In case you haven't heard, I have recently been hired as the college pastor of Cross Pointe Community Church, in Tontitown, AR. I'm way excited about the future ministry possibilities that God is presenting me with, but I fully know that I am incapable of fulfilling this duty on my own, and I am desperately in need of the service of the local church and of God. I ask that you be in prayer for my success in ministry.
On another note, I am departing Tuesday, May 18 to serve in India for two weeks with my predecessor, Matthew. We will be riding through villages in Bangalore preaching and teaching for 2 weeks, until May 31. I'll be constantly updating this blog whenever I have internet available to update you on my trip, my photographs, and other things that are going on.
Any questions?
5.15.2010
4.24.2010
Public Schooling
Have you ever thought about what you learned in high school, and whether or not it was a good idea for them to teach you that?
I mean, sure, we all complained about math because we're never going to use this in real life. Honestly, though, learning math is important for everyone in their younger days because it grows brain synapses that strengthen your problem solving abilities whether the problem is math or shopping.
I'm talking about morally. Is there anything you were taught that you morally object to being taught?
I feel like there was for me. There was one book we read my junior year of high school called Native Son, and the teacher read in class the part that was removed from the edited version. Basically, it was a scene where two boys masturbated in a movie theatre. Classy, right?
Now, this didn't seriously offend my sensibilities at the time, but now that I'm within 5 or 6 years of parenthood, I worry.
The other thing, aside from moral problems with education material, is the image that a public school portrays of religion, a thought which is encouraged by the state and national governments. When I was in that same class, with many very controversial books, we also read the sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Jonathan Edwards. This is certainly a very colorful piece, but on the whole it is almost entirely irrelevant to both American history and its literature. It was also the ONLY religious material I recall reading during all of high school.
For the uninformed, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is not a happy sermon, or one about love, but Edwards' primary sermon about the unstoppable wrath and judgment of God.
Now, if this is the only exposure allowed by public schools to Christianity for high school kids to learn from academically, there is no point in using this sermon except to portray Christianity as a group of fundamentalist nutjobs. That sermon is not for a group of people who have not accepted the beauty of the Gospel first.
From a literary standpoint, there are HUNDREDS of other famous sermons they could have used!
John Wesley wrote 120+ sermons of which exact copies exist online! St. Augustine wrote Christian philosophy, which is easily reconcilable with modern American education!
But, no, the public school system prefers what is "interesting" and ridiculous over that which is educational.
Homeschooling, here I come.
I mean, sure, we all complained about math because we're never going to use this in real life. Honestly, though, learning math is important for everyone in their younger days because it grows brain synapses that strengthen your problem solving abilities whether the problem is math or shopping.
I'm talking about morally. Is there anything you were taught that you morally object to being taught?
I feel like there was for me. There was one book we read my junior year of high school called Native Son, and the teacher read in class the part that was removed from the edited version. Basically, it was a scene where two boys masturbated in a movie theatre. Classy, right?
Now, this didn't seriously offend my sensibilities at the time, but now that I'm within 5 or 6 years of parenthood, I worry.
The other thing, aside from moral problems with education material, is the image that a public school portrays of religion, a thought which is encouraged by the state and national governments. When I was in that same class, with many very controversial books, we also read the sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Jonathan Edwards. This is certainly a very colorful piece, but on the whole it is almost entirely irrelevant to both American history and its literature. It was also the ONLY religious material I recall reading during all of high school.
For the uninformed, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is not a happy sermon, or one about love, but Edwards' primary sermon about the unstoppable wrath and judgment of God.
Now, if this is the only exposure allowed by public schools to Christianity for high school kids to learn from academically, there is no point in using this sermon except to portray Christianity as a group of fundamentalist nutjobs. That sermon is not for a group of people who have not accepted the beauty of the Gospel first.
From a literary standpoint, there are HUNDREDS of other famous sermons they could have used!
John Wesley wrote 120+ sermons of which exact copies exist online! St. Augustine wrote Christian philosophy, which is easily reconcilable with modern American education!
But, no, the public school system prefers what is "interesting" and ridiculous over that which is educational.
Homeschooling, here I come.
3.01.2010
Unnecessary Guilt
I feel guilty.
Not because I have done something wrong.
I have a blog in mind that I want to write, and yet no time for writing it.
I feel guilty because I have neglected my blog.
My blog has become like another friend that I just don't have time for, even though it is an inanimate, nonphysical entity that places no guilt upon me.
There is probably something psychologically disturbing about all this.
Not because I have done something wrong.
I have a blog in mind that I want to write, and yet no time for writing it.
I feel guilty because I have neglected my blog.
My blog has become like another friend that I just don't have time for, even though it is an inanimate, nonphysical entity that places no guilt upon me.
There is probably something psychologically disturbing about all this.
2.09.2010
The Chilled Chorus
Have you ever noticed that cold has a sound?
I'm sure this is a fairly common observation, but I really feel like the world sounds very distinctly in the snow.
It almost feels quieter, almost like the sound is muffled.
But it isn't just snow, there's just something about being cold that sounds different.
You notice it in movies, too.
There tend to be a lot less background noises when characters are standing in the snow, than if they were standing in, say, a desert oasis.
Now, by the laws of physics, the speed of sound in air = 331.3 + (0.66 x T) m/s, where T is degrees celsius. So, sound moves slower, but I wouldn't say that that means there would be less of it.
Whether it is sensible or not, what is the purpose for the altered sensual perception during cold? Because, you have to admit, it smells different, things feel different, stuff tastes differently, and it looks differently, as well.
If you think about what, exactly, cold is, that doesn't help much either.
Temperature is literally the rate at which particles in matter vibrate. Everything is naturally vibrating. If they vibrate faster, they are warmer, if they do so slowly, they are colder. This is why you have things like liquids, solids, and gasses.
Technically, when the air is cold, it's even closer to becoming a liquid than when it is warm.
But, still, I wonder, what is the significance of the sound of cold?
I think that a major part of its purpose, from a divine standpoint, is beauty.
Think about it, God created the laws of physics, back in the beginning, Genesis 1, etc.
Naturally, it seems that the generally accepted periods of growth are Spring and Summer, with flowers in bloom, and sparkling water, and freshness. Fall is beautiful because of the changing leaves and the wind.
Winter has the beauty of snow, but there is a beauty in cold itself.
Maybe; just maybe, God made the laws of physics (at least this might be part of the reason) so that when it was cold, the hushed sound of winter added to the atmosphere of serenity that accompanied snow. The sun's light is whiter and reflects off the white of the land, which provides a sharp contrast to the dark of dead trees and barren soil. What people often interpret as an imagery of death may really just be the atmosphere of peace and rest.
Then, add to this the smell of cold, and the silence that accompanies slower moving sound, and you get not just an image, but a mood.
Imagine winter. In Canada.
It's not chaotic. It isn't hustle and bustle. It's calm.
Why is that? Because God catered the laws of physics so that you would understand beauty in all four phases of the state of nature on the planet Earth.
God is the master artist.
I'm sure this is a fairly common observation, but I really feel like the world sounds very distinctly in the snow.
It almost feels quieter, almost like the sound is muffled.
But it isn't just snow, there's just something about being cold that sounds different.
You notice it in movies, too.
There tend to be a lot less background noises when characters are standing in the snow, than if they were standing in, say, a desert oasis.
