Churching

This morning, pastor Chris preached on Romans 12:1-2, which includes "Do not be conformed to this world..." (and also referencing Ephesians 4:17-24).

As he was talking about how the church is not to conform to the culture, he mentioned that in the parlance of today's youth, Christians are to be "hipsters," although in my mind that term carries additional connotations of unhealthy pride and self-absorption in knowing better than "them."

What struck me more was what he said about different kinds of worship service styles. In particular, the Bible church style, or maybe more so what I find a lot of churches that don't have the word "church" in their names do: exciting music praising God, stirring particular emotions, impressive visual aids grabbing the congregation's attention, etc. I normally have the impression that is a way of conforming to the culture: "This is what (young) people like these days, so let's do exactly that, and even more, or else there's no way we'll reach them." So although I wouldn't say that there's no redeeming factor in that, it has not attracted me as a helpful habit for Christ's local body. But Chris pointed out that to some people, some parts of our society, that kind of worship goes against everything they know and it is counter-cultural.

That was good food for thought. After all, in some other people's eyes, the fact that we use a drum kit in the church's music is a sign of conformance to the surrounding culture.

That said, I do still think certain worship service styles are much richer than that mentioned above, even if they may not be as quick to grab the attention of some segments of the population.

I was blessed to have grown up in churches that had intentional, thought-through liturgy that better covered the breadth of the Christian walk. It was not just because that's what had been traditionally done. It was meaningful and purposed. And it follows scriptural examples. As an example, when the Israelites gathered as a people upon leaving Egypt, they first joyfully praised God for who He is what He has done and His amazing goodness; then as they came to meet with the Lord, He revealed the way things are, what He wants and expects of His followers, and thereby putting a mirror to the sin in their lives; so they repented of theirs sins, and they recommitted themselves to the Lord; then they were better able to follow God's leading.

As that's what I was raised with, I saw all that as normal. That was how churches prepare hearts to listen to the sermon, to better build one another up to go back into the world, to which we do not belong, for the week ahead. That is how church functions, through reading the Bible, prayer, the different steps emphasized with fitting songs, in preparation to hear the main message clarifying God's word for life in our current situation.

There are of course a variety of ways to practice this in its details. However it reminds me of my first real church search when I left home for college, and Sunday after Sunday I was shocked by how easy it was to go to what felt more like a praise music event (or maybe a Christian music and prayer event) with a message from the pastor thrown in. I'm sure many of these establishments do wonderful things for the Kingdom of God, and their members can have a faith that is on fire, but going there on Sunday morning, I'd feel like I missed church and would be disappointed that so much of the wealth of the Christian experience that was thrown out of the service and ignored.

This is all mulling around in my mind, as we are starting to look for where we will move to next, which is intrinsically tied to our next search for a church family, with which we can grow into the man and woman, and family, God created us to be.

Friday Thoughts

Tonight we were discussing how to correctly disagree with someone, due to some situations completely un-related to anyone reading this blog! Now most everything I know about disagreements comes from the book "Crucial Conversations" - which I highly recommend. Some internal rules I/we use for hard conversations:


1) No matter how much you disagree with the other person, you must acknowledge their right as a human being to their own opinions and perspectives. Their ability to form opinions is not something to be taken personally, and is something they have the ability and right to do. That seems to be a good starting ground.


2) If I am not open to changing my mind on a subject, or at least learning about and acknowledging a legitimately different perspective, it is not worth bringing up, especially if the other party feels the same way. We'll just dig in our trenches, have a verbal shooting match, and leave wounded and frustrated. And those caught in the cross fire won't fare well either.


3) If it is a situation that has to be handled, be sure to use "I" statements, such as "I feel" or "I believe" etc. Do whatever it takes to understand the perspective of the other person; as a wise boss of mine once said "You have to earn the right to speak." Once you have validated the perspective of the other person and are sure you understand it - then you can express your own thoughts, feelings and perspectives. Usually at this point the other person, now being heard and understood, might be more willing to hear your perspective. And then you can hopefully come to some sort of agreement. This takes a lot of emotional self-awareness, patience, and thought; it is not easy to do, however does have great rewards.


I think there's significantly more valuable advice out there, but those are some rumblings in my mind for the night. In other news - cousin Emily is coming tomorrow!!!!!! Oh the fun that shall be had :o)

Royal Weddings II - The Name

As was alluded to last week by Sara, I'd been wondering what royal families answer when asked for their last name (or "surname" as they say in the UK, which plays host to the royals we are focusing on right now). After all, they're always referred to by title and first name, but come on, who doesn't have a last name in modern Western societies?

Well, as I found out after some brief investigation, the British royal family didn't until 1917 (that's still less than a century ago, folks!). They were known by they name (first and middle(s)) and the name of their dynasty. I guess in a way that makes sense, since last names came into being to distinguish between all the Johns and Rachels out there, to make things more convenient than "John, the son of George."
- Is that George, the son of Henry?
- I'm actually not sure about his father's name. He's from London.
- Well, half the Georges I know have lived in London.
- Hmm, is he Mary's brother?
- John doesn't have a sister.
- No, I'm talking about George! Does George have a sister named Mary?
- Oh! I see, no, you're thinking of that other George, the blacksmith, right?
- Yea, I was. So he's not John's father?
- No, no, no. He has a nephew called Johan! And he only spent, like two years in London. He's originally from Exeter.
- So were you talking about George, the carpenter?
- Of course!
- That's right, I did meet his son John once!
- Cute kid, right?
- Certainly... Now, what about him?
- ... I don't remember.

