"Jordan's not on the bus today." Those were the words I heard another student say while I was standing at the back of the bus, just before the third stop. That was my stop, and I was, in fact, on the bus that day. Being the assertive Kindergartner that I was... I sat back down. I sat the entire rest of the bus route without saying a word. When the school bus driver had finished his route, he was surprised to see a child all by his lonesome still on the bus. By the time he dropped me off where I belonged (at least half an hour later than usual), it was pouring rain and my mom had gone to the school, concerned about my absence. The door was locked, so I sat on the steps inside my garage for fifteen to thirty minutes as my mom made her way back home, listening to the rain fall outside.
Ever since then, I've loved the sound of rain. Not just the sound of the rain--I enjoy the feel of the air when it rains, the smell of the rain (though that's likely my imagination), and the way it looks as it drops to the ground. The sound of the rain completely mesmerizes me. I've often had to shake myself back to reality and away from the dreamland to which rain's melody takes me.
That's all. Go outside, sit under an awning, and listen to the rain the next time you get the chance. It's worth it.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Sin: Not a Mistake?
Just some thoughts of mine:
Omniscience. Omnipotence. Omnipresence. It's something most (if not all) Christians believe about God. If they were not true of God, He wouldn't be God, right? But what happens when you follow the rational course they present? I don't think many think about this.
"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." Generally, I feel people use this according to specific situations, the "It'll be alright" verse. But can it be a little more universal? How far back can you take it, and how far forward?
God's omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience say this: God doesn't make mistakes. A simple statement, right? But take that far enough, believe it enough, and you get into some stuff people aren't too fond of. Christ's death - not a mistake. It's the foundation of our faith, after all. The choosing of Israel - not a mistake, for all its rough points. The promise to Abraham - definitely not a mistake. But take it way back and things get messy. How about the Fall of Man through Adam and Eve? Or how about the fall of Satan (whenever and however that was)? Kinda dicey. Because if you still believe that God doesn't make mistakes, that in all things He works for the good of those who love Him, you have some stuff you have to wrap your mind around.
You have to say that the creation of Satan was according to plan, not a mistake. My personal assertion, and the assertion of others, is that heaven will be a perfect--the most perfect "perfect"--place. And God's plan to get us there is also perfect. But if, as I just said, God's creation of Satan was not a mistake, then that means the fall he caused (both in humans and among angels) was also foreseen by God. Now, why would an omniscient God create Satan and man, knowing that both would be the cause of a lot of sin and death. My belief--and this is where things get offensive--is that a reality in which sin, pain, hunger, and death had been present is ultimately better--more perfect--than one in which they were not. In the end, something better comes out of pain/sin/death.
People don't like that. They take offense to the idea that their pain and suffering is part of some cosmic plan. It makes these things seem "good." It doesn't necessarily make them good, though. It's still not what it should have been, would have been; it's not what God intended (but at the same time, it is). It certainly doesn't make God the creator of sin, but I think He uses it as a tool, turning Satan's own game against him. It does fit into His perfect plan. If something else would ultimately have been more perfect, He would have made it so. No?
I'm no theologian. I could be way off. But I see this as a way to reconcile God's omniscience and omnipotence to the problem of sin. He certainly didn't cover his eyes and spin a top. He's got a plan. It's going to come together. And I love it when a plan comes together.
Omniscience. Omnipotence. Omnipresence. It's something most (if not all) Christians believe about God. If they were not true of God, He wouldn't be God, right? But what happens when you follow the rational course they present? I don't think many think about this.
"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." Generally, I feel people use this according to specific situations, the "It'll be alright" verse. But can it be a little more universal? How far back can you take it, and how far forward?
God's omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience say this: God doesn't make mistakes. A simple statement, right? But take that far enough, believe it enough, and you get into some stuff people aren't too fond of. Christ's death - not a mistake. It's the foundation of our faith, after all. The choosing of Israel - not a mistake, for all its rough points. The promise to Abraham - definitely not a mistake. But take it way back and things get messy. How about the Fall of Man through Adam and Eve? Or how about the fall of Satan (whenever and however that was)? Kinda dicey. Because if you still believe that God doesn't make mistakes, that in all things He works for the good of those who love Him, you have some stuff you have to wrap your mind around.
