9.27.2007
9.08.2007
It's been a year.
That's right, a year ago today I created my 101 in 1001 list.
Granted, I've utterly failed at the original list and technically this isn't a one year anniversary of the list I've been working on, but I can't remember when I revised it, so this will have to do.
To date I have completed 30 of my 101 in 1001 tasks! (32 really, but those 2 aren't "official" yet.. so I'm holding out).
Let's take a photo tour of a few completed tasks, shall we?
See a Sounds Game.
See a Green Bay Packers game.
Return to New York.
Visit Bob and Linda in New Hampshire.
Take a mother daughter trip to Boston
Audition for Disney
Have a secret publiched on postsecret or in one of their books.
Go to the Drive-In
Get really cute Rain boots and go puddle jumping
See a Predators Game.
Ice Skate at Rockefellar Center.
Sleep in the Backyard
AND MANY MORE!
You can track my progress over on the right. Bold items have been completed!
You should all make a list too!!
Granted, I've utterly failed at the original list and technically this isn't a one year anniversary of the list I've been working on, but I can't remember when I revised it, so this will have to do.
To date I have completed 30 of my 101 in 1001 tasks! (32 really, but those 2 aren't "official" yet.. so I'm holding out).
Let's take a photo tour of a few completed tasks, shall we?
See a Sounds Game.
See a Green Bay Packers game.
Return to New York.
Visit Bob and Linda in New Hampshire.
Take a mother daughter trip to Boston
Audition for Disney
Have a secret publiched on postsecret or in one of their books.
Go to the Drive-In
Get really cute Rain boots and go puddle jumping
See a Predators Game.
Ice Skate at Rockefellar Center.
Sleep in the Backyard
AND MANY MORE!
You can track my progress over on the right. Bold items have been completed!
You should all make a list too!!
9.04.2007
Another "religious" post: Church visiting.
I've started church-hopping.
In my experience, this has never been a good thing, but I suppose it's better than nothing.
One interesting part of church visiting is getting to see many different traditions at work. One not so interesting part is being asked your opinion about it afterward.
I don't like "summing up" churches. I find it strange to talk about church as if one were rating a movie: "well, I liked this, but I wasn't a fan of this, and this was weird... etc etc." Church should be about worship... and if so, then it really has very little to do with me.
That said, I've had a few people ask me what I thought of my most recent church visit, and after taking several days to mull it over, I thought I would post some general things here, most of which, honestly, have less to do with any specific church and more to do with how the gospel is presented.
The church I typically attend meets in a school on Sunday evenings. The average age is roughly 25. It's a young church. Young in age, young in the faith, young in existence even. It's Presbyterian now, but I try not to get caught up in that. They've named themselves after the city. They are about Jesus. They're about the city. They are about community. They strive to work toward reconciliation, both racial and economical. It's a tad more traditional, they recite the creed, they observe the table every week, etc.
The church I attended this past Sunday meets at a historic house on Sunday mornings. It was also a young church, the average age being roughly 21. Also young in existence, and probably young in the faith as well, though it would be impossible to really know based on one Sunday. They are nondenominational. They've named themselves after an artform. They are about Jesus, and community (and probably other things that become more apparent after more than one visit). It's a tad less traditional. No creed, no weekly table, praise and worship songs, etc.
It's funny to me that the majority of new churches are filled with young people, though I guess it's not entirely surprising. I wonder though. There's a lot to be said about age diversity and having a community that encompasses all ages. It's something my church is working on, and it's something I think all churches should value, specifically new churches, since this seems to be a struggle for them especially.
Another thing I've found interesting is how churches are named now. Back in the day when a church was formed it became "First baptist" or "Ridgeway Methodist" always having the denomination in the name. But now churches don't do that as much, I think it's an attempt to sound more inviting maybe.. perhaps in hopes of not turning people away who have preconceived ideas about a certain denomination. Not a bad idea really.. interesting concept. Who knows, maybe in 5 years I'll start attending "Woven Community" or "Stained Glass Fellowship" or something equally as post-modern.