Now, by the laws of physics, the speed of sound in air = 331.3 + (0.66 x T) m/s, where T is degrees celsius. So, sound moves slower, but I wouldn't say that that means there would be less of it.
Whether it is sensible or not, what is the purpose for the altered sensual perception during cold? Because, you have to admit, it smells different, things feel different, stuff tastes differently, and it looks differently, as well.
If you think about what, exactly, cold is, that doesn't help much either.
Temperature is literally the rate at which particles in matter vibrate. Everything is naturally vibrating. If they vibrate faster, they are warmer, if they do so slowly, they are colder. This is why you have things like liquids, solids, and gasses.
Technically, when the air is cold, it's even closer to becoming a liquid than when it is warm.
But, still, I wonder, what is the significance of the sound of cold?
I think that a major part of its purpose, from a divine standpoint, is beauty.
Think about it, God created the laws of physics, back in the beginning, Genesis 1, etc.
Naturally, it seems that the generally accepted periods of growth are Spring and Summer, with flowers in bloom, and sparkling water, and freshness. Fall is beautiful because of the changing leaves and the wind.
Winter has the beauty of snow, but there is a beauty in cold itself.
Maybe; just maybe, God made the laws of physics (at least this might be part of the reason) so that when it was cold, the hushed sound of winter added to the atmosphere of serenity that accompanied snow. The sun's light is whiter and reflects off the white of the land, which provides a sharp contrast to the dark of dead trees and barren soil. What people often interpret as an imagery of death may really just be the atmosphere of peace and rest.
Then, add to this the smell of cold, and the silence that accompanies slower moving sound, and you get not just an image, but a mood.
Imagine winter. In Canada.
It's not chaotic. It isn't hustle and bustle. It's calm.
Why is that? Because God catered the laws of physics so that you would understand beauty in all four phases of the state of nature on the planet Earth.
God is the master artist.
1.23.2010
Realism is too much to expect
Kristen tells me I need to be more light-hearted on this thing.
It has been a while since I blogged about anything frivolous. I love the word frivolous. Whenever I imagine a person doing something frivolous, I imagine them wearing an oldschool dress with lots of frills, regardless of gender.
Needless to say, I do not often imagine myself being frivolous.
Anyways, today I shall write about my experiences.
I spent a good 2 hours playing video games with my roommate, which was incredibly satisfying.
One of the games I played was an RPG, called Tales of the Abyss, where you controlled a guy who found out he was a clone of another guy, who went around and killed stuff, to the end purpose of saving the world.
The other game we played was an action game called New Super Mario Bros. Wii. This is a game in which you assume the role of a plumber who goes around and kills stuff, to the end purpose of saving a princess.
The primary distinction between the genres of these games is based on the manner in which one destroys innocent woodland creatures, who are a common enemy both in Mario (sometimes he even stomps on hapless mushrooms just out of spite!) and TotA.
But, I noticed a distinction that stood out in the Mario game beyond just the battle system. Mario changes clothes.
Whenever he picks up an item, if it's a mushroom or a fire flower or an ice flower or a mushroom that grows helicopters on top (botanists, rejoice!), his clothing and his appearance change.
These transformations are one of the primary gameplay elements of Mario, and most people are familiar with it, but it is so unique to the video game world.
Novels, which are similar to video games, and RPGs in particular, because they tell a story, do not inform the reader every time that a character does mundane, everyday things. Things which include changing clothes, going to the bathroom, eating, sleeping, scratching one's buttocks, etc. These are not included because they are not relevant to the events of the story.
On the same token, the vast majority of video games, despite having a very significant visual element to them which is not present in novels, do not show a character doing these things.
What disturbs me is that people complain about the lack of realism in video games.
I hear, on a very regular basis, grumbles about how the character doesn't change swords on screen whenever you equip a new one on the menu. It doesn't look any different. Or they tell me that it's unrealistic for so many story elements to occur at once without eating or sleeping.
The video game industry itself responds to this with titles that include a day/night system to keep track of time, or characters with multiple outfits or whose avatar changes when equipment changes.
Really, who cares. I don't want to have to worry about keeping my character well-fed, as well as staying on top of saving the world. It doesn't help the story at all.
I really view games like that as stories, and in no way does regular passing of time, having toilets, or daily changes of outfits impact my appreciation and enjoyment of the story.
Mario has a great excuse by these standards, because his change of costumes is necessary to him saving the princess.
So, stop whining gamers. There are a multitude of other reasons why this doesn't occur. It's a pain in the butt to change the actions of a character for every outfit. It doesn't make sense to have a hunger system in a game. Get over the cosmetic details.
I'm sorry Petey the Monster Vanquisher isn't wearing your favorite pair of overalls as he pulls the Sword of Eternity from the Rock of Apathy. The rest of us who actually have taste would much rather interpret games as we would a novel: It is excluded for the purpose of the story.
It has been a while since I blogged about anything frivolous. I love the word frivolous. Whenever I imagine a person doing something frivolous, I imagine them wearing an oldschool dress with lots of frills, regardless of gender.
Needless to say, I do not often imagine myself being frivolous.
Anyways, today I shall write about my experiences.
I spent a good 2 hours playing video games with my roommate, which was incredibly satisfying.
One of the games I played was an RPG, called Tales of the Abyss, where you controlled a guy who found out he was a clone of another guy, who went around and killed stuff, to the end purpose of saving the world.
The other game we played was an action game called New Super Mario Bros. Wii. This is a game in which you assume the role of a plumber who goes around and kills stuff, to the end purpose of saving a princess.
The primary distinction between the genres of these games is based on the manner in which one destroys innocent woodland creatures, who are a common enemy both in Mario (sometimes he even stomps on hapless mushrooms just out of spite!) and TotA.
But, I noticed a distinction that stood out in the Mario game beyond just the battle system. Mario changes clothes.
Whenever he picks up an item, if it's a mushroom or a fire flower or an ice flower or a mushroom that grows helicopters on top (botanists, rejoice!), his clothing and his appearance change.
These transformations are one of the primary gameplay elements of Mario, and most people are familiar with it, but it is so unique to the video game world.
Novels, which are similar to video games, and RPGs in particular, because they tell a story, do not inform the reader every time that a character does mundane, everyday things. Things which include changing clothes, going to the bathroom, eating, sleeping, scratching one's buttocks, etc. These are not included because they are not relevant to the events of the story.
On the same token, the vast majority of video games, despite having a very significant visual element to them which is not present in novels, do not show a character doing these things.
What disturbs me is that people complain about the lack of realism in video games.
I hear, on a very regular basis, grumbles about how the character doesn't change swords on screen whenever you equip a new one on the menu. It doesn't look any different. Or they tell me that it's unrealistic for so many story elements to occur at once without eating or sleeping.
The video game industry itself responds to this with titles that include a day/night system to keep track of time, or characters with multiple outfits or whose avatar changes when equipment changes.
Really, who cares. I don't want to have to worry about keeping my character well-fed, as well as staying on top of saving the world. It doesn't help the story at all.
I really view games like that as stories, and in no way does regular passing of time, having toilets, or daily changes of outfits impact my appreciation and enjoyment of the story.
Mario has a great excuse by these standards, because his change of costumes is necessary to him saving the princess.
