Archive for category Doesn’t Fit in a Category
Who Decided?
Posted by Erik in Doesn't Fit in a Category on November 29, 2011
Who decided that in order for a concept to be true, it could not have emotional appeal? It must have been the Germans. (I’d blame it on Victorian England, but Victoria was a German herself).
Recently, I have heard several people in various places, both online and offline, talk about how we need to remove emotion from the equation when we are thinking about theology or philosophy. Frankly, I don’t know how you can do that – especially with the Bible.
The Scriptures are emotional to the core. To try to read them flat and without the emotions of love, disgust, rage, hope, longing, joy, and a host of others is to strip them bare and leave them bleeding.
Emotion is what gives our thoughts glow and purpose. It is the warmth and softness of otherwise cold, hard facts. In all of its messy, chaotic glory, emotions are integral to our existence. Anyone who thinks they can get rid themselves of emotion is destine to live a life I would call less than human.
In conclusion, I leave you with a clip of one of my all time favorite films Equilibrium.
9 Things About Amazon.com
Posted by Erik in Doesn't Fit in a Category on November 24, 2011
I remember the first time I shopped on amazon.com. Of course, back in 1996 all they sold was books. They even had this radio campaign about how they could never build warehouses big enough for everything they sell.
Amazon.com literally changed the face of the retail industry in the United States. Almost singlehandedly, they brought “Brick and Mortar” stores to their knees. Amazon.com forced the Borders Group to shut their doors and Barnes & Noble to adapt quickly. (Thankfully, B&N has adapted because I love that place!) And as the graphic below illustrates, when Amazon.com branched out into selling other products, they dominated the cybermall. They are an amazing success story and worth reading about.
With the Kindle, Amazon changed the world again – suddenly taking e-books from being something you puttered around with on your computer to a highly mobile, low tech way to enjoy reading. It is not that Amazon invented e-reading, but they certainly perfected it.
If you want to read more about it, check out One Click: Jeff Bezos and the Rise of Amazon.com by Richard Brandt. It is not without a sense of irony that I mention that the book is available in Kindle OR Nook.
Why I Don’t Make People Call Me “Pastor Erik”
Posted by Erik in Doesn't Fit in a Category, Personal on September 12, 2011
There are some folks in our congregation who call me “Pastor Erik.” It doesn’t bother me. For a lot of people, that is just how they refer to their pastor. It is like an automatic thing for them.
But if you ask me what you should call me, I generally say, “Erik is fine.” I don’t go out of my way to stick the title pastor in front of my name. It is not that I am ashamed of the title pastor. It is on the door of my office, and it is my email address (pastor AT bedfordroad.org), but I don’t attach it to my name for a lot of reasons.
Here’s the deal, if you really want to know. I’ll give you my two primary reasons for not referring to myself as “Pastor Erik” even when others do.
In the Scriptures, pastor is treated as a verb – an action – and not as a title. It is not appended to the names of those who were part of congregational leadership. People shepherded and pastored, but no one in the Bible is called “Pastor so-and-so.”
In my experience, sometimes this title of pastor so-and-so can become too much of a person’s identity. They forget that they are a person fulfilling a role in Jesus’ church, and they start thinking of their role as all that they are – all that matters. I’m the kind of person who would do that, so I make a conscious effort not to let that happen.
It is not that I actively discourage people from referring to me as Pastor Erik. That’s their prerogative, and it is up to them. I don’t have any deeply seated belief that drives me to tell others not to use the title as part of their name. I just don’t ask people to do it. I am happy with the name my parents gave me – Erik.
Pastoring is what I do.
Erik is who I am.
Steve Jobs Changed the World
Posted by Erik in Church, computers, Doesn't Fit in a Category on September 8, 2011
The Apple II and Macintosh
Who doesn’t remember Apple’s 1984 commercial?
The Apple II and the Macintosh computers literally changed the world of personal computing. Before Apple, computers were things that only large companies could afford. They were massive machines that costs tens of thousands of dollars. The first Apple II cost $1,300 in 1977. It would take four years for IBM to come up with the comparably priced 5150, but for a time Apple was it for color, home PC’s.
