A few odds and ends on yoga and meditation

OK, where to start...

I feel a bit sad that while quite a few people have been upset with my putting up the info, I don't think too many actually took the time to check out the links, or the idea that there might be a spiritual down side to yoga/meditation.  I have said I'll do a better job soon, and put up more info and links, but of course, that only really means something if you are willing to look past me and at the sources themselves.

I'm going to speculate here, because I don't have much to go on, but I am guessing one of the reasons that people seem to feel I've somehow done something unfair in being wary and critical of yoga/meditation is that for them, it is indeed a religious sort of thing.  Or if you prefer, spiritual.  I understand that if you perceive that someone is attacking your spiritual practices, you will be upset.

This sort of was part of my point, though.  I am questioning whether or not yoga/meditation can be purely considered on a physical level, something practiced for physical gain alone.  If I had questioned whether drinking 8 glasses of water a day were good for you or not, and put up links to things that question that, I don't think I would have gotten as much protest.  In fact, several people put up religious comparisons for me.  How would I feel if other people said my religious beliefs were dangerous, and etc.  In using this as a comparison, I think you are saying that yoga/meditation IS a spiritual/religious practice.   Because generally people are not quite as emotionally invested in defending jogging, for instance.  (unless you are really hard core.  Then, maybe.  ;)  )

Here is something I'd like to take this opportunity to say.  I have been in the place where someone questioned whether something "spiritual" I was involved in was good or not.  I understand that is not a comfortable place to be.  My own initial reaction was a bit of indignation.  I was upset that anyone would question something that had helped me.  I felt that the other person was judgemental.

And now I see that I was wrong...  ouch for me.  Point is, I understand those emotions.  I empathize.  It is not easy hearing something held important and well loved critiqued.  I get that. 

I will say, though, that if you do feel that way, then be honest with yourself (if you are not already so) that yoga/meditation is more than physical, that it is a highly valued spiritual practice.

And here is something else important that I need to say.  I am worried that in all the debate, I become "the enemy."  I am not any one's enemy, I assure you.  And this is why it is important to me that you understand that if you have been critical of me, or called me ignorant or whatever, I do not hold it against you in any way.  I truly believe that some people who do yoga/meditate may find themselves in a spiritual situation they did not want and can not get out of.

I would be deeply distressed if this happened, but because I had an adversarial attitude, or there were bad feelings, that person would be leery of contacting me.  I know some of you might scoff at this, at least right now, and that is OK.  I just want you to know that I understand what it is like to be convinced of something and find out later you are mistaken.  I will not hold anything you have said to me against you.  If at some point someone who reads this is in a spiritual situation that is distressing you, I promise you I will be here for you.  I know someone who can help you, and you have my absolute word of honor I will believe you, I will not say I told you so, and I will be here to talk too.

Now, last of all, a bit of housecleaning.  If Mr. E.P. is actually here reading this, I did not post your comment.  For two reasons.  Numero Uno is that while I said "have some fun" with making up an alias, I was sort of expecting a bit less of  Bart Simpson and a bit more of the sort of humour that everyone is OK with.  Personally, I can say the word "Penis" but it does seem somewhat juvenile to have to use sexual parts as a nickname, and some people find it offensive.  I just don't find it that funny, particularly as I wonder if it was used exactly because you felt the person you were commenting to would be offended by it.

Number two is this.  I have a double standard.  I will tolerate quite a bit of mocking of myself.  I will totally allow people say I appear ignorant, to call me narrow-minded, or to otherwise stray as close as possible into insult without actually crossing the big line. But I won't allow it to happen to anyone else who comments here, whether it be someone who is agreeing or disagreeing with me.  There are lots of nice ways to make a point.  Use them.  I want people to feel free to be open and honest, without worrying that their comments will be mocked.  Say your point without trying to make someone else feel stupid.  And if anyone feels I have done this to them, please let me know so I can apologize.



I think I did it justice there, right?  That was your point?  It is a point worth discussing and answering.  And I will do more discussing of it later on.  Now it is late, and I am tired.  And E.P.... no hard feelings.  :)  I appreciate your point, but I didn't feel it was presented very kindly.  I have high standards for how others are treated on this blog.  I'm sure if you come back here for more discussion, you will aim your mocking at me.  :)  

About my blog on Yoga & Meditation

Well, one thing for sure, my last post actually engendered some comments.  I must admit my surprise on this one.  I honestly didn't think m(any) people actually read this blog.  I am not not as surprised that not one single response in any way agreed with anything that I said.

In fact, one person has accused me of being disingenuous.  It's not really an accusation of outright deception, but they are basically saying I have not been sincere or candid...

Which I think is fair for them to say.  I'm not saying that I was doing anything but trying for sincerity and candor, but of course, how should they know that, if they feel my information is misleading?  They don't know me, and so it makes sense, in a way, to assume that instead of being guilty of shoddy blogmanship, I am guilty of non-candor.  So I have been thinking about that, weighing it up in my own mind, have I presented information in a way that is misleading?  Maybe what matters is that people do seem to have all sorts of questions and complaints about what I have written.  (or as in the case of my personal friends, gentle disagreement.)

What I have realized is that I was going about this in too rushed and haphazard a manner.  Here in one post I have started a topic which really could (and has) filled  books.  I think that it was unfair of me to do that.  I stand by my info, but I realize I better do some "splaining."  Right Lucy?  (Sorry, just dating myself.)

For instance: I was NOT trying to assert that each and every person who does yoga & meditation will absolutely have a problem like the ones I mentioned.  I apologize if anyone got that impression.  This is what happens if you rush a topic when you write about it.  (but I HAVE spent some time reading about it, and looking stuff up.  I think I need to also do some more.)  So I am aware that 50,000 people could write in here and say "Hey, I do yoga and that never happened to me."

And judging by the last comment I got, I obviously need to do some explaining about the total and complete difference between the two definitions of meditating.  My good ole dictionary says "meditate" means "engage in contemplation" and in particular, religious contemplation.  I was NOT referring to that sort of meditating in connection with yoga.  I was referring to the increasingly popular definition, which means entering an alpha brain wave state.  This is scientifically verifiable.  If you connect someone who is meditating in this sense to an EEG, you will see a recognizable alpha wave pattern. 

Well, I wouldn't, of course.  I mean someone who can read an EEG.  Though I did see a video of it once, and I really could see the brain wave pattern totally dying down...  You may have heard of this under the more common heading of "biofeedback" but again, NOT ALL biofeedback is measuring alpha waves.  Sometimes it is measuring heart rate,  blood pressure, etc.

Anyway, here is the place where I am most firmly convinced.  I think that what is likely the most dangerous practice, and what I personally am most concerned about, is people practicing this form of meditation.  I could, if I were smart enough and had that sort of time, write a book about the topic.  It is a HUGE topic.  So please, readers, do not put me in the stocks here, but bear with me just a little.  I concede a need to better explain myself, to give you more documentation, and be more methodical.  Give me some time, though, OK, and bear with the fact that it means I can't write the whole thing all at once.  I'll take it in steps this time.

I put yoga and meditation together in my first blog, because that is often the way I find em.  And the information I have found about "spiritual emergence" or "spiritual emergencies" also list yoga, and only yoga.  There is no explanation of what kind of yoga, whether the yoga included meditation or not, etc.   It is listed as an unintentional way of awakening kundalini or awakening awareness, as some prefer to call it.  Since it is listed as being unintentional, it would seem to me that saying "only kundalini yoga will awaken kundalini" would be... well, not accurate to the info, right?  (and yes, hatha yoga IS listed as a kundalini yoga, though I know it is also largely practiced as only being exercise, here in the "west".  This is one reason why it is just really hard to say any specific yoga is THE kind.)

So, there are some things I will further write about.  I might not get to this right away.  I mean, I might blog about some other stuff, while I research more.  For one thing, I AM going to get my hands on Del Pe's book and read it.  I am also going to think about getting my hands on Stanislav Grof's book.  I will blog about other stuff, then I will put up my next blog about yoga/meditation, then blog about other stuff, then put up yoga/meditation stuff.  Because while I would like to do a better job of this, and while I think that at least the discussion is good, (even if people think I am nutso, or even worse, disingenuous) I do have other things I think about and want to discuss.  This isn't primarily a yoga/meditation blog.  I don't want to make it that.  But I do want to treat the topic fairly.