So, stop whining gamers. There are a multitude of other reasons why this doesn't occur. It's a pain in the butt to change the actions of a character for every outfit. It doesn't make sense to have a hunger system in a game. Get over the cosmetic details.
I'm sorry Petey the Monster Vanquisher isn't wearing your favorite pair of overalls as he pulls the Sword of Eternity from the Rock of Apathy. The rest of us who actually have taste would much rather interpret games as we would a novel: It is excluded for the purpose of the story.
12.09.2009
Ministry
2 months of no blogging hurts my soul. Maybe for Christmas break this will pick back up, but I doubt any of you actually check this any more. I hope you find this and really put some thought into it, though, because this is seriously important to me.
My blog for today is a paper which I turned in a week ago. This is my philosophy of youth ministry. This goes on my permanent resume, and I plan on giving it to the church that I ask to be hired by. I seriously plan on implementing this as my plan to affect the lives of youth. So please, critique me, affirm me, and really read into what I am saying. Thanks for your thoughts and prayers as I embark upon this.
My Philosophy of Youth Ministry
The main goal of a youth ministry that I design would be to help youth understand that, at every point in their lives, whether young or old, God has a purpose for them as a part of the body of Christ. While God does call us to this, he does not need us; he has given us the privilege of being included in his plan. As such, the adolescents of today's culture must recognize that they have potential to serve in the church and be part of the body, but that they also must seek wisdom and maturity in order to be a more capable servant. It is important to see that all Christians can contribute. God has called the church as a whole to recognize that students, while they do have disadvantages and weaknesses, are every bit a part of the church, and must be trained and brought up with discernment in order to guide them into a full life of Christian leadership and service.
One intermediate goal is integrating the youth with the church while maintaining their respect for the elders of the church. I believe that, to an extent, the whole youth group should be allowed to participate in the activities that the adult church body takes part in. This includes, and is certainly not limited to, baptism, communion, worship, service, prayer, and social events. This is not to say they need leadership positions there; they do not. I contend that the youth must be a part of the church in order to fully engage in their relationship with Christ, because the church community is a web of support, and they should not be denied the diversity of that body simply because of their age. Another goal is developing a public faith that emerges in every location of their lives. I am not necessarily saying that the youth need to become apologetic masters; instead, I would encourage them to be in regular discussion with peers, adults, and younger youth about spiritual issues in a casual, sincere way. This means I would focus on developing boldness and honesty as spiritual characteristics, as well as their identity. My last goal is to give them necessary skills for continuing their faith after they leave adolescence. The students would need to know how to find a church that matches up with their beliefs, how to be part of a body, and have a general understanding of the major issues of Christianity and the history of the church. This would include a fairly high level of cognitive development.
In the pursuit of the completion of these goals, there are several events I would like to see regularly occurring. In order to pursue integration with the church, I think it is appropriate for the youth to participate in contributing to the main events of the general congregation. This could include having youth read verses for the liturgy or assist in worship, perhaps even sharing from personal experience as part of the worship service. To develop a public and honest faith, I would assign "homework" (without the expectation of immediate success) for the youth to speak about a certain issue every month with at least one person. For the purpose of giving them skills for their strengthened and lifelong faith, I would teach sermons not necessarily targeting key issues in their lives, but speaking about what the church is and what the Christian life is. Topical sermons occasionally have their uses, but the truth of the Gospel and the wisdom from the history of the church contribute much more to long-term faith.
In order to ensure the greater success of all of these goals, I plan to have a network of discipleship, consisting of the support of the rest of the church. At most events, whether or not there is teaching, I intend to have adults (hopefully some parents) who are mentoring, engaging, and worshiping with the youth. This would ensure integration with the rest of the church, and since I alone cannot answer every objection or question of the faith to every youth, constant discussion with these volunteer adults about the lessons would create a greater understanding. Also, if the adults share their own stories of developing faith into adulthood, the youth will have a greater understanding of what is necessary to maintain strong faith even after leaving high school. Since adult volunteers cannot be expected to eternally pour out in a perfect way, I would also disciple and guide them in their leadership with monthly meetings to lift them up and teach them. This way we would all pursue the same specific goals.
The success of this plan could be determined in several ways. For one thing, the adult volunteers, who regularly interact on a more personal basis than I do, could inform me of the spiritual progress they witness, as well as the students' ability to interpret and respond to what they hear and see and do. Also, at the end of junior high and again at the end of high school, I would take one Sunday with that specific grade of students, and ask them to write out for me a summary of what they believe as a Christian, and determine their ability to do so. It would also be easy to determine how well the students are integrated with the rest of the church, based on how regularly and how well they engage the adults and the rest of the body.
The purpose behind the youth ministry that I envision is not to entertain students, or make them into morality angels with perfect Bible memory. The purpose is to make them part of the modern church and raise them up to be leaders of the future church.
My blog for today is a paper which I turned in a week ago. This is my philosophy of youth ministry. This goes on my permanent resume, and I plan on giving it to the church that I ask to be hired by. I seriously plan on implementing this as my plan to affect the lives of youth. So please, critique me, affirm me, and really read into what I am saying. Thanks for your thoughts and prayers as I embark upon this.
My Philosophy of Youth Ministry
The main goal of a youth ministry that I design would be to help youth understand that, at every point in their lives, whether young or old, God has a purpose for them as a part of the body of Christ. While God does call us to this, he does not need us; he has given us the privilege of being included in his plan. As such, the adolescents of today's culture must recognize that they have potential to serve in the church and be part of the body, but that they also must seek wisdom and maturity in order to be a more capable servant. It is important to see that all Christians can contribute. God has called the church as a whole to recognize that students, while they do have disadvantages and weaknesses, are every bit a part of the church, and must be trained and brought up with discernment in order to guide them into a full life of Christian leadership and service.
One intermediate goal is integrating the youth with the church while maintaining their respect for the elders of the church. I believe that, to an extent, the whole youth group should be allowed to participate in the activities that the adult church body takes part in. This includes, and is certainly not limited to, baptism, communion, worship, service, prayer, and social events. This is not to say they need leadership positions there; they do not. I contend that the youth must be a part of the church in order to fully engage in their relationship with Christ, because the church community is a web of support, and they should not be denied the diversity of that body simply because of their age. Another goal is developing a public faith that emerges in every location of their lives. I am not necessarily saying that the youth need to become apologetic masters; instead, I would encourage them to be in regular discussion with peers, adults, and younger youth about spiritual issues in a casual, sincere way. This means I would focus on developing boldness and honesty as spiritual characteristics, as well as their identity. My last goal is to give them necessary skills for continuing their faith after they leave adolescence. The students would need to know how to find a church that matches up with their beliefs, how to be part of a body, and have a general understanding of the major issues of Christianity and the history of the church. This would include a fairly high level of cognitive development.
In the pursuit of the completion of these goals, there are several events I would like to see regularly occurring. In order to pursue integration with the church, I think it is appropriate for the youth to participate in contributing to the main events of the general congregation. This could include having youth read verses for the liturgy or assist in worship, perhaps even sharing from personal experience as part of the worship service. To develop a public and honest faith, I would assign "homework" (without the expectation of immediate success) for the youth to speak about a certain issue every month with at least one person. For the purpose of giving them skills for their strengthened and lifelong faith, I would teach sermons not necessarily targeting key issues in their lives, but speaking about what the church is and what the Christian life is. Topical sermons occasionally have their uses, but the truth of the Gospel and the wisdom from the history of the church contribute much more to long-term faith.
