So today was our first full day hanging out with our new resident. To make writing about him easier without violating our confidentiality agreement, I will call him "Ajax".
Ajax is a sweet boy with a winning smile and endless curiosity. He's also one of the most helpful kids I've ever met. He is very kindhearted and quick to make friends.
Today, the highlight of our day was, well, two things:
First was what we call "Community". It's basically a meeting of everyone at the Ranch. we all get together and thank each other for things (we call it "giving compliments"), pass out allowance and mail, and give any announcements for the next week. It's a lot of fun, especially when folks are in a good mood. Today, for example, we must have spent a good ten minutes passing around compliments for everything form "good job mowing the lawn" to "thanks for the help changing our tire". It's really fun to see how, once people start thinking about what they're thankful for, just how MUCH we have to be thankful for.
The second part of our day was consumed by going to, "The Creek". Now, the name is fairly self-explanatory. We have a creek that runs on our property. It's got some fish, and best of all, cold clean swimming water for those sweltering summer days. Now, recently, we had a backhoe out there doing some work, and we asked them to dig our swimming hole a little deeper, and they obliged. It was really nice to have a deep place to swim.
Well, the last few weeks have been a mini-monsoon season here in NW Arkansas. In fact, some places have started measuring rain in feet instead of inches as of late. So, needless to say, we haven't been to the creek for a while for fear of getting a vehicle stuck on the dirt road back to it. Now, it just so happens that the creek runs through a gravel bed, so lo and behold, when we went back today, the creek was no longer a deep gurgling pool of fun, it was a chest-deep strand of rushing water. The WHOLE layout of the creek shifted. Now, it makes for really fun swimming, because you can swim the length of the deepest point in about 10 seconds going downstream, and it's really better to just get out and walk than try to swim upstream (even for me, let alone the 10 year olds we're with). It was a blast though. Found some really neat rocks and driftwood in the wake of the rains, so lots of adventures had all around.
So yeah, quite the fun day, all things considered. Looking forward to even more ahead :)
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Woohoo! Two-for-One!
Well, my wife and I had an interesting discussion today, so I thought I'd write about it here!
So the topic is this: Why are "Millenials" (people born in the year 200 or later) leaving the church?
Well, here's what I think:
I think it's a lot of reasons, but namely the following:
~Intolerance in the Church
~Hypocrisy in the Church
~Lack of logic in the Church
Now let me explain.
Intolerance
Let me first clarify that this does not mean "Christains should be pushovers" or "sin? What's sin?" Intolerance looks like this:
~~~~~~~~~~~
Person A: You know, I ran into a friend from college the otherday and got to talking. It was really great to hang out with him for awhile. We went to a pub and he had some drinks while we...
Person B: SHUN THEE! I PRONOUNCE JUDGEMENT AND DAMNATION UPON ALL WHO ENTER SUCH HOUSES OF VILE CORRUPTION!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Or like this:
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Person A: Dude! I went to this SWEET concert this weekend! The headliner was...
Person B: ESCHEW THE NON-BELIEVER! SATAN ROMPS IN THE FIELDS OF INSOLENT HEATHENS WHO ATTEND SUCH FESTIVALS OF THE DAMNED!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Or even like this:
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Person A: Well, I went to visit a mosque/temple/shrine/cathedral and ended up meeting a really cool imam/rabbi/monk/priest who had a lot of interesting thoughts on ...
Person B: HELLFIRE AND BRIMSTONE UPON THY HEAD! THOUS HAST CONSORTED WITH PAGANS AND SATAN WORSHIPERS!!!! A POX UPON THEE, HEATHEN!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, obviously, this is played up quite a bit, but can you see the logic there? Many in the church seem to think that someone who sins is untouchable, someone who has different tastes is a pagan, and someone who is friendly with others of different beliefs is going to hell. That last one is really infuriating when they are mad at you for befriending other Christians (Catholics, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Mennonites, etc.).
This is obviously not in keeping with Christ's teachings. "Those who are healthy do not need a doctor. Those who are sick do" (Mark 2:17). If that's the case, then why do we spend all our time medicating the healthy? Concerning worship styles/music preferences, when King David, in the Old Testament, saw that the Ark of the Covenant had been returned, he ran out and danced naked through the streets of the city. And when his wife shided him for it later, she was struck barren by God. Now, this is not to say that we should all dance naked, but the point is that if God was not upset with David dancing naked, I find it hard to believe that he finds Third Day, Skillet, Casting Crowns, etc. THAT offensive. Finally, concerning inter-faith friendships, I think, at the end of the day, Christ is glorified when the poor are fed, the homeless clothed, and the orphans loved. I don't think he really cares who called "dibs" on the event planning. I think the important part is that those Christ cared about most (the ones who have almost no hope) have been cared for.
So yeah, that's the "intolerance" I'm talking about.
Hypocrisy
Now let me begin this by saying there is not one singular big hypocrisy in the Church, but rather a lot of smaller ones. For example, Christians speak vehemently against spreading gossip and deceit, yet eagerly wag their lips to share the latest and juiciest "prayer requests". We all know that person who is always eager to pass on information disguised as concern and prayer.
Another thing Christians do is sing all about "Jesus loves me" and "the deep, deep, love of Jesus" and speak endlessly of His great compassion and how OBAMA IS THE ANTICHRIST AND DEMOCRATS ARE ALL SATAN WORSHIPERS AND Jesus loves the little children UNLESS THEIR PARENTS ARE DEMOCRATS. Also, never forget that, out of faith, hope, and love, "the greatest of these is love", right behind SABOTAGING PEOPLE'S OBAMA YARD SIGNS!!!! And it's not just democrats! Awhile ago, it was communists, now it's trending towards homosexuals. In short, we're supposed to love everyone except for whatever social issue we don't agree with. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple.
