Expectations

Last year, a page I follow posted a link to this article about chronic illnesses, commenting:  "the expectations of modern society are so extreme, no wonder so many people have chronic illnesses."

I follow that particular page because I have interstitial cystitis (just think, chronic bladder pain), along with possible adrenal fatigue, back pain, and sleep apnea; not to mention depression and OCD.

Can I be honest here?

I feel the extreme expectations as a woman from both sides of the aisle, from secular and Christian sides.

On the secular side:

"Gotta have that career.  It's all about the career.  You can't depend on a man, nor should you.  So you gotta have that degree, gotta have that career.  But that career can only be a STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) profession, or a glass-ceiling shattering executive or politician.  After all, your foremothers sacrificed everything for the rights and opportunities you now take for granted.  So how dare you be a traitor to the sisterhood by taking a traditionally feminized job such as teacher, librarian, court reporter, secretary, office assistant, or nurse!  And forget about being a waitress or in similar "pink-collar" jobs.  It's a slap in the face to the sisterhood who fought so hard for your rights and your opportunities.

"Okay, if you feel like you have to have a man, we'll cut you some slack.  But only a little bit.  Because you know, it's all about that career and being independent and taking care of yourself.  After all, that man might leave you someday.  So you have to show that you can stand on your own two feet!  In fact, if you absolutely feel like you have to have someone, go find another woman.  They'll treat you better than men will!

"You want children?  You want to have your own children?  Okay, again, maybe we'll cut you some slack there.  But remember, it's all about that career!  You don't want to be on the 'mommy track', do you?  So if you absolutely have to have those kids, all right, have them . . . but remember, it's all about the career.  So take your six weeks maternity leave and then get back in the office.  Put the kids in day care.  Or hire a nanny. Even better, make him stay home with the baby!

"Or, even better, if you absolutely have to have kids, go adopt.  There's so many kids who need loving homes.

"While you're working on that career, you gotta stay healthy.  Gotta join that gym, take that spin class, do Zumba.  Gotta eat healthy.  Fresh, whole, unprocessed food -- but make sure it's organic, locally sourced, non-GMO, antibiotic-free, hormone-free, grass-fed, free-range, and fair trade.  How dare you contribute to the exploitation of workers all over the world!

"And above all, women must.be.STRONG.  Because hey, strength is the new beauty, you know?  If you go through a trauma in your life and don't come out STRONG on the other end, something is wrong with you."

Then, on the Christian side:

"Gotta have that family.  It's all about the family.  Okay, we'll accept that you may have to work when you're single, because you do have to earn a living.  But once you get married, it's all about the husband.  You know, that wonderful man you should have been praying for since you were a child?  The one that God has hand-picked for you?

"Your job is to be a submissive wife and serve him.  Okay, maybe in this day and age both of you have to work, but it's really better that you don't, that you devote your time to the care of the home and to your husband.

"And kids?  Of course, you're going to have kids.  Birth control?  Nope, no pill because the pill prevents implantation of a fertilized egg, and that's the same thing as having an abortion.  The only acceptable method of contraception is the rhythm method.  Your womb is God's, give it to Him.  If you're capable of having children and you choose not to, you are flat out selfish and you are denying a potential child the opportunity for salvation.  Where are the next generation of Christians going to come from if the Christians do not reproduce?

"Once you have those kids, stop working.  You can't successfully juggle a job and kids too.  Because remember, it's all about the family.  You need to stay home and take care of those kids.  What, you say you feel unfulfilled by cooking and changing diapers and wiping noses all day?  How selfish!  Because remember, it's all about the family.  And mothers are on the hook for the first few years of a child's life.  Yeah, dads are important, but it's the moms who are on the hook.  You have to breast-feed and make your baby food from scratch and use cloth diapers.

"Hope you're planning to homeschool all those kids.  Because the public -- excuse me, 'government' -- school system is godless and pushes an agenda.  Besides, parents are supposed to be their children's primary teachers.  It's their responsibility to train their children in the 'nurture and admonition of the Lord'.  So how dare you palm that off of anyone else!

"Okay, if you absolutely have to send your kids to school, it better be Christian or private.  But under no circumstances do you send your kids to a godless public school where you can't pray and where God isn't allowed.  Can't afford it?  God will provide!  You just need to make the sacrifices!

