The Junk Movement

Moving on...

2007-10-25T14:05:00.000-07:00

well....its time. I am moving to wordpress. There is some cool stuff that can be done there.

The new site is called napkinology, yes, the study of napkins. Its sort of a pen-on-napkin approach.

For the faithful two, thats where I will be.

napkinology.wordpress.com

2007-10-23T09:37:00.001-07:00

Great video about some friends of mine making a difference in Zambia...

The Psalms: Part I

2007-09-23T23:58:00.000-07:00

Hallelujah! Sing to God a brand new song, praise him in the company of all who love him. Let all Israel celebrate their Sovereign Creator, Zion's children exult in their King. Let them raise his name in dance; strike up the band and make great music! And why? Because God delights in his people, festoons plain folk with salvation garlands!

Let true lovers break out in praise, sing out from wherever they're sitting. -Psalm 149.1-5

Sometimes I wonder where the psalmist found such energy and passion to write words like this. How often can we honestly say that it would be easy to just take out a pen and paper and write down our hearts true praise to God? Its almost like you can envision a giddy little boy jumping around in a field, spinning and singing because he has found that something that makes him most happy. That thing that satisfies him beyond all worry.

I guess the question is, why does it feel like this would never happen today? Our fast-paced lives demand scheduling as many people live and die by their blackberry's, palm pilots, or notebooks (for those who still like the feeling of writing something down and being able to cross it out once they have completed it). Why was this joy so blatantly obvious to the psalmist?

I recently saw a movie about a martial arts fighter. His life was bent on restoring his families reputation after an incident nearly 3 decades earlier. His mind was so consumed with fighting that the little things no longer mattered to him. As soon as his family tragically passes away because of his ignorance and inability to think of anyone but himself, he recluses to a small village. Even there he finds himself in competition as he tries to be the fastest field worker. At one point, he notices everyone in the field stop at the exact same time. Why? The wind had started to blow through the valley. The trees were swaying in a beautiful green shimmer as the sunlight pierced through, and the people stopped to take it in.

The joy God planted in him then is no different to the joy we experience today. We definitely have new ways of making it harder to recognize, but it is still there. Imagine what life would look like if the most noticeable part of your day was the joy God had instilled within you.

Can we sing from wherever we are sitting?

Challenge: Become a true lover and take time to break out in praise, in whichever form it takes, from wherever we are sitting.

Passion

2007-06-24T22:54:00.000-07:00

The video clip in the previous post said many things, but one of the highlights was passion. Brent loves film, and as a result, has chosen to do great things with his great love.

We all have passion and most of us have a passion. But why? Why are some people so in love with what they do, and why does this translate into being very good at what you do?

Its hard to argue that they are spiritual gifts because even non-Christians have passion and talents. Its also one of those words thats hard to describe. You almost can't do it without using a "passionate" tone of voice. Try describing it to someone and listen to how you sound and you will see what I mean. Passion is not just desire, its strong desire; its not just emotion, its strong emotion; its not just love, is strong love; passionate love.

Is it ok then to say I have a passion for playing the guitar, for filming, for athletics, and in the same breath say God is passionate about humanity? Or does the word "passion" take on a whole new meaning in the context of God?

Azusa Pacific University: Life on Film-Brent

2007-06-20T14:50:00.001-07:00

This should make you think

Creation Museum?

2007-05-26T16:31:00.000-07:00

Recently, an article was published in CNN speaking of a new creation museum that would be opening in the Cincinnati region of the United States. The museum seeks to provide a literal account of the creation process, proving the earth was created only 6-10 thousand years ago, while accounting for the existence of dinosaurs and refuting nearly all scientific evidence saying otherwise.

Is this honestly the best the thing to do? To proclaim to the world that science means nothing to Christians?

Remember:

- the sun revolved around the earth for a long time and then miraculously became the center of our solar system (sarcasm)

- dinosaur bones were carbon dated to millions of years ago, however, this assertion has now been withdrawn since the earth is only a few thousand years old (more sarcasm)

- it is impossible that God could have actually created the science that we now choose to refute (even more sarcasm)

All kidding aside, there must have been a better way to spend $27 million. If this causes people to turn and be saved, then I cannot complain, for the ultimate goal of man is to make disciples of all nations. However, who is to say that the money spent elsewhere would not have brought about salvation?

I have a close friend in India right now working with children who have been a part of the sex trade since their early teens.