In order to ensure the greater success of all of these goals, I plan to have a network of discipleship, consisting of the support of the rest of the church. At most events, whether or not there is teaching, I intend to have adults (hopefully some parents) who are mentoring, engaging, and worshiping with the youth. This would ensure integration with the rest of the church, and since I alone cannot answer every objection or question of the faith to every youth, constant discussion with these volunteer adults about the lessons would create a greater understanding. Also, if the adults share their own stories of developing faith into adulthood, the youth will have a greater understanding of what is necessary to maintain strong faith even after leaving high school. Since adult volunteers cannot be expected to eternally pour out in a perfect way, I would also disciple and guide them in their leadership with monthly meetings to lift them up and teach them. This way we would all pursue the same specific goals.
The success of this plan could be determined in several ways. For one thing, the adult volunteers, who regularly interact on a more personal basis than I do, could inform me of the spiritual progress they witness, as well as the students' ability to interpret and respond to what they hear and see and do. Also, at the end of junior high and again at the end of high school, I would take one Sunday with that specific grade of students, and ask them to write out for me a summary of what they believe as a Christian, and determine their ability to do so. It would also be easy to determine how well the students are integrated with the rest of the church, based on how regularly and how well they engage the adults and the rest of the body.
The purpose behind the youth ministry that I envision is not to entertain students, or make them into morality angels with perfect Bible memory. The purpose is to make them part of the modern church and raise them up to be leaders of the future church.
10.03.2009
Insufferably Loveable
Today is my lovely girlfriend's birthday. You should all have wished her a happy one.
For the occasion, her parents drove up and we all went to see the Freshmen Play, together. This year they chose The God Committee, a play based on a heart transplant committee at a New England Community Hospital somewhere.
The main point of the play was that we as people do not have the means (or the right) to decide who does or does not deserve to live. We simply don't. There is no quantitative way to assign value to a person's life. And yet, we all do it. When I meet a guy who lives on the street, as compared to a successful, kind-hearted businesswoman (I'm assuming they exist) I instinctively decide who has a more valuable life.
Hospitals try to account for this by saying that whoever is the most likely to live longer (and fuller) deserves to do so.
This still doesn't make up for the fact that we can never know who WILL use the heart better, but only who is more LIKELY to use the heart better.
I am a firm believer in the idea that 5 seconds well spent by an ungrateful, unsuccessful, ugly, dirty person can be infinitely more valuable than years of the life of someone who society admires. I believe this, in large part, because I see some of all of those bad characteristics in myself, and I want to know that significance can come to my life even if I am not capable of intentionally creating it.
So, let's just say I don't envy them the responsibility. Because regardless of the fact that we're unable to make an informed, just decision, a decision still has to be made.
That, my friends, is the human condition.
For the occasion, her parents drove up and we all went to see the Freshmen Play, together. This year they chose The God Committee, a play based on a heart transplant committee at a New England Community Hospital somewhere.
The main point of the play was that we as people do not have the means (or the right) to decide who does or does not deserve to live. We simply don't. There is no quantitative way to assign value to a person's life. And yet, we all do it. When I meet a guy who lives on the street, as compared to a successful, kind-hearted businesswoman (I'm assuming they exist) I instinctively decide who has a more valuable life.
Hospitals try to account for this by saying that whoever is the most likely to live longer (and fuller) deserves to do so.
This still doesn't make up for the fact that we can never know who WILL use the heart better, but only who is more LIKELY to use the heart better.
I am a firm believer in the idea that 5 seconds well spent by an ungrateful, unsuccessful, ugly, dirty person can be infinitely more valuable than years of the life of someone who society admires. I believe this, in large part, because I see some of all of those bad characteristics in myself, and I want to know that significance can come to my life even if I am not capable of intentionally creating it.
So, let's just say I don't envy them the responsibility. Because regardless of the fact that we're unable to make an informed, just decision, a decision still has to be made.
That, my friends, is the human condition.
9.24.2009
Unbreakable
Has anyone ever noticed the extreme amount of correlation between things that are expensive and things that are fragile?
For instance, I spent almost a third as much money on the case for my guitar as I did for the guitar itself.
Why does it seem to be that, the better something is, the easier it is to destroy?
Now, this isn't the case with everything. My crappy, $15 shoes are falling apart, whereas nicer ones would probably not have holes in the soles that let the rain drench my toes from below.
But part of the utility of shoes is that they are durable. So, for anything that is not designed to be durable, the more valuable it is the more fragile it is.
Instruments, gold is a soft metal, plasma screen tvs (Have you seen the video where the guy breaks his tv by throwing a Wiimote at it? Classic.) and most other expensive, material pleasures are extremely non-durable.
I wonder why this is.
It's even true in nature. Endangered species, the rain forests, rare plants, even ferocious, beautiful creatures that are still vulnerable to human destruction (see also: TIGERZZZZZ YAY) are become scarce because they simply aren't durable. The only things we know would survive a nuclear holocaust are that stupid creeping vine from China and cockroaches, and nobody likes those.
Now, this leads to the question, are things that are high quality by nature fragile, or are things considered high quality because they are fragile?
Obviously, the harder something is to replace and the easier it is to damage, the better we will take care of it. But I still think that it is kind of a rule of the universe that all things that are valuable and good require you to take good care of them. God made it that way.
I'd like to think that, in heaven, nothing valuable will be fragile. This will be part of the reparation from the fall. Human bodies will not be so breakable, and they are obviously valuable, so why not the rest of the New Earth?
I think it's interesting to note that most of our made up "superheroes" from comic books and the like are considered powerful primarily (or at least in part) because they are insusceptible to gun fire or fist fighting or rocket launchers, etc.
It then becomes one of the saddest qualities of human nature that all of the things we value are destructible. We are in a futile struggle against corruption to maintain any form of beauty in the world, but it is all to fragile to survive without some serious help.
For instance, I spent almost a third as much money on the case for my guitar as I did for the guitar itself.
Why does it seem to be that, the better something is, the easier it is to destroy?
Now, this isn't the case with everything. My crappy, $15 shoes are falling apart, whereas nicer ones would probably not have holes in the soles that let the rain drench my toes from below.
But part of the utility of shoes is that they are durable. So, for anything that is not designed to be durable, the more valuable it is the more fragile it is.
Instruments, gold is a soft metal, plasma screen tvs (Have you seen the video where the guy breaks his tv by throwing a Wiimote at it? Classic.) and most other expensive, material pleasures are extremely non-durable.
I wonder why this is.
It's even true in nature. Endangered species, the rain forests, rare plants, even ferocious, beautiful creatures that are still vulnerable to human destruction (see also: TIGERZZZZZ YAY) are become scarce because they simply aren't durable. The only things we know would survive a nuclear holocaust are that stupid creeping vine from China and cockroaches, and nobody likes those.
Now, this leads to the question, are things that are high quality by nature fragile, or are things considered high quality because they are fragile?
Obviously, the harder something is to replace and the easier it is to damage, the better we will take care of it. But I still think that it is kind of a rule of the universe that all things that are valuable and good require you to take good care of them. God made it that way.
