I’ve been thinking about what holds us together as a community. This has been on my mind because of the many people I hear from, almost daily, who are hungering for true community but can’t find it. I see this especially in the young, who have no interest in what used to define community. They are looking for something else.
It has become obvious to me that, for instance, it isn’t the marriage license, the certificate, the paper, that holds a marriage together. It has also become increasingly obvious to me that neither do the vows, the promises, or the wedding ceremony, hold a marriage together. I’ve also become aware that compatibility, having things in common, sharing a common goal or vision, is not the cohesive glue in a relationship either.
Translate this analogy of marriage into community life, you have the same thing. Being a member does not hold a community together. Being a part of a church doesn’t keep it. Neither do the sacraments or vows or promises. Neither does theological unity or common goals or a shared vision hold it together.
It can only be love, mutual love, that holds a relationship or a community together. What I am trying to say is that we have to get to the place where we realize that we just can’t expect people to remain committed to each other because it is expected, or promises were made, or there is uniformity in whatever area, or that there is a common goal we’ve set for them. People, especially younger people, aren’t interested in uniformity, conformity, or forms of any kind. There must be genuine acceptance, honesty, authenticity, freedom, and love for community to work. This requires intense energy from each person, and nothing outside of themselves can be called upon to ensure the relationship will work… no authority, document, ruler, goal, vision, practice, or tradition.
This is why I don’t strive for theological uniformity, homogeneity in life-style, protocol, authority, submission, legal agreement, or anything of the sort. These no longer matter. It comes down to love, its practice. That is, the way of love.
If you like this post, or if you'd like to use it, consider buying me a beer.
31 Comments
Trackbacks
- Twenty Items of Interest (v.6) « Shane Vander Hart
- Defining Community, Love, and Good News « Losing My Religion
- Caffeinated Thoughts - » Twenty Items of Interest (v.6)
David Hayward is an artist trapped in a pastor's body, stripping to the essential.
Love’s the only thing.
Sas x
Hope you’re well Dave x
David said: People, especially younger people, aren’t interested in uniformity, conformity, or forms of any kind.
———Why sure they are. Go to any high school youth group and you will be able to spot the cliques faster than you spot Jesus. Step into ANY Bible college campus and you will see uniformity and conformity—NOT!
“There must be genuine acceptance….”
—–Nice saying, but what does that mean and look like???
“honesty.”
—–I think some of your ideas are crazy!
“authenticity.”
—–Give me an example
“freedom.”
—–So does the freedom you are describing come with NO limitations?
“This requires intense energy from each person, and nothing outside of themselves can be called upon to ensure the relationship will work… no authority, document, ruler, goal, vision, practice, or tradition.”
——–”…nothing outside of themselves….” Gee, I always thought we called upon God/Holy Spirit to help “ensure the relationship will work.”
fishon
fishon – please fish off elsewhere. this is just pedantic and being clever with words. this is a genuine and real issue, and not an easily resolved one given the loftiness of the goal and the fracturedness of humans.
Kim,
“fishon – please fish off elsewhere.”
——Why Kim, are you asking me to leave this community???
With the “fracturedness of humans,” of which I am one, don’t you think that asking me to leave will fracture me as a human? Where’s the love?
fishon
fishon,
With due respect, I think you are missing the point of this blog post. I don’t think that young people “join cliques” so that they can conform to a uniform code; they want to be part of a group to be accepted. Just like Christians join churches, not because they want to be a little clone of the pastor or a propaganda/doctrine-spewing instrument, but because they want to be part of a group where they are accepted. As they are– quirks and all. The Bible does indicate that we ARE NOT to all be uniform; we are to be individual parts of one body. (Is everyone a foot? a mouth? No, we need all the parts to function.)
We are however commanded to be of one mind–and since Christ is the head of the church, I assume that means we are to be Christ-minded. The way my simple mind ascertains the implications of what that means is: Christ is God, God is love, so my thinking is to be guided by love.
Do you really not know what “genuine acceptance” means? When you came to Christ, I assume that you came emptyhanded, deeply concerned about your failings before God, and fully aware of your inability to transform yourself. You might have declared yourself His, begged for his mercy and grace, or just said “Help.” But however that relationship began, you must have felt His acceptance. You must have felt that it was okay to bare it all before this all powerful being.