Non-denominational churches are also on the rise. Personally, I think this is attributed to Christians attempts to be more accessible.. again, trying to break away from individuals' preconceived ideas about any one denominations practicings. Or in some cases, to take the focus off of tradition and ritual and keep things more generalized. There's a lot to be said for either camp. I do think tradition and history is important, but I don't think it's everything.. just like I think accessibility is important, but if it's overemphasized it tends to miss the point.. and then tolerance comes into play...
What can I say? This "business" of church is a little crazy, sadly.
Anyhow, back to last Sunday...
The sermon was over love. How to love. Why denying yourself is of upmost importance, and that learning to deny yourself and choosing to love and serve others is following in Jesus' footsteps, and thus, living out the Christian life. That when you focus on loving and serving well, then you will be blessed.
All of this true. All of this being a great Biblical lesson that everyone should learn, or at best, spend their life trying to learn and live out.
I went hiking the other day. 5 mile trail. Alone. No ipod. Just me. I got to thinking about my recent church visit, and the similarities and differences between this church and the church I typically attend.
There were the obvious things. Both new churches, both young, both relatively small. One more traditional, one less so.. etc. And then I came to the sermon.
In all honesty, I wouldn't be surprised to hear almost the exact same sermon at my regular church, which is nice. The only difference was that I have a feeling that my regular church would take the ideology a step further, adn rather than stopping with "Do this, work at this, make this your life and you will experience God's blessing" I think they would have started there.. saying "Do this, work at this, make this your life and you will experience God's blessing... HOWEVER, His blessing may not materialize in ways you might expect."
It might sound cynical and negative, but I do think it's Biblical (and downright honest) that sometimes "blessings" don't come in the ways we hope or plan. Take Stephen for example: He loved, He served and He was stoned to death because of it. And yet.. I'd bet he considered it a blessing in the end.
Do I think Sunday's church was "wrong" to leave out this small, yet important detail? Do I think that my home church is "better" or "more accurate" for pointing it out?
Not necessarily.
I think there are different people who need to hear different things at different times. There are days were I want to go to church and just sit and absorb and not have to think so hard, where, God forgive me, I just want to hear some truisms: that God forgives me, that life is good and things will be fine..etc. And then there are other times: Where I have tried to love. Where I have tried to serve, and yet my life resembles shit, and I'm left wondering where those "blessings" are, if they exist and if they are ever coming, and is it wrong to expect them, and what does that mean? etc.
Lately I've had more of a need for the former, thus my present church (that and I commited to them when I became a member last year, and I'm trying my hardest to honor that).
They say that church shouldn't be comfortable. That it should stretch you and challenge your thinking in addition to rubbing you the wrong way at times.
If these things are true, then I think it's important to have different churches , because obviously different things will stretch and challenge different people. For some it may be more than challenging to hear that loving and serving are primary to christianity, while others may need to be stretched by hearing that just because you love and serve doesn't mean that you are exempt from suffering, and maybe that's God's way of blessing you.
Either way... even if there were only one church per city, and I happened to really dislike the one in my town, I wouldn't be exempt from being a part of that community.. because church is about God, not about me or my preferences, and anywhere He is, I can humble myself to be also.
In my experience, this has never been a good thing, but I suppose it's better than nothing.
One interesting part of church visiting is getting to see many different traditions at work. One not so interesting part is being asked your opinion about it afterward.
I don't like "summing up" churches. I find it strange to talk about church as if one were rating a movie: "well, I liked this, but I wasn't a fan of this, and this was weird... etc etc." Church should be about worship... and if so, then it really has very little to do with me.
That said, I've had a few people ask me what I thought of my most recent church visit, and after taking several days to mull it over, I thought I would post some general things here, most of which, honestly, have less to do with any specific church and more to do with how the gospel is presented.
The church I typically attend meets in a school on Sunday evenings. The average age is roughly 25. It's a young church. Young in age, young in the faith, young in existence even. It's Presbyterian now, but I try not to get caught up in that. They've named themselves after the city. They are about Jesus. They're about the city. They are about community. They strive to work toward reconciliation, both racial and economical. It's a tad more traditional, they recite the creed, they observe the table every week, etc.