I'd like to think that, in heaven, nothing valuable will be fragile. This will be part of the reparation from the fall. Human bodies will not be so breakable, and they are obviously valuable, so why not the rest of the New Earth?
I think it's interesting to note that most of our made up "superheroes" from comic books and the like are considered powerful primarily (or at least in part) because they are insusceptible to gun fire or fist fighting or rocket launchers, etc.
It then becomes one of the saddest qualities of human nature that all of the things we value are destructible. We are in a futile struggle against corruption to maintain any form of beauty in the world, but it is all to fragile to survive without some serious help.
8.27.2009
Collection
Tonight was the all-dorm meeting, which was big and manly and such. But afterwards we broke down into our individual suites. 30-Cinco Met with 36ia and we all got to know each other by sharing some random crazy story about ourselves.
While I think one-liners are funny, and sarcasm can make me laugh, the best kind of humor is definitely personal anecdotes. It's great in groups because you can relate to it, it seems so intimate because you're sharing something.
I consider myself a connoisseur of stories, in a way. I love hearing and memorizing stories that me and my friends have, because being able to share a story is the single best way I have found in connecting with other people. You can be in the most awkward situation ever with a complete stranger, but by sharing a personal memory that makes them laugh, or at least feel comfortable, can open up doors in people's hearts that otherwise take months to dig into.
The more I learn about public speaking, the more I hear that sharing personal stories will radically change the response a speaker can get. If a speaker does not connect with his audience, they decide that they have no reason to listen to him or take his advice and expertise, even if he is otherwise qualified.
So, by collecting these stories, I have a small little tale on almost every subject, in order to relate to people as quickly and as deeply as possible. This is great for a youth pastor, who will meet tons of new people weekly and need to create an atmosphere of comfort.
The only problem is, while they relate to me better, it does not actually create intimacy. I am sharing a story, but they are not actually getting to know me, and I am certainly not getting to know them.
So, the real problem with only sharing stories is that interaction and personal response plays less of a role. It makes me a better speaking figure but a less intimate person.
I have to make sure that the personal me is not just a collection of stories.
While I think one-liners are funny, and sarcasm can make me laugh, the best kind of humor is definitely personal anecdotes. It's great in groups because you can relate to it, it seems so intimate because you're sharing something.
I consider myself a connoisseur of stories, in a way. I love hearing and memorizing stories that me and my friends have, because being able to share a story is the single best way I have found in connecting with other people. You can be in the most awkward situation ever with a complete stranger, but by sharing a personal memory that makes them laugh, or at least feel comfortable, can open up doors in people's hearts that otherwise take months to dig into.
The more I learn about public speaking, the more I hear that sharing personal stories will radically change the response a speaker can get. If a speaker does not connect with his audience, they decide that they have no reason to listen to him or take his advice and expertise, even if he is otherwise qualified.
So, by collecting these stories, I have a small little tale on almost every subject, in order to relate to people as quickly and as deeply as possible. This is great for a youth pastor, who will meet tons of new people weekly and need to create an atmosphere of comfort.
The only problem is, while they relate to me better, it does not actually create intimacy. I am sharing a story, but they are not actually getting to know me, and I am certainly not getting to know them.
So, the real problem with only sharing stories is that interaction and personal response plays less of a role. It makes me a better speaking figure but a less intimate person.
I have to make sure that the personal me is not just a collection of stories.
8.25.2009
Selective Memory
Moving in was fun and eventful, for those concerned. I missed the dorm. I get a lot of great fellowship here. And my roommate is one of my best beds, which helps.
Complete change of topic time.
I have tons of songs memorized. Lyrics, melody, all kinds of things. But recently I've realized that I hardly know any of the lyrics to all of my favorite songs. Mostly songs that I have only started listening to in the last year or so.
At first I thought this might be due to me just getting a weaker short-term memory or something. I was really paranoid for a while that I was growing stupid. I think the paranoia over that was more stupid than anything.
Then I realized that I remembered so many details about those songs that aren't lyrics.
I was in choir up until 10th grade. Singing was my big thing, and I was decent at it. I'm still a decent singer for a guy without any musical training. But my singing days were the same time period where I was learning all the songs I have the lyrics memorized for.
At this point in my life, I have probably spent more time studying guitar and music as a whole than I have singing, since I quit singing way back then. I've spent dedicated time practicing and training my ear and my skill for guitar. So that has become almost entirely what I focus on in music. It actually makes it harder to listen to non-guitar music just because I'm so used to listening to it and figuring out how to play it with my ears.
Because of this, I have to really concentrate to learn lyrics from songs and I naturally pick up the guitar and instrumentals in them. I could probably sing you the guitar solo of most songs I've listened to in the last year, but I could barely recite any of the lyrics, compared to the perfect memory I have of songs from way back when.
It's not better or worse, just different. I really do think it's interesting how much my ability to memorize songs has changed over the years.
Complete change of topic time.
I have tons of songs memorized. Lyrics, melody, all kinds of things. But recently I've realized that I hardly know any of the lyrics to all of my favorite songs. Mostly songs that I have only started listening to in the last year or so.
At first I thought this might be due to me just getting a weaker short-term memory or something. I was really paranoid for a while that I was growing stupid. I think the paranoia over that was more stupid than anything.
Then I realized that I remembered so many details about those songs that aren't lyrics.
I was in choir up until 10th grade. Singing was my big thing, and I was decent at it. I'm still a decent singer for a guy without any musical training. But my singing days were the same time period where I was learning all the songs I have the lyrics memorized for.
At this point in my life, I have probably spent more time studying guitar and music as a whole than I have singing, since I quit singing way back then. I've spent dedicated time practicing and training my ear and my skill for guitar. So that has become almost entirely what I focus on in music. It actually makes it harder to listen to non-guitar music just because I'm so used to listening to it and figuring out how to play it with my ears.
Because of this, I have to really concentrate to learn lyrics from songs and I naturally pick up the guitar and instrumentals in them. I could probably sing you the guitar solo of most songs I've listened to in the last year, but I could barely recite any of the lyrics, compared to the perfect memory I have of songs from way back when.
It's not better or worse, just different. I really do think it's interesting how much my ability to memorize songs has changed over the years.
8.17.2009
Kawaru
It's amazing how a single week can remind you what makes a story really good.
Sure, big events can be fascinating, but the real joy of history and stories is the way we connect with the quiet thoughts from within someone else.
I have a week's worth of fun memories, but the only thing that has changed about me because of this week is only visible on the inside.
I spent a week watching, listening, and observing, and as a result, I changed on the inside. I just had to constantly remind myself to shut up and soak in.
And I did.
Now here I am, ready to face something that would have terrified me 8 days ago.
By the way, I totally jumped off of that waterfall.
Sure, big events can be fascinating, but the real joy of history and stories is the way we connect with the quiet thoughts from within someone else.
I have a week's worth of fun memories, but the only thing that has changed about me because of this week is only visible on the inside.
I spent a week watching, listening, and observing, and as a result, I changed on the inside. I just had to constantly remind myself to shut up and soak in.
And I did.
Now here I am, ready to face something that would have terrified me 8 days ago.
By the way, I totally jumped off of that waterfall.
7.05.2009
Ode to Texas
I love living in a culture within a culture.
