This is an article I wrote last summer though I never did anything with it. It is about my church and the college and carear group that I love and sometimes frusterates me....
It’s funny how we become so accustomed to people or things in our lives. Over the past couple years I have been working on a cruise ship, so my relationship with many of the people in the college and career had become distant at best. I think I had forgotten how good it was to talk with Christian on a regular basis. This really hit me really hard at a retreat I was on with the C+C this past fall. I was walking around with a bunch of the regulars, when we started talking about one of our friends who had been killed over the summer in a car accident.
As I listened everyone shared about the pain that they experienced because of the passing of their friend. I took a second and realized that the people I was surrounded by were full of love and shared the pain of our friend’s death with her family and husband. It had been sometime since I had been around people who embraced community so well.
To begin with my church is not the most vibrant, especially the C+C. Just under two years ago our current youth pastor, due to other commitments, decided not to have a C+C Sunday school. But a couple of women at the church persisted and persuaded him to let them take over this responsibility. The result has been an amazing strengthening of the group, where many beautiful friendships have blossomed.
In spite of this growth and bonding that has occurred the group sadly enough is only a glorified social gathering. So I guess maybe I was not expecting the authenticity that I was met with as we come together for our gathering at the lake. In spite of the lack of deepness of the group and the bible studies always playing second fiddle to a poker game, I always come away thinking that I am the lucky one to be exposed to this real authentic community.
This past year I was a resident assistant at a Christian college. During our training week we were told in a nutshell that we were to go out and build community. While we definitely did that, it pales in comparison to the community that the C+C group has, which always brings a smile to my face.
The smile is wide across my face, ear to ear. I guess I just take joy out of learning things in an unconventional way and that what has happened to me this year. After being told of things that were meant to help me along the way to connect with the new guys in dorm. But the truth was I had a living example of an authentic example of community at my home church.
Who would of thought that the way to start an authentic community of believers was to get everyone hooked on poker and simply go through the hardship of life together.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Are we HIS Dust.
Recently, I have have become quite a big fan of Rob Bell. Those of you who don't know him, he is a pastor of a large church in Michigan. Its one of those success stories, the church started by Bell preaching out of Leviticus. That in itself is extrodinary. One of the new things that the church has started is a video series called Nooma. I am somewhat addicted to these videos...I find them very compelling and watch them over again.
Last week, I watched one of the nooma videos called "Dust". I think this is one of the stronger videos. It is about how we are meant to be Jesus' dust, referring that the disciples would of followed Jesus around day after day, therefore be full of the dust from his footsteps, also implying that we as his disciples should follow in his actions.
I don't want to simply regurgate Bell, but to say that the significance behind Jesus choosing these disciples to be his twelve. They were all people who religious people would have disregarded as not being good enough to be called any Rabbi's disciples, since that was a vocation reserved for those who understood the Torah the best. I think that is one of the strongn points of Jesus and Christianity that it is for everyone, not only the elite, rather God invites us all to participate in.
This fact is awe inspiring. Thinking that the creator of the world would leave his actions in this world in the hands of people like us. If Jesus is our Rabbi as would have been understood in his original context, we are to learn to do what the Rabbi does, not only in knowledge but in action. Jesus is calling us to do as he does, he actually believes we can do what he did.
However, more often I feel we are don't honestly believe this. We are more like Peter who does not have enough faith in himself to walk on water. It is not that Peter does not have faith in Jesus rather he does not have faith in himself that he can do as Jesus does. But that is what a disciple is all about being called by a Rabbi who believes we are capable of doing what the Rabbi does.
It shows that first and for most God believes in our potential to be followers of Jesus in this world. God first believes in us, before we believe in him. I find that the idea of discipleship is sorely lost in the church, maybe this is due to a minimal requirement that seems to dominate the church. But to be true disciples means that we believe that Jesus called us since he believed we can do what he did.
I think this is encouraging and maybe even a bit scary that God has that much faith in us. That he gave the movement that Jesus started and gave over to his followers after his death and resurrection, and basically told us to run with it, people who would have been seen as has beens. But maybe that is a way God turns the social order of the world upside down to take those of us who have been written off by the world, and does great things through us inspite of any weakness.....
