eat your cat

i ate lunch today with my good friends, brent and jacob. we went to italian cafe, home of the daily three dollar bottomless pasta dish. delicious and endless. among other things we discussed the current moral, philosophical, political, and religious state of our nation. as you can imagine the conversation quickly turned negative, then pessimistic, and then apocalyptic. in the midst of our less than cheerful observations i shared my realization of the fact that should the city structure fail on a national level, i could hardly provide for myself. allow me to explain what i mean by that. first, have you ever sat back and considered the amount of infrastructure it takes to support the city? if not, simply think of the amount we rely on basic transportation and technology for day to day living. we don't grow our own food, we have it shipped into stores. we organize our lives via computers and cell phones. our homes rely on electricity and natural gas for cooking the food we eat and heating the rooms we live in. i'm just saying that if these aspects of city living were somehow hindered we would be in rough shape. imagine millions of people in need of food and water with no way of providing for themselves.

my solution in such a dire and fictitious situation would be to make a run for the country-side. i could live off the land, kill wild animals and eat wild herbs. unfortunately, i know next to nothing about survival and i'm a pretty poor hunter/fisherman, despite the number of man vs. wild episodes i've watched. in reality i could hardly provide for myself and i'd end up a sad, emaciated human being.

as i shared my lack of survival skills with my friends the answer dawned on me; domestic animals! i could survive by eating domestic animals, or at least feral, typically domesticated animals, like stray cats. my friends thought that under such circumstances that would be a great idea. my break through led us to the logical conclusion that good citizens should no longer spay or neuter their animals, but they should let them breed so that under such dire, fictitious circumstances we could eat them. so, i'm gonna make a bumper sticker that says, "don't spay or neuter your cat, just eat it."

fort worth...keeping it...real??

guys, fort worth is keeping it real

i recently discovered that we have a cumulative 60 miles of bike routes, with 240 more miles in the works. that's right, the city i thought was so outdated and behind the times is actually thinking in a forward fashion. i'm a little more inclined to enjoy my time here.

i won't bore you with too many details of the bike routes, but basically they share road space with cars on low traffic, low speed roads. it's now safer for me to cruise to the better areas of town on my very fashionable, healthy, and environmentally friendly monocog 29er. apparently streets are marked with signs designating them as bike routes, though i somewhat doubt the sign's effectiveness since i was entirely unaware of their existence until i actively searched the web. regardless, i feel a bit more justified cruising on the road by simply knowing they're there.

the impetus to my search and subsequent discovery was the motivation to start a bike lane/route initiative in this crazy town if no one else had. thankfully, someone else had.

my only hitch is fear. yes, fear is keeping me from diving headlong into bike-commuting bliss. i fear pitbulls; running around, free to roam to bite your leg off, pitbulls. for some reason folks in surrounding neighborhoods have no ethical qualms with letting their pitbulls run freely through the streets. i don't care what you say about the nature of pitbulls, i've been around several and they're all a little nuts. i can just imagine riding by the wrong one, being chased by it until i top out and am finally bitten right on the bum. oh, but if were to end with a mere bite on the backside i wouldn't be so cautious! no, those dogs don't let go once they get a hold of you, they don't understand catch and release, and they're incredibly strong. explosive strength. have you seen the size of their necks??
when i do finally man up i may cruise with a can of mace, or a black market police issue tazer. you know, the kind that can incapacitate a navy seal at 30 feet. my uncle's a cop so...i'm gonna try to get one. i promise to test it on my friends before i tag any wayward animals just to know that it works.

christmas shopping

it took me three hours of serious shopping to buy two of my family members gifts. three. hours. of walking and driving and searching.

christmas.

what the heck.

intellectual faith

a few months ago i had a rather heated debate with a friend over the usefulness of theology. over the course of the few days we hung out she made repeated jabs at seminaries, and specifically at theological studies. to be honest, i was the heated one. i finally had enough and became defensive, myself being a seminary student and an aspiring recreational theologian. my issue was not so much the personal implications of her attack as it was the practical.

the "evangelical" church is, for the most part, an anti-intellectual society. that is to say, it does not appreciate a biblical education or personal, disciplined, academic study of either the bible or extra-biblical subjects. it does not understand the need to rationally defend faith against the philosophies of humanism and scientism.
there are several reasons for such sentiments which i don't plan to list comprehensively. i will simply state that it has been a growing problem over the last century, resulting in the loss of the voice of the church in the public square; academia, the media, and politics. our voice has been lost because we cannot intelligently articulate a defense for our beliefs or create arguments against opposing beliefs. This has resulted in a divide between what is secular and what is sacred both inside and outside of the church. This division places what is sacred, what is of faith, on a level much lower than what is secular, undermining the defense of any guiding morality in society. due to the church's inability to affect the culture it is now affected by the culture, thus faith has been privatized and undervalued in minds of believers.

certainly, people could possibly get caught up in study and become irrelevant to the needs of society. i'm not arguing that any should go to such extremes with their education. however, we have most definitely become irrelevant by our neglect of academic study to improve our faith. doctrine without faith will be useless and faith without doctrine will be misguided. what i would like to see is the encouragement of a well-rounded faith, which includes studying a variety of topics from the perspective of a christian worldview in the midst of biblical study. the average lay-person does not necessarily need to attend a seminary, but a pastor does.
furthermore, doctrine should not be a bad word, and it should not be thought to be boring. doctrine is the result of passionate study of God's Word in order to understand His will for His church. we learn from the bible to understand the means by which we may please Him. everyone lives by doctrine without realizing it, so we should do our best to live by the right doctrine. and who better to direct us than the one or ones (ideally) who have spent the time studying God's Word truly?

