Re: Generation

The Power of Play

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:56:00 +0000

It is no secret in Early Childhood Education that children learn through sensorimotor exploration. They learn through blocks and imaginative play and coloring and all those fun preschool activities. That's how they learn about gravity and interpersonal skills and everything they'll need to become functioning adults.

And then sometime over the next twenty years our self-esteem plummets and we forget how to imagine. Or how to let ourselves go and simply play. Even those things which adults call "play" (like golf or exercise) can often turn into work; and sometimes can even be more stressful than work.

That's why I love the urban playground movement. Call me a liberal. Call me a neo-hippie. Call me whatever you want. But anything that gets a group of adults together for a 7 minute game of duck duck goose in a San Francisco park is alright in my book. And it's not just San Francisco. These so-called "flash mobs" have been occurring since the late nineties, but lately they've been turning more and more toward play, rather than pointless havoc. A pillow fight in Central Park. A mass coordinated dance to Michael Jackson's "Thriller". It all sounds like a bunch of fun.

So; what does any of this have to do with religion? Well, not so much on the surface. Underneath though, it seems to make a solid statement about society. Or at least, our discontent with the state or direction of society. People are realizing that they are not the only ones tired of consumerism; of the endless work week; of living life for nothing; can I go so far as to say that people are even getting tired of nihilism?

It seems to me, at least, that if people are realizing that something is lacking in life, it gives more room for God to move. Once people understand that life needs meaning (no, life demands meaning) they may be more receptive to the redemptive message of Christ. And anything that opens up the way for Christ (and can incorporate childish games) is more than okay to me.

When Did Tolerance Become Taboo?

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 02:29:00 +0000

It's always a bit of a sticky issue to talk about tolerance in the realm of the church; and yet, that sentence reads oddly. Why should it be difficult to talk about tolerance in the church? Didn't Jesus tell us to "love one another"? As neighbors; as brothers; as ourselves? And sure, there is the small portion of society that cannot stand themselves, or abuse themselves, but usually, we are able to tolerate ourselves (sins and foibles and downfalls included) reasonably well.

So why do we have a problem with tolerating other people? When did tolerance become a bad word?

Adults can normally regulate their behavior. Usually. Sometimes. Teens, on the other hand, do not seem to have that regulating software hardwired yet. So how does one try to teach the youth tolerance and respect for others (read: religion, race, and sexual preference) without being labeled "new age", "heretical", or even (gasp!) a democrat?

Now, I'm brainstorming here, as this issue hits pretty close to home in my own youth group. What about attending a community sponsored discussion forum, like say, about the local Muslim community, listening respectfully, and then coming together afterward to discuss? Or, if you are a bit more adventurous, what about having your church or youth group host the forum? It'd be a great marketing opportunity in the community, to branch out, maybe even add in a bit of ecumenism.

The obvious problems to such a venture would foremost be the parent / church board objections. It's unavoidable that whatever you want to do, there will be someone who disagrees with you. They may disagree on the execution, the planning, the funding, or even the idea in principle. The point is that when you venture out into the hinterland of non-doctrinal outsiders, there will be dissent. The question would then be how to mitigate that dissent. Do you have parents sign permission forms? Have church-goers attend a "pre-forum" expectation meeting?

As with my last post, it seems like the only way to introduce a bit of tolerance into a uniform congregation is to put them into the real world. But, like leadership, you run the risk of failure and loss of witness. What if someone acted up at the forum and caused a disruption? Or said something really offensive? How can the church recover from that in the community?

So the question of tolerance really boils down to this: Do we let them test the waters, or do we throw them in and hope they swim?

Leadership and Youth

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:07:00 +0000

Is leadership truly ageless? Or is there an age that precludes true leadership? I'm musing on these thoughts because, as a youth pastor, it is my responsibility (or my pleasure, I suppose) to bring out leadership qualities in our youth.

Thought I admit, those qualities can seem far off sometimes. Teens are in a state of flux; they are ruled by their impulses as that is the part of the brain that develops first (bummer, that!). They want to be considered adult, but still submit to their childish whims. So what is a poor youth pastor to do?

On the one hand, we could keep putting them in leadership situations, letting them fail at the whole "leader" thing until they finally get it, or we could keep them out until we think they're "ready". Both have perks and horrible consequences. With the former, the benefit is that they gain experience in leadership situations. The downfall is that watching them fail is not only difficult for me, but can potentially harm our Christian witness. The benefit of the latter is that you know the people you put in leadership situations will be ready for it, but at the same time, how will they ever be ready if I don't give them chances?

It's almost like a catch-22. Whichever method I choose, there is the potential for failure as well as success. I suppose that the best you can do is the prepare them as well as possible, let them try, and if they fail, perhaps talk about why they failed and how they might do it better next time. It is said that you need to fail sometimes to truly understand success, and I suppose this applies as much to teenagers as to adults.

Lambeth and Tough Questions

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 03:53:00 +0000

The Rev. Canon Dr. Kendall Harmon has a great blog that chronicles the news and steps of the Anglican Lambeth Conference going on across the pond. I think it's always important to be cognizant of what other denominations are going through. At the very least, to pray for them as they make life-changing, and often world-changing, decisions.

As the Anglicans go into the final stretch of the Lambeth Conference, let's all band together and pray for the faithful who travelled so very far to meet and discuss God work on this small planet. Especially as I've heard they'll be drawing out the biggies this week; the hard-hitting questions of the Episcopal civil war, and internal policing and such. It all sounds very serious, so let's pray for God to give them wisdom and compassion and understanding as they enter into the last week.

On that note, I have to say that I love Anglicans. I follow quite a few Anglican blogs. Sometimes it is easy for me to forget the mystery and the holiness of sacred spaces and architecture and liturgy and how they, too, work together for God's glory. Especially as my church is in an office building, and while we created a sanctuary and such, it certainly is no cathedral. It is easy to forget that buildings can glorify God just as much as people. And for reminding me of that alone, Anglicans, I thank you.

Some Kind of Zombie

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:12:00 +0000

My husband has just finished reading Surprised By Hope by N. T. Wright. I have just finished the introduction so far, but am intrigued by what his premise is, as well as the discussions my husband and I have had about it.

