We both know
they are weeds.

“Maybe the weeds at his house
are only in the backyard?”
I smile, push up my hat, wipe the sweat off my brow with my short sleeve
and turn back to my shovel.

These weeds are like backyard plants.
They need a shovel.

Or an ax.
(If only I had one)

Dear yardwork, there should be a (not so) silent letter ‘h’ after the ‘y’ in your name.

“I’ve got a guy”
my neighbour says
“who mows the lawn and
trims the trees
for 30 bucks a month.”

“I’ll keep the 30 bucks,” I think.
There’s something about this yhardwork that I need.
It’s a spiritual yearning, isn’t it?
This is not dystrophy, but desire:

It reminds me
of the dirt from which I’m formed.
And it connects me
to the Ground of my Being.

And with the 10 year old horticulturalists in my neighborhood.

Christians in the U.S. who labeled themselves politically liberal or conservative told researchers Jesus wouldn’t necessarily agree with their social views if he were alive today… The conservatives said Jesus would probably be more against abortion and same-sex marriage than they are, and less opposed to helping illegal immigrants obtain citizenship. Liberals believe Jesus would be tougher than them on morality and more open on questions concerning fellowship.

The online study, conducted by Stanford University’s Lee Ross, addressed how rationalizing is easier in a group than alone (which sounds a bit like Durkheim’s mechanical solidarity, no?). He notes,

Liberals are conceding that they’re deviating from Jesus on their views on moral issues and conservatives are conceding that they are deviating from Jesus on fellowship issues… They differed almost as much in Jesus’s views as their own.’

This study reveals different findings that Scot McKnight, who surveys North Park students during the first day of class on Jesus of Nazareth. He writes,

The first part is about Jesus. It asks students to imagine Jesus’ personality, with questions such as, ‘Does he prefer to go his own way rather than act by the rules?’ and ‘Is he a worrier?’ The second part asks the same questions of the students, but instead of ‘Is he a worrier?’ it asks, ‘Are you a worrier?’ The test is not about right or wrong answers, nor is it designed to help students understand Jesus. Instead, if given to enough people, the test will reveal that we all think Jesus is like us. Introverts think Jesus is introverted, for example, and, on the basis of the same questions, extroverts think Jesus is extroverted.

Spiritual formation experts would love to hear that students in my Jesus class are becoming like Jesus, but the test actually reveals the reverse: Students are fashioning Jesus to be more like themselves. If the test were given to a random sample of adults, the results would be measurably similar. To one degree or another, we all conform Jesus to our own image.

Where’s the difference, then? In asking specific questions regarding political allegiance? Or age? Are college students unable to look at things outside of their particular allegiances?

[Hat tip: The Gospel Coalition]

It seems Tebow’s run may be coming to an end, but not before Focus on the Family took his playoff opportunity to share the gospel message.

Though not mentioned, according to Focus’ president and CEO, Jim Daly, has noted that Tebow is “the cultural phenomenon that inspired it”. He goes on to note:

We will hear about shoving religion down people’s throats, but if it’s OK to shove Doritos down people’s throats, and cars and everything else, we have the right to advertise, too.

And, of course, it’s already begun. On one message board, “dzerres” refers to the commercial as brainwashing child abuse:

Just think how much better this world would be if kids couldn’t be brainwashed with all of this religious nonsense. There would be no girls in burka’s, no silly turbans, no nonsensical felt stove pipe hats, no bans on dancing or music, no horse buggies, no polygamy, no condemnation, intolerance or the morality police. Ah, I can dream. This commercial shows you exactly what child abuse looks like.

No matter how you slice it, what a bummer when the promise of everlasting life – not to mention the many other insensitive allusions to religious life – is interpreted this way.

To be fair, the leaders of the Fellowship would bristle at the characterization of it as a “denomination”, considering their desire for a flat leadership structure.

Their website explicates their story:

The Fellowship of Presbyterians began in January 2011 as a conversation between seven PC(USA) pastors who wanted to find new ways to encourage each other in common faith, ministry, and mission. These pastors were concerned about the health of the PC(USA) as a denomination, where membership has dropped steadily over 40 years and ongoing disputes over theology and bureaucracy create a culture of contention more than vitality. They talked of reclaiming a covenanted biblical community, where unity is derived from a shared mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ, not from structural affiliation, and where young leaders are nurtured to speak the gospel into a rapidly-changing world. The pastors issued a nationwide call to others of like mind who envisioned a new future for congregations to connect and grow while sharing a Presbyterian, Reformed, Evangelical heritage.

Initially, I had very little interest in the Fellowship, especially considering it’s name. I couldn’t help thinking about it outside of the right wing Christian political group, known also as “The Family”, as infiltrated by Jeff Sharlet.

Once I got over that, however, I simply thought of the Fellowship as a reaction to 10-A, a recent national vote which allows ordaining bodies (churchy lingo for churches and groups of church in a given locale) to ordain openly gay and lesbian pastors, elders and deacons.

And frankly, though I’m more or less in agreement with the Fellowship’s stance, I couldn’t get excited about the time, energy, effort and money to trade one institutional framework for another, simply to communicate something I’m against. Throughout history, churches have divided over cultural and theological issues over and over and over – and I had no interest in being a part of another split.

Luckily, however, a friend, mentor and former supervisor of mine has stayed on top of the inner workings of the Fellowship, and is now serving on the board. He’s kept me updated on the ways in which the Fellowship is actually moving the conversation on what it means to be church forward, by decreasing the space between clergy and laity, emphasizing church planting and rethinking levels of education for ordination (where were they five years ago?!). In short, the Fellowship isn’t just a reaction to what’s happened in the past, it’s a movement for the future.

All that to say, I’m heading out to Orlando on Tuesday, as a sort of representative of our pastoral staff and church board. While I’m still a bit cautious of the idea that we need to spend time, energy, effort and money to earn God’s blessing to move forward, I am thankful to be a part of the conversation.