And about poor Swami-J.  I think his point was that yoga is religious.   I don't think I read him wrong on that.  I think he actually seems to me to be a bit offended that people call yoga "just exercise."  In fact, I believe he wrote that (this is a paraphrase) calling yoga an exercise program is like calling Christian baptism taking a shower or having a bath.  His argument is that either you are exercising or you are doing yoga, don't attach the word yoga to what is merely an exercise program.  The word "yoga" is in itself a word with a religious derivation.  I'm sorry my quote of him was misleading to you... I think in just putting yoga & meditation together in my blog, I was skipping a coupla steps of thinking, which was careless.  I need to explain how I would connect yoga to a spiritual practice... in detail.  :) 

I confess that while I disagree with him on every spiritual belief he has, I empathize with him.  If a group of atheist showed up at my church one day touting the health benefits of the Lord's Table, even though they didn't believe in God, or the resurrection, well, let's just say I'd have a hard time moving over for them and saying, "OK, join in!"  Whether or not he is the only yogi to feel this way remains to be seen.  That I respect his opinion about it, that I can say now.

But yes, that is HIS opinion (and mine).  I acknowledge that some Christians would be so excited to see atheists in church, they'd see nothing wrong with it and say "Hey, join in!"  And I will absolutely concede that some yogi's would welcome any and all beliefs to join in yoga, and suggest they'd have much the same motivation as those hypothetical Christians, which would be that half the battle was done in getting more people on board with the faith.  (and yes, that is my opinion, you are free to disagree)

I do think you would have a pretty hard time finding a majority of yogi's who would say that the main purpose of yoga is exercise.  But more on that later.  Feel free, though, if you can actually find some, to let me know who they are.  I sincerely would like to know, and so that I am being totally candid, go back and check your info.  ;)

Here is what I see I need to break down and discuss as individual topics: is yoga a system of exercise, a spiritual practice, or both?  What do the guru's really say about yoga?  What is alpha brain wave meditation?  Is it connected to yoga?  What is a spiritual emergence/emergency?  What about Christian yoga?  Can you keep your own religious perspective and still practice yoga?  Is there a trend in yoga growth, and what is it?

Now I hope I am not still going to fast.  It is hard with a topic this vast, and one where I know everything I write will be highly controversial.  Highly controversial.  If you have never been the dissenting voice in a large group of enthusiastic proponents, I recommend it heartily. (ha ha ha ha...ah)   So again, I ask your patience.  Write me comments.  Be (nicely) critical.  I do have one request, though.  My name is Karen.  You may call me by name.  And if you must comment anonymously (as I acknowledge some of you can't comment otherwise due to not having an account) could I ask that you sign it with a first name, either real or fake?  I don't care which, but it's not much fun responding to "Dear anonymous...." ya know?  Alias's are totally fine.  Have some fun with it.  But don't make me call you "anonymous," mmmkay?

Yoga & Meditation

If you are a friend of mine named Heather, you might be very annoyed by this post.  Why?  Because this post is titled "Yoga & Meditation" and I'm going to start off with talking about an admission about myself.  Instead of getting straight the point.  Heather, if you actually happen to be reading this, I'm sorry.  :)

Thing is, I struggle with discouragement.  Discouragement, as a concept, isn't usually seen as being the opposite of courage, but I think the two are closely related.  Here is what discourages me:  feeling/thinking/believing that what I do might cost me something and still be futile.  It is the fear of the futility of it that de-motivates me, that makes me sit on my heels and say "Why bother?  What difference will it make anyway?"

And what is it about courage?  Is it a lack of fear?  No.  Courage is when you look at the possible cost of a course of action, and you say "This action is the right one, it is worth it no matter what the cost, so I will do it."  The greater the possible cost, the greater the courage.  And it is a lot easier to be courageous, the more the chance of your action doing some good.  What is more challenging is when you know that the action, in and of itself, is good and worthy, even if it costs you a lot and changes nothing.

It is for me, anyway.  So when I sit to write this blog, and many others, I find myself dis-couraged.  I find myself struggling with believing what I write will make any difference, and feeling like it might cost something I value.  Something I at times value too much.  Which is the respect and good opinion of other people.

And so, I have taken more time then I should have to write this post.  It wasn't only that, I also have had a lot of stuff "going down" in my life, but this lack of courage, this discouragement, was surely part of it.

For Heather's sake, and maybe yours too, I'll just get down to the business of it.  I'm taking a risk here, because I know this is worth doing, and I am going to hope that you might at least consider what I am going to say, though I know it will be pretty unpopular for some of you.

I am worried about the exponential growth of the yoga/meditation movement.  I'm putting the two together, even though I know there are lots of people out there who would protest that the yoga they do is without any spiritual stuff in there.  Increasingly, meditation IS a part of yoga, which is not too surprising considering that yoga was originally (and for many people, like yogi's, never stopped being) a spiritual practice.

Yes, part of my concern is because of my own faith background.  For sure.  I realize that this background will tempt some people to write off what I say as coming out of that background and being therefore invalid.  Please don't do that, yet.  I am prepared to offer you some thought provoking (I hope) material from yoga and meditation proponents.  Sources that encourage meditation and yoga and believe it is beneficial.  But they are being honest, and warning people of the possible dangers.  For this honesty, I am grateful.  Not everyone is honest...

I did some research on the topic, because I am worried about it.  People I know and love, some of them dearly, are practicing this stuff.  You may think I'm just a religious nutso, but I hope you will understand I'm writing this out of genuine concern.  And there is only so much time I have for research, so consider this an invitation to do your OWN research.  I couldn't do it as much, or as exhaustively as I would like. 

But then I thought, "Why should I do your work for you?"  I just want to make you think and truly look into it.  If you really are open and fair and practicing this stuff, then you should be the one to "do your homework on it," so to speak.

So, if you'd like to know where I started finding information, go to the search engine on your computer and type in "spiritual emergency."  That is a good starting place, there are other names you can find this stuff under, like "psycho spiritual crises" but you can figure that out yourself.  If you have access to it at your local library (mine didn't carry it, because I wanted to read it for myself, I checked), there is book written by Del Pe called "The Hidden Dangers of Yoga and Meditation: How to Play with Your Sacred Fires Safely."  I haven't managed to obtain a copy of the book, but I have read some of the reviews of it on Amazon.  I will state (as if I need to, right?) that since Del Pe is a PROPONENT of yoga and mediation, I DISAGREE with him on that part of it which is positive.  I hope that since he IS a proponent, and he (apparently) has some pretty strong warnings about the practices, it will at least motivate you to research for yourself and think about it.

I hope that I have at least piqued your interest.  What is a hidden danger of yoga and meditation?  Well, here is a quote from a yogi, and I hope I have the right site attributed to it.  "All Yoga is Kundalini yoga,"  and then  "...all of yoga actually leads to the activation of Kunadini..."  If I didn't mix it up, then you can find this guy at www.swamij.com  and again, let me say that I in NO WAY endorse this man's teachings or beliefs.  I'm just tell ya what a yogi says about yoga. 

