Thinking about Gratitude

prayer at its very core is an intentional being-with god. just being with; not demanding anything at all. prayer is listening, and it is silence, and being still while allowing oneself to be held, and transformed.....

prayer and gratitude are both ways of being in the world. they are not activities we do; they aren't even attitudes we aquire. they are shifts in our very way of being. ((to use the big words.) to learn a posture of gratitude is to accept a shift in one's ontology--or maybe i should say a realignment with one's original ontology.)

in this way, gratitude is infinitely harder than we imagine because it requires so much more of us than noticing pleasant occurances and being thankful for them.....

- Tamie, Thinking about Gratitude

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving to all my friends in the blogosphere. You make my life better, so much gratitude.

I've been traveling (and preparing to travel) since the beginning of this week, so I've been out of the blog loop....I will catch up, though, but 'twill be hit and miss for the next two weeks. I'm taking some time to enjoy the south before returning to the dark and cold Indiana countryside. My first stop was in Memphis, en route to Houston, TX, where I will be spending a Thanksgiving. Then it is over to Temple, TX to see my brother, his wife, and their new addition, Camille. From there, I am swinging over to Flagstaff, AZ to see my good friend Tamie. Flagstaff will be the base camp, and will be doing some traveling around the southwest: Tucson, Mexico, and maybe see some of the Grand Canyon. When I come back in December, 'twill be time for tax season again.

Here are a few pics. of the family flag football game this morning.

Endless mimetic spiritual desire - Or, How to never become a person of faith

I have a few more posts on the church and Christianity that I would like to share, and hopefully discuss with others....I hope that my intense negativity is not viewed too threateningly. In other words, I often fear that my negative posts are construed as primarily my opportunity to vent personal anger/bitterness/angst. While I do not deny that my exit from institutionalized Christianity has created no small internal turmoil, if I felt that vengeance was my primary motivation, then I would shut up and post about something else; however, I do think that in the previous post and in the ones to come, there are some important theoretical, spiritual, and existential issues to discuss.

It is almost a given that the era of institutional Christianity is over. The important discussion point is to ask what is next. (For example, my next post will discuss the end of the "emergent church" and some possible implications.)

Previously, I discussed the issue of apathy: where does apathy come from? Perhaps it comes (in part) from excess--being saturated. Are we apathetic in the churches because we are saturated with "Jesus" and "Christian" stuff? My main point was to suggest that we have lost the "the knowledge of God" because of saturation with the knowledge of God. In 2 Corinthians 10, Paul talks about destroying things that set themselves up against the knowledge of God. My thought is that it is "knowledge of God," itself that is eroding our knowledge of God.

I was recently listening to an interview with Rene Girard. Girard is the father of theories of "mimetic desire." Simply put, he suggests that our desires are never (or in most cases) for the object itself, rather, we want what we want because others want it. Our desires for things are primarily based on wanting what others desire, such that we rarely pursue the thing itself--even if we decieve ourselves into thinking that such is the case. Fashion is an obvious example: we wear things that appeal to us because we see others desiring those clothes.

Remember some of the crazy outfits Brad Pitt wore in Fight Club??? They were ridiculous by fashion standards at the time, but as soon as the movie hit the big time, clothing sellers found a demand, and one label even produced a separate "Fight Club" clothing line.

Girard's theory is fascinating and also complex. (For more, there is a good Wikipedia article on Girard, and our friend John Doyle (aka, Ktismatics) also previously posted on Girard, with some interesting commentary by myself and others.)

Without delving into the complexities, however, I'm sure you can see the link to our contemporary American advertising and marketing matrix, which Girard himself mentions in the interview: we desire the stuff that others desire. So, advertising focuses not on selling us a "thing"--that's stupid--they sell us a desire to be like the people who use the product.

About halfway through the interview, Girard begins to discuss Coca-cola. They sell the soft drink, says Girard, by showing the kinds of people who drink Coke: beautiful people on beaches who can't wear very much clothing because they have such perfect figures.

But Girard goes further, and he makes an interesting point. He says there is a "sacramental" aspect to Coca-cola: we drink the product to participate in the transformation. Sound familiar? Lord's supper, Eucharist, partake of the body of Christ, baptism, come out of the water and into new life? The sacrament of participating in the product sold to us by advertisers ushers us into a transformation.

John's (Ktismatics') above-mentioned post quotes Girard on this topic, essentially: we desire the being of others. Why? For one thing, it is because our being isn't good enough. We need to latch onto something else. But, I think, it is more than that. There is also a slothful element, as well: we don't want to engage in the process of becoming, of establishing our own being and working it out as a life process.

