OH my word (that may be the most gossipy, valley-girl sounding start to anything I've ever written...I swear my nails just grew longer and turned bubblegum pink, and if I laugh, it will sound like my head is empty). In these moments, I really want to close the door to the world of facebook because I lose respect for people constantly, and learn more than I ever wanted to know about fragments of society I normally do not encounter.
Cyclepassion. I don't know how I've managed to be oblivious to this when I am both female and have been riding a bike for a few years now. I'd like to believe it's because I keep the kind of company who doesn't go searching for trash like this and is really disgusted by it, but I'm sure some of them do, it just doesn't come up.
Cyclepassion=girls who have made massive achievements in the world of women's cycling suddenly deciding that they aren't powerful enough/cool enough/accomplished enough/worth enough so they take off most of their clothes (or all I think in some cases) and pose with bikes for a calendar. That was a bit of a value-infused description. Here: it's pro female cyclists who pose with bikes while wearing lingerie (or nude). Awesome...so, women's cycling is finally building momentum, gaining respect, etc, and what do the "stars" do? Take the focus OFF of their athletic accomplishments and onto their sexuality...which in case they've missed it, is one of the most enslaving places you can possibly put yourself as a female, and have lowered the respectability of women's cycling. It's really tragic that girls in general rely on their appearance, specifically whatever they define as "sexiness" to gain some sort of edge or confidence or respect, and only more tragic that while women want their sports endeavors to be as highly respected as men's sports, they lower themselves to the level of sex objects and ruin any chance of reaching the initial goal. Really? Are they that weak minded? That easily deceived?
I'm surely capable of lowering myself to those standards and feeling somewhat convinced that it's crucial to my success on all fronts to be "hot", but thankfully, overall I do know how ridiculous that is. I can see and somewhat feel where these girls are coming from, because our society has shaped us to think sexiness is a source of power and likely, the most important source of power we have as women. We're all told this, we all struggle with it. I guess I just figure most women will hit a point when they grow up and realize how false this is? Even if they do continue to struggle with it.
Women tend to blame this on men, and I see that factor. But blaming someone else also means that you do not have the ability to change the situation-it's their fault, their doing, you're just the victim and there's nothing you can do about it. This equates to being powerless. SO...lets get this straight, we, as women, pursue the flaunting of our sexuality in attempt to gain power, while we simultaneously claim that men are really the powerful ones that have created this situation in the first place and we're subject to their misuse of us. I'm rereading that statement 5 times to see if it makes sense...it's hard to follow, but in essence, it's driving home the point in my mind that we're whining men have complete control over how our sexuality is used, and yet we choose that route in order to gain control/equality with them...that seems like a really inefficient route to take.
Interestingly, I'm not a women's lib fan, I'm not into encouraging women to find their worth in gaining "equality", whatever that looks like, with men, I'm not out to lead a revolt against male dominance. I'm more into calling women to figure out how to sift through the mounds of false information we've been given on who we are to be as women, and finding the truth, the beauty, the freedom in that. There are falsities coming from generally every force in society, from Playboy to churches to corporate powerhouses. I don't think this is new information to any female out there....but I would argue that 99% of us don't feel like taking the risk of figuring out what our true design is and we'd rather just pick the most sensible looking pre-packaged option we come across, even if there are countless examples to suggest this doesn't lead to happiness or success or fulfillment. Options provide us with the flexibility to engage in our femininity in different ways depending on where we are in life, who are friends are-basically, however it works to our advantage. Sadly, options don't encourage commitment to yourself in a consistent, truthful, reliable way, and they don't really challenge us to be vulnerable enough to identify truth from fiction.
Well...sorry to vent publicly about this..just saw it on facebook and wanted to scream...it's barely public because I'm obviously not a world famous blogger...oh well, there's always cyclepassion 2012 if I can make a massive recovery from having a baby in May and end up being "drafted" by a pro-team by August, right? yikes.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Saturday, November 6, 2010
not raining, still contemplating
We are in this weird place with church right now. Well, we always have been, but we're actually involved and in a weird place, as opposed to failing to be involved and being in a weird place as a result of that. What a confusing and poorly constructed sentence.