While Apple took a hit on the rather expensive Macintosh computer in 1984 (it retailed at $2,500), it changed the way computers were marketed and created an identity for the company that would sustain it through some difficult years.
Apple did not realize how important Steve Jobs was until they fired him in 1986. The company started a tailspin that it would not have recovered from had they not brought Jobs back as chairman and eventually as CEO.
The iPod and the iTunes Store
When Steve Jobs came back, he brought with him a number of ideas that he handed over to Jonathan Ive, his design guru. Ultimately, Ive would design the iMac, the unibody Macbook Pro and, of course, perhaps the biggest innovation in consumer electronics since the Apple II – the iPod.
After years of development, Jobs unveiled the iPod and the iTunes store in 2001. Today, it is hard to imagine just how innovative the iPod was. No one had seen portable digital media before. While people could copy their CD’s to their computer hard drive for years, the idea of taking that music with you was a revolutionary one.
Why hadn’t anyone thought of it? Others had. The problem was that it was just plain hard. The iPod by contrast was simple. And once Apple added Windows support in 2003, Apple owned the portable music scene. Three-quarters of all MP3 players are iPods or iPhones. Apple literally has no competitors.
Pixar and Computer Animation
Steve Jobs’ other contribution to our society is less known. In 1986, the recently fired Jobs purchased Industrial Light and Magic’s computer animation unit from George Lucas for $5 million. Between 1986 and 1995, the company was almost completely unknown. Their first feature film languished in development purgatory. Then, in 1995, Pixar released Toy Story, and in the twenty-six years since, they have released twelve other computer animated features. All together, they have grossed over $6.3 billion worldwide.
To say that Pixar and Toy Story changed the world of animation is like saying that talkies changed film-making. They did not simply change animation. They threw it in a glass, shook it up with about a hundred other things and then poured it out. Today, 2D animation is a small niche in the world dominated by computers. Pixar even expedited the revitalization of 3D filmmaking (although that trend is dying down), and helped drive the movie market to unbelievable heights.
Pixar was eventually purchased by Disney, and Steve Jobs became the largest stockholder in Disney. This little side gig has become very, VERY profitable for Jobs. His stock is valued at around $2 billion.
What Does All This Mean?
Most people are considered fortunate if they have one brilliant idea in a lifetime. Steve Jobs has had at least three.
But Steve Jobs does this with two major, major elements:
- Vision – Steve sees the future and makes it happen
- Community – Steve surrounds himself with exceptional people. If it weren’t for John Lasseter at Pixar-Disney, and Jonathan Ive and Tim Cook at Apple, Steve Jobs would not be as successful as he is. And the early days of Apple’s success would not have happened without Steve Wozniak.
The second fact was a hard one for Jobs to learn. He is notoriously a control freak and a micromanager; but he found men who worked with him, who clicked with his way of thinking. That made the vision a reality.
You can have all the vision in the world but without a community, a team that sees it too, you’ve got nothing.
Just an Interesting Language Tidbit
Posted by Erik in Doesn't Fit in a Category, History on August 31, 2011
I have been enormously busy with other things going on the past couple of weeks, so I have not been able to finish a number of the blog posts I am working on. I apologize for that, and as soon as things settle down, we’ll get some posts up.
In the meantime, here are some interesting tidbits I have discovered recently about our beloved English language.
- It might surprise you to know that in 16th century, English had three main regional dialects. In London, present active indicate verbs ended with -en. Thus, one might say “He loven ye.” But in the south, they used -eth which you might find familiar if you ever read the King James Bible: “He loveth thee.” While the southern pronunciation beat out the London one for quite some time, around the time of the rule of King James himself, the northern preference for ending verbs with -s had become the more common one as in “He loves you.” Shakespeare used all three, but you know which one won don’t you?