N. T. Wright claims that modern Christians have deviated quite drastically from the early Christian belief in the "resurrection of the body". Back then, it was something accepted, that when we are resurrected, it will be in full bodily form. Modern Christians seems to have slackened, and now don't really know what we believe. I think Wright is right (horrible pun, I'm sorry) in this instance. It's common to hear about "going to heaven", or "living forever with Jesus", or even about how death is not the end for us. But what exactly is the life after death? Many Christians will waffle on this point. Is it fluffy white clouds? Indiscriminate beings of energy eternally worshipping God?

Wright claims that the early Christians (read: Church Fathers) believed in the full bodily resurrection. Meaning that we will be resurrected with the exact same body we have now, just perhaps . . . completed? Perfected? Fulfilled?

For instance, consider Jesus. He was resurrected with the same body He died in. The tomb was empty. His hands still bore the nail scars. His side still bore the spear wound. He was "himself" enough to pass as a regular human. So much human, that they didn't recognize him at first -- they thought he was the gardener! And yet, He could walk through walls (or at least get into a locked room). His physical body, that only three days ago was as limited as the rest of us, suddenly seemed better. It's a common line in theology that Christ is the most authentic human. If that is true, then is His resurrected body what the human form should be? What it was meant to be?

But that also brings up logical questions. Wright seems to believe that God will actually remake us with the same "stuff" that made up our body. But it's impossible to reclaim the exact physical make up of our postmortem bodies. Bodies take only a few months to decay. Once they start that, their chemical properties are changed. Our bodies are no longer what they were. And what of cremation? Or those who were martyred at the stake? They don't even have a body left to be remade.

On the other hand, that is linear human thinking. We need to think vertically. We need to think like God. I have heard (though I'm not sure of the veracity of it) that our body chemically changes and sloughs skin off and such so much that every ten years, it's like we have a whole new body. So maybe the important thing in the resurrection is that we are more than physical. It's the age old question: where does the soul reside? The brain? The heart? As some societies thought, the spleen or kidneys? It is clear that there is something more going on here.

The difference is, then, that there is not a man, but a God behind this curtain. And we certainly need to pay attention to Him! He is the crux. He is the defining rod that make us more than animals. He is omnipotent, omniscient, and irresistible. No matter what you think of the resurrection (be it bodily or not), we need to trust that whatever happens to us in this life, our God knows us beyond a shadow of a doubt. He can separate every single one of our molecules out from every other molecule on earth. And, I suppose, after I disintegrate into my grave, I suppose He, above all, would be able to tell me from the dirt. Maybe it's a bit morbid, but that is certainly a comforting thought. For me, at least.

Thanks for Your Patience!

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 04:54:00 +0000

Well, as I'm entering my second trimester of pregnancy, I'm finding a little bit more energy lying around, so I'm going to be obedient and try to post more often. I am sorry for the short haitus while I napped. I'll be back later this week with a post. I solemnly swear.

The Emerging Church: Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:12:00 +0000

And now continued:

However, this essay would be incomplete if the common criticisms of the emerging church were not voiced here. This is not a polemic; it is an education. There are a few criticisms that seemingly occur constantly. The first and most obvious is the claim of postmodernism to the point where they deny the certitude of truth. It all sounds nice and lovely until an emergent denies the inerrancy of scripture; or that Truth can be objectified. An emergent would counter (since I’m being fair) that we live in a postmodern world; thus, it takes a different form of evangelism. Scot McKnight calls this critical realism , or the understanding that this is the world we live in and traditional forms of evangelism might not be enough.

Others say that the emergents are too syncretistic in their spirituality. In their unrelenting iconoclasm of classic Christianity, some would say that the emergents go too far; God cares about sacred spaces and tradition too. In their emphasis on interdenominational and interfaith dialogue, some claim that the emergents are too lax and ignore the cost and consequence of sin. Emergents would likely counter that in the context of understanding, once someone knows where you stand, it would be better to let them make their own decisions and continue the friendship than continue harping and lose any contact with them. In theology, this is called adiaphora; to agree to disagree.

So what are you to take from this? Remember that the emerging church is not a single denomination; it is individuals along a spectrum of beliefs. While the more radical voices (of the Emergent Village and New Monasticism et al) tend to be the loudest, emergents as a rule refuse to be herded into a single label. I would go so far as to say that every Christian has some amount of emergent in them, for their causes and beliefs are essential to Christianity. We should all be concerned with our actions and how to live out Christ to the world; we should all be concerned about whole people and whole societies; we all need to recognize our underlying unity as people of a fallen race, all with a Common Story (of sin and redemption and sanctification).

The Christian Church, as an institution, has made some pretty poor decisions in the past. Individuals in the Church have hurt a lot of people. Emergents (listen up, mainstream Christians) attempt to bridge the gap and heal the wounds that the church created. No longer are unbelievers simply “unchurched”; people know quite well the message of Christianity in America – When abortion clinics are bombed, they hear you are evil. When homosexual rallies are protested with hate posters, they hear you are not worthy. When they think of Christians, they hear you will never be like us. Emergents understand something essential to being human; that having someone love you as you are is fundamental to life. We, as Christians, should also take that stance because we have a God who loves us as we are. The world needs a God that will love them (yes, even in their sin), and it is our job to show that God to them.

The Emergent Church

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 04:00:00 +0000

So I'm going to join everybody else and post a little bit about how I see the emergent church and try to be as neutral (and journalistic) as possible. Let me know how I did, especially if any of you are emergent.

There is a new brand of Christianity on the rise; it’s called the Emerging Church. As with any- thing, the extreme version (the Emergent Village) gets the most publicity – not all of it good. This article will attempt to explain the beliefs that drive the emerging church, the popular criticisms about it, and what it means for the next generation of Christians.