We both tend to find ourselves in leadership positions wherever we go, and I'm glad for that. What a better place to help lead than church? The conflict will always stand that we will never find a church that completely, 150% "fits", or I guess more aptly stated, that we agree with every detail of. Just a natural product of church being run by people, who are all prone to error in some fashion. It's sort of beautiful that way, though, because while we all wish and strive for perfection, the joy seems to be in the journey to attain it as opposed to finally getting there. A million cliche statements could follow-about how you truly learn to love people when they're a mess as opposed to when they're doing everything "Right", etc, etc. Just putting it out there that while I'm about to write a few criticisms and concerns, I really don't believe there is a perfect church or a perfect way or whatever. I do wonder where to draw the line with some things we lean towards or even firmly believe as far as churches go, though.
Since Hipster Christianity satisfied my desire to see some major criticisms of the "emergent church" or "hipster churches" or whatever you want to call that general movement of 20-30 somethings that insist Christianity must be entirely redone (very, very vague description on my part), my mind has drifted more towards wondering how to manage church growth and maintain community. I go to a large church-not a southern-Bible-belt mega-church, but certainly large enough for the northeast, and for a relatively smallish town compared to Austin, Texas or San Francisco, California. I love this church. Not "adore it" or "totally think they're perfect" love it, but I chose to go there as a teenager because they're clearly doing some things well, and really, I just believed in what they were doing. It's changed drastically from when I first began attending, and while I still believe in much of what they're doing, it's been a strange feeling to stop and think hm, that just doesn't make sense to me anymore.
Large churches never made much sense to me, even though I've attended one on and off for 10 years. I have a hard time measuring "success" of a church by the number of people that attend there. I can understand that perspective to a degree. However, I don't know of many examples in life where quality isn't sacrificed for the sake of quantity. Notably, when people are involved. I won't go as far to say that it is impossible, but it just seems like it's extremely difficult..and maybe that energy would be better spent elsewhere?
One argument for large churches is the amount of resources they pull in. Obviously, I think having the money to fund missions and do outreach is a great thing. The irony that seems to come with this is that along with whatever goes into missions-and unfortunately I can't speak to specific numbers because it seems that large churches, at least ours, are a bit reluctant to communicate their budget with the congregation-is that clearly, large amounts of money go into making the "marketing" the church itself. So we put out money to get people to come in the door and give it back....Ok that's really cynical, but that basic exchange does occur in some fashion. We give them a worship concert on Sundays and they provide funds so we can go build humble huts and schools and clinics for people who sleep on dirt floors. It seems like an inefficient way to do business, let alone how it reinforces the materialistic preferences of the usual American church goer.... I'll leave that go in this post. It's a sticky subject that I don't yet know how to sort through. What I'm really wondering is if our reliance on our size for resources becomes a bit of a hindrance to trusting God with things-in general, things. I'm hoping this happens in a different order...trust God for things, people come, so we give more of what we have. I guess I just get confused because it seems that for every 100 people that walk in the door there are suddenly new needs for lighting, graphics, attractive whatever. Are we really that market-driven or am I missing something?
I'm reading "The Tipping Point" by Gladwell right now. He's goofy sometimes but he references sociologists constantly...so of course I enjoy reading what he comes up with. He discusses the Rule of 150 in one chapter. Basically, around 150 people is the ideal group size for pretty much anything-military respects this, Amish-like communities in Europe respect this (Hutterites), even some wildly successful businesses known for their super low turnover rates respect this. Once your group size exceeds the 150ish range, there's suddenly a need for structure and hierarchy that you can do without when you're under the 150 mark. Additionally, if you don't impose that structure, research suggests that clicks and clans are inevitable. They indicate some sort of division-always have...lunch table at school or work, classic example. Additionally, you're no longer conveying ideas to one group, you're conveying ideas to several, small, somewhat independent groups, and hoping that they end up agreeing-though the idea may not come from their specific subdivision of the larger group. Groups under 150 can be a unified community, operate more on peer influence and peer pressure (in a good way), and rely on and appreciate eachother more. Ideas aren't filtered through subdivision leaders, there aren't factions of the group coming up with their own opinions and opposing those of the other factions. Sure, there are small issues and closer friends, etc...but in general, 150 people can operate as a unified group.
The Hutterites really fascinated me. As I mentioned, they're similar to the Amish we are familiar with in the US. Tight-knit, counter-cultural, faith-based groups of people living together in community. The Hutterites will forcibly split their group once they reach about 150 people into 2 smaller groups of about 75. They've found that the consequences of large groups, as briefly mentioned above, ruin their communities.
