Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Matthew 5:48
At the end of my last post I wrote that humans are imperfect. That’s quite true, but I also like to argue that the opposite can be true: humans can be perfect.
In order for this to make any sense, I have to redefine perfection. The debate then shifts away from whether or not humans can be perfect and toward whether or not my definition of perfection is adequate. If you accept my definition of perfection, then you also have to agree that humans can be perfect.
As a Christian, I view God’s will as perfection. It’s the highest way that the world can operate. If nothing but God’s will happened, then the world would be entirely perfect. All the other definitions of perfection really only grasp at the heels of God’s perfection. When we label flowers as perfect or plans as perfect or a day as perfect, we are judging on a very limited scale. We judge outwardly and at only one point in time. The perfection of God’s will digs deeper than we can imagine and stretches farther into time than we can dream.
If that is “perfection,” then humans can be perfect. At any time, any person can be used by God to fulfill God’s will. It doesn’t matter where you’ve been or what you’ve done or who you are, God can use you exactly as you are to accomplish a part of God’s perfect will, and therefore, you can be perfect.
I’m being careful using “can be perfect” and not “are perfect.” See, humans mess up. At any moment we can be perfectly used for God’s will, but often we miss those moments. We aren’t obedience or we lack the faith to step out and do something or say something. For example, one time I was in McDonalds. I was heading out the door actually, when I saw a teenage girl sitting by herself crying. I knew nothing about her, but her emotion came like a wave over me. Compassion was stirred up in me. And I walked out of the restaurant, got into my car, and drove away.
I was yelling at myself as I drove home. Right then I was perfectly positioned to fulfill God’s will. I don’t know what it would have been. Maybe I should have just walked by and put a hand on her shoulder. Maybe I should have sat in the chair across from her. Maybe I should have asked if I could pray for her. I was afraid of what she’d think or what others would think. I was afraid of getting involved in something that I knew nothing about. I’ll probably harbor a little regret about that moment for the rest of my life. I could have been perfect there. But I wasn’t.
Even if I had been perfect there, I would have been imperfect later. As humans, we can be perfect, but we never will be entirely. I’m a numbers kind of guy and sometimes I wish I knew my perfection percentage. I feel like it’d be pretty low, like 3%. Then I could set goals for myself to increase a percentage point every month or something like that. Although part of me wishes fulfilling God’s will would be that concrete, I’m really glad it’s not.
Here’s the good news: when we aren’t perfect God still loves us. And I think God’s love is the kind that sees our potential in an overly optimistic way. We may fall in line with God’s will 1% of the time, but God says, “I love you and I’ll never stop working you into my will. I created you and I know you’ll be perfect next time.” We may be 1% perfect, but we’re all 100% loved. My little human brain won’t ever fully grasp that, but it’s beautiful.
All of this is why living consciously is so important to me. It’s why my last post tried to encourage people to action. I want to empower people. We can easily hide behind our churches. We tell ourselves, “My church is doing the will of God and I’m supporting my church by showing up and tithing, therefore I’m alright.” I think that’s where we’ve missed Jesus’ point. He didn’t come to create a religious organization for us to hide behind. He came to create followers, disciples, lovers of all. The church is a great way to get involved, but God wants you personally to be faithful and obedient. God wants you to believe and act on those beliefs. Together, with God, we can be perfect.
At least that’s how I see it.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Living Consciously: bible reading
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1
The bible isn’t enough. It’s incomplete, inadequate. If Christians try to follow only the Bible then we miss out. God existed before Genesis 1:1. God interacted with humans between 300BCE and 0CE. And God was not dead after the early apostles stopped writing letters to the church. What we have in the Bible is a partial story of God interacting with people, but it’s not the whole thing. We need to live on more.
We run a great risk giving too much credence to the Bible. We risk missing Jesus’ whole point of coming to earth. We seem to understand his death and resurrection, the story of God’s amazing grace, but Jesus didn’t come to start a new religion. Jesus came to start a new, loving way of life. I’m afraid that misuse of the Bible transforms it into a prescription for Christian religion. Out of that we may draw the important things, like grace and forgiveness and love, but we also get rules, like you have to be baptized before you can receive Holy Communion, that don’t follow from Jesus’ teachings.
See, rules are easier. Especially for western churches, it’s easier for us to organize something if we already have a base set of rules and standards. So we take the most concrete thing we have, the Bible, and we mold it into a handbook for how to live a godly life. And then some of us miss so much because our views are too narrow.
The Bible has great value. Don’t misunderstand me here. I’ve devoted a huge chunk of my life to it; I will continue to read it every day for the rest of my life; and I’m about to start three years of seminary study that will inundate my head with Biblical knowledge. I love the Bible, but as a follower of Jesus I can’t limit myself to its words.
The Bible is our best reference for specific stories and examples of how God interacted with people. It’s our best glimpse into the person of Jesus Christ and the transformative power of his great love for humanity. It’s a wonderful tool for connecting Christians across continents and cultures. We need to know these things, but it’s only a base of our Christianity. This is only a starting point for how we live.
In his teaching, Jesus did not address every topic. Where Jesus did not speak, we look to Paul and hope that he addressed the topic. If Paul didn’t mention it, then we turn to our community, our churches, we rely on the Holy Spirit to discern what we ought to believe, how we ought to live. At first glance that seems OK to me, but I’m not sure it is throughout life. I will not discredit any of those steps of the process, but I want to empower the Holy Spirit speaking to individuals a lot sooner.
People can lie and deceive. Sometimes it’s intentional and sometimes it’s not. I understand why the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation wanted to limit the public access to the Bible and didn’t want to empower individuals to interpret the Bible. That’s a messy process. Mistakes will be made. That’s still true today, but I think we’ve come a long way since the 16th century. People are more connected; scholastic work is more available. We still make mistakes, but I think we have a greater chance of living Biblically-centered, Holy Spirit-led lives.
What I’m talking about here are personal, daily, possibly mundane decisions that people make. If you don’t know what your church would advocate for or what Jesus would do, or exactly what the Bible would say, then trust the Holy Spirit working within you. Take a step, take action. There are hands to help us up if we fall down. There is forgiveness if we mess up.
I think the Christian church would be so much more obedient to God’s will if individuals were encouraged act without the restrictions of what may or may not be Biblical. We all need to read and study the Bible, but no one can know the fullness of God’s revelation. If something seems to contradict the Bible, then the community needs to step in because a nudging of the Holy Spirit may have been misinterpreted. No one should view themselves as greater than their Christian community, but no one should see themselves as less than an integral part of their Christian community and God’s mission in the world.
Read the Bible. Get to know Jesus and the nature of who he was. Continually ask the Holy Spirit to guide you. Then live and act and make decisions knowing that God will use you and never forgetting that humans (including yourself) are imperfect, but loved nonetheless.
John 1:1
The bible isn’t enough. It’s incomplete, inadequate. If Christians try to follow only the Bible then we miss out. God existed before Genesis 1:1. God interacted with humans between 300BCE and 0CE. And God was not dead after the early apostles stopped writing letters to the church. What we have in the Bible is a partial story of God interacting with people, but it’s not the whole thing. We need to live on more.
We run a great risk giving too much credence to the Bible. We risk missing Jesus’ whole point of coming to earth. We seem to understand his death and resurrection, the story of God’s amazing grace, but Jesus didn’t come to start a new religion. Jesus came to start a new, loving way of life. I’m afraid that misuse of the Bible transforms it into a prescription for Christian religion. Out of that we may draw the important things, like grace and forgiveness and love, but we also get rules, like you have to be baptized before you can receive Holy Communion, that don’t follow from Jesus’ teachings.
See, rules are easier. Especially for western churches, it’s easier for us to organize something if we already have a base set of rules and standards. So we take the most concrete thing we have, the Bible, and we mold it into a handbook for how to live a godly life. And then some of us miss so much because our views are too narrow.
The Bible has great value. Don’t misunderstand me here. I’ve devoted a huge chunk of my life to it; I will continue to read it every day for the rest of my life; and I’m about to start three years of seminary study that will inundate my head with Biblical knowledge. I love the Bible, but as a follower of Jesus I can’t limit myself to its words.
The Bible is our best reference for specific stories and examples of how God interacted with people. It’s our best glimpse into the person of Jesus Christ and the transformative power of his great love for humanity. It’s a wonderful tool for connecting Christians across continents and cultures. We need to know these things, but it’s only a base of our Christianity. This is only a starting point for how we live.
In his teaching, Jesus did not address every topic. Where Jesus did not speak, we look to Paul and hope that he addressed the topic. If Paul didn’t mention it, then we turn to our community, our churches, we rely on the Holy Spirit to discern what we ought to believe, how we ought to live. At first glance that seems OK to me, but I’m not sure it is throughout life. I will not discredit any of those steps of the process, but I want to empower the Holy Spirit speaking to individuals a lot sooner.
People can lie and deceive. Sometimes it’s intentional and sometimes it’s not. I understand why the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation wanted to limit the public access to the Bible and didn’t want to empower individuals to interpret the Bible. That’s a messy process. Mistakes will be made. That’s still true today, but I think we’ve come a long way since the 16th century. People are more connected; scholastic work is more available. We still make mistakes, but I think we have a greater chance of living Biblically-centered, Holy Spirit-led lives.
What I’m talking about here are personal, daily, possibly mundane decisions that people make. If you don’t know what your church would advocate for or what Jesus would do, or exactly what the Bible would say, then trust the Holy Spirit working within you. Take a step, take action. There are hands to help us up if we fall down. There is forgiveness if we mess up.
I think the Christian church would be so much more obedient to God’s will if individuals were encouraged act without the restrictions of what may or may not be Biblical. We all need to read and study the Bible, but no one can know the fullness of God’s revelation. If something seems to contradict the Bible, then the community needs to step in because a nudging of the Holy Spirit may have been misinterpreted. No one should view themselves as greater than their Christian community, but no one should see themselves as less than an integral part of their Christian community and God’s mission in the world.
Read the Bible. Get to know Jesus and the nature of who he was. Continually ask the Holy Spirit to guide you. Then live and act and make decisions knowing that God will use you and never forgetting that humans (including yourself) are imperfect, but loved nonetheless.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Living Consciously: relationshiplessness
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
Matthew 25:40
If tragedy struck today and the house you’re currently living in burned down, would you have a place to sleep tonight? Can you think of someone who would allow you to live with them until you could get another place to live? Chances are everyone who is reading this would definitely have another place to sleep. Chances are everyone reading this wouldn’t even be able to count the vast multitude of houses they could sleep in tonight if necessary. Family, friends, classmates, coworkers, church members—there are countless people who we could ask.
In Baltimore, where I currently live but know very few people, there are dozens of houses I could sleep in. In fact, in the past few weeks, during the incredibly hot weather, I had offers from several different families to come over and stay with them. See, the house I’m living in doesn’t have air conditioning and they were concerned for my comfort. Without even asking for help, people have been offering it. Relationshiplessness is not a problem for me.
When asked to identify the main cause of homelessness in Baltimore, I once heard a guy say, “relationshiplessness.” He fully acknowledged that it wasn’t a real word, but it communicates the cause perfectly. If current homeless people had a few strong relationships with people who weren’t homeless, then homelessness wouldn’t be a problem. As it stands though, those who are truly homeless suffer from relationshiplessness and do not have any place to live. They don’t know people who would welcome them in.
Now, I could use this post to continue to advocate that we all make relationships with homeless people, but I think that point has already been made. People are needy in this world. And sometimes all they need is us, not what we have, but just a relationship with us.
I admit that this topic is far bigger than anything I could write in one or forty blog posts, but I want to mention a few things. I want us all to think hard about the culture we live in. Generally speaking, society tells us that we should fend for ourselves first. It says, “You are the most important.” It tells us not to worry about the others we push aside as long we’re personally successful at getting to the front. “If you make it to the top, then you’re a success; don’t worry about all those others that you stood on to get there.” We live in an individualistic culture and I know Jesus would have been critical of it.