Our mass-media corporate culture is always there to sell us more desires....there's always something more to want, because the cool kids are always wearing new clothes.

Let's take this into the realm of our American Christian life. The multi-billion dollar Christian corporate machines operate on the same basis as other advertisers: stir up mimetic desire. Don't you want to have a fuller Christian life, like these best-selling authors, who also attach handy workbooks and just released this new DVD? Don't you want to have the worship experiences of these contemporary Christian music artists? Don't you want the security of knowing the right Christian doctrine, like these "biblical" Christian teachers?

It's a business of creating continual desire; it's no different than any other corporation: there's always something new to desire. We can continually put off the faith-process of becoming by purchasing the latest Christian product.

How about the local church? Surely the scene is better here, is it not? I say no. I think the local church does the same thing: there's always a new sermon each Sunday, always a new musical worship experience, always a new "ministry" or "program." It's still mimetic desire. We live our spirituality through others. Once again, the process of personal becoming that is at the heart of faith is eternally delayed by our almost voyeuristic need to watch others perform their faith on stage. It's show biz.....Mimetic desire.

So, our churches become sacraments to be a part of the institution, part of the crowd--to participate in the spiritual desires of others. What church most certainly is not is a participation in the life of Christ. Endlessly running after the spiritual desires of others results in never becoming a person of faith.

My point here, is not to condemn Christian corporations or the church or to suggest that any corporate Christian purchase is immoral or wrong--that's too easy. The point is to develop a self-awareness of what it means to participate in a process of endless, mimetic desire and to discuss the consequences. Hence, I think it is obvious that this is not a uniquely "Christian" discussion. We are discussing the 21st century "self" in an age where media uses mimetic desire to shape and form the self.

Apathy and the knowledge of God

The following is from the script of the film Donnie Darko:

Ms. Pomeroy sits across from Principal Cole.

PRINCIPAL COLE
I'm sorry, Karen, this is a
specialised school. We don't think
the methods you've undertaken here
are appropriate.

MS. POMEROY
"Appropriate".
(trying to contain
her anger)
With all due respect, sir, what
specifically about my methods do you
find inappropriate?

Principal Cole stares at her for a moment.

PRINCIPAL COLE
I don't have to get myself into a
debate about this, Karen, I believe
I have made myself clear.

MS. POMEROY
You call this... clarity? I don't
think you have a clue what it's really
like to communicate with these kids.
You don't think that they can smell
your bullshit from a mile away? Every
day that goes by... that we fail
to... inspire them... is another
moment that we all lose. And we are
losing them to apathy, and this...
prescribed nonsense. They are slipping
away...

PRINCIPAL COLE
I am sorry that you have failed. Now
if you'll excuse me, I have another
appointment. You can finish out the
week.

(Script from IMSD)

Apathy.

Apathy.

Apathy.

What are the signs of American apathy? And the ramifications?

As I see it, there are three areas of apathy within the institutional church. The first is a preference for services and routine rather than community. By "community," I mean a kind of community that mirrors the early church in Acts, where believers are found sharing their lives together: spending long times in fellowship over meals and even selling their possessions and having their stuff in common--a clear violation of the truths of capitalism that we hold to be self-evident!

The second area of apathy is a general tendency to become so absorbed in the American lifestyle that there is no real vision for radically changing the world. Third, I would say there is a definite lack of freedom. That is, the church--like the greater culture--seems more interested in conforming and manipulating the self so that it meets its end goals and advances its values. In this context, creativity, originality, intellectual exploration, and dynamic vision are viewed with suspicion. (Cf. Tamie's recent post on the artist and priest.) In many contexts, not changing is viewed as a virtue.

But such apathy is not really unique to the church, is it? In many ways, apathy in the church is only a reflection of the apathy that is uniquely American. In fact, the three areas of apathy mentioned above (isolation/anti-community, lack of vision for world change, and conformity/manipulation of the un-free self) are manifested regularly in the culture at large.

What is the cause?

Well, that's a difficult question--a complex question, really, with no simple answer. However, might I suggest that one problem is that of saturation. Saturation? Yes, the idea that if a person has too much of a good thing, they tend to not appreciate it. That which is good becomes common and dull. Dullness leads to boredom and apathy.

In 2 Corinthians 10, Paul talks about demolishing "every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God." Might it be that we live in a world, particularly in the U.S. of A., where we are so saturated with the knowledge of God that God has become meaningless and dull?