And that's not the last of it, sadly. For a group that preaches against the sins of greed, pride, and gluttony, there sure are a lot of scrooge-y, arrogant, obese Christians. And that obese one hits me too. I'm not just throwing accusations around blindly. If we believe that moderation is a good ideal to pursue, than why are all the buffet's packed as soon as church let's out? That's not right.
Deficient Logic
I tell you what, I am pretty tired of getting the answer "one must have faith despite a lack of reasons/evidence" in response to tough questions concerning faith. If we truly believe that even "the skies declare the glory of God", ought we not be able to try to reason out why red-shift universal expansion are scientific things? If we truly believe God created all things than logic and reasoning MUST be evident in all things.
God gave us minds and the ability to problem solve and invent things. I don't believe He is very proud of us when we stick our heads in the sand and ignore our instinct to reason and discover in favor of pursuing "blind faith". The Catholic church has had some experience with that (I'm sure they would love to go back and apologize to Galileo). Ignoring and rejecting science is a terrible idea. We instead need to lend our voice to those crying out in search of a reason for it all.
And it's not just matters of science, either. This head in the sand attitude infects many areas of our lives. Why did Mrs. Bahb's baby die? "I guess it was her time?" Billy's uncle just died? "All things work together for good!" Fred lost his job? "When God closes a door, he opens a window!"
No! These things happen because of sin! ADMIT THAT!! These issues are crucial points in people's lives. They need friends who don't stand on the edge of the fight cheer-leading; they need friends who step in and fight for them! These moments have the potential to reach the most hard-hearted, and when we throw out these whimsical phrases, we do more harm then good.
We claim to worship the God who invented logic. Shouldn't the answers we give people make sense? Shouldn't we be able to use that logic? Too often it seems like, well, honestly, we're lazy. Logic is difficult, and it's easier to just say "Woah, Nelly! It's God's thing" than "no, your baby didn't deserve to die. It is a terrible injustice to have your infant taken from you so young." It's true, if Adam hadn't rebelled, no-one's babies would die (and we'd all live hundreds of years happily with no diseases). That's the truth, and we can show people that it's not God's fault, it's our own.
But it requires honesty and a LOT of hard work. People come up with some DOOZY questions for us to answer. But the wonderful news is that, God has the answers, we just need to seek them.
So, yeah, lots of good stuff. And there are many smaller issues too. These just seem to be the biggest/encompass the most smaller issues. What do you think? Do you have suggestions for other issues we as a church need to be wary of? Do you think it's the millennials' fault? What's your opinion?
So the topic is this: Why are "Millenials" (people born in the year 200 or later) leaving the church?
Well, here's what I think:
I think it's a lot of reasons, but namely the following:
~Intolerance in the Church
~Hypocrisy in the Church
~Lack of logic in the Church
Now let me explain.
Intolerance
Let me first clarify that this does not mean "Christains should be pushovers" or "sin? What's sin?" Intolerance looks like this:
~~~~~~~~~~~
Person A: You know, I ran into a friend from college the otherday and got to talking. It was really great to hang out with him for awhile. We went to a pub and he had some drinks while we...
Person B: SHUN THEE! I PRONOUNCE JUDGEMENT AND DAMNATION UPON ALL WHO ENTER SUCH HOUSES OF VILE CORRUPTION!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Or like this:
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Person A: Dude! I went to this SWEET concert this weekend! The headliner was...
Person B: ESCHEW THE NON-BELIEVER! SATAN ROMPS IN THE FIELDS OF INSOLENT HEATHENS WHO ATTEND SUCH FESTIVALS OF THE DAMNED!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Or even like this:
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Person A: Well, I went to visit a mosque/temple/shrine/cathedral and ended up meeting a really cool imam/rabbi/monk/priest who had a lot of interesting thoughts on ...
Person B: HELLFIRE AND BRIMSTONE UPON THY HEAD! THOUS HAST CONSORTED WITH PAGANS AND SATAN WORSHIPERS!!!! A POX UPON THEE, HEATHEN!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, obviously, this is played up quite a bit, but can you see the logic there? Many in the church seem to think that someone who sins is untouchable, someone who has different tastes is a pagan, and someone who is friendly with others of different beliefs is going to hell. That last one is really infuriating when they are mad at you for befriending other Christians (Catholics, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Mennonites, etc.).
This is obviously not in keeping with Christ's teachings. "Those who are healthy do not need a doctor. Those who are sick do" (Mark 2:17). If that's the case, then why do we spend all our time medicating the healthy? Concerning worship styles/music preferences, when King David, in the Old Testament, saw that the Ark of the Covenant had been returned, he ran out and danced naked through the streets of the city. And when his wife shided him for it later, she was struck barren by God. Now, this is not to say that we should all dance naked, but the point is that if God was not upset with David dancing naked, I find it hard to believe that he finds Third Day, Skillet, Casting Crowns, etc. THAT offensive. Finally, concerning inter-faith friendships, I think, at the end of the day, Christ is glorified when the poor are fed, the homeless clothed, and the orphans loved. I don't think he really cares who called "dibs" on the event planning. I think the important part is that those Christ cared about most (the ones who have almost no hope) have been cared for.
So yeah, that's the "intolerance" I'm talking about.
Hypocrisy
Now let me begin this by saying there is not one singular big hypocrisy in the Church, but rather a lot of smaller ones. For example, Christians speak vehemently against spreading gossip and deceit, yet eagerly wag their lips to share the latest and juiciest "prayer requests". We all know that person who is always eager to pass on information disguised as concern and prayer.