And it is this awakening of Kundalini power which makes yoga (and meditation) dangerous.  I'm not saying this.  (well, I am, but I'd use different language and explanations)  This is coming from proponents of yoga and meditation.  Here are some of the symptoms of Kunalini awakening: nausea, diarrhea or constipation, rigidity or limpness, animal-like movements and sounds, sensations of heat, tremors, involuntary laughing or crying, talking in tongues."  You can find this list at http://www.spiritualcompetency.com/blackboard/lesson/types/kundalinitype.htm

I know some of you are saying "Hey, look, I do yoga/mediation only for the physical benefits, there is nothing spiritual for me with this stuff."   You would be exactly the person I'm talking to.  No point in my writing this to people who are actually LOOKING for a spiritual experience, because they are likely to be quite open to arousing their Kundalini, no?  Here is what I have found in my research, and I'm guessing that is why Del Pe says "HIDDEN DANGERS," the same site says this: Kundalini arousal most commonly occurs as an unintentional side-effect of yoga, meditation, chi kung or other intensive spiritual, particularly meditative, practices.  (emphasis mine)

Yes, I am warning you, so I'm going to be as scary as possible, because I'm afraid you won't listen.... will you listen?  and investigate this?  Please?  Here are some more possible symptoms: hallucinations, seizures, pain, panic attacks, mania, severe depression.  http://www.realization.org/page/doc0/doc0026.htm
If you research more you may also find things like out of body experiences, psycotic breaks, feeling of unreality, not knowing where one's physical body begins and ends...etc.

There is a blog, detailing the personal story of a person who underwent one such "spiritual emergency."  Here it is: http://spiritualemergency.blogspot.com  Every time I put up one of this links, I wonder, should I even do this?  Because so far all of this sources are PRO yoga and meditation, and I'm worried that they will provide a false sense of safety, because many of them claim that you can get help to work through your spiritual emergency and you will gain a great reward reaching a higher spiritual level, a greater spiritual sensitivity.  I personally mistrust this... how can they guarantee any such outcome? 

But if you really are OK with experiencing an unsought arousal of Kundalini, even if it means you might "pay" for it with a psychotic break, in the interests of greater spiritual sensitivity, then really, what can I say to dissuade you...?  What I must do, for the sake of honesty and out of caring, is to let you know that this stuff comes with a risk.  This stuff was designed as a spiritual practice, and we of "western" mind-set are guilty of a great hubris in borrowing spiritual practices and secularizing them.  They are not.  If yoga were truly ONLY a way to stretch and get a stronger body, it would be called stretches, weight training, and a work out routine.  It is called yoga, because it is a practice to "yoke" with the divine.

See, here is where I think, "Have I said to much?"  I know, I sound really extreme... or do I?  Research for yourself.  I just wish so much that if your only goal is physical fitness, you would reconsider going with a program without potential spiritual ramifications.  Really, why not kick-boxing?  Pilate's?

And I do meditate, for the record.  But I don't put my mind in an alpha-wave state (which is the goal of eastern meditation).  I meditate by thinking about God, and talking to Him.  By spending time with Him, I grow in my trust of Him.  I find that "You will keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is set on You, because he trusts in You." (Isaiah 26:3) That is how I find peace in my day, this is how I lower my stress...  But of course, this is a spiritual practice too.  One that I do heartily endorse.  :)

I welcome respectful comments about this.  I welcome being able to talk about this with you further, even if you really disagree.

Heaven is for Real - Part Three

Writing this last blog in the series has been on my "to do" list, but I admit that I haven't felt much motivation to do it.  And then I realized that considering some of the stuff I was planning to put up here, it likely would not get any easier.  So I should get crackalacking.

The first part of this post, I'm just going to point out how it seems to me that Colton's vision of heaven is not consistent with the Bible.  I'm not saying it contradicts the Bible.  I'm saying it's not consistent with Scripture.  There is a difference, and I recognize that some people feel that contradiction is the standard for rejecting personal revelation.  I would say that something that seems inconsistent with Scripture would be something I'd have a lot of trouble recognizing as a revelation of any kind.  I  respect that Todd Burpo has tried to prove that Colton's dream was consistent with Scripture.  If you have read the book, then you have read his point of view.  And now I tell you the problems I have with it.  And you can be the judge.

And then me state again that I find it a fearful thing to have to say that a very nice family with a very nice story contains elements that are "off."  I realize that if I say that Colton's vision does not line up with the Bible, that people are going to be wondering what that vision was.  And that turning to other explanations for it... well, some those explanations might not be nice ones.  I didn't enjoy that aspect of my critique.  I'll set that part of it aside for later, and just show you what I see.  You are fully free to disagree.

First and foremost, Colton's vision of heaven just seems to smack of a three or four year old idea of heaven.  It is actually, once you get down to the brass tacks of it... pretty mundane...  That is a generalization.  Here is a list of the things I find troubling, unsupported by Scripture, and make me vaguely uneasy taking this as an actual vision of heaven:

1. Jesus has a rainbow-coloured horse.
2. Jesus gives Colton "homework" and helps him with it.
3. The Holy Spirit is up there in a visible manifestation and is simply... "blue."
4. There is a throne to the left and the right of God's throne and Gabriel the angel sits on the left side...
5. Human beings in heaven have wings...
6. A baby that died in utero and went to heaven appears to have been "growing up" in heaven ever since...??
7.  That same little girl still does not have a name... because she is waiting for her parents to get to heaven to name her.
8. There is no mention or description of any of the heavenly beings that others have seen in heaven.  (cross-references included later)
9. Colton appears to have also seen Satan, though the angels must keep him out of heaven with swords...?

Let me go through some of these with a bit of explanation, and keep in mind that I am not saying that these things directly contradict Scripture, but that to me, they just don't match up with other visions of heaven.  I'm not going to comment on every one, because that would be too long.  And besides, you are smart.  You do the homework, and see if you agree with me, or think I'm "off" myself.

#1.  Jesus may have a rainbow horse.  The Bible never says he doesn't have one.  But when Christ is described on a horse, it is a white horse.  Maybe the rainbow horse is just for fun, I don't know, but it seems less heavenly, and more 3 yr old-ish.


#3.  A visible manifestation of the Holy Spirit, which was simply "blue."  Again, I can't say this is contradicted in the Bible.  The Bible never mentions the Holy Spirit being like anything but : a tongue of fire (or some form of fire), a rushing wind, a white dove.  Did I miss anything?  Anyway, this description just feels a bit "off" to me, you might say.

#5. The wings.  I'm going to spend a bit of time on this one.  It needs some explanation.  I think it is one of the "biggies" here, odd as that may seem.  At first glance, you might say "Couldn't we have wings in heaven?"  O.K...  So here are a coupla problems I see with that.  The disciples never mention seeing any wings on Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration... ?  Human beings are never mentioned with wings in heaven.  You might say we will be like the angels in heaven, but then I'd have to point out that THAT verse says we are not like them in MARITAL STATUS. 

Further more, when Jesus talks about that, He is actually speaking of the resurrection.  Which is sort of another problem.  What does it mean to say that people have wings in heaven, or for that matter that they look like themselves, but a younger version?  Because  in heaven, we have not yet received our resurrection body, right?  According to 1 Thessalonians 4:13ff, the resurrection where we get a physical body (which is like Jesus' body, not like the angels) is not until all Christians are caught up to be with Jesus.  And I'm still here. 

I'm not saying that when Moses and Elijah appear on the Mount, they don't have an appearance of a body.  I'm saying "What do I do with those wings?  Are they permanent?  Do they have some sort of 'spiritual' meaning?  Are they of a practical nature?"  No, I realize that heaven is mysterious, and there are lots of spiritual mysteries I don't yet understand.  I'm just saying that the "wings" part of Colton's vision seems mysterious, but not in the same way.  It doesn't seem like the Burpos believe Colton's vision is "symbolic," yet there are these wings.  I don't know what to do with them, do you?

At no point in Revelation are the saints every mentioned as having wings.  John describes some pretty strange sights, but he leaves any mention of wings on humans totally out of the picture.

Not even all "angels" (which really is the word for "messenger") have wings.  In fact, most are not mentioned with wings.  There are heavenly beings with wings, and we call them angels.  There are the cherubim on the Ark, which have wings and may have had bodies like lions.  Then if you really want to see a biblical vision of heaven, you can read Ezekiel chapter one.  It will kinda blow your mind, by which I mean that you may see why I say Colton's vision was "mundane."  There are more about these heavenly creatures in Ezekiel chapter 10, where they are also called cherubim.  And you can find more very interesting beings, these ones with SIX wings, in Isaiah chapter 6.  You can cross reference those visions with Revelation chapter 4:6ff.