This kind of acceptance is what we need to give each other, don’t you think? When people open up and share their thoughts, their secrets, their disappointments, their fears, their vulnerabilities, is it our job to jump on their comments and declare what is wrong? Is it our duty to judge their mode of delivery? Even if we don’t agree, can we love them anyway? Can we make a place at the table for everyone?
I was talking with a friend of mine the other day about parenting teenagers. We were discussing how some teens feel a need to hide what they are doing from their parents. My friend was convinced that this “hiding” was sinful and wrong. My perspective was a bit different. When a dog has been kicked over and over again by its owner, when it has been shamed into submission, it will not playfully roll over and expose its belly for a good rub. There may be obedience, but there is also great fear. There may be respect, but there is also not playful abandon. When people are “jumped on” for their opinions, when they are “kicked” for their transgressions, when they are “smacked” for chasing a bunny, they begin to keep their distance from the big hand. There is not community, but control.
This, I think, is what David was referring to. Although I might be misinterpreting his comments. (If so, I apologize for muddying the waters, David.)
As to your last comment about “…nothing outsides themselves…”, here’s where I think you miss the point. If we are believers we need nothing outside ourselves. He lives IN US. Christ BECOMES the authority, document, ruler, goal, vision, practice, or tradition IN US.
fishon,
Nice try, fishon! You might be barking up a dead tree. Speaking in the terms that you’re speaking of, just don’t seem to merit the love and acceptance that speaking in other terms does.
Christ has always been a stumbling block (and He always will be a stumbling block)
Bulldogs that carry a bite such as yours will always take a few shots in the chops, but bulldogs usally don’t let go.
– Steve
Erm, I thought we were talking about what holds us together…
I hesitated to say this in my original post, but not even God can hold my wife and I together. This is a hard pill to swallow for the religious sort. How many people have I seen in my study who, totally unwilling to change, totally unwilling to admit fault, totally unwilling to forgive, totally unwilling to stop blaming the other, say, “I’ll pray that God fixes this!” I tell them don’t even bother. What God has brought together let no one put asunder means that I can put asunder my relationship with my wife if I want, even if God brought us together. Paul says “Keep the unity of the Spirit”, which means to maintain something that is one. I can’t create it, but I must maintain it. God broke down the walls, and it is up to me not to rebuild them. But I certainly can and we certainly do. Nothing can hold us together if I choose to divide. Community, yes a gift, takes hard work to for US to maintain.
I know that love is the answer too — but I’m not quite sure what love is
this holds us together stuff makes me think of
Eph 4:16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work
Are “ligaments” symbolic of the function of a pastor or someone who has a keen ability to hold things together?
Whatever – it does help a lot if everyone is doing something where they are adding “their part” to what is going on. Not uniformity – but really playing a part – like adding a bass player to a drummer.
Great post — I get what you are saying. I think sometimes when people with relationship difficulties say things like, “We need to pray more…” or whatever, it’s just another way of saying, “I don’t really want to do anything or change. I just want to cross my fingers and hope things work out.” When Christians say superspiritual things like that, they’re just being superstitious. I think what you’re saying, David, is that for relationships and community to work, it’s a very practical thing…love, effort, hard work on everyone’s part. Certainly God, the Holy Spirit, the Word of God, are all the fuel and backdrop that makes us who we are but each person must make very practical decisions to act.
Shane,
I agree with your assement, for the most part, about “remain[ing] committed” to each other, though I would want some clarification on a point or two.
When I made my first post in reply to David, I asked some questions and made some observations. I didn’t expect David to answer because he seldom answers questions that I or others ask? He throws out nice sounding statements, but when challenged doesn’t back them up.
So I will ask you,
—-What do you mean by “genuine acceptance?” Example: If the church treasure stole money from the church treasurey, how should that be dealt with the principle of “genuine acceptance” in view?
—-”Honesty?” So when I give my “honest” opinion: I think some of your ideas are crazy! will the community you are from tell me to “Please fish off elsewhere?”
—-”Authenticity.” Just how far will my authenticity be tolerated?
These are legitamate questions. But I get a sense that there are some who post here who mouth that they agree with David, but don’t even liked these questions asked of him.
fishon
@ fishon…I can’t answer for David or for Shane, but since I now feel included in the questioning of those who post here (thanks!), I’ll answer from my own perspective.