Our church in Philadelphia was small-it was constantly producing new churches though-interesting. I found it weird at one point, feeling like people must've had ego trips and wanted their "own" style of church. I realized at some point that truthfully, they just "got" the community thing. They realized that growth, while good, also presents problems, and it's healthier to split into smaller churches where you can truly know people and grow together. As a result, though there were clearly leaders and elders, which seemed more out of church tradition than anything, it wasn't an imposing, highly structured environment. Sidenote-churches are slightly odd because there are preachers/pastors, who automatically serve as some sort of authority in the sense that it is believed they're gifted specifically to lead in some way. However-not every preacher is a great administrator, or coordinator, or even visionary, even if we automatically give them these responsibilities. Sidenote over. Moving back to a large-church setting has been wildly confusing. It's been challenging to be re-exposed to "church politics" of who's leading what, who reports to who, who to go to for what, etc, etc. In the end, it's often still one overall visionary conducting the orchestra, but you have to go through several other appointed leaders to find this. Once a congregation is several layers removed from the key leader, or leaders, it seems their needs or opinions are easily lost in translation...or they just don't make the effort to even communicate their needs because it seems pointless. You MUSt be able to understand this-Federal Government, president, congressman...the people. Yes? Stick with me on this-I know it's generalized, and I'm glazing over some important things, etc. All those details in my mind just point towards the fact that it's clearly complicated-as opposed to the smallish church, 150 or less, where it's just not as difficult to pinpoint anyone-pastor, congregation member, choir member, children's church teacher. No organizational chart necessary...unless you want one because sometimes, we think creating defined positions will avoid conflict and enable us to do what we're gifted to do. Arguable, but it's a common model.
ANYHOW...I don't think I have this all figured out, just asking questions, voicing concerns...maybe it's just a matter of preference, maybe I'm a jerk and just think churches are romanced with the idea of attracting people to Jesus and neglect discipleship...hoping this happens in small groups...etc. This is long enough for now...
We both tend to find ourselves in leadership positions wherever we go, and I'm glad for that. What a better place to help lead than church? The conflict will always stand that we will never find a church that completely, 150% "fits", or I guess more aptly stated, that we agree with every detail of. Just a natural product of church being run by people, who are all prone to error in some fashion. It's sort of beautiful that way, though, because while we all wish and strive for perfection, the joy seems to be in the journey to attain it as opposed to finally getting there. A million cliche statements could follow-about how you truly learn to love people when they're a mess as opposed to when they're doing everything "Right", etc, etc. Just putting it out there that while I'm about to write a few criticisms and concerns, I really don't believe there is a perfect church or a perfect way or whatever. I do wonder where to draw the line with some things we lean towards or even firmly believe as far as churches go, though.
Since Hipster Christianity satisfied my desire to see some major criticisms of the "emergent church" or "hipster churches" or whatever you want to call that general movement of 20-30 somethings that insist Christianity must be entirely redone (very, very vague description on my part), my mind has drifted more towards wondering how to manage church growth and maintain community. I go to a large church-not a southern-Bible-belt mega-church, but certainly large enough for the northeast, and for a relatively smallish town compared to Austin, Texas or San Francisco, California. I love this church. Not "adore it" or "totally think they're perfect" love it, but I chose to go there as a teenager because they're clearly doing some things well, and really, I just believed in what they were doing. It's changed drastically from when I first began attending, and while I still believe in much of what they're doing, it's been a strange feeling to stop and think hm, that just doesn't make sense to me anymore.
Large churches never made much sense to me, even though I've attended one on and off for 10 years. I have a hard time measuring "success" of a church by the number of people that attend there. I can understand that perspective to a degree. However, I don't know of many examples in life where quality isn't sacrificed for the sake of quantity. Notably, when people are involved. I won't go as far to say that it is impossible, but it just seems like it's extremely difficult..and maybe that energy would be better spent elsewhere?
One argument for large churches is the amount of resources they pull in. Obviously, I think having the money to fund missions and do outreach is a great thing. The irony that seems to come with this is that along with whatever goes into missions-and unfortunately I can't speak to specific numbers because it seems that large churches, at least ours, are a bit reluctant to communicate their budget with the congregation-is that clearly, large amounts of money go into making the "marketing" the church itself. So we put out money to get people to come in the door and give it back....Ok that's really cynical, but that basic exchange does occur in some fashion. We give them a worship concert on Sundays and they provide funds so we can go build humble huts and schools and clinics for people who sleep on dirt floors. It seems like an inefficient way to do business, let alone how it reinforces the materialistic preferences of the usual American church goer.... I'll leave that go in this post. It's a sticky subject that I don't yet know how to sort through. What I'm really wondering is if our reliance on our size for resources becomes a bit of a hindrance to trusting God with things-in general, things. I'm hoping this happens in a different order...trust God for things, people come, so we give more of what we have. I guess I just get confused because it seems that for every 100 people that walk in the door there are suddenly new needs for lighting, graphics, attractive whatever. Are we really that market-driven or am I missing something?