Jesus never allowed relationshiplessness to continue. In John 4 I think of him sitting down at the well in Sychar and talking with the Samaritan woman who came out to get water. A Jew talking with a Samaritan? A man talking with a woman? Jesus didn’t care. He saw someone who was searching for greater meaning in life and knew a relationship with him could offer it to her.
In John 5 I think of Jesus walking up to the paralyzed man near the pool of Bethesda. Jesus asked him if we wanted to be healed. Though the man wanted that very much, he couldn’t see how it was possible. Apparently the first person into the pool when the waters were stirred would be healed, but this man had no one to help him get in the pool. No one would help him, so he’d never be well. Jesus took the opportunity to be the relationship the man needed, though Jesus’ healing power was much greater than the pool’s.
The stories of Jesus reaching out to others could go on and on. He was a man of relationships. As I said in an earlier post, people mattered to Jesus. I think people should matter to us too. We should emphasize forming relationships with those around us. We don’t have to go anywhere to find people. Let’s get to know the mail carrier or garbage collectors. Find out the name of the janitor at work or school. Offer a gift to a neighbor. As an introvert, these are difficult things for me to do, but as a follower of Jesus, I think they’re important to do.
It’s not exclusive to Mennonites, but as a small Christian denomination, we play what’s called the “Mennonite Game.” Simply put, when you meet someone knew within the Mennonite circle, you try to form as many connections as possible. “Oh, I know your second cousin from that conference on peace building four year ago. We were in the same conversation group.” Or “If you attend ______ church, then you must know my roommate’s brother’s fiancé’s family.” I wonder if Mennonites (and other relatively small groups of people) suffer from a fear of relationshiplessness. To counteract it we prove that we have relationships by making it a game.
I guess the main idea here is that relationships are important. Because we are people, we have something valuable to offer: ourselves. Let’s not get stuck in our own little world and fail to take steps to value others. Some of the posts that are yet to come will elaborate on how we should interact with each other.
Matthew 25:40
If tragedy struck today and the house you’re currently living in burned down, would you have a place to sleep tonight? Can you think of someone who would allow you to live with them until you could get another place to live? Chances are everyone who is reading this would definitely have another place to sleep. Chances are everyone reading this wouldn’t even be able to count the vast multitude of houses they could sleep in tonight if necessary. Family, friends, classmates, coworkers, church members—there are countless people who we could ask.
In Baltimore, where I currently live but know very few people, there are dozens of houses I could sleep in. In fact, in the past few weeks, during the incredibly hot weather, I had offers from several different families to come over and stay with them. See, the house I’m living in doesn’t have air conditioning and they were concerned for my comfort. Without even asking for help, people have been offering it. Relationshiplessness is not a problem for me.
When asked to identify the main cause of homelessness in Baltimore, I once heard a guy say, “relationshiplessness.” He fully acknowledged that it wasn’t a real word, but it communicates the cause perfectly. If current homeless people had a few strong relationships with people who weren’t homeless, then homelessness wouldn’t be a problem. As it stands though, those who are truly homeless suffer from relationshiplessness and do not have any place to live. They don’t know people who would welcome them in.
Now, I could use this post to continue to advocate that we all make relationships with homeless people, but I think that point has already been made. People are needy in this world. And sometimes all they need is us, not what we have, but just a relationship with us.
I admit that this topic is far bigger than anything I could write in one or forty blog posts, but I want to mention a few things. I want us all to think hard about the culture we live in. Generally speaking, society tells us that we should fend for ourselves first. It says, “You are the most important.” It tells us not to worry about the others we push aside as long we’re personally successful at getting to the front. “If you make it to the top, then you’re a success; don’t worry about all those others that you stood on to get there.” We live in an individualistic culture and I know Jesus would have been critical of it.
Jesus never allowed relationshiplessness to continue. In John 4 I think of him sitting down at the well in Sychar and talking with the Samaritan woman who came out to get water. A Jew talking with a Samaritan? A man talking with a woman? Jesus didn’t care. He saw someone who was searching for greater meaning in life and knew a relationship with him could offer it to her.
In John 5 I think of Jesus walking up to the paralyzed man near the pool of Bethesda. Jesus asked him if we wanted to be healed. Though the man wanted that very much, he couldn’t see how it was possible. Apparently the first person into the pool when the waters were stirred would be healed, but this man had no one to help him get in the pool. No one would help him, so he’d never be well. Jesus took the opportunity to be the relationship the man needed, though Jesus’ healing power was much greater than the pool’s.
The stories of Jesus reaching out to others could go on and on. He was a man of relationships. As I said in an earlier post, people mattered to Jesus. I think people should matter to us too. We should emphasize forming relationships with those around us. We don’t have to go anywhere to find people. Let’s get to know the mail carrier or garbage collectors. Find out the name of the janitor at work or school. Offer a gift to a neighbor. As an introvert, these are difficult things for me to do, but as a follower of Jesus, I think they’re important to do.
It’s not exclusive to Mennonites, but as a small Christian denomination, we play what’s called the “Mennonite Game.” Simply put, when you meet someone knew within the Mennonite circle, you try to form as many connections as possible. “Oh, I know your second cousin from that conference on peace building four year ago. We were in the same conversation group.” Or “If you attend ______ church, then you must know my roommate’s brother’s fiancé’s family.” I wonder if Mennonites (and other relatively small groups of people) suffer from a fear of relationshiplessness. To counteract it we prove that we have relationships by making it a game.
I guess the main idea here is that relationships are important. Because we are people, we have something valuable to offer: ourselves. Let’s not get stuck in our own little world and fail to take steps to value others. Some of the posts that are yet to come will elaborate on how we should interact with each other.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Living Consciously: music
Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing.
Luke 15:25
I wonder if I spend more time listening to music than not. I don’t listen to music while I sleep, so that’s a huge chunk of “not” time, but most of my waking hours are spent with music playing in the background. Still, I bet the majority of my day is spent without listening to music. Unless, that is, “listening to music” includes listening to music that I’m creating. I’m that annoying person who’s always humming or whistling whatever song happens to be stuck in my head. Often the notes pouring out of me are subconscious. I guess I’m so accustomed to hearing music that I create my own in the absence of another source. That’s just how I work.
I wonder if Jesus was musical. As far as I know, we don’t have evidence pointing in either direction. If I had to guess though, I’d say that Jesus was not musical. From the Gospel accounts, we don’t see music playing any size role, considerable or not, in his ministry. He and his disciples didn’t attend concerts or form a band to rock out in their garage. They probably heard a bit of music at religious feasts occasionally, but that’d be it.
Don’t you feel kind of bad for people in the 1st century Palestine? They didn’t have most of the instruments that we take for granted today. They had voices, percussion, and harps. I guess there were shofars too, but weren’t they more for communication than music? Music wasn’t a staple of their society. It didn’t define them, or give them an identity. It didn’t entertain them or touch their emotions. It wasn’t a way to escape life or bring meaning to it.
Unfortunately, music isn’t all good though. I’m pretty critical of music. Jesus doesn’t necessarily back me up on this, but from what I know of Jesus I imagine he’d be critical of some music we listen to. The diversity of styles and genres would excite him. Jesus loved people universally, so perhaps he’d love music universally too. But, just as Jesus was critical about the inward motives of people, I imagine he’d be critical of the meaning of songs too. The music—the rhythms, pitches—would be lovely to him, but the lyrics and deeper messages might not be.
That’s where I think we could afford to bring a little more consciousness to our lives. Music is powerful. Even background music has impact on us. Stores attempt to control your mood with music. Elevator music tries to make you more relaxed, and therefore, more patient. How many songs can bring back memories to you? How many songs can completely change your mood the instant they start playing? Even if we don’t give music our conscious attention, it’s influencing us subconsciously. That’s kind of scary and I don’t want to leave what I hear up to chance.
So I’m picky when it comes to music. I don’t want to fill my life with hate or violence or unfaithful relationships, so I try to avoid those things in music. I want to fill my life with encouragement, motivation, and praise. And there is plenty of music that emphasizes those things. I have a feeling that the content of music has a much greater impact on our lives than we’ll ever know. I want music to make me live more like Jesus instead of less and I’m grateful that my parents chose that kind of music for me long before I could make the choice for myself.
Christian music isn’t all good. And secular music isn’t all bad. I would never tell someone to cut out secular music from their lives because that’d mean throwing out many songs that are lovely. I don’t agree with all of the music that falls under “Christian” labels either. There are some songs on the local Christian radio station that cause me to turn off the radio. In general though, I feel better listening to Christian bands and radio.
I wish I had more to say on this topic because it’s extremely important to me. Alas, I have no more to say. Maybe someone else does . . .
Luke 15:25
I wonder if I spend more time listening to music than not. I don’t listen to music while I sleep, so that’s a huge chunk of “not” time, but most of my waking hours are spent with music playing in the background. Still, I bet the majority of my day is spent without listening to music. Unless, that is, “listening to music” includes listening to music that I’m creating. I’m that annoying person who’s always humming or whistling whatever song happens to be stuck in my head. Often the notes pouring out of me are subconscious. I guess I’m so accustomed to hearing music that I create my own in the absence of another source. That’s just how I work.
I wonder if Jesus was musical. As far as I know, we don’t have evidence pointing in either direction. If I had to guess though, I’d say that Jesus was not musical. From the Gospel accounts, we don’t see music playing any size role, considerable or not, in his ministry. He and his disciples didn’t attend concerts or form a band to rock out in their garage. They probably heard a bit of music at religious feasts occasionally, but that’d be it.
Don’t you feel kind of bad for people in the 1st century Palestine? They didn’t have most of the instruments that we take for granted today. They had voices, percussion, and harps. I guess there were shofars too, but weren’t they more for communication than music? Music wasn’t a staple of their society. It didn’t define them, or give them an identity. It didn’t entertain them or touch their emotions. It wasn’t a way to escape life or bring meaning to it.
Unfortunately, music isn’t all good though. I’m pretty critical of music. Jesus doesn’t necessarily back me up on this, but from what I know of Jesus I imagine he’d be critical of some music we listen to. The diversity of styles and genres would excite him. Jesus loved people universally, so perhaps he’d love music universally too. But, just as Jesus was critical about the inward motives of people, I imagine he’d be critical of the meaning of songs too. The music—the rhythms, pitches—would be lovely to him, but the lyrics and deeper messages might not be.
That’s where I think we could afford to bring a little more consciousness to our lives. Music is powerful. Even background music has impact on us. Stores attempt to control your mood with music. Elevator music tries to make you more relaxed, and therefore, more patient. How many songs can bring back memories to you? How many songs can completely change your mood the instant they start playing? Even if we don’t give music our conscious attention, it’s influencing us subconsciously. That’s kind of scary and I don’t want to leave what I hear up to chance.
So I’m picky when it comes to music. I don’t want to fill my life with hate or violence or unfaithful relationships, so I try to avoid those things in music. I want to fill my life with encouragement, motivation, and praise. And there is plenty of music that emphasizes those things. I have a feeling that the content of music has a much greater impact on our lives than we’ll ever know. I want music to make me live more like Jesus instead of less and I’m grateful that my parents chose that kind of music for me long before I could make the choice for myself.
Christian music isn’t all good. And secular music isn’t all bad. I would never tell someone to cut out secular music from their lives because that’d mean throwing out many songs that are lovely. I don’t agree with all of the music that falls under “Christian” labels either. There are some songs on the local Christian radio station that cause me to turn off the radio. In general though, I feel better listening to Christian bands and radio.
I wish I had more to say on this topic because it’s extremely important to me. Alas, I have no more to say. Maybe someone else does . . .
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Living Consciously: sabbath
Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.
Mark 3:4
I’m good at not killing and not stealing and not committing adultery. I’m pretty good at not coveting and not lying. I respect my parents and respect God and try not to make something an idol in my life. But this whole Sabbath thing is tough. Keeping the Sabbath day holy is one of the Ten Commandments, but it’s very often overlooked. Is that alright? I really don’t know. This post isn’t going to answer that question.