Genuine acceptance: I may not (don’t) agree with you at all times and especially take umbrance at what I perceive as thinly-veiled barbs in the form of questions. This makes it way more difficult for me to “accept” you. However, if you and I were in a local body/gathering, I would hope that I would be willing to expend that “intense energy” that David speaks about and choose to love you as I would choose to love someone who more closely shares my beliefs/viewpoints, because iron DOES sharpen iron.
One of the highest compliments ever given to me was when someone told me that they knew I was the kind of person to whom they could confess their deepest, darkest, worst secrets/sins and I would put my arms around them, tell them straightforwardly how badly they’d screwed up, but I would hold their muddy, bloody hand and help them walk out of their mess (fyi–I don’t have experience in dealing with a thieving church treasurer, but I HAVE dealt with an adulterous pastor).
Honesty: I agree with Kim that answers like your original response just don’t cut it. David talks openly about tough stuff…are you honestly interested in hearing his heart or, as it sometimes seems, just wanting to engage in a quasi-spiritual sparring match? My perception of your questions sometimes is not that you want to engage in genuine discussion, but that you already have THE answers. Some questions just don’t warrant a pat response–sometimes there just is no “final answer” like on the game shows.
Authenticity: I don’t see a lot of authenticity in the local gathering I attend–too many people are trying to conform to their pre-conceived ideas of what a “good Christian” or “good church member” should look like. I, on the other hand, choose to take off that smiley-face mask and be real with people (to the dismay of some). Is authenticity, mine or yours, only something to be “tolerated”? If so, we’re in trouble from the start.
I think we must ask for God’s help in maintaining loving relationships….not in a supersticious way, but because we know we cannot do it on our own. Our own issues will always get in the way. I agree that we can’t expect him to respond if we are making no sincere effort on our own to improve the relationships. As the old saying goes, “God helps those who help themselves”.
I must admit that I have noticed a lot of animosity when fishon posts. I believe he has a very different point of view on things from NP, but I think he is just trying to understand where np is coming from. Am I wrong?
From previous posts, Jerry, I think you’re trying to understand where David is coming from.
It took me a while to “hear” you, properly, and I think an awful lot of the misunderstandings between us are questions of language.
I loved it when you shared about your town and the people in your church, cos I could feel you and understand a bit better then.
I think, for example, I and you come from different places, but if we listen to each other enough, and talk truthfully, we’ll meet in the middle.
Guys, just because we can’t see each others’ faces, we musn’t be nasty to each other.
With all love,
Sas x
Jerry/Fishon,
Ligaments are the threads of love between us I think.
Your sister,
Sas x
ps Guys I don’t like being hurt by things others say either, just don’t want to retaliate.
If I came across all holier-than-thou, I apologise.
Sas x
I thin you have something here. Love keeps people together–love is demonstrated more than felt. We can’t all love perfectly, all the time, but we can love enough.
I agree, np, that we have the ability to destroy our own marriages outside God’s will, as theologically challenging as that may be for some people.
fishon: the main reason i don’t respond to most questions is, like you, i am a pastor and very busy with real life. the blog posts i write cannot take priority. you understand that i’m sure. when i have time, however, i try to interject. so, i have a minute. i think God can help me become a better person. i think God can help my wife become a better person. i don’t think he’s in the business of making our marriage work by me turning off my brain or my wife turning off hers. and i think this is what is expected in religious circles. when we pray for God to make a relationship work, it is because one partner refuses to change. as for the treasurer: of course, fire him. he has abused his trust. abuse cannot be tolerated. no questions. there are the two dynamics: authenticity with accountability. You are allowed to be authentic. but if you hurt someone, you’re going to hear about it. you are accountable. these two must go hand in hand. authenticity without accountability is licenciousness. Accountability without authenticity is legalism. you need both.
Many statements have been made and several questions asks, so I will try and answer and not become to wordy. This will probably be my last post on this subject as I am taking off for a few days and going Steelhead fishing in Southern Oregon.
ABUNDANT said, “I must admit that I have noticed a lot of animosity when fishon posts. I believe he has a very different point of view on things from NP, but I think he is just trying to understand where np is coming from. Am I wrong?”
—-There has been a little, but I am ok with it. For I know full well, some of the things I say and ask will raise hackels. It is not that I am trying to raise folks blood pressure, but just by the nature of blogs and people having differences of opinions, this will happen.