Last week, I watched one of the nooma videos called "Dust". I think this is one of the stronger videos. It is about how we are meant to be Jesus' dust, referring that the disciples would of followed Jesus around day after day, therefore be full of the dust from his footsteps, also implying that we as his disciples should follow in his actions.
I don't want to simply regurgate Bell, but to say that the significance behind Jesus choosing these disciples to be his twelve. They were all people who religious people would have disregarded as not being good enough to be called any Rabbi's disciples, since that was a vocation reserved for those who understood the Torah the best. I think that is one of the strongn points of Jesus and Christianity that it is for everyone, not only the elite, rather God invites us all to participate in.
This fact is awe inspiring. Thinking that the creator of the world would leave his actions in this world in the hands of people like us. If Jesus is our Rabbi as would have been understood in his original context, we are to learn to do what the Rabbi does, not only in knowledge but in action. Jesus is calling us to do as he does, he actually believes we can do what he did.
However, more often I feel we are don't honestly believe this. We are more like Peter who does not have enough faith in himself to walk on water. It is not that Peter does not have faith in Jesus rather he does not have faith in himself that he can do as Jesus does. But that is what a disciple is all about being called by a Rabbi who believes we are capable of doing what the Rabbi does.
It shows that first and for most God believes in our potential to be followers of Jesus in this world. God first believes in us, before we believe in him. I find that the idea of discipleship is sorely lost in the church, maybe this is due to a minimal requirement that seems to dominate the church. But to be true disciples means that we believe that Jesus called us since he believed we can do what he did.
I think this is encouraging and maybe even a bit scary that God has that much faith in us. That he gave the movement that Jesus started and gave over to his followers after his death and resurrection, and basically told us to run with it, people who would have been seen as has beens. But maybe that is a way God turns the social order of the world upside down to take those of us who have been written off by the world, and does great things through us inspite of any weakness.....
Friday, August 25, 2006
A need for change...
One of the things over the past couple years that I have really evaluated in my life, is how masculinity is expressed and some of the negative and positives that traditional masculinity has had on the cultural definition of male friend. This morning I was reading Scot McKnight blog(http://www.jesuscreed.org/) ....I read his book "The Jesus Creed", earlier this summer it was one of those books that you just don't want to put down...Very compelling and accessible for everyone, I would highly recommend it. But back to the topic at hand, this morning McKnight was reviewing a book on friendship and quoted Joseph Epstein's book, Friendship: An Expose, "Men see themselves as more logical, women as subtler, men as having a surer view of the larger picture, women more neatly concentrated on life’s details. Men drive straight ahead, women are more interested in the view out the rearview and side mirrors, not to mention thsunrooff.”
“The primary difference between men and women perhaps has to do waggressionsion.”
If something remotely like these sorts of things really does distinguish men and women, then his “boys will be boys” chapter moves into what male friendships are like.
Male bonding occurs around similar successes in the world. Athletes like athletes of the same caliber etc..
Men, Epstein seems to think, prefer men because it allows them to be coarse and crude: “Only with men can one banter, use raillery, be heavily-handedly ironic, screw off, and be boyishly, stupidly, manlyy manly.”
But what distinguishes male friendship, according to Epstein, is reticence.
“Reticence is of the essence in masculine friendship, long has been, and probably ought to continue to be.”
By “reticence” Epstein is speaking of the hesitation of males to“share feelings” and such things make male frienships strong... I emfatically disagree with Epstein particularly in that this type of male friendship needs to continue, William Pollack in his extrodinary book 'Real Boys' reveal the lie that stPollockom what Pollack calls the boy code, which has creates an atomsphere in which boy and men are taught how to behave. This type of socialization is not helpful for many males since it give them a narrow definition of what it means to be a male in this world. To be a male for so long meant to be a form of hyper-masculinity, which has shown to be a strong link to partner violence.
