blog-in-the-round: Hannah Montana

when given this topic, i wasn't sure what angle to take.

i thought maybe i would talk about how so much of the time, who we are and who we project ourselves to be are different, and how difficult it is to maintain two simultaneous identities.

or maybe i would consider our culture's obsession for celebrity, and how that can lead to the downfall of many people (britney spears) and how it is a cycle that is tough to break as we look to who might be the next to crack under the pressure of millions of people's scrutiny. (watch the south park episode "britney's new look" for a spot-on, if irreverent, take on this)

either of those could be thoughtful and provacative, and could make a post that would garner much conversation. and that would be good. but then i thought that maybe there was another thesis i could go with.

i hate pop music.

pop not in the sense of catchy and well-written, but pop in the sense of what is popular.

my daughters love the hannah montana, but they are 9 and 2. that is what they do. at some point, i presume, they will grow out of it. after all, i sold my muppets records long ago. and now i have, if a may say so, excellent taste in music. but some people never outgrow the need for crappy, lowest-common-denominator music. especially in the case of nickelback and other butt-rock favorites. how are they popular? i call for all of our northern states to collectively shun canada until we get an apology for our neighbors to the north crapping nickelback all over us. the list could go on forever, but i don't want to get my blood pressure up, so i'll leave it at that.

and close with the words of kevin's favorite and oh-so-controversial among churchfolk shirt:

"your favorite band sucks"

spinning the wheels (full of sound an fury, signifying nothing)

"hilldale baptist church is a community of changed lives changing our world by connecting to God, to people, and to ministry"

so goes our mission statement. our statement of what we value and pursue most. and i guess it is not, in and of itself, bad. a little wordy maybe. but it reflects, i think, our churches sincere desire to do something or be the right kind of church. what gets me are the questions that lurk somewhere in the background and force us to evaluate ourselves in light of the statement.

why, in the last 10-15 years, have we grown from 700-800 to less than 200?

why do we constantly have to worry about meeting budget?

when we claim to be about changing the world, how is it that we are irrelevant to our own community?

why is there such a disconnect between the lofty claim in our statement and the day-to-day grind of trying to stay afloat? i don't think it is a lack of trying. i don't think it is a lack of good people. so, what is it?

i have heard it said that to do the same things and expect different results is insane. but maybe, in this case, it is not. because we do the same things we have always done. but it ain't helping. what worked, and led to a desired result, 15 years ago, is leading to the opposite result now. why?

because the game has changed.

the more i am a part of church, the more i feel that it is, by and large, a relic of a past way of thinking. at least in its current forms. hilldale is a micrcosm of this. we are an almost all-white church in the middle of an almost all-black community. the folks that used to come? they all followed the other white folks to the trendy church (or churches). so, i at least admire our people for wanting to stay in the community, even if it is leading to our demise. we could move out to the outer edges of the suburbs and maybe become the trendy church ourselves. it would almost be easy. but, for now, we have chosen to stay. the problem is we are stuck in a form of being the church that is past its sell-by date. too many times, we think that doing the things we have always done harder and with more gusto will lead us back to the promised land, but i think we are wrong in that assumption. i believe we have to reimagine what it means to be the church in our context. and to dare to do what it takes. to do something. indeed, this is what the Church universal must do constantly in order to matter. i want the church to matter. but it must change.

back in the glory days of HBC, it was the people, not any program or lesson or song or anything like that, that made it special. it was a rag-tag group of Christ followers just trying to do the right thing and be the church. and there was a certain beauty to that. and once we got some momentum, it was hard to stop. if we are ever to move forward into any kind of future that matters, it will again be the people, and not the programs, that take us there. Jesus never needed the right curriculum or song or program to change the world. he just needed people. so maybe the most important words in our statement are the first ones.