I'm reading "The Tipping Point" by Gladwell right now. He's goofy sometimes but he references sociologists constantly...so of course I enjoy reading what he comes up with. He discusses the Rule of 150 in one chapter. Basically, around 150 people is the ideal group size for pretty much anything-military respects this, Amish-like communities in Europe respect this (Hutterites), even some wildly successful businesses known for their super low turnover rates respect this. Once your group size exceeds the 150ish range, there's suddenly a need for structure and hierarchy that you can do without when you're under the 150 mark. Additionally, if you don't impose that structure, research suggests that clicks and clans are inevitable. They indicate some sort of division-always have...lunch table at school or work, classic example. Additionally, you're no longer conveying ideas to one group, you're conveying ideas to several, small, somewhat independent groups, and hoping that they end up agreeing-though the idea may not come from their specific subdivision of the larger group. Groups under 150 can be a unified community, operate more on peer influence and peer pressure (in a good way), and rely on and appreciate eachother more. Ideas aren't filtered through subdivision leaders, there aren't factions of the group coming up with their own opinions and opposing those of the other factions. Sure, there are small issues and closer friends, etc...but in general, 150 people can operate as a unified group.
The Hutterites really fascinated me. As I mentioned, they're similar to the Amish we are familiar with in the US. Tight-knit, counter-cultural, faith-based groups of people living together in community. The Hutterites will forcibly split their group once they reach about 150 people into 2 smaller groups of about 75. They've found that the consequences of large groups, as briefly mentioned above, ruin their communities.
Our church in Philadelphia was small-it was constantly producing new churches though-interesting. I found it weird at one point, feeling like people must've had ego trips and wanted their "own" style of church. I realized at some point that truthfully, they just "got" the community thing. They realized that growth, while good, also presents problems, and it's healthier to split into smaller churches where you can truly know people and grow together. As a result, though there were clearly leaders and elders, which seemed more out of church tradition than anything, it wasn't an imposing, highly structured environment. Sidenote-churches are slightly odd because there are preachers/pastors, who automatically serve as some sort of authority in the sense that it is believed they're gifted specifically to lead in some way. However-not every preacher is a great administrator, or coordinator, or even visionary, even if we automatically give them these responsibilities. Sidenote over. Moving back to a large-church setting has been wildly confusing. It's been challenging to be re-exposed to "church politics" of who's leading what, who reports to who, who to go to for what, etc, etc. In the end, it's often still one overall visionary conducting the orchestra, but you have to go through several other appointed leaders to find this. Once a congregation is several layers removed from the key leader, or leaders, it seems their needs or opinions are easily lost in translation...or they just don't make the effort to even communicate their needs because it seems pointless. You MUSt be able to understand this-Federal Government, president, congressman...the people. Yes? Stick with me on this-I know it's generalized, and I'm glazing over some important things, etc. All those details in my mind just point towards the fact that it's clearly complicated-as opposed to the smallish church, 150 or less, where it's just not as difficult to pinpoint anyone-pastor, congregation member, choir member, children's church teacher. No organizational chart necessary...unless you want one because sometimes, we think creating defined positions will avoid conflict and enable us to do what we're gifted to do. Arguable, but it's a common model.
ANYHOW...I don't think I have this all figured out, just asking questions, voicing concerns...maybe it's just a matter of preference, maybe I'm a jerk and just think churches are romanced with the idea of attracting people to Jesus and neglect discipleship...hoping this happens in small groups...etc. This is long enough for now...
Thursday, November 4, 2010
rainy morning leads to overcontemplation
I've never been a huge fan of contemporary Christian worship music...probably snotty reasons, but oh well. Now, I'm sitting here with my 1 year old listening to exactly that music because it's in the background of her "Praise Baby" video. She loves these videos, so I do, too. Whatever keeps her attention...
I never imagined moving back to suburbia-much less the same suburbia I grew up in. Again, probably snotty, elitest, presumptuous reasons (do we have any other reasons for anything in college?), but, oh well. Now, I'm sitting here in my suburban home, with a yard, with more conveniences and comforts than necessary to live well. Thank goodness the house is small and I at least don't feel like we gave into the typical "must have huge house with more room than we could ever use" ideal...