You have to say that the creation of Satan was according to plan, not a mistake. My personal assertion, and the assertion of others, is that heaven will be a perfect--the most perfect "perfect"--place. And God's plan to get us there is also perfect. But if, as I just said, God's creation of Satan was not a mistake, then that means the fall he caused (both in humans and among angels) was also foreseen by God. Now, why would an omniscient God create Satan and man, knowing that both would be the cause of a lot of sin and death. My belief--and this is where things get offensive--is that a reality in which sin, pain, hunger, and death had been present is ultimately better--more perfect--than one in which they were not. In the end, something better comes out of pain/sin/death.
People don't like that. They take offense to the idea that their pain and suffering is part of some cosmic plan. It makes these things seem "good." It doesn't necessarily make them good, though. It's still not what it should have been, would have been; it's not what God intended (but at the same time, it is). It certainly doesn't make God the creator of sin, but I think He uses it as a tool, turning Satan's own game against him. It does fit into His perfect plan. If something else would ultimately have been more perfect, He would have made it so. No?
I'm no theologian. I could be way off. But I see this as a way to reconcile God's omniscience and omnipotence to the problem of sin. He certainly didn't cover his eyes and spin a top. He's got a plan. It's going to come together. And I love it when a plan comes together.
Friday, June 3, 2011
The Unwritten Heresy
Okay, so it's not that bad. But sometimes, it seems like it is. Confused? I would be. Interested? Probably not. Going to read anyway? Eh, you've got nothing better to do. (That's a lie.)
"You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an image.... You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.... You shall not murder. You shall find for yourself a spouse as soon as humanly possible." Wait, what? Where'd I read that, again? Once again, it's really not as big a deal as I'm making it, but it gets under my skin sometimes (which is why I make it a big deal). People seem to be in such a hurry to get married, or "unsingle-ized," to use Link's vocabulary. Particularly in the church.
It's one of the things that's emphasized often in our churches (or at least the churches I've been to)--that marriage is the ideal, and anything before that is just a temporary state, a cocoon following adolescence and preceding married life. "You can't be a butterfly unless you're married" is what I hear (non-verbally, of course). You hear all this "When you get married..." or "When you have kids..." or my personal favorite: "When you get married, Lord-willing...." I get kind of sick of it. Like it's a bad thing to be single or something.
Thus we have singles' groups, eHarmony, blahbity-blah. Not that I'm trashing marriage, of course. It's a wonderful and sacred thing, I'm sure. I just hate getting these vibes that say, "Uh-oh, these people are single. Let's fix them." Luckily, I'm only 20 right now, so I can avoid being pitied for my unfortunate circumstances. But a few years down the road, and the story will be different. Then it will be, "How can we help you get married? Because, as you know, marriage is a prerequisite to a fulfilling and complete life." Stop feeling bad for singles. Because unless they're looking and longing for a partner, you're just being annoying. And there are few things worse than being "set up." Your intentions are nice and all, but think of the message it sends. "You're obviously not happy right now, or at least not as happy as you could be. You can't find love on your own (you'd be in a relationship now if you could) and I know you well enough to choose for you, so I'm just going to partner you with this one here. Now get along, get married, and get 'having children.' No thanks needed."
That's the unwritten heresy I'm talking about. If you're not married, you're outside the will of God. Nobody would say that, of course, but it's subconscious. In the church, (Am I repeating myself? I guess rants are like that.) marriage is idealized so much that people seem to tune Paul out. "It's better to be single" goes in one ear and out the other. Someone I who spoke at Cornerstone once (Christopher Yuan) put it well. "People are always saying, 'Okay, you can live the single life, but make sure you're called to it.' I would say that you should be even more sure that you're being called to be married." Thanks, Chris. I'll be a heretic with you.
This is the part where I realize I've gone overboard and reel things back in, making apologies and whatnot. But you know what? Screw it. I deserve to be cynical once in a while. I can indulge in an unorganized rant from time to time if I want to. So I'll remain a heretic for a little while longer, until the inevitable comes to pass and I'm turned from my evil ways.
"You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an image.... You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.... You shall not murder. You shall find for yourself a spouse as soon as humanly possible." Wait, what? Where'd I read that, again? Once again, it's really not as big a deal as I'm making it, but it gets under my skin sometimes (which is why I make it a big deal). People seem to be in such a hurry to get married, or "unsingle-ized," to use Link's vocabulary. Particularly in the church.