Earlier this year I read The Year of Living Biblically by A.J. Jacobs. I absolutely loved it! He’s a great author and a terrific story-teller! His year focused much more on following the Old Testament laws as literally as possible than on following Jesus’ instructions. And as difficult as those Jewish laws are, I’m sure following Jesus’ teachings would have been much more difficult.
One of my favorite stories (and don’t worry, this isn’t much of a spoiler or anything) was when he locked himself in his bathroom. If my memory serves me well, it was something about trying to fix the doorknob and then shutting himself in without the knob in the door so that he had no way of getting out. He was stuck. His cell phone didn’t work and the window wasn’t any help. I think he tried to get some work done with the toilet as his desk, but that didn’t work. So he just sat there. And it was a forced Sabbath. Sometimes I wish something like that happened to me.
It’s pretty easy to see that Jesus didn’t care much for the Sabbath laws that the Pharisees upheld. By holding to the letter of the law, the religious leaders completely missed the point of the law. The Sabbath law wasn’t for God, it was for humans. God rested after creation and likewise people should set aside time to rest. We don’t rest for God’s sake; we rest for our own sake. God created us and knows what’s best for us, so we should rest.
Our culture doesn’t tell us to rest. It tells us to produce. It tells us to go and never stop. It tells us not to waste time when we could be working. On the other hand, there’s a portion of our American culture that tells us we don’t have to do anything. It says that the ultimate goal in life is to relax and do nothing, even if you have to work like a slave for decades in order to get that point. (Alternatively, you could win the lottery or have a rich uncle.) Where’s the balance? Where’s the happy point with enough work and enough rest?
I think we should keep a Sabbath. I don’t think it has to be Sunday. For pastors it can’t be Sunday. I think Sunday is pretty arbitrary. Jews rest from Friday evening to Saturday evening. I think Christians claimed Sunday simply because Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday and we like to remember that. (And that’s certainly worth remembering!) Pick Sunday if you want to, or pick another day.
Actually, I don’t think it’s even important to pick a nice 24 hour chunk. We use “day” to talk about the Sabbath because Genesis 1 was translated as “day” and God rested on the 7th one. I’m a supporter of the idea that Genesis 1 is poetic and therefore isn’t talking about 24 hour days. There wasn’t even a sun to define days by for the first three “days.” These periods of time could have been a thousand years. (So let’s all pick 1000 years to set aside as our Sabbath! Maybe not.) Or perhaps God created things in a matter of minutes. I don’t think the length of the Sabbath has to be universally defined.
Let’s just put another layer to conscious thought into how much time we’re resting. Pick one evening a week and agree not to schedule anything. Then when the evening comes, pick something that’s not stressful to fill your time. Go for a walk. Call your mom. Bake cookies. Maybe you’ll find something that doesn’t stress you out that also helps someone else. (You love mowing lawns and find it relaxing? Maybe your neighbor hates it. I sense an opportunity!) Before you do anything, look at your time through this Jesus lens I’ve been talking about. And if seeing through that lens is difficult then maybe reading the gospels would be a good Sabbath activity.
I don’t think anything I’ve written here is revolutionary or anything. It’s just your friendly reminder to relax. Be still. The world won’t fall apart if you’re unproductive for a morning or afternoon or evening or Saturday or whatever.
I like taking mini-Sabbaths to play Minesweeper and listen to whatever my favorite music happens to be. Sometimes I just do that for hours. What does your Sabbath look like?
Mark 3:4
I’m good at not killing and not stealing and not committing adultery. I’m pretty good at not coveting and not lying. I respect my parents and respect God and try not to make something an idol in my life. But this whole Sabbath thing is tough. Keeping the Sabbath day holy is one of the Ten Commandments, but it’s very often overlooked. Is that alright? I really don’t know. This post isn’t going to answer that question.
Earlier this year I read The Year of Living Biblically by A.J. Jacobs. I absolutely loved it! He’s a great author and a terrific story-teller! His year focused much more on following the Old Testament laws as literally as possible than on following Jesus’ instructions. And as difficult as those Jewish laws are, I’m sure following Jesus’ teachings would have been much more difficult.
One of my favorite stories (and don’t worry, this isn’t much of a spoiler or anything) was when he locked himself in his bathroom. If my memory serves me well, it was something about trying to fix the doorknob and then shutting himself in without the knob in the door so that he had no way of getting out. He was stuck. His cell phone didn’t work and the window wasn’t any help. I think he tried to get some work done with the toilet as his desk, but that didn’t work. So he just sat there. And it was a forced Sabbath. Sometimes I wish something like that happened to me.
It’s pretty easy to see that Jesus didn’t care much for the Sabbath laws that the Pharisees upheld. By holding to the letter of the law, the religious leaders completely missed the point of the law. The Sabbath law wasn’t for God, it was for humans. God rested after creation and likewise people should set aside time to rest. We don’t rest for God’s sake; we rest for our own sake. God created us and knows what’s best for us, so we should rest.
Our culture doesn’t tell us to rest. It tells us to produce. It tells us to go and never stop. It tells us not to waste time when we could be working. On the other hand, there’s a portion of our American culture that tells us we don’t have to do anything. It says that the ultimate goal in life is to relax and do nothing, even if you have to work like a slave for decades in order to get that point. (Alternatively, you could win the lottery or have a rich uncle.) Where’s the balance? Where’s the happy point with enough work and enough rest?
I think we should keep a Sabbath. I don’t think it has to be Sunday. For pastors it can’t be Sunday. I think Sunday is pretty arbitrary. Jews rest from Friday evening to Saturday evening. I think Christians claimed Sunday simply because Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday and we like to remember that. (And that’s certainly worth remembering!) Pick Sunday if you want to, or pick another day.
Actually, I don’t think it’s even important to pick a nice 24 hour chunk. We use “day” to talk about the Sabbath because Genesis 1 was translated as “day” and God rested on the 7th one. I’m a supporter of the idea that Genesis 1 is poetic and therefore isn’t talking about 24 hour days. There wasn’t even a sun to define days by for the first three “days.” These periods of time could have been a thousand years. (So let’s all pick 1000 years to set aside as our Sabbath! Maybe not.) Or perhaps God created things in a matter of minutes. I don’t think the length of the Sabbath has to be universally defined.
Let’s just put another layer to conscious thought into how much time we’re resting. Pick one evening a week and agree not to schedule anything. Then when the evening comes, pick something that’s not stressful to fill your time. Go for a walk. Call your mom. Bake cookies. Maybe you’ll find something that doesn’t stress you out that also helps someone else. (You love mowing lawns and find it relaxing? Maybe your neighbor hates it. I sense an opportunity!) Before you do anything, look at your time through this Jesus lens I’ve been talking about. And if seeing through that lens is difficult then maybe reading the gospels would be a good Sabbath activity.
I don’t think anything I’ve written here is revolutionary or anything. It’s just your friendly reminder to relax. Be still. The world won’t fall apart if you’re unproductive for a morning or afternoon or evening or Saturday or whatever.
I like taking mini-Sabbaths to play Minesweeper and listen to whatever my favorite music happens to be. Sometimes I just do that for hours. What does your Sabbath look like?
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Living Consciously: church
“Where two or three come together in my name, there I am with them.”
Matthew 18:20
What’s the most identifying characteristic of Christianity? I don’t know this for sure, but if people were asked to respond to that I bet the largest response would involve church. Generally speaking, a Christian can be identified as someone who attends church, usually on Sunday morning. It’s important to us. For some, it’s the only thing that really matters in their Christian life. Some people identify themselves as Christmas and Easter Christians and only attend church twice a year. It’s that church attendance that does it though. They go to church, therefore they identify as Christian.
Jesus didn’t talk much about church. Where ever he happened to be, people gathered around. There was teaching and preaching and sometimes dialogue, but never church as we see it today. Does this mean that church might not be as important as we make it out to be? I say yes. Church is certainly important and there are many reasons why Jesus didn’t talk about it, but I don’t think church should be the crucial identifying feature of Christianity.
All of this has nothing to do with living consciously though. I think everyone should be actively involved with a church. As our most visible representation of Jesus to the world, we should invest our time and energy to the work of our personal church and the larger church, but as we do so, we should be asking ourselves some questions. We should insert a Jesus lens to our view of church.
Jesus cared about people. (I think that’s a pretty safe statement.) He cared about children and, to his disciples’ amazement, said people should be like children if they want to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 18:3). He cared about the injured and disabled, healing them many times in the gospel. He cared about the diseased, even the outcast lepers. When ten of them came to him in Luke 17 he didn’t send them away as most people would have. He spent time with sinners that the religious leaders all excluded. Yep, Jesus cared about people.
So next time you’re in church (tomorrow?), take a look around you. Who do you see? Are the welcomed, included, valued? How do most people view them? How do you view them? How would Jesus view them? Hopefully your view and Jesus’ view are pretty similar, but I bet they aren’t the same. What if you were to sit with the visitors in church once a month instead of with your family or friends? Would that destroy your relationship with your family and friends? Almost certainly not. And then after the service you can introduce the visitors to the group you usually sit with. That’s not a terrible idea.
I plan to be a church leader some day. That means I’ll have responsibility in church before, during, and after the services. I’m not a fan of that aspect of my calling. It means I have less freedom to be social on Sunday mornings, yet it’s important that I am able to meet and talk with a lot of people. Hold this thought. I’ll come back to it at the end.
Jesus cares about people a lot, and didn’t seem to care about time at all. We never hear in the gospels about Jesus racing to meet a deadline or making sure his preaching doesn’t go longer than fifteen minutes. Now, granted, most of that had to do with the culture of the 1st century and reading it from the 21st century taints our perception and maybe our interpretation as well. Still, I have a feeling a strict time schedule would be something in our culture that Jesus would question. (For those who know Myers-Briggs personality tests, I’m a P. Therefore I realize this is much easier for me to write and probably hard for a J to read. Stay with me though.)
I’m not going to say we should throw out the concept of time entirely, but at least in church can we have a little more flexibility? Do we really have to cut out three verses of the closing song because it’s already 1 minute after noon? I think a good sending is important and deserves time. (Hold this thought. We’ll come back to it.) And do we really need to cut sharing time short because we’re a little long? Giving people a chance to share takes time and it’s what helps the service belong to the congregation. (Hold this thought too.) And do sermons really have to stick to a specific allotted time? I realize people’s attention spans don’t last forever, but sometimes the Holy Spirit inspires a preacher with a message that takes longer to deliver.
So instead of getting anxious when the timing of a service is off, let’s sit back and think a little bit. This is when we insert a little conscious thinking. If we came to church, then we must think it’s important, therefore we can give it the time necessary to run its course. Maybe we need to free up a little extra time on Sundays so that time is less of an issue. I understand that there are other factors, like children, or house guests, or sports events. If, for a particular Sunday, something else is more important than the service, then maybe it’d be best for a few people to slip out quietly instead of rushing the service for everyone. I dare even suggest that some Sundays it might be best not to come to church. Again, church is not the most important part of the Christian faith. Just be careful not to take this too far.
Living consciously requires us to put more thought into our church service. As a participant we have to ask ourselves if we actually should be participating. How often do we sing a song without even thinking about the words? In my tradition is way easier to pay attention to the music and totally miss the meaning of the song. What if you don’t even agree with the words? It’s also easy to automatically join in with the “people” part of a reading without really meaning the words we say. Stop. I think it’s better to be silent in church than insincere. Paul challenges us to examine ourselves before participating in the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:28-29). How often do we simply eat and drink because the pastor invites us to without actually making it meaningful for ourselves? Choose not to take communion sometime. God won’t hate us.
Now for all of those thoughts we’re holding. The organization of a church and planning of a service usually could use a little more consciousness, a little more of the Jesus lens. It’s far too easy to do something simply because that’s the way it’s always been done. I don’t think that’s ever a good reason to do anything. That’s more of a convenient cop-out. I’ll never presume to know what’s best for other congregations, but I challenge us to start from scratch and re-imagine church starting with only what’s most important. If the church you build is the one you currently have, then good job! Don’t change anything. But if something seems out of balance, then let’s go through the tough work of balancing it.