Another thing Christians do is sing all about "Jesus loves me" and "the deep, deep, love of Jesus" and speak endlessly of His great compassion and how OBAMA IS THE ANTICHRIST AND DEMOCRATS ARE ALL SATAN WORSHIPERS AND Jesus loves the little children UNLESS THEIR PARENTS ARE DEMOCRATS. Also, never forget that, out of faith, hope, and love, "the greatest of these is love", right behind SABOTAGING PEOPLE'S OBAMA YARD SIGNS!!!! And it's not just democrats! Awhile ago, it was communists, now it's trending towards homosexuals. In short, we're supposed to love everyone except for whatever social issue we don't agree with. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple.
And that's not the last of it, sadly. For a group that preaches against the sins of greed, pride, and gluttony, there sure are a lot of scrooge-y, arrogant, obese Christians. And that obese one hits me too. I'm not just throwing accusations around blindly. If we believe that moderation is a good ideal to pursue, than why are all the buffet's packed as soon as church let's out? That's not right.
Deficient Logic
I tell you what, I am pretty tired of getting the answer "one must have faith despite a lack of reasons/evidence" in response to tough questions concerning faith. If we truly believe that even "the skies declare the glory of God", ought we not be able to try to reason out why red-shift universal expansion are scientific things? If we truly believe God created all things than logic and reasoning MUST be evident in all things.
God gave us minds and the ability to problem solve and invent things. I don't believe He is very proud of us when we stick our heads in the sand and ignore our instinct to reason and discover in favor of pursuing "blind faith". The Catholic church has had some experience with that (I'm sure they would love to go back and apologize to Galileo). Ignoring and rejecting science is a terrible idea. We instead need to lend our voice to those crying out in search of a reason for it all.
And it's not just matters of science, either. This head in the sand attitude infects many areas of our lives. Why did Mrs. Bahb's baby die? "I guess it was her time?" Billy's uncle just died? "All things work together for good!" Fred lost his job? "When God closes a door, he opens a window!"
No! These things happen because of sin! ADMIT THAT!! These issues are crucial points in people's lives. They need friends who don't stand on the edge of the fight cheer-leading; they need friends who step in and fight for them! These moments have the potential to reach the most hard-hearted, and when we throw out these whimsical phrases, we do more harm then good.
We claim to worship the God who invented logic. Shouldn't the answers we give people make sense? Shouldn't we be able to use that logic? Too often it seems like, well, honestly, we're lazy. Logic is difficult, and it's easier to just say "Woah, Nelly! It's God's thing" than "no, your baby didn't deserve to die. It is a terrible injustice to have your infant taken from you so young." It's true, if Adam hadn't rebelled, no-one's babies would die (and we'd all live hundreds of years happily with no diseases). That's the truth, and we can show people that it's not God's fault, it's our own.
But it requires honesty and a LOT of hard work. People come up with some DOOZY questions for us to answer. But the wonderful news is that, God has the answers, we just need to seek them.
So, yeah, lots of good stuff. And there are many smaller issues too. These just seem to be the biggest/encompass the most smaller issues. What do you think? Do you have suggestions for other issues we as a church need to be wary of? Do you think it's the millennials' fault? What's your opinion?
Been a while, has it not?
Wow, totally forgot to keep writing here. What with graduation, getting employed, moving, and job training, it's been quite hectic, so here's a post to catch you all up!
Graduation:
Graduation went well. No snags or hiccups at all, so that was nice. Family came out to see both my wife and I, so it was a really nice time! I suppose the highlight was that I was the last person to cross the stage. It doesn't sound like much until you know that no one was supposed to clap until the end. So, being the last one, as soon as I got my diploma, the crowd erupted into applause. I know it wasn't specifically for me, but it still felt stinkin' AWESOME!
Oh, yeah, and I still don't have a diploma! That's a fun story. Turns out, one of my professors was missing a lot of work from me. It was all stuff I had done (correction, I admit missing one of the assignments), so I resubmitted it. But I was late, and the professor had gone out of the country for a couple weeks. After that, we worked it out and my grade got updated, but it was too late for the university to release my diploma (apparently they can only do that May and August), so now, I get to be an August grad! WOOHOO!!
But yeah, everything went well and all that jazz :)
Employment
So, my wife and I had stumbled across a job posting for "house-parents" at a boy's ranch in Arkansas. It looked neat, but they wanted "Psychology & Criminal Justice" majors. We figured we'd give it a shot anyway, so we sent in some papers (a letter of intent and our resumes) and just prayed for God to show His hand.
Well boy howdy He did. Literally NOTHING else we applied for went well. I never even got an interview from any of the other 50+ responses I sent, and my wife got only a handful, and those didn't really pan out at all. So, after a month or so, I called to follow up with the Boys Ranch, and wouldn't you know, they were really interested. They had us come out for a week on-site to see how we liked it.
A few weeks after that, we got a call saying "we'd like to hire you for relief house-parents" and we said "ok". Another week went by, and again we got a call saying, "actually, we will hire you as full house-parents", and we said "ok". So we moved out here to rural Northwest Arkansas, and it's been quite a blast so far.
I suppose this warrants a detailed description of our job, so, here it is:
We work a "Boy's Ranch". The basic premise of the Ranch is that boys with minor to moderate "adjustment issues" (things like truancy, bad grades, authority issues, behavior problems, etc.) come and life here a while, so that they can have receive:
-structured environment
-unilateral discipline
-positive reinforcement
-stable home environment
Now, that isn't to say that all the parents are evil cruel slobs. On the contrary, many of them are kind folks who simply don't know what else to try. But between working and maintaining a social life, it's hard to give a kid all of those things sometimes, especially kids with issues like ADHD or other social-skill type issues. The point is that my wife and I are paid to parent, basically. We don't have a job from 9-5. We're basically stay-at-home-parents, so it's our job to create those things, and we don't have to worry about putting food on the table or paying bills, because all of that is provided.