Northern Uganda has been involved in a civil war for 21 years now and ruled by a ruthless militia (LRA), abducting children as young as 7 and turning them into killing machines.

The AIDS epidemic continues to spread throughout Africa.

This is a lot of money we are talking about and it is just frustrating that it was put into a project that only adds fuel to a debate that will most likely be fought for as long as I'm around, in a country where nearly 85% of the population already claims to believe in a Supreme being.

I'm not saying this museum is bad, the intentions are surely good. The point is, with or without this museum, the debate of creationism and evolution will always exist. It just seems to me that the money could have been used for a different endeavor with the same intentions; to seek and save.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070520/ts_alt_afp/uspoliticsreligion_070520222942

Comments are welcome...

The Space Between...

2007-04-21T18:37:00.000-07:00

Recently, I have been hearing a lot about the topic of space, and I am just starting to get into the reading aspect. The science of astronomy definitely is one that I think all of us could know a little more about, because it honestly doesn't get the time it warrants.

We live on planet earth. We, along with a few other planets, revolve around a star (sun) to form the solar system. Our solar system is part of the milky way galaxy.

Within the galaxy are billions of stars, meaning potentially billions of systems. Within the Universe, there are billions of galaxies. Now, to the human, the "greatness" of this is simply out of our grasp, myself included.

It can be explained in the simplest terms and you can understand the words used to describe it, but can you honestly fathom a billion stars and then on top of that a billion galaxies, on top of that realizing that the universe is continuously expanding?

Now, assume God is creator as is widely accepted by most theological positions. If the creation is simply too great for humanity to fathom, how can we conceive of a God who is the creator of "greatness" and second, if we could, why would He want to be in relationship with us?

Is it possible life exists elsewhere then? If not is that just a huge waste of space (no pun intended)?

Just thinking...

God is Creative

2007-04-19T12:35:00.001-07:00

The video is a little overly dramatic, but just mute the sound and focus on the art...I think its pretty sweet!

A Quote for thought...

2007-04-17T00:41:00.000-07:00

- It is in solitude that we are least alone

Something like this was on a church billboard (those things offer so much wisdom!) but Im not sure I can agree with it. Any thoughts?

A Thanks...

2007-04-12T14:14:00.000-07:00

This is just to let everyone know that Markus inspired me to update the site and make it look cool...so check out his blog too. Take a minute and check out the site!

Thanks Markus

Stretchy Church

CoNfusIon...Mystery

2007-04-12T13:16:00.000-07:00

Recently, I have been reading a book called "The Openness of God." It might as well be called "God is a Paradox" because that is essentially all the book has claimed so far. From what I have read, the author, who is one of several, has tried to explain how the traditional view of God can be held within the Open view of God as well. In effect, it is an argument for this particular view trying to please everyone from the uber conservative to the mid-liberals; theres no trying to convince the extremists.

Here is a breakdown of the Open view so we are all on the same page: God is more then a distant being, having pre-determined all time and paths. He is a being who exhibits emotions as humans do and has a deep connection and relationship with humanity. As a result of these anthropomorphic qualities, God is able to "repent" in its traditional sense meaning to be heading one way and pull a 180. A simpler way of saying this is God is able and has changed his mind, however, many people feel this language is too abrasive, although I am not sure how they respond to the word "repent" if they do not understand its true meaning. So...

God loves us very much, He is extremely relational, but He is still completely God (That's really as simple as it can get)

The question to be posed is:

Would you...

A) Rather God experienced time as you did and was able to connect to you more deeply then any other being

-or-

B) Rather God pre-determined all time, good for some and bad for others, yet could lie in the comfort of having a plan for your life

-or-

C) Other ( My guess is that most will land here)?

Keep in mind both have beneficial and possibly detrimental aspects, hence the dilemma.

The Outside Looking In

2007-04-09T21:14:00.000-07:00

Recently in reading the book of Jude, I stumbled upon a verse that is somewhat disarming. At first you would casually skim right past it because it appears to fit very appropriately into the context.

Jude 1.14-15: Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

Read the verse and think about why in the world this is troubling (besides for the irritating redundancy)...

Heres what I got. Jude is considered to be canonical. Even though it may be "fringe" literature, it appears in the Bible and therefore is given to the authority of inspiration (although only one verse in the entire Bible speaks of the inspiration of scripture).

