I really liked the finale. I've been a "fan" of Lost since the beginning. There were definitely times when all the twists, turns and answers that turned into more questions really irked me, but I couldn't help watching just one more episode (and then another...). For me the series mirrored humanities fascination with trying to solve life's mysteries with science, philosophy, religion or brute force, but in the end, it all comes down to "why am I here?", which is still the greatest mystery of all.
Lost answered this question through Jack's dad - "Nobody does it alone, Jack. You needed all of them and they needed you." That's still an answer that leads to more questions, but I can live with that.
Other post-Lost musings @ The LOST Recap and Making sense of LOST.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
why church?
I just finished reading a friend's manuscript called "Why God?". In his book, Bob McAdams leads his readers on a quest to sift through our common human experiences of reason, truth, good and evil, time, and beauty to "gather from this richness some new thoughts about the reasons for belief and non-belief in God."
It was while I reading his chapter titled, "the shoe that does not fit", that I recognized I was on yet another quest.
It was while I reading his chapter titled, "the shoe that does not fit", that I recognized I was on yet another quest.
"Our cosmology, the etched and stained transparent dome through which we view the universe, like every other part of our lives is in motion. Within our cosmology, our roles require that we constantly ask and answer the question, “What shall I do next?” What happens to a cosmology that is itself in motion? Can a cosmology also be subject to this same ‘what next’ question? Do we outgrow a cosmology in the same way we outgrow shoes? Can a cosmology simply not fit, simply give us daily, constant pain that forces us to face the options of holding on and suffering or letting go of the cosmology itself?"The cosmology that I am struggling with, against, and often simultaneously for, is no longer why God?, it's why church? What is next for the church as an idea and for church as the reality that I participate in weekly? Coincidentally, I've stumbled across lots of interesting quotes about church this week.
"Church should only be about comfort for the sick, the dying, the grieving, and the oppressed. Everybody else--buck up and change the world." - Diana Butler Bass
"it’s about the people, people. not the programs. not the banner-waving on others’ behalf. not the countless other things that can seem important but take away from what was at the essence of Jesus’ message & incarnation–love people. love people. love people." - kathy escobar
"After all, the church is relatively irrelevant as it stands in most other parts of today’s social fabric, meaning, the church won’t receive any congratulation except from itself." - Deacon Hall
"Jesus as somehow a window on God; Jesus as somehow a norm that transcends ideas, ideals, and principles but also serves as a standard for them; Jesus as somehow a living reality who confronts as often as he comforts. Christians don't need – indeed perhaps would be better off without – the traditional ways of trying to express these matters and the traditional confidence that their doctrinal assertions can actually contain the full truth of these matters. The truly hard intellectual work for disciples of Jesus today is to re-express our relationship with Jesus and our glimpses of God by re-contextualizing them into a far less complete and confident frame of reference." - Tom Wilkens
"The clergyman and the layman - who together form God's mission people - definitely have a different function in it. Permit me to put it in this somewhat schematic way: the minister must take care of the continuity, he guards the tradition; he must preserve and may easily be a bit conservative. The layman, on the other hand, takes care of the progressive movement, thrusts himself into the actualities of life; he must develop and build.
Both these functions belong together. It is good not only when there is harmony between them but there remains some tension as well. We must not sound the alarm when the layman can hardly stand the church any longer. That does not have to imply that he looks down upon everything as it is being done. It can also mean that the layman understands his function well and for this reason goes into loyal opposition. We are mortally afraid of those tensions and write church papers full about them, but that does not strike me as a cause for concern. Concerned we must become when the laity meekly walk in step behind the preacher. Then they have lost their function. Because then it becomes apparent that they have moved from the world into the church, and it belongs to the grandeur and misery of the layman that he experiences his membership in the church in an extra-ecclesiastical way." - The Church Inside Out by J.C. Hoekendijk
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
in search of a revolution
This afternoon, I met with a few of the readers of "the book". It was a good experience. Getting there was another story - let's just say that because of many mistakes I made on the way, I was super late (guess I needed a good dose of humility as well).
One comment that really stuck out for me was from a woman who said I was born 35 years too early and she was born 40 years too late. She said that I was clearly in search of a revolution, but all the good ones, which she had been a part of, had already happened. She, on the other hand, had to go through those revolutions because she couldn't live out her dream to be a fighter pilot.
This morning, I was prepping for the 3D programming class I'm teaching (which is why I lost track of time and nearly missed the aforementioned meeting) and was struck by how fast technology is evolving. Not only in my lifetime, but even more so in the lifetime of my students. However, this level of change is second nature to them. So how can I put it into perspective for them? I needed to find a story and as often is the case with technological advancements, it was a science fiction writer who saw the vision of 3D programming in virtual worlds. In 1992, Neal Stephenson wrote about virtual reality in Snow Crash.
One comment that really stuck out for me was from a woman who said I was born 35 years too early and she was born 40 years too late. She said that I was clearly in search of a revolution, but all the good ones, which she had been a part of, had already happened. She, on the other hand, had to go through those revolutions because she couldn't live out her dream to be a fighter pilot.