"But your number one priority, after God, should be your family.  You need to be the first one up in the mornings, and the very first thing you need to do is to have your 'quiet time', and it had better be a good one.  It needs to teach you more about God or convict you of your sin.  When you say your prayers, it better not be about you and your needs because that's selfish.  You need to be saying those prayers for other people because they need it!

"By the time the family comes down for breakfast, it needs to be on the table.  Then you need to kiss your husband goodbye and get ready for the day.  The house must be kept clean and tidy, and the children must be well-behaved and obedient.  If they're not?  Discipline them, which means 'spank them'.

"You must keep yourself attractive for your husband.  No frumpiness, and no gaining weight.  Make sure you have dinner ready when husband comes home.  Put on makeup and a nice dress.  Greet him with a smile and let him complain because he's had a hard day, harder than yours.  He's the king of the castle, and when he comes home, you need to remember that the king is home!

"When he wants sex, you'd better drop everything and do it.  'No' is not an option.  Because if you don't give him what he needs, he's going to find someone else who will.  You don't want that, do you?  Bascially, if you don't keep yourself attractive and give him sex whenever he wants, he'll leave you for another woman.

"And above all, women must.be. quiet, gentle, and submissive, not just to their husbands, but to all men.  Because hey, women were created as the 'helpmeet' for men.  They are the support people.  They stay in the background and make sure men can do what God created them to do!"

Just writing this has made me exhausted. I feel as if I can't be a "real woman" without meeting the expectations I wrote about secular women; but I also feel that I can't be a "real Christian woman" without meeting the expectations I wrote about them.
Is there anyone else who feels the way I do?

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

No, she did not say yes

My son was two months old on an April day 20 years ago when I decided to go shopping. 

I'd heard about a shooting at a high school in Colorado, in suburban Denver, called Columbine High, and I'm sure I thought something like, "How awful!" before I went about my day.

I remember coming home and while stopped at the stoplight at the CVS near my house, hearing on the radio that the kids were coming out, running out with their hands raised.  I thought, thank goodness it's over.

Then I went home and turned on the TV.

Later, I saw the first report of  "25 dead."

I felt sick. 

Later, the figure was revised to 12 dead.  The twelve included the two shooters. 

"Columbine" is actually the name of a flower.  Since April 20, 1999, "Columbine" has become synonymous with "school shooting".

My son has grown up under the shadow of Columbine and the other school shootings that have since taken place.  I don't think we'll ever shake that shadow.  Once a Pandora's box of evil is opened, there's almost no way to shut it.

There's one myth, however, that I wish we would lay to rest:  the myth that Cassie Bernall was a martyr for Christ. 

In the first reports of the Columbine shooting, it came out that Cassie, who was in the library--where most of the killings took place--was asked by one of the shooters, "Do you believe in God?" She answered, "Yes," and she was shot and killed.  (I heard this story on NBC the day after the shootings.)

Evangelical Christians seized on this story because it embodied everything they love:  someone standing up for the cause of Christ who was not ashamed to say "yes, I believe in God" in the face of death, and who was killed for their belief. 

There's just one problem with this story.

It's not true.

Craig Scott, whose sister Rachel was one of the twelve who was murdered, was in the library that horrible day.    Investigators took him back into the library and asked him to recreate what happened, and when asked, where did the voice come from that said, "yes", he pointed away from where Cassie Bernall had been hiding under a table and toward where another student, Valeen Schnurr, had been. 

In addition, a teacher in the library who'd called 911 left the phone line open for eight minutes.  Events in the library were caught on that 911 tape. 

What actually happened was that Eric Harris looked under the table where Cassie was, said, "Peek-a-boo," and shot her.  It was a few moments later, when Valeen Schnurr began screaming, "Oh, my God?" that Dylan Klebold asked her if she believed in God. She said "yes" and when asked "why", she said, "because I believe and my parents brought me up that way."  Valeen was shot but ultimately survived.

Cassie's mother, Misty, wrote a book about her daughter, titled "She Said Yes".  Misty described her daughter as a teenager who'd become rebellious and nearly suicidal.  But in the last year of her life, she turned back towards her faith.  Cassie's father said that after Cassie attended a weekend church retreat, that she'd come back a completely different person. 

