I finished college.
I'm looking for a job.
I'm preparing for a 3 week PA job back at Taylor.
I'm working on one last summer class.
I'm trying to start [real] life sanely.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Picture Update
I finished college.
I'm looking for a job.
I'm preparing for a 3 week PA job back at Taylor.
I'm working on one last summer class.
I'm trying to start [real] life sanely.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
What I Take Away
My roommate Ben shared a blog on my GoogleReader that had a quote by Tony Campolo.
“I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.” -Tony Campolo
The quote really jived with my love of feeling morally superior to other Christians who "just don't care," it appealed to my appreciation of snappy quotes that speak so much in just a few sentences, and it was so, so cool because it used a cuss word. I immediately thought to post it here but, in a moment of rare wisdom, checked my reasons for posting it and refrained. But the thoughts the quote brought up stuck with me for the last few days and today, while sitting in chapel, our Indian speaker urged us to go out into the world to share the name of Jesus. My initial response was along the lines of, "well, everyone is called to their specific ministry, maybe a few will go to India, not me." But, along with the message of the quote here, I think my whole perspective on life is scewed.
I may not have been offended by the cussing in Tony's quote (cussing isn't really a thing I get hung up on) but it was the part that stuck out to me on my first read through the quote - not that 30,000 children will die. Likewise, after hearing a chapel message informing me of India's miniscule Christian population and social woes, my first thought was that someone else will get to it - and not that these facts are directly related to me. So I guess my one "take-away" thought for this blog is that I think in a very human fashion. But I want to think and act as Jesus does. That requires time. That requires God's softening of my heart.
“I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.” -Tony Campolo
The quote really jived with my love of feeling morally superior to other Christians who "just don't care," it appealed to my appreciation of snappy quotes that speak so much in just a few sentences, and it was so, so cool because it used a cuss word. I immediately thought to post it here but, in a moment of rare wisdom, checked my reasons for posting it and refrained. But the thoughts the quote brought up stuck with me for the last few days and today, while sitting in chapel, our Indian speaker urged us to go out into the world to share the name of Jesus. My initial response was along the lines of, "well, everyone is called to their specific ministry, maybe a few will go to India, not me." But, along with the message of the quote here, I think my whole perspective on life is scewed.
I may not have been offended by the cussing in Tony's quote (cussing isn't really a thing I get hung up on) but it was the part that stuck out to me on my first read through the quote - not that 30,000 children will die. Likewise, after hearing a chapel message informing me of India's miniscule Christian population and social woes, my first thought was that someone else will get to it - and not that these facts are directly related to me. So I guess my one "take-away" thought for this blog is that I think in a very human fashion. But I want to think and act as Jesus does. That requires time. That requires God's softening of my heart.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Saturday, April 4, 2009
words
wordle.net has informed me of what words I use in my blog. I haven't figured out how to take out specific words yet (i.e. I don't actually type the word "Labels," that's more of a blogspot word).
Friday, April 3, 2009
Nondescript Pretty People (Spring Break)
Spring Break 2009 (the last spring break of importance, as far as I'm concerned):
The 2nd East Seniors
Atlanta (good friends (thanks for the good times), grad school visits, "job searching", sight seeing)
New Orleans (Bourbon street, Motel 6)
Cruise (sun, ocean, Cozumel, Isla Pasion by Twister, Fun!)
The first round of pictures
Each night on the cruise, we put on our collared shirts and went to dinner in the Celebration Dining area to be so elegantly served by George from Zambia. Next to our table was a table for two, at which two fine looking ladies* sat with their tanned bodies, little black dresses, and manicured faces/hair/hands/etc. But what was interesting about them was that I couldn't really make out any distinguishing factors between them; or any other pretty people for that matter.
And it is here that we began discussing that Pretty People are about as indistinguishable as people of another ethnicity with which one is not very well acquainted. You know what I'm talking about. It's why 80% of you could not tell the difference between a Chinese and Japanese person and why every African American person I meet looks like Will Smith, Usher, or Denzel and why when visiting an African American church in Detroit, I was compared to "that guy from 'That 70's Show.'" A sign of our ignorance, but that's another blog.