So far so good ( I hope). The part that bothers me is someone else is quoted in this verse. Jude, the author, says Enoch prophesied. We know that the book of Enoch exists in pseudepigraphal literature, which is considered to be outside the realm of immediately inspired books.

The problem is, if we take the quote of Enoch to be canonical (which we have), why wouldn't the rest of the book or any other pseudepigraphal literature for that matter be considered canonical? Of course this is a slippery slope because then someone has to decide which extra-canonical literature is "inspired" and which is not.

So what then do we do?

Negative Temperatures

2007-01-15T22:04:00.000-08:00

What the heck is the deal with negative temperatures? At what point can I tell the difference between -10 and -12? Who was caught dumb-founded when they decided to make 0 degrees celsius freezing and found out the temperatures can go colder then freezing?

If it were up to me, I would say the the world should universally accept the kelvin scale as the new temperature gauge. That way, we would never have negative numbers again, and 260K would sound a lot cooler (literally) and at least conceivable then -12.

Alls Im saying.

-D

Prayer or maybe something else...

2006-11-21T10:44:00.000-08:00

Consider this my attempt to try and figure out a piece of prayer, out-loud, in front of all the people who read this blog. This is my view now and it may change in an hour if I am given sufficient evidence I cannot deny.

I think prayer works and that humans are fully capable of communicating with God. God had no reason to create us but love as we can give Him nothing He needs. If we are created by love, then God must take a personal interest in our lives therefore rendering communication with Him something acceptable and believable.

This brings me to the next point where it starts to get a little foggy, so please bare with me. If we can in fact communicate with God, can we request things of him? The answer from what I can see is yes we can, although that is not all prayer should be used for. The Bible does say ask and you will receive, i.e. “Ask and I will give the Nations to you,” and a few other scriptures I am sure you know or can find fairly quickly if you really wanted to.

The question you then have to ask is, If we then can communicate and ask things of Him, can we change his mind? According to scripture, it looks like we can. Abraham tried to spare the lives of many “righteous” people as did Moses, although those people might not have been so righteous at the time.

Just because we can change God's mind says nothing negative of His sovereignty or any other "omni" you can think of just yet. I think the first mistake people make here is to say that if it were possible to change God’s mind, God really isn’t God because he is not all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. I am not sure admitting this says anything to the idea that God cannot be God; if anything, it speaks to the intensity and intimacy of the relationship we have with Him, affirming His title as creator (as discussed above) according to His love for us, rendering Him God. You cannot affirm that it is possible to speak to God without affirming that God first loves you. Consider this series of arguments (my best attempt to clarify what is so hard to write):

Insert your favorite proof of God here then proceed

1.
a) If God needs nothing, and
b) If God created humans, then
c) God does not need humans

2.
a) If God is love, and
b) If God creates out of love, then
c) God creates humans not out of need but out of love

3.
a) If God loves humans, and
b) If God communicates with humans (prayer), then
c) God is willing to both listen and act

4.
a) If God is willing listen, and
b) If God is willing to act, then
c) God may not have everything predetermined

5.
a) If you have made it this far, and
b) If you have been open to my thinking, then
c) You will realize you cannot conclude 4c without first affirming 1a-4b

At this point I have probably lost all the Calvinists (except for the 2.5 pointers) and probably anyone who is shut off to the whole idea of “openness” theology. Is it so bad to say that God definitely knows some things about the future as is evident in scripture, but maybe not all things? Can we see the future as somewhat “open?”

Really this post has not been so much about prayer as it has been about Theology, and I apologize if that is what you were looking for. Maybe this jumble of mess will provide an inkling of insight to those “chosen” few who read this blog. You will realize, however, that your belief, your theology, will determine where you lie on the efficacy of prayer.

The Efficacy of Prayer

2006-11-02T20:09:00.000-08:00

Does prayer really work?

I was reading an essay recently on the "efficacy of prayer" and it really brought some things to light that I had been struggling with myself. One of the things it talked about was empirical evidence. You might say, "well that’s great, but give me the context."

Here it is: I pray for our church to grow. One year later, the church has grown 20%. Was it my prayer that made this happen, that provided for the causality of this result or simply time and coincidence (a word I should write an entirely different post on)? How can I prove that it was, or even on the other hand, that it was not?

The author continues and mentions an experiment we might try: We could gather a group of 'prayer warriors' together and have them pray over every person in Hospital A and have no one pray over those in Hospital B. If we did this at several locations and tallied up healings, we could prove or disprove the efficacy or effectiveness of prayer.