- Have you ever wondered why one landmass has three continental names: Asia, Europe and Africa? It is entirely because of the Romans. Europe was the area people in Asia could not see, beyond the setting sun. Asia was originally just modern day Turkey and Persia, and Africa comes from the Phoenician word for “sand” (not too surprising there if you have ever seen North Africa). The Romans used the convenience of these three terms for the world around their own. They never used them to describe Rome and Greece – only the regions that were not Roman or Greek.
- English actually has very little English in it. Less than 1% of our vocabulary descends from Anglo-Saxon. Most of our vocabulary comes from Norman French, and much of our grammar comes from Danish.
- Generally speaking, Greek words are used for scientific terms and types of medical expertise, but we almost exclusively use Latin words for biological descriptions.
- Ironically, much of the terminology in mathematics and physics derive from Arabic – including our numeral system (which is actually Indian but comes to us through the Arabs).
Ok, that’s enough trivia for today.
Notes on the Nature of Repentance
Posted by Erik in Doesn't Fit in a Category on August 18, 2011
This Sunday, we looked at Psalm 32 and what it has to say about repentance.
If you were there, you might remember that I mentioned that iniquity comes from the same root as inequality. In case you are interested, the reason they are spelled differently is that they entered English at different times. Iniquity appears in Middle English around 1300, coming directly from Latin. Inequality comes through French and does not arrive in English until 1484, nearly two hundred years later.
Regardless how you spell it, this idea of iniquity is that there is something out of balance. In the case of Psalm 32, what is out of balance? What does not add up? It is man’s capacity to remove or cover sin. Our own sinfulness cries out for a savior.
How are you defined?
Posted by Erik in Doesn't Fit in a Category on August 10, 2011
One of the fundamental flaws of Western Christianity is its worldview.
When most people use the term worldview, they mean one of a number of philosophies about the origina and nature of the world. We sometimes refer to the secular worldview or the theistic worldview.
This is not how I am using this term.
By worldview, I mean the way we think of ourselves in the world. What are human beings primarily defined by?
Due to its use as a national/imperial agent of power over the centuries, western Christianity views the world through the lens of sin. Everything is defined by sin.
- We are born into sin.
- We must be saved from sin.
- We must be careful that we don’t fall into sin.
The list could go on. Our entire universe is defined by sin. Because of this bias, we tend to take a negative, reactionary view on everything.
While the Scriptures certainly speak of sin and take it quite seriously, I do not think this is what should define us.
We should be defined by Jesus Christ.
- We are raised to new life by Christ’s resurrection.
- We are saved by being in Christ.
Where Christ has the true primacy, there is no room for sin. It becomes immediately visible and known. Christ truly is the light that brings life to all men.
When I was a kid, I used to mow our church’s 3.5 acre lot with my father. The church owned two Snapper ride-on mowers like the one below. My dad would ride in front, and I would follow behind.
The first couple times that we mowed, his lines were nice and straight but mine were all over the place. There were pieces of grass left standing all over the place. He stopped his mower and said, “Son, stop looking at the grass. Watch me. See where I am going and then focus on that. Just follow me.”
We hopped back on the mowers, and I looked forward. His mower was about 20 feet ahead of mine. I lined up my front right tire in the groove left by his left rear tire and then looked at his mower. Mentally, I drew a straight line out to the edge of the yard, and I drove toward it. When we were finished that line, we stopped. I looked back to see two perfectly straight paths mowed in the grass.
Rather than looking down right in front of my mower, and trying to adjust for every little possibility, I first looked to the leader and saw where he was going, and then I focued on his goal rather than the little bumps and swerves in front of me.
This is how we should be defined by Christ. Rather than trying to adjust and shift for every possible little sin that might pop up its head, we should be looking to Christ – he is the author and finisher of our faith after all – and seeing where he wants to take us.
We should not be defined by sin, but by Christ.
Transgenerational Ministry, part 1
Posted by Erik in Church, Doesn't Fit in a Category on August 3, 2011
When we were originally getting started in the work that eventually became Bedford Road Baptist Church, we were doing a study curriculum that included the question, “What do you consider the ideal age?” I still remember the faces of those around me when I answered, “Fifty years old. I can’t wait to be fifty.”