You’re holding the thought about having responsibilities before, during, and after a church service. It’s true; there are lots of things to do to run a church, but no one person should feel over-burdened with it. We find it easy to toss all of that pressure on the paid staff, but the early followers of Jesus gave us a model of a church with everyone participating. Maybe not having a paid staff would make it easier for everyone else to step up.
You’re also holding thoughts about a good sending and sharing time during the service. These are just two elements of a service that I think are important. Teaching, praise, prayer, a gathering—these are also important elements. Church, with its non-essential status, is a break from a “24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year . . .” Christian life. We can pray and praise God any time. We can receive sound Biblical teaching just about any time too if we know where to look. Church is different because it’s a time for us to be together and share our journeys. I think space in the service for people to share formally with each other before God is essential and often overlooked. I also think a commissioning to send church-goers back into the world (aka benediction) is crucial and often rushed. Let’s put a little more conscious effort into these things—things that make church different from the rest of the Christian journey.
Woah! This post got really long! I could have broken it into 2 parts, but I couldn’t make you hold those thoughts for a whole day! Besides, if this is important enough to read then the time was well spent.
What are your thoughts on church? How could it be done more consciously or more Jesus-ly? Maybe you have a story of a church service that got it right.
Matthew 18:20
What’s the most identifying characteristic of Christianity? I don’t know this for sure, but if people were asked to respond to that I bet the largest response would involve church. Generally speaking, a Christian can be identified as someone who attends church, usually on Sunday morning. It’s important to us. For some, it’s the only thing that really matters in their Christian life. Some people identify themselves as Christmas and Easter Christians and only attend church twice a year. It’s that church attendance that does it though. They go to church, therefore they identify as Christian.
Jesus didn’t talk much about church. Where ever he happened to be, people gathered around. There was teaching and preaching and sometimes dialogue, but never church as we see it today. Does this mean that church might not be as important as we make it out to be? I say yes. Church is certainly important and there are many reasons why Jesus didn’t talk about it, but I don’t think church should be the crucial identifying feature of Christianity.
All of this has nothing to do with living consciously though. I think everyone should be actively involved with a church. As our most visible representation of Jesus to the world, we should invest our time and energy to the work of our personal church and the larger church, but as we do so, we should be asking ourselves some questions. We should insert a Jesus lens to our view of church.
Jesus cared about people. (I think that’s a pretty safe statement.) He cared about children and, to his disciples’ amazement, said people should be like children if they want to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 18:3). He cared about the injured and disabled, healing them many times in the gospel. He cared about the diseased, even the outcast lepers. When ten of them came to him in Luke 17 he didn’t send them away as most people would have. He spent time with sinners that the religious leaders all excluded. Yep, Jesus cared about people.
So next time you’re in church (tomorrow?), take a look around you. Who do you see? Are the welcomed, included, valued? How do most people view them? How do you view them? How would Jesus view them? Hopefully your view and Jesus’ view are pretty similar, but I bet they aren’t the same. What if you were to sit with the visitors in church once a month instead of with your family or friends? Would that destroy your relationship with your family and friends? Almost certainly not. And then after the service you can introduce the visitors to the group you usually sit with. That’s not a terrible idea.
I plan to be a church leader some day. That means I’ll have responsibility in church before, during, and after the services. I’m not a fan of that aspect of my calling. It means I have less freedom to be social on Sunday mornings, yet it’s important that I am able to meet and talk with a lot of people. Hold this thought. I’ll come back to it at the end.
Jesus cares about people a lot, and didn’t seem to care about time at all. We never hear in the gospels about Jesus racing to meet a deadline or making sure his preaching doesn’t go longer than fifteen minutes. Now, granted, most of that had to do with the culture of the 1st century and reading it from the 21st century taints our perception and maybe our interpretation as well. Still, I have a feeling a strict time schedule would be something in our culture that Jesus would question. (For those who know Myers-Briggs personality tests, I’m a P. Therefore I realize this is much easier for me to write and probably hard for a J to read. Stay with me though.)
I’m not going to say we should throw out the concept of time entirely, but at least in church can we have a little more flexibility? Do we really have to cut out three verses of the closing song because it’s already 1 minute after noon? I think a good sending is important and deserves time. (Hold this thought. We’ll come back to it.) And do we really need to cut sharing time short because we’re a little long? Giving people a chance to share takes time and it’s what helps the service belong to the congregation. (Hold this thought too.) And do sermons really have to stick to a specific allotted time? I realize people’s attention spans don’t last forever, but sometimes the Holy Spirit inspires a preacher with a message that takes longer to deliver.
So instead of getting anxious when the timing of a service is off, let’s sit back and think a little bit. This is when we insert a little conscious thinking. If we came to church, then we must think it’s important, therefore we can give it the time necessary to run its course. Maybe we need to free up a little extra time on Sundays so that time is less of an issue. I understand that there are other factors, like children, or house guests, or sports events. If, for a particular Sunday, something else is more important than the service, then maybe it’d be best for a few people to slip out quietly instead of rushing the service for everyone. I dare even suggest that some Sundays it might be best not to come to church. Again, church is not the most important part of the Christian faith. Just be careful not to take this too far.
Living consciously requires us to put more thought into our church service. As a participant we have to ask ourselves if we actually should be participating. How often do we sing a song without even thinking about the words? In my tradition is way easier to pay attention to the music and totally miss the meaning of the song. What if you don’t even agree with the words? It’s also easy to automatically join in with the “people” part of a reading without really meaning the words we say. Stop. I think it’s better to be silent in church than insincere. Paul challenges us to examine ourselves before participating in the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:28-29). How often do we simply eat and drink because the pastor invites us to without actually making it meaningful for ourselves? Choose not to take communion sometime. God won’t hate us.
Now for all of those thoughts we’re holding. The organization of a church and planning of a service usually could use a little more consciousness, a little more of the Jesus lens. It’s far too easy to do something simply because that’s the way it’s always been done. I don’t think that’s ever a good reason to do anything. That’s more of a convenient cop-out. I’ll never presume to know what’s best for other congregations, but I challenge us to start from scratch and re-imagine church starting with only what’s most important. If the church you build is the one you currently have, then good job! Don’t change anything. But if something seems out of balance, then let’s go through the tough work of balancing it.
You’re holding the thought about having responsibilities before, during, and after a church service. It’s true; there are lots of things to do to run a church, but no one person should feel over-burdened with it. We find it easy to toss all of that pressure on the paid staff, but the early followers of Jesus gave us a model of a church with everyone participating. Maybe not having a paid staff would make it easier for everyone else to step up.
You’re also holding thoughts about a good sending and sharing time during the service. These are just two elements of a service that I think are important. Teaching, praise, prayer, a gathering—these are also important elements. Church, with its non-essential status, is a break from a “24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year . . .” Christian life. We can pray and praise God any time. We can receive sound Biblical teaching just about any time too if we know where to look. Church is different because it’s a time for us to be together and share our journeys. I think space in the service for people to share formally with each other before God is essential and often overlooked. I also think a commissioning to send church-goers back into the world (aka benediction) is crucial and often rushed. Let’s put a little more conscious effort into these things—things that make church different from the rest of the Christian journey.
Woah! This post got really long! I could have broken it into 2 parts, but I couldn’t make you hold those thoughts for a whole day! Besides, if this is important enough to read then the time was well spent.
What are your thoughts on church? How could it be done more consciously or more Jesus-ly? Maybe you have a story of a church service that got it right.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Living Consciously: food (part 2)
“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink. . . Is not life more important than food?”
Matthew 6:25
Everyone can picture a mom telling little Johnny to finish all of his vegetables because there are starving children in Africa. And when we’re little we might actually believe that finishing our lima beans will help those poor, hungry African children. In reality though, we can’t feed kids in Africa, or somewhere else in the world, with our uneaten peas. When we grow up we all understand that the message is more about being grateful that we have food at all and not being picky about food we don’t like. That’s an important message, but what if there’s something more too. What if Jesus told us exactly what to do with those extra uneaten cooked carrots?
In Luke 14, starting with verse 15, Jesus told a bunch of people at a Pharisees’ house a little story. In that story a person prepared a great banquet. When it was time to eat, the host sent out servants to invite people to the feast. They all turned down the offer. Three prominent people, those the Pharisees would have liked to invite to dinner, made excuses and said they couldn’t come. The host was upset, but not completely discouraged because the servants were next told to invite anyone and everyone to come to the banquet. They kept inviting people until the house was full.
Now, this parable almost certainly has more to do with the Kingdom of God than our eating practices, but I like to think it has something to say about both. With our extra food we can’t feed children in Africa, but we can feed people down the street. There’s no need to have food that spoils or gets thrown away. Some people won’t need the extra food, but there will always be people who’d appreciate it (college students, volunteers, the elderly, etc . . .). It just might take a little work to find them.
It’s awesome when people provide meals for families that are going through hard times and can’t provide meals for themselves very well. I’m proud to know that my university donates their leftover food to a community center that provides free meals for those that need it. It makes me smile when I see people bringing their excess zucchini to church, giving it away to anyone who would eat it. I’m delighted when the family across the street from my parents’ house share some food from their bounteous gardens.
So let’s be grateful for the food we have and share generously from our abundance. It’s an example of how generosity extends far beyond our use of money. It takes a little extra thought, but I think it’s a more faithful way to live.
This is an idea I had a few months ago, but I haven’t been bold enough to implement: don’t eat at fast food restaurants. This is a little more radical than “don’t go to fast food restaurants.” What if we were to go to fast food restaurants, but not eat at them? Is that crazy?
Here are the thoughts behind it: Generally speaking, fast food restaurants promote what Michael Pollan advocates against (see previous post). They do alright providing actual food to eat, but when it comes to eating mostly plants and not eating too much, they fail. The commercial meat industry, which I resist supporting, keeps fast food restaurants in business. Perhaps the opposite is true too. Together they assure us that we can and should have loads of meat in each sandwich, which is neither good for us nor good for the planet. So maybe eating at these restaurants is something we should question.
I spend around $6-8 every time I eat at a fast food restaurant. I don’t go often, usually just when I’m travelling, which actually has been often recently. What if I were to enter the restaurant like normal and just not get in line. This wouldn’t be a protest, like a sit-in or anything; I’d just fast for a meal. It wouldn’t kill me. I could have healthier, more faithful snacks in the car waiting for me. In addition to not eating, I could set aside $6-8 to donate somewhere that’ll feed people. There are plenty of organizations set up to feed those starving kids in Africa. Or you could make a more local choice, like a mission for the homeless or a food bank. I think Jesus would support that. By doing this I’d consciously not support something that’s less than faithful and support something that is faithful. That’s a win-win!
This concludes my current thoughts on living consciously in regards to food. I’m sure there are a lot of other great ideas out there. Do you know of any? Are there problems with the thoughts and ideas I’ve suggested? Maybe something I said has undesirable, unfaithful consequences that I’ve overlooked. I’m far from perfect.
Matthew 6:25
Everyone can picture a mom telling little Johnny to finish all of his vegetables because there are starving children in Africa. And when we’re little we might actually believe that finishing our lima beans will help those poor, hungry African children. In reality though, we can’t feed kids in Africa, or somewhere else in the world, with our uneaten peas. When we grow up we all understand that the message is more about being grateful that we have food at all and not being picky about food we don’t like. That’s an important message, but what if there’s something more too. What if Jesus told us exactly what to do with those extra uneaten cooked carrots?
In Luke 14, starting with verse 15, Jesus told a bunch of people at a Pharisees’ house a little story. In that story a person prepared a great banquet. When it was time to eat, the host sent out servants to invite people to the feast. They all turned down the offer. Three prominent people, those the Pharisees would have liked to invite to dinner, made excuses and said they couldn’t come. The host was upset, but not completely discouraged because the servants were next told to invite anyone and everyone to come to the banquet. They kept inviting people until the house was full.