While reticence is a new word to me the idea is fairly familar. This is simply an idea that the traditional way of socializing boys into men that typically see violence as the only way to express their feeling. This has a negitive effect for men as well as soceity in general. I sense that reticence is no longer the strong force it once was. I believe there is a movement of men that sees the negitve side of hyper-maculine. Reticence only paralyzes men into a thinking that allows men to be their own worst emenmy.
“The primary difference between men and women perhaps has to do waggressionsion.”
If something remotely like these sorts of things really does distinguish men and women, then his “boys will be boys” chapter moves into what male friendships are like.
Male bonding occurs around similar successes in the world. Athletes like athletes of the same caliber etc..
Men, Epstein seems to think, prefer men because it allows them to be coarse and crude: “Only with men can one banter, use raillery, be heavily-handedly ironic, screw off, and be boyishly, stupidly, manlyy manly.”
But what distinguishes male friendship, according to Epstein, is reticence.
“Reticence is of the essence in masculine friendship, long has been, and probably ought to continue to be.”
By “reticence” Epstein is speaking of the hesitation of males to“share feelings” and such things make male frienships strong... I emfatically disagree with Epstein particularly in that this type of male friendship needs to continue, William Pollack in his extrodinary book 'Real Boys' reveal the lie that stPollockom what Pollack calls the boy code, which has creates an atomsphere in which boy and men are taught how to behave. This type of socialization is not helpful for many males since it give them a narrow definition of what it means to be a male in this world. To be a male for so long meant to be a form of hyper-masculinity, which has shown to be a strong link to partner violence.
While reticence is a new word to me the idea is fairly familar. This is simply an idea that the traditional way of socializing boys into men that typically see violence as the only way to express their feeling. This has a negitive effect for men as well as soceity in general. I sense that reticence is no longer the strong force it once was. I believe there is a movement of men that sees the negitve side of hyper-maculine. Reticence only paralyzes men into a thinking that allows men to be their own worst emenmy.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Why go to church?
So this past year, I had a lot of good conversations with my close friend Joey about Church. At times Joey and I, both have laid our frustration about feeling numb when we go to church, but then we'd read something that restores passion. If church was like that....Both Joey and myself seemed to sense that life would be different a lot of times, church seems that activity that ones does. Church has lost a real significance in peoples lives. However, in our reading Joey and I get these glimpses that shows, what we both deeply believe. That church is where we go to meet with God and still has a significance for our lives. Maybe that is what keeps Joey and I going. Today I read another one of those glimpses. It is just a quote I read today, simply but I found it profound, a glimpse in the reason why church has meant so much to people in the past.
"If you can't go to church and, for at least a moment, be given transcendence; if you can't go to church and pass brief from this life into the next then I can't see why anyone should go. Just a brief moment of transcendence can cause you to come out of church a changed person. "
I think meeting with God is something that people long for. But it is interesting how people desire this meeting with the transcendence, but the place one meet that need is not in the church. A coworker of my said this week in the radio show that she runs at the university, that spirituality is an important element in her choosing songs, but not that she wants them to be religious. That comment is common in today's culture. How religious people are negative, but someone who is spiritual is to be revered. It sortof like a person saying I like Jesus, but not Christianity. Shane Claiborne, in his amazing book 'The Irresistible Revolution", describes this dilemma that he faced during his college days. That following Jesus sometime means giving up on what the church deems appropriate. I feel I identify with that statement, some of the view of the church come in contradictions with Jesus.
These contradictions have drawn me to the 'emergent movement'. In this past two years, the emergent movement has been a refuge of mine. Giving me hope in the midst of despair knowing that I will never leave the church, but at times wondering how much longer I can stay. This past year, authors in the friendship of the emergent movement have shown me why I still go to church, and why I believe the church is still powerful. The have given me hope, a hope that I cling onto with all my might, knowing that it is not I that keeps me there, rather God whose grip is firm on my life. While I don't know where the emergent movement will lead me, in reading Doug Pagitt 're-imagined church' this question no longer needs to be answered. We could live comfortably in the way things are or move towards God, and risk criticism, but be more faithful to our understanding of the role of the Church in our lives.