It's one of the things that's emphasized often in our churches (or at least the churches I've been to)--that marriage is the ideal, and anything before that is just a temporary state, a cocoon following adolescence and preceding married life. "You can't be a butterfly unless you're married" is what I hear (non-verbally, of course). You hear all this "When you get married..." or "When you have kids..." or my personal favorite: "When you get married, Lord-willing...." I get kind of sick of it. Like it's a bad thing to be single or something.
Thus we have singles' groups, eHarmony, blahbity-blah. Not that I'm trashing marriage, of course. It's a wonderful and sacred thing, I'm sure. I just hate getting these vibes that say, "Uh-oh, these people are single. Let's fix them." Luckily, I'm only 20 right now, so I can avoid being pitied for my unfortunate circumstances. But a few years down the road, and the story will be different. Then it will be, "How can we help you get married? Because, as you know, marriage is a prerequisite to a fulfilling and complete life." Stop feeling bad for singles. Because unless they're looking and longing for a partner, you're just being annoying. And there are few things worse than being "set up." Your intentions are nice and all, but think of the message it sends. "You're obviously not happy right now, or at least not as happy as you could be. You can't find love on your own (you'd be in a relationship now if you could) and I know you well enough to choose for you, so I'm just going to partner you with this one here. Now get along, get married, and get 'having children.' No thanks needed."
That's the unwritten heresy I'm talking about. If you're not married, you're outside the will of God. Nobody would say that, of course, but it's subconscious. In the church, (Am I repeating myself? I guess rants are like that.) marriage is idealized so much that people seem to tune Paul out. "It's better to be single" goes in one ear and out the other. Someone I who spoke at Cornerstone once (Christopher Yuan) put it well. "People are always saying, 'Okay, you can live the single life, but make sure you're called to it.' I would say that you should be even more sure that you're being called to be married." Thanks, Chris. I'll be a heretic with you.
This is the part where I realize I've gone overboard and reel things back in, making apologies and whatnot. But you know what? Screw it. I deserve to be cynical once in a while. I can indulge in an unorganized rant from time to time if I want to. So I'll remain a heretic for a little while longer, until the inevitable comes to pass and I'm turned from my evil ways.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Hands, Wings, and Apple Pie
American Christians have too many right hands.
Yes, this is about Osama Bin Laden. I am contributing to the next Love Wins, I know. But I've thought about it for quite some time now, so I feel justified.
I just feel that American Christians feel the default political affinity for Christians must be Republican. And while I often would align with the Republican side of things, I still say some attention needs to be paid to the left. Having American Christianity saturated with right wings is, in my opinion, not a good thing. You need someone to hold you accountable, especially with the lack of objectivity that seems so prevalent today. Don't immediately jump to the Republicans' aid (or vice versa).
But I feel this is just a part of a larger problem. Christians in America can't seem to make the distinction between their faith and their political alignment. We're so "Go America!" that we lose track of our identities. We should be, first and foremost, Christians - followers of Christ. Jesus didn't bleed red, white, and blue all over the cross, if you remember. He didn't break apple pie at the Last Supper.
Now, I'm not anti-America--I happen to enjoy living in this country, in fact, and would serve the people in it--but we need a reality check. America is not God's country, no matter how you swing it. The Founding Fathers were not necessarily Christians (a few, including Jefferson, were deists). In fact, the ethics of the American Revolution itself is questionable from a Christian perspective. So remember that before you go all gung-ho about America's supremacy.
Like I said, I love this country and the people in it. In fact, my dream career would involve working long hours for this country. But my ultimate loyalty is to Christ, not America. And I would serve and die for this people, not the red, white and blue. But I realize my identity, I know my home. And it doesn't fly the American Flag out front.
So watch baseball, eat an apple pie at a picnic, and fly our nation's colors in your front yard. But realize who you are--not an American, but a Christian. If we do that, maybe then we'll be able to evaluate events with an objectivity worth our thought.
Yes, this is about Osama Bin Laden. I am contributing to the next Love Wins, I know. But I've thought about it for quite some time now, so I feel justified.
I just feel that American Christians feel the default political affinity for Christians must be Republican. And while I often would align with the Republican side of things, I still say some attention needs to be paid to the left. Having American Christianity saturated with right wings is, in my opinion, not a good thing. You need someone to hold you accountable, especially with the lack of objectivity that seems so prevalent today. Don't immediately jump to the Republicans' aid (or vice versa).