So our schedule looks (very VERY basically like this:
10 days on duty (total responsibility for the children)
4 days off duty (no responsibilities at all)
Now, there are 4 cottages, each with a set of houseparents, so they are staggered 2 and 2 for on/off duty. So when 1 and 3 are on duty, the relief parents are on duty in 2 and 4, and vice versa. There are two sets of relief houseparents, each responsible for 2 cottages. So a relief houseparent's schedule might look like this:
4 days on in cottage 1
--3 days off
4 days on in cottage 3
--3 days off
So yeah, that's the basic schedule. Also, I should mention that there a lots of great stories to tell here, but because of some of the DHS (Department of Human Services) and Licensing rules/laws, I can't give names or identifying information out, so expect a lot of goofy/generic names, or even just "the resident".
But yeah, that's our job. If you have questions, feel free to ask!
Hopefully I'll be better about keeping up the blog, especially now that things are getting interesting, what with us getting our first resident very soon. So yeah, check in regularly!!!
Graduation:
Graduation went well. No snags or hiccups at all, so that was nice. Family came out to see both my wife and I, so it was a really nice time! I suppose the highlight was that I was the last person to cross the stage. It doesn't sound like much until you know that no one was supposed to clap until the end. So, being the last one, as soon as I got my diploma, the crowd erupted into applause. I know it wasn't specifically for me, but it still felt stinkin' AWESOME!
Oh, yeah, and I still don't have a diploma! That's a fun story. Turns out, one of my professors was missing a lot of work from me. It was all stuff I had done (correction, I admit missing one of the assignments), so I resubmitted it. But I was late, and the professor had gone out of the country for a couple weeks. After that, we worked it out and my grade got updated, but it was too late for the university to release my diploma (apparently they can only do that May and August), so now, I get to be an August grad! WOOHOO!!
But yeah, everything went well and all that jazz :)
Employment
So, my wife and I had stumbled across a job posting for "house-parents" at a boy's ranch in Arkansas. It looked neat, but they wanted "Psychology & Criminal Justice" majors. We figured we'd give it a shot anyway, so we sent in some papers (a letter of intent and our resumes) and just prayed for God to show His hand.
Well boy howdy He did. Literally NOTHING else we applied for went well. I never even got an interview from any of the other 50+ responses I sent, and my wife got only a handful, and those didn't really pan out at all. So, after a month or so, I called to follow up with the Boys Ranch, and wouldn't you know, they were really interested. They had us come out for a week on-site to see how we liked it.
A few weeks after that, we got a call saying "we'd like to hire you for relief house-parents" and we said "ok". Another week went by, and again we got a call saying, "actually, we will hire you as full house-parents", and we said "ok". So we moved out here to rural Northwest Arkansas, and it's been quite a blast so far.
I suppose this warrants a detailed description of our job, so, here it is:
We work a "Boy's Ranch". The basic premise of the Ranch is that boys with minor to moderate "adjustment issues" (things like truancy, bad grades, authority issues, behavior problems, etc.) come and life here a while, so that they can have receive:
-structured environment
-unilateral discipline
-positive reinforcement
-stable home environment
Now, that isn't to say that all the parents are evil cruel slobs. On the contrary, many of them are kind folks who simply don't know what else to try. But between working and maintaining a social life, it's hard to give a kid all of those things sometimes, especially kids with issues like ADHD or other social-skill type issues. The point is that my wife and I are paid to parent, basically. We don't have a job from 9-5. We're basically stay-at-home-parents, so it's our job to create those things, and we don't have to worry about putting food on the table or paying bills, because all of that is provided.
So our schedule looks (very VERY basically like this:
10 days on duty (total responsibility for the children)
4 days off duty (no responsibilities at all)
Now, there are 4 cottages, each with a set of houseparents, so they are staggered 2 and 2 for on/off duty. So when 1 and 3 are on duty, the relief parents are on duty in 2 and 4, and vice versa. There are two sets of relief houseparents, each responsible for 2 cottages. So a relief houseparent's schedule might look like this:
4 days on in cottage 1
--3 days off
4 days on in cottage 3
--3 days off
So yeah, that's the basic schedule. Also, I should mention that there a lots of great stories to tell here, but because of some of the DHS (Department of Human Services) and Licensing rules/laws, I can't give names or identifying information out, so expect a lot of goofy/generic names, or even just "the resident".
But yeah, that's our job. If you have questions, feel free to ask!
Hopefully I'll be better about keeping up the blog, especially now that things are getting interesting, what with us getting our first resident very soon. So yeah, check in regularly!!!
Friday, January 11, 2013
So, today I have a couple of things I want to share from last night. First, something I noticed that I thought was pretty awesome. Secondly, something that hurt me greatly.
We'll start with the posiitive. The university I go to (a private Christian school) is having a missions conference this week. It's been really exciting to hear the different speakers, their stories, and about how tremendous an impact they are having in their fields. It's really been a lot of fun. Tonight, during the worship time, they had a few students come up to sing some of the songs in their own languages. It was really neat in concept, but I was unsure of how it would turn out.
I must say that I was surprised by how smooth it was. At one point, we had a song being sung simultaneously in English, Spanish, and Korean. And it coalesced magnificently. Nothing sounded out of place or strange. They all fit together and made a beautiful mixture. IT was absolutely splendid to hear such different languages combined together.
