe next time you can just send a good book my way or something? This one stung a little bit.

Meet the author: Neil Christopher is an author, human rights, animal rights and environmental activist, and founder of evolition — an interfaith collective focusing on promoting and empowering the emerging conversation in not only Christian churches, but in other faiths as well. Website: http://www.evolitionist.com

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
Share

I was invited to write on Connoting God

If we embrace our connotative understandings and offer them in conversation, then quite possibly different and hyper-alternative views of might emerge, but that isn’t a bad thing. It allows for a pluralistic larger who might be realistic because the being we call God is much bigger than all of our theological meanderings combined. So, maybe tolerance is a better road to take.A higher road. May we come together and learn that God is bigger than my , your , the of the and that reality invites us into an inclusive way of that allows for surprise discoveries around every bend! Read full here: http://www..com/?p=234

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
Share

a new article: what does the gospel mean?

a new on what Gospel means in ’ speaking of : i think mystery us a lot about rather than all of our about him combined. mystery rather than theology.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
Share

a new article over at distrubed christians

check it out, leave a comment..

http://www.disturbedchristians.com/2010/03/death-of-presumption.html

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
Share

video about why we might be afraid to learn new things about god

< width=”425″ height=”344″><param =”movie” value=”http://www..com/v/L7rxANV7S_4&hl=en&fs=1″></param><param =”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param =”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/L7rxANV7S_4&hl=en&fs=1″ type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true” width=”425″ height=”344″></embed></object>

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
Share
Improve the web with Nofollow Reciprocity.