I don't believe that anyone deliberately set out to tell a lie about Cassie Bernall.  I've long believed that the events of that horrible day played out like a game of "telephone" where something is repeated down a long line of people and details are changed with every repetition.  It takes time and effort to gather up all the pieces of evidence and lay them out in order to figure out what really happened.  I think that by the time evidence was sifted through, arranged, and the final report written, Cassie's supposed "martyrdom" had so embedded itself into public consciousness that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to correct the impression that she truly had "laid down her life for Christ". 

Later in 1999, Family Christian Bookstores came out with a line of T-Shirts and keychains with the slogan, "Yes I Believe In God".  That was the moment I developed a distaste for Christian merchandising (known also as "Jesus junk".)  To me, that line of merchandise was a blatant attempt to capitalize on a horrible event. 

Ten years ago, journalist Dave Cullen published his book "Columbine", which is considered the definitive account of the Columbine shootings.  He devotes several pages to Cassie and the story of her alleged martyrdom. 

Between Cullen's book, the final report on Columbine, and the testimony of several witnesses (including Cassie's friend Emily Wyant), the evidence shows that it's time to lay this myth to rest, once and for all:

Cassie Bernall did not say "yes" when asked "do you believe in God".
Valeen Schnurr said "yes" when asked "do you believe in God".
Cassie Bernall was not martyred for her faith in God.
Cassie Bernall was murdered by a sociopath who also shot many other people before finally killing himself.
Cassie Bernall discovered faith in the last year of her life.  She did say "yes" to God.
Cassie Bernall is not a martyr. 
Cassie Bernall did not say "yes" and die.
Valeen Schnurr said "yes" and lived.
People did not initially intend to lie when reporting that Cassie said "yes, I believe in God".
Some people did, however, refuse to correct the impression when the facts proved that story wrong. 

Cassie deserves to be remembered as a daughter whose life ended too soon.  She deserves to be remembered as the person she was, a girl who lost her way for a while and who found it again. 

But despite what some people--and unfortunately, some of those people are Christians--would want you to believe . . . no, she did not say yes.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation. 
  

Worship Wednesday: The stuff we argue over . . .

I recently joined a Facebook group of Church of Christ bloggers.  One of the first posts I read was about Christians drinking wine.  The blogger believes Christians shouldn't drink wine at all.

I can respect his viewpoint.  I don't drink wine, beer, etc, because I don't know how much it would take for me to get drunk, and I'd rather not take the chance.

But on the group, the discussion quickly turned to, "Well, Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding in Cana."  From there, the question became:  "Was the wine alcoholic, or non-alcoholic?"

I've heard this argument before, which, as I see it, boils down to:  Drinking wine is a sin because you might get drunk on the alcohol content.  Yet, Jesus turned water into wine.  Jesus wouldn't sin, nor would he tempt anyone to sin.  If drinking wine is a sin because you might get drunk on the alcohol . . . then the wine that Jesus created must not have alcohol.  Problem solved!

However, wine is inherently alcoholic.  There is no such thing as "non-alcoholic" wine.

I'm not sure if the post is still on the group, but at last count, the number of responses to it was over 100.

I really don't feel like going down the rabbit hole of the argument of "was the wine in Jesus' day alcoholic or non-alcoholic".

Nor do I feel like going down the rabbit hole of the common arguments of Churches of Christ, such as instruments in worship, the "five acts of worship", etc. etc. etc. etc.  That's not the point of this post.

I just find it interesting that we can get so wound up over topics such as the alcohol content of the wine in Jesus' day, on whether or not we can use instruments in worship, on specifically what we can and can't do in worship . . . and in the meantime, we look at the world and see that it's lost and dying, that people starve daily, both physically and spiritually; that people are almost literally at each other's throats over this election; that people are fleeing death and persecution . . .

And we sit here, in our Christian bubbles, pointing fingers and arguing about what I see as inconsequentials.  (And when I say "we", I also mean "I".  I'm probably one of the most "bubbled-in" Christians that I know.)

I honestly think that if the worst happened and we Christians were forced to meet in secret, we Church of Christers would spend so much time arguing about the "authorized" way to worship that we would end up not worshiping at all!

If you feel led to comment here, I don't want to hear the arguments about how to worship, about wine vs. grape juice, about instrumental music, etc. etc.  Can we not focus on what Jesus' first and second commands were, which are, "Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself"?

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Manic Monday on Wednesday: Easier or better?

(I've been dealing with fatigue and didn't get to write this on Monday.)

