« Poachers | Main | Boy in a Well »

18 March 2003 — Character Camp (14)

During the summer before my senior year of high school, I attended Character Camp—a Christian "leadership camp"—with about eight other kids. We spent our days on a ropes course, white-water rafting, performing physical team-building exercises. In the evenings we gathered for Bible-based leadership instruction. (On one memorable occasion, we watched Watership Down and discussed in what ways the various rabbits displayed leadership qualities.)

This camp was important to me; I was wholly invested in it. I was intent on every word that was spoken, searched deep for every possible meaning that could be derived from our experience. At this time in my life, I was completely devoted to God and my religion, and more than anything I wanted to serve Him.

We spent several days in the river community of Dant, south of Maupin along the Deschutes River. One evening our leader, Byron Kehler, had us gather our sleeping bags and a small dinner, and he led us to a dry creek bed. He instructed us that we were to spend the night alone in this creek bed, spacing ourselves several hundred yards apart. We were to embrace the solitude, to discover in which ways it led us closer to God. In the morning, we would discuss what we had learned from our fleeting hermitage.

I was the first to be left at a campsite, so I was closest to the house. The group left me at my site and walked to the next campsite, a few hundred yards away.

I spent the last few hours of daylight writing in my journal. I wrote a letter to Kristin Kauffman. I read a book. When the darkness fell, I crawled into my sleeping bag and turned my thoughts inward.

I reflected.

I searched for God.

I fell asleep.

I awoke with the first light of dawn, refreshed, excited to face the day. Had I come closer to God? I believed I had!

I was in great spirits as I packed my things and made my way back to the house. Nobody else had returned yet, so was able to have the first shower. What a glorious day!

I was sitting at the table eating breakfast when the rest of the group came back, together. Byron was upset.

"Where were you, J.D.?" he asked.

I was confused. "What do you mean?" I said.

"You weren't at your camp site. You were supposed to wait at your camp site until the group came to get you, and then we were to walk back to the house together," he explained, his jaw tight, neck muscles tensed.

"Oh," I said, my spirits sinking. The rest of the campers stood behind him, sleeping bags and books and journals in hand, staring at me with disapproval. I felt lost. I had let the group down. "I didn't know," I said meekly, bowing my head, staring at my food.

"How could you not know?" Byron asked, his temper rising. "This is what we had planned. We each spent the night alone, and then came back together as a group. That was the Whole Point."

The Whole Point? I believed that I had followed the instructions to the letter. How did I miss that we were supposed to walk back to the house together? The more I thought about it, the more certain I was that I had never heard this instruction.

Still, I spent the last few days of camp humbled, wondering how I had missed the Whole Point.


To this day, I'm not sure how I missed the Whole Point. It was not due to inattention; my entire being was focused on this Character Camp; I hung on Byron's every word. I felt as if my entire future were somehow tied up in what occurred during this week. In many ways, it was.

In retrospect, I suspect that one of two things occurred: I missed the Whole Point either because:

  1. I was in not in the room when it was explained (perhaps I was in the bathroom), or
  2. It was explained after the group left me at my camp site -- maybe Tim Hershberger asked for clarification and it was given at that time.
Regardless, it's always amazed me how poorly Byron handled the situation. I may have missed the Whole Point of the solitude exercise, but I think perhaps Byron missed the Whole Point of Christ-based leadership.

And maybe, in some small way, this helped start me down the road to atheism.


To the south of Dant, the land rises sharply. One afternoon, in the blazing sun, we hiked to the top of a bluff. We crawled to the cliff edge and we looked down several hundred feet into the Deschutes River. A few days before, we had paddled that stretch of water in our rafts.

The altitude was intoxicating. Lying flat on my stomach, peering over the edge, I could believe that I was flying, soaring above the rocks and the river.

For a moment, the urge to leap out into the abyss was almost unbearable.

On this day at foldedspace.org

2005Warm and Hearty   Paul and Susan allowed me to spend an evening and a morning with them in their new home. I had fun, despite a long quest for warm and hearty food.

2004Catfilter   Here is a complete collection of all the cat-related questions from AskMetafilter. Enjoy!

Of Butter, Sugar, and Salt   Some dieters crave butter (not me! — I don't like the stuff). I long for sugar and for salt. This makes it a challenge to lose weight.

2001Knock Knock   I was just awakened by a soft, rhythmic knocking. What was it? (Also: capsule reviews of the book and film versions of Lolita.)

