Wednesday, October 20, 2004

indescribable

picked up Chris Tomlin's new CD, Arriving, tonight while Ronni, Colin, and I were out on our "date night." Had to have it after singing the first song, "Indescribable", at Cloud 9 this weekend.



There was a moment while we were worshipping on Saturday night when it occurred to me that very possibly, heaven might be even better than this. 600+ people, most of them teenagers, were worshipping, hands raised, jumping up and down, many with tears on their faces, voices straining from singing so loud for so long. One could almost sense saints long passed on into glory and angels and heavenly creatures joinging in the praise. The band seemed to fade into the background in my mind's eye, and Jesus himself was on stage, lit up in a bright spotlight that strangely and naturally emanated from him. I thought of the pastors and youth leaders and chaperones and churches that had sacrificed over the years to make Cloud 9 happen, and began to understand in a new way what Paul meant when he spoke of the people he preached the gospel to as an "offering acceptable to God". Jesus takes such delight from the worship of his kids, and there must be few greater joys than laboring toward and seeing an increase of praise in the hearts of those he loves.



entirely unrelated note: played one on one against a guy named Paul at the Rec center today. Probably about 20, although I'm a terrible judge of age. Younger than I am by a long shot, and in much better shape, that much for sure. Taller and quicker than me too. Dunked effortlessly (though, thankfully, not over me). Beat me 15-3 the first game. Huffing and puffing, I congratulated him, encouraged him about the excellence of his game and settled in to see if I am in fact so far over the hill that my future holds nothing but continued and increasing baskeball humiliation. Thankful to say that the scores of the next two games were more respectable, 15-5, and 15-7. In my favor. Praise God for insignificant but no less sweet joys.



BoSox just made it into the World Series, wow. Puts my comeback in perspective, I suppose...



just noticed all the capital letters. too tired to change them all for stylistic reasons. what is that all about, anyway? sort of pretentious in a trying too hard not to be pretentious way, now that I think about it...



2 comments:

Anonymous said...

very cool... i'll have to check out that CD. congrats on the basketball game! wish I coulda witnessed it.

that's funny about the capitalization thing. why is it that capital letters seem pretentious? it's funny how sometimes we do things subconsciously in an effort not to appear pretentious (i do that all the time too - just as i am now not using capitals); but when it becomes a conscious effort it seems ridiculous. like going back over a blog or email changing upper-case to lower-case. as if following grammatical conventions is overly stiff, formal, snobbish... or maybe it's the thought that I went through the extra effort to hit the 'shift' key just to be grammatically correct... and wanting to be correct is a bit pretentious? the funny thing is, while we would happily disregard capitalization conventions, we wouldn't be caught dead misspelling something... one thing to flaunt convention, another thing to appear unintelligent!

here's another question: we wear casual clothes at church for what reason? so that people don't feel a need to 'dress up' for church... and some people can't afford it; but maybe mostly so that people feel 'comfortable' as they are. maybe dressing nicely (e.g. slacks, dress) is seen as somehow trying to appear better than other people? i notice that there's almost a little hostility when someone dresses nicely... disgised as "wow, what's the occasion?"... as if only special occasions warrant slacks or dresses, and it's 'pretentious' at other times... on the other hand, and this is why it's a bit funny to me, many of the same people will go to the ends of the earth to look 'cool'. because it's OK if people think i'm casual, but god forid anyone would think i'm not hip or cool. i wonder if those same folks would wear dorky clothes so that people who come to church in outdated clothes feel at home? heck no! because casual or even downright sloppy is nearly a virtue (just think of Jack Black, John Belushi, Chris Farley - everyone would love to hang out with them) but dorky or uncool is a sin (and i'm only slightly exaggerating).

oh well, no need to skewer us poor Vineyard pastors... we're all doing our best...

okay... i'm clearly on a soapbox, but hey, this is a blog... if not here, where?

somewhat unrelated to the preceding...

symbolism over substance: i'm thinking of the hollywood stars who drive the hybrids in an effort to appear environmentally friendly... but who then take a private jet across the country for a movie premier. symbolism over substance. or the people who buy 'fair trade' coffee at Starbucks so that Juan Valdez can make an extra 10 cents a day, but who oppose 'outsourcing' real jobs to his country so that he can actually do something better than farm coffee beans. symbolism over substance: people who rail against segregation but don't live within a mile of an actual black person. talk about how we need to save public education and send their kids to a private school; oppose private school vouchers, but would never send their kids to one of those failing inner-city schools.

okay.. soapbox over... good cathartic exercise there...

Anonymous said...

JESSE WROTE:
o.k., a defense of casual cool over formal pretense (not well thought out, mind you, just a devil's advocate sort of thing)...

casual cool says the following: how I come across to you matters to me; i'm in touch with the same world you are, and not all of it is bad. casual cool reflects an internal coolness, rather than being a cover one hides behind. to the uncool, casual cool presents little relational intimidation.

formal pretense says: I only play with others who meet my standards; I have what it takes to make it in this world, do you? formal pretense doesn't reflect an authentic internal reality, it projects a desired external reality. to the informal, formality says I'm more powerful than you.

DON WROTE:
good thoughts Jesse. i agree with much of what you wrote. i wonder, though, if casual-cool is really less intimidating than dressing neatly (let's say slacks & button-down shirt, or 'business causal'). i would agree that the latter can be a bit intimidating if it's part of a spotless-perfect package... you know, the perfect hair, perfect teeth, tan skin, buff body. that can be too much - and hard for people to relate to.

on the other hand, i think someone who looks like Ryan Seacrest, with the tousled-hair and expensive-slacker sunglasses, (as well as the tan and perfect teeth) is just as (if not more) intimidating to someone who is not in touch with that urban-hipster world. i think it can actually convey a sense of superiority in an individualistic sense; whereas dressing too neatly might convey it in a group sense.

i guess it all depends on who the 'audience' is. if we're talking 20-something college students who watch John Stewart, and are themselves pretty 'hip', maybe they can connect with the urban-hipster look over the preppy look. but if we're talking someone not from that world, maybe from a more rural, suburban, or 'conservative' culture, they may be much more at ease with (and able to relate to) a Mr. Rogers than a Colin Ferrell, especially when it comes to a pastor.

i don't know if I'd call it 'formal pretense'. i hope you didn't understand me as arguing for pretension. by that reasoning, cleaning your house before someone comes over would be 'pretense', because you're not really that neat or clean. i think most people would understand that i don't necessarily wear slacks and a button-down when i'm lounging at home or out on the town with friends. most would probably assume 'don dresses up a little bit on the weekends, just like i dress a little nicer when i go to work or out to dinner'. on the other hand, the über-cool look might convey 'yes, i actually am this cool all the time.'

so what would i advocate? probably something relatively inconspicuous. not so neat and formal that people will wonder if they're supposed to dress up (or start doing so)... maybe a little neater than what we wear around the house. also, not movie-star über-cool... as if 'cool' is the new 'formal' when it comes to Sunday dress. i like what i've seen with Rich Nathan and Bill Hybels. you don't really remember what exactly they wore, because it didn't stand out. usually a nice pair of jeans or khakis... polo or button-down shirt. not a tie or jacket, but not Brad Pitt's wardrobe either.