In discussing the upcoming election, I read a Facebook post saying that the US would be better off with "a man of God" at the helm.  The post was greeted with at least one "Amen!" and several agreements.

I posted in response that while I understood the sentiment, the early Christian church grew during a time when the person "at the helm" was far from a man of God.  It might be easier for the US if a "man of God" was at the helm, but would it be better for us?

This is a bit related to my other post today, asking if what we want is our good or our convenience.  It would be convenient if a "man of God" was at the helm of the US, but I wonder if it would be for our good.

First off, what do we mean by having "a man of God" at the helm of our country?  Do we want someone who is visibly Christian, who makes a point of showing that he/she goes to church every Sunday and who invokes the name of God at every opportunity?  Do we want a member of a "high church", such as Catholic or Presbyterian; or do we want a member of a "low church", such as Baptist or Pentecostal?  If a Catholic got into office, would the Baptists protest that a "man of God" was NOT in the Presidency?  And what about vice versa?

Second off, what else "proves" that this person is a "man of God"?  If he/she sends troops into a country, or withdraws troops?  If they advocate for more social programs, or for fewer?  If they speak out against gun violence or remain silent?  If they support #blacklivesmatter, #bluelivesmatter, or #alllivesmatter?

Third off, if a person is a Democrat, does that automatically mean that he/she is NOT a "man of God"? Can only a conservative Republican be a "man of God"?  Can only a white, male, conservative Republican be a man of God?

Fourth off, will this "man of God" have to support prayer/Bible reading in schools in order to be considered a "man of God"?

The early Christian church began during a time in history when the person "at the helm" was definitely not a "man of God".  The ruler in the Roman Empire, where the early Christian church began, was a Roman emperor whose word was law and whose word was enforced at sword point. Christianity also began in an area, Judea, where Jewish law reigned supreme.  It was in this context that the Apostle Paul enjoined fellow Christians to "submit themselves to the governing authorities" (Romans 13:1) and to pray for those in authority over them (I Timothy 2:2).  I Peter 2:17 also tells Christians to "fear God, honor the emperor".

Granted, the Bible does also share the stories of those who did defy those who ordered people not to preach and teach in the name of Jesus (see Acts 4 and Acts 5).  Paul himself was arrested for putting his hope in the resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:6, Acts 24:21).

This was the context in which the early Christian church grew, a context where the government was tolerant at best and hostile at worst.  No "man of God" was at the helm here.

I admit to worrying about the future of this country, and perhaps we would be better off with "a man of God" at the helm.

But do we want to be "better off", or do we just want to make life easier for ourselves?  Do we want to have our Christian culture, where we can drive with ease to the nearest Christian bookstore, church hop on Sundays until we find one to our liking (which, too often, means "one that makes me feel good"), turn up our Christian music, and put our fish magnets on the back of our car?

Or do we really want to be "better off", where "better off" may mean having our faith tested and challenged?

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Family Friday: My word for 2016

I first heard of this idea of a "word" for the year from Brian Hardin, host of the Daily Audio Bible podcast.  DAB has a free app in iTunes and Android for download, and it's well worth it.

Other Facebook friends of mine have a "word" for the year.  Last year, I thought I had one: "declutter".  Well, that didn't work too well, because my house is still as cluttered as ever.

This year, though, I think I have a word, and it's one that may seem a little odd:

Dissatisfaction.

I don't mean that I'm unhappy with life, or that I want more stuff or more money (although more money is always good :-) )

Rather, I'm not satisfied with several things in my life, especially my relationship with God.

There has got to be more than just going to church twice a week, doing the fill-in-the-blank studies I do with my ladies' group (although we do have a lot of good discussion there!), rote, legalistic "quiet times" or "devotional times", rote, recited prayers where we start with, "Dear God," "Heavenly Father," do a quick "thank you", ask for prayers for the sick, for "traveling mercies", and other things; ask God to "be with," "bless", "lift up," and the other phrases we use in prayer, pay lip service to "Jesus' sacrifice on the cross", and then ending prayers with a sing-songy sounding, "In Jesus' name I pray, Amen."

I'm not satisfied with shallow, superficial religion.  I just want something more, and that's why I say I'm dissatisfied.