Other than the rainbow colours and the throne of God... I'm not sure that anything from Colton's vision really matches up with these biblical visions...  does it?  Here is an example of Ezekiel's description of the throne of God (in case you are too lazy to check it out yourself  ;)  )

"...there was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness with a human appearance.  And upward from what had the appearance of his waist I saw as it were gleaming metal, like the appearance of fire enclosed all around... Like the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness all around.  Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord."

Am I missing something big here?   I'm not talking about detail.  Yes, both have a throne, and yes both talk about rainbows.  I'm talking about the "atmosphere" if you will.  Ezekiel doesn't even say "there was a throne."  He says "there was a likeness of a throne."  It is so hard for him to explain it using earthly words that he says ""the appearance of the likeness" of God's glory.  Do you get the sense that Ezekiel is struggling to convey what he saw without giving you the wrong idea, because there are no accurate words for the reality of it?  The sense that heaven might be pretty different from earth?  The sense of the holy, the sacred, the mysterious?  Awe, and wonder.? That sort of thing...

Then, once again, I'm going to mention the argument from silence in the Bible.  Yes, an argument from silence is only an argument from silence.  Still... you be the judge.  Lazarus was dead for 4 days, Jairus' daughter was dead for some amount of time, and Dorcas as well, just as some examples of people who might have been "in heaven."  At no point does Scripture related any of their experiences...  and that's not to mention Paul's vision of heaven which he was not allowed to write about. 

I realize that the Burpos don't actually claim Colton came back from the dead, but rather that he had a vision of heaven.  My point is, what he relates does not correspond with biblical visions.  And neither does it correspond with "back from the dead" stories from the Bible, because none of those people seem to have written any memoirs about it.  I think that is a bit telling.

Then there is a very interesting story that Jesus tells about the Rich Man and Lazarus.  (not the same Lazarus as the one who is resurrected.  We actually don't know if this story is a parable, or an actual event, but either way, it speaks here)  In this story the rich man wishes that Lazarus would be allowed to go back and warn his five brothers about hell, and that they might end up there.  What did Jesus say to them?  "If they do not hear Moses and the other prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead."  (Luke 16:31)

I find that interesting.  It's in the Bible, so you might say I'm predisposed to believe it is true. 

Let me get personal here.  When I was told about the book, I did think about reading it.  You might say that when I came across the book in the local book store, I was tempted to buy it...  You might say that I was susceptible to that sort of temptation, because I had just recently released my own sweet baby into a place I had never seen based on a trust I had in God and who He is, with no "concrete" evidence, other than what I could find in the Bible.  You might say it, because it is the truth.

But I thought about what I was saying in buying the book.  What was I saying to God...??  "God, I believe the Bible is Your Word, and I trust You.  But I still just would like something to make me feel a bit more sure..."  I'm not saying that is what YOU were saying in your heart when you bought/read the book.  I'm saying, that was MY temptation.

And I realized something.  Faith IS an action.  And actions ARE faith.  I said in my heart "Am I going to need this book?  DO I NEED THIS BOOK?"  And I realized that no, I was going to leave the book on the shelf.  And in that moment, I had more faith than I had ever had, that God had Joel in a very good place, waiting for me.  I'm not saying that cured every moment of doubt.  No.  But faith is what we do.  If you want to have faith, you must act on what you trust in.  And that moment of walking away from the book was a big moment of affirmation of belief for me.  I realized because I could walk away, that I did believe.   And I could continue to believe, because I did walk away. 

And I'm writing this to encourage you not to throw away a precious, precious promise.  When Thomas had to see Jesus' wounds on His resurrected body in order to believe, Jesus said "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."  That is a promise I'm holding onto.  I don't want to throw those precious words away.  And I don't want you to either.  We have never seen Christ resurrected and standing before us as proof.  But we believe.  Heaven IS for real.  We don't really need Colton's word to believe it, do we?  I choose the blessing.  I choose the blessing.

Finally, for those who just really want to know what explanation I have for Colton's vision, I'm going to say that after reading the book, I felt that most of the things could have a natural explanation.  And that is the explanation I'd like to believe, because the other choices would not be as nice.  I believe the Burpo's are sincere.  I think they might have had a predisposition to believe in visions like this.  I think that it is possible that the sickness Colton had, coupled with surgery medications, etc. might have given him some pretty vivid dreams.  I know this can happen from my own experience with my father when he was very ill for many days and had surgery.  He never shared a vision of heaven, no.  But he had some confused ideas, and, for example, he really thought he had been taken from hospital to hospital all through his home province, even days after the meds wore off and his fever was gone.

I just don't have time to go into all the details, but for example, the Burpos maintain that Colton couldnt' have known about the baby they lost.  They are honest enough, though to admit they told their oldest child.  And I kinda think, from what I know about children, that could explain how Colton knew.  Most of the details about heaven are ones that Colton really could have picked up, as a child in a pastor's home, from adult conversations around him, from church sermons, etc.  I know my my own son that he has picked up stuff that baffles and bewilders me.  I ask him many times "Where did you hear that?"  And I usually never find out.

I think the Burpos are well intentioned, I think they truly believe that their son had a vision of heaven, and I think that they didn't see any harm in sharing their story.  I believe they hoped it would be encouraging.  But I think they really were open to hearing about an experience like that and when Colton shared a child's dream about heaven brought on by fever, illness, and surgery, they sort of took it and ran with it.  If anyone would like to ask me any questions about my explanation, please feel free to comment on this blog.  I admit that I might have made a mistake or missed something.  Which is why I wrote #2 blog first.  My main concern with their story is the impact it has on personal versus general revelation and the Bible.  My thoughts on why I don't believe the vision is from God are secondary to that concern and I don't feel as passionate about convincing you on that.  I just want us all to be very careful about what we believe is God's word.

If you are still reading, then thanks for slogging through this.  I hope, in the least, that I have provided food for thought.  And that maybe, just maybe, I have encouraged you to go to God's word and hang on to the promises there.

Heaven is for Real - part 2

If you haven't yet read part one, please read that one first.  That is why it says "Part 1."  ;)  Unless you are a friend who hates having things "prefaced."  Not mentioning names, but I might have a friend like that, and she prefers things blunt and straight to the point...  :)  But the rest of you, please, read the first part.

So, here is the unpleasant task... being "critical" of a book that has "over two million copies in print" and has been the NY Times bestseller...

Bluntly, and to the point, I remain unconvinced that Colton Burpo has had a vision of heaven.  More on that later.

First of all, let me say why I believe that this book should not have been written, even IF Colton DID have a vision of heaven.

And that is not going to make people like me.  I realize.  Not only do I disbelieve the vision, but I think a lovable, sincere family did the wrong thing in writing a book and "sharing" it with everyone...

Which brings me to an important disclaimer.  If you do NOT share in a profession of belief in the Bible, then my words mostly have no weight for you.  This book will be like any other book about life after death experiences or visions of heaven.  (and there are many.  Many, many.)  Most of those stories/books present "evidence" similar to what is found in HifR about people knowing things they could only know if what happened was real.  I'm pretty suspicious of that sort of evidence.

I'm critiquing this book in particular, because it is written inside of the Bible-based world view.  And the biggest part of my criticism comes out of that.  This particular blog is NOT meant to cover "near death experiences" is what I am saying.  I'm just dealing with what I think about Christians writing about "personal revelations," dreams, visions, etc.  (to simplify, I'm just going to say "Christian" even though I acknowledge that not everyone who says they are a Christian believes in the Bible as some sort of authority on spiritual things.  That sounds crazy, yet it is true...  Strange world we live in, I say.)

Let's suppose that Colton "really" had a vision of heaven.  (Because as his father admits, at no time did Colton stop breathing or have his heart stop, therefore his father himself calls this a "vision.")  I don't believe that he did... but let's be (on my side) hypothetical. 

What do we do with this??  Is this a general revelation that is on par in authority with the Bible?  Well, no, I'm sure most Bible believers would emphatically deny that.  In fact, Todd Burpo is very careful to explain that he examined Colton's revelations against scripture and they were not contradictory to it.  So the vision has been "subject" to the authority of the Bible.