The fact that foreign countries know more about Texas than any other state really says something. We have our own stereotypes, and really an entirely separate element of our culture separate from the rest of the country.
I recently read some funny "You know you're from Texas when..." things I'd like to share.
You know you're from Texas when...
It's so hot that potatoes cook underground and all you have to do for lunch is to pull one out and add butter with trimmings.
It's so hot farmers are feeding their chickens crushed ice to keep them from laying hard boiled eggs.
You only know five spices: salt, pepper, Ranch dressing, BBQ sauce and ketchup.
You no longer associate bridges with water. (*cough* TRINITY RIVER *cough*
You can say 110 degrees without fainting.
You learn that a seat belt makes a pretty good branding iron.
You discover that in July it takes only two fingers to drive your car.
You attend a formal event in your best clothes, your finest jewelry and your cowboy boots.
People grumble about Noah letting coyotes on the ark.
Baptism is referred to as "branding."
Finding and returning lost sheep isn't just a parable.
You know what real Mexican food tastes like.
Most of the rest of them were mostly about our accents. Seriously, world, get over the word "y'all." It's not that big a deal.
Also, did you know that it is illegal to urinate on the Alamo? This is important knowledge. Good thing it's not a college town...
Anyways, while this is all fun and good, it brings up something that I've noticed. With the advent of the internet and mass media, things like accents and state cultures are starting to become less and less significant.
I realized that other day that I know exactly how to speak in a Texan accent, and I choose to do so when around the right influences (see also: Grandparents) but I fit just as comfortably into the "American" accent. As large as the United States is, the fact that we all see the same media, and our kids are raised by the television, individual accents over small areas are starting to disappear.
I'd be all tore up inside if I didn't have a little slice of redneck to call home anymore. As it is, Dallas is hardly Texan.
I guess on the whole it means that technology has made a "one world culture" possible.
You know, I was just watching Star Wars, and they differentiate people groups by what planet or even what solar system they come from. Is it possible that our planet could become just one single culture, with hardly any differences except in remote areas?
I would be sad if all of those mini cultures were to disappear because of technology.
What's funny about all this is that America takes pride in its ideals of individualism. Yet the individual disappears when everybody watches all the same TV.
The fact that foreign countries know more about Texas than any other state really says something. We have our own stereotypes, and really an entirely separate element of our culture separate from the rest of the country.
I recently read some funny "You know you're from Texas when..." things I'd like to share.
You know you're from Texas when...
It's so hot that potatoes cook underground and all you have to do for lunch is to pull one out and add butter with trimmings.
It's so hot farmers are feeding their chickens crushed ice to keep them from laying hard boiled eggs.
You only know five spices: salt, pepper, Ranch dressing, BBQ sauce and ketchup.
You no longer associate bridges with water. (*cough* TRINITY RIVER *cough*
You can say 110 degrees without fainting.
You learn that a seat belt makes a pretty good branding iron.
You discover that in July it takes only two fingers to drive your car.
You attend a formal event in your best clothes, your finest jewelry and your cowboy boots.
People grumble about Noah letting coyotes on the ark.
Baptism is referred to as "branding."
Finding and returning lost sheep isn't just a parable.
You know what real Mexican food tastes like.
Most of the rest of them were mostly about our accents. Seriously, world, get over the word "y'all." It's not that big a deal.
Also, did you know that it is illegal to urinate on the Alamo? This is important knowledge. Good thing it's not a college town...
Anyways, while this is all fun and good, it brings up something that I've noticed. With the advent of the internet and mass media, things like accents and state cultures are starting to become less and less significant.
I realized that other day that I know exactly how to speak in a Texan accent, and I choose to do so when around the right influences (see also: Grandparents) but I fit just as comfortably into the "American" accent. As large as the United States is, the fact that we all see the same media, and our kids are raised by the television, individual accents over small areas are starting to disappear.
I'd be all tore up inside if I didn't have a little slice of redneck to call home anymore. As it is, Dallas is hardly Texan.
I guess on the whole it means that technology has made a "one world culture" possible.
You know, I was just watching Star Wars, and they differentiate people groups by what planet or even what solar system they come from. Is it possible that our planet could become just one single culture, with hardly any differences except in remote areas?
I would be sad if all of those mini cultures were to disappear because of technology.
What's funny about all this is that America takes pride in its ideals of individualism. Yet the individual disappears when everybody watches all the same TV.
6.30.2009
Private Life
Has anybody else seen all the updates to facebook's privacy options, lately?
You can choose which groups or individuals get to view which things on your profile.
For instance, if I took some pictures the night I went out drinking, I could make sure that none of the people at my church saw them.
While I do agree that people do have the right to privacy, when you publish it on the internet you kind of lose that right.
My problem with these new privacy abilities is that it does not necessarily serve privacy so much as it serves dishonesty. I could live a complete double life with this. Nobody at my church would ever have to know about my skinny dipping habits (not that those pics are allowed on facebook anyways, thanks goodness) and none of my manly buddies would find out that I snuggle in a den of bunnies and feed them carrots with my mom every Saturday afternoon. Teenagers especially have a problem with pegging down an identity, and I don't think enabling them to not decide on a personality helps their emotional well-being at all.
There need to be consequences for our actions, and people should stop being afraid of sharing all of themselves with other people. We're so worried about our own privacy that we have become unable to have a true self to hide.
You can choose which groups or individuals get to view which things on your profile.
For instance, if I took some pictures the night I went out drinking, I could make sure that none of the people at my church saw them.
While I do agree that people do have the right to privacy, when you publish it on the internet you kind of lose that right.
My problem with these new privacy abilities is that it does not necessarily serve privacy so much as it serves dishonesty. I could live a complete double life with this. Nobody at my church would ever have to know about my skinny dipping habits (not that those pics are allowed on facebook anyways, thanks goodness) and none of my manly buddies would find out that I snuggle in a den of bunnies and feed them carrots with my mom every Saturday afternoon. Teenagers especially have a problem with pegging down an identity, and I don't think enabling them to not decide on a personality helps their emotional well-being at all.
There need to be consequences for our actions, and people should stop being afraid of sharing all of themselves with other people. We're so worried about our own privacy that we have become unable to have a true self to hide.
6.24.2009
Coincidental Sin
Is it just me or could we draw a lightning bolt on Derek's forehead to make him and Ainslee look like Harry Potter and Ginny Weasley?
She even has the older brothers.
She even has the older brothers.
6.14.2009
Days Off
Before the last 2 weeks, I had kind of viewed a full time job as a commitment to be somewhere 40-60 hours a week.
Under this definition, youth ministry is not a full time job. It's a freaking lifestyle.
Days off are basically days where I don't go into the office, but I do all the other work that people ask me to do. Then I go into the office to check my email and such.
But, it's really not that bad.
One of the things I'm noticing is the difference between the life of a single guy and that of a married guy.
I've worked until 9 or 10 and never had to tell anybody where I'm going. Never had to run any errands that weren't job related. I only go to the grocery store once every 2 weeks. And when I get home at night, I walk around in my boxers and play guitar.
It's a little too... simple for me. I don't think I could do the single's lifestyle until I retire.
I'm about to leave for summer camp, though, where I will be doing crazy things until the wee hours of the morning all week. I'm excited. See you guys in a week.
Under this definition, youth ministry is not a full time job. It's a freaking lifestyle.