Comments
On 18 March 2003 (10:47 AM), Jace said:

I really enjoyed this entry. As to whether you missed the Whole Point (I actually found the capitalization of these two words quite amusing) or not, I can only say this. Sometimes adults fail to realize the complexity of the child or adolescent mind. They don't believe children are capable of profound thought or have the ability to become closer to God on their own. Some also think self discovery is bad. I think if the exercise was that of isolation and you managed to become closer to God (or closer to yourself) then you didn't miss the point. It's unfortunate that you were shot down in what might have been a life altering experience for you. Most unfortunate.

P.S You write beautifully.


On 18 March 2003 (01:17 PM), Paul said:

JD,

Umm wait a minute, you said that "And maybe in some small way, that helped me down the road to atheism". What did? The fact that you were insulted, hurt or embarrased by Byron? That there was a miscommunication? You had a bad experience on a Christian leadership trip and THAT led you toward atheism? JD, you are much more of an independant person than to credit (or blame) that experience for your faith (or type of faith or lack, whatever)on someone else. If I were Byron I sure wouldn't want to be thought of as the guy that turned JD off Christianity--that's a little too much influence for one person don't you think?

Was it that you thought that you let the group down? The Christian group that you were so excited and committed to? Was the Whole Point to follow Christ or Byron? Was the point to be a part of a click or to find God? I always wonder about the people in my church and how stubborn they are about certain aspects of the church service, the liturgy. I think that if Jesus were to come back tomorrow that alot of these people would actually miss going to church! I think they would rather cling to what makes them comfortable in their church lives than actually be with Christ.

I heard a great sermon a couple of weeks ago about whether or not God or Jesus would approve of the War. The quote I loved was, "The question isn't whether God is on our side or their side but are we on GOD'S side?" We've been asking ourselves in this society WWJD? and hope that it agrees with what we already believe intead of being on God's side.

You went to the leadership retreat to be with God and learn about Christianity not to follow Byron.

Paul


On 18 March 2003 (02:42 PM), J.D. said:

Perhaps I was not clear enough: my faith at this time was strong, even after this encounter.

Yes, I was hurt and confused by the manner in which Byron handled the situation, but at the time I did not consciously note any dissonance between his actions and those that might be construed as Christ-like. I was a barely seventeen. He was an adult, one that I respected and admired, and to have done something to earn his disapproval damaged my self-esteem more than anything else.

I think that the incident caused a small chink in my my faith at some subconscious level, though. Small chink. I don't mean to make it sound as if this was pivotal in my path toward atheism; I don't believe it was. This was merely one of many small events that may have played a part, may have played a part, on a subconscious level, that only seem significant in retrospect.

The point of the story was not my loss of faith, but the differences in perception between me and Byron. I believe that I had done as instructed, felt as if I had achieved some sort of communion with God, and I returned to the house feeling happy and alert and alive.

Byron's view was different. To him, I had missed the Whole Point by coming back without the rest of the group, had spoiled the lesson for everyone. (I don't even recall what the lesson was—it was lost in the fuss.)

I'm sorry if it seemed that I was blaming Byron for my loss of faith. That was not my intent. In truth, I do not blame anyone; I feel that I believe what I believe today because of the sum of my life experience, not because of the actions of any one person.

If your comment didn't already refer to it, I'd remove this sentence: And maybe, in some small way, this helped start me down the road to atheism. My intent and meaning would be clearer.

This is how I learn to improve my writing!


On 18 March 2003 (05:33 PM), Paul said:

JD,

Different angle on the same main theme: faith and atheism. If I were an atheist or agnostic I would want to call it something else, I mean the name is always in opposition to something. A (against/anti) theism, A-gnostic. I know you have strong beliefs would you rather be FOR something rather than against? Whatever your belief system might be it will always be in relation/opposition/juxtaposition to God. Isn't that giving away too much of the argument to the other side?

I'm not sure what I'd call it but I'd resent the fact that you always have to couch the discussion in terms of what you're not rather than what you are.

Paul


On 18 March 2003 (05:43 PM), J.D. said:

My point is: I hadn't even meant for atheism/agnosticism to enter the discussion. That's not what this entry was about. By carelessly including one sentence, I took the focus from my main theme. It's like getting something else in the frame of your photograph and somehow that something else becomes what the viewer notices instead of your main subject.

Actually, lately I've been noticing a lot of parallels between photography and writing. Similar principles apply.