Indeed...  but if Colton's revelations are NOT authoritative... yet come from God ... what are they?  I mean, to US, the body of those who believe the Bible.  Now, because Colton says that in heaven we have wings, and that is not contradicted in the Bible, do I believe that my son, Joel, is in heaven with wings??  Either this vision is from the Lord or it is not.  If it is from God, then it is true!  Then Colton IS revealing GENERAL REVELATION.  How can it be any other way?

Notice the story of the lady who came to ask Todd Burpo if her child was also in heaven?  Why?  She could not go to the Bible.  The Bible could not tell her.  So she went to another authority, Todd Burpo...  I admit he said it made him uncomfortable and he did his best to deal with the question.  But what was the outcome here?  A lady went to Todd Burpo for an authoritative answer, because the Bible was not enough...

If God had revealed to the Burpo family a private and personal vision to comfort them or ?? (fill in some reason) then it should have remained private.  To share it to the world at large is to invite other Christians to believe what the vision revealed as a revelation additional to the Bible.  But Christians are NOT to add to the revelation of scripture.

This is not someone saying "God showed me that He wants me to be a missionary in Africa."  This is someone sharing information about heaven.  It's more like someone saying "God has told me that every Christian in America needs to move to Africa."  That wouldn't really be a "personal" revelation... it's for everybody.  And if you tell other people that your son had a vision from God that revealed things about heaven, well...??  Even the apostle Paul, who had some sort of vision or trip to heaven, was not allowed to share it with us.  (2 Corinthians 12:1-ff)  That was before the canon of Scripture was closed...  So... er... did God change His mind now, after 2,000 years, about what we should know about heaven?

Still not sure about the way this errodes the special authority of Biblical revelation?  Here is a quote from the 'blurbs' at the front: "Colton's story could have been in the New Testament - but God has chosen to speak to us in this twenty-first century..."  Are you sure you agree with this idea?  (I realize the Burpo's didn't make this claim, but isn't it sort of a logical conclusion?)  Colton's story could have been in the New Testament??  But God left it out and let a whole wack of people live without it until now?  So even though it is 2,000 years later, we can hold Colton's story on par with the Bible?

Do you see the problem I'm talking about here?  It might seem a small thing, the detail about having wings in heaven, for example.  We so often get misled this way, because things seems small.  But the principle is the same.  If I accept that there are winged saints in heaven, do I not then open myself up to all sorts of things?  By the same token of it being outside of Scripture, I reject doctrines like the immaculate birth of Mary, her bodily resurrection, and that "priests" must not marry.

When I give this criticism, I recognize that there are people who DO believe in continuing general revelation.  And I can't likely change their minds about that.  What I am saying is, be aware of what is going on in your mind.  Be aware of what you are believing.  Examine it carefully.  Are you committed to the Bible as THE ultimate authority for spiritual life?  Be aware that in accepting visions like Colton's, ultimately you are saying that there IS an ongoing general revelation outside of the Bible.  That is where this will lead you.

You might be OK with that.  I am not.  And that is why, even if the vision were true, I say that the Burpos should not have published their book.  They are tempting people to view Colton's vision as a "new revelation."  And opening the door to more and more "new revelations."  Don't believe me?  What about the next book that has come along?  Have Heart: Bridging the Gulf Between Heaven and Earth?  This book, also written by sincere Christians, claims that a dead son has come back to visit his parents and tells them that those who die in Christ come back on "missions" to earth...  So if you accept Colton's vision, on what basis will you reject this couples testimony?

This is the sort of thing that concerns me... this is the sort of thing that makes my heart cry out.  Because I too have lost a son, and I know how painful that is.  I can understand the temptation that visions and revelations like this have.  But can't you also see the danger here?  Can you see how people like me, and like you, if you have a child that has died or is dying, can you see how we are vulnerable to deception and that if we leave the Bible, we will be on shaky ground...

I have a lot more to say about this, but I don't want the blog to get too long, plus there are currently three children in this house and who knows what they are getting up to while I type this.

So, to recap, Part 2 of this was me asking a question, under the hypothesis that Colton's vision really was "from God."  The question of what do Bible believing Christians do with a revelation that is outside of scripture...

In part 3, I'm going to write about why I think that Colton's vision was not contradictory to the Bible, but IS inconsistent with Scripture.  I find myself unsatisfied and unconvinced with the nature of the revelation itself, when compared to Scripture.  And I also might touch on how I don't find Colton's revealing knowledge that he "couldn't" know a convincing sign...

It is dicey waters here.  I read the book.  I cried.  I understand the emotions involved in the story.  I personally understand what the Burpos went through.  And I have much empathy.  I have put that aside, because sometimes emotions cloud my thinking.  I know it.  I have been a victim of emotion clouded thinking before.  And even though I am being critical here, it doesn't mean I don't find the Burpo family likable.  I disagree with their interpretation of events, and with their decision to write a book about it.

Heaven is for Real - Part One

Back in the summer, I became aware of a bit of a "fervour" going around about a book, titled Heaven is for Real.  People asked me if I read it, and some told me it was really good.

At that time, I choose NOT to read it.  Let me tell you something about me.  I am immediately a bit turned off and suspicious of anything that seems a bit "bandwagon-y" going around in the world.  Particularly when it is especially going around the "Christian community."  I'm not saying this is necessarily a good or bad thing.  I also, for the record, do not have a cell phone and I am a relatively young woman (I like to tell myself).  So, feel free to consider me "a character."

Maybe I would make a good "postmodern" after all, but I find that I mostly am questioning the wrong things.  (like cell phones.  Have you ever seen the look on a 12 year old face when you question why they NEED a cell phone?  Never mind that, picture the same thing, but to the parent...If you are parent of a 12 year old cell phone owner, I have now totally lost you.)  Even though Tony Jones says in his book that post modernists "question everything" and even though Rob Bell recommends this in his, I don't find that to be true.  That we postmodernists "question everything."  Ha!  I'm questioning the statement that we question everything!  How clever am I?  (Sorry, momentary lapse of seriousness, briefly, to lighten up what will become a pretty serious blog in a little while.)

Anyway, it seems to me that "question everything" really doesn't apply to everything.  It seems to me that there are some "sacred cows" out there that people don't question.  But that is another blog.  Might as well not go poking around at every single sleeping dog all at once.  Which is to say that I'm not really looking forward to the hornets nest I am stirring up, should anyone actually read this blog.

If you are still able to remember the start of this blog, it is about a book that I did not read this summer, for various reasons, one of which I already mentioned, that I was turned off by it's seeming universal and instant appeal...

That was one reason.

So, I finally did read the book.  Why?  Because I already knew from other people what it was about, and I already was thinking pretty critically around that knowledge.  Then I read some reviews of it that were also critical.  And from the start I had been a bit worried about the book and how so many people were reading it with ... glowing eyes?  (I know, I sound like a killjoy, eh?)  You could saw that this blog has been writing itself since the summer.

This is just the final, official product.  And when I read "final" then I think, oh, watch out for the hubris of that statement.  I think it is final.

You may have already got the impression that what I am going to say about the book, having finally read it, is that I'm not going to recommend reading it.  You might think this just means that I came to the book with expectations and then made sure that they were met.

There is that.  Instead of responding to that idea, I'm going to tell a personal story.  (Since researching the emerging/postmodern church, I see it everywhere in myself!  How postmodern of me to respond to a possible critique with a personal story.)

There was a time when I loved Rob Bell videos.  I am referring to what is known as the "Nooma" series.  They made me feel very encouraged.  They are warm, seem heart-felt, seem to touch that basic level of experience and speak to it.  I didn't watch the videos, I experienced them.  They made me cry.  They seemed at times profound.  And they made me feel good.

My father tried to warn me that there might be stuff in them that didn't really measure up to the Bible.  (If Rob Bell read that sentence, he'd be like 'Oh, here we go again, someone who thinks they can read the Bible without a bias and therefore give the "correct" interpretation.  I guess at this reaction, having finally read Velvet Elvis.  I bet if you read the book you know I am right)

The thing is, it hurt to hear him say stuff.  I felt, in my heart, crestfallen.  I felt defensive of Rob Bell and of myself.  "These videos HELPED me," I said to my Dad.  "There might be small things that are not perfect, because no one has a perfect view all the time, but how can you criticise something that has HELPED me?"