I would suggest that one of the greatest spiritual tragedies of our time is that the Bible is history's #1 best seller. (See Wikipedia) The knowledge of God is everywhere in America. On Sunday mornings, sermons pollute the airwaves--preachers who take some of the most meaningful aspects of life and in the typical American sitcom style, they reduce these meaningful discussions down to a simple three point sermon with application points. We have multi-billion dollar industries dedicated to providing Christian music, literature, and multi-media. Multi-billion dollar industries! And we still think we need to get the message out????

I'm not saying that no good can come of all of this, I'm just saying that less is more. I am convinced that in 21st century America, the greatest obstacle to the knowledge of God is the knowledge of God itself. Knowledge of God is cheap and easy: go to church, listen to the radio, get a podcast, pop in a cd, turn on the television. And our Christian American leaders boldly continue "preaching the word," as if more information is going to make a difference in this over-saturated society. They seem to think that if only the world had the "right" message, then America would shake off its apathy. But they only add to the cacophony and noise.

Maybe it's time to for a fast. If we really value the knowledge of God, maybe it's time to protect it by hiding it.

Is mass media the new swine pit into which we cast our pearls? Is it a saturation that contributes to our apathetic faith?

And what is the connection between religious apathy and apathy in the American culture??? Has religion followed culture, or has the culture followed religion on this issue? I think it is quite probably that the church has taken the apathetic leadership role. That is, the apathy we find in Donnie Darko might be a result of the American culture following the church. I think this is particularly the case due to how closely church and culture were connected in the American life of the past.

Did God write the Bible?

Or, perhaps more to the point, Should we call God an "author" of the Scriptures?

Yes, that's a much better question.

Interestingly, enough, while many conservative Christians here in the U.S. of A. would adamantly affirm that God authored the Bible, the Bible itself doesn't really seem concerned to make the point. In fact, as far as I can tell, there is never a statement that identifies God as "author" of the Scriptures.

I remember a few years back in one of my seminary classes (at a very conservative seminary), we were in the midst of a class discussion. Someone referred to God as the "author" of Scripture. So, I casually asked the question, "Is God the author of Scripture." The class (including the Prof.) started laughing; they thought I was provided dry comedy relief, in the distinctive Erdman style. However, they quickly realized I was, in fact serious, and we continued with the discussion for only a short while longer. Most in the classroom quite obviously hadn't considered whether God should be considered an "author" of the Bible.

"But what about 2 Timothy 3:16, Jon!??! What about it??!! Huh! Huh!"

Yes, good friend. 2 Timothy states that all Scripture is theopneustos, meaning "God-breathed." So, what does that mean? Well, honestly, it isn't clear! This is the only instance the term theopneustos is used in the New Testament. It is obviously a metaphor, but a metaphor for what? Authorship? I don't know. I'm not convinced. That all Scripture contains a "breath" of God is one thing...to say that this means God had a hand in the writing process. I don't, friend. Should we stretch the term "breath" and look for an exhaustive definition? Or should we simply appreciate the ambiguity of a good metaphor?

Also, my good 2 Timothy 3:16 friend, bear in mind the context of the metaphor: the Bible has some good practical use. In other words, the idea of Scripture being breathed by God relates to its pragmatic value. I find the Scriptures far more useful when approaching them as a pluralistic perspective on life and faith.

What are the implications of dropping the idea that God is the "author" of the text. While I do not as of yet have anything resembling an exhaustive philosophy of the Bible to give you, there are a few points that seem rather clear to me.

First, let's say that the Bible is written by men. It is most naturally read as a conglomeration of diverse writings. "God-breathed," yes. "Written" by God....let's say "no."

Second, the Bible is highly contextual. It contains perspectives relevant to the issues that people faced in their day. So, for example, according to OT law, if a dude rapes a girl, his "punishment" is that he has to buy the girl and make her his wife. Well, for that day it was probably a good law, considering how badly women were treated. But by our standards today (according to our 21st century American context), this is a ridiculous law! The Bible deals most primarily (but certainly not exclusively) with issues closely related to the context of the day.

Third, the theology found in Scripture is highly pluralistic (even contradictory I would say, though some would disagree!). This third point kind of follows from the first two. One example of this seems to be the character of God. God might be unchanging according to one perspective in one book of the Scripture, but in another, he is shown to respond to what we do and even to change his mind.