Bringing back the Pretty People from our cruise, they shared the same characteristics as every other pretty person I know. They both had brown hair with well blended highlights. They both wore similar black dresses at least two nights in a row. They both had tanned skin with zero imperfections. Both used plenty of make-up but not in anyway to distinguish themselves from one another. Once again, I'm going to cite ignorance as a cause of my inability to distinguish between the two. My simple request for all you good looking people out there, show some sort of individuality and I'll try looking for your unique characteristics.
*Their generic good looking-ness reminded me of these ladies:
The 2nd East Seniors
Atlanta (good friends (thanks for the good times), grad school visits, "job searching", sight seeing)
New Orleans (Bourbon street, Motel 6)
Cruise (sun, ocean, Cozumel, Isla Pasion by Twister, Fun!)
The first round of pictures
Each night on the cruise, we put on our collared shirts and went to dinner in the Celebration Dining area to be so elegantly served by George from Zambia. Next to our table was a table for two, at which two fine looking ladies* sat with their tanned bodies, little black dresses, and manicured faces/hair/hands/etc. But what was interesting about them was that I couldn't really make out any distinguishing factors between them; or any other pretty people for that matter.
And it is here that we began discussing that Pretty People are about as indistinguishable as people of another ethnicity with which one is not very well acquainted. You know what I'm talking about. It's why 80% of you could not tell the difference between a Chinese and Japanese person and why every African American person I meet looks like Will Smith, Usher, or Denzel and why when visiting an African American church in Detroit, I was compared to "that guy from 'That 70's Show.'" A sign of our ignorance, but that's another blog.
Bringing back the Pretty People from our cruise, they shared the same characteristics as every other pretty person I know. They both had brown hair with well blended highlights. They both wore similar black dresses at least two nights in a row. They both had tanned skin with zero imperfections. Both used plenty of make-up but not in anyway to distinguish themselves from one another. Once again, I'm going to cite ignorance as a cause of my inability to distinguish between the two. My simple request for all you good looking people out there, show some sort of individuality and I'll try looking for your unique characteristics.
*Their generic good looking-ness reminded me of these ladies:
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Recent Petty Annoyances
- The word, "Snarky," generally because it's used by hipsters critiquing other hipsters of being overly sarcastic and critical when they themselves are overly sarcastic and critical.
- That fold hoodies get when you sit down.
- Girls who walk really slow and block paths. (Both have to be performed to irritate me.)
- Professors going past X:50, not because the material is important, but rather because they like to think that their material is important.
- Puking.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Why I'm Open to the Emergent Church
Like many of you, I grew up in a church home with a pastor-Father and worship-leading-mother bred to be the youth group superhero. Since moving away to Taylor, my home church has more or less fallen apart, causing me to question a few things about the American evangelical church institution. I’m not going to go into details, but I think I could give a substantial case as to why the “church has failed me.” I think I’m a pretty good case for Friday’s Chapel speaker, Ted Kluck’s, stereotypical rebellious twenty-something who could jump on the trendy new emergent bandwagon because I’m sick of the “evils” that American evangelical Christianity represents today.
But the thing is, I still love the church. My home churches have been full of too many amazing people and I’ve seen way too much good come out of my church experiences to disregard the church as a completely faulty system.
Coming into Taylor, I was exposed to many new authors such as Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, and Donald Miller* that all hinted at something more than what my fairly normal church was preaching. A number of Kluck’s reasons for not being Emergent felt more like a personal vendetta against Starbucks than any sort of theological reason. Likewise, his reasons for loving the Church sounded more like reasons why he didn’t like the Emergent church than reasons why he loved the Church.
In response to Kluck, I would love to pick him apart for what I found to be silly arguments (what’s wrong with using the arts in worship?!) but I think I’m going more for the unity thing than divisive thing. So I’m going to give a few reasons why I’m open to the Emergent (or at least the emerging) church.