You see, that's too complicated, so instead last names were instituted so that you can just say "John Smythe," and everyone's on the same page. But that's not necessary for the royals, 'cause titles were dead giveaways. For example if you say "the Duke of Edinburgh" or "Prince Harry" everyone knows who you're talking about, even if his name is actually Henry (true!). So the monarchy did not see it necessary to adorn their Christian names such.

But then the world caught up to them. And with the anti-German sentiments rising during the Great War, it grew uncouth for the King of the Britons to be of the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. So George V picked the name of Windsor (after the castle) to be from then on his family's name. Much more British, you know?

Yet Windsor is not the current last name of Buckingham Palace's inhabitants. The story goes on, because, as we all remember, in 1952 it was a daughter who inherited the throne. And she was married to Philip Mountbatten, aka His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (formerly Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark -- it gets complicated if you dig too deeply). The young couple decided in 1960 to hyphenate their names to keep the Windsor royal name while still distinguishing themselves from all the other relatives.

All this to explain that the new Duchess of Cambridge gave up the name Middleton to now be Catherine Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor.

Interestingly enough, the "Mountbatten" name also appeared in 1917 so that the Battenberg family could also distance itself from its German roots.

More details for those still following and interested available on the family's website and Wikipedia.

royal weddings

Tonight Jon and I were chatting about the royals (we had been curious if they had a last name. Jon found that they do! anyone else know it?) and pondering why the wedding had been such a hit over here as well.

My current theory is this: We are all waiting for the Prince to come and rescue us - for Christ to return and make all things well. I think in the eternity that is set in our hearts, human beings have an innate sense we are waiting for the One to come to make all things right. We somehow know we are ultimately a bride.

I think this is why so many cultures and times have the stories of the damsel being rescued, the prince coming to rescue the fair lady and make her his princess, the hero rescuing the heroine and marrying her. And I wonder if this is why the world (or at least a good part of it) goes topsy-turvey when there is a "real-life" prince marrying and a young woman becoming a princess. We somehow know it is a foreshadowing of what is to come, or are somehow wishing that is what will be, both on a personal and global level.

That said, naturally much of the attention was about the dress, the ceremony, the pomp-and-circumstance, the "heart throb" being taken, and the opportunity to gawk openly at people. still part of me hopes that the real reaction was the longing for our King, our Messiah, our Rescuer to return.

Truth?

I was listening to NPR today, and the guest on the Diane Rehm Show was James Stewart, author of the book Tangled Webs: How False Statements are Undermining America: From Martha Stewart to Bernie Madoff. There was an interesting discussion on perjury and lying. At one point Diane Rehm asked him about the effectiveness of the Bible or other holy books when making an oath to say the truth.
That made me think. There really shouldn't be a point to presenting the Bible for this purpose. If I have respect for the Bible, then (according to its teaching) I should say the truth whether or not there's a Bible around.
As Matthew 5:37 instructs, we should just say the truth as it is. "Anything beyond this" (like swearing on the Bible) "comes from the evil one."
So if I were the type of person who does not attach enough importance to tell the truth to my inquisitors, then putting a Bible under my hand should logically not change that. The formality is thus pointless.

People are interesting. They're often not that logical.

You can check out more about the interview at http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-04-26/james-stewart-tangled-webs.

Jonny here. This evening saw the dawn (figurative, it was after sunset) of a new film club, which is pretty much our small group. We watched the 1940's Western The Ox-Bow Incident. It's an interesting story about mob mentality feeding off itself, rushing to judgment, human thirst for "justice" and forms it can take. I enjoyed it. In the discussion we had afterwards, I realized that what often makes a good movie for me is how well it matches reality. Now it's true that sometimes I just enjoy being entertained with an uplifting ending as long as it's not too corny, or I may get caught up in a ridiculous premise if it's creatively presented. But I usually get stimulated by a great story that's real, even if it ends poorly. Valkyrie, for example, was no pick-me-up, but I enjoyed it for how it honored the memory of some courageous Germans who did try to make a difference where they could to turn history around, even if odds were against them. Whereas there are other movies that get all kinds of professional accolades, and I get annoyed watching them because they make no sense: generally because real people don't act/react the way the characters do, or situations just don't happen the way the movie presents them.

emails and their former glory

In the past week I have received two beautiful emails from two beautiful friends - very long, very intimating, and very special.

It reminded me of emails from the late 90s, maybe even up until 2002. Emails were simply a way to get a heart-felt letter to its location much quicker, and hearts, thoughts, and dialogues were all conducted through that simple medium. Opening emails was like a mini-Christmas morning! Maybe this is just because I was in high school at the time, and then away at college, but those are my memories of my first inboxes.

Have things changed for anyone else?! Most of my emails now are for store sales, travel deals, and updates from various things, such as charitable organizations, newsletters I decided to subscribe to for some reason, and so forth. A smaller portion, and much more dear portion, is from family with pictures of the latest child, snow storm, family update or simple arrangements for the next visit. Email certainly is a very effective way of communication, however in the busy-ness it has somehow lost it's intimacy as well. I mean, I rarely have to take time to read through an email nowadays! I found myself being taken off-guard by the dear long emails and almost wondering what to do... their very presence seems out-of-place in my cluttered and scattered inbox.

I did take the time to read them, and am very glad I did. I love my friends and miss them dearly; I am very glad they wrote. And I guess the next challenge for me is the same challenge we decided on for this blog: to actually sit down, put a series of honest and true coherent thoughts together and reply! (which, friends, I'm very very excited to do [they read this blog too!])

So strange how a decade of technology transformation changes communication so much!