On 18 March 2003 (09:20 PM), Kris said:

I think Paul makes an interesting syntactical point above (in his second post). To me, the word "atheist" IS purposefully setting itself against something: theism, a BELIEF in god/gods. Therefore, when I proclaim that I am an atheist, I am not saying that I am opposing a god, but rather that I am opposed to the belief in and worship of "god". As for what I am for (rather than against), they are too many to name! But a few: pragmatist, environmentalist, feminist, chemist (ha!).

In a society in which 90%+ profess a belief in god of some sort, the word atheist is bound to be misunderstood by many, just as feminist has come to be a term of derision. Even feminists don't want to be called feminists! (In case you're wondering, my definition of feminism revolves around the concept that a person's life choices should be as independent of gender-based strictures as that individual desires.)

I have a streak of fierce pride in being an atheist; it is a choice I made, against the pressures of society but true to myself. It has required sacrifices of a social nature but has always felt right to me. In this way, it is not unlike my choice to remain an "independent" in college, rather than join a sorority. Hmmm, maybe churches are the greek system of post-college life. I never thought of that before.

Thanks for making me think! Kris the a-symmetrical, a-typical a-theist


On 19 March 2003 (03:38 AM), Susie said:

It’s interesting how many messages different people can take from the same article. For me, the main thing that struck me was how frustrating it can be when people are only able do something by the book, and fail to realise that an exercise can still be valid even if the instructions are not fully adhered to. This may be because it is a particular bugbear of mine. Does Byron fall into this category, or was this fairly uncharacteristic of him?


On 19 March 2003 (07:56 AM), J.D. said:

This behavior was uncharacteristic of Byron. This one anecdote does not paint an accurate picture of him; it highlights one minor incident that he probably no longer remembers.

Byron Kehler was (still is?) a competent, thoughtful youth counselor, and an engaging speaker. He's an intelligent man, with some interesting ideas on faith and leadership. I still hold him in high esteem.


On 19 March 2003 (11:24 AM), Joelah said:

A positive term for atheism or agnosticism might be humanism. Check out http://www.secularhumanism.org/ (no, I don't know how to include links in my posts). There are several Oregon humanist groups, including one in Portland: http://www.portlandhumanists.org/
Of course, since Paul has broached the case of syntactics representing inherent meaning, a humanist could reverse the field and describe a person of faith as "inhuman", but I'm sure they'd be too polite for that.
And yes, JD, I know this isn't what you wanted this post to be about. You are, however, at the mercy of your readers.


On 03 June 2003 (03:40 PM), Cole said:

I am intrigued by all of this mainly because I came to this site following links to learn more about Byron Kehler the now famous counselor/teacher/psychologist who has earned awards and national recognition for his work. Including counseling the President of the United States during 9/11

JD I understood the point of your posting completely. I know the intent of your writing was not to highlight your faith it was to show the power of individual influence and connect that to perspective.

I just took a class that changed my life from Byron Kehler. You speak very well of him and I know that you understand people make mistakes. I appreciate your comments as to the integrity of the man. I think you paint a very clear and fair picture of him. One thing he mentioned in class is the responsibility of teaching experientially. On this occasion he would admit (pending your perspective is credible) that he failed you.

Byron mentioned many stories in which early on in his experience he failed people. He told of the pain it caused his heart especially now that he is old enough and humble enough to see it.

You write well. I commend you.

Regarding the value of experience and your life long quest for truth. You make implied assumptions about the value of perspective and its bearing on absolute truth. It's too bad the only absolute truth that exists is that there is no absolute truth.

Because if any more absolute truth existed you would have to question what relevence an experience like yours with Byron would have on it. Experience does not beget truth. It cannot. because perspective determines experience as you have so cleverly exemplified in your story.
So Experience impersonates a truth.

This brings a rather flagrant logical error in your thesis: If the Whole Point is relative and based in perspective. Why is relevant for you to share it as a life lesson for others to learn if they cannot share in some kind of truth. I don't apply the experiences of others to determine my truth.

That would be inconsistent and postmodern --
shuffled about in humanism as one has stated.

Does art impersonate life or does life impersonate art?

No absolute truth means no accountability. For any crime, any offense, any good deed. The whole point becomes a nihlistic approach to meaningless.

If the Whole Point is based in perspective and experience -- Why share it with others at all?
We cannot re- live that with you.


On 03 June 2003 (04:08 PM), J.D. said:

Thanks for writing, Cole. I appreciate your thoughtful comments.

I just took a class that changed my life from Byron Kehler. You speak very well of him and I know that you understand people make mistakes.

