PRE-POST: If you haven't read the post below, you should do so before you read what is next.
So here's the dilemna: I want deep friendships with people I share life with. And I want to live in a neighborhood/city that I love. But I also want to be content, no matter where I am. I want more...but I don't want to suffer from terminal wanderlust.
Call it wanderlust, call is passion, call it idealism - on April 1st 2005 - Kari and I decided to go for it. We had an ideal (a vision if you will) of what could be for our lives, our friends and our city - and we we going to make decisions that would hopefully lead to our dream of doing life with our friends in an urban setting. If it didn't work...at least we knew we tried our best. And if it did? Read our ideals below:
// Most of all, we wanted to do life with our friends. We're still trying to figure out what this looks like, but we've made some steps. It means living close...like within a mile of one another. Close enough to walk or ride bike. Being close allows you to connect whenever you want. When you're this close, you can get together for one tv show. Most people plan ahead of time to get together and usually happens once a month at best. Doing life with friends means meeting each other at a bar after work for pool and drinks. This is the ultimate in doing life together...calling each other up on the way home for work to see if they (he or she) want to grab a bite at Jakes. It means taking care of each other...looking out for each other. This means more when you're in a new city trying to think through jobs and finances and how to register your car at the dreaded DMV. It means watching each others kids, going on weekend trips together, constantly borrowing money (and milk and dishes and movies) from each other. And so much more...
// We also wanted to live in the city. This means walking everywhere...or riding bike. Cars become a pain and are only used when absolutely necessary. Urban dwelling means developing places that become common in the thread of a week. Theatres, restaurants, bars, shops, gym, church, post office, etc (all within walking distance of course) - it means going back to these places so much that we get to know the employees from each local establishment. This is what immersing yourself into a neighborhood means.
Our dream is now many months in the making and is better than we could have imagined. Sure, we sometimes think about other locations - but life is here in LA...in Pasadena. And it was worth the sacrifice.
Forget terminal wanderlust. But cheers to those of us who still want something more out of life. May we find ourselves living in between this delicate balance.
November 28, 2005
November 27, 2005
[top 3 movie of the year: Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang]
[new movie review: Walk The Line]
Terminal Wanderlust: "A condition common to people of transient middle-class upbringings. Unable to feel rooted in any one environment, they move continually in the hopes of finding an idealized sense of community in the next location." (Generation X, 171)
Anybody relate? I think Christians might call this "Chronic Discontentment." I used to fight this internal battle - will I ever be satisfied? Will I ever find the community I desire? Will I ever stop thinking about what's next? But not anymore.
I figured out a couple of things in the last 5 years:
1. That idealized community we all long for (like on tv's "Friends") is almost impossible to experience. First, not everyone wants community on the same levels. Second, you have to sacrifice to experience deep community, and not everyone is willing to sacrifice on the same levels. And third, there isn't an apartment building out there that has at least three vacancies, all on the same floor. KEY WORDS: sacrifice & want.
2. That idealized "next location" isn't actually better. The reality is the grass is just as dull and kind-of-brown on the other side. Plus, moving takes a lot of time and money. KEY WORD: reality.
3. That idealized perfect location isn't actually attainable either. The place where you live in the perfect community in the perfect city in the perfect state. Even the best places on earth (Sydney for example) can be lonely and dreary. And funnier still, places in middle America where the weather sucks can be exciting and hip. KEY WORDS: perfect & lonely.
So here's the tension: I want deep friendships with people I share life with. And I want to live in a neighborhood/city that I love. But I also want to be content, no matter where I am. I want more...but I don't want to suffer from terminal wanderlust.
Call it wanderlust, call is passion, call it idealism - on April 1st 2005 - Kari and I decided to go for it. We had an ideal (a vision if you will) of what could be - and we we going to make decisions that would hopefully lead to our dream of doing life with our friends in an urban setting. If it didn't work...at least we knew we tried our best. And if it did?
The wanderlust dilemna will continue in a few days. :)
[for the sake of this being too long...and knowing you'll never read something too long...I'll post the second half in a few days.]
[new movie review: Walk The Line]
Terminal Wanderlust: "A condition common to people of transient middle-class upbringings. Unable to feel rooted in any one environment, they move continually in the hopes of finding an idealized sense of community in the next location." (Generation X, 171)
Anybody relate? I think Christians might call this "Chronic Discontentment." I used to fight this internal battle - will I ever be satisfied? Will I ever find the community I desire? Will I ever stop thinking about what's next? But not anymore.
