Why do you come to church?

As we find ourselves approaching the start of the church year again, it is time for us to think about the answer to this simple question. Why do you come to church? Is it habit? Is it to see old friends? Or is it to recharge your batteries? Is it to engage in the mysteries?

There are a lot of good and comfortable reasons to come to church but are they what Christ left us to do? The formation of the early church was not so that Christians could congregate with Christians without the interference of non-Christians. It wasn’t to form a social club for the enlightened. It wasn’t even to form an organization to coordinate charities.

Jesus left us with two commandments and one commission. Love God. Love your neighbor. Spread the Good News. That’s it. And figuring out what that means and how to execute it is the work of the church. That is what we need to do. Every day. This should be the standard of our actions, as individuals and as a church. Our parish is conveniently assigned a little chunk of real estate in the world to figure out how to do these things for the people who live here.

So who does live here? We can study demographic data. We can look for the local standard of beauty and spread it around our building. We can read books and we can put up flyers. As long as we are focused on who and what we are missing the point. Before we wonder what to do and even who to do it to, we need to know why we do the thing we do.

The Holy Spirit brings people through the uninviting architecture of our front doors with surprising regularity. We need to be cognizant to why they are coming. People no longer come to church to find a social club or a charitable organization to contribute to. These things are available to an information age at the click of a button. People come to church because they are looking for God. And people come to church despite the fact that Christians have a bad reputation for being exclusive and narrow-minded.

It is not our numbers that will wow them; it is our faith. I know that we have a very faithful community and we need to be less afraid to speak of it. We love God. We love each other. With joy and with passion we must not be afraid to spread the Good News.

So it really does take a village

I found out something really interesting yesterday about behavioral genetics. Apparently, 40-50% of our behavioral traits come from our DNA, graciously speaking, maybe 10%(more like 0) come from our parents interaction with us, and the other 50% come from our environment(read peer group). This makes for some very interesting conclusions about parenting...

Note to Reader: I just finished reading Stephen Pinker's book, The Blank Slate, and while I picked it up because I have a degree in philosophy and I actually know what the Blank Slate is, I actually got more interested in the parts about behavioral genetics. Principally, the part about children. If you want to check my sources, i.e. Pinker, don't embarass yourself by only reading the chapter on children because the first two-thirds of the book are an analysis of the metaphysical underpinings of our gut reactions and social beliefs about how the world works. Or more specifically, how science cannot be made to support them and that they are wrong. And if you want something readable about the aforementioned three laws, The Nurturing Assimption by Judith Rich Harris apparently lays them out nicely(I don't know, I haven't read the book yet). Therefore...

The first thing these three laws tell us is that half of everything right or wrong about our own children, we have no control over. I mean, if you really thought you were genetically unsuited to have children, you wouldn't have, and even if you did, we are all so genetically similar that the variance between me and you is negligible anyway. Just remember, the difference between a business man and a criminal is just your interpretation. Both are smooth talking, cut throat and morally ambiguous about ownership. The difference is one has been suckered into paying taxes and the other isn't allowed.

So what does make the difference? Your peer group. Who you grew up with, what role you played in that group and the vagaries of chance that put you in that place at that time.

Does this imply that we ought to have state run child concentration camps? Hardly. The truth of the matter is that nepotism is a universal human trait, and that we are all better suited to taking care of our own children because it serves our own best interest. If anything, the state wouldn't be able to take care of a bunch of babies any better than Angelica because it would have no self interest. But states are good for making sure, hopefully, that nepotism doesn't interfere with the overall good of human societies. (Bushes not withstanding-truth justice and the american way does make for a better society than monarchy and familial promotion)

In fact, what this does imply, is that our society as a whole is responsible for the sorts of individuals it creates. I may not be 'responsible' for how my individual child turns out, but I am certainly responsible for how any child turns out, especially within the peer groups under my supervision. If, because of my complacency about how peer groups affect children, I believe that I am single handedly responsible for my own child, then I do not believe that I have the authority to insist that society and it's entities take responisbility for how they affect children.

For example...
I won't get into an argument about artisitic free speech, but I will point out an ad campaign that Pinker refers too. Everyone has seen those ads of a hip young thing talking sincerely into a camera telling her parents that she remembers their words about smoking even when they are not there. May I never grow so old I don't remember what it was like when I was a teenager. This is my parenting mantra, and that ad has always sounded like tripe to me. But Pinker points out that it is in the best interest of companies, like tobacco and alcohol, for us to believe that we are individually responsible for our own children. It is a diversionary tactic that allows them to market to children and young adults in their own peer related culture without parental interference.

Now, everyone has their own take on marketing to children, and it has recently become a sin, but given this information on how people actually grow up, my response should be to effect change in either the peer group or the companies. Since I am not adverse to marketing, my own take is that if I can teach my child(while she is still under my influence) what marketing is, then she will be armed with information that she can share with her peers, and maybe they will not all go down the road unsupervised and unaware together.

So what is the best way to parent if parenting seems to be irrelevant to the adult your child will become? First, put them in the school/situation that most closely conforms to your value system so that their peer group will be among like minded individuals. Second, don't move them around alot, because they will always be on the bottom of the pecking order. Lastly, treat them as you do members of your own peer group, so that maybe someday they will want to be part of it.

Brand New Baby Blog

This is a test. Test Test Test. It's the cheese. Information sign. Scenic alternative. Make me a cigarette. Poof you're a cigarette.

That was a road trip through California, this is my first foray on the Information Superhighway. Which seems a retarded analogy until you really think about how freeways work in places like Los Angeles.

So now I am going to see it this actually posts.