ekklesia = gathering

this is where i flesh out the frame of an idea that has been slowly growing in my mind. i have found that my mind is like a crock-pot. here is part of the result of weeks of cooking.

my favorite way to begin a discussion is with a question. what is church, truly?
there are two senses in which church is discussed, one being an idea of the "universal church", and the the other is the local church. the idea of the universal church is the collection of believers past, present, and future, here in this time and outside of this time. i attribute this idea to the whole of the body of christ. i believe it is the kingdom of Christ. the local church is that much smaller, immediate gathering to which you belong, or which you attend, if you do either. i use the word "gathering" here for a reason. not to get too technical but the term used by paul specifically, and by the n.t. as a whole is ekklesia which more truly could be translated as "gathering." i could get into a discussion over its etymology but that would be boring. so, gathering of fellow believers should suffice as a whole definition. the term "church" was adopted later to describe a christian gathering. i doubt i need to remind you that a church is not the building.
i'm digging into this concept of a gathering because i believe that's what a church is simply meant to be. a local church simply is a local gathering of God's children together. there are many purposes for gathering together; worship, education, fellowship, love, support, guidance, etc. when i use the terms "simple church" or "church simply" i mean a church bent on these purposes and nothing more.
when i consider many of the churches i've encountered and conclude upon their apparent understanding of the church's function, i have to imagine that they have lost the original intent for the church. i am living in the heart of the southern baptist belt. some may also argue i'm living in the heart of the bible belt. i'm less inclined to agree with that, nevertheless i have tons of churches to choose from. what applies to southern baptists probably also applies to non-denominational churches, presbyterian, methodist, etc. when i consider these churches the first thing i notice is their building. many of them are enormous probably because a bunch of people attend them. they also have a multitude of programs such as youth group, men's group, women's group, nursery, this bible study, that bible study, vbs, sunday school, etc. none of these things are wrong per se, but my question is whether or not these things are attempting to fill a void, and if so what should fit properly in the place of that void?
basically, i think we neglect true community and attempt to fill it in with all these silly programs.
instead of valuing the church for what it is designed to be simply, and loving it for that reason, we create large organizations that look good and make us feel good though in turn they do not function as they should. church simply, requires a vision for God.
a simple church is nothing more than the gathering of fellow believers together to worship God, to make God known, and to learn to love each other. in this context everything is covered, discipleship, teaching, you name it. these things are most fully experienced in tight community. tight community is best facilitated in a local area where individuals have the ability to see each other on a daily basis and to do life together. in acts chapter 20: 17-32 paul calls to himself the elders from the church at ephesus. in these verses he outlines his ministry in ephesus and the relationship he had with those gathering together. we see that in three years time he created a community of believers, taught them, and discipled them to the point that he could leave them to fend for themselves against the "savage wolves" which would come in amongst them. he says that, "i was with you the whole time...teaching you publicly and from house to house." he was with them in sickness and in tears, in good times and bad. he was married to them! none of this driving 25 + minutes to church every week. a commuter community can not flourish. paul did life with these people and in that context he raised an strong, tight community of christians.
i also believe evangelism is best performed when faith is lived day in and day out in the eyes of non-believers. how effective would a tight community of believers be growing together in love everyday before those in their local area who have no hope? yes, it would be messy but messiness would only speak of authenticity and humanity in light of grace. i believe we avoid this concept of church because it would be messy. who are we to hide our messiness behind the walls of big buildings?
in order to succesfully create this simple, tight church gathering we would need to cast off a lot of pride and most of our concept of church. the pastor of this gathering would have to "settle" for service away from the spotlight. he may never get paid. he may never have a flock over 30, which may be advantageous if he never gets paid. maybe they never move into a building but remain in a home for their gatherings. i would argue that if such a community with such a vision is to exist its numbers must be limited (maybe not as low as 30) to encourage the maximum bond between members. when the numbers consistently exceed that capacity then another gathering should be created. this would not necessarily be a problem if discipleship and clear teaching are emphasized from the beginning. in this way a network of simple, tight churches could be created, and perhaps occasionally there could be a larger gathering of communities to worship and fellowship. i don't see why missions or anything else should be neglected by such a model.
let's let go of those things that hinder our growth together in Christ! let's let go of our pride and our fear!

random statements

that last blog about truth or agenda made no sense.

i would like to own a dog and name him snuffleupagus but call him "gus" for short.

vespa scooters are the only vehicles that make sense.

i partially take that last statement back because bicycles also make sense.

in heaven we will get to know everybody as well as they can possibly be known because we will simply have the time.

i would look really good on a vespa scooter.

bad music is immoral.

i hope i'm not immoral when i play the guitar.

dishwashers are awesome and you people who have them don't truly appreciate them.

my bathroom faucet leaks.

if you want an outdoorsey feel at home just sleep in your sleeping bag.

i am still accepting applications for a scholarship wife.

a scholarship wife is defined as the following: attractive woman willing to marry me and work to put me through school.

apparently i resemble michael scott from the office.

tomorrow i will make a sling david and goliath style.

truth or agenda?

i am caught somewhere between trying to figure out what is correct and what needs to be correct. is this essential? yes. and is this essential? maybe not. does this action have everlasting consequences? if not is that reason enough to justify it? are there any actions that do not have everlasting consequences? what is truth and what is an agenda?

it is easier to deal in black and white.

i understand that we try our best to make things black and white, but things aren't always so clear and perhaps it's unfair to make them submit to our will. can we cast a verdict upon things that are not clear with such certainty? are we meant to? what do we miss out on when we err one way or another?

there are universal essentials no doubt, i believe that as much as anyone. though there are also essentials for you that are non-essential for me. in my opinion these are two valid statements that do not contradict each other.

thankfully the univeral essentials are clear. so should we try to universalize the unclear personal essentials? again, where is the line between truth and agenda?