"hilldale baptist church is a community..."

blog-in-the-round: gilligan's island

for a while, you could get this show 24 hours a day in some sort of syndication. as a result, i have seen way too much of it. good enough show, i guess, but it always begged a question or two:

why did everyone (save the 2 men who worked on the boat) have so many clothes for a 3 hour tour?

for that matter, how were they shipwrecked so long only 3 hours from civilization?

wasn't it convenient that of all groups to be shipwrecked with, gilligan and the skipper were with a group consisting of hot, rich, and smart people?

the misadventures of the folks on the island can teach us a few things. namely, how people best function, specifically followers of Jesus. it would have been easy for the 7 stranded ones to become so caught up in escaping the island (which certainly was important; indeed, it drove the show) to do nothing positive for the surroundings they had. while each show was an exercise in a wacky way to escape, they also built huts, ate food, enjoyed the surroundings, and otherwise made a life there. the hope of escape was important, but not singular.

my brothers and sisters in Christ sometimes have a gilligan-ish mentality. "we are not at home here. we should focus ALL our energy on escape, on preparing for eternity." meanwhile, the world around them goes to hell (quite literally a hell on earth). simply put, an escapist mentality benefits no one, and lets the forces of darkness and un-love and hatred and violence win.

we could take a cue from the castaways. no, we are not at home in this world the way it is now. and hope for the future with God is an important part of our worldview. but we are here, and should form community and build huts and feast and otherwise enjoy and live in the surroundings we are given.

i have to believe it would be the best way to live. just watch out for the natives.

is winning everything?

it sure beats losing.

in my limited sports career, as player or coach, i have run the entire spectrum.

high school basketball as an erwin eagle-not good
hilldale softball-very good
hopewell basketball-very bad, then very good
hilldale basketball-very bad
HUMC men's basketball-pretty good
birminghamandcheese-don't ask
pvya baseball-good, and not so good

it is the last one that has me considering the question. as a coach this year, i am 1-4. and we have gotten manhandled a time or two. granted, we are very young, but i still wish we could break through. but is that everything? is winning even the point?

this will not become a blog that decries organized sports, saying that all kids are winners and keeping score is wrong. i like sports, and i think that winning is fun and good, and my team is the current world champion and i think that is wonderful. winning and losing, by the way, helps people see what they are good at and teaches great lessons about life. i do believe all kids are special in their own way, but some of them suck at baseball. so how do i balance wanting my kids who are good at baseball, and their (and my) desire to win with those who are just in it for the capri suns and cheez-its, or because mom and dad are forcing the issue. the answer is, honestly, i don't know.

i don't need to win little league games to validate my life. i have a family and friends and am not a criminal or a junkie, so i figure i am doing ok. but on the other hand, i enjoy winning. i enjoy knowing i have an eye for talent, and that i can teach a game to kids. and i want my son to experience the joy of winning. because, not to brag, but the boy can play.

at the end of the day, i would rather the kids and moms and dads enjoy playing for my team. i would rather enjoy coaching with two of my closest friends. sure, winning is part of that, but it is not all of it. one of the greatest joys so far was one of the kids moms telling me that she prayed that her son would get on my team. i don't know if God made me pick him, or assured that i got the first pick. i just picked him because he is super-talented and a good kid. but if somehow i have a part in helping this kid in his baseball journey, it is hard to deny that God is in that.

i guess for now i will try to just help them get better. heck, maybe we make some noise in the second half. if not, i guess there is next year.

go (pinson) rangers.

blog in the round: chuck norris is a real man

i shouldn't have to explain why chuck is a real man, but in case you're a pansy, i will educate you.

it is very easy to see that chuck norris is the epitome of being a man. that is the only correct view. some people (matt) will claim that other guys might be more manly than chuck, and that that man might be richard simmons, but some people (matt) are wrong, and tragically so.

if chuck norris were a guitar solo, he would be 23 minutes long and awesome, like from a skynard song. if richard simmons were a guitar solo, you would play that solo on a flute.

if dragonforce and godzilla had a baby, that baby would be devoured whole by chuck norris.

if you need concrete reasons, here are some:

-chuck never talks about his feelings. this is clearly for girls. and chuck is not a girl. see, talking about feelings leads to caring about others, which will soon lead to crying. i don't have to tell you how unmanly tears are. there is only one man who talks about his feelings. that man is Oprah. and nobody wants to be that man.