—-Yes, I do have very different points of view than NP, but he will be the first one to tell you that when he says the things in this blog, he isn’t looking for the choir to endorse every one of his views. Ask him!!!!!
—-Yes, I am trying to understand where NP is coming from. If ANYONE can tell me how to find that out without asking questions or telling him what I disagree with him about, please tell me. Again, David is writing his blog and hoping everyone agrees with him. ASK HIM.
ABUNDANT, thank you for the vote of confidence. But folks, I understand that if I was to say something way out of line, Abundant would call me on that in a New York minute. And I like that straight forwardness.
=====================================================
SARAH said, “It took me a while to “hear†you, properly, and I think an awful lot of the misunderstandings between us are questions of language.”
—-AMEN, Sister.
EXAMPLE: Respect. If you are part of a gang and someone looks at you wrong or to long—-disrespect. Then someone dies.
But when I am wanting respect, it has nothing to do with how long a person holds my eye to eye contact or a perceived look my way. So if I am going into a gang neighborhood as a missionary, I had better understand that cultures idea of the concept, respect.
—-Let’s take the wording “Genuine acceptance.” Some people understand, especially in todays culture, “genuine acceptance” as allowing someone to say or do anything they feel like, and not a word said against what they say or do. Genuine acceptance as I hear some people use it is having a “tolerance” for anything and everything that is going on with people around them. Other folks understand genuine acceptance is having a friend who will be unafraid to say, “No, you were wrong.” But they will NEVER have any doubt that you love them. In fact, they understand that biblical love will be willing to say, “You are wrong in this case.” SO WHEN NP SAYS GENUINE ACCEPTANCE, WHICH ONE IS IT? Remember, I do not know him. I only know what he writes, so it would not be smart to just assume what he means. That will cause only circles. So terms need to be defined.
SARAH SAID; “I think, for example, I and you come from different places, but if we listen to each other enough, and talk truthfully, we’ll meet in the middle.”
—-Sarah, let me then talk truthfully. You and I would listen to each other and talk truthfully, but we may OR MAY NOT meet in the middle. We may be sooo far apart on important issues that there ain’t no middle. HOWEVER, that has nothing to do as to whether I would consider you as my friend. I don’t need you to be over on my side or even in the middle to be my friend, we’ll just be friends. EXAMPLE: I believe I said something about having a Muslim friend. Believe me–no middle between us. We just decided to be friends. He is wrong and I am right, and he knows that is the way I feel. Oh, by the way, he thinks he is right and I am wrong, and I know that is the way he feels. FRIENDS. I hope you understand what I mean?, friend!
=====================================================
DENA G. SAID: “I may not (don’t) agree with you at all times and especially take umbrance at what I perceive as thinly-veiled barbs in the form of questions. This makes it way more difficult for me to “accept†you. However, if you and I were in a local body/gathering, I would hope that I would be willing to expend that “intense energy†that David speaks about and choose to love you as I would choose to love someone who more closely shares my beliefs/viewpoints, because iron DOES sharpen iron.”
—-”Thinly-veiled barbs.” As I went over what I originally wrote David, I see, maybe, one NOT so ‘thinly-veiled barb.’ Do I detect a barb or two from you?
(fyi–I don’t have experience in dealing with a thieving church treasurer, but I HAVE dealt with an adulterous pastor).
—-Dena, I have no experience with a thieving church treasuer either, but I sure do with the addulterous pastor. He was/is a good friend. It broke our hearts, but he began the healing process for the church about 6 months later, when he came and apologized to the church, asked for forgiveness, and made no excusses.
Honesty: I agree with Kim that answers like your original response just don’t cut it.
—-So, you can be ‘honest’ about what you think of my response, but me being honest with David “just don’t cut it.” That, Dena, is a double standard, anyway you cut it.
David talks openly about tough stuff…
—-No, David states his opinions about tough stuff——-talk[ing] about tough stuff would include a dialogue. If he dialogued with some of us that ask questions of his statements, then we would know what he means about some of the words and terms he uses. As it is, we have to guess. Now you may know, but not all of us know what he means.
=====================================================
And finally, David said: “There must be genuine acceptance, honesty, authenticity, freedom, and love for community to work.”