This brings up several points:

First, it is impossible to stop people praying for whomever and whatever they want as it is a personal choice and most times done in solitude and silence.

Second, what sort of motives are displayed in such actions, as if we decide who deserves our prayers and who does not?

Thirdly, should we discover scientifically that prayer "worked," how dare we treat something as sacred and holy as communication with the Creator, who at this point would undoubtedly exist in our minds, as something or someone to be tested?

Where is the problem with all this?

The problem is that we treat prayer as a time to place requests. We ask for things because the Word says that if we ask we will receive, yet we forget that we are being allowed the privilege of communicating with the Creator.

The author writes that prayer is either one of two things: “Prayer is either a sheer illusion or a personal contact between embryonic, incomplete persons (ourselves) and the utterly complete person.

However, he also trudges on to provide for another great point. Assuming prayer was communication with God, “Can we believe that God ever really modifies his action in response to the suggestions of men?

It may seem this is the case in several Bible passages such as the requests of Moses and Abraham, but should we accept that this is possible, several church beliefs would therefore be held in question such as the idea of pre-destination or pre-determinism, omnipotence to an extent, and possibly even omniscience.

There are numerous things I left out that may be added later on, however, for the time being will remain veiled

So where does all this land us?

I have an answer but I would rather hear yours.

Intentional Evangelism?

2006-09-05T23:18:00.000-07:00

This is something I have been wondering about lately. Are we all created to be intentional evangelists? Let me back up.

Intentional Evangelist: Billy Graham, Big wig pastors, the people who always seem to be converting people because they have that special something that allows them to acquire all those amazing conversion and acceptance stories.

Unintentional Evangelist: Those who carry on with life living as Christ who become the people that those who were previously converted reference. These people are often referred to as "some guy whos name I never knew" or "a kind stranger" etc. These are the people who affect people profoundly without actually saying anything about Christ but rather by living it.

Now that I have defined these two, is everyone created to be an intentional evangelist? Do you have to be the one talking to make the difference or be the evangelist? For example, our church runs a pretty good sized youth group. The people who run the groups try constantly to reach those youth involved. However, there is a person behind the scenes making sure the youth group even runs to begin with. The trips, the budgets, all the things you never think about, are managed by her. Is she just as much the evangelist as the youth leader? What is evangelism even defined as?

In dictionary.com, an evangelist can be described as such:

A person marked by evangelical enthusiasm for or support of any cause

Does doing the behind the scenes work then provide evidence for "support of any cause" related to evangelism?

Tell me what you think

Church Marketing?

2006-09-01T13:26:00.000-07:00

I read this recently and was curious as to what people thought, if anyone reads this anyway. Its from churchmarketingsucks.com.

"It is astonishing to me the lengths secular corporations will go in order to market relatively insignificant products like deodorant or nail polish. It is equally astonishing to me that while the church has the most important, most compelling message ever – Jesus Christ and His atoning work – that we have done so little to "market" His message. We need to get that message out using every means possible so that every life possible may be positively changed forever. Therefore we advertise The Crossing through many different avenues."

Should Jesus be marketed like this?

Its fresh...

2006-09-01T02:35:00.000-07:00

In logging in tonight, I found that I could easily create another blog. I felt that it was hard carrying on with the other blog at the moment and wanted a change...something different...something fresh. I have been playing a lot with the idea of "The Junk Movement", and dont ask me what it means just yet because Im still figuring it out myself. In some ways its almost so mysterious that its intriguing...so ambiguous that you already know what it could be about and at the same time have absolutely no clue and quite possibly dont care all that much. Really the potential is infinite which is how I want it to stay. That is why this blog will probably never have a description or fall into any particular category. Every day could be different...or if its anything like the last blog...every month could be different...but I have high hopes at this point. Have you ever caught yourself staring at a plane while you are at the airport or just driving around wondering who was on that plane and where they were going? Or how about watching a movie in which you find yourself wondering who the bus driver was when he wasn't driving the bus and what his life was like? It sounds ridiculous mostly because it is...but I like ridiculous and I like mystery so really its quite fitting. Hopefully these writings will be seen in the same sight as the airline passenger or the bus driver. Hopefully the word "junk" will stick out so strongly in your mind that the very sound of it will penetrate you and cause you to sit and pause and wonder..."I wonder whats coming next on the junk blog that guy has?" The end for now ( I hope that was thoroughly enigmatic)