My Dad's criticism of Rob Bell stung me.  Why?  Because I had bought into him.  Not just the videos, those too, but him as a person.  A trustworthy and good guy.  And because if the videos were not really being based "on the truth," then what happened to the encouraged feeling I got from them...?  I was very emotionally invested in "Nooma" videos.

Later on, I realized my Dad was right... but that is another blog.

The reason I'm writing this to you, isn't because it is really connected to the book Heaven is for Real.  It is to say that if I write this little critique and it hurts you, I am sorry.  I really am. 

Because I know how unpleasant and painful it is.  Really.  In the years of my son's death and illness, I have been so fragile.  Small things hurt big.  And I am troubled to write to you, knowing that some people who have read HifR have also lost a loved one.  And they/you might have been encouraged by the book, and they/you might be emotionally invested in that book as true and good.  And this might be sort of painful when you are already feeling fragile and longing for encouragement.

This I recognize.  Again, I am sorry.  If you go away from this blog thinking that I am "judgemental" and "cynical" and a nasty killjoy, I understand that.  I felt that way about my father too.  I don't anymore, of course.  But I did.  And if you feel that way about me, I will understand that. 

I'm still going to write the truth here, though, about what I think about the book.  Because I have a couple of concerns about the book.  And I can't ignore them.  After I write my critique, you get to think over what I say and evaluate it.  If you feel I have been unfair and ignorant, I understand, like I said.  But please, please, recognize that part of the reason I wrote it is because this blog is about truth and love.  Together.  And I hope that at the end of the critique, you find that there IS encouragement after all...

Thinking about Thinking

As I have said, I have been doing a lot of thinking lately.  I like to think, sometimes.  But, of course, that doesn't mean I'm good at it.  Some people like to sing, and anyone who has attended a karaoke session knows that doesn't mean they have to be good at it.  So in a sense, it feels like I have some sort of gall (or misapprehension about my talents) to write a blog based on what I think.

It is a lot easier to write a blog about what I feel.  Which is what my other blog was largely about.  No one can argue with you about what you feel.  People will just willingly (for the most part) read it and try to come along with you and understand your feelings.  That is really quite a generous thing about them.  It also is reflective of a cultural understanding/assumption about the nature of feelings.  In any case, writing my other blog, about my feelings and experiences, was MUCH easier than this.

Because now I am dealing with thinking.   And that is sorta subjected to a higher level of criticism.  At least, I hope it is.  I hope it is, even though that idea gives me pause.

The one thing about self-delusion is that your self is deluded.  By which I mean that those most ill-suited to sing are often the last to see it.  You can't have ever watched "American Idol" and not know this.  It is the WORST singers that get furious and yell at the judges.  And in a sense, I feel like I am getting up on stage in front of a group of judges and opening up my mouth to pour out not music but thoughts.  And the judges might have to tell me that "Hey, I think you shouldn't quit your day job." (don't worry, I won't yell at you) 

Which is as it should be, and also frightening.  I think I mentioned in a previous blog that I am really quite a chicken.

And also, while thinking, I try and examine my thoughts.  At times, I find them not good.  I mean, I have found my own reasoning to be flawed.  Erroneous.  Poorly constructed.  Which is a bit disheartening, when your realize this.

I would be totally worried about myself, and the directions I might take in life, if I didn't believe in the Bible as THE word of God.  Oh, OK, let me say that I am still sometimes worried.  I mean, even my thoughts about the Bible are often flawed.  But because I believe the Bible is God's word, and I believe that God has promised in the Bible that He will keep me safe in His word as I read it and trust Him to do this, well, I have a sense of security.  My thoughts are flawed, but God and His word are not.

Some of you are of course reading this and thinking (to yourself if you are trying to be polite, otherwise you might write it in comments and then it wouldn't be just thinking anymore.  Not that disagreeing is not polite, only I think you might think the word "Hooey" but say it a bit "nicer.") "What a lot of HOOEY.  Seriously, she's so right about not being a good thinker."  And at this point all I can say is "Hey, please, give me a chance, after all, you don't know WHY I believe that.  You only know why you DON'T believe it."

Oh, I just read that last paragraph and it made me laugh because it is assuming that anyone who disagrees with me is reading this, but are they?  I have no idea... so let's just pretend.

Anyway, back to thinking, and whether or not the thinking is logically justifiable or reasonable or well-knit or whatever you want to call it.  Thinking is not really in vogue, I don't think.  Feeling and experience really are more... desirable? for our present time.  Still, you can't escape from thinking, (well, maybe you can, but that is a different topic) and most of us  would say there is still some benefit and necessity for thinking.

There is a lot of mistrust of authority.  And it is not entirely unjustified.  We often don't entirely trust "authority" figures, most particularly those who are not in "scientific" fields.  We suspect their motives and thus question some of the things they say.  Which is to say, we think about their thoughts carefully.  Critically.  Sometimes even with great suspicion.  Depending, of course, who it is and what they are trying to tell us.

Here is a problem I think we have, though.  You can think about my thoughts and see if you think they are good.  Or not.

But I think that we have erroneously equated wrong thinking to those in authority because they have ulterior motives.  And we sort of believe that "authority" or the desire for it, is the problem.  You know, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."  I can't and wouldn't even attempt to deny some truth to that.

So we question people who try and claim some sort of authority.  Most particularly those people whom we find ourselves disinclined to agree with.  Like me, for example.  Trying to say there is some sort of objective and absolute truth to the Bible.  You might question that.  And why shouldn't you?  I mean, if you disagree, isn't the onus on me, in a sense.  Why should you just swallow what I say without any reason or evidence?

Thing is, so often we forget that WE are also an authority.  Every one of us.  We are an authority to ourselves, we are autonomous beings.  And we also have ulterior motives.  And most of the time, our irrational, erroneous, mistaken thoughts come out of our ulterior motives. 

Classic example:  The person we know who is having an affair with a married man.  And they continue this relationship for years.  All signs and evidence points to the fact that the man is not going to leave his wife and kids.  Still, though we want to shout at our friend, "Can't you see the truth!" they continue on in this affair in the hope that one day, the man will leave his wife and marry them.


And then, one day, they "come to their senses" so to speak.  They break it off with the man.  "How could I have lied to myself like that?" they ask.  "Why didn't I see the truth?"  Well, we all know, don't we?  They really wanted to believe, so they did.

Because our thinking can be subjected to our ulterior motives, or even just to our "experience."  (this is just one hypothetical example, but I'm sure you can think of many more real life ones)  And if our hypothetical friend really enjoys being with this man, if the experience of being with him makes her feel  good feelings of being loved, well, to be honest from what I have seen, experience wins most of the time.  Most of the time, we allow ourselves to have our thinking warped by our ulterior motives.

We call that "justifying" what we do.  There is a biblical definition to the word "justification" but that is not the way I'm using it here.  I mean that we bend our thinking to give us "reasons" to do what we really want to do, and to believe what we really want to believe.  But our thinking has been flawed by our ulterior motives or fooled by our experience.  And sometimes our justifying intellectually our experiences or desires, sometimes it really leads us into doodoo.

Am I wrong?  I don't think so.  :)

Which brings us to the point of asking "Who can we believe?"  I mean, what is a person to do?  You can't trust the thinking of other people, because their "thinking" might be warped due to their ulterior motives, but hey, the same thing might be true of us.... hmmmmm?

Difficult situation, isn't it?  Most of us just try to make do with ourselves.  After all, if you can't trust yourself, who can you trust?  Well, trust yourself if you like, if that is the best you can do.  I know I can't really trust myself.  Yes, I have to rely on my thinking.  There is a sense that my thoughts are the best I got.  I realize this.

But I know I have to test my thoughts too.  I can't be objective about them.  But can I try to be.  And the best my thoughts can do, the most logic I can muster and all that, leads me to the Bible and to God.  Testing it out as much as I can, thinking about it with the best of my thoughts, it has not failed me.