But now we get to the second part of my post, which is less positive. I honestly want to understand, so if you have insight to lend, please do so. I do not mean this mean spirited at all, I simply do not understand this. Why, in a 40 minute worship set, do we only use... maybe 500 unique words (not counting other languages)? Why is that?
I really don't understand this at all.Church history has shown an incredibly diverse range of musical forms, but they have all shared one facet: beautiful lyrics that strive to capture a brief snapshot of a vast and immeasurably great God. So where in that does the following fit?
I exalt thee,
I exalt thee,
I exalt thee
O God.
For 3 minutes, I kid you not, we sang only those words (except for one of the worship leaders, who displayed quite excellent vocal talent while the rest of us.... chanted). All of the songs sung tonight were like that. A quatrain repeated 2 or 3 times, followed by a verse, followed by repeating the quatrain a few more times. I understand that "that's the way music today is", or rather, that's what I am told. Honestly, I think P!ink's song "Try" has more lyrical 'meat' to it (love can cause pain, but if you never try to love, you never reap its rewards. Also, simply acting on desire is bound to burn you) than simply repeating "I exalt thee" over and over and over and over and over and ......
And in between two songs, the worship leader gave such a beautiful description of the beauty of heaven, where all people's of the Earth will gather at the feet of the Almighty to sing praise with all their hearts in their own language. It was beautiful, and there are many many songs that could have been sung to lend voice to that. But instead we sing 5 or six songs with repetitive quatrain choruses.
I think why it bothers me so much is this: the English language is pretty stupid sometimes, what with all those rules and exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions, but one thing we knock out of the park is vocabulary. Oxford dictionary's website summarizes that there are at least 250,000 distinct English words, and if you want to count different tenses (like "run"/"ran"/"running" or "dog"/"dogs") that number quickly shoots to over 750,000.
Why, then, must we only use 50 per song to glorify the God who created language?
"Well, the songs are easy to remember" some say. Oh, right, because God forbid we have to think hard about Him when we sing.
"It's the spirit of the times, man. You gotta be popular to reach out." Oh right, because Jesus to be conformed to the world, not transformed. Also, unsaved people don't understand our music. They stand around while we chant some vague snippet of Scripture and wonder what this is all about. We look like a bunch of weirdos. If your argument is for music as an outreach, then you need to have music that explains your faith.
"But it's an emotional connection. The words aren't important, it's all about the feelings." No. Just... no. God has an awful lot to say about being ruled by your emotions, and none of it is good. You MUST have your mind engaged. It is imperative. Paul was greatly encouraged by the Bereans because, rather than sitting and absorbing what he was saying, they challenged him. They looked up the prophecies he claimed were fulfilled. They fact checked what they were hearing, and it was commended by Luke. Should we not also, then, actively engage our worship in the same way? We are told to "flee youthful passion", not go with the emotional flow.
The bottom line is this: there is a time and place for repetition. It can be used quite powerfully in the middle of a song. The music builds to a climax and you repeat a core essence of your theme for effect. That is powerful and effective. But to just start with repetition and keep repeating and then ending with repetition only succeeds in getting dangerously close to what Christ calls "vain repetitions". As a church, we are suffering from a distinct lack of understanding and depth in the congregation. Our faith is sickly and shallow, based only how we feel. Our music must be contributing to that, to some degree. And if we keep forsaking the deeper things of our faith, our faiths are doomed to get more sickly and more shallow.
We'll start with the posiitive. The university I go to (a private Christian school) is having a missions conference this week. It's been really exciting to hear the different speakers, their stories, and about how tremendous an impact they are having in their fields. It's really been a lot of fun. Tonight, during the worship time, they had a few students come up to sing some of the songs in their own languages. It was really neat in concept, but I was unsure of how it would turn out.
I must say that I was surprised by how smooth it was. At one point, we had a song being sung simultaneously in English, Spanish, and Korean. And it coalesced magnificently. Nothing sounded out of place or strange. They all fit together and made a beautiful mixture. IT was absolutely splendid to hear such different languages combined together.
But now we get to the second part of my post, which is less positive. I honestly want to understand, so if you have insight to lend, please do so. I do not mean this mean spirited at all, I simply do not understand this. Why, in a 40 minute worship set, do we only use... maybe 500 unique words (not counting other languages)? Why is that?
I really don't understand this at all.Church history has shown an incredibly diverse range of musical forms, but they have all shared one facet: beautiful lyrics that strive to capture a brief snapshot of a vast and immeasurably great God. So where in that does the following fit?
I exalt thee,
I exalt thee,
I exalt thee
O God.
For 3 minutes, I kid you not, we sang only those words (except for one of the worship leaders, who displayed quite excellent vocal talent while the rest of us.... chanted). All of the songs sung tonight were like that. A quatrain repeated 2 or 3 times, followed by a verse, followed by repeating the quatrain a few more times. I understand that "that's the way music today is", or rather, that's what I am told. Honestly, I think P!ink's song "Try" has more lyrical 'meat' to it (love can cause pain, but if you never try to love, you never reap its rewards. Also, simply acting on desire is bound to burn you) than simply repeating "I exalt thee" over and over and over and over and over and ......
And in between two songs, the worship leader gave such a beautiful description of the beauty of heaven, where all people's of the Earth will gather at the feet of the Almighty to sing praise with all their hearts in their own language. It was beautiful, and there are many many songs that could have been sung to lend voice to that. But instead we sing 5 or six songs with repetitive quatrain choruses.
I think why it bothers me so much is this: the English language is pretty stupid sometimes, what with all those rules and exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions, but one thing we knock out of the park is vocabulary. Oxford dictionary's website summarizes that there are at least 250,000 distinct English words, and if you want to count different tenses (like "run"/"ran"/"running" or "dog"/"dogs") that number quickly shoots to over 750,000.