But I feel this is just a part of a larger problem. Christians in America can't seem to make the distinction between their faith and their political alignment. We're so "Go America!" that we lose track of our identities. We should be, first and foremost, Christians - followers of Christ. Jesus didn't bleed red, white, and blue all over the cross, if you remember. He didn't break apple pie at the Last Supper.
Now, I'm not anti-America--I happen to enjoy living in this country, in fact, and would serve the people in it--but we need a reality check. America is not God's country, no matter how you swing it. The Founding Fathers were not necessarily Christians (a few, including Jefferson, were deists). In fact, the ethics of the American Revolution itself is questionable from a Christian perspective. So remember that before you go all gung-ho about America's supremacy.
Like I said, I love this country and the people in it. In fact, my dream career would involve working long hours for this country. But my ultimate loyalty is to Christ, not America. And I would serve and die for this people, not the red, white and blue. But I realize my identity, I know my home. And it doesn't fly the American Flag out front.
So watch baseball, eat an apple pie at a picnic, and fly our nation's colors in your front yard. But realize who you are--not an American, but a Christian. If we do that, maybe then we'll be able to evaluate events with an objectivity worth our thought.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Unbounded Love
Christ loved, went the distance (in the fullest sense of the phrase possible), regardless of reciprocation. Crap... I guess that means we're called to the same level of sacrificial love. We're screwed...
What does that look like? I, personally, I am hesitant to make any sort of gesture if I feel it won't be reciprocated, especially when the risks and associated emotions are high. But if I am to imitate Christ, I am required to go out on a limb in sacrificial love, even for those I hate. Love my enemies, even when I know they will still hate me. No reservations. I have a hard enough time loving my friends like that, let alone those that irk me.
What I need to do is to keep sacrifice, unbounded love, in the forefront of my mind. Embrace the concept that I am only a peripheral character in somebody else's story. This is my calling. Not on my own strength. Heck no. I suck at this. Denying self and loving others is only something I can do with a divine intervention.
What does that look like? I, personally, I am hesitant to make any sort of gesture if I feel it won't be reciprocated, especially when the risks and associated emotions are high. But if I am to imitate Christ, I am required to go out on a limb in sacrificial love, even for those I hate. Love my enemies, even when I know they will still hate me. No reservations. I have a hard enough time loving my friends like that, let alone those that irk me.
What I need to do is to keep sacrifice, unbounded love, in the forefront of my mind. Embrace the concept that I am only a peripheral character in somebody else's story. This is my calling. Not on my own strength. Heck no. I suck at this. Denying self and loving others is only something I can do with a divine intervention.
A Change
Finals are right around the corner. The school year is drawing to a close. Life moves on... And I'm ready for a change of scenery. I don't know what it is, but I'm just ready for something different. Germany won't come at a better time. Three weeks away from most of the people I know best.
Don't get me wrong, I love those people a ton. But for some reason, I'm just in this state of mind where even the smallest idiosyncrasies get on my nerves for no reason at all. And I'm hoping that a change of pace will help me to adjust, whatever that looks like.
Last year, at about the same time, I went to Mexico, and it was one of the most formative experiences of my life. It shook up my thinking quite a bit. But I also became cynical about... well, about a lot of stuff. That cynicism faded in and out, but after the wear and tear of the year, it has come back in full force. And I'm hoping Germany will reverse that effect to some extent; I want Germany to be another formative experience.
I guess what I'm saying is that I need a change. A change before I come back to weddings, work, and [insert alliterating "w" word here]. And I just hope Germany will do that. My only worry is the effects of such a change. I have this (seemingly unfounded) worry that I'll come back a person my friends don't fully recognize. And I'm not sure if I'd be okay with that. Oh well, we'll just have to see.
P.S. If you want to get a look at the way my 15-year-old mind worked, or are simply looking for some cheap amusement, check this out: http://georgian-von-strangleheimer.xanga.com/
Don't get me wrong, I love those people a ton. But for some reason, I'm just in this state of mind where even the smallest idiosyncrasies get on my nerves for no reason at all. And I'm hoping that a change of pace will help me to adjust, whatever that looks like.
