Animal

I feel like a wild animal. This bears explanation because most people probably think something other than what I mean by the phrase. Wild animals are cautious and wary. But they are also calm and calculating. They alertly size up any situation and react in predictable ways.

The reason most people don't see this is because they are too out of touch to get close. The wild things know they are coming far before they get there. But if you learn to be more wild, you'll be amazed at what you see. Imagine being the one who surprises them! It's not that hard.

But anyway, I feel like this most of the time. I do not like being seen unless I intend to. I like to be aware, to read situations for danger or instability. If it looks unsafe, my guard never drops. Sometimes this looks like inattention, but it's exactly the opposite. I'm either distracted by something I need to track, or there are too many things to allow focus on any one for long.

I have pretty set behavior patterns. What's mine is mine, what's not mine is not my concern. I share freely, and do not take more than I need. But I expect the same courtesy. You are welcome to shared space, and I won't bother your space, but stay the **** out of mine unless I allow it. And those lines are pretty clear.

Wild animals do not just attack. They attack in order to eat, in which case, they do not over kill. Or they attack for defense. And usually after ample warning. I have faced alligators, snakes, sharks, hogs, deer, dogs, raccoons, wild goats, even wasps and spiders. None ever attack wantonly. In fact it's pretty hard to get them to do it. They'll take large amounts of harassment first. But when they do attack, it's not play time. They are trying to end the conflict decisively. Once it's over, there's no further problem, though they may be warier next time.

I too, hate conflict. But I also hate being messed with. So when things escalate, I'm not playing and one or both of us will be hurt in serious ways. Trust me, I'm seeking to end the conflict as decisively as possible. I may not be the biggest or most threatening, but my advantage is that, by that point, I'm not holding back. And I'm preparing for this far before most people would be. So it's best to heed the warnings. No "bucking up", no rules. I will disable the threat as quickly as possible. When I engage know that I will attempt to permanently injure or kill. I don't want to do that. So for God's sake, don't push it.

Is that scary? Only if you plan to push it. It's not berserk here. It's just wild. The other side of wild is the tender soft side. Wild animals are not monsters. They are loving and feeling in proportion to their kind. They are intensely loyal, and often quite forgiving and generous. For them, there is only one way to be, and that is the right way. They make mistakes and they learn. But no wild thing ever tries to be bad, or cheat, or ruin. They simply are what the were made to be and strive to do that to perfection. We hate being trapped. We are most whole and happy when free and in the wild.

This is me. I've known for a while, but it was freshly opened to me recently. If you know me, I'm sure you can see how this fits. If I'm confusing somehow, see if this doesn't help explain.

Is this normal? Certainly not in the statistical sense. I don't know about any other senses. Is there a place for me in this world? Yes. But our culture hates wildness. The fear/control complex requires that since it, by definition can't be controlled, it must be eliminated, or at least driven from daily awareness.

This is a hard realization. To know that your people will always misunderstand, manipulate, and try to control the very thing that most defines you, and you with it.

Toss up

So, here's a question I wrestle with.  What exactly is the good news?  I've blogged it before and I still believe that.  But the crux of it this time is more about how that should be walked out.  I grew up steeped in Evengelicalism.  I'm still not too far away from it, since we tend to orbit around the gravitational centers of our upbringing.  Though I feel more like a comet than an inner planet these days.

My struggle is this:  Evangelicals take the very plain text of Paul and others about the Gospel, or good news, which simply says that Christ died and rose again, and then overlay their interpretation of what that means.  The meaning they ascribe is something of the substitutiary atonement thing that this coming and rising atoned for sins and now people can be right with God.  It's all in the Bible.  I've read it all.  I know the theology.  The thing is, it never sits that well as they spin it.

I don't disbelieve it, but I'm not sure they (we, I guess) have it right exactly.  I see a disconnect in the things Paul says and does and the things Jesus says.  I see differences in the things the Apostles say...Peter from Paul, James from both of them.  Again, I know the theology to reconcile them, but I'm not sure it's right.  It never sits well.  Never resonates true in my deep parts.

