the joy of mess

•February 2, 2010 • Leave a Comment

tonight as my daughter was attacking a cup of vanilla ice cream, i did my fatherly duty and wiped some that started trickling down her chin. she immediately looked at me as though some grave injustice had been done. “no daddy!”

“what? i was just cleaning your chin. it was messy.” she furrowed her eyebrows, clutched her cup of custard close to her chest, and continued to recklessly wield her spoon like a proud toddler. she’s usually one to clean up her own messes (surprising for a 2 year old, i know), but tonight she obviously wanted to to show her dad how to truly enjoy some dessert. it made me wonder how often i thoughtlessly oppress my daughter’s vibrance in the name of cleanliness and order. she’ll have plenty of discipline and organization in her life, so what am i doing to encourage her to venture into the chaos of carelessness if in the end it means joy and creativity? my thoughts then turned to myself. how often do i not just allow, but push myself to make a mess? to abandon my need to control things? to wander from routine into the realm of unrealistic possibilities just to see what’s there?

my daughter kept on attacking her ice cream with no intervention from me. eventually she even started flinging spoonfuls of it around the kitchen, because apparently, that’s the best way to enjoy a cup of ice cream.

thoughts i had while watching the 2010 grammys

•January 31, 2010 • Leave a Comment

-glam rock’s over-the-top theatrics and costumes are still alive and well. from Lady Gaga’s ringmaster and glitter-glasses (remind me to pick up some of those), to Pink’s acrobatics, to Black Eyed Peas’s cardboard robots.  the performances made me wonder why we ever were so shocked with adam lambert on Idol last season. even Dave Matthews stepped up his game by rolling out an orchestra.

-3 and a half hours of broadcast that included only 9 awards. what does this say?

-Bon Jovi is old but still looking good (my wife said that, not me…I promise.)

-how did I ever watch these awards shows without wikipedia in front of me?

-thanks to Glee, i knew that Beyonce was doing hairography.

-since everyone is in town for the Grammys, a remake of “We Are The World”  is being recorded tomorrow. something tells me Kenny Rogers will not be in this one.

-singing on pitch live is apparently harder than winning ‘album of the year.’

-my favorite part of these shows is always when you see everyone who died in the past year. you don’t know most of their names, but you know their stuff. even if you don’t, you admire it.

finding God on the way or in the way?

•January 28, 2010 • Leave a Comment

…Instead of trusting God, they took over. They were absorbed in what they themselves were doing. They were so absorbed in their “God projects” that they didn’t notice God right in front of them, like a huge rock in the middle of the road. And so they stumbled into him and went sprawling. Isaiah gives us the metaphor for pulling this together:

Careful! I’ve put a huge stone on the road to Mount Zion
a stone you can’t around.
but the stone is me! If you’re looking for me,
you’ll find me on the way, not in the way.

Romans 9:30-33 (The Message)

reflections of God’s imagination

•January 26, 2010 • 1 Comment

i don’t really know how i stumbled across this album in my playdate with google this this morning. but i’m not complaining. it’s free, it’s good, and it’s written by a bunch of artists in a church—that’s a tough combo to achieve, so thanks The Anchor Fellowship for achieving it. they describe this project as a “reflection of God’s imagination.” you gotta love that. here’s to more “reflections” like this one coming out of churches today.

“Make Up There Come Down Here”

•January 21, 2010 • Leave a Comment

Sometimes people pray a version of the Star Trek prayer to Scottie: “Beam me up.” Many people think our job is to get my afterlife destination taken care of, then tread water till we all get ejected and God comes back and torches this place. But Jesus never told anybody — neither his disciples nor us — to pray, “Get me out of here so I can go up there.” His prayer was, “Make up there come down here.” Make things down here run the way they do up there.

Jesus told us to pray, “Bring heaven down here.” We begin with our body, our mind, our appetites. Then it spreads to the office, our family, our neighborhood, our church, our country.

God doesn’t reveal himself to us just to make us happy or to deliver us from loneliness. He also comes to us so that we can in turn be conduits of his presence to other people. He invites us to join him in making things down here the way they are up there.

Excerpt from God Is Closer Than You Think - John Ortberg

it just got me thinking.

•January 18, 2010 • 5 Comments

I drive past 5 different churches on the way to my own church just a few miles from my house. And my own church meets at ten different times and places in our city for worship services. So when I read this description of the growth of the Christian church in the second century, it made me think:

A consequence of the growth of congregations was that it soon became impossible for all Christians in a particular city to gather together for worship. The unity of the body of Christ was so important that they felt like something was lost when in a single city there were several congregations. In order to preserve and symbolize the bond of unity, the custom arose in some places to send a piece of bread from the communion service in the bishop’s church to be added to the bread to be used in other churches in the same city.

The Story of Christianity, Justo Gonzalez, p 95.

Of course, we are in a new era. Lots of history has happened since that time.  We’ve got 3rd Baptists and 2nd Presbyterians and Redeemer Lutherans and multi-site and it’s all great. Plus, passing a loaf of bread might be a little weird. I hear all that.

But still…

“The unity of the body of Christ was so important that they felt like something was lost when in a single city there were several congregations.”

They knew they were losing something as they grew, so they did something about it. They knew they couldn’t cram everyone in one place, so they passed a chunk of bread between churches to remind them of one another. And then they prayed for the other churches in their city.