I figured out a couple of things in the last 5 years:
1. That idealized community we all long for (like on tv's "Friends") is almost impossible to experience. First, not everyone wants community on the same levels. Second, you have to sacrifice to experience deep community, and not everyone is willing to sacrifice on the same levels. And third, there isn't an apartment building out there that has at least three vacancies, all on the same floor. KEY WORDS: sacrifice & want.
2. That idealized "next location" isn't actually better. The reality is the grass is just as dull and kind-of-brown on the other side. Plus, moving takes a lot of time and money. KEY WORD: reality.
3. That idealized perfect location isn't actually attainable either. The place where you live in the perfect community in the perfect city in the perfect state. Even the best places on earth (Sydney for example) can be lonely and dreary. And funnier still, places in middle America where the weather sucks can be exciting and hip. KEY WORDS: perfect & lonely.
So here's the tension: I want deep friendships with people I share life with. And I want to live in a neighborhood/city that I love. But I also want to be content, no matter where I am. I want more...but I don't want to suffer from terminal wanderlust.
Call it wanderlust, call is passion, call it idealism - on April 1st 2005 - Kari and I decided to go for it. We had an ideal (a vision if you will) of what could be - and we we going to make decisions that would hopefully lead to our dream of doing life with our friends in an urban setting. If it didn't work...at least we knew we tried our best. And if it did?
The wanderlust dilemna will continue in a few days. :)
[for the sake of this being too long...and knowing you'll never read something too long...I'll post the second half in a few days.]
November 5, 2005
Part 2 is written and ready to be posted. But all this talk has got me thinking about Christians and our tolerance for people who question, doubt and reconsider their faith (read all the way through, I think it may be worth it). I’ve always been under the impression that it was good to question our faith. It was good to ask the hard questions and to take our time answering them. Several mentors even talked to me about the need to reshape my faith. We’re even told to doubt loudly, to share what we’re going through and question our faith in community. I think this goes back to our biblical desire to share our burdens with each other. We’re told to confess our sin, share our struggles and not keep things to ourselves. Even in recent years, it’s become more tolerant and safe to question, doubt and reform Christianity. Pop Christian books like Philip Yancey’s “Reaching for an Invisible God” and Brian McLaren’s “New Kind of Christian” trilogy have become A-list. I might even venture to say that questioning and being edgy has become cool. Rob Bell’s teachings and NOOMA video’s have sparked all kinds of conversations about revolutionizing Christianity as we know it. Even this past year I felt out of the loop for not reading Donald Miller’s “Blue Like Jazz.” And all the hype around the book seemed to revolve around Miller’s honesty and ability to say what most of us think sometimes about God, Church and the Christian life. So not only is it okay to question our faith, for some, it’s a needed discipline. It’s even become “Christianly acceptable” recently…maybe even hip to doubt?
But apparently, doubting can go too far. There is a line that can be crossed and when it is, watch out. You could be written off in a moment. And people will venture to say anything. This is my frustration with Christian’s tolerance towards questioning, doubt and reshaping: We allow it up to a point. In other words, there is a “safe” way to doubt, but there is a point when it becomes dangerous and off limits. It’s okay to question and share differences on serious issues like world religions, Biblical inherency, and Christian exclusivism. It’s even okay to re-think spiritual disciplines like prayer and fasting. But be careful of re-thinking the Apostles Creed. And don’t bother thinking seriously or critically about Jesus death and resurrection (at least not enough to change your mind). And beware of reading author’s who don’t share an evangelical heritage. N.T. Wright is in. Marcus Borg is out. Well, it’s safe to read them, but over the line to agree with them. We can be honest with each other, but not too honest. Sharing what we really think about Jesus or how we really feel about Church publicly is as acceptable as confessing our deepest secrets and sin. You better keep that to yourself. Keep an open mind, but close it when it starts getting a little dangerous. Without knowing it, we seem to have made doubting and questioning an art form.
