today i went to a church i'd never been to and heard a preacher i never had before.
i have become increasingly unable to understand very basic sermons on very basic topics. especially those that i have been hearing my whole life.
today's church and sermon were very similar to my own church and something of knute's. there are many sermons that i have been hearing over and over again for ten years, all good quality truth i'm sure. but i can no longer understand many basic truths that i have been raised with.
confusion settles in. maybe i've just been in the church long enough that i have to hit such a point.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
old people are funny
i don't really have grandparents. so sometimes i don't understand old people. i'm not really used to them.
yesterday i was with someone else's grandparentsfor a bit though, and somehow i ended up sitting with an old Hungarian man while he just talked about random things, in an old Hungarian accent.
such as the fact that even though our money says "in God we trust" on it, we really only trust in money.
such as the fact that it's easy to say "i love you" even if our actions say exactly the opposite.
such as the fact that it is ridiculous to buy things you have no use for even if you think you want them.
simple simple things. nothing profound or new. no earthshattering ideas.
still maybe i should get to know some old people. otherwise all i ever do when i talk is bounce my so-called "wisdom" or ideas off someone who is in essentially the same place i am. possibly a similar situation to the blind leading the blind.
and this year i am thankful, the same as every year, that i have a good God to hold on to and to share love with.
yesterday i was with someone else's grandparentsfor a bit though, and somehow i ended up sitting with an old Hungarian man while he just talked about random things, in an old Hungarian accent.
such as the fact that even though our money says "in God we trust" on it, we really only trust in money.
such as the fact that it's easy to say "i love you" even if our actions say exactly the opposite.
such as the fact that it is ridiculous to buy things you have no use for even if you think you want them.
simple simple things. nothing profound or new. no earthshattering ideas.
still maybe i should get to know some old people. otherwise all i ever do when i talk is bounce my so-called "wisdom" or ideas off someone who is in essentially the same place i am. possibly a similar situation to the blind leading the blind.
and this year i am thankful, the same as every year, that i have a good God to hold on to and to share love with.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
we all want to live forever
i sat last night with a man who is dying at a faster rate than most of us (he's 81 with severe heart problems) and his son and grandsons. the man himself mostly sat quietly, and just rested in the presence of his grandsons and enjoyed it. the grandsons just engaged him in a loving way.
his son, however, still lives with him and has been left with the duty of taking care of him and managing his health. he's on a strict medication plan, strict diet, and actually has a device implanted in his heart that will shock him if it gets out of control.
i had the opportunity to listen to the son talk for nearly an hour, simply about the stress he has to deal with to keep his father alive (which he essentially said was his primary goal - to keep his father alive as long as possible). and, partly because of his roles in his parent's lives, he clearly doesn't get to just talk to people very often.
it just made me think about the quantity and quality of our lives though, and whether we prefer quantity over quality sometimes. this man had to see some extremely specialized doctors who, due to technology, are now able to force a bit more life out of his heart. but is this what we want? to keep forcing life out of people's bodies... even if for a time it does seem to have a decent level of quality.
i guess this is a personal question that can only be answered by the person in the situation. but it seemed like a lot to take.
his son, however, still lives with him and has been left with the duty of taking care of him and managing his health. he's on a strict medication plan, strict diet, and actually has a device implanted in his heart that will shock him if it gets out of control.
i had the opportunity to listen to the son talk for nearly an hour, simply about the stress he has to deal with to keep his father alive (which he essentially said was his primary goal - to keep his father alive as long as possible). and, partly because of his roles in his parent's lives, he clearly doesn't get to just talk to people very often.
it just made me think about the quantity and quality of our lives though, and whether we prefer quantity over quality sometimes. this man had to see some extremely specialized doctors who, due to technology, are now able to force a bit more life out of his heart. but is this what we want? to keep forcing life out of people's bodies... even if for a time it does seem to have a decent level of quality.
i guess this is a personal question that can only be answered by the person in the situation. but it seemed like a lot to take.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
"you are now Sons of the Living God"
adoption has always been close to my heart.
no, my parents did not adopt me or anything, however, adoption has been close to my heart for two reasons:
one, how can we not be concerned about adoption in a world where so many children are in need of homes and parents and love?
two, how can we not be conerned about adoption when, in Christ, God has clearly claimed to adopt us as His children and treat us as His own, though we did not ask for or deserve this.
clearly i am not planning on having children any time soon. however, i always get stuck on the common question that arises, "why would we want to bring more children into the world when there are already so many in need of homes?" and why indeed? if i ever have a stable home, which is a gift from God, should i not share in the gift He has given me and provide it to the homeless children?
and which of us will love enough to bring hard kids into our homes for foster care,
and which of us will love enough to adopt, even though it is such a sacrifice,
and which of us will have the pure and undefiled religion that James speaks of?
if we claim to follow Christ, then as a community we should be adopting. and not only should we be adopting, we should be involved in the issues that cause orphans to be without homes in the first place.
no, my parents did not adopt me or anything, however, adoption has been close to my heart for two reasons:
one, how can we not be concerned about adoption in a world where so many children are in need of homes and parents and love?
two, how can we not be conerned about adoption when, in Christ, God has clearly claimed to adopt us as His children and treat us as His own, though we did not ask for or deserve this.
clearly i am not planning on having children any time soon. however, i always get stuck on the common question that arises, "why would we want to bring more children into the world when there are already so many in need of homes?" and why indeed? if i ever have a stable home, which is a gift from God, should i not share in the gift He has given me and provide it to the homeless children?
and which of us will love enough to bring hard kids into our homes for foster care,
and which of us will love enough to adopt, even though it is such a sacrifice,
and which of us will have the pure and undefiled religion that James speaks of?
if we claim to follow Christ, then as a community we should be adopting. and not only should we be adopting, we should be involved in the issues that cause orphans to be without homes in the first place.