Last year, at about the same time, I went to Mexico, and it was one of the most formative experiences of my life. It shook up my thinking quite a bit. But I also became cynical about... well, about a lot of stuff. That cynicism faded in and out, but after the wear and tear of the year, it has come back in full force. And I'm hoping Germany will reverse that effect to some extent; I want Germany to be another formative experience.
I guess what I'm saying is that I need a change. A change before I come back to weddings, work, and [insert alliterating "w" word here]. And I just hope Germany will do that. My only worry is the effects of such a change. I have this (seemingly unfounded) worry that I'll come back a person my friends don't fully recognize. And I'm not sure if I'd be okay with that. Oh well, we'll just have to see.
P.S. If you want to get a look at the way my 15-year-old mind worked, or are simply looking for some cheap amusement, check this out: http://georgian-von-strangleheimer.xanga.com/
Saturday, April 9, 2011
I Just Want a Brain
There's such a rift in college between the different realms of education. The Math majors scoff at the Philosophy majors, saying "You don't know anything." The Philosophy majors chuckle and reply, "You can't know anything."
Seriously, though, there's such a disconnect between thinking concretely and thinking abstractly in college that it's difficult to get a well-rounded education, if that's what you're looking for. It's always business majors vs. humanities majors. Math majors vs. linguistics majors. Not necessarily that there is tension, conflict, or animosity between the two, but I feel that different majors and departments have a sense of superiority over the others.
But that drives me nuts, because I have an obsession with balance. Not only that, but I sincerely enjoy both ends of the spectrum. I want to read literature and dig into philosophy, while at the same time computing depreciation and learning business strategies. But I feel that I can't have the kind of balance I want.
I want math, and I want art. I want to reach in both directions and pluck knowledge from both trees. But it seems that they're planted so far apart, that I can't get one without the other. I can only have one cake. And I don't like that.
And my preoccupation with balance extends out of the realm of education, too. In personality tests, I don't enjoy being on either of the poles--I want something in the middle (in the Enneagram, I'm either a 5 or a 2). I recently took a test that determined whether you make decisions intuitively or logically, and I got the same score for both.
In arguments, I generally end up in the middle. "Why can't it be both?" I ask. At the very least, I want objectivity. Take the Rob Bell controversy. When I talk to and regard those jumping to condemn him (though even they aren't sure what that means), I tend to say, "Slow down, now. Don't be so quick to jump on him. Think it through." But when I talk to people that instantly side with Rob Bell, I say, "You slow down, too. Don't align yourself so quickly. Watch that bias of yours and look at the facts."
Even in video games, it rears its ugly head. To choose between fast and strong, or between long-range and short-range is always a problem. I want both.
All that to say I want balance. I want both. I don't like the idea of being either left-brained or right-brained. I just want a brain.
Seriously, though, there's such a disconnect between thinking concretely and thinking abstractly in college that it's difficult to get a well-rounded education, if that's what you're looking for. It's always business majors vs. humanities majors. Math majors vs. linguistics majors. Not necessarily that there is tension, conflict, or animosity between the two, but I feel that different majors and departments have a sense of superiority over the others.
But that drives me nuts, because I have an obsession with balance. Not only that, but I sincerely enjoy both ends of the spectrum. I want to read literature and dig into philosophy, while at the same time computing depreciation and learning business strategies. But I feel that I can't have the kind of balance I want.
I want math, and I want art. I want to reach in both directions and pluck knowledge from both trees. But it seems that they're planted so far apart, that I can't get one without the other. I can only have one cake. And I don't like that.
And my preoccupation with balance extends out of the realm of education, too. In personality tests, I don't enjoy being on either of the poles--I want something in the middle (in the Enneagram, I'm either a 5 or a 2). I recently took a test that determined whether you make decisions intuitively or logically, and I got the same score for both.
In arguments, I generally end up in the middle. "Why can't it be both?" I ask. At the very least, I want objectivity. Take the Rob Bell controversy. When I talk to and regard those jumping to condemn him (though even they aren't sure what that means), I tend to say, "Slow down, now. Don't be so quick to jump on him. Think it through." But when I talk to people that instantly side with Rob Bell, I say, "You slow down, too. Don't align yourself so quickly. Watch that bias of yours and look at the facts."
Even in video games, it rears its ugly head. To choose between fast and strong, or between long-range and short-range is always a problem. I want both.
All that to say I want balance. I want both. I don't like the idea of being either left-brained or right-brained. I just want a brain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)