At the core of the Emergents’ beliefs is the certainty that we all have a stake in one another. Emergents are strong supporters of ecumenism. As younger generations, they were raised in an increasingly diverse world, and as such, they revel in the diversity of Christendom. They appreciate the mystery of the Orthodox; they embrace the traditions of the Reformed; and they even encourage interfaith dialogue. The popular founder of the Emergent Village, Brian McLaren, calls it a “generous orthodoxy”. Emergents are most concerned with relational Christianity. They believe that the message of Christ is most effective when it’s conveyed within the context of an understanding conversation. They would prefer to sit down with you (perhaps over coffee) and say, “this is what I believe, but I may be wrong. What do you think? Let’s talk.” They believe that the most effective evangelism comes within the context of a trusting friendship; as such, they are more likely to be pacifists and peacemakers.

Another aspect of the emerging church is their acceptance of a Christian’s role as “earthkeeper”. They believe that God’s creation is blessed, and so try to promote healing for the earth as a whole. They believe not only in whole people, but also whole societies. It is for this reason that many emergents are activists of some type. The whole of creation (not just the welfare of unbelievers) was given to us to care for, and emergents often see the ills of the world (both social and environmental) as the disparity between what is, and what God intended.

As a part of what God intended, emergents are committed to living out the life and mission of Christ to the world. They call this “missional living”; it’s an emphasis on praxis, or acts. This term is taken from the Greek New Testament book of Praxis Apostolon, or the Acts of the Apostles (more commonly known as simply, “Acts”). They believe that the way we live out our faith (or our acts) will often be more of a witness than mere words. This is why a conversation among friends can be so powerful; they understand the importance of living Christ out to the world.

A final hallmark of the emerging church is their creative spirituality and re-interpretation of ancient liturgical rites for the modern day. It’s not uncommon for emergents to discuss the pros and cons of using the lectio divina, the Ignatius Examen, or even Orthodox liturgy. This is their focus on new ways of “doing church” and combining the differing elements from all traditions.

Now, I've gone over what I view as the main tenets of the emerging church. This is the first post. To be fair, next week, I will address some of the main criticisms of the Emerging church and how, possibly and hypothetically (as I am an observer), how the emergents might respond to those criticisms.

Procreation, Forgiveness, and Fear

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 02:34:00 +0000

As a side note, I apologize for taking so long to blog. I'm going to ask your forbearance for the next nine months, though, as this pregnancy exhaustion is hitting me hard early on. I'll try to stay constant, but be aware that my health is (obviously) foremost.

I was meditating on the forgiveness of God, and this verse caught me as something odd at first.

"But with you there is forgiveness,
Therefore you are feared." Psalm 130:4

It brought me up short. The initial question is why should forgiveness be feared? Shouldn't forgiveness be sought? Be wanted? Shouldn't we be grateful for God's forgiveness? Forgiveness might be feared because:

It offends our pride?
It humbles us?
It's hard to accept?
We feel we need to pay it back?
In accepting forgiveness, we grant God power over us?
We don't like to rely on another?

And then we're back to the pride issue. Maybe forgiveness from God should be feared because it offends our flesh. Any encounter with God naturally humbles us and completely smashes our sense of self and importance. And when we receive God's forgiveness, it's even more so humbling because we know we don't deserve it.

So let's be thankful that we have a God who forgives, even if it humbles us.

The Authentic Human

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Sat, 24 May 2008 15:32:00 +0000

Everyone has some sort of a mentor or hero, be it spiritual or worldly. I know that I tend to admire (and envy, if I'm being honest) the intellectuals out there. What is interesting is that Christians may talk all the time about trying to be like Jesus, but when it comes down to pure honesty, I doubt very many Christians would say that Jesus is their hero.

Why is that? Jesus was the only true human ever. He was the only authentic man. By living his perfect life, walking with the Father, Jesus set the bar as to what it means to be human. In Jesus, God's design for mankind came to completion because he was sinless. That is how God created humans to be; not this fallen thing of unconquerable cravings and irredeemable vices. Humans were created for something far greater than we can imagine in our fallen state.

Originally, the word "Christian" was a derogatory term, an epithet, hurled at the first followers of Jesus. It is a diminuative of "Christ", or hence, "little-Christ". Afer a while, Christians began to accept the term and use it to identify themselves; and, I think, what better term could possibly define us, but the One who is our standard and measure of what it means to be human?

This was a bit of a thought experiment for me yesterday; I was meditating on the life of Christ and how he was our propitiation and the perfect sacrifice, and I thought about how we are all supposed to strive to be like Him. Can you image what the world would be like, if it was full of "little Christs"?

If people were sinless, there would be no crime, no hurt, no brokenness. There would be no need for a government, even. Sound familiar?? Doesn't that sound a lot like visions of Heaven, or the Kingdom of God?

So while we know that this is an impossibility here on earth, that does not mean that we should stop trying to be like Christ; that is our duty. Our calling, therefore, is to live our lives in such a way that we might possibly bring a little bit of God's Kingdom here on earth.

... On the Bedpost Overnight?

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Sun, 18 May 2008 01:51:00 +0000

This is the second post entitled, "Does your chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight", dealing with ministry burnout.

The initial epiphany of ministry burnout (namely, that we should still do it even if it seems like no one cares) is followed by the subsequent, but no less powerful, revelation that we need to let God be God.

We need to pause in our planning and agendas and work schedules and endless strategies and give God room to work. If we are getting burned out, it might mean to we have come to rely too heavily on our power. It means that we came to believe that we are solely responsible for the success (or failure) of our ministry.

That is a lie. The true thrust of ministry is that we allow God to work. Sure, He uses people and the unique gifts He gave us; but ultimately, God is the one who works through us to will and to move according to His good pleasure (Philippians 2:12-13).

That was a huge weight off my chest, once I realized that all I am responsible for is my calling. Anything beyond that (like reaching the youth and saving them) will be God's work. I simply just need to be obedient and God will be able to work through me to complete His purpose.

What greater comfort is there? So, the next time ministry burnout strikes, stay obedient, but relax. Pray, study, contemplate, worship, whatever you want to do; just remember that it is God who works through you. As a matter of fact, let the ministry sit on the bedpost overnight, for once, and see what God does now that He has room to move. You might be surprised.

Does Your Chewing Gum Lose Its Flavor . .

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Sat, 17 May 2008 06:07:00 +0000

This is the first part of a double post, entitled "Does your chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight?"