Globalization and the Law
On this sunday afternoon when the steelers and browns game is on, i am here reviewing a book about globalization (apparently the steelers are not really making this game worth my while to watch anyway though, so i guess that's just as well).
the author of this book is blindingly pro-globalization. now i don't really have any more of an opinion about globalization that i do about the existence of computers - those two things are completely tied together and neither of them is stoppable. so it would be silly to argue against it. also that makes reviewing a book on the topic to be nearly the most boring possible sunday afternoon. however, it is also silly to argue, as this author seems to (which is dissapointing from a well respected economist) that there are hardly any problems with globalization.
along with this comes the issue of our imposing our standards and policies among poorer nations, which may or may not be economically (or socially) ready for them. granted that 'we' (the developed world?) are also often giving 'aid' to such nations... does it really make sense for us to use that to our advantage and enforce high labor and environmental standards on them (even though high labor and environmental standards are good and justified)? does it make sense for us to demand that they allow our corporations to run rampant among them? does it make sense for us to demand that they fix their own financial system before we will help?
so for me it comes back to this similar question: why do we impose our own beliefs and standards on people who are not yet ready to hear or accept them? whey do we impose the 'law' of Christ on people who are not yet ready to understand that the 'law' of Christ is really just His goodness in practice?
why cant we love and help first and teach second.
the author of this book is blindingly pro-globalization. now i don't really have any more of an opinion about globalization that i do about the existence of computers - those two things are completely tied together and neither of them is stoppable. so it would be silly to argue against it. also that makes reviewing a book on the topic to be nearly the most boring possible sunday afternoon. however, it is also silly to argue, as this author seems to (which is dissapointing from a well respected economist) that there are hardly any problems with globalization.
along with this comes the issue of our imposing our standards and policies among poorer nations, which may or may not be economically (or socially) ready for them. granted that 'we' (the developed world?) are also often giving 'aid' to such nations... does it really make sense for us to use that to our advantage and enforce high labor and environmental standards on them (even though high labor and environmental standards are good and justified)? does it make sense for us to demand that they allow our corporations to run rampant among them? does it make sense for us to demand that they fix their own financial system before we will help?
so for me it comes back to this similar question: why do we impose our own beliefs and standards on people who are not yet ready to hear or accept them? whey do we impose the 'law' of Christ on people who are not yet ready to understand that the 'law' of Christ is really just His goodness in practice?
why cant we love and help first and teach second.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Paul's Vision for his own leadership
"Imitiate me therefore, even as I imitate Christ."
i heard someone paraphrase it this way:
"as much as you see Christ in me, be like me."
a good starting point for a solid perspective of leadership.
Friday, November 2, 2007
what makes you my leader?
for the past week or so, i have been meditating on leadership
i do not consider myself to be a natural leader exactly. however, most people are in a position to be a leader if they choose, and so am i. i take a leadership position when i choose to be a camp counselor, when i choose to lead a small group of jr high girls, when i choose to take jr high girls on trips. i could be a leader to my younger siblings. i could be a leader to my housemates, my colleagues (i think i get to use that word at this point in my life). i could be a leader in my small group, though i am not THE leader. i could be a leader among my friends.
there are two kinds of leadership: the kind that comes with a title, and the kind that comes from within. the title of leadershp, i decided, does not make you a leader. i do not follow all who have the title of leadership.
leadership is a privilege. i do not lead jr high students to make myself feel better, because i should, or because i can. nor could i be such a leader. leadership of my jr high girls is my privilege, and i must be deserving of it. leadership for my younger sisters will be my privilege if i earn it. leadership among my housemates will be my privilege, if i earn it.
what are the characteristics of a leader then? i'm not sure just yet. however, i think it has been a good first step to me to discern that i must earn the privilege of leadership if i choose to take it, and so must others who choose to have the title of leadership.
i do not consider myself to be a natural leader exactly. however, most people are in a position to be a leader if they choose, and so am i. i take a leadership position when i choose to be a camp counselor, when i choose to lead a small group of jr high girls, when i choose to take jr high girls on trips. i could be a leader to my younger siblings. i could be a leader to my housemates, my colleagues (i think i get to use that word at this point in my life). i could be a leader in my small group, though i am not THE leader. i could be a leader among my friends.
there are two kinds of leadership: the kind that comes with a title, and the kind that comes from within. the title of leadershp, i decided, does not make you a leader. i do not follow all who have the title of leadership.
leadership is a privilege. i do not lead jr high students to make myself feel better, because i should, or because i can. nor could i be such a leader. leadership of my jr high girls is my privilege, and i must be deserving of it. leadership for my younger sisters will be my privilege if i earn it. leadership among my housemates will be my privilege, if i earn it.
what are the characteristics of a leader then? i'm not sure just yet. however, i think it has been a good first step to me to discern that i must earn the privilege of leadership if i choose to take it, and so must others who choose to have the title of leadership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)