The church I attended this past Sunday meets at a historic house on Sunday mornings. It was also a young church, the average age being roughly 21. Also young in existence, and probably young in the faith as well, though it would be impossible to really know based on one Sunday. They are nondenominational. They've named themselves after an artform. They are about Jesus, and community (and probably other things that become more apparent after more than one visit). It's a tad less traditional. No creed, no weekly table, praise and worship songs, etc.
It's funny to me that the majority of new churches are filled with young people, though I guess it's not entirely surprising. I wonder though. There's a lot to be said about age diversity and having a community that encompasses all ages. It's something my church is working on, and it's something I think all churches should value, specifically new churches, since this seems to be a struggle for them especially.
Another thing I've found interesting is how churches are named now. Back in the day when a church was formed it became "First baptist" or "Ridgeway Methodist" always having the denomination in the name. But now churches don't do that as much, I think it's an attempt to sound more inviting maybe.. perhaps in hopes of not turning people away who have preconceived ideas about a certain denomination. Not a bad idea really.. interesting concept. Who knows, maybe in 5 years I'll start attending "Woven Community" or "Stained Glass Fellowship" or something equally as post-modern.
Non-denominational churches are also on the rise. Personally, I think this is attributed to Christians attempts to be more accessible.. again, trying to break away from individuals' preconceived ideas about any one denominations practicings. Or in some cases, to take the focus off of tradition and ritual and keep things more generalized. There's a lot to be said for either camp. I do think tradition and history is important, but I don't think it's everything.. just like I think accessibility is important, but if it's overemphasized it tends to miss the point.. and then tolerance comes into play...
What can I say? This "business" of church is a little crazy, sadly.
Anyhow, back to last Sunday...
The sermon was over love. How to love. Why denying yourself is of upmost importance, and that learning to deny yourself and choosing to love and serve others is following in Jesus' footsteps, and thus, living out the Christian life. That when you focus on loving and serving well, then you will be blessed.
All of this true. All of this being a great Biblical lesson that everyone should learn, or at best, spend their life trying to learn and live out.
I went hiking the other day. 5 mile trail. Alone. No ipod. Just me. I got to thinking about my recent church visit, and the similarities and differences between this church and the church I typically attend.
There were the obvious things. Both new churches, both young, both relatively small. One more traditional, one less so.. etc. And then I came to the sermon.
In all honesty, I wouldn't be surprised to hear almost the exact same sermon at my regular church, which is nice. The only difference was that I have a feeling that my regular church would take the ideology a step further, adn rather than stopping with "Do this, work at this, make this your life and you will experience God's blessing" I think they would have started there.. saying "Do this, work at this, make this your life and you will experience God's blessing... HOWEVER, His blessing may not materialize in ways you might expect."
It might sound cynical and negative, but I do think it's Biblical (and downright honest) that sometimes "blessings" don't come in the ways we hope or plan. Take Stephen for example: He loved, He served and He was stoned to death because of it. And yet.. I'd bet he considered it a blessing in the end.
Do I think Sunday's church was "wrong" to leave out this small, yet important detail? Do I think that my home church is "better" or "more accurate" for pointing it out?
Not necessarily.
I think there are different people who need to hear different things at different times. There are days were I want to go to church and just sit and absorb and not have to think so hard, where, God forgive me, I just want to hear some truisms: that God forgives me, that life is good and things will be fine..etc. And then there are other times: Where I have tried to love. Where I have tried to serve, and yet my life resembles shit, and I'm left wondering where those "blessings" are, if they exist and if they are ever coming, and is it wrong to expect them, and what does that mean? etc.
Lately I've had more of a need for the former, thus my present church (that and I commited to them when I became a member last year, and I'm trying my hardest to honor that).
They say that church shouldn't be comfortable. That it should stretch you and challenge your thinking in addition to rubbing you the wrong way at times.
If these things are true, then I think it's important to have different churches , because obviously different things will stretch and challenge different people. For some it may be more than challenging to hear that loving and serving are primary to christianity, while others may need to be stretched by hearing that just because you love and serve doesn't mean that you are exempt from suffering, and maybe that's God's way of blessing you.
Either way... even if there were only one church per city, and I happened to really dislike the one in my town, I wouldn't be exempt from being a part of that community.. because church is about God, not about me or my preferences, and anywhere He is, I can humble myself to be also.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)