It's a common thread in all ministry that ministers will get burned out eventually. It may happen a few months in, a few years, whatever. The point is that there will come a time where the minister asks if the time /labor /prayer /stress is worth it. It happens to everyone in any kind of ministry.

More to the point, it happened to me this week. I'm the internet minister (webmistress, podcaster, blogger, etc) for my church. My church tends to be more rural, and less technologically savvy than, say, larger urban churches. So it is a real possibility (nay, probability) that I will spend all of my time creating and maintaining websites that my church members may not care about. Or, they'll think it's a great idea, but never use it.

So I spent all week working through my quandary and my sense of pride and accomplishment and selfishness. And I had a revelation as I was driving, doing some errands today (the best time to get revelations from God). I was thinking about it and complaining, "Why do I spend all my time doing this when no one cares?"

And God said to me, "Why did I send my Son to die, when no one cares?"

And the clouds broke open and angels sang (etc, etc) and I nearly wept because the word was so audible and clear. The point isn't that I do my ministry so that people might use it and be helped. The point of my ministry is that I am obedient to God. The point is that I do because I am called to do it. No other reason why.

It is a humbling thought; that we need to set aside our pride and sense of carnal accomplishment and simply be obedient to God and His call on our lives. It doesn't matter if our ministry affects two people or two thousand people. Ministry is that much more effective when we do it when we don't want to do it. We are that much more faithful when we are simply obedient.

So ministry is like chewing gum. It loses it's flavor; sometimes overnight, sometimes it takes longer. But unlike chewing gum (which is better discarded), it is still our responsibility to continue our ministry and be obedient to God whether we feel like it or not. That's all He asks, really, and what could be simpler than that?

Rob Bell and Nietzsche

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Wed, 14 May 2008 15:27:00 +0000

I never thought I’d see the day when the Christian philosophers agree with Nietzsche. Oh sure, Rob Bell may not know that, but I came across a passage about the church’s dealings with cravings in Nietzsche’s “Twilight of the Idols”, that is almost exactly the same as a section Rob Bell’s book, Sex God.

Nietzsche said: “The church fights passion with excision in every sense: its practice, its “cure”, is castration. It never asks, ‘how can one spiritualize, beautify, deify a craving?’ It has at all times laid the stress of discipline on extirpation (of sensuality, of pride, of the lust to rule, of avarice, of vengefulness). But an attack on the roots of passion means an attack on the roots of life: the practice of the church is hostile to life.” (Morality as anti-nature, Section 1).

Ouch. You see, Rob Bell explains something identical. In chapter four, he mentions this, and how as Christians, we should re-direct all our sexual energy into other avenues. We are passionate beings, he says, and we cannot repress those cravings; instead, it’s about “channeling it and focusing it and turning it loose on something beautiful, something pure and true and good, something that connects you with God, with others, with the world.”

Once is coincidence. Twice is noticeable, especially coming from such opposite viewpoints. Nietzsche, in his God-is-dead milieu, understands the church’s fallacy: We are passionate people, created in the image of a creative and passionate God. It is hostile to life, as Nietzsche says; but if life is God-breathed, then by repressing our cravings are we doing God a disservice?

It is obvious that God gives us passions and energy for a reason, for a calling. It is our duty, then, as obedient children, to point those energies toward something that furthers the message of Christ. Toward something creative, and beautiful, and good: Our calling, our ministry, our church. Wouldn’t that be a great day, when the church stops preaching about cutting off our cravings and energies, and instead helps people to find places to use that energy?

It’s been a long time since Nietzsche excoriated the church; unfortunately, not much has changed. But the emerging church is as jaded and cynical as he was, and they’re seeing the same thing. The only difference is that they are in a position to change it. So, no; the church hasn’t changed. At least, not yet.

UnMothers Unite

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Sun, 11 May 2008 04:37:00 +0000

Mother's Day: A day of flowers, of jewlery, of blatant consumerism. Sunday morning, many churches will have a pastor's wife or other female preach on the "highest value of womanhood". While we're all at church, waxing lyrical on the value of mothers, there are millions of women skipping church because for them, it's the worst day of the year.

I would know, for seven years I hated Mother's Day with every fiber of my being. You see, the doctor had told us that I probably wouldn't be able to have kids, and for seven years that proved true. Sure, I sucked it up and went to church, but I never actually listened to the sermon on mothers (something that I would never be). Instead I wrote bitter tirades against God, the church, life, any spirit from the dark beyond that was screwing up my life. And then I finally had a kid, for which I'm forever grateful; but not everyone does.

Along with the childless, there are those that are childfree by choice. Either because they weren't ready and are no longer able, or they choose to devote their life to their calling. Whatever the reason, it is a valid choice. They too feel denigrated and less-valued on Mother's Day; especially in the church. How horrible it is, that in the one place where everyone should be welcome, we alienate and disdain.

On top of that, there are those who recently lost a mother, or whose mothers were horrible mothers (read: abuse, molestation, even infanticide). Too often the church pretends that everything is all shiny, and that all mothers deserve to be lauded, or that simply by giving birth they gain a sort of sainthood. I've known some terrible mothers and I would certainly never praise their "motherhood", such as it is. I would like to see the church recognize Mother's Day, and then go on with business as usual. Perhaps some churches wouldn't see a drop in female attendance on that day.

In the US, Mother's Day was originally a day for women to protest war. The spirit was activism and empowerment for women, not a mindless indulgent consumer holiday. Consider Julia Ward Howe's Mother's Day Proclamation of 1870:

Let women now leave all that may be left of home
For a great and earnest day of counsel.
Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace...
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God -
In the name of womanhood and humanity,
I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality,
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.

So, in the original spirit of Mother's Day, I hereby claim this day for all women, mothers or not. I claim it for the childed, the childless, and the childfree. I claim it for their God-given gifts, their creativity, and their many and endless births (of children and projects and creative manifestations). I claim this day for what we are capable of when we band together and by ourselves. On this Mother's Day, celebrate all the women in your life simply for who they are: Mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, friends, and children of the Most High King. Motherhood notwithstanding, of course.