Why, then, must we only use 50 per song to glorify the God who created language?
"Well, the songs are easy to remember" some say. Oh, right, because God forbid we have to think hard about Him when we sing.
"It's the spirit of the times, man. You gotta be popular to reach out." Oh right, because Jesus to be conformed to the world, not transformed. Also, unsaved people don't understand our music. They stand around while we chant some vague snippet of Scripture and wonder what this is all about. We look like a bunch of weirdos. If your argument is for music as an outreach, then you need to have music that explains your faith.
"But it's an emotional connection. The words aren't important, it's all about the feelings." No. Just... no. God has an awful lot to say about being ruled by your emotions, and none of it is good. You MUST have your mind engaged. It is imperative. Paul was greatly encouraged by the Bereans because, rather than sitting and absorbing what he was saying, they challenged him. They looked up the prophecies he claimed were fulfilled. They fact checked what they were hearing, and it was commended by Luke. Should we not also, then, actively engage our worship in the same way? We are told to "flee youthful passion", not go with the emotional flow.
The bottom line is this: there is a time and place for repetition. It can be used quite powerfully in the middle of a song. The music builds to a climax and you repeat a core essence of your theme for effect. That is powerful and effective. But to just start with repetition and keep repeating and then ending with repetition only succeeds in getting dangerously close to what Christ calls "vain repetitions". As a church, we are suffering from a distinct lack of understanding and depth in the congregation. Our faith is sickly and shallow, based only how we feel. Our music must be contributing to that, to some degree. And if we keep forsaking the deeper things of our faith, our faiths are doomed to get more sickly and more shallow.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Thanksgiving Time!!
Thanksgiving is one of my favorite holidays, and not just because of the food. I find myself all too often being critical of the things and people around me. It's faaaaar too easy to complain, and to lose sight of all the many things I have to be thankful for. Especially in as great a country as I live in, where my every need is met, and I have enough leftover to pursue things I want. So here is a list of things I am thankful for:
~I am thankful for my beautiful wife, and for how splendidly our wedding went.
~I am thankful for an absolutely amazing family I get to be a part of.
~I am thankful for the many good friends I've been able to make, even despite years of moving around.
~I am thankful for a president who believes in helping others less fortunate than himself.
~I am thankful for a country where I even have the freedom to vote.
~I am thankful for my jobs that allow me to work with amazing people (and make some $$$)
~I am thankful for a university I can attend that allows me to be educated and develop my faith.
And there are so many other things, to. Too many to list. But that's the point, I guess. When you really think about all the wonderful things in life that you have, it really helps shape your perspective on things.
~I am thankful for my beautiful wife, and for how splendidly our wedding went.
~I am thankful for an absolutely amazing family I get to be a part of.
~I am thankful for the many good friends I've been able to make, even despite years of moving around.
~I am thankful for a president who believes in helping others less fortunate than himself.
~I am thankful for a country where I even have the freedom to vote.
~I am thankful for my jobs that allow me to work with amazing people (and make some $$$)
~I am thankful for a university I can attend that allows me to be educated and develop my faith.
And there are so many other things, to. Too many to list. But that's the point, I guess. When you really think about all the wonderful things in life that you have, it really helps shape your perspective on things.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Obligatory Election Post (or, "A vote for Romney is a vote for god*" {*eventually, in altenrate universe})
Ok, to start things off, I voted for Romney. I will explain/qualify that statement, but I do want to just go ahead and get that on the table.
Now, regardless of whether or not he wins the election, Mitt Romney deserves a standing ovation. I mean, the guy has accomplished a feat that theologians and church historians will be talking about for decades.
Mitt Romney has caused a more dramatic shift in church policy in one political campaign than "progressive" Christianity has changed in decades of slow and arduous work. If you really think about it, it's monumental what he has caused. It's astronomically mind blowing!
For years, the church in America, or at least the protestant church, has voted Republican. And they hem and haw about it not being political, it's just a matter of faith. "We vote for the Christian candidate because we share the same faith system." they say. Or when both candidates claim to be Christians, they'll say things like "well Mr. X might claim to be a Christian, but Mr. Y really acts more like one." And almost unilaterally, when asked if they would ever vote for an atheist, they would quickly answer no.
Mitt Romney has shattered this.
Think about it. He has the conservative Christian vote wrapped up pretty tight. It's almost laughable when you really think about this.
Christians, who believe one God created the entire universe, and that he sent His Son to die so that the sins of mankind might be redeemed, voted for a Mormon. They voted for a man who believes that God was really just a good guy in some alternate universe, who because he was so good, was given his own universe to be god of. Mitt Romney, as a Mormon, believes that, when he dies, he will be a god, who will father an entire race of people with his spirit-wives, and the spirit babies will be given fleshly bodies to live in.
And Christians voted for him. This is what makes me sad.
The American church needs a physician. No, not a physician, THE Physician. This election, we have fallen into the pitfall of letting our politics trump our faith. We looked at Romney and said, "well, he hates the right people and he opposes the right things, so forget the fact that he believes God is really just a good person, and that he himself will be the god of his own universe someday, I'll vote for him."
These were our options:
1. A man who believes that the one Sovereign God of the universe, whose Son died for all of our sins. He believes that this God would want the poor should be fed, the sick cared for, and that the quality of life should be better for those grasping at the bottom rung of our society.
2. A man who believes that, when he dies, he'll be granted godship of his own universe, in which he will have all the spirit-sex he could ever want, and so that he can father his own race of people to rule over as their god. He believes that the poor are poor mostly because of their own fault, and that the wealthy shouldn't have to contribute more to a system that helps people who have nothing. If people can't afford their hospital services, well that's their own fault for working as menial laborers, isn't it?