Now, this parable almost certainly has more to do with the Kingdom of God than our eating practices, but I like to think it has something to say about both. With our extra food we can’t feed children in Africa, but we can feed people down the street. There’s no need to have food that spoils or gets thrown away. Some people won’t need the extra food, but there will always be people who’d appreciate it (college students, volunteers, the elderly, etc . . .). It just might take a little work to find them.
It’s awesome when people provide meals for families that are going through hard times and can’t provide meals for themselves very well. I’m proud to know that my university donates their leftover food to a community center that provides free meals for those that need it. It makes me smile when I see people bringing their excess zucchini to church, giving it away to anyone who would eat it. I’m delighted when the family across the street from my parents’ house share some food from their bounteous gardens.
So let’s be grateful for the food we have and share generously from our abundance. It’s an example of how generosity extends far beyond our use of money. It takes a little extra thought, but I think it’s a more faithful way to live.
This is an idea I had a few months ago, but I haven’t been bold enough to implement: don’t eat at fast food restaurants. This is a little more radical than “don’t go to fast food restaurants.” What if we were to go to fast food restaurants, but not eat at them? Is that crazy?
Here are the thoughts behind it: Generally speaking, fast food restaurants promote what Michael Pollan advocates against (see previous post). They do alright providing actual food to eat, but when it comes to eating mostly plants and not eating too much, they fail. The commercial meat industry, which I resist supporting, keeps fast food restaurants in business. Perhaps the opposite is true too. Together they assure us that we can and should have loads of meat in each sandwich, which is neither good for us nor good for the planet. So maybe eating at these restaurants is something we should question.
I spend around $6-8 every time I eat at a fast food restaurant. I don’t go often, usually just when I’m travelling, which actually has been often recently. What if I were to enter the restaurant like normal and just not get in line. This wouldn’t be a protest, like a sit-in or anything; I’d just fast for a meal. It wouldn’t kill me. I could have healthier, more faithful snacks in the car waiting for me. In addition to not eating, I could set aside $6-8 to donate somewhere that’ll feed people. There are plenty of organizations set up to feed those starving kids in Africa. Or you could make a more local choice, like a mission for the homeless or a food bank. I think Jesus would support that. By doing this I’d consciously not support something that’s less than faithful and support something that is faithful. That’s a win-win!
This concludes my current thoughts on living consciously in regards to food. I’m sure there are a lot of other great ideas out there. Do you know of any? Are there problems with the thoughts and ideas I’ve suggested? Maybe something I said has undesirable, unfaithful consequences that I’ve overlooked. I’m far from perfect.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Living Consciously: food (part 1)
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘People do not live on bread alone.’”
Luke 4:4
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘People do not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Matthew 4:4
I’d be remiss if I didn’t attribute a lot of my ideas in this post to my wonderful girlfriend. Without her this post would not exist. Actually, without her I’m quite sure none of these posts would exist. She’s the epitome of a conscious liver. (ha! That’s a funny term! I just called my girlfriend a sentient organ.)
I became a vegetarian about a year ago. I loved the fact that it was a relatively accepted way to eat more consciously. For the first few months it was a little challenging. For lunch I’d start thinking about making a simple ham sandwich, and then I’d have to stop and think. I guess it’d be peanut butter and jelly instead.
My forced layer of thinking stretched far beyond not eating meat. I found myself putting more thought into the fruits and vegetables I ate. My snacking lessened and my desire for dessert decreased. I thought a lot more about everything I ate. I didn’t expect such diverse benefits to come from the choice to be vegetarian.
So, why do I think being a vegetarian is a faithful step toward viewing food through a Jesus lens? Well, let me tell you.
Generally speaking, I think God’s plan for humanity is good. And in God’s original plan for humanity Adam and Eve didn’t eat meat. This actually applied to animals too. There was no spilling of blood, so therefore everyone and everything ate fruits and vegetables (Genesis 1:29-30). It wasn’t until after Noah and the flood that God consented and gave people animals to eat. And even then, the blood was sacred (Genesis 9:3-4). That’s not why I’m a vegetarian, but that seems reason enough to give it more thought, doesn’t it?
Actually, I probably shouldn’t call myself a vegetarian. I eat meat. I guess “flexetarian” is a term that describes me. Also in the Garden of Eden, God gave people the instructions to care for the land. That’s the real reason I’m a vegetarian. Meat is convenient. Any fast food restaurant will prove that. But, (like I said in the last post,) convenience is usually a sign of something gone wrong. In this case it’s the mass-produced-meat industry, which, generally speaking, doesn’t care for God’s creation. It doesn’t treat the animals as God’s workmanship. It uses many pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. (Interesting fact I found online: Plants yield 10 times more protein per acre than meat.) And it fills the air with greenhouse gases to transport its goods across the world.
I don’t think eating meat is unfaithful, but I do think some meat we eat is less than faithful. To live consciously we have to consider our meat more carefully. In Jesus’ day they didn’t worry so much about this. They didn’t have a commercial meat industry. Any meat they ate had to be either local and fresh or transported and spoiled. I happily eat local meat. Hunted meat is great and seafood is alright if I’m near the source of it. If someone I know is going to butcher a cow, then I’ll happily buy some of it.
There’s a downside here: local meat is more expensive. Yep, that’s true. But is money our top priority? Is money our god or is God our God? Just because it’s cheap (and cheapness is a form of convenience) does not necessarily make it a good choice.
I recently read Food Rules by Michael Pollan (author of The Omnivores Dilemma). (It was a gift from my sister. She demonstrated the generosity from my last post!) He summarized his suggestions for eating like this: “Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much.” I concur. “Eat food” means you try not to eat “edible food-like substances.” These are the random things in ingredient lists that you’d never have in your pantry or cook with yourself. “Mostly plants” is pretty self-explanatory. I’d draw the line at my suggestions above. “Not too much” is a critique of our American culture. We eat way more than we need to and that may have been something Jesus would have questioned if he lived today.
Well, it looks like this post on food will have to be a two-parter! I still have 5 ideas left to write about. More to come tomorrow!
Did these random thoughts bring up any random thoughts in anyone else? I really appreciate it when people post comments even if they aren’t especially substantive. I also appreciate when people follow my blog. It’s nice to know who’s reading.
Luke 4:4
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘People do not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Matthew 4:4
I’d be remiss if I didn’t attribute a lot of my ideas in this post to my wonderful girlfriend. Without her this post would not exist. Actually, without her I’m quite sure none of these posts would exist. She’s the epitome of a conscious liver. (ha! That’s a funny term! I just called my girlfriend a sentient organ.)
I became a vegetarian about a year ago. I loved the fact that it was a relatively accepted way to eat more consciously. For the first few months it was a little challenging. For lunch I’d start thinking about making a simple ham sandwich, and then I’d have to stop and think. I guess it’d be peanut butter and jelly instead.
My forced layer of thinking stretched far beyond not eating meat. I found myself putting more thought into the fruits and vegetables I ate. My snacking lessened and my desire for dessert decreased. I thought a lot more about everything I ate. I didn’t expect such diverse benefits to come from the choice to be vegetarian.
So, why do I think being a vegetarian is a faithful step toward viewing food through a Jesus lens? Well, let me tell you.
Generally speaking, I think God’s plan for humanity is good. And in God’s original plan for humanity Adam and Eve didn’t eat meat. This actually applied to animals too. There was no spilling of blood, so therefore everyone and everything ate fruits and vegetables (Genesis 1:29-30). It wasn’t until after Noah and the flood that God consented and gave people animals to eat. And even then, the blood was sacred (Genesis 9:3-4). That’s not why I’m a vegetarian, but that seems reason enough to give it more thought, doesn’t it?
Actually, I probably shouldn’t call myself a vegetarian. I eat meat. I guess “flexetarian” is a term that describes me. Also in the Garden of Eden, God gave people the instructions to care for the land. That’s the real reason I’m a vegetarian. Meat is convenient. Any fast food restaurant will prove that. But, (like I said in the last post,) convenience is usually a sign of something gone wrong. In this case it’s the mass-produced-meat industry, which, generally speaking, doesn’t care for God’s creation. It doesn’t treat the animals as God’s workmanship. It uses many pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. (Interesting fact I found online: Plants yield 10 times more protein per acre than meat.) And it fills the air with greenhouse gases to transport its goods across the world.
I don’t think eating meat is unfaithful, but I do think some meat we eat is less than faithful. To live consciously we have to consider our meat more carefully. In Jesus’ day they didn’t worry so much about this. They didn’t have a commercial meat industry. Any meat they ate had to be either local and fresh or transported and spoiled. I happily eat local meat. Hunted meat is great and seafood is alright if I’m near the source of it. If someone I know is going to butcher a cow, then I’ll happily buy some of it.
There’s a downside here: local meat is more expensive. Yep, that’s true. But is money our top priority? Is money our god or is God our God? Just because it’s cheap (and cheapness is a form of convenience) does not necessarily make it a good choice.
I recently read Food Rules by Michael Pollan (author of The Omnivores Dilemma). (It was a gift from my sister. She demonstrated the generosity from my last post!) He summarized his suggestions for eating like this: “Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much.” I concur. “Eat food” means you try not to eat “edible food-like substances.” These are the random things in ingredient lists that you’d never have in your pantry or cook with yourself. “Mostly plants” is pretty self-explanatory. I’d draw the line at my suggestions above. “Not too much” is a critique of our American culture. We eat way more than we need to and that may have been something Jesus would have questioned if he lived today.
Well, it looks like this post on food will have to be a two-parter! I still have 5 ideas left to write about. More to come tomorrow!
Did these random thoughts bring up any random thoughts in anyone else? I really appreciate it when people post comments even if they aren’t especially substantive. I also appreciate when people follow my blog. It’s nice to know who’s reading.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Living Consciously: money
Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
Matthew 22:21
Money is really convenient. Having it makes life so much easier. Arguably, it’s essential to live (though I’m going to argue that it’s not). It’s certainly essential for a lot of things in American society. I’d have to say that it’s not as important as many people would like to believe though. Money isn’t entirely evil or anything like that, but it’s from human minds, not from God’s. Jesus wasn’t opposed to money, but if we live consciously we have to question our use and treatment of money.
(Though this is the first section I’ve written in this series, I’m sure we’ve encountered a major theme already: decisions made on the basis of “convenience” almost always deserve scrutiny. Our culture says convenience = good, but I don’t think Jesus would agree. Keep that in mind.)
Money isn’t necessary for church. Sure, church as a building with a budget and paid staff and identified ministries to support needs money to operate, but as I define church, all that stuff is extra. Church in its basic form doesn’t require money. It requires people. And it requires God. And fortunately people can’t be anywhere where God is not.
Money isn’t necessary for food. If you want to eat whatever you want whenever you want it, then yes, you’ll need money. I’m not bold enough to eat without spending money on food, but it is possible. You may quickly get tired of the seasonal vegetables a garden produces, but they’ll keep you alive.
Food will get its own post later in this series, but I want to share a Bible story that ties money and food together. In John 6 Jesus has a huge crowd following him, mostly because they’ve seen him miraculously heal the sick. Jesus then has a conversation with his disciples about how to feed such a vast crowd of people. Their conversation starts by talking about the tremendous amount of money necessary to feed 5000 men, plus women and children. Philip says it’d take a year’s wages for each person to have just a bite. Then Jesus goes on to show that money isn’t truly an obstacle. He creates more than enough food out of a few loaves and fish. In this story money was a false hope, a distracting lead, a red herring. If money is a god, then money just lost all credibility. If Jesus is God, then he just gained credibility.
Even though Jesus didn’t use money in that story, I think he showed us how you use our money. In decisions involving money, conscious living wonders if generosity should come into play. At Christmas time suddenly I’m faced with dozens of things I never knew I wanted before, but now I want them really, really badly! But, if I spend my money to buy those things for myself, then I have less money to spend generously for others. I have to insert another layer of thought and act more faithfully and less selfishly. Fortunately my family makes this less of an issue. I’ll selflessly spend my money on gifts for them and I’ll carefully drop a hint about that other thing I really need. I’ll rest assured knowing that someone else will practice their own generosity by purchasing it for me.