Days off are basically days where I don't go into the office, but I do all the other work that people ask me to do. Then I go into the office to check my email and such.
But, it's really not that bad.
One of the things I'm noticing is the difference between the life of a single guy and that of a married guy.
I've worked until 9 or 10 and never had to tell anybody where I'm going. Never had to run any errands that weren't job related. I only go to the grocery store once every 2 weeks. And when I get home at night, I walk around in my boxers and play guitar.
It's a little too... simple for me. I don't think I could do the single's lifestyle until I retire.
I'm about to leave for summer camp, though, where I will be doing crazy things until the wee hours of the morning all week. I'm excited. See you guys in a week.
6.07.2009
The Long Term Starts Today
Today I was in the process of writing a long-winded and painful blog about church, but I decided it was too whiny and deleted it.
I think that's my favorite thing about blogging.
I have a tendency to be stupid at first and wise in the long run.
This lets me get my stupid out, delete it, and then write something worthwhile.
Have you ever seen the movie Click?
It's an awful movie, because Adam Sandler is a pervert.
But it addresses a fantasy that crosses the mind of everyone who has ever used a VCR:
What if we could edit and rewind or fast forward our lives?
If I could go back and fix all of my mistakes, sure, I bet I could have a more successful, less sinful life. But if I could just go back and fix anything I messed up, I would cease to recognize my own weaknesses. Sure, I'd be able to see where I screwed up so I could go back and fix it, but a free "Win" button would remove any doubts about how great I am.
I think it would make it impossible to have true relationships.
Aside from the fact that I could redo every conversation that didn't go the way I wanted, giving me infinite attempts to get someone to like me, I think that people relate to each other and become close only because we are all flawed.
Intimacy is impossible without mutually knowing and accepting each other's weaknesses, correct? I am such a failure in this area because I HATE showing people my weaknesses, especially since mine are generally harder to see than a lot of people's are. I'm good at hiding them.
I can never pretend that I'm perfect in front of people who really know me, and that gives me the ability to be humble and loving the more I come to show myself to them.
In the same way, I copied that crappy, whiny blog I wrote before this and saved it to my hard drive. I can't pretend it never happened, I don't want to just rewind and ignore the way I feel just because I know it was wrong of me to feel that way.
I'd like to think I'll read it again in 3 or 4 years and recognize how weak I was, how much I've grown, and how much I still have left to go.
I prefer foolishness over invincibility any day, because foolishness allows for the wisdom to admit you make mistakes.
I think that's my favorite thing about blogging.
I have a tendency to be stupid at first and wise in the long run.
This lets me get my stupid out, delete it, and then write something worthwhile.
Have you ever seen the movie Click?
It's an awful movie, because Adam Sandler is a pervert.
But it addresses a fantasy that crosses the mind of everyone who has ever used a VCR:
What if we could edit and rewind or fast forward our lives?
If I could go back and fix all of my mistakes, sure, I bet I could have a more successful, less sinful life. But if I could just go back and fix anything I messed up, I would cease to recognize my own weaknesses. Sure, I'd be able to see where I screwed up so I could go back and fix it, but a free "Win" button would remove any doubts about how great I am.
I think it would make it impossible to have true relationships.
Aside from the fact that I could redo every conversation that didn't go the way I wanted, giving me infinite attempts to get someone to like me, I think that people relate to each other and become close only because we are all flawed.
Intimacy is impossible without mutually knowing and accepting each other's weaknesses, correct? I am such a failure in this area because I HATE showing people my weaknesses, especially since mine are generally harder to see than a lot of people's are. I'm good at hiding them.
I can never pretend that I'm perfect in front of people who really know me, and that gives me the ability to be humble and loving the more I come to show myself to them.
In the same way, I copied that crappy, whiny blog I wrote before this and saved it to my hard drive. I can't pretend it never happened, I don't want to just rewind and ignore the way I feel just because I know it was wrong of me to feel that way.
I'd like to think I'll read it again in 3 or 4 years and recognize how weak I was, how much I've grown, and how much I still have left to go.
I prefer foolishness over invincibility any day, because foolishness allows for the wisdom to admit you make mistakes.
6.04.2009
Career Aptitude
Since I'm actually doing concrete training in my profession of choice right now, youth ministry, I'm beginning to recognize some of my strengths and weaknesses in this particular area.
When you first decide on a career, you have lofty ideas in your head of the perfect job for you. I'm sure I'm not the first one to tell you that it doesn't all work out that way.
Doctors, for instance, often become doctors (or so the stereotype tells me) because they want to help people. People go into law because they want to fight injustice.
This all operates on one particularly flawed assumption. They assume that all the work they do will work towards meeting their goal of helping people or fighting injustice, when really so much of it ends up being paperwork and manual labor.
There are 2 components to a profession. One is the actual subject of that profession. The subject of a teacher's job is education, the subject of a senator's job is government policy, etc. The second component of the profession is the method of application.
The first component focuses primarily on that ideal which I talked about earlier. The teacher studies the ideals and goals of education, and then the application, the actual teaching, is where the rubber hits the road.
I'm learning more and more that the primary goal of my profession of youth ministry is the spiritual development of youth, but the applications of that are ALL OVER THE PLACE. It could be playing basketball or painting or teaching a Bible study or playing Guitar Hero. I am finding ways that God has uniquely crafted me with skills and talents that make me relevant to youth. The gifts that God has given me help me encourage kids to listen to what I have to say.
Obviously, I am not skilled at everything, so there are some kids that it is harder for me to reach than others. I'm finding more and more that I am really not that interested in leading middle schoolers. High school, maybe college eventually, is what I want to focus on teaching because I see myself more effective there.
A lot of pastors and youth pastors might say that makes me selfish.
Sure, there might be times where I am called on to help in the spiritual development of people outside of high school, and I am not limiting myself to that. That's just where I want to focus.
I sure hadn't thought of any of that when I first thought I wanted to do youth ministry. Eesh.
When you first decide on a career, you have lofty ideas in your head of the perfect job for you. I'm sure I'm not the first one to tell you that it doesn't all work out that way.
Doctors, for instance, often become doctors (or so the stereotype tells me) because they want to help people. People go into law because they want to fight injustice.
This all operates on one particularly flawed assumption. They assume that all the work they do will work towards meeting their goal of helping people or fighting injustice, when really so much of it ends up being paperwork and manual labor.
There are 2 components to a profession. One is the actual subject of that profession. The subject of a teacher's job is education, the subject of a senator's job is government policy, etc. The second component of the profession is the method of application.
The first component focuses primarily on that ideal which I talked about earlier. The teacher studies the ideals and goals of education, and then the application, the actual teaching, is where the rubber hits the road.
I'm learning more and more that the primary goal of my profession of youth ministry is the spiritual development of youth, but the applications of that are ALL OVER THE PLACE. It could be playing basketball or painting or teaching a Bible study or playing Guitar Hero. I am finding ways that God has uniquely crafted me with skills and talents that make me relevant to youth. The gifts that God has given me help me encourage kids to listen to what I have to say.
Obviously, I am not skilled at everything, so there are some kids that it is harder for me to reach than others. I'm finding more and more that I am really not that interested in leading middle schoolers. High school, maybe college eventually, is what I want to focus on teaching because I see myself more effective there.