-chuck solves all his problems by fighting. and that is awesome. real men look for fights wherever they can. it is best if you can win these fights. since chuck norris never loses, that makes him a real man. so don't mess with him. he will roundhouse kick you in the heart and that will be the end of you.

-chuck has killed a man. i know that it was in a movie, and in most movies, the guy isn't really killed. this is so the guy's mommy will not cry. but chuck cares not about mommies, so if he kills you in a movie, you are dead. most real actors view this as the highest honor they can receive, even better than an Oscar.

-he has no mercy on Punks. it is commonly known that the biggest threat to mankind is bears. you may not know that the second biggest threat is Punks. Punks come in many forms, including: street punks like zed from police academy, asian crime syndicates, drunk frat guys, and many others. these punks want to steal our way of life, and chuck stands ready to stop them. and he does not give them second chances. obviously, this makes him awesome.

surely i don't need to tell you anymore reasons, but just in case you can't read, go watch delta force. you can not resist its powers. then you too will know that chuck norris is the definition of man.

(the opinions on this blog are not necessarily the opinions of the author/s of this blog. i know this seems impossible, but it is a mystery that you will learn to live with)

jesus vs obama?

why do they gotta be haters?

members of the christian faith, and very specifically southern baptists, are many times more known for their disdain for other people or things than for being people of love. this is playing itself out in the current election process. because nothing brings out the best in southern baptists like political discourse.

it's just that the view is so narrow. if it ain't republican, don't vote for it. i honestly thought that hillary would get the bulk of the faithfuls' vitriol, but the things that are being said about obama are shocking. i have gotten numerous emails that tell me that he is a radical muslim (he isn't), that he is unpatriotic (untrue), and that he was sworn in on the koran (again, false). never mind that these things are dubious. because nothing incites christians to stand up and be heard like a common enemy. the most ridiculous is the claim (by many) that obama is the anti-Christ.

really?

wow.

maybe there are some racists undertones to all this. but i think a lot of it is bad theology. conservative christianity's questionable reading of revelation tells us that some sinister uber-man will come along and be really great at first, but then turn out to be history's biggest butthole. apparently, somewhere in scripture is the clue that he will be a good speaker. so if antichrist is supposed to be a good speaker and evil, and democrats are evil by nature (their thinking, not mine), then surely a silver-tongued democrat will be the man of sedition. (pretty convenient that GWBush couldn't be the antichrist since he wasn't fluent in english) this is, first of all, really bad theology, and second of all, very presumptuous. and it makes me embarrassed to be associated with such types.

as an aside, isn't it odd that obama's strengths are being attacked, like being a good speaker means he would suck at actually being in charge. we should not forget the power of words. this country was built on the hope-infused words of the declaration of independence, and history shows our greatest presidents were ones who, by their words, moved the american people toward a better future. lincoln and kennedy are two examples of this.

i guess i am just tired of the level of political thinking being so narrow. every time a certain friend of mine is asked who he will vote for and has said obama, the reaction from christians-every time-has been disbelief. like that shouldn't even be an option for a follower of christ. this follower believes that there is that option, and it is precisely because of my faith in Jesus that i support obama. and if your faith leads you to support hillary (who i am fine with too) or mccain (who scares me a little), then that is ok. just vote your concscience, and let those who would seek to box Jesus into a religious party know that God is bigger than what they try to stuff him into.

ipod playlist 4.11.08.

first 10 songs in shuffle mode.