I'm not even sure how to articulate it.  So I'll ramble.  (This has the makings of a long post, so fair warning.)  Jesus says believe on him, follow him, keep his commandments.  Got it.  But his actions and words are all about doing right, faith in God, forgiveness.  It's a topside down, knife through paper, sort of worldview that rocks the people of his day.  He lifts up prostitutes and adulterers and speaks to people's hearts.  His sermons have a more universal appeal.  He harangues the self-righteous and opens arms wide to heal, meet needs, etc.  It's a big love.  He never asks them to get in line with some theological system.

But then we get into Acts and the Epistles and we get this charge out and argue, win converts, lose your life defending the truth sort of thing.  It's far more political in a sense...or am I missing something?  Maybe I just need to do an in-depth study of some parts to get a better handle on it.  But it seems to me, either these guys are heading in a different direction (though it could be a direction they were sent, as some argue that Jesus' work is different from ours). 

Or we've missed the point of the message the early evangelists preached.  I've heard this approach too.  That we're piecing together a system out of one side of several  conversations addressing discreet issues.

So is it valid to think that Jesus' approach is what the Apostles were using?  In some cases, clearly not.  They were preaching out systematic theology.  Most of Romans is this and it accounts for most of what we call Christianity today.

So when it comes down to it, here's the rub.  I have gone out and "witnessed".  I've used the tracts.  I've used the wordless book and beads.  I've worked the tents at fairs.  And all of it was uncomfortable and hollow.  I felt like it was doing little and I just wanted to stop.  So am I so lost inside that my old nature has that much sway?  If so, I can't change it.  No fake it till you make it for me.  That's living a lie and I've done that too.  I have no choice but to wait until that is fixed within me, despite what the "get out there" people are saying.

But I am totally comfortable with people knowing what I believe.  I explain it, allude to it, talk about it in an easy natural sort of way.  I'll explain theology to people who have an interest.  Listen to people's problems, meet needs (oh this is another peeve I'll get to in a minute), pray for people.  But I don't want to whack them over the head with my beliefs.  I'm not going up to people and cold-cocking them with, "Hey dude, you know what the Bible says about following Jesus?  Let me tell ya!"  I'm not walking the streets looking for people to stop and witness to or pray for or debate with.  Heck, I'll pray for them.  I'll jump right in and meet the need as soon as it's shown to me.  Which brings me to the peeve.  If you're going out and doing any sort of ministry without first meeting the real present needs before you, you've got it backward!  I'm sorry.  You don't need to ask a homeless guy what you can pray for.  It's obvious, man!  Give the dude some food or clothes, or money even (if that won't send him into a bender).  Even regular people.  Just meet the needs, then work on the spirit.  you can't get teh spirit in tune until the animal is cared for.  But too often, Evangelicals are so after the soul part, they walk right over the needs of the moment.

And I have struggled with this for a while.  I once went and talked to a mentor of mine regarding this very thing because I was convinced I needed to start some direct ministry and was even going to abandon my community to "spend the energy on more holy pursuits".  But surprisingly, this person told me I had it all wrong.  He told me I already had my flock.  He cautioned me against what I was thinking for good reasons.  I asked how I make it more Christ focused and he said, "don't."  I was shocked, but it rang clear as a bell in my heart and mind.  I felt the peace about it.  He was right.  It went against my upbringing and theological training.  But he was right.  I should trust my heart over my head if the Spirit Lord is living in me.  When I get confirmation, I should drop anything that isn't in line with it.  But it's hard to do when I'm surrounded by the buzz of the other mess.  My mentor told me that I was to do what I'm doing.  Follow God's leading in the moment.  When he led me to speak, I'd speak.  Otherwise, live it first and foremost.  Serve my community.  My flock.  It's that simple.

And that's what I'm trying to do.  I just wish I could settle my head around these other issues.  Like I said, I think I need a period of intense study to come to terms with it so I won't keep feeling like I'm missing it when people start jawing that other stuff...that isn't wrong necessarily.  Do what you gotta do, man.  But let me do what I gotta do.