—–I find it very interesting that, some of you, rush to the defense of David, when I am being “honest[y] and authentic[ity]. I have even been asked to go fish-in somewhere else. Hum, that person must understand ‘genuine acceptance’ differently than I do? I suspect that you who have taken offence with me are the first ones to say, “Right on, David, that’s what I want, that’s who I am.” Yea, right!
You see, I have absoletly no problem with you disagreeing with me. But when David writes about ‘authenticity’, freedom, and honesty, and I exercise those principles, some of you jumped right on me—against exactly what David was trying to promote. Very interesting.
And to you who have spoken up on my behalf, thank you.
fishon
David,
Before I hit the hay and leave for fishing, I want to thank you for your response. Yes, we are busy fellows, and I probably spend to much time on the computer, and I do understand you have many more priorities than to answer my or other folks questions about what you state.
You and I have both agreed with each other that we disagree about many things. And so in an effort to try and understand your point of view and what you mean, I ask my questions and make my statements. And to be honest, it is quite frustrating to read some of the things you say, and not know, at least somewhat, what you mean.
But when you said: You are allowed to be authentic. but if you hurt someone, you’re going to hear about it. you are accountable. these two must go hand in hand. authenticity without accountability is licentiousness. Accountability without authenticity is legalism. you need both,” those words explains to me what you mean.
And they help me to understand you better.
I have assumed by much of what you have written over the last few months, that because you seem so distressed with the North America church systems, as a whole, and how they/we treat the “unlovely” [please, don't anyone misunderstand that phrase], are legalistic, and are trying to make clones that you were an “anything goes” man. That is why I have been asking questions and probing.
Well, I am rambling now–and I am hitting the rack, though still early here.
Take care, and I will be back to annoy some of your readers, God willing.
I am taking some of my own advice I have given you—-I need to go fishing.
MAKE IT a great week.
fishon——-hopefully, I can yell that out a few times—FISH ON
@ fishon…again.
Apparently, my ability to put words together in ways that make sense to someone other than myself isn’t as good as I think it is at times.
Honestly, there was no animosity intended in my comments to you and I apologize if that’s how I sounded. I truly appreciate the fact that not everyone in the world agrees with me. It’s easy to love people who agree with me, but it’s not the healthiest choice to surround myself only with those people. I appreciate David’s blog because he gives voice so many times to doubts/questions that I don’t always have the courage to confess. And, I appreciate even the dissenting comments, because that spurs me on to digging more deeply into why I believe what I believe.
I have to realize that not everyone’s “fact-finding” is the same as mine…your style is apparently very different from mine. I agree with Sarah that some of it IS language–or cultural difference–that colors our approach. My comment about your response “not cutting it” wasn’t very well fleshed-out and I’m sorry. When I read some of your short comments/questions, my mind (no matter how you really meant it) immediately perceives “Curt. Unfriendly.” If you haven’t figured it out, I like words…lots of ‘em! Short responses don’t cut it…for ME. But I’m not David and this isn’t my blog, so my opinion really is irrelevant. (For the record, I did NOT agree with the “go somewhere else” comment.)
I believe in honesty and authenticity. My friends and I have a pact of transparency with one another. It’s not always pretty. It’s not always fun. But we learn as we go.
Good fishing.
“It can only be love, mutual love, that holds a relationship or a community together” (NP)
I really liked the blog and tackling an issue about what holds community together – and from my experience also – love is the great glue. I have a community of friends I work with at the university – and we are all good friends now. How did we get to this place of commonality? We all started to get to know one another and we genuinely care about one another now (celebrating successes and dealing with issues of concern in mindful ways). Community is strengthened by love and I would say divided by judgment.
As for authentic acceptance – well this is also a piece of love. We all have at our most basic need to idea we want ‘to belong’ and ‘be accepted’…this is an obvious human desire from childhood to seniority. Love starts with acceptance and without we have, again division.
I think communities need to address the huge problem in out faith of divisivness – which is an idea so prevelant in our theologies we even see it on blog-spaces and over the pulpits. I would say mainstream Christianity has at it’s heart exclusivity that is sometimes used as a reason to not accept certain people or even draw self-righteous lines between groups. I think we need to lose those theologies of divisiveness.