The Requisite Politics Post

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Sat, 10 May 2008 14:50:00 +0000

I have come to believe that I am the only democrat in my entire church. That might be in error but, so far, I haven’t come across another. It’s come more and more to light recently because people are talking about the election. Well, I say “talking”, but it’s mainly ranting against the evil little “socialist” democrats and how only Republicans are Christian.

Baloney. That’s what I think of that. God will use anyone, regardless of their political affiliation; and there are certainly non-Christians in the Republican Party. I think of the scripture in Romans 9, when Paul is talking about the authority God grants to earthy governments. I see the scripture as saying that the government as a system is allowed by God (as are the people that run it) to work His will; thus it is also allowable for Christians to participate in the system. The Bible does not, however, dictate which affiliation a Christian is to have.

I believe that Christians should follow Jesus’ example; care about the orphans, widows, the poor, the sick and infirm, the elderly, etc, etc. So as Christians, we should be concerned about social welfare, justice, equality, and peace. We should care about social security for our elderly, and health care for the poor, and fiscal accountability for our cities.

It often irritates me that Christians seem to focus only on a few areas to the exclusion of all others. And we all know what they are: Homosexuality, abortion, and more recently, bioethics like stem cell research. Yes, those are important issues, but they are not the only ones! Yes, I am pro-life, in that I believe life begins at conception, but I also don’t believe it ends at birth. I should be just as concerned about the adoption process, or the foster care system, or education reform. Yes, I believe that homosexuality is a sin, but it is not the sin above all sins, and honestly, I’m not really sure that the government should regulate its citizen’s private sex lives beyond the norm. I certainly don’t want them butting into mine, so why should I ask them to get involved other consensual, adult relationships? My purpose here wasn’t to rant specifically about homosexuality or abortion (although you’re welcome to start a conversation in the comments).

My purpose is to widen the lens a little to show that democrats and Christ are not mutually exclusive. Nor are Republicans only a “Christian Party”. I certainly don’t claim to know everything, and my political affiliations may change, but I firmly believe in the causes Jesus cared for. I believe in whole societies and whole people. I believe in a society that holds children in high regard. I believe in a system where regular people can make a difference. None of those are on either party’s manifesto; they are, however, on Christ’s.

So, for this election, as the partisan squalls rise to new levels, let’s not lean to the left or to the right, but stay centered; well, Christ-centered, anyway.

Stories and Stakeholders

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Thu, 08 May 2008 04:28:00 +0000

I have a large extended family. My grandpa had three sisters and a brother; each, in turn, had kids, grandkids, and even great-grandkids. A lot of people. I’m currently scanning back issues of our family newsletter to distribute via email. That right, we have a family newsletter. Actually, we have two; a newsletter and a family chronicle. Genealogical trees, fiction, horrible (in retrospect) teenage poetry, jokes, stories, and even puzzles were included.

My family is a family of storytellers. And I love it. There is something humbling about knowing that the people I only know as “Grandpa” or “Great-Aunt” were once my age; with the same passions, the same troubles, the same heartaches, the same hopes and fears. That my great-uncle once cut down his grandpa’s (my great-great grandpa’s) mailbox in a fit of childish anger. That my grandpa got his younger brother a job at a creamery. That my mom went camping with her parents, just as I went camping with mine. It’s reassuring to know that people and interactions really don’t change. It reminds us that we all have a story in common; and while I may barely know my second and third cousins, we all come from the same stock and that connects us.

I’m writing a paper for school right now about the responsibility of digital preservation, and I spend a lot of time talking about the different types of stakeholders there are. Before we can come up with a solution to a problem, we need to identify the stakeholders. We need to know who’s involved with the issue; we need to know who is connected.

Is digital preservation really all that different than my family? Is my family all that different than the church? Are stakeholders the same as common stories? I loved having my family because I knew that I was never alone, and that all these people would love and accept me no matter what I did, simply because I was theirs and a part of their story.

Sound familiar? We are God’s, and He is ours, and we are each other's. We all have a common story; we all have a stake in each other. Before we can even begin to solve any of our problems and show the message of Christ, we need to understand this basic issue. Before we can save other people, we need to understand our stake in other people. It’s a heady thought, to take what I get from my family and end up with the most basic fact of life: That we are all a branch of the same family and take part in a transcendent story; of love and sin and redemption.

Once we understand that, then, just as I love my cousin who’s made some pretty bad decisions, or my third cousins even though I’ve never met them, it should be just as easy loving a Muslim, or a lesbian, or a drug addict, or whomever, simply because we all are human. We all have a Common Story.

Who We Are Inside

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Tue, 06 May 2008 21:14:00 +0000

Before I had my son, last year, I spent a lot of time thinking about working mothers and my career and family and sorting out how it all would work together in my life. I know a lot of mothers, some who chose to quit work and stay home, some who chose to keep their career, and some who had no choice but to work. I've always found it interesting how many different opinions there are about who we should be.

I'm going to expand on this thought a little, so bear with me. The Bible is very clear in many passages that God knew us before we were born, and that he knows our purpose in life. He made us who we are and He knows what He intended us to be. It is different for each person. To one, He gave the gift of intercessory prayer; to another, the gift of music; and yet another, the gift of organization. But this goes further than simply spiritual gifts.

God knows what we can be and He knows the situations that we are called to. So yes, perhaps one mother is called to her career as a lawyer. And perhaps another is called to be a stay at home mom. I am all for equality and women's rights, but I think what is more important than any of our human causes is God's plan for us.

Is it a sin, then, when we do not try to be what God has called us? It doesn't only apply to working mothers, but to all Christians. If God has given a man the giftings and a call to a certain career (say, a teacher), and he left his career on the advice of others and forced himself into a mold that didn't fit, then that certainly seems like a distortion of God's will.

As Christians, it is easy to get embroiled in these petty little debates and even raze entire churches in the fallout. Whenever I think of all the different types of people in the church, with so many different callings and giftings, how can we force them all into a single man-made mold? I'm definitely glad that there is someone in our church who has a life calling of construction work; they've certainly built enough things for the church; or that someone is a nurse, it came in handy a few times; or that someone else has been trained in IT and is getting our church online. So yes, some women are very happy to stay at home for years and years and make their home the best one on the block. And if that is what God has called them to, then good for them. And if God calls another mom to her career, then He will give the grace and strength to balance it with family, since she is in His will.

