guardian vs gardner

ok... i know, asking a question in the form of either/or violates everything i believe also.  so, feel free to talk on the x-axis between those two.  some of you will wonder along the "y" i'm sure.

anyway, i have come across my second reference to the theological battle between 'growing' people in their knowledge and practice of following Christ, and protecting and preserving a theological purity.  now i know that it's not either one or the other, (just wanted to restate that), but how do we balance allowing people to grow into their faith know that's a life time journey, and protecting the tenets of what we believe?

~//~

what is pornography?

thought i'd throw out a new discussion.  let me give you a definition first and then the question.  this is the definition of 'pornography' from dictionary.com  it goes a bit beyond the traditional understanding only in that fact that it veers a bit outside of being just visual.

Books, photographs, magazines, art, or music designed to excite sexual impulses and considered by public authorities or public opinion as in violation of accepted standards of sexual morality.

i read an article on relevant.com entitled "emotional pornography", and it talked about the amount of unhealthy depictions of  relationships and imagery out there that has nothing to do with what we consider traditionally as pornography.  it went on to say that affairs are seen as normal and almost desirable in some situations, there are books out there which place unrealistic expectations on how men should be,(twilight series), that is no more fair than the visual images of women we see in traditional pornography.

which leads me to my question.  

what is pornography?

~//~

measuring growth

ok... i guess the first topic was a huge dud.  i'm cool with that.  how about something simple.  

How can churches know if they are being effective at making disciples?

~//~

institutions and social movements

i found this quote and wanted to see what you guys thought.  for now i won't tell you where i found it.

institutions exist in dynamic relationship with social movements: simply put, institutions preserve gains of past social movements.  and with amazing consistency, they also oppose the gains proposed by current social movements.  but with equal consistency, if social movement survives being ignored, opposed, or co-opted by the institution it seeks to change, that movement's gains will enrich the legacy of the institution, and the institution will conserve those gains.

after some thought, this seems to be true for all institutions... from corporations to churches.  

looking at myspace as an example, it started out as a venue for new musicians to make their music public.  and it succeeded well at that.  but when it fell to nothing more than an awkward hangout for bedazzled 13 year old  girls, then facebook moved in to crushed them because the social movement seemed to morph into the need for community.

it seems the same could be said for apple and it's new products.  connectedness seems to be a social movement and the iphone does that better than anyone else's handheld.  so it leads the way.  i'm still wondering about the ipad, unless it's the old adage that he who controls the medium controls the message.  bastards!! .

anyway....the real reason i ask about this quote is because i attended a truly sad event this past weekend.  it was annual meeting of an organization that around 20+ years ago grew out of it's support for women in ministry.  back then it was a vital relevant organization.  however, now it's just a pitiful collection of barely passionate and painfully out of touch well meaning people.  i am all for women in ministry but it was like attending an anti-communism rally.  we've all moved past that now.

so... if this quote is truly accurate, what does it say to the church?                                                     do we try to find, create, adopt the next new social movement?                                                         is doing that an endless cycle that would keep a church distracted from what it should be doing? does the church miss out if it ignores this?

leading a church i'm intrigued by what this would look like.

~//~

"understandings"

i figured while we were waiting for the others to join, we could at least come up with a list of what we hope or want from this:

-the first rule of fight club...

-to provide a safe place to post material, questions, issues for discussion.

-is NOT a listserv for debate.  this is not the classic win/loss format.  if we disagree it will be just stating our position not to prove the other wrong.

-it's just a desktop to place things for everyone to view.  feel free to check in whenever  you can and comment on whatever you feel lead to.

-if you want others in this group, and feel like they could add something invite them now.  once we fill group then anyone added afterwards will have to be by group consent.

-there will be no moderator or admin for this.  if we feel someone isn't adhering to the original understanding then we will "gently" remind them.

that's all i have for now.  feel free to add any more "understandings".

i'm looking forward to this.

~//~

welcome

nothing more to say than, once we get everyone on we'll talk about the expectations and go from there.  the less rules and more 'understanding' the better.

-kal

~//~