Fourth, the Bible itself shows a movement and a progression. The most blatant example would obviously be the New Testament writers recontextualizing the Old Testament to better "fit" and to better understand the event of the coming of the Messiah. That is why some of the "proof texts" that you see in the NT don't seem to fit (at all!) the original context from whence they were plucked! The concern of the NT writers was to BOTH find continuity with the OT but to go beyond it and address the issues of their day and the new challenges and opportunities available to the faithful.

Fifth, in light of all of the above, I think that the point of reading and applying the Bible today is to recognize the need to continue to recontextualize the Scripture, to realize that the power of the written text is primarily to focus our attentions on the current day and to think critically about the unique issues and questions that we face. If there is a "constant" or an "absolute" in all of this, it would have to be the presence of the Spirit of God--the "living and active Word of God" as the book of Hebrews says.

To say that the text is "God-breathed" then, is not to say that it has all the answers to today's questions (evolution, abortion, homosexuality, women's rights and status, sexual ethics, pornography, etc.). The text is certainly a guide, and a very important one; but the primary connection is not to the text itself, but to the God of the text. Karl Barth said that the Bible is not the revelation of God but the record of the revelation of God. I kind of like that thought and approach. For Barth (and others), the Word of God becomes the Word of God as it is proclaimed in the contemporary context. The text, then, seems to become more dynamic.

What say you? What are the various implications if we drop the terminology of God being the "author" of the Scriptures?

A New Era

Indiana today

So, I'm back in Indiana. I arrived back from Germany last night. I know you may think that I am a helpless case, but I realized when I got back how much I missed the American media--watching Sports Center, football (of the American variety), endless sitcoms, movies, and of course coverage of the current election.....and....speaking of the election....goodness gracious! Indiana is a player again! I'm so intrigued. Obama just finished voting in Illinois, and he is on his way to Indianapolis. That's right, my friends, Obama is making his final pitch on the final day in Indiana. He's coming to a state that is staunchly Red Republican, because the campaign thinks he can win it. Amazing. Really. There's a part of me that doesn't even believe that such a thing is possible; mostly it is hard to believe because I live in a very conservative area of Indiana.

They are currently speculating that if Indiana goes to Obama, then the election is over. Indiana finishes their voting first. Indiana always votes Republican; typically they are the first to light up Red. So, whatever happens here will help get an early and significant idea of how the race is going to shape up.

In other news, I had a great trip. It was tons of fun. I will post more pictures and do a bit more blogging as I go along. Right now there are some black squirrels scurrying about in my yard, and I've got to do some unpacking and work out. The work outs have been on hold, apart from some friendly push up competitions with our couchsurfing hosts in Vienna.

Climb Every Mountain

A report on the early stages of my Germany trip.

http://2micetravels.blogspot.com/2008/10/ch-1-climb-every-mountain.html

Note: I (Erdman) am referred to as MV.

Dachau

Dirty, starved skeletons
- description by American soldier of the liberated prisoners at Dachau



I spent five hours at the Dachau concentration camp. Even though there were many many deaths, Dachau was a work camp designed to confine prisoners that the NAZIs viewed as enemies of the state. I was surprised by the diversity of the prisoners: thinkers and political activists, of course, but also entertainers, homosexuals, Jehovah Witnesses, beggars, and those considered racially inferior. In other words, people groups from all spectrums of life were represented.

I don't feel it is possible to neatly summarize Dachau and provide any kind of perspective or interpretation. I was simply dumb struck and speechless. No one can understand Dachau except those who experienced it. For the rest of us--especially those of us who are nearly 70 years removed--there is only the possibility of feeling as though we are tripping around in the dark searching for a light switch.

The primary objective of the work camp was to de-humanize. The sign on the gate is cold and ironic: Arbeit mach frei "Work brings freedom." The daily routines included brutal torture (for example, hanging from poles, beatings, etc.), intimidation, malnurishment, degredation, and harsh work. Upon entrance into Dachau, the prisoners have their property taken away from them and they are told, "You are without rights, dishonorable, and defenseless. You're a pile of shit and that is how you are going to be treated."



The following photograph is significant in its dehumanizing representation: all of the prisoners are simply part of a herd, "pests" shown here as being beneath their superiors:



In the Dachau Museum, the layout is chronological. The beginning points is the NAZI's rise to power, the chronology of Dachau, and then the freeing of the prisoners by American forces.