It’s easy to use money for security. I don’t think that’s where I want to be putting my trust though. I’d rather put my faith in God and, like I said earlier, money is humanly, not Godly. Currently I’m really low on money. I’ve been living in Baltimore as a volunteer for a year and paying off college loans. That’s not a recipe for riches. My security comes from the people of God who have been extremely generous to me throughout this year.
I’m quite sure that life works best when everyone is generous. Notice there I didn’t say that life works best when the rich people are generous. I may not be able to help someone out with a loan payment, but you better believe I’m willing to pay for you to go bowling with me. I won’t balance the church’s budget, but I’ll tithe my $50 monthly stipend. If someone else offers to pay the restaurant bill, then I’ll gratefully accept, but when the bill comes every time after that the other person better act quickly or I’ll be paying for them.
There’s a downside here. If I’m generous with my money, then next time I want to buy something I might not be able to. Yep, that’s true. If I have $20 and I spend it on someone else, then I can’t spend it on me. If it’s something I want, then I’ll have to do without and I won’t die. If it’s something I need, then I’ll turn to someone else and humbly ask for help. I think you’ll find that people are more generous with their money that you expected. (Relationships like this will also get a post later in the series.)
Generosity extends far beyond money, by the way. I haven’t mentioned that, but it’s true. We have much more to give each other than just money.
I wrote about this topic first because I thought it’d be one of the shorter ones. Either I was mistaken and this was one of the longer posts, or I was mistaken in assuming these posts would be short. I could write a ton more and tell a lot more stories, but I’m going to stop.
What do you have to share about the faithful use of money? Have you had any experiences when an extra layer of thought was used in your money decision-making?
Matthew 22:21
Money is really convenient. Having it makes life so much easier. Arguably, it’s essential to live (though I’m going to argue that it’s not). It’s certainly essential for a lot of things in American society. I’d have to say that it’s not as important as many people would like to believe though. Money isn’t entirely evil or anything like that, but it’s from human minds, not from God’s. Jesus wasn’t opposed to money, but if we live consciously we have to question our use and treatment of money.
(Though this is the first section I’ve written in this series, I’m sure we’ve encountered a major theme already: decisions made on the basis of “convenience” almost always deserve scrutiny. Our culture says convenience = good, but I don’t think Jesus would agree. Keep that in mind.)
Money isn’t necessary for church. Sure, church as a building with a budget and paid staff and identified ministries to support needs money to operate, but as I define church, all that stuff is extra. Church in its basic form doesn’t require money. It requires people. And it requires God. And fortunately people can’t be anywhere where God is not.
Money isn’t necessary for food. If you want to eat whatever you want whenever you want it, then yes, you’ll need money. I’m not bold enough to eat without spending money on food, but it is possible. You may quickly get tired of the seasonal vegetables a garden produces, but they’ll keep you alive.
Food will get its own post later in this series, but I want to share a Bible story that ties money and food together. In John 6 Jesus has a huge crowd following him, mostly because they’ve seen him miraculously heal the sick. Jesus then has a conversation with his disciples about how to feed such a vast crowd of people. Their conversation starts by talking about the tremendous amount of money necessary to feed 5000 men, plus women and children. Philip says it’d take a year’s wages for each person to have just a bite. Then Jesus goes on to show that money isn’t truly an obstacle. He creates more than enough food out of a few loaves and fish. In this story money was a false hope, a distracting lead, a red herring. If money is a god, then money just lost all credibility. If Jesus is God, then he just gained credibility.
Even though Jesus didn’t use money in that story, I think he showed us how you use our money. In decisions involving money, conscious living wonders if generosity should come into play. At Christmas time suddenly I’m faced with dozens of things I never knew I wanted before, but now I want them really, really badly! But, if I spend my money to buy those things for myself, then I have less money to spend generously for others. I have to insert another layer of thought and act more faithfully and less selfishly. Fortunately my family makes this less of an issue. I’ll selflessly spend my money on gifts for them and I’ll carefully drop a hint about that other thing I really need. I’ll rest assured knowing that someone else will practice their own generosity by purchasing it for me.
It’s easy to use money for security. I don’t think that’s where I want to be putting my trust though. I’d rather put my faith in God and, like I said earlier, money is humanly, not Godly. Currently I’m really low on money. I’ve been living in Baltimore as a volunteer for a year and paying off college loans. That’s not a recipe for riches. My security comes from the people of God who have been extremely generous to me throughout this year.
I’m quite sure that life works best when everyone is generous. Notice there I didn’t say that life works best when the rich people are generous. I may not be able to help someone out with a loan payment, but you better believe I’m willing to pay for you to go bowling with me. I won’t balance the church’s budget, but I’ll tithe my $50 monthly stipend. If someone else offers to pay the restaurant bill, then I’ll gratefully accept, but when the bill comes every time after that the other person better act quickly or I’ll be paying for them.
There’s a downside here. If I’m generous with my money, then next time I want to buy something I might not be able to. Yep, that’s true. If I have $20 and I spend it on someone else, then I can’t spend it on me. If it’s something I want, then I’ll have to do without and I won’t die. If it’s something I need, then I’ll turn to someone else and humbly ask for help. I think you’ll find that people are more generous with their money that you expected. (Relationships like this will also get a post later in the series.)
Generosity extends far beyond money, by the way. I haven’t mentioned that, but it’s true. We have much more to give each other than just money.
I wrote about this topic first because I thought it’d be one of the shorter ones. Either I was mistaken and this was one of the longer posts, or I was mistaken in assuming these posts would be short. I could write a ton more and tell a lot more stories, but I’m going to stop.
What do you have to share about the faithful use of money? Have you had any experiences when an extra layer of thought was used in your money decision-making?
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Living Consciously: an intro
Here’s the question: How do we, as Christians, live an authentic, faithful, Jesus-centered life?
And here’s my humble answer: We live more consciously. We add another layer to our decision-making. Before making decisions, we take the time to rethink the assumptions and patterns that we’ve lived before. This added layer is a Jesus lens. Without this lens we live how the world does, which, I’d argue, is far less than faithful. With this additional lens we have a chance to recreate a life that actually cares about what Jesus taught and modeled. In order to insert this lens in our lives we must accept the call to live more consciously.
At the onset of this series I want to make something clear. If I had to identify one thing that God has been teaching me in the past year or so, it’d be this: The grace of God is not dependent on my actions. I can never earn grace. In fact, trying to earn grace is a horrible mistake and a grievous waste of life. God loves me and Jesus died for me while I was a sinner. Even if I completely change my life and follow 714 rules for faithful living, I will remain a sinner. And as I remain a sinner, God will remain a lover. Living consciously, whatever that will come to mean, will never earn anything from God. It’s simply an idea for more authentic living. I am a Christian loved and redeemed by God and I want that fact to be more than simply truth. I want it to change my life. Therefore, I want to live consciously with a Jesus lens.
If ever I seem to be straying away from that last paragraph and it sounds like I’m working for God’s grace, then I kindly ask that someone point it out and redirect me. I’m in the learning process of this whole grace thing and I’m sure I’ll stumble along the way.
Back to Jesus. Jesus was a Jew in a Roman world. I’m a Christian in an American world. Though I’m under-educated on the implications of such a statement, I propose that the two realities (Jesus and mine) are quite parallel. Jesus had harsh words for the elite Jews of his time and rejected a lot of Roman culture and influence. As we add a Jesus lens to our life, we too much take an inquisitive look at the Christian system (maybe Christendom is the right term here?) we participate in and refuse to blindly follow the cultural influence of the United States of America. We may live in this country, but we belong to the Kingdom of God. As we live consciously, our loyalties must lie above our human religion (Christendom) and above our human government (the USA) and find their home in God’s will.
So there, my blog series has been introduced. For the next while I’ll be sharing random thoughts and practical ideas about how living consciously looks in my life. I hope people stick with me and add their own comments and examples and stories and insights and wisdom that I could never possess. Let’s learn together with Jesus as our guide.
And here’s my humble answer: We live more consciously. We add another layer to our decision-making. Before making decisions, we take the time to rethink the assumptions and patterns that we’ve lived before. This added layer is a Jesus lens. Without this lens we live how the world does, which, I’d argue, is far less than faithful. With this additional lens we have a chance to recreate a life that actually cares about what Jesus taught and modeled. In order to insert this lens in our lives we must accept the call to live more consciously.
At the onset of this series I want to make something clear. If I had to identify one thing that God has been teaching me in the past year or so, it’d be this: The grace of God is not dependent on my actions. I can never earn grace. In fact, trying to earn grace is a horrible mistake and a grievous waste of life. God loves me and Jesus died for me while I was a sinner. Even if I completely change my life and follow 714 rules for faithful living, I will remain a sinner. And as I remain a sinner, God will remain a lover. Living consciously, whatever that will come to mean, will never earn anything from God. It’s simply an idea for more authentic living. I am a Christian loved and redeemed by God and I want that fact to be more than simply truth. I want it to change my life. Therefore, I want to live consciously with a Jesus lens.
If ever I seem to be straying away from that last paragraph and it sounds like I’m working for God’s grace, then I kindly ask that someone point it out and redirect me. I’m in the learning process of this whole grace thing and I’m sure I’ll stumble along the way.
Back to Jesus. Jesus was a Jew in a Roman world. I’m a Christian in an American world. Though I’m under-educated on the implications of such a statement, I propose that the two realities (Jesus and mine) are quite parallel. Jesus had harsh words for the elite Jews of his time and rejected a lot of Roman culture and influence. As we add a Jesus lens to our life, we too much take an inquisitive look at the Christian system (maybe Christendom is the right term here?) we participate in and refuse to blindly follow the cultural influence of the United States of America. We may live in this country, but we belong to the Kingdom of God. As we live consciously, our loyalties must lie above our human religion (Christendom) and above our human government (the USA) and find their home in God’s will.
So there, my blog series has been introduced. For the next while I’ll be sharing random thoughts and practical ideas about how living consciously looks in my life. I hope people stick with me and add their own comments and examples and stories and insights and wisdom that I could never possess. Let’s learn together with Jesus as our guide.
Monday, July 25, 2011
blog series
I’ve been thinking a lot. That happens. This time though, a good chunk of the thoughts all revolve around trying to live a more faithful, Jesus-centered life. That’s always been a goal of mine, but recently it’s been really weighing on me. What are practical steps I can take in that direction? I doubt I’m alone in this type of question.
I’m approaching a serious transition in my life and that always feels like a good time to make changes in my behavior. It’s a “New Year’s Resolution” kind of thing, except instead of remembering the correct date I have to remember where I live and what I do during the day. I’m not a huge fan of change, but I’m not afraid of it. And I guess if my outward life is going to change, then I’d rather make it a dramatic inward change too.
So I’m about to start a nice little run of blog posts, a series, if you will (and I hope you will). I’m not good at creating solid arguments or compelling persuasive pieces. My mind isn’t often linear. It’s more convoluted than that. So, in advance, I apologize for the randomness of my posts. These will be a series of thoughts that may or may not connect with each other. Ideally I want to post one per day until I run out of thoughts to write, but realistically it’ll probably take me weeks to get stuff out.
Yep, here it goes. Lead on, God.
I’m approaching a serious transition in my life and that always feels like a good time to make changes in my behavior. It’s a “New Year’s Resolution” kind of thing, except instead of remembering the correct date I have to remember where I live and what I do during the day. I’m not a huge fan of change, but I’m not afraid of it. And I guess if my outward life is going to change, then I’d rather make it a dramatic inward change too.
So I’m about to start a nice little run of blog posts, a series, if you will (and I hope you will). I’m not good at creating solid arguments or compelling persuasive pieces. My mind isn’t often linear. It’s more convoluted than that. So, in advance, I apologize for the randomness of my posts. These will be a series of thoughts that may or may not connect with each other. Ideally I want to post one per day until I run out of thoughts to write, but realistically it’ll probably take me weeks to get stuff out.