Which brings me to trust it.  And then, the odd thing is, the Bible shows me that God Himself has been calling me all along.  That His Spirit has been convicting me of my wrong and faulty thinking.  That God Himself has been speaking truth into my heart, waiting for me to accept it all along.  The Spirit of God, according to the Bible, is the revealor of the hidden motives of our heart.  And so, I am trusting God, who led me to the Bible and to Jesus. 

It is a weird sort of 20/20 hindsight.  Because the odd thing is, I have come to believe, trust, see as True, things that would not naturally appeal to many of my ulterior motives.  And though I am trusting God to lead me into all truth, I know that there is still a choice I make, I can still allow ulterior motives to bend my thoughts.  And sometimes still do. 

Maybe I'll explain that more another day.  This is a long, long blog.  You many find the thoughts here to be irrational, off base, not clear, not worth much.  They are the best I could do under the circumstances.  All I ask of you is that if you reject them as being uninteresting, unreasonable or uncompelling, that you first make sure that you are checking out your own ulterior motives. 

Connections

I am having a serious difficulty knowing where to begin in my blog posts.  So, I am going to give a bit of background about myself and how some of my "thinking" got started here.  Maybe that will clarify some things for you, and maybe it will help me decide what order I want to release my many and various thoughts...

If you read my previous blogs, you already know something about my and my beliefs.  Just a bit.  If you came to this blog from my other blog, "Rainbows & Earthquakes," then you might know a lot more about me.  But my other blog is primarily about thoughts and feelings and experiences of the last year of my son's life, his death, and thereafter.  This blog is definitely a bit different.

This year I have sort of felt like I have been slowly "waking up" and making a "Rip Van Winkle" sort of discovery that things have changed.  What "things" am I speaking of?  Hard to know where to begin.  But the most shocking changes have been in the world of faith and religion. 

How did this escape my attention?  Hmmm.  Well, of course, there is the fact that change is often subtle and gradual and takes us by surprise in that way.  That might be part of it. 

Then there is the fact that there were 2 & 1/2 years where my son lived and died and I was pretty much in every waking moment consumed with dealing with that reality.  The two years prior to that I was taken up with the birth of our first born child and staying home and caring for him.  The two years prior to that were taken up in getting married, moving, finding work, etc.  And before that there were three years spent teaching on a reserve in Northern Canada.  (And no, it really wasn't like an episode of "Northern Exposure.  And yeah, living on a reserve up north will put you a bit out of touch with the rest of the world)

In short, the last 8 or 9-ish years of my life I have been both pre-occupied and out of the loop, so to speak.  And this year, well, it has been strange for me.  I feel like I have had much to think about, and been blessed with the time to do it.

The odd thing is that so much of it is inter-related and converges and recurs...  It is kinda hard to explain.  But here is one reason that makes it hard to know what to start writing about...  I am afraid whatever I choose to write about, someone I know will feel I am writing particularly to them, about them, and for them.  If they have a suspicious nature, maybe they will think I created this blog solely as a platform to talk about that.

But while my discussions and experiences with everyone where these topics meet together has molded and shaped my thinking and desire to write, it is not any one in specific that has motivated me, but rather everything as a whole.  What do I mean by that? 

Well, take for example, the whole emerging/emergent church movement.  It's been coming at me from different directions and connects to so many things...   So that, when I finally get around to writing about the emerging church I find it is, in places, connected to Catholicism, and it is connected to my experiences with Rob Bell.  And my friends who like/use Rob Bell videos or books will perhaps think "Hey, she's writing this to US!"  But then I have friends who are Catholic and I have a friend who once was Protestant and became Catholic and I also have a friend who is seriously considering becoming Catholic.  And I worry that each of those people will think I am somehow trying to subversively engage them in a dialogue I am afraid to have face to face.  Which I am not.  I mean, I'm happy to talk face to face with any of you, but that is not the point so much of this blog.

But the thing is, I am finding more and more that so much of what I have been thinking about is... connected.  I've been trying to pick it all apart, strand by strand, but it is pretty difficult.  Postmodernism connected to the emerging church connected to interspirituality connected to mysticism and both connected to Roman Catholicism.  Also mysticism connected to meditation which connects to "new spirituality" as well as to "vintage Christianity" which connects to the desert father which connects to the Roman Catholic church once again.  And meditation connects to prayer.  And mysticism, meditation, prayer, faith all connect to the whole experience vs. rationality debate...  And I think I don't need to fill in how authority and the church and the Bible might connect here.  But maybe you are beginning to understand what I am finding difficult in all this. 

  And the strange thing (or maybe all things considered, it is NOT strange) is that simultaneously I have friends examining Roman Catholicism, people I know  practicing meditation (a rapidly growing phenomenon), a church I used to attend that introduced Rob Bell videos to me, and other situations and nuances too many and varied to list.



And I realize that once again this blog has written me instead of me writing it... I had meant to give you more of the background, the personal background, of my start in researching and thinking about all this stuff.  But somehow the act of writing has carried me away off in another direction, and now I think this is a natural place to stop.  And continue another day. 

Initial thoughts about Postmodernism.

Well, I already wrote a whole blog, and I think I might just scrap it.  Or rather, rework it.  Man, writing this blog is HARD for me. 

I said this next blog would be about the Bible and Rob Bell and a personal story.  But it is not.  Blogger's prerogative to change her mind and all that stuff.

It's just that I felt it wasn't the best place to start, after all...

So, I have been doing some research.  That word might be a bit of a misnomer, because it seems to imply something way more scholarly and smart that what I am doing.  Oh yeah.  But I, for lack of a better word, have been researching.

And the first book I have started reading is by Tony Jones.  You may or may not know who he is.  No matter, at this point.  His book is called "Postmodern Youth Ministry."   I am just about half way through the book.  What can I say about it at this time?  Hmmm... it is interesting?  And I have been thinking.

Hear is something I want to clarify though.  About this blog.  And about me.  I've started this blog, which is admittedly a bit of a monologue, as all blogs are, at heart.  One reason is to force myself to solidify my thinking by expressing it and yes, even by possibly exposing it to dissenting viewpoints.  It's good for me to face head on (and I'd add with God's help) views and opinions contrary to mine.  But I'm not doing this primarily to learn.  Hey, I'm just being up front and honest.  And in doing so, I'm opening myself up to look a bit foolish.  It is REALLY uncool to say "Hey, I'm not trying to learn from this."  Isn't it?

Well, I have said this a bit too strongly.  I DO want to learn, in this particular sense: I do want to understand what and how other people think.  I do what to know what they believe.  But this is not to absorb any of their "teaching."  Which means, I am reading/listening critically, which is also a bit uncool.  Oh yeah, I know.  I'm pretty much the queen of uncool.  I mean, I want to understand people, but I have NO desire to "broaden" my viewpoint.  Before you bring me my crown and sceptre so I can start my reign as ignorant, close-minded and totally uncool queen, I will at least offer a very small not even really defense of this.  :)

It is simply that I do not and never have sat totally unexposed to other views and beliefs because I feel threatened by them.  I am hardly in any position to boast about my understanding of philosophy or other belief systems or whatever.  Granted.  But I did go to University where I took some courses in literature and came across a bit of deconstruction, relativism, Marxist theory, etc.  And pretty much all my life long I have had at least one or maybe even more friends/coworkers/acquaintances who have disagreed with me on a lot of things.

In short, I can't stop you from feeling or believing that a position I hold to is mine because I was taught it and never questioned it.  What I can tell you is that it is possible that some of the things I have rejected as beliefs, I have rejected because I examined them and found them wanting.  Maybe my thinking is not good, but it is, at least, there.  I'm going to be putting it out there and you can examine it yourself.