So, what should you take from this somewhat rambling blog post? Simply that God has intentions for our lives and, regardless of debates and opinions, man-made causes come second to God's will. God's purpose is the highest calling on our lives, and we do ourselves and the entire community a disservice when we relegate God to the passenger seat.

Understanding and Faith

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Fri, 02 May 2008 03:36:00 +0000

A few posts ago, I spoke about reveling in the mystery of God, and how sometimes it is good for us simply to pause for a moment and appreciate how unfathomable a God we truly serve. But this week, I am going to appreciate the paradoxical nature of God, because while we serve the Ineffable, He also calls us to love him with our minds (Matthew 22:37).

This is an often used scripture, for it is powerful. It’s red-letter; comes straight from Jesus’ mouth and He calls it the greatest commandment in the Law. How can we not take notice of that? The ultimate Rabbi is giving us a lesson in the ultimate Law. It is, as most people use it, calling us to reason in our faith.

The word for “mind”, here, is the Greek word dianoia, which means: “understanding, mind, insight, or thought”. At first glance, it seems in contradiction to the unknowable nature of God. But if you think of it as loving the Lord with all our understanding, then things become much simpler. It’s not only about study or logic, but how we internalize and express our idea of “God”.

Isaiah 1:18 has the Lord calling us to reason with Him. And that is good! The Lord willingly debated with Job over all his doubts and fears. Never stop searching and testing and working out our faith, for that is what we are called to do. But at the same time understand that whatever heights of academia or spirituality we may reach, we will never fully understand the whole of God. We were not called to know everything. We were not created to know everything, thank God! I would hate to know everything. How awful would it be for there to be nothing left in the universe to learn?

Perhaps loving the Lord with our mind begins, not at a point of argument or reason, but at a point of humility. Knowing that however much I argue or study or even pray for wisdom, I will never fully know the entirety of God; however, from what little, broken shards of light that I might even remotely understand, let all that is within me praise the Lord. For that’s what it’s really about, right? Not about how much we know, or how spiritual we sound when we bust out the Greek, or even how many books or blog posts we’ve written. No, it is about taking what insights we have and directly transmuting it to praise, love, and worship for the One who does know everything. How’s that for logic?

On Being Human

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:42:00 +0000

God's timing is always impeccable; sometimes it's just more noticeable. Last week I wrote about the variety and fullness of the body of Christ. Today we found out that the Lord has called a couple from our church to somewhere else, most likely another church in the area. And after they have served for 25 years in our church, the loss is somewhat jarring.

I'll try not to maunder on, but I've been fighting the shock and carnal sense of betrayal all day. I know, in the spiritual sense, that we all owe obedience to Christ first, and the body and everything else secondly. Far be it from us to resist where God has called. My last post now seems prescient, because I need to remind myself that they are not renouncing the faith, or anything as tragic as that; they are simply going to a different part of the body of Christ. They're still family, just a bit more removed.

That is in the spiritual, but we are also flesh and often think much more of ourselves than we ought. Sometimes we forget that we do not sustain the church, God is certainly in charge of that; we merely facilitate and serve where He tells us to. This is the situation that ministers pray to avoid but inevitably endure. Regardless of the reason, and however benign, it is the human in us that makes ministers question their actions and brings recriminations. Did I do too much of that? Not enough of this? Did you feel unappreciated? Could I, in all my human insufficiency, have done anything differently to make you stay?

And yet . . . and yet . . . we understand the reasons, and applaud what must have been an agonizing decision to follow the will of God. And yet when you spend so much time with someone, and they pour out into you and the body, and you pour out into them, and serve and suffer and triumph and suffer again, something metaphysical happens. In the entangling of lives, people change and grow and become closer than brothers or sisters. Is it because we realize, perhaps subconsciously, that we are more than these physical manifestations? That perhaps these relationships in which we invest our time and emotions are spiritual? That spiritual things are eternal?

And when part of our spiritual body is pulled away, it hurts. There seems to be a hole now, in the congregation. Those particular seats are empty, this group is missing someone, that one is missing someone else. But it is the nature of things to heal, and holes fill up eventually. If we are like the grains of sand, when there is a hole in the sand, the ocean covers it and fills it up. New people will fill these holes. The body of Christ is varied and beautiful, and it is a pleasure to encounter the sheer diversity of our brothers and sisters. It's just, sometimes, there's pain and sadness in diversity too.

The Goodness of the Lord

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:03:00 +0000

I was in the grocery store with my one year old son sitting in the basket. We were in a crowded aisle and as we walked past one lady, he looked at her, smiled, waved, and in a cute little baby voice said, "hi!". She smiled, I smiled, everyone within hearing distance smiled, and walked away happier. In that one instant, a chance encounter with a toddler in the grocery store changed something fundamentally. An encounter with hope and innocence and purity brightened the day for a handful of people. I don't know what they had going on in their lives, or anything like that. All I know is that good things can happen when you least expect it.

I try to cling to moments like that because it is easy to drown in the sorrows of the daily news, in the sins and crimes of everyday life. We all know how easy it is to become jaded about the state of humanity. How easy it can be to think that there is no good left in the world, and that Christ surely cannot work with such poor materials.

It's so easy to feel hopeless. It's so human. David felt that way so many times. Numerous Psalms are simply cries to God of hopelessness and despair and loneliness. David is the articulator of our souls. He felt the same way, but he also knew that behind his despair, God was still faithful. David may rage at the world and God for verse after verse, and then in the final verse remind us of exactly Who God is, and always will be.

One of my favorite Psalms to go to when I feel that hopelessness and bitterness creeping up on me again is Psalm 27, especially the last two verses. Psalm 27 is about the mighty strength and safe harbor of the Lord. It's about knowing that He is our shelter and our fortress, and when things get rough we can find sanctuary in Him. David ends it like this:

"I am still confident of this:
I will see the goodness of the Lord
in the land of the living.