I probably sound rather critical.  It is not easy to lead public prayers.  I've led prayer in my ladies' group before, and I wind up falling back on the pet phrases I so detest.  It could be that I expect too much to hear a "fresh-sounding" prayer every week.  And nothing's wrong with our prayers for the sick, or for people on the road.  In fact, I can think of a long list of reasons why we should pray for the sick, and/or for the other requests we pray for.  And a scheduled time with God is good.  If I want a deeper relationship with God, this "something more" that I want, then I need to put time into it, and if it's not somewhere on the schedule, it's not going to happen.  Printed Bible studies are also good.  A relative of a friend of mine wrote a Bible study recently.  Trying to write lessons for people isn't easy. (It's also something I've never done, so I probably don't appreciate the effort that goes into a Bible study lesson.)

But isn't there something more than just all of the above?

I wrote a blog post recently about the trappings of Christianity.  We have our Christian culture, Christian words and phrases ("quiet time", anybody?), our pre-packaged Bible curricula, Vacation Bible School, Bible and prayer apps; and we scream about "prayer in schools" and how much better it would be if only "God were allowed back in schools".  A Facebook post I recently read said, in reference to the presidential election, that America would be better off with "a man of God" at the helm. I surprised myself with my response, because there was a time that I probably would have said the same thing.  The gist of what I said was, the first century church began in a time where the person "at the helm" was far from being "a man of God" . . . and yet, the church exploded in growth.  It might be easier for us if the person in charge was a "man of God", but would it be better for us?

The early Christians had the apostles, some written words, and their gatherings.  And yet, they spread the word everywhere they went.  We have the whole Bible and modern technology, and I wonder if we're doing the same thing.

I just want something more out of my relationship with God.

And that's why my word is "dissatisfaction."

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Worship Wednesday: Christian trappings

A while back, I downloaded the free Logos Bible app and more recently, I have been using it to organize my prayer lists and do some Bible study.  What annoys me about Logos, however, is that if you want to use certain features--like, say, the interlinear Greek option of some translations--you have to buy a Logos software set, the cheapest of which is $250!

I may, someday, invest the $250 in Logos software.  I'm sure it's worth the cost.

But my experience with using Logos has me wondering about the different "trappings" of Christianity.

I live in a Christian culture.  I get to use a Christian software app in order to read and study the Bible. I can go down to Family Christian Stores, or Lifeway Books, and look up the latest Christian books and/or other media.  I listen to Christian praise music.  I go to church on Sundays and Wednesdays and sing on a praise team.  I read (and write) Christian fiction, as does my BFF.  There are loads of Christian notebooks, tips on how to have a good "quiet time", version upon version of the Bible, videos to entertain the kids with clean, Christian entertainment, and, to top it off, Christian decor to place on your walls and on your shelves.  I've done a number of Bible studies where you get the workbook, fill in the blanks, have group discussion, and watch the accompanying video.  I can, off the top of my head, name several prominent Christian authors/celebrities:  Beth Moore, Kay Arthur, Priscilla Shirer, John MacArthur, James Dobson, Max Lucado, etc.  If you can afford it, you can send your children to Christian school or Christian colleges.  Or, you can homeschool your children using a Christian curriculum.

What would happen if all of these "trappings" of Christianity disappeared?

Is the faith of the average American Christian based in Christian culture?  Or is it truly based in Christ?

I hear, at this time of year, the gripes about the supposed "war on Christmas" and how "Jesus is the reason for the season" and how Christians are supposed to be offended and to "stand up for Jesus!" when someone says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas".  Never mind that, during December, there's also Hanukkah, and that Kwaanza starts the day after Christmas.  (And today marks "Festivus for the rest of us!" the annual airing of grievances made popular by Seinfeld.)

I also hear the usual screaming about how "God isn't allowed in schools!" and how things would be oh, so much better if we could just put God and prayer back in schools.  As if God slams into an invisible wall whenever a believer steps onto a public school campus and deserts him/her, only to reinhabit him/her when the believer steps off the campus.

There are Christian brothers and sisters that don't have the "trappings" of Christianity that we think are so important in American society.  In Iraq, Iran, China, and other places, they don't have access to Christian bookstores and many of them may not have even heard of the Christian teachers I've named above.  Possession of a Bible is a crime in several countries.  Confession of the name of Jesus can, and sometimes does, get you killed.  Just ask people in ISIS-held territory.