It is difficult to move through the exhibits. I felt I was more and more overwhelmed by the brutality and horror. The point at which I felt the most potent impact was perhaps when I came to a small exhibit on the poetry of Dachau. As I understand it, the poets sometimes took risks in writing down poetry, but most often they kept their poetry in their minds. I read the following bz Mirco Camia, a prisoner of Dachau, who writes about his encounter with Nevio Vitelli's poem "Mein Shatten in Dachau." I wrote down the words, but I had to stop several times, overcome at several points.

"The value of this poem for me?...it contains everything: the agony of captivity and the elegy of freedom, the meaning of the greatest earthly love, maternal love...and something else that is banished from the normal thoughts of youth and from human suffering: forgiveness.

"It is not possible to endure subhuman conditions, to be nothing more than an 'object'...without being pursued by it an entire lifetime, even in your soul, or without destroying what you possessed before this experience--...the beauty of a vision of the universe and of mankind...Nevio made it possible for me to find mzself again in his unknown poem."

For me, Dachau is a land marker in my life. It is a reference point. I don't feel that I have the ability to understand it, but merely to allow it to inform and shape me at every stage of growth.



For all of the efforts at Dachau to de-grade the human being, for all of the energy spent de-humanizing, the words of the Karl Röder (prisoner 1933-44) are poignant:

"In the camp I made a meaningful discovery: No power exists in the world that is capable of destroying humans as spiritual beings."

The Girls Next Door

The Girls Next Door is a reality television show that takes viewers behind the gates of the Playboy Mansion and into the lives of Holly, Bridget, and Kendra, the three girlfriends of the iconic Hugh Hefner. The show is sexy and sensual, taking the audience into the bedrooms and behind the scenes of nude photo shoots (with all “unmentionable parts” blurred out, of course); and yet the show is not the typical flesh-hawking reality tv. Far from it, actually. The show is actually quite, funny, and adorable.

The appeal and focus of the show is on the lives of Holly, Bridget, and Kendra. “Hef”—the girls’s nickname for the gracefully aging Hugh Hefner—is often seen on the show. He interacts with the girls, conducts business, and generally lives a life of leisure; but mostly the show centers on the personality of the girls as they live their lives and pursue the various things that interest them.

In short, even though the show is sexy, its appeal is not sex. Most of the show is not about sex. Most of the show is about beauty and personality. The girls are interesting and adorable. Holly is ambitious and holistic, taking initiative to spearhead various projects and photoshoots. She also makes no secret of the fact that she has a maternal instinct and wants to have a baby with Hef. Bridget has a master’s degree in communications and a deal with the Travel channel for a new tv series. Kendra is a carefree tomboy who loves to play sports and party.

The girls live a charmed life. Accordingly, they talk about how “blessed” they feel to “live such a special life.”

What makes the show unique and worthy of discussion at Theos Project is that The Girls Next Door subjectifies the sexuality of porn stars. The girls are not objectified as sex objects. They are not merely flesh for the consumption of the lustful; rather, their sexuality is linked to their subjectivity—they are first people. Their career is sexual—one might call it their “calling”—but there is no sense that their sexuality degrades them or holds them back from exploring their full potential as people and as human subjects.

Briefly, I think The Girls Next Door illustrates three mergers. These mergers represent things that have been traditionally separated and dichotomized.

First, there is a merger of porn with pop culture. We now live in a porn culture. It is part of the electronic evolution of humanity: porn is now quick and easy and not "dirty." One need only log on to the internet to find a world of whatever entices desire. This merger of porn with pop culture is perhaps not as integrated as places like Hong Kong or Japan, but still a reality. I remember hearing in the last year about a Japanese baseball player who recently came to the States to play in the MLB. He casually began publicly describing to reporters his extensive pornography collection. For all intents and purposes, it appears that it is not uncommon for reporters and ballplayers in Japan to discuss pornography and even to exchange dvds with reporters! Pornography is no longer a back-ally activity with an exclusively negative connotation.



The second merger is porn with art. Regardless of how one feels about the moral ramifications of pornography, the fact is that porn is now artistic and may even be "beautiful."

Third, porn has been integrated with authentic personal expression. Not only is porn generally considered an authentic form of personal expression for those who view it, but porn is now also a form of self-expression and perhaps even a “calling” for the porn star. This is similar to the merger of porn with art, but in this case, the suggestion is that being a porn star is a vehicle to achieving occupational fulfillment. Porn is not just a badge of shame for girls who are looking to make money—it’s not just an economic exchange—there really seems to be something deeper and self-authenticating.