Wait for the Lord;
be strong and take heart
and wait for the Lord." (Ps. 27:13-14, NIV)

It's nice to be reminded that while it may seem like there is no good left in the world, God is still at work. Maybe through the innocent action of a baby, or through charities, or even in the mundane things: He is still moving. When things get rough, or you feel hopeless, remember this. Remember that we are called to wait on the Lord. God's goodness is here, and though we see it sometimes sporadically, popping up as flashes of light in the uniform gray; remember, this is His planet, and He is not done with it yet.

Ecumenism and the Fullness of Christ

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:42:00 +0000

Sorry it’s been so long. We moved and for the next few months we’re staying in a rural house with no internet. I’ll have to visit an internet café to post, so thanks for your patience.

As I spend time on the religious blogosphere, I've really come to appreciate the sheer variety of the body of Christ. From Orthodox, to Anglican, to Reformed, to Protestant, to Pentecostal; each tradition brings a new and vital flavor to the church as a whole.

I’ve been thinking a lot about ecumenism and how to bring all the churches together in my local community. I thought about maybe an ecumenical website, with church directories, services, and ministries, as well as a media library, with archived mp3’s of sermons. Has anyone seen an ecumenical website like that?

To have inter-denominational communication, however, requires that we put aside our preconceived ideas about what exactly constitutes “Christianity” and be willing to admit that our tradition might not be right about every little thing. Can I say that to an extent, it’s a pride issue? Can I say that without being ostracized? Is it ok if I say that maybe the Orthodox have a good idea of God’s mystery, just as much as the Pentecostal understand His personal nature? I’ll probably come back to this idea in a later post, because it’s really affecting me. I came across this verse in my ladies Bible study this week, and it seemed to aptly describe what I had been struggling to articulate for a while now:

"... the church, which is the body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way." Ephesians 1:23

I love this verse because it reinforces my idea of the Bigness of God. He is so Big and so complex that it takes all these disparate traditions, each with their own specialties, to meet the fullness of God. God cannot be pigeonholed into a finite set of man-made doctrines. Instead, He needs the entire gamut of doctrines and traditions to fully describe Him. Does that blow your mind too?

The Big God of small things

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:57:00 +0000

It's easy, when we reflect on nature or read the scriptures about God spreading out the stars, to think about how small we are. We are so small, smaller than dust motes, and that God should know us, much less love us, is unthinkable. But therein lies our hubris; our egocentrism. We hear about the sheer bigness of God and all we can concentrate on is ourselves. Perhaps the question isn't how He can know us when we are so small, but when He is so big. Isaiah 40:12, one of the most incredible scriptures in the Bible, says:

"Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,
or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens?"

Did you get that? God measured the "heavens", or the entire universe, between his thumb and his pinkie. How can we even begin to imagine that level of bigness? We haven't even figured out our own galaxy, our own solar system, even our own planet! How then can we begin to fathom something bigger than what we can't fathom already?

Christians often make a big point of debating Intelligent Design and evolution, and refuting scientific theories. And while that is important, as I mentioned in my last post, it cannot define our faith. How can we debate what we can't even begin to understand? We work with our understanding of natural laws, of the universe, of physics and biology. We debate the meaning of Hebrew words like "yom", and whether it means "day" or "age" or even "eon". We forget that God is bigger than our understanding of days and eons and even Hebrew. The end of that chapter in Isaiah says:

"Why do you say, O Jacob, and complain, O Israel,
'My way is hidden from the Lord;
my cause is disregarded by my God'?
Do you not know? Have you not heard?
The Lord is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He will not grow tired or weary.
and his understanding no one can fathom."

Why do we continually limit God? Why do we suppose that simply because we get tired and irritated of our problems that God does too? Why do we, in all our endless wisdom, suppose that God has forsaken us just because we cannot see how He is working in a situation? How egoistic of us to assume that we can even begin to understand what God is and how He moves?

I do not write this for you to stop thinking about God, or debating about Intelligent Design, or trying to see God moving in the world; I write this for you to stop, just for a moment, and simply appreciate how truly Big of a God we serve. Our God is not a God of idols, or statues that we can label and measure. He is bigger than the biggest thing we can't even imagine, and that's pretty big indeed. I think I'm with the Orthodox Christians here (if I understand their creed right), when I say let's revel in the mystery of God. For one moment, let's stop trying to name the ineffable, and simply be the trusting children He created us to be. We don't have to know everything. We weren't created to know everything. And while that may be the modus operandi of modernity, it is not of classical Christianity. Let's be countercultural for a moment, and simply worship because we serve a God that is so Big, He even cares about us.

Warrior Christians

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 03:24:00 +0000

So I was struck by a post on the Stuff Christians Like blog about the popularity of Warrior (hunter, other very manly things) themed conferences, books, men's groups, retreats, etc. In addition to that, the guys at Rethinking Youth Ministry have had a couple posts about the inflammatory Mark Driscoll view about the church becoming "chick-ified" and a youth Boot Camp for Christ. And, in the share and share alike spirit of the blogosphere, I thought I'd add my thought on this phenomenon.

I see a few issues with it. Primarily, I don't see how stereotypical masculinity, or machismo, is seen as biblical. Christ, as the quintessential man, kept himself from violence. During the Passion and crucifixion, he could have appealed to the centurions' warrior nature, converted them, and led them in a revolt against the Sanhedrin. Before His death, He could easily have called his followers up in rebellion against Rome. What a religious uprising that would have been.

Another issue is that while the New Testament often talks of spiritual warfare and the armor of God (Eph. 6:10-18), God often works the most through brokenness, not bravery. I can't imagine Mark Driscoll or any of these macho men extolling the virtues of brokenness, or true humility, or mercy. Christ was committed to peace, both in His life and His death. He forgave the sinners, befriended the outcasts and untouchables; He engaged the Pharisees in verbal sparring, but never rose to their threats; He taught "Love Thine Enemy, and pray for those that persecute you" (Matt. 5:44). Can you imagine these macho men, so concerned about being chickified, or being thought gay, talking about "loving" their enemy?