Which of those sounds more Christian to you?
"But Nathan, what about abortion and gay-rights?!"
Bingo!
To the American Christian, those are THE ONLY TWO ISSUES that matter this election. All of the others are moderately important, but gay-rights and abortion are the only two that matter when selecting whom to vote for. Forget ALL of the theology tied up in the disparity between Mormonism and Christianity, the only things we need to worry about come election season are making sure gays can't get married, and making sure women can't get abortions.
Now again, I voted for Romney; but here's why:
1. His moral compass seems more aligned with mine. He believes, as do I, that unborn children are human, and that they have as much right to live as anyone else in this country does. Abortions shouldn't be given out because a child is inconvenient. He believes that homosexuality is wrong, and that while we can't do anything about the sin itself, we can refuse to promote it as being normal.
2. Our country has a very sickly economy right now, and the Obama administration has done little to nothing to fix it. More of the same will only cripple us further. While Romney's economic ideas and associations may not be the best ever, they certainly seem more productive than Obama's policies have proven to be.
Notice how I didn't say anything about him being "the Christian choice". I get very sad to hear people say things like "I don't understand how a Christian could vote for..." or "Well it's obvious that good Christians vote for...". It's truly sad. When you boil things down, Obama is more Christian than Romney. Obama believes in a world where all people have the opportunity to live a fulfilled life. In his mind, there shouldn't be any poor people, because those who have been blessed with more turn around and share that blessing with those who lack. Obama believes in a world where people receive hospital treatment because their human beings, not because they have enough cash to make it worthwhile.
Now, I do believe he went about trying to achieve that dream in the totally wrong way. I don't believe that the goal of social equality can exist without the right to have a fair chance of being born. You have to start there and then work on the other things. But I digress.
In this country, and as a Christian, you should vote because of the issues that are most important to you. End of story. If there's one thing I have learned at Cedarville, it's that their are godly Christians who believe in a plethora of different interpretations of thousands of mini-issues in theology. Some believe alcohol consumption is ok, and some don't. Does that make them not Christians? No! So while we can discuss the different scriptural evidences for sanctity of life versus free-will (or any other of a vast number of issues), it needs to be done from the perspective of trying to find truth within Scripture.
The church is ALWAYS corrupted by politics, and I am afraid that this election year, that line was blurred dangerously too often.
Now, regardless of whether or not he wins the election, Mitt Romney deserves a standing ovation. I mean, the guy has accomplished a feat that theologians and church historians will be talking about for decades.
Mitt Romney has caused a more dramatic shift in church policy in one political campaign than "progressive" Christianity has changed in decades of slow and arduous work. If you really think about it, it's monumental what he has caused. It's astronomically mind blowing!
For years, the church in America, or at least the protestant church, has voted Republican. And they hem and haw about it not being political, it's just a matter of faith. "We vote for the Christian candidate because we share the same faith system." they say. Or when both candidates claim to be Christians, they'll say things like "well Mr. X might claim to be a Christian, but Mr. Y really acts more like one." And almost unilaterally, when asked if they would ever vote for an atheist, they would quickly answer no.
Mitt Romney has shattered this.
Think about it. He has the conservative Christian vote wrapped up pretty tight. It's almost laughable when you really think about this.
Christians, who believe one God created the entire universe, and that he sent His Son to die so that the sins of mankind might be redeemed, voted for a Mormon. They voted for a man who believes that God was really just a good guy in some alternate universe, who because he was so good, was given his own universe to be god of. Mitt Romney, as a Mormon, believes that, when he dies, he will be a god, who will father an entire race of people with his spirit-wives, and the spirit babies will be given fleshly bodies to live in.
And Christians voted for him. This is what makes me sad.
The American church needs a physician. No, not a physician, THE Physician. This election, we have fallen into the pitfall of letting our politics trump our faith. We looked at Romney and said, "well, he hates the right people and he opposes the right things, so forget the fact that he believes God is really just a good person, and that he himself will be the god of his own universe someday, I'll vote for him."
These were our options:
1. A man who believes that the one Sovereign God of the universe, whose Son died for all of our sins. He believes that this God would want the poor should be fed, the sick cared for, and that the quality of life should be better for those grasping at the bottom rung of our society.
2. A man who believes that, when he dies, he'll be granted godship of his own universe, in which he will have all the spirit-sex he could ever want, and so that he can father his own race of people to rule over as their god. He believes that the poor are poor mostly because of their own fault, and that the wealthy shouldn't have to contribute more to a system that helps people who have nothing. If people can't afford their hospital services, well that's their own fault for working as menial laborers, isn't it?
Which of those sounds more Christian to you?
"But Nathan, what about abortion and gay-rights?!"
Bingo!
To the American Christian, those are THE ONLY TWO ISSUES that matter this election. All of the others are moderately important, but gay-rights and abortion are the only two that matter when selecting whom to vote for. Forget ALL of the theology tied up in the disparity between Mormonism and Christianity, the only things we need to worry about come election season are making sure gays can't get married, and making sure women can't get abortions.
Now again, I voted for Romney; but here's why:
1. His moral compass seems more aligned with mine. He believes, as do I, that unborn children are human, and that they have as much right to live as anyone else in this country does. Abortions shouldn't be given out because a child is inconvenient. He believes that homosexuality is wrong, and that while we can't do anything about the sin itself, we can refuse to promote it as being normal.
2. Our country has a very sickly economy right now, and the Obama administration has done little to nothing to fix it. More of the same will only cripple us further. While Romney's economic ideas and associations may not be the best ever, they certainly seem more productive than Obama's policies have proven to be.