This morning, I was prepping for the 3D programming class I'm teaching (which is why I lost track of time and nearly missed the aforementioned meeting) and was struck by how fast technology is evolving. Not only in my lifetime, but even more so in the lifetime of my students. However, this level of change is second nature to them. So how can I put it into perspective for them? I needed to find a story and as often is the case with technological advancements, it was a science fiction writer who saw the vision of 3D programming in virtual worlds. In 1992, Neal Stephenson wrote about virtual reality in Snow Crash.
"So Hiro's not actually here at all. He's in a computer-generated universe that his computer is drawing onto his goggles and pumping into his earphones. In the lingo, this imaginary place is known as the Metaverse. Hiro spends a lot of time in the Metaverse. It beats the shit out of the U-Stor-It." - pg. 24The first world-wide browser wasn't on the scene until 1993. It was the very next decade that brought the virtual reality games of Runescape (2001), SecondLife (2003) and World of Warcraft (2004) to life. The massive change in technology in such a short period of time really reflects the definition of a revolution.
revolution - a sudden, complete or marked change in something (dictionary.com)I'm beginning to suspect that much of my fascination and time spent on technology is in search of that next big revolution. That thing that is going to "beat the shit" out of the real world problems of poverty, discrimination and greed. You may think I'm crazy, but I'm not alone.
"Reality is broken and we need to make it more like a game." - Jane McGonigal
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Book Review in Lutheran Partners Magazine
Just found out from my pastor that the book I co-authored with my dad, (Un-American Activities: Countercultural Themes in Christianity), got a nice review in the Lutheran Partners magazine, a bimonthly magazine of the ELCA for ordained and lay leaders.
Find the complete review - March / April 2010 • Volume 26 • Number 2
Oh and the added bonus in this review is that I get referred to as a young adult. I know he's probably talking about me writing on my thoughts as a young adult, but still, I'm feeling younger already!
"The chapters would be valuable for Christians of most denominations and would be useful for both ordained and lay Christians. In general, in fact, Un-American Activities is accessible, entertaining, and enlightening, especially for those trying to minister more effectively to the wandering, skeptical, and searching young adult."
David von Schlichten is pastor of St. James Lutheran Church, Youngstown, Pennsylvania, and the book review editor of Lutheran Partners magazine.
Find the complete review - March / April 2010 • Volume 26 • Number 2
Oh and the added bonus in this review is that I get referred to as a young adult. I know he's probably talking about me writing on my thoughts as a young adult, but still, I'm feeling younger already!
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Genesis 1 & 2 from a Postmodern Viewpoint
[I was asked to write about my postmodern viewpoint for a class about Ways to Understand the Bible that will also include the modern and fundamental approaches to Biblical interpretation]
First, a disclaimer, I am neither a postmodern scholar nor a biblical scholar. So, I wonder what gives me the right to "interpret" any part of the Bible? I think one of the key ingredients to studying and trying to understand the Bible is a healthy dose of humility. Next, I need to acknowledge that I bring my own subjective lens to the Bible and so does everybody else. Finally, I find that I have learned the most from the Bible when studying it in community. As a child of God who is full of curiosity, questions & doubts, I certainly can't ignore the Bible or simply let others interpret it for me. Instead the Bible has become my primary source for searching for answers about God and joining in the story of God's people.
Let me start by sharing some of the lenses that I am conscious of having while also acknowledging new research that suggests most of my thoughts and your thoughts are unconscious. My theories of choice about the beginning of the universe - the big bang, the beginning of humans – evolution, and the beginning of patriarchical society - Adam. So, reading Genesis has always been uncomfortable for me. I have problems reading about a universe created in six days, a Garden of Eden, Eve created from Adam, a tree of life, a serpent that speaks and the fall of humankind. So, I had been categorizing this story as a myth devised to explain creation in ancient times and tried my best to ignore it.
I see the Bible as a masterpiece that was created using the invention of the written word versus the tradition of oral history used for centuries before. The intent was to harness the rich and diverse collection of stories, history, wisdom, poetry, prophecy and first-hand accounts of God's work in the world, but the medium had some unexpected drawbacks. The most obvious is the problem of translation. There are twenty English translations on biblegateway.com alone. There are much-debated, different styles of translation. Like paint flaking off a masterpiece, there are words that have become obsolete and are in need of having their meaning restored. If the words need to be translated, what about the metaphors?
Often I can't get over these mental blocks I put up surrounding some verses and stories in the Bible on my own. Recently a few authors have helped me to see Genesis in a new way.
In Bruce Feiler's book, Walking the Bible, he writes about how his views of the Bible changed from that of just a book about a faraway land in a faraway time to a living, breathing entity about stories that happened in real places to real people.
Reading about his transformation and how he connects with the Bible through the present-day landscape helped me to see the creation story in a new light. Of Genesis 1 and 2, Bruce writes: "In a few short words, the Bible had taken the story of water, the story of humans, the story of Mesopotamia, and had created an entirely new story that explained the history of the world. Stories, like rivers, give life."