A final, more surface issue, is that the entire issue of self-image (both for men and the church as feminine) is beside the point. The church should not be squabbling about whether to paint over the seafoam green and lemon yellow walls because it's girlie and men don't want to be seen in it. You are missing the point, people. The point is Christ. The point is not about pandering to our fallen, prideful ideas of masculinity, or warriors, or battlefield strategists, or even which colors are feminine. The point is that we are broken before the cross of Christ and before the life of Christ; that we are the worst of sinners and have no right to judge our brothers; and that we are to love those who would do battle against us, not engage them in warfare. Now, let's all stop talking about irrelevant things that only cause schisms in the church and give each other a hug; or maybe just a quick, one-armed, man-hug kind of thing. Or maybe just a handshake, because, y'know, hugging is for chicks.

Expel Ben Stein!!

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:03:00 +0000

Ok, maybe I'm in the minority here, but I have to write about it (since everybody else in the blogosphere seems to be). I'm not sure how exactly I'm supposed to feel about the new sensationalist film Expelled. I'm going to be up front with you and admit that I probably won't be watching the movie, and all my views as of today are based off presupposition and speculation (and a little research). If any of you have seen a preview and want to comment, I'd love to hear your thoughts. Otherwise, I'll see what everyone else says when it opens on friday.

Caveat: As a Christian, I believe in Intelligent Design. I believe that God created the world and everything in it. I believe in all the creeds and statements of faith that go along with it. What I don't like, is turning a serious (and possibly life-altering) discussion into a sensationalist circus. There are plenty of Christian scientists out there, the first that comes to mind is Dr. Hugh Ross. I've heard him speak and he is compelling, interactive, and engaging. His organization is formed from scientists and theologians from major universities. They make Christians and religious people seem intelligent. I take issue that the movie has Ben Stein, of all people, as the pointman. I watched the preview (correction: tried to watch), and it read like one of those old, boring PBS specials.

Ben Stein, in all his insipid glory, narrates the preview like he's reading out of a sunday school primer: I've had a wonderful life, I believe that God made us, just like he made everything, even the rocks. Honestly, it was at that point when I stopped watching the preview. I've done a lot of reading about what the movie talks about. Supposedly, it's about the suppression of Intelligent Designers in Universities who are fired or refused tenure once they speak out about Darwinism. I've heard (as all there is right now is gossip) that the movie liberally intersperses clips of Stalin, Hitler, and other "anti-freedom" monsters. It is emotive and it seems that the only purpose of the movie is to incite anger and unrest.

That being said, however, I think it is good that the issue is getting out there. I think it probably would be better served in a different fashion, a different venue, or with a different spokesperson. There are much more respected people out there (respected in both the Christian and scientific communities) who could easily lead a crusade for Intelligent Design. The proof is out there. And if you actually follow science, the more they learn about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, or uninhabitable planets, or baby's brains, or quantum mechanics, or what have you, and it all leads back to the unquestionable complexity and uniqueness of our life on earth.

While I agree that this issue is one that needs to be debated and talked about, I think it is too serious an issue to sensationalize. It's good if this movie gets people talking about Intelligent Design, I just wish that it had gone about it in a different, less crusading way. Instead of going with my church to the movie, maybe I should do a serious, intelligent series on "Science and Faith: How they complement each other, and what to do when they don't" with our youth group. I, for one, am not on the Christian bandwagon this time.

Costly Grace

noreply@blogger.com (Laura Francabandera) — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 02:17:00 +0000

In a throwback to form and tradition, I re-read Dietrich Bonhoeffer's book Discipleship, in which he talks about cheap grace and costly grace. Bonhoeffer believed that the church had cheapened grace. Cheap grace, he said, was when we proclaimed that the forgiving grace was ours no matter what we did; in essence, it gave us a ubiquitous license to sin. Costly grace, the true grace of Christ, must cost us something. Peter was called to leave his nets, his entire mode of life, to follow Christ. This pattern was repeated again and again in the New Testament.

Bonhoeffer thought that it all stemmed from the convergence of faith and works. Not the debate about which is right, but the ineffable paradox that they both must be true. He said:

"Only the believer obeys, and only the obedient believe."

Let me elucidate, for it's not as simple as it seems at first glance. It seems that obedience is a consequence of believing. That you must first believe before you can obey. That is not true. Your faith comes in obedience to an original call of God. Only Christ can call people, and it is our act of obedience to go into a situation where our faith can grow. They are symbiotic. Therefore, according to Bonhoeffer, it is not a matter for debate, whether we will be saved by works or by faith. They cannot be separated; for if you are obedient, you will believe; and if you believe, you will be obedient and the works will inevitably follow.

I'm not trying to start a debate here, about faith vs. works (okay, maybe I am), but the point I'm trying to make is about how it is easy for us today to cheapen the grace of God. This redeeming grace, that forgives our sins and reconciles us to God, was costly. It cost the Christ, Son of God, the highest price in the world. And we cheapen that grace when we treat it as a given. Yes it is given, and if we ask, we will be forgiven. And yes, His grace covers anyone. But it does not cover everyone. Did you get that? It covers anyone but not everyone. For if the forgiving grace covered everyone, regardless of their state of belief or obedience, then we might as well slip into a sort of Christian hedonism, and do what we want because we'll be forgiven anyway.

That is cheap grace. Costly grace, the grace that cost God his only Son, requires discipleship, requires obedience to following Christ. We follow the initial call, believe, and become disciples of Christ. Not simply students, or apprentices, but disciples. In the life of Christ, this was a complete lifestyle. To become a disciple meant leaving your home, your trade, your family and friends, and following the Teacher to learn everything you can from him. It's not going to church once on Sundays (or even twice on Tuesdays), it's about a lifestyle dedicated to learning and becoming more like Christ.

Becoming disciples of Christ, however, requires that we sacrifice our fleshly desires. Perhaps we desire a stable job, a vacation home, weekends off. Becoming a disciple of Christ may mean passing up that lucrative promotion to take a pastoring job for little pay, where you are always on call and you haven't had a weekend off in a decade. That is costly grace. That is what we are given fully in God, and that is the end of a life well lived and a God well-obeyed.