A lot of pastors and youth pastors might say that makes me selfish.
Sure, there might be times where I am called on to help in the spiritual development of people outside of high school, and I am not limiting myself to that. That's just where I want to focus.
I sure hadn't thought of any of that when I first thought I wanted to do youth ministry. Eesh.
6.02.2009
Greetings from my NEW HOME
Hey, everybody.
I miss all of you guys. I'm not totally bored here or anything, but it's not exactly like being home for the summer.
I'm not going to really be using this to update you all on my life. If you want to know, just call and ask me. Or facebook, the new phone.
Now, down to the nitty gritty.
This is something people say all of the time, but I really think they fail to realize how true it is. Every single person on this planet is short-sighted, and only cares about immediate gratification instead of long term benefit.
I blogged pretty recently about gasoline. The entire gasoline and automobile industry is based on a need for immediate gratification!
But the worst thing was what I saw today.
As a bit of an explanation, the Lowe's in Siloam has one main entrance, and one main exit, on opposite sides of the building. You cannot enter through the exit or exit through the entrance. It's not very efficient, but hey, I didn't design it.
I drove up to Lowe's (for like the third time in 2 days) to return some stuff I had bought. It took me some time to notice it, but as I was parking I realized that everyone, not just some or even most, but every single person who was parked at this Lowe's had parked in front of the entrance. This means that they had a short walk into the store, but the walk out of the store would require a long haul - including all of the hardware that they had just purchased - around the entire building. I saw a couple guys doing just that with a REFRIGERATOR!
Everybody was so concerned about getting that parking spot close to the entrance. You know, they drive up and down the lanes looking for the closest spot, when really they were just setting themselves up for frustration in 15 minutes.
It was hilarious.
You know, I read somewhere that the vast majority of drivers are only looking like 5 or 6 seconds ahead, when really we need to be looking 10 or 20 seconds ahead for safety's sake. Ridiculous. Is instant gratification really worth that? Does it make you happy to delay inevitable pain? Everybody says to work before you play, and get the hard part out of the way first, but nobody does it.
I'm certainly guilty of this, too, I just think people are sillyheads.
I miss all of you guys. I'm not totally bored here or anything, but it's not exactly like being home for the summer.
I'm not going to really be using this to update you all on my life. If you want to know, just call and ask me. Or facebook, the new phone.
Now, down to the nitty gritty.
This is something people say all of the time, but I really think they fail to realize how true it is. Every single person on this planet is short-sighted, and only cares about immediate gratification instead of long term benefit.
I blogged pretty recently about gasoline. The entire gasoline and automobile industry is based on a need for immediate gratification!
But the worst thing was what I saw today.
As a bit of an explanation, the Lowe's in Siloam has one main entrance, and one main exit, on opposite sides of the building. You cannot enter through the exit or exit through the entrance. It's not very efficient, but hey, I didn't design it.
I drove up to Lowe's (for like the third time in 2 days) to return some stuff I had bought. It took me some time to notice it, but as I was parking I realized that everyone, not just some or even most, but every single person who was parked at this Lowe's had parked in front of the entrance. This means that they had a short walk into the store, but the walk out of the store would require a long haul - including all of the hardware that they had just purchased - around the entire building. I saw a couple guys doing just that with a REFRIGERATOR!
Everybody was so concerned about getting that parking spot close to the entrance. You know, they drive up and down the lanes looking for the closest spot, when really they were just setting themselves up for frustration in 15 minutes.
It was hilarious.
You know, I read somewhere that the vast majority of drivers are only looking like 5 or 6 seconds ahead, when really we need to be looking 10 or 20 seconds ahead for safety's sake. Ridiculous. Is instant gratification really worth that? Does it make you happy to delay inevitable pain? Everybody says to work before you play, and get the hard part out of the way first, but nobody does it.
I'm certainly guilty of this, too, I just think people are sillyheads.
5.29.2009
Inconsistencies
I feel completely paradoxical today because I haven't had the urge to write in this for a while, and now I'm doing so twice in one day.
Technically it's not in one day, but I haven't slept since the last time I blogged, so we'll leave it at that.
Anyways, recently I've been in an online conversation with an atheistic evolutionist in the comments sections of a website. The primary subject of discussion has been the Flood, and whether or not the Ark is physically possible.
It's been a fairly nice argument, we have both been cordial and argued rationally instead of with stupid anger. You'd be surprised how many people will just say "whatever God is stupid because evolution disproved him and DON'T FORCE YOUR BELIEFS ON ME &%*#&%*" and leave it at that.
I have made it a goal, almost a hobby, to learn about arguments and apologetics in defending Christianity. But my confusion lies in this:
If they, who insist that us forcing our beliefs on people is wrong, focus on the belief that there is no God and therefore our beliefs have no effect on the afterlife, why do they argue to convince the religious that their religion is illogical and pointless?
I think they just feel a need to be right in an argument. It's either that, or they just have the humble, well-intentioned desire to somehow "cure" humanity of religious stupidity, and make us all want to believe that life is pointless and finite.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'd rather they DO stand up for their beliefs, but it seems to me that their beliefs have no purpose, and thus it's hard to rally behind them. Cheers of "The Universe and living matter were all assembled by random chance!" and "God has been logically dethroned by the wisdom of man!" hardly roll off the tongue.
Morality is also completely unnecessary without God, but that's a different blog.
Anyways, I'm just curious as to what motivation atheists have for wanting us to agree with them, because I highly doubt that they just want us to see the error of our ways.
Any thoughts, insights, or questions?
Technically it's not in one day, but I haven't slept since the last time I blogged, so we'll leave it at that.
Anyways, recently I've been in an online conversation with an atheistic evolutionist in the comments sections of a website. The primary subject of discussion has been the Flood, and whether or not the Ark is physically possible.
It's been a fairly nice argument, we have both been cordial and argued rationally instead of with stupid anger. You'd be surprised how many people will just say "whatever God is stupid because evolution disproved him and DON'T FORCE YOUR BELIEFS ON ME &%*#&%*" and leave it at that.
I have made it a goal, almost a hobby, to learn about arguments and apologetics in defending Christianity. But my confusion lies in this:
If they, who insist that us forcing our beliefs on people is wrong, focus on the belief that there is no God and therefore our beliefs have no effect on the afterlife, why do they argue to convince the religious that their religion is illogical and pointless?
I think they just feel a need to be right in an argument. It's either that, or they just have the humble, well-intentioned desire to somehow "cure" humanity of religious stupidity, and make us all want to believe that life is pointless and finite.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'd rather they DO stand up for their beliefs, but it seems to me that their beliefs have no purpose, and thus it's hard to rally behind them. Cheers of "The Universe and living matter were all assembled by random chance!" and "God has been logically dethroned by the wisdom of man!" hardly roll off the tongue.
Morality is also completely unnecessary without God, but that's a different blog.
Anyways, I'm just curious as to what motivation atheists have for wanting us to agree with them, because I highly doubt that they just want us to see the error of our ways.
Any thoughts, insights, or questions?
5.28.2009
Throw the Swan Out with the Bathwater
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,627139,00.html
This is why slapstick comedy is popular.
If it happens in real life and not in a cartoon, it even makes adults laugh.
This is why slapstick comedy is popular.
If it happens in real life and not in a cartoon, it even makes adults laugh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