From Donald Miller's book, Searching for God Knows What, I read about his thoughts on Genesis. "If man was wired so that something outside himself told him who he was, and if God’s presence was giving him a feeling of fulfillment, then when that relationship was broken, a man would be pining for other people to tell him that he was good, right, okay with the world, and eternally secure."
I began to appreciate the idea that we’re wired to know our creator, to understand our creator's will for us and to find fulfillment in this relationship. I get that somehow our connection to our creator got damaged or broken. I don’t understand how this happened, but I see that it causes us to not feel whole, but instead feel naked and ashamed.
Ron Martoia, in his book Transformational Architecture, explores the concept of imago dei – being made in the image of God. He writes that "the God who presides over creation, and who creatively serves and rules the world, creates a humanity with the same role. They are to represent God by creatively and lovingly serving the rest of the world." Ron goes on to suggest that our imago dei is the very core building block of our spiritual beings that naturally seek out transformative, creative, change the world missions.
I now see many layers to the words of Genesis 1 & 2:
• It hints at the profound shift in humanity from nomad to farmer.
• It relates the story of our relationship with and to God.
• It shows us a blueprint for how our imago dei should care for creation.
First, a disclaimer, I am neither a postmodern scholar nor a biblical scholar. So, I wonder what gives me the right to "interpret" any part of the Bible? I think one of the key ingredients to studying and trying to understand the Bible is a healthy dose of humility. Next, I need to acknowledge that I bring my own subjective lens to the Bible and so does everybody else. Finally, I find that I have learned the most from the Bible when studying it in community. As a child of God who is full of curiosity, questions & doubts, I certainly can't ignore the Bible or simply let others interpret it for me. Instead the Bible has become my primary source for searching for answers about God and joining in the story of God's people.
We are interpretive by nature; we can’t know anything objectively.
Let me start by sharing some of the lenses that I am conscious of having while also acknowledging new research that suggests most of my thoughts and your thoughts are unconscious. My theories of choice about the beginning of the universe - the big bang, the beginning of humans – evolution, and the beginning of patriarchical society - Adam. So, reading Genesis has always been uncomfortable for me. I have problems reading about a universe created in six days, a Garden of Eden, Eve created from Adam, a tree of life, a serpent that speaks and the fall of humankind. So, I had been categorizing this story as a myth devised to explain creation in ancient times and tried my best to ignore it.
The Bible is a human response to God.
I see the Bible as a masterpiece that was created using the invention of the written word versus the tradition of oral history used for centuries before. The intent was to harness the rich and diverse collection of stories, history, wisdom, poetry, prophecy and first-hand accounts of God's work in the world, but the medium had some unexpected drawbacks. The most obvious is the problem of translation. There are twenty English translations on biblegateway.com alone. There are much-debated, different styles of translation. Like paint flaking off a masterpiece, there are words that have become obsolete and are in need of having their meaning restored. If the words need to be translated, what about the metaphors?
Approach the Bible as metaphorical, relational, and missional in the hope of seeing our lives with God through it.
Often I can't get over these mental blocks I put up surrounding some verses and stories in the Bible on my own. Recently a few authors have helped me to see Genesis in a new way.
In Bruce Feiler's book, Walking the Bible, he writes about how his views of the Bible changed from that of just a book about a faraway land in a faraway time to a living, breathing entity about stories that happened in real places to real people.
Reading about his transformation and how he connects with the Bible through the present-day landscape helped me to see the creation story in a new light. Of Genesis 1 and 2, Bruce writes: "In a few short words, the Bible had taken the story of water, the story of humans, the story of Mesopotamia, and had created an entirely new story that explained the history of the world. Stories, like rivers, give life."
From Donald Miller's book, Searching for God Knows What, I read about his thoughts on Genesis. "If man was wired so that something outside himself told him who he was, and if God’s presence was giving him a feeling of fulfillment, then when that relationship was broken, a man would be pining for other people to tell him that he was good, right, okay with the world, and eternally secure."
I began to appreciate the idea that we’re wired to know our creator, to understand our creator's will for us and to find fulfillment in this relationship. I get that somehow our connection to our creator got damaged or broken. I don’t understand how this happened, but I see that it causes us to not feel whole, but instead feel naked and ashamed.
Ron Martoia, in his book Transformational Architecture, explores the concept of imago dei – being made in the image of God. He writes that "the God who presides over creation, and who creatively serves and rules the world, creates a humanity with the same role. They are to represent God by creatively and lovingly serving the rest of the world." Ron goes on to suggest that our imago dei is the very core building block of our spiritual beings that naturally seek out transformative, creative, change the world missions.
I now see many layers to the words of Genesis 1 & 2:
• It hints at the profound shift in humanity from nomad to farmer.
• It relates the story of our relationship with and to God.
• It shows us a blueprint for how our imago dei should care for creation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