Yep, here it goes. Lead on, God.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Looking toward Pittsburgh
I’m excited for the Mennonite Convention in Pittsburgh this year. It’s just one month away and here are a few of my random, scattered thoughts on it:
Two years ago in Columbus I went as a young adult and I loved the freedom that gave me. I went to some youth sessions and some adult sessions. I floated around and loved it immensely!
This year I’m going as a youth sponsor and I’ll have more responsibility to stick with the youth. I’m sure it’ll still be great, but I wish I could be more involved with the adults.
Last convention I was disappointed that the debate on homosexuality didn’t really seem to reach a conclusion. It was a huge conversation that was given very little resolution. It left me looking forward to Pittsburgh where it could be addressed further and hopefully a stance could be taken.
This year I’m excited for the dialogue on homosexuality, but I’ll be extremely disappointed if it’s given too much attention. The purpose of the church isn’t to judge right and wrong and focusing on that too much would be a waste of our time. The purpose of the church is to participate in God’s work on earth. Those conversations should be the priority in Pittsburgh.
Last convention, a week in Columbus was a nice vacation from my pastoral internship in Iowa. I was grateful for the chance to see so many family and friends that I hadn’t seen all summer.
This year, Pittsburgh will be a break from my year in Baltimore and a chance to see family and friends again. It seems like conventions are perfect times for reunions!
Does anyone else have thought looking toward Pittsburgh?
Two years ago in Columbus I went as a young adult and I loved the freedom that gave me. I went to some youth sessions and some adult sessions. I floated around and loved it immensely!
This year I’m going as a youth sponsor and I’ll have more responsibility to stick with the youth. I’m sure it’ll still be great, but I wish I could be more involved with the adults.
Last convention I was disappointed that the debate on homosexuality didn’t really seem to reach a conclusion. It was a huge conversation that was given very little resolution. It left me looking forward to Pittsburgh where it could be addressed further and hopefully a stance could be taken.
This year I’m excited for the dialogue on homosexuality, but I’ll be extremely disappointed if it’s given too much attention. The purpose of the church isn’t to judge right and wrong and focusing on that too much would be a waste of our time. The purpose of the church is to participate in God’s work on earth. Those conversations should be the priority in Pittsburgh.
Last convention, a week in Columbus was a nice vacation from my pastoral internship in Iowa. I was grateful for the chance to see so many family and friends that I hadn’t seen all summer.
This year, Pittsburgh will be a break from my year in Baltimore and a chance to see family and friends again. It seems like conventions are perfect times for reunions!
Does anyone else have thought looking toward Pittsburgh?
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Castle (part 2)
I'm a game nerd. I took the time to make a pictorial documentary of a game of "Castle" that I played with myself. I made a few mistakes and the game was fairly boring, but flipping through the pictures ought to help people understand the game. It can be seen on Facebook here.
"Castle" had a fairly unusual origin. Last Tuesday morning I awoke from a dream. Here's that dream:
I was playing a card game like none I had never seen before. There were two people across the table teaching it to me. One was directly across from me and the other was to that person's right. I'm not sure who either of them were. On the table between us were 3 cards flipped face up and one pile facing down. There was an array of cards in front of me and in front of the person across the table. These were cards we had played earlier and were the whole point of the game.
It was my turn. I decided to pick up one of the face-up cards, an ace of clubs. My intent was to play it with a 2 and 3 (both red) that I had in my hand already. When I tried though, my opponent said that wasn't allowed. I began to understand why and tried to lay the ace with just my 2. Once again, my opponent told me that wasn't allowed. The person told me I could only lay the ace with another ace and pointed out something they had laid in front of them earlier. I was frustrated. We all agreed that drawing the ace of clubs was a pretty dumb choice.
So that was my dream. From it, I decided to create rules and make a game. "Castle" fell together quite quickly! I was hooked before I went to bed that night. I tweaked a few things over the next several days, but mostly it seemed to work well from the start. I simply pulled in aspects that I enjoy in games.
Here's what I like about it:
1. There's plenty of strategy and many tactics to mess around with. Every turn the player is faced with a lot of choices. There's a good bit of luck, but having 3 face-up cards helps bring more strategy to the drawing phase.
2. It requires a series of developments before you get to a successful result. The face value of the card matters, but cards can be given greater meaning. It becomes almost relational. (I especially appreciate my peasants!)
3. It's a 2 player game and quite frankly there aren't enough good 2 player games. Plus you don't need anything more than 2 decks of cards. I wish it could be played without needing so much space, but that couldn't be avoided.
If anyone else feels the need to create a game, here are two wishes: I wish there were more games that could be played while traveling, like while sitting in a car. And I wish there were games that could be more easily played over Skype.
"Castle" had a fairly unusual origin. Last Tuesday morning I awoke from a dream. Here's that dream:
I was playing a card game like none I had never seen before. There were two people across the table teaching it to me. One was directly across from me and the other was to that person's right. I'm not sure who either of them were. On the table between us were 3 cards flipped face up and one pile facing down. There was an array of cards in front of me and in front of the person across the table. These were cards we had played earlier and were the whole point of the game.
It was my turn. I decided to pick up one of the face-up cards, an ace of clubs. My intent was to play it with a 2 and 3 (both red) that I had in my hand already. When I tried though, my opponent said that wasn't allowed. I began to understand why and tried to lay the ace with just my 2. Once again, my opponent told me that wasn't allowed. The person told me I could only lay the ace with another ace and pointed out something they had laid in front of them earlier. I was frustrated. We all agreed that drawing the ace of clubs was a pretty dumb choice.
So that was my dream. From it, I decided to create rules and make a game. "Castle" fell together quite quickly! I was hooked before I went to bed that night. I tweaked a few things over the next several days, but mostly it seemed to work well from the start. I simply pulled in aspects that I enjoy in games.
Here's what I like about it:
1. There's plenty of strategy and many tactics to mess around with. Every turn the player is faced with a lot of choices. There's a good bit of luck, but having 3 face-up cards helps bring more strategy to the drawing phase.
2. It requires a series of developments before you get to a successful result. The face value of the card matters, but cards can be given greater meaning. It becomes almost relational. (I especially appreciate my peasants!)
3. It's a 2 player game and quite frankly there aren't enough good 2 player games. Plus you don't need anything more than 2 decks of cards. I wish it could be played without needing so much space, but that couldn't be avoided.
If anyone else feels the need to create a game, here are two wishes: I wish there were more games that could be played while traveling, like while sitting in a car. And I wish there were games that could be more easily played over Skype.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Castle
Castle
- The strategic card game of medieval mastery.
For 2 players
Games last 20-40 minutes
Requires two standard 52-card decks
Set up:
Decide who is going first. That player will be player 1; the other will be player 2. Then deal 10 cards to each player. Flip player 2’s last card face-up. The color of that card will player 2’s color for the game. Player 1 will be the other color.
With the remaining cards, place three face-up between both players. Place the rest of the pile face-down next to them. A discard pile will be needed when the game begins.
Game play:
Play begins with player 1 and continues in turn. Each turn follows the same sequence.
Turn sequence:
1. Draw two cards – Players may choose from any of the three face-up cards or draw randomly from the top of the face-down deck. Whenever one of the face-up cards is drawn, immediately replace it with the top face-down card.
2. Play cards and use knights – Players may play cards face-up in front of them to arrange their medieval estate. Cards are played as buildings (hovels, barracks, castles, or walls) or people (peasants, knights, or royalty). Knights are the only cards than can be used and they can only be used once per turn. Players may play cards and use knights in any order they desire.
3. Discard excess cards – To end their turn, players must discard until they are only holding three cards per hovel and two cards per peasant. Players may hold one card even without hovels or peasants.
Playing cards:
All cards that are played must have the player’s color on top. If the player is red, then all single cards played (hovels, barracks, or single royalty) must be red. Combination cards must include at least one card of the player’s color and that card must be played on top. Castles are an exception. They both must be of the player’s color. Aces are given the value of one. All other numbers, 2 through 9, are given their face value.
When cards are played they are arranged in front of the player. Players may not pick up cards once they have been played. Only cards returned by opposing knights may be replayed.
Buildings:
Hovels – (10 of color) – Hovels allow players to keep three cards during the discard phase. They also allow players to house more than two peasants. Multiple hovels may be played. Each one allows the player to hold three more cards.
Barracks – (J of color) – Barracks allow the player to defend their estate with 1 knight. They also allow players to keep more than two knights in play, crucial for attacking more heavily defended opponents. Multiple barracks may be played. Each one allows the player to defend with one more knight.
Castles – (10 and J of color) – Castles increase the defense of all hovels, barracks and royalty belonging to that player by one. They defend themselves at level three.
Walls – (a pair of cards with the same value – examples: two 4s or two 7s) – Walls add one layer of defense to one building or one set of royalty. They may not be placed on other walls. They may be placed on empty spots to be filled later, but they must remain in that spot unless returned by a knight. If a wall already exists on a single barrack or hovel and an additional barrack or hovel is added, both of the barracks or hovels benefit from the wall. Wall (moats) may be added to castles. Walls may consist of 1os, Js, Qs, and Ks. Walls cannot be attacked.
People:
Peasants – (two cards that add up to five – examples: one A and one 4 or one 2 and one 3) – Peasants allow players to keep two cards during the discard phase. Players may not have more than two peasants unless that player also has a hovel. If a hovel is destroyed while three peasants are in play, then the player has one turn to replace the hovel or the third peasant is discarded. Peasants may not be attacked.
Knights – (two cards that add up to ten – examples: one A and one 9, one 3 and one 7, or two 5s) – Knights allow players to attack opposing buildings or royalty. Players may not have more than two knights in play unless that player also has a barracks. If a barrack is destroyed while three knights are in play, then the player has one turn to replace the barrack or the third knight is discarded. In that situation the third knight cannot be used. Knights cannot be attacked.
Royalty – (sets of Qs or Ks – examples: one K, two Qs, or five Ks) – Royalty give points to win the game. They may be played in sets of any amount as long as the top card is of that player’s color. Sets with more royalty give more points. Ks and Qs may not be played together in the same set.
Using knights:
During the 2nd phase of a player’s turn they may use any knights in play to attack the opponent. A player may only attack once per turn. A successful attack will allow the player to force the opponent to discard a card in play and could drastically change the outcome of a game. Walls, peasants and knights can never be attacked. Hovels, barracks, castles and royalty can all be attacked.
In order to attack an opponent’s card, the active player must have enough knights in play. Hovels, barracks and royalty always begin with a defense of one and therefore only require one knight to attack them. A wall increases one target’s defense to level two and requires two active knights for an attack. Castles increase the defense of all hovels, barracks and royalty an additional level. Castles begin at level three and can be increased with a wall (moat) to level four.
When an attack is successful (when the number of active knights matches or surpasses the defense of the target card), one knight is discarded along with the card that was attacked. If any other cards were played on or with the targeted card, they are returned to the opponent’s hand. (example: If the target is the 10 of the opponent’s castle, then the 10 is discarded and the J returns to the opponent’s hand. If the castle had a moat, then the two moat cards would also be returned to the opponent’s hand.)
If the attacking player would like to keep the target card instead of letting it be discarded, then they may discard an additional card to keep it. (example: If the target is a K, then they could discard an off color J, or any other unwanted card, to keep the K.)
Barracks can provide defense. If the player being attacked has a barrack and a knight in play, then they may choose to discard the knight and protect the target card. The attacking knight and the defending knight will both be discarded. If the defending player has two barracks and two knights in play, then they may discard both with two attacking knights if the attacking player attacks with at least two knights.
Ending the game:
Play ends when player two draws the final two cards. At that point players may continue to take turns using knights and playing any cards that were returned to their hand by an opposing knight. Players may play other cards in their hand if it is played in combination with a card that was returned by a knight.
To determine the winner, total each player’s royalty points. The player with the highest total wins.