I think highly of Byron, and feel that his classes (I took three from him in all, including the character camp) changed my life in many ways.

This brings a rather flagrant logical error in your thesis: If the Whole Point is relative and based in perspective. Why is relevant for you to share it as a life lesson for others to learn if they cannot share in some kind of truth. I don't apply the experiences of others to determine my truth.

This is an interesting point, one that I had not considered.

First, and most importantly, I've shared this experience because my weblog is a forum for me to write about my past, my present, and my future. Sometimes when I write, I'm simply writing to tell a story. Other times I'm trying to convey a point or a lesson that I've learned. Sometimes I try to do both. Sometimes I fail at either.

Then, too, it seems to me that if I, or anyone else, were to not share our experiences, the life lessons that we've learned, that very little sharing of stories would occur in life. Yes, it's true that I may not gain anything from hearing about an experience that changed my friend's life, but I listen, and try to gain insight from something that was clearly important to this other person. Sometimes I'm not able to do that.

Finally, I think it is important to learn the this lesson, that what is true from one viewpoint might not be true from another viewpoint. Both can be correct, and wrong, at once.

No absolute truth means no accountability. For any crime, any offense, any good deed. The whole point becomes a nihlistic approach to meaningless.

Yes, this is one of the great moral dilemmas for the non-religious (and even for the religious sometimes). How does one establish a moral code, a set of ethics, if there are no absolute truths? I admit that it's a problem. I don't agree that no absolute truth means no accountability, but it does mean it's more difficult to judge the merits of an action. For example: if one believes that killing another human being is always wrong, then it's easy to judge one who has killed. However, if one believes that killing another human being is not always wrong, then it becomes difficult to judge one who has killed because difficult questions arise: When is killing acceptable? Are there times when killing is always acceptable? Never acceptable? It's a quandary.

f the Whole Point is based in perspective and experience -- Why share it with others at all? We cannot re- live that with you.

This is true. But, as I said, I share it because this my forum to share stories from my life, to share what has made me who I am. And even if it's impossible for others to live what I have lived, they can at least come to know what has made me who I am.


On 03 June 2003 (04:41 PM), cole said:

Is what makes you who you are merely a bundle of experiences you cannot re-live? If so there is only death. Inevitable.

Or is there meaning to life that is not self-determined?

There is no denying how frustrating it is to establish a moral code or ethical consistency in regards to there not being an absolute truth.

I appreciate your forum and the thoughts it has developed in me today. It has encouraged me to seek out the meaning of life. If it is self-determined we are at nobody's mercy but our own.

I choose not to explore the concept of the absence of absolute truth to it's logical end because I am left with the fact that: I can rape, steal, and destroy because nobody else can determine my experience based on their philosophy. Just don't get caught by someone elses moral construct. What is Right?

If we truely explore this philosophy (no absolute truth) to its consistent and logical end then there is no Right or Wrong. Not even self-determined. (it's just experience speaking) This leads to no order in the universe. Chaos.

How can that be. We see order all around us. No Scientist can deny the laws of thermodynamics: everything moves from order to disorder, life to death, construct to decay, and green to brown for that matter.

I agree it is most frustrating and rather perplexing. To adopt this line of thinking is to turn your back on fully exploring it to its extreme logical extent.

But we do it anyway because we don't like the accountability Christians would have for us. A God, a diety to be accountable to. We don't like the idea of not determining our own Will. We don't like the idea of "intelligent design". So until I become educated I will deny the absolute truth even if it does exist.

Education and logic bring enlightenment.

Maybe enlightenment is the meaning of life.

I'm only a kid - it's my perspective- relatively True to no one but me Right?

and unless someone wants to know how I became me, like they do you, then I remain selfish.


On 13 August 2004 (11:11 AM), Dennis Castle said:

According to his office manager, Byron was made aware of this thread awhile ago. I'm interested to hear if you've received any contact from them.


On 20 August 2004 (02:25 PM), J.D. Roth said:

Dennis, I haven't heard from Byron. I just returned from a trip to Alaska, and as I marvelled at the geographical grandeur of the 49th state, I was reminded of the event I wrote about in this weblog entry. I love being out in and among nature. It is then — and only then — that I feel there might be some Higher Power. And, again, I'm reminded that when I think of Byron, I think of him in warm regard, grateful for the things I learned from him. The event shared here is really the sole exception.


Post a comment
Name


Email Address
(required, not shown)


URL


Comments




Remember info?