I see all of the above mergers and integrations when I watch The Girls Next Door. The show is porn in pop-culture, an artistic production, and the girls of the show live a charmed and fulfilling life.

Traditionally, both those on the right and the left have vehemently opposed pornography. On the right, the religiously conservative, concerned with the morality of sexuality. On the left, those concerned with the degradation and exploitation of women.

Noam Chomsky expresses his objection.



Chomsky brings a black-and-white perspective: pornography is degrading to women, therefore pornography should be eliminated. “Women are degraded as vulgar sex objects,” says Chomsky, “That’s not what human beings are.” Chomsky finds this to be even beyond discussion, kind of an axiomatic given.

I certainly find a lot in Chomsky that I resonate with: degrading women—or anyone—is something that is worth fighting. I would certainly agree with Chomsky and others who oppose porn if pornography is embedded in a social context where those who produce the porn have very little (if any) other options and therefore reluctantly resign themselves to degradation and humiliation in order to survive. Such a system is sick.

What makes the 21st century discussion a bit unclear, however, is that pornography has merged with pop culture, art, and personal self-authentication. The girls from The Girls Next Door don’t have to shoot porn. They could walk away at any time, and at some time they probably will.

So, if the conditions for exploitation has been eliminated, is there still an objection to porn?



An argument might be made that human beings, by nature, are degraded by participating in pornography. That is, porn is degrading, even if it may feel self-authenticating to be a porn star and even if the porn star is unaware of the fact that they are being degraded. Similarly, those who participate in watching pornography degrade themselves, regardless of any personal satisfaction they receive. Pornography cheapens sexuality. Human beings were called to something “higher,” and pornography holds us back from something “more noble.” Such an argument, I think, might be difficult to prove. I think it would have to come from some sort of inner sense. This does not make the argument less potent, but perhaps such an argument really isn't an argument but rather an internal sense that sexuality is cheapened if it is made available for public consumption.

At this point, we are entering the murky waters of speculating on morality and nature. Pascal said that custom is our nature. What is “human nature”? Something we inherit, something intrinsic? Or is “nature” more closely related to the societal and cultural matrices within which we are embedded? Perhaps one of the great intellectual and cultural wars of our day is over human nature. How do we define ourselves as sexual beings? Is it based on something in our nature? Or are we defined sexually based largely on the cultural and society norms/morality that we are taught?

In any event, I find that The Girls Next Door provoke an important discussion of sexuality. It reflects many of the unique realities of sexuality in the 21st century.

Coming Attractions

My time has been going in various, non-blogging directions. However, a new post is coming in the next day or two.

I will be doing a bit of exegesis on the popular cable tv show The Girls Next Door:

Pay-as-you-go Church

My friend Nicole had a good idea that would resolve the division that exists among churches, encourage attendance, help the unity of Christians, encourage financial giving, facilitate worship service creativity, and help fend off boredom amongst Christians. Yes, an idea to speak to all of these issues, from my friend Nicole.

The idea, though profound, is quite simple: have people pay for the sermons.

Now, we are not suggesting something so crass or crude as to set a price tag on the sermon. Oh, heavens no! One should only give as they are led! All we are suggesting is that the offering plates are passed amongst the faithful after the service is over. The unstated understanding is that if the service was good, then the people can feel good about giving their hard earned American dollars to the cause. If the service was not good, then the clergy can give it another try next week.

We really need to utilize the forces of Adam Smith's invisible hand.

If Nicole's scenario existed, then Christians could feel free to visit other churches without having a "home church." When the services become a matter of routine, obligation, moralizing for the sake of moralizing, or in anyway dull and uninspiring, then the faithful can go to other churches where people have something interesting to say or do. In such a scenario, believers don't "belong" to a church--as if one church had all of the answers while all other believers are shadows of this perfection--rather, all believers belong together, and Sunday morning would become a matter of finding the gathering where the most energy seems to be present, where provocative challenges are presented, intellectual stimulation is evident, spiritual passion is alive, etc., etc.

The "church hop" already happens in America.....people go from church to church.....but Nicole's thought is that we should just let this idea reach its logical end. Right now people "join a church" (a horrible idea!) and then they have to completely break their ties with the old church (cancel their membership, etc.) before they can "join" the new church.

No more shame! Let each Sunday be a fresh start!

Go from church to church. Pass the plates at the end of the sermon, and then people can contribute to the ministry that has something going for it. Think of it like a cell phone plan: wouldn't it be great to use your phone and then at the end of the month just pay for the minutes you used???