I never imagined having my own children. You guessed it...snotty, prideful reasons. Even though some make sense:). I was sure I would be looking after orphans in a third world country, or at least adopting one. Now, as I already mentioned, I have a 1 year old daughter of "my own flesh and blood" climbing all over me, and a second child growing inside. At least we're only having two. Hmm...wonder if Jonathan scheduled his appointment to discuss permanently capping it at two....
Do most people "grow up" and have the life they imagined? I'm guessing not, in many ways. It's hard to make sense of, some days. I don't generally love living here, there are still the same ideals and ideas that push me towards third world countries. On the other hand, I see more needs around me than I ever have, and maybe, just maybe have more compassion-compassion that's unrestricted to only the poorest of the poor as the UN would see them. I see the point of doing ministry here-and see Jesus as the center of that ministry instead of a prideful rebellion against wealthy Americans. I've learned to love family instead of running from it, deal with inconsistencies in the church instead of running from them, try to help people understand poverty instead of hating them for being oblivious to it.
Clearly, we were called to our current lives...Amaris was planned by God, a total surprise to us. We opened our minds to the possibility of a second, with a very limited time-frame for getting pregnant, and here we are. 1 month of "trying"...or just NOT trying to NOT have a baby, and we're already 14 weeks into this pregnancy.
No real point in writing this..maybe just my way of making sense of waking up to a cold, rainy suburban morning and watching Praise Baby while reading Facebook updates of friends in other countries. I can't, and won't, begin to imagine where we will be in 5 years..the past 5 have been truly unexpected, and amazing, so I don't expect anything other than that for the next 5. I know that if I had continued on the path I had set for myself 5 years ago, I would have a very limited perspective of grace, a twisted understanding of Jesus' command to love people, and would be trapped in rebellious pride and self-righteousness. It's easy to fall into the trap of living for good things, purposes, reasons but having a completely wrong attitude about it. Some people have to leave their homes to figure that out...I guess I had to stay. Whatever it takes. Is it fair then, to say, if you've never left because you were afraid to, leave; if you've never stayed and tried to be part of your home community because running is easier, stay?
I never imagined moving back to suburbia-much less the same suburbia I grew up in. Again, probably snotty, elitest, presumptuous reasons (do we have any other reasons for anything in college?), but, oh well. Now, I'm sitting here in my suburban home, with a yard, with more conveniences and comforts than necessary to live well. Thank goodness the house is small and I at least don't feel like we gave into the typical "must have huge house with more room than we could ever use" ideal...
I never imagined having my own children. You guessed it...snotty, prideful reasons. Even though some make sense:). I was sure I would be looking after orphans in a third world country, or at least adopting one. Now, as I already mentioned, I have a 1 year old daughter of "my own flesh and blood" climbing all over me, and a second child growing inside. At least we're only having two. Hmm...wonder if Jonathan scheduled his appointment to discuss permanently capping it at two....
Do most people "grow up" and have the life they imagined? I'm guessing not, in many ways. It's hard to make sense of, some days. I don't generally love living here, there are still the same ideals and ideas that push me towards third world countries. On the other hand, I see more needs around me than I ever have, and maybe, just maybe have more compassion-compassion that's unrestricted to only the poorest of the poor as the UN would see them. I see the point of doing ministry here-and see Jesus as the center of that ministry instead of a prideful rebellion against wealthy Americans. I've learned to love family instead of running from it, deal with inconsistencies in the church instead of running from them, try to help people understand poverty instead of hating them for being oblivious to it.
Clearly, we were called to our current lives...Amaris was planned by God, a total surprise to us. We opened our minds to the possibility of a second, with a very limited time-frame for getting pregnant, and here we are. 1 month of "trying"...or just NOT trying to NOT have a baby, and we're already 14 weeks into this pregnancy.
No real point in writing this..maybe just my way of making sense of waking up to a cold, rainy suburban morning and watching Praise Baby while reading Facebook updates of friends in other countries. I can't, and won't, begin to imagine where we will be in 5 years..the past 5 have been truly unexpected, and amazing, so I don't expect anything other than that for the next 5. I know that if I had continued on the path I had set for myself 5 years ago, I would have a very limited perspective of grace, a twisted understanding of Jesus' command to love people, and would be trapped in rebellious pride and self-righteousness. It's easy to fall into the trap of living for good things, purposes, reasons but having a completely wrong attitude about it. Some people have to leave their homes to figure that out...I guess I had to stay. Whatever it takes. Is it fair then, to say, if you've never left because you were afraid to, leave; if you've never stayed and tried to be part of your home community because running is easier, stay?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)