If I treat my community of friends certain ways based on their beliefs – I am not a Christian anymore not am I truly sharing ‘good news/ideas’ with them. Truth is, my community of friends are from a variety of religious backgrounds with a variety of different thinking patterns – and sometimes those patterns are not helpful to them. If I become exclusive about my faith – I will literally cut my community into fractured pieces and lose friends (and love will dissipate). When the essence of our faith is inclusion and sharing (good news) with one another – then so should our focus be there. Jesus may be the ‘way’ – I am convinced he is not the way to destruction.
The key in all of this is acceptance and mercy/justice. Fishon raises a good point of the pilfering treasurer (sounds similar to a biblical character who hung himself) and what should be done. This happens to me all the time – currently I have about 5 to 10 people that owe me $50.00 or more in my local community of friends. What should I do fishon – you tell me? Take them before the court? I can judge them – I have the right – they have wronged me. But what has Jesus taught us?
“Blessed are the meek/gentle, for they shall inherit the earth”
“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy”
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God”
Maybe there is another ‘way’ of living here that needs to be considered in my personal community – one that is gentle, merciful, and peaceful. People can be judged for the way they have used me – or I can turn around and change the whole experience they expect – and love them regardless of the condition the relationships are currently are in. They may have stolen from me – but I will be gentle enough to allow the problems to be learned from. I will have mercy on the undeserving – because I also want to have mercy. I will make peace where there is difficulty – since money is just money – but people are truly priceless. This is why the community I am in involved in works – we love one another – even when the chips are slanted against us.
Jerry – I agree that we don’t have to agree to be friends. In fact, for me, that’s a better test of friendship.
Your Friend,
Sarah x
Wow, I am impressed with the honest and thoughtful discussion this ended up being. With all the hateful blogs out there, where people seem to thoroughly enjoy bashing each other….how refreshing it is to come here, where people are making a real effort to understand each other in a loving way. You all rock:)
From one of my favorite voices of wisdom:
“God’s love sets me free to enter into community with other people—even when the community is a very limited one and is not the total communion that my heart desires. Only when I live in communion with God can I live in a community that is not perfect. Only then can I love the other person and create a space in which we might be quite distant or very close, but we can still allow something new to be born—a child, friendship, joy, community, a space where strangers and guests can be received.”
- Henri Nouwen
As a former teacher, I can tell you that the youth definitely wants boundaries, but parents don’t formulate them and society doesn’t implement them. While choice is a good thing for adults, too much choice for youth can leave them indecisive and unaware of the consequences of their actions. If they don’t have critical thinking skills and can’t get over the instant gratification element that society perpetrates, lacking boundaries only cause more problems.
And of course, everyone wants to be loved and accepted and feel secure, but that starts with logic and empathy. If these two concepts are not ingrained in children and youth early enough, it becomes difficult as they get older to teach them what both terms mean and how to utilize them in social behavior, because the behaviors and poor habits they already posses are difficult to deconstruct.
I think before we can discuss love, we have to discuss empathy. I think that’s the basis for interacting with our genetic family.
LOVE……………doesnt last if its based on a feeling……….. It a choice, a decision of commitment, made every day – sometimes every hour.
David, not been around NP for a while, but it’s good to be back. I’ve been thinking a lot about love recently. I think that more than anything else in the world what every person craves is to love and be loved. The question I have is not what is genuine acceptance or authenticity (a word I hate btw, it seems to mean everything and nothing) but what is love? What is love in practice? How do I love someone who hurts me, whose actions seem to trample on and negate who I am? It seems like maybe we have to work on learning to forgive and on allowing ourselves to be hurt over again. I suspect that before I can love others I first need to know God’s love, that before I can accept others in all their brokenness I first need to have been accepted in mine. Which reminds me of the following Douglas Coupland quote:
“Now here is my secret: I tell it to you with an openness of heart that I doubt I shall ever achieve again, so I pray that you are in a quiet room as you hear these words…My secret is that I need God—that I am sick and I can no longer make it alone. I need God to help me to give, because I no longer seem capable of giving; to help me be kind, as I no longer seem capable of kindness; to help me love, as I seem beyond being able to love.”
-Douglas Coupland, Life After God
After all, God is love.
Maybe this is related to why I can’t manage to keep myself going to church.
Kelly,
agree with you about the youth thing.
Sas x
A friend (well, an Internet friend) went to a retreat and what he came back with was really good. I think it is along some of the same ideas as what has been said above (and in many, many other posts/comments)
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/sabbatical-journal-1peterson-seminar-conclusion