"If you can't go to church and, for at least a moment, be given transcendence; if you can't go to church and pass brief from this life into the next then I can't see why anyone should go. Just a brief moment of transcendence can cause you to come out of church a changed person. "
I think meeting with God is something that people long for. But it is interesting how people desire this meeting with the transcendence, but the place one meet that need is not in the church. A coworker of my said this week in the radio show that she runs at the university, that spirituality is an important element in her choosing songs, but not that she wants them to be religious. That comment is common in today's culture. How religious people are negative, but someone who is spiritual is to be revered. It sortof like a person saying I like Jesus, but not Christianity. Shane Claiborne, in his amazing book 'The Irresistible Revolution", describes this dilemma that he faced during his college days. That following Jesus sometime means giving up on what the church deems appropriate. I feel I identify with that statement, some of the view of the church come in contradictions with Jesus.
These contradictions have drawn me to the 'emergent movement'. In this past two years, the emergent movement has been a refuge of mine. Giving me hope in the midst of despair knowing that I will never leave the church, but at times wondering how much longer I can stay. This past year, authors in the friendship of the emergent movement have shown me why I still go to church, and why I believe the church is still powerful. The have given me hope, a hope that I cling onto with all my might, knowing that it is not I that keeps me there, rather God whose grip is firm on my life. While I don't know where the emergent movement will lead me, in reading Doug Pagitt 're-imagined church' this question no longer needs to be answered. We could live comfortably in the way things are or move towards God, and risk criticism, but be more faithful to our understanding of the role of the Church in our lives.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
The Dynamic Duo
I am not sure how many of you have a nightly ritual? Well I have to admit that I have one, it happens Monday to Thursday at 10 pm. My nightly ritual is the political satire of the daily show and the Colbert report. Maybe it's the sarcasm or the poking fun at other "professional" news channels, but I always get a kick at what latest news story they decide to spotlight. Normally it is to show the ridiculous stories that the media decided to spotlight. But, I think the main reason is that especially in the case of Jon Stewart is that he can talk to politics. I think in this age where I feel more people adistrustfuling CNN and other major networks for selective reporting people are turning to independent sources or maybe just a source that honestly shows the ridiculous nature of the Bush administration. I have a sense that this dynam duo will have a great influence on the societies perception of political figures and the policies of the USA. Sortof holding the administration accountable to a public that won't accept any bull shit. With Stewart and Colbert, I think this generation is in good hands to reestablish a political minded generation that talks about the administrations in a critical mind and a rhetorical humor, as Stephen Colbert often states "Ok Ok ...but you Support our troops, right?"
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Pro - Israel....
Recently I was at a church and the pastor talked about Israel, in a sense that it is almost beyond account. That since Israel is God's chosen people that there action are beyond accountability. I struggle with this idea. Especially when you read all the evil that Israel commits, and as a Christian I am to give blind allegiance. The pastor gave his view of Israel that anytime we speak of Israel we need to understand that God is always on there side in their vicious attacks. In this latest war with Lebanon, I saw a state that showed the deaths total had a 7:1 ratio. Israel has killed 7 times as many as their counterparts, and this over two soldiers. It almost seems like Israel actions is justification of wrath, that I doubt if it is God's will. The pastor went on to say that anyone who has ever supported Israel has been critiqued, which is because everyone in the world is against Israel due to being God's chosen people. I wonder if modern day Israel has really any connection with the Israel in the Bible. Modern day Israel seems to be a military state. I wonder if the reason people who join Israel get critiqued is because Israel' action are unjust? I also wonder if Jesus changed everything. What role does Israel play for the modern day church. I read this book Paul among the Postliberals, the author proposes I think that Israel is off limits, they can do no wrong. I was a bit confused by this whether Jesus did not change Israel' status in the Christian story? If anyone has any ideas about this please let me know...Any help would be greatly appreciated....
Thursday, August 17, 2006
My Love
I guess this is a good way to start a blog, with the most important person in my life. This is a picture of me and my girlfriend Trisha. We meet at Providence College, the funny thing about our story is that without the internet we may have never gotten together, but thanks to email and messenger, we are madly in love. Even though she is in Korea right now, we grow closer each day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