Beyond these invisible lines, I’ve found that the way we talk about our questioning is an art form too. Any sense of edgy creativity or unusual methods seems to be over the line. Keith Drury can write articles that push and prod ideas and values (and even use creative titles like “I Used to be a Gay Evangelical”) as long as he “comes around” on some level at the end. But articles that push and prod but don’t come around at the end are off limits. Apparently we can push people to think, but only so far. I’ve also found that if I write something remotely different, unorthodox or edgy, I need to sugar coat it with words of care and delicacy. Saying things like, “This is just something I’m thinking through” or a precursor that says “I really don’t believe all of this” is helpful. It’s also helpful to always present both sides of a matter so that everyone can visibly see the alternative. Being as winsome as possible so that fewer people are offended is a plus. And as I’ve found out recently, sarcasm is completely off limits - especially if it’s targeted at ourselves. It’s funny, we don’t have any qualms about questioning the lifestyle, practices and beliefs of those outside the faith – we even call them lost, broken and helpless and pray that they will find real life. But when it comes to really questioning our own beliefs and practices, we’re accused of all things imaginable. Again, without knowing it, we seem to have made the way we talk about our doubting an art form – full of invisible lines and safe dialogue.
How far is too far? It seems like we find out as we go. Except, I don’t always want to be safe. I’m not comfortable with always trying to perfectly craft my words so that I sound winsome and offend fewer people. And I want the freedom to use different methods to help people think. Whether it’s sarcasm, a provocative book review or a short story. Or gut level honesty. My point in writing my BLOG is twofold. One, I want to push people to think about their lives and their faith. Two, I want to use provocative methods to help this happen. And since 90% of the BLOGS I read are coming from a similar worldview, I hope this one can be different. I understand this may not be the most conventional BLOG or the most liked. And I understand that this leaves me vulnerable to lots of criticism. None the less, I think it’s worth it.
But apparently, doubting can go too far. There is a line that can be crossed and when it is, watch out. You could be written off in a moment. And people will venture to say anything. This is my frustration with Christian’s tolerance towards questioning, doubt and reshaping: We allow it up to a point. In other words, there is a “safe” way to doubt, but there is a point when it becomes dangerous and off limits. It’s okay to question and share differences on serious issues like world religions, Biblical inherency, and Christian exclusivism. It’s even okay to re-think spiritual disciplines like prayer and fasting. But be careful of re-thinking the Apostles Creed. And don’t bother thinking seriously or critically about Jesus death and resurrection (at least not enough to change your mind). And beware of reading author’s who don’t share an evangelical heritage. N.T. Wright is in. Marcus Borg is out. Well, it’s safe to read them, but over the line to agree with them. We can be honest with each other, but not too honest. Sharing what we really think about Jesus or how we really feel about Church publicly is as acceptable as confessing our deepest secrets and sin. You better keep that to yourself. Keep an open mind, but close it when it starts getting a little dangerous. Without knowing it, we seem to have made doubting and questioning an art form.
Beyond these invisible lines, I’ve found that the way we talk about our questioning is an art form too. Any sense of edgy creativity or unusual methods seems to be over the line. Keith Drury can write articles that push and prod ideas and values (and even use creative titles like “I Used to be a Gay Evangelical”) as long as he “comes around” on some level at the end. But articles that push and prod but don’t come around at the end are off limits. Apparently we can push people to think, but only so far. I’ve also found that if I write something remotely different, unorthodox or edgy, I need to sugar coat it with words of care and delicacy. Saying things like, “This is just something I’m thinking through” or a precursor that says “I really don’t believe all of this” is helpful. It’s also helpful to always present both sides of a matter so that everyone can visibly see the alternative. Being as winsome as possible so that fewer people are offended is a plus. And as I’ve found out recently, sarcasm is completely off limits - especially if it’s targeted at ourselves. It’s funny, we don’t have any qualms about questioning the lifestyle, practices and beliefs of those outside the faith – we even call them lost, broken and helpless and pray that they will find real life. But when it comes to really questioning our own beliefs and practices, we’re accused of all things imaginable. Again, without knowing it, we seem to have made the way we talk about our doubting an art form – full of invisible lines and safe dialogue.
How far is too far? It seems like we find out as we go. Except, I don’t always want to be safe. I’m not comfortable with always trying to perfectly craft my words so that I sound winsome and offend fewer people. And I want the freedom to use different methods to help people think. Whether it’s sarcasm, a provocative book review or a short story. Or gut level honesty. My point in writing my BLOG is twofold. One, I want to push people to think about their lives and their faith. Two, I want to use provocative methods to help this happen. And since 90% of the BLOGS I read are coming from a similar worldview, I hope this one can be different. I understand this may not be the most conventional BLOG or the most liked. And I understand that this leaves me vulnerable to lots of criticism. None the less, I think it’s worth it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)