Scoring:
Each set of royalty earns a certain value. Larger sets earn more points. Cards in a player’s hand after the game has ended have no value. Royalty played in sets remaining at the end of the game are worth points as follows:
One K or Q 1 points (1 point per card)
Two Ks or Qs 3 points (1.5 points per card)
Three Ks or Qs 6 points (2 points per card)
Four Ks or Qs 12 points (3 points per card)
Five Ks or Qs 20 points (5 points per card)
Six Ks or Qs 48 points (8 points per card)
Seven Ks or Qs 84 points (12 points per card)
Eight Ks or Qs 144 points (18 points per card)
Synonyms:
Many different terms may be used for various buildings, people, and actions.
Hovel/house/village
Peasant/surf/villager
Castle/fortress
Knight/soldier/army
Wall/moat
Royalty/kings/queens
- The strategic card game of medieval mastery.
For 2 players
Games last 20-40 minutes
Requires two standard 52-card decks
Set up:
Decide who is going first. That player will be player 1; the other will be player 2. Then deal 10 cards to each player. Flip player 2’s last card face-up. The color of that card will player 2’s color for the game. Player 1 will be the other color.
With the remaining cards, place three face-up between both players. Place the rest of the pile face-down next to them. A discard pile will be needed when the game begins.
Game play:
Play begins with player 1 and continues in turn. Each turn follows the same sequence.
Turn sequence:
1. Draw two cards – Players may choose from any of the three face-up cards or draw randomly from the top of the face-down deck. Whenever one of the face-up cards is drawn, immediately replace it with the top face-down card.
2. Play cards and use knights – Players may play cards face-up in front of them to arrange their medieval estate. Cards are played as buildings (hovels, barracks, castles, or walls) or people (peasants, knights, or royalty). Knights are the only cards than can be used and they can only be used once per turn. Players may play cards and use knights in any order they desire.
3. Discard excess cards – To end their turn, players must discard until they are only holding three cards per hovel and two cards per peasant. Players may hold one card even without hovels or peasants.
Playing cards:
All cards that are played must have the player’s color on top. If the player is red, then all single cards played (hovels, barracks, or single royalty) must be red. Combination cards must include at least one card of the player’s color and that card must be played on top. Castles are an exception. They both must be of the player’s color. Aces are given the value of one. All other numbers, 2 through 9, are given their face value.
When cards are played they are arranged in front of the player. Players may not pick up cards once they have been played. Only cards returned by opposing knights may be replayed.
Buildings:
Hovels – (10 of color) – Hovels allow players to keep three cards during the discard phase. They also allow players to house more than two peasants. Multiple hovels may be played. Each one allows the player to hold three more cards.
Barracks – (J of color) – Barracks allow the player to defend their estate with 1 knight. They also allow players to keep more than two knights in play, crucial for attacking more heavily defended opponents. Multiple barracks may be played. Each one allows the player to defend with one more knight.
Castles – (10 and J of color) – Castles increase the defense of all hovels, barracks and royalty belonging to that player by one. They defend themselves at level three.
Walls – (a pair of cards with the same value – examples: two 4s or two 7s) – Walls add one layer of defense to one building or one set of royalty. They may not be placed on other walls. They may be placed on empty spots to be filled later, but they must remain in that spot unless returned by a knight. If a wall already exists on a single barrack or hovel and an additional barrack or hovel is added, both of the barracks or hovels benefit from the wall. Wall (moats) may be added to castles. Walls may consist of 1os, Js, Qs, and Ks. Walls cannot be attacked.
People:
Peasants – (two cards that add up to five – examples: one A and one 4 or one 2 and one 3) – Peasants allow players to keep two cards during the discard phase. Players may not have more than two peasants unless that player also has a hovel. If a hovel is destroyed while three peasants are in play, then the player has one turn to replace the hovel or the third peasant is discarded. Peasants may not be attacked.
Knights – (two cards that add up to ten – examples: one A and one 9, one 3 and one 7, or two 5s) – Knights allow players to attack opposing buildings or royalty. Players may not have more than two knights in play unless that player also has a barracks. If a barrack is destroyed while three knights are in play, then the player has one turn to replace the barrack or the third knight is discarded. In that situation the third knight cannot be used. Knights cannot be attacked.
Royalty – (sets of Qs or Ks – examples: one K, two Qs, or five Ks) – Royalty give points to win the game. They may be played in sets of any amount as long as the top card is of that player’s color. Sets with more royalty give more points. Ks and Qs may not be played together in the same set.
Using knights:
During the 2nd phase of a player’s turn they may use any knights in play to attack the opponent. A player may only attack once per turn. A successful attack will allow the player to force the opponent to discard a card in play and could drastically change the outcome of a game. Walls, peasants and knights can never be attacked. Hovels, barracks, castles and royalty can all be attacked.
In order to attack an opponent’s card, the active player must have enough knights in play. Hovels, barracks and royalty always begin with a defense of one and therefore only require one knight to attack them. A wall increases one target’s defense to level two and requires two active knights for an attack. Castles increase the defense of all hovels, barracks and royalty an additional level. Castles begin at level three and can be increased with a wall (moat) to level four.
When an attack is successful (when the number of active knights matches or surpasses the defense of the target card), one knight is discarded along with the card that was attacked. If any other cards were played on or with the targeted card, they are returned to the opponent’s hand. (example: If the target is the 10 of the opponent’s castle, then the 10 is discarded and the J returns to the opponent’s hand. If the castle had a moat, then the two moat cards would also be returned to the opponent’s hand.)
If the attacking player would like to keep the target card instead of letting it be discarded, then they may discard an additional card to keep it. (example: If the target is a K, then they could discard an off color J, or any other unwanted card, to keep the K.)
Barracks can provide defense. If the player being attacked has a barrack and a knight in play, then they may choose to discard the knight and protect the target card. The attacking knight and the defending knight will both be discarded. If the defending player has two barracks and two knights in play, then they may discard both with two attacking knights if the attacking player attacks with at least two knights.
Ending the game:
Play ends when player two draws the final two cards. At that point players may continue to take turns using knights and playing any cards that were returned to their hand by an opposing knight. Players may play other cards in their hand if it is played in combination with a card that was returned by a knight.
To determine the winner, total each player’s royalty points. The player with the highest total wins.
Scoring:
Each set of royalty earns a certain value. Larger sets earn more points. Cards in a player’s hand after the game has ended have no value. Royalty played in sets remaining at the end of the game are worth points as follows:
One K or Q 1 points (1 point per card)
Two Ks or Qs 3 points (1.5 points per card)
Three Ks or Qs 6 points (2 points per card)
Four Ks or Qs 12 points (3 points per card)
Five Ks or Qs 20 points (5 points per card)
Six Ks or Qs 48 points (8 points per card)
Seven Ks or Qs 84 points (12 points per card)
Eight Ks or Qs 144 points (18 points per card)
Synonyms:
Many different terms may be used for various buildings, people, and actions.
Hovel/house/village
Peasant/surf/villager
Castle/fortress
Knight/soldier/army
Wall/moat
Royalty/kings/queens
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Jesus, not Paul
Sometimes I'm afraid that Christians follow Paul more than they follow Jesus.
I'd rather follow the Son of God than a great missionary.
I'd rather follow someone who is still alive than someone who's dead.
I'd rather follow the person whom I can still have a relationship with than someone who wrote letters in a context that isn't mine.
Sure, we have access to a lot more material from Paul than Jesus, but I think Jesus gave us plenty to keep us busy. That sermon on the Mount was no easy teaching!
Yeah, so I don't know about you, but I think I'll do my best to follow Jesus, not Paul.
I'd rather follow the Son of God than a great missionary.
I'd rather follow someone who is still alive than someone who's dead.
I'd rather follow the person whom I can still have a relationship with than someone who wrote letters in a context that isn't mine.
Sure, we have access to a lot more material from Paul than Jesus, but I think Jesus gave us plenty to keep us busy. That sermon on the Mount was no easy teaching!
Yeah, so I don't know about you, but I think I'll do my best to follow Jesus, not Paul.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
The Super Bowl
I've always loved a good sporting event. And especially this year in Baltimore, as I've felt a little sport deprived, I've enjoyed the sporting events that I do get to see. This Super Bowl was great. It would have been better if the Ravens had been in it, but at least the Steelers were there for (almost) everyone to cheer against. The game was close and the good guys ended up with the win. What could be better than that?
Well, funny you should ask. There was something better tonight. (No, I'm not talking about the commercials, though they were pretty decent and better than past years I think.) Smiles and laughter from little kids will always be better than any sporting event. I watched the Super Bowl at my host family's house and got to play with their kids as I watched the game. Seeing them smile and hearing them laugh was way better than the game could have ever been.
I love sports, but I think I love kids more. That's just the way it is.
Well, funny you should ask. There was something better tonight. (No, I'm not talking about the commercials, though they were pretty decent and better than past years I think.) Smiles and laughter from little kids will always be better than any sporting event. I watched the Super Bowl at my host family's house and got to play with their kids as I watched the game. Seeing them smile and hearing them laugh was way better than the game could have ever been.
I love sports, but I think I love kids more. That's just the way it is.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Something worth listening to
Phil Kniss, pastor at Park View Mennonite Church, spoke at EMU's chapel last week. In my opinion it's worth listening to. EMU podcast Friday 21, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
I have to write a paper
So, I've been asked to write a paper 3-5 pages in length about "Church Leadership from a Mennonite Perspective." It's for a scholarship and doesn't need to be done until April 1. While in college that meant I'd start thinking about it around March 29th. But, since this scholarship is important to me I figured I'd start writing in the beginning of February and try to be done before March began. Sometimes though, God puts random thoughts in my head. In this case, they fit the topic. I spit them out onto my computer and now it appears I'm posting them on my blog. Yep, that's what happened. Here's a potential start to my paper if I'm bold enough to keep it.
"Church Leadership from a Mennonite Perspective"
Mennonite leadership must be honest. Honestly, I don’t want to write this paper. I understand the importance of practicing the art of communication through written word. In fact, I practice it at length every day. But, I’d rather sit and talk with you than write to you. Writing is one way communication. It allows for a patient transfer of information from one party to another. The writer can safely squirm as they select each word to create a beautifully crafted and delicately precise argument. In face to face verbal communication that selectivity is no longer safe. You make mistakes in verbal communication. You slip, stutter, searching for the specific word to convey your thoughts. Your thought process is exposed, laid bare before the hearer. It’s humble, potentially humiliating, yet authentic, real, true. Take away the computer I type on and you can hear me instead of a cautious, calculated, controlled display of myself.
Face to face communication is humble in another way too. If I talk with you, I can hear from you. I confirm that my thoughts are not the only ones on the issue. I affirm your voice, your opinion, and admit that mine is not absolutely authoritative. If I talk with you, then you can teach me what I don’t know. Again, that’s not safe. I may use faulty logic and you are there to call me out on it. I hope you wouldn't be concerned with hurting my feelings by countering my thoughts. I hope you'd speak up to help us both learn and improve, reaching higher truths than we can attain by ourselves. Together we're better than I'll ever be alone.
That’s why I’d rather not write this paper. Sure, I have thoughts and opinions, ideas that might actually be worth sharing, but you have some too. And I want to know what you think. So I’ll go ahead and write this paper to satisfy the requirement and help me verbalize what rattles around in my head for later communitcation, but what I write is not definitive by any stretch of the imagination. After talking with you for a few minutes I’d want to revisit my paper, altering the phrases to display how new thoughts have entered the dance. My writing would change and would be better for it.
I like to write. I do practice it daily. But my writing doesn’t follow any prescribed linear path. I write a conversation, not with people, but with a living God. I journal to God and God isn’t silent. We talk. We chat every day. God knows me and, to some slight degree, I know God too. It’s good. No, it’s better than good. And it’s essential. What does Christian leadership from a Mennonite perspective look like? It looks like a person gifted at leadership who honestly searches after the heart and will of God, and upon finding nuggets in that search binds them to their own heart and shares them with others through word and deed. It looks like someone passionately striving after Christ Jesus until all is known and all know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)