Prayer. What a crazy, crazy thought…It just got me thinking. Back to my reading now.

un-resolutions

•January 15, 2010 • 4 Comments

we’re a little late for new years resolutions, but what about un-resolutions?

every year for 4 years i devoted 24 hours of my life spread over 20 monday evenings or so to watching kiefer sutherland save the world on 24. at the end of every season i always thought to myself, “was that really worth it? all that time, all that emotional tension, all that frustration during seasons with poorly developing plots or senselessly killing off endearing characters?” so last year allison and i booted 24 from our lives. and we’ve never thought twice about it.

it was an un-resolution: a resolution to take something out of my life so that i could use that time/energy/money in a better way. i have a hard time with resolutions because they usually involve starting something or adding something (read more, work out more, give more, spend more time with X). usually i fail at them because i haven’t created the space in my life for that something. that’s where un-resolutions come in.

so this year, especially as the spring tv season ramps up, i’ve vowed to cut my tv addictions by another series. no more biggest loser…… i’ve replaced it with 30 Rock (you probably thought i was going to say that i replaced it with prayer or something like that, didn’t you??!). i actually think the best un-resolutions don’t get replaced with anything—they just help us slow down and simplify our overdriven and overloaded lives. i’m sure there’s more things i can take out of my life, not just on tv, but in other areas of my life. what technology could i really do without? what monthly budget item isn’t necessary? what social media tool isn’t worth it anymore? what else can i take out of my life to help me experience more joy, focus and meaning?

what are some of your un-resolutions?

mooooshy picture time

•January 11, 2010 • 2 Comments

here’s a  picture just to remind the world that i’m married to the hottiest hottie in all of hottieville. (and she’s pretty nice too.)

the case for the mediocre leader?

•January 8, 2010 • 4 Comments

lately when i’ve asked people about growing churches with strong leaders that I want to hear more about, the phrases “cult of personality” or “personality-driven” seem to be popping up more than it used to (always preceded by “it’s a little bit” as if to cushion the criticism).

some personality-driven churches i can recognize a mile away (LED billboards with the pastor’s face lit up =  dead giveaway), but less obvious ones make me wonder, is the problem with leaders, or is it in our skepticism of them? we leave and criticize churches whose leaders don’t lead, but we’re uncomfortable with church leaders (especially those down the street from us) who lead with strength and charisma. we love and download Andy Stanley, John Piper, Matt Chandler, Mark Driscoll, Bill Hybels, Erwin McManus, Craig Groeschel (insert your favorite pastor-crush here)—all of whom are great lead pastors with big personalities and bigger churches—but when a new church comes on the scene with a dynamic leader, why do we tend to say “it’s a little bit of a cult of personality.” would we say the same of Spurgeon, Luther, Calvin, or Edwards?

just wondering, where’s the balance?

mindnumbing alphabetic insanity

•January 6, 2010 • 4 Comments

disclaimer: Interstate 55 is a long boring road which i spent many hours on in silence yesterday. that will explain the insanity of this post.

after reading charlie’s (my compadre from cabot) post, i’ve concluded that we need to change a few things about the english alphabet. first of all, let’s not fool ourselves into calling this the english alphabet (which spans more centuries and continents than i can keep up with). for our purposes, it’s the american alphabet.

the other changes mostly involve consolidating some letters. as charlie pointed out, the two primary functions of the letter “c” are being covered by two other letters: “k” and “s,” as in “cycle.” take out the c, replace it with the s and k and it becomes “sykle.” however, this still leaves the “ch” sound, so i propose just changing the letter “c” to “ch” and making that its only function. see what i mean? consolidation is a beautiful thing.

a problem arises when we make the “s” take over the “c” sound. for example, “face” would become “fase” but this is confusing to pronounce because of words like “phase” in which the “s” behaves like a “z.” so this only works if we change much of the use of “s” to “z” instead. i’ve often felt sorry for the “z” anyway. it deserves more. that way “s” is one thing, “z” is another, and “c” is another. so much easier.

likewise, half of the function of “g” is covered by “j” leaving only the hard “g” sound like “goal.” so “Geoffreys” everywhere can stop confusing the world by becoming  “Jeffrey”…that is, unless they want to be called “Geh-ffrey” with a hard “g.” so change the “c” to “ch” and change “g” (jee) to (gee, with a hard “g”). and while we’re on it,  let’s stop all the “sometimes Y” non-sense. from now on, “y” is only used in words like “yell” or “you.” so words like “why” will become “wie.”

i know i’m in a consolidating mood, but we need more letters like “h.” it has such a unique function being the only letter that is entirely breath. way to go “h.” ‘at-a-boy.

as a shout-out to phonetics, i think we should boot any letter that can be spelled completely using other letters (vowels excluded).  this really only refers to two letters: “q” which can be covered with the “k” often paired with a “w” (quiet=kwiet, or racquet=raket), and “x” which most often uses the “z” sound (xylophone which is now zylophone) or the “eks” combo sound (x-ray=eks-ray). goodbye “q” and “x.” scrabble players need some new letters for big points.

my other big objection is in the pronunciation of the individual letters. i can’t stand that there’s no pattern here. each of the constanants is paired with a vowel. so “b” is pronounced “bee” and “d” is pronounced “dee” etc. etc., yet “m” isn’t pronounced “mee,” it’s pronounced “em.” why is this? why is the consonant always paired with an “e” or an “a” (as in bee/cee/dee or el/em/en/es … jay/kay). if we’re not going to follow the same rule all the way through, then why didn’t i, o, or u get in on this action? i motion that the closest preceding vowel for for that particular consonant gets paired with that consonant in order to pronounce it.

so to pull all this together, here’s what we have: A, Ba, Ca (pronounced “Cha”), Da, E, Fee, Gee, Hee, I, Ji, Ki, Li, Mi, Ni, O, Po, (no q), Ro, So, To, U, Vu, Wu, (no x), Yu, Zu.

there, all better.

that’s it. i’ve gone to an all-time low. pray that a new post comes soon…