First and foremost (and maybe the one they get the most criticism for), they actually care about social justice issues. The second half of the Old Testament (hello prophets) and Jesus’ teachings are brimming with commandments to seeking justice, etc. They take that seriously. From what I have seen in Evangelical churches, there is very limited emphasis on actually serving the poor, helping the widow, etc. Kluck argued that the Emergent church is espousing a works-based gospel (and maybe they do lean too far this way) but as Taylor’s MLK Jr’s speaker explained so well, there’s a beautiful, mysterious connection between the vertical redemption that God does in us personally and the horizontal redemption of the earth he is creating through us. I don’t want to miss a part of the gospel by pledging allegiance to one side or another.
Next are a few more minor reasons why I’m open to the Emergent church. They employ the arts to a higher degree. I know the Emergent church isn’t the only Christian movement to engage the arts but they do set aside more room for expressing worship in a variety of ways that are somewhat neglected elsewhere. Another point is that the Emergent church characterizes itself as being a “discussion” of theological ideas. Although this definitely can lead to some sketchy theology, I recognize the need to re-evaluate what we believe and how we interpret the gospel.
One criticism Kluck gave that I’m having a hard time ignoring is saying how the Emergent church ignores the Bible and rather focuses on other mediums to provide a spiritual atmosphere. I’m a Rob Bell fan. One reason why is because he has helped me understand scriptures better than pretty much any other preacher. He ties Old Testament laws with New Testament principals and although he’s “fun to listen to,” there’s no way I would continue listening to him if he were short on content. Sorry, had to put that in there.
I’m done.
*I know all of these guys wouldn’t claim to be Emergent but Kluck seemed to group every remotely emerging figure out there into the same category so for simplicity’s sake, I will too.
But the thing is, I still love the church. My home churches have been full of too many amazing people and I’ve seen way too much good come out of my church experiences to disregard the church as a completely faulty system.
Coming into Taylor, I was exposed to many new authors such as Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, and Donald Miller* that all hinted at something more than what my fairly normal church was preaching. A number of Kluck’s reasons for not being Emergent felt more like a personal vendetta against Starbucks than any sort of theological reason. Likewise, his reasons for loving the Church sounded more like reasons why he didn’t like the Emergent church than reasons why he loved the Church.
In response to Kluck, I would love to pick him apart for what I found to be silly arguments (what’s wrong with using the arts in worship?!) but I think I’m going more for the unity thing than divisive thing. So I’m going to give a few reasons why I’m open to the Emergent (or at least the emerging) church.
First and foremost (and maybe the one they get the most criticism for), they actually care about social justice issues. The second half of the Old Testament (hello prophets) and Jesus’ teachings are brimming with commandments to seeking justice, etc. They take that seriously. From what I have seen in Evangelical churches, there is very limited emphasis on actually serving the poor, helping the widow, etc. Kluck argued that the Emergent church is espousing a works-based gospel (and maybe they do lean too far this way) but as Taylor’s MLK Jr’s speaker explained so well, there’s a beautiful, mysterious connection between the vertical redemption that God does in us personally and the horizontal redemption of the earth he is creating through us. I don’t want to miss a part of the gospel by pledging allegiance to one side or another.
Next are a few more minor reasons why I’m open to the Emergent church. They employ the arts to a higher degree. I know the Emergent church isn’t the only Christian movement to engage the arts but they do set aside more room for expressing worship in a variety of ways that are somewhat neglected elsewhere. Another point is that the Emergent church characterizes itself as being a “discussion” of theological ideas. Although this definitely can lead to some sketchy theology, I recognize the need to re-evaluate what we believe and how we interpret the gospel.
One criticism Kluck gave that I’m having a hard time ignoring is saying how the Emergent church ignores the Bible and rather focuses on other mediums to provide a spiritual atmosphere. I’m a Rob Bell fan. One reason why is because he has helped me understand scriptures better than pretty much any other preacher. He ties Old Testament laws with New Testament principals and although he’s “fun to listen to,” there’s no way I would continue listening to him if he were short on content. Sorry, had to put that in there.
I’m done.
*I know all of these guys wouldn’t claim to be Emergent but Kluck seemed to group every remotely emerging figure out there into the same category so for simplicity’s sake, I will too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)