What would the average American Christian do if they wound up in a country without a Christian culture?  What would they do if they only had a Bible and nothing else?  Would they keep their faith, or would it wither and die?  Would they complain because their children couldn't pray in public schools, or not hear "Merry Christmas" from a store clerk?  Or because there are no Christian schools to send their children to?  Or because they can't get their latest copy of a Beth Moore study?

I really wonder, at times, where is the faith of the average American Christian based?  I ask this question of my faith as well.  Without the "trappings" -- without the "Christian" culture that I am so accustomed to -- would I lose my faith?  And if I did, how strong was that faith to begin with?  What was my faith based in?

Our fellow Christians throughout the world seem to do just fine worshiping God without Christian trappings.  Can't we do the same?

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Christianese culture--I'm done!

After this week, I am officially done with Christianese culture. 

I am not done with Christianity.  There is a difference between Christianity and Christianese culture.

The tipping point for me?  The report that Josh Duggar, of the reality show 19 Kids and Counting, confessed to the sexual abuse of five girls when he was 14.  Four of them were his sisters.  Given the amount of publicity surrounding this family, and the amount of public information about them, just about anyone can do the math and come close to figuring out who the sisters were that were abused.

I am reading where Josh should be forgiven, where we shouldn't bring up something that happened so long ago (he is now married with three children and one on the way).  I am reading where he was a stupid kid who messed up and it shouldn't be held against him.  I have read where Josh apologized (which he did in a public statement this week) and I have read where his sisters have forgiven him.

But let me see if I can detail my problems with this whole event: 

1. This was not a one-time deal.  This happened several times before the behavior was discovered.
2. The father waited for a YEAR before reporting it to the police.
3. Neither Josh, nor his victims--to the best of my knowledge--received ANY kind of professional, impartial counseling to help them deal with the event.
4. As another blogger pointed out, "kids who molest have often been molested themselves".  Is it possible that Josh himself was a victim of molestation?  (I'm speculating here.  I have no proof that Josh was ever a victim.)
5.  Josh was sent away for four months to do hard labor at a family friend's place.  When he came back, he was given a "stern talking to" by a state trooper--another family friend--who has since been arrested and imprisoned for possession and distribution of child pornography.
6. He came back and continued to live in the same house as his victims.
7. There is a question as to whether or not TLC knew of these events, and yet went ahead anyway with the 19 Kids and Counting show.

In this blog entry, the writer examines parts of the specific Christian culture that the Duggars come from.  They use homeschooling materials put out by the Advanced Training Institute, founded by Bill Gothard.  Gothard is a well-known name in religious homeschooling circles.  He founded the Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts in the 1960's (later known as Institute in Basic Life Principles).  (Click here for the Wikipedia article.)  Later, he developed the curriculum for the Advanced Training Institute.

He has also been accused of inappropriate behavior with young females--and this website has done an excellent job of documenting stories of that inappropriate behavior. 

What I resent about Christianese culture is its emphasis on, "If you just do what we do the way we do it, you, too can have the happy life/happy family that we have!"

I came out of a group that taught just that.  If you just "did it" the way the group taught, you, too, could be spiritual and close to God.  If you just had your "quiet time" daily, confessed your sins weekly to a prayer partner, attended every gathering of the body, dated only Christian men within your group, and invited everyone you knew to church, Bible study, etc., then you, too, would be "spiritual". 

Well, that didn't work.  In the group I left, we had plenty of examples of power struggles, shunning, and sexual misconduct.  I have never been a victim of sexual abuse, thankfully; but I was the victim of spiritual abuse, as were many, many others who came out of the group I was part of. 

We Christians in the US are very prone to worship at the altar of the Christian celebrity.  We want the "5 steps to", "3 ways to", etc.  Our faith is a mile wide and an inch deep.  We bicker and fight about how many days it took for the world to be created, about what "modest" dress is, about whether or not we should have prayer in schools, whether or not the 10 Commandments should be posted on public property . . .and where has it gotten us?  Where? 

Last week the Pew Research center published a study where it showed that the percentage of the population that identifies as "Christian" has declined to 70%.  Personally, I think that our emphasis on "majoring in minors", and our refusal to take a good, hard look at some of our unhealthy teachings on certain subjects goes a long way towards why people--especially our young people--are leaving Christianity. 

Our Christianese culture is leading people to abandon Christianity.

I, for one, have had enough.

I am done.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.