Tony Jones, in his book, is explaining as best as he can his understanding of postmodern thought.  He writes that "Objectivity is out, subjectivity is in." (p.26)  He continues on explaining that you can't truly be objective, because you are "always standing somewhere.  Therefore I should preface all my thoughts with the statement: 'I am a 32 year-old, fairly affluent, Christian Euro white male living in middle America at the turn of the century'" (end quote)

I can't disagree that everything influences us.  And that often we are even unaware of how we are being influenced.  I will say, though, that I only can accept this up to a point.  To say we can't claim an objective viewpoint is one thing.  But that doesn't mean there is not an objective viewpoint out there.  That viewpoint I would say is the one God holds.  (yes, I realize that if you do not believe this, you have NO objective truth, outside of experience.  I would see this as a bad thing.  You are free to disagree.)  And if God exists, then I'd say we should try, as much as we can, to bring our subjective viewpoint in line with the objective.  No one can entirely succeed.  But there is something to aim for.

I see a two-fold problem with "objectivity is out, subjectivity is in."  (besides the fact I do believe in an Objective Viewpoint  ;)  )  The first one is that if you say objectivity is impossible and why bother to aim for it, then will you not become lost in a jungle of subjectivity?  (I'll write more about that later.)

And the second thing is simply this: Tony Jones' preface statement that he is "a 32 year-old, fairly affluent... etc. does not really, actually inform everything he says or believes.  What do I mean by this?  Well, yes, we are influenced by influences.  But we are not determined by them.  Yes, OK, I realize that some might argue that we are.  But really, honestly, is it not true that some raised up in a home of one religion or another will grow up and hold to it, and others will not?   You can often see this in siblings.  One grows up and adheres to the faith.  Another grows up and rejects it violently.  And in between there are many shades.  Is this not so?  Yes, there is influence.  But the influence does not determine your thoughts and beliefs.  You still evaluate them (or choose not too!) and "talk back" to them.

Have I made myself clear?  I don't know.  I'm not saying that complete objectivity is possible for a human being.  I am saying that religious, economic, and cultural influences do not determine our beliefs.  At some point there is an examination of them (or a choice NOT to examine them, which is still a choice).  We need to be very careful in examining and understanding how these things influence us.  But it seems to me to be unfair to overemphasis them.  So, I went to university and came out with my faith in God and the Bible "in tact" as it were.  You may have gone to university, and come out no longer believing the Bible is THE BIBLE.  Is it fair to say that "higher education" will position you one way?  Is it fair to say that age determines your view?  Or that the fact you are white, black, brown or green will?  Surely these things are influences...surely we should be aware of our tendency to think subjective thinking is really objective thinking.

But I hope you will not "write off" my thinking or my views because I am a 41 year old, middle class, Christian, white female... etc.  I might surprise you.  I know that objectivity is pretty difficult.  It is for me.  I know it will be for you.  Still, should we just totally write off the attempt?  Just something to think about, before I write about deconstruction, and "Truth" and stuff like that.

A Bit of an Introduction

I have toyed with starting up this blog for quite a while now.  And every time I thought "OK, I'm going to DO it," as soon as I sat in front of the computer, my motivation fizzled.  Big time. 

Why?

Well, from my introduction you can see that the thoughts I plan on sharing here have to do with "God" as in big G.  And since I hold on to a view that truth, by it's very nature and definition must at some point be absolute...well.

I was afraid.  Yes.  I was afraid of some of the things I'd be writing, because of the potential (likelihood) that I would offend someone.  Daily.

Why am I afraid of offending people?  (rhetorical questions are so great, eh?)

That is a pretty complicated question, and here is the thinking on it I have so far:

1. I am a chicken.  Now you know.  At heart, I am a chicken, and I really am afraid that someone will write me an ugly comment, tell me I am a judgmental, fundamentalist, idiot whose time would best be used in a taking a long hike ending in death.  No, seriously, have you read some of the comments people make?  And I am afraid that someone would write that to me, and then I'd cry and feel bad for days.... YES SERIOUSLY.  Look, despite the fact I am "outspoken" I might actually be afraid of what even complete strangers say because I might be sensitive.

2. Going along with being a chicken about hateful comments, I am also afraid that I might lose a friend or two, or maybe just some acquaintances.  If you have not figured it out by now, yes, I am a person who really wants people to like me.  I don't want any of my friends to decide they better stop hanging out with me.

These first two are about me.  Undoubtedly self-serving and self-centred reasons.  One reason why I knew I should reject them as reasons not to post openly my thoughts about important things.

More compelling is:

3.  I am afraid that I will offend someone and it might be because I let my desire to be "clever" (sarcastic? biting? superior?) take over and it would be MY fault they were offended.  Some days I think I am pretty witty and intelligent.  Some days I might not get a much needed reality check before I sit down here.  And what I say, I want to say out of love for other people and love for the truth, hand in hand, and not let any desire to impress with my wit or smarts take over. 

4.  Often when I see "offend" what I am thinking is that a person might now have irretrievably shut the door on a TRUTH which they need because it was delivered "the wrong way."  Herein lies no small problem.  Some truths are at heart offensive.  "You have halitosis."  Just as an example.  For some people a deprecating smile, a stick of gum offered in hand with the comment "I love a stick of gum, it sure helps me when I can't get to a toothbrush," well, that might be like hitting em on the head.  They might now realize "Oh, I think they are saying I have bad breath, maybe this is chronic, maybe I need to use mouthwash every morning or chew lots of gum."

But this is not everyone.  Some of us might say "Oh, no thanks, I don't like gum" and have NO CLUE that we actually were offered the gum due to less than stellar breath.

Now that I have totally confused you, no, I am NOT saying that any of YOU have halitosis.  I'm just saying that the very nature of truth may at times be unpleasant and you might not like to hear it no matter how nicely it is said.  Also, subtly and hints can be confusing.  Saying it straight out like it is can be offensive.  What is a person to do?

So, taking a very real example, saying I believe in the concept of "sin" might make people feel a bit worried about what is coming next.  I can nicely dance around this concept, couching it in terms like "we all make mistakes" or "nobody is perfect" or "to be human is to have regrets," etc, etc.

Out of fear of offending people, I HAVE done this.  And then found myself disingenuous, upon later reflection.  Because really, a "mistake" is an error in judgment.  And while "sin," I would agree, is absolutely an error in judgement, it is a moral error, and a spiritual error, which a mistake is NOT.  Right?  Kind of an important distinction.

And the truth is, I believe that the concept "sin" is not just a concept but a reality.  I DO believe that there are actions and/or attitudes that are morally and spiritually wrong and I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that.  Oh, except to add that in deciding what attitudes and actions go under the umbrella of "sin," God's Word, the Bible, is the absolute standard.

At this point (and it is my very first blog too) I may have already managed to turn quite a few people really off this blog.  Talking about sin straight up right off the bat is sorta uncouth in some circles, eh?  Anyone want a stick of gum right now?  (ha ha, weak joke.)  Some one might be reading this and going "Oh, I KNOW where this blog is going!  I don't need to come back here!"

Well, oddly enough, the point of this blog is NOT to write about sin, though I'm sure it might get a mention occasionally, that is not the driving force.  I've been thinking a LOT lately about things like: mysticism, free will, post modernism, how to read the Bible, discernment, spirituality, what it means to be led by the Holy Spirit, God's love, the "apocalypse"... see what I mean?

I have a lot I'd like to write about.  But the seeds of disagreement are buried in these topics.  And therein lies the potential to offend some.  Honest disagreement CAN NOT validate a dissenting opinion... which means, I'm not a relativist.  I find saying "It's true for you, but not for me" to be one of the most irrational things one can say.  Here is a quote a recently heard, but I can't tell ya where it originated, sorry.  "Truth without love is a killer, but love without truth is a liar." 

So the point of this post is to be honest with you about the fact that I'm going to be honest with you.  And that I am afraid to be that honest.  Because there might be some of you out there reading this that I do love.  And I don't want to hurt you by disagreeing with you.  But I'm not prepared to be a liar about what I think and believe.

Now you know.  Logically, I think the next blog I'll be writing will be some thoughts about the Bible.  That is a pretty big topic.  There may be a few blogs.  So, THIS one is going to be about the Bible, about Rob Bell (guy who wrote Love Wins & Velvet Elvis), church authority, and some personal stuff about me.