My answer is grounded in a passage of Scripture: Grey hair is a crown of glory when it is gained in a righteous life. (Proverbs 16:31)
Everyone in our society is trying to control the interests of the young. More frighteningly, many of the “old” are trying to pretend they are young. My wife and I often comment on the 40+ year old men at the mall wearing A+E or with fauxhawks and soul patches, trying to look attractive. Recently, I read a book by a prominent church leader who commented about how awesome it was that most of his congregation of thousands was under the age of thirty.
Our culture is obsessed with youth, and as a result, the generation we are losing is not the young. The generation we are losing is the older, more experienced. We have youth in spades because we have turned our weekly worship into a youth rally; but those the young should be learning from are largely absent or have been relegated to a position of unimportance.
Bedford Road is a blended, transgenerational ministry. We did this on purpose. We want to hear the voices of our teens and young adults (and I still consider myself young) but we also need to place a great importance on the voices of the believers of a finer vintage (what I call those believers who are my parents’ age and older). The “old” are not insignificant or unimportant. They are vital to a congregation’s health. They keep the young in balance. They bring maturity into a situation that requires it.
Too churches obsessed with the young culture sacrifice teaching and wisdom at the altar of “butts in seats” and being “relevant.”
Never forget that while some of the apostles were young (like John), it was the old guy with a wife and kids and an elderly mother-in-law who Jesus called the Rock.
Never forget that although the young crazy apostle – Paul of Tarsus – was turning the world upside down, he was always accompanied by an older, more mature companion in the persons of first Barnabas and then Silas.
Never forget that it was the rich young ruler who rejected Jesus and the older, more mature men like Joseph of Arimathea, who accepted him.
There is always a balance.
Choke points, pt 4
Posted by Erik in Church, Doesn't Fit in a Category on July 25, 2011
Ron Edmondson has some wisdom concerning the difference between being accessible and being available.
The Lines of Reality Are Getting Blurry
Posted by Erik in Doesn't Fit in a Category on July 22, 2011
You can think less of me if you choose, but since I was a kid, I have been a fan of professional wrestlers. Like anyone with half a brain, I know that the matches are all works. The outcome is planned, and the storylines are all scripted. But the reality is that these men are tremendous athletes who perform amazing feats before millions. You can call wrestling fake, but I perform to think of it as performance.
Recently, the WWE has crossed the line of reality with a storyline involving a wrestler who goes by C. M. Punk. With his real contract ready to expire, Punk and the WWE team have created a storyline which had him insult Vince McMahon and the entire organization of the WWE and then walk out of the company with the WWE Championship.
Punk wrestled on the independent circuit for a long time before joining the WWE a few years ago. He has always been a nonconformist. He’s not muscular; he does not deliver the types of promos people expect; and he lives a “straight edge” lifestyle – one free of drugs, intoxicants and other substances.
What Punk and the WWE have done is to create a storyline that crosses the line from the WWE’s stage to reality. In many ways, it emulates the way Mexican wrestling has long operated with the luchadores not taking off their masks in public and maintaining rivalries and such even when they are not performing. Their lives essentially become performances.
As you can see in this video, Punk has taken his storyline out of the ring and into life.
He invades WWE events, taunting their leaders. He posts incessant tweets on his Twitter account that are inflammatory. He (and the writers at WWE) are extending their wrestling personas beyond the ring and making it a living reality experience.
Give the WWE credit. This is the first time that a form of entertainment like this has spilled out into “real life” and become a phenomenon. Punk was even on the front page of ESPN.com last night.
The wrestling world is in awe. No one has ever done this before.
For me, it raises a serious question. Have we truly blurred the lines of reality so much that we welcome an invasion of our lives by the fantasy characters we see on TV? Are we really this willing to suspend disbelief? Have we become such consumers that it is not enough to simply see these storylines on TV. We must live them?
In a world filled with “reality” television, has television become our reality?
-
You are currently browsing the archives for the Doesn’t Fit in a Category category.