Notice how I didn't say anything about him being "the Christian choice". I get very sad to hear people say things like "I don't understand how a Christian could vote for..." or "Well it's obvious that good Christians vote for...". It's truly sad. When you boil things down, Obama is more Christian than Romney. Obama believes in a world where all people have the opportunity to live a fulfilled life. In his mind, there shouldn't be any poor people, because those who have been blessed with more turn around and share that blessing with those who lack. Obama believes in a world where people receive hospital treatment because their human beings, not because they have enough cash to make it worthwhile.
Now, I do believe he went about trying to achieve that dream in the totally wrong way. I don't believe that the goal of social equality can exist without the right to have a fair chance of being born. You have to start there and then work on the other things. But I digress.
In this country, and as a Christian, you should vote because of the issues that are most important to you. End of story. If there's one thing I have learned at Cedarville, it's that their are godly Christians who believe in a plethora of different interpretations of thousands of mini-issues in theology. Some believe alcohol consumption is ok, and some don't. Does that make them not Christians? No! So while we can discuss the different scriptural evidences for sanctity of life versus free-will (or any other of a vast number of issues), it needs to be done from the perspective of trying to find truth within Scripture.
The church is ALWAYS corrupted by politics, and I am afraid that this election year, that line was blurred dangerously too often.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Learning to speak Entish
There is a scene in Lord of the Rings where Merry and Pippin, having been rescued from the uruks, are left in the care of the tree-giants known as Ents. What has stuck with me from this scene is a quote the Ent Treebeard says:
"You must understand, young Hobbit, it takes a long time to say anything in Old Entish. And we never say anything unless it is worth taking a long time to say."
If you watch the movies, you know exactly what this means, but for explanation's sake, here's another quote (also because I like it *grin*):
Merry: It's (the Ent meeting) been going for hours.
Pippin: They must have decided something by now.
Treebeard: Decided? No, we have just finished saying "Good Morning".
Merry: But it's night time already! You can't take forever!
Treebeard: Now, don't be hasty, master Merriadoc.
This has stuck with me for a number of reasons. First, it's an amusing commentary on the differences between the generations in our society. But also because of the interesting commentary, well, I guess it's still a generational difference.
When my family lived in Suffolk, VA, we went to a house called "Riddick's Folly" that was full of historical artifacts from the Civil War. Among them are letters written from soldiers to their loved ones. One of them includes an apology near the end for his letter being so short; a measly 5 pages long. Now I don't know about you, but I can't remember the last time I hand-wrote something 5 pages long.
Few people in my generation have had to do that, but my issue is less about the writing. My generation has almost entirely lost the ability to converse. If a conversation gets more than five minutes long, we get a lot of awkward silences. We just don't understand how to do it. It's an art that has been lost to us, and I think I have pinned a culprit.
Television.
When you think about it, it makes sense. TV shows have a limited amount of time to convey their plot for the episode, and thus they cannot spend prolonged time in conversation. But an unintended side effect of this is that our generation, which is statistically more media-saturated than previous generations, has learned that all valuable conversation can happen within five minutes or less. We now have a developed stigma against prolonged conversation. It's not that we couldn't do it, or that we don't want to. It's that we have been trained not to by our media conventions.
There's not a lot we can do about it. In fact about all you can do is make a conscious effort to invest in solid conversation. And this is where the 'generational' thing comes back into the picture. A great place to start training yourself to converse is with people from our parents' or grandparents' generations. The art of conversation hasn't left them like it has us.
Speak with them, and learn to converse more deeply.
Learn how to say things that are "worth taking a long time to say".
Learn to speak Entish :)
"You must understand, young Hobbit, it takes a long time to say anything in Old Entish. And we never say anything unless it is worth taking a long time to say."
If you watch the movies, you know exactly what this means, but for explanation's sake, here's another quote (also because I like it *grin*):
Merry: It's (the Ent meeting) been going for hours.
Pippin: They must have decided something by now.
Treebeard: Decided? No, we have just finished saying "Good Morning".
Merry: But it's night time already! You can't take forever!
Treebeard: Now, don't be hasty, master Merriadoc.
This has stuck with me for a number of reasons. First, it's an amusing commentary on the differences between the generations in our society. But also because of the interesting commentary, well, I guess it's still a generational difference.
When my family lived in Suffolk, VA, we went to a house called "Riddick's Folly" that was full of historical artifacts from the Civil War. Among them are letters written from soldiers to their loved ones. One of them includes an apology near the end for his letter being so short; a measly 5 pages long. Now I don't know about you, but I can't remember the last time I hand-wrote something 5 pages long.
Few people in my generation have had to do that, but my issue is less about the writing. My generation has almost entirely lost the ability to converse. If a conversation gets more than five minutes long, we get a lot of awkward silences. We just don't understand how to do it. It's an art that has been lost to us, and I think I have pinned a culprit.
Television.
When you think about it, it makes sense. TV shows have a limited amount of time to convey their plot for the episode, and thus they cannot spend prolonged time in conversation. But an unintended side effect of this is that our generation, which is statistically more media-saturated than previous generations, has learned that all valuable conversation can happen within five minutes or less. We now have a developed stigma against prolonged conversation. It's not that we couldn't do it, or that we don't want to. It's that we have been trained not to by our media conventions.
There's not a lot we can do about it. In fact about all you can do is make a conscious effort to invest in solid conversation. And this is where the 'generational' thing comes back into the picture. A great place to start training yourself to converse is with people from our parents' or grandparents' generations. The art of conversation hasn't left them like it has us.
Speak with them, and learn to converse more deeply.
Learn how to say things that are "worth taking a long time to say".
Learn to speak Entish :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)