yellow ledbetter-pearl jam
contact-as cities burn
where zero meets 15-five iron frenzy
you and me-denison witmer
the bradley-further seems forever
don't hold back (full on)-the normals
i like your photographs-starflyer 59
rat rider-blood brothers
take them home-scott orr
when i stop dreaming-johnny cash

god bless variety

following the beat of your own drummer (taylor swift. ugh.)

i'm not sure that i really had a plan going into fatherhood. sure, i wanted my kids to be smart and beautiful and athletic and thin and have all the same interests as me. i think i expected them, by age 3 or so, to be miniature representations of the best parts of me, that they would love the sox and alabama and good music and dreamland ribs and Jesus. but i never made and plans on how to get from tiny little lumps of potential to all-i-hoped-they-would-be. i bring this up because i sit here typing with taylor swift playing in the background, and i didn't put it on.

kate is still young, so she has all the trappings of toddlerhood, including viewing her parents as supremely awesome. drew is older, but either because he is a boy or whatever, he and i share much in common (baseball perhaps the biggest). abbey, on the other hand, is at that age where she is forging her own identity, and much of it feels like an attempt to be the opposite of her parents. she doesn't much care for the Game, she hates everything we buy her, and her musical tastes are being influenced more by her friends (who don't have near the ear for quality that i do).

and none of this is bad, necessarily, but i guess it is just reminding me that, as much as i want to them to stay close to us always, parenting is the art of letting go. from the moment their lungs expanded, i have been in a process of preparing them to leave. and the more prepared they are when they do, the better i will have performed my duties. i know that they will always be my children, but one day it will be different. they will be on many levels disconnected from me and april, and we will have to trust that we did not botch things up too badly. sometimes, i worry about this, but sometimes, i am thrilled at the possibility of all that they can become.

i know the day that the original baby-girl leaves for good is many years off, but i feel like the first steps toward that day have already been made. and once the process begins, it is impossible to stop.

freakin' taylor swift.

Blog in the Round: taco bell (and make it about God)

(for the uninitiated, blog in the round is a circle of a few of us who will be giving each other weekly blog challenges. an unusual topic. or a twist on a normal one.)

taco bell. the one "food" place that we have many names for. taco smell. taco hell (because it is where all mean, nasty tacos go to die). i even knew a guy who called it crotch-o bell. but do we really understand this institution from a theological viewpoint?

because i have a theory.

taco bell is to mexican food what american cultural christianity is to following Jesus. let me explain.

i like mexican food. a lot. you go into a mexican place, and before your butt is firmly in its seat, you have chip and salsa on your table. for free. and the salsa is real, as each place makes their own. the service is usually great (i defy you to try and empty a glass of tea at a mexican place). and the food is amazing. almost everything is covered in cheese, and i am pretty sure that chicken quesadillas will be served in heaven.

taco bell, on the other hand, is a cheap, americanized generic form of "mexican" "food." (the quotes are because it is not any more mexican than hardees, and i am not sure it is technically food) the sauce, instead of homemade, comes in foil packets, and there is no distinction between one taco bell or another. they are just mass produced. and the menu. dear Lord, the menu. a burrito with potatoes in it? geez. at one point, you could actually get a bacon soft taco. now, i'm all for bacon, but that unholy concoction has no business crawling its Frankenstein butt out of the drawing room. all this counts against the bell, and i haven't even mentioned the crippling diarrhea. fourthmeal ALWAYS comes back to haunt you.

************

following Jesus should be as great and localized as good mexican food. it is spicy, risky, and life-giving. following Jesus is an adventure that lets you go into the world as agents of another kingdom, full of freedom and grace and love. it expands your world, and brings civilizations together around tables of celebration and joy.

american cultural christianity is the cheap version of life with Jesus. it seeks to package it up in neat little packets so that all christians look and smell the same. and, like the aforementioned bacon tacos, it spits out nature defying creations like Jesus flashlights and Jesus mints and Skillet. in essence it is, at its worst, fast food religion. no thanks.

and i haven't even mentioned the crippling diarrhea. pot-luck casseroles ALWAYS come back to haunt you.