did my best to be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for the first day of school, walked out to my car, got halfway in and noticed a note stuck under my windshield, said to myself with a smile "how nice, a note of encouragement from my dear wife," grabbed it excitedly, opened it up, read:
you have a flat tire.
definitely not from my wife, scrambled out to the passenger rear, note was right, bright eyes went dim and tail sagged a bit, called my dear wife before she crossed the bridge, picked me up and got dropped off at school just like last year.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Better Late than Never
Tomorrow marks the first day back to school, so I'm getting this written before the chaos ensues.
In a last ditch effort to celebrate summer, after a very busy season that only allowed us to get away for a couple of days once with my family, Erica and I put all work on hold, packed up quickly, and bolted for the north. We ended up at Promised Land State Park north of the Poconos, but the problem was we arrived after dark.
Once we decided which was the least mediocre campsite of them all, we kept the headlights on and did our best to set things up. The tent stakes refused to be hammered into what was essentially a site made of concrete, and the air mattress pump died about halfway through leaving us with an extra cushy padding that allowed our hips to grind against that concrete or bounced one another awake if we turned a certain way. And oh yeah, I was fighting off a fever and sore throat.
Once we shook off the aches the next morning, things got off to a much better start with eggs and pancakes and coffee and ibuprofen and vitamin C drops. The weather was beautiful and we drove around the lake and coveted lake cabins and went for a walk on Conservation Island and hung out at "the beach." We made chili for dinner and, after paying an arm and a leg at the local store for s'more makings, we celebrated summer with "Gorgefest" eating as many s'mores as possible in one sitting.
The highlight without a doubt was finding a patch of blueberry bushes that felt like our little secret. We filled our pockets with as many as possible and turned them into some delicious wild blueberry pancakes the next morning. The other highlight was charging our pump so that we could sleep on full air mattress the second night.
We woke up to rain the next morning, and it felt the campground was in a little bit of mass hysteria over it. We called home for the forecast only to find out it was a 70% chance of rain that day, 90% that night and 80% the following morning when we planned to leave. After shivering through another game of Scrabble, we decided to pack it in and go home. We felt like wimps, but when it wasn't going to get any better any time soon, there just didn't seem to be much point to sticking it out only to pack up lots of wet camping supplies in the rain.
But we just didn't want the fun to end. So, we decided to go camping at home, which ended up mostly being the rule that we couldn't use any electricity and we couldn't use the computers. That meant dinner on the grill, even though it was still raining. The house was filled with candles and our camping lantern went with us from room to room. And we finished the night off with more s'mores, roasted over a candle this time.
This little no electricity thing was a fun little experiment, turning into mostly an exercise of discipline. What do you do when you walk in a room? Turn on a light. To fight that instinct is a little tough, especially when you're looking for something. But it ended up seeming that really, the primary reason we need electricity, or light more specifically, is because we're so used to seeing everything as clearly as we'd like to. If we didn't know any better, it wouldn't be so bad. Half the time you flip that light switch on, you don't really need it.
It also made me realize that the first time mankind's sleep habits really suffered was with the invention of electricity. Your body seems to sync pretty well with nature's cycle of light and dark. As soon as we started toying with that in keeping the lights on as late as we wanted, we started messing up our bodies pretty good.
And those are my deep insights derived from this bizarre little farewell to summer. I'll see you in June.
In a last ditch effort to celebrate summer, after a very busy season that only allowed us to get away for a couple of days once with my family, Erica and I put all work on hold, packed up quickly, and bolted for the north. We ended up at Promised Land State Park north of the Poconos, but the problem was we arrived after dark.
Once we decided which was the least mediocre campsite of them all, we kept the headlights on and did our best to set things up. The tent stakes refused to be hammered into what was essentially a site made of concrete, and the air mattress pump died about halfway through leaving us with an extra cushy padding that allowed our hips to grind against that concrete or bounced one another awake if we turned a certain way. And oh yeah, I was fighting off a fever and sore throat.
Once we shook off the aches the next morning, things got off to a much better start with eggs and pancakes and coffee and ibuprofen and vitamin C drops. The weather was beautiful and we drove around the lake and coveted lake cabins and went for a walk on Conservation Island and hung out at "the beach." We made chili for dinner and, after paying an arm and a leg at the local store for s'more makings, we celebrated summer with "Gorgefest" eating as many s'mores as possible in one sitting.
But we just didn't want the fun to end. So, we decided to go camping at home, which ended up mostly being the rule that we couldn't use any electricity and we couldn't use the computers. That meant dinner on the grill, even though it was still raining. The house was filled with candles and our camping lantern went with us from room to room. And we finished the night off with more s'mores, roasted over a candle this time.
This little no electricity thing was a fun little experiment, turning into mostly an exercise of discipline. What do you do when you walk in a room? Turn on a light. To fight that instinct is a little tough, especially when you're looking for something. But it ended up seeming that really, the primary reason we need electricity, or light more specifically, is because we're so used to seeing everything as clearly as we'd like to. If we didn't know any better, it wouldn't be so bad. Half the time you flip that light switch on, you don't really need it.
It also made me realize that the first time mankind's sleep habits really suffered was with the invention of electricity. Your body seems to sync pretty well with nature's cycle of light and dark. As soon as we started toying with that in keeping the lights on as late as we wanted, we started messing up our bodies pretty good.
And those are my deep insights derived from this bizarre little farewell to summer. I'll see you in June.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Revised Reading List
Remember the ambitious reading list?
It was going so well, really. I had things scheduled out. It was ambitious, but doable. I was on a roll. Finished the Watsons go to Birmingham and loved it. Finished Nickel and Dimed and had plenty of complaints about it. Finished The Shack and while there were plenty of positives I'm still wondering what exactly the hype was about.
And then classes started and the whole plan was hijacked and derailed. But that doesn't mean I stopped reading. The revised reading list turned into something like this:
The Watsons Go to Birmingham--1963 by Christopher Paul Curtis
Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich
The Shack by William P. Young
Encountering Religious Pluralism by Harold Netland
Spiritual Marketplace by Wade Clark Roof
The Sacred and the Profane by Mircea Eliade
The World's Religions by William A. Young
Most of The Bhagavad Gita
Most of The Koran
I've been a bit disappointed that I didn't get to read all I wanted to read. But now that I look at this list, I guess I can't be that disappointed. I think I've learned quite a bit from it all, and hopefully I'll get to those other books soon enough.
If I had to recommend anything to everyone, it would probably be The Sacred and the Profane. It's a pretty interesting read on the history and nature of religion, as long as you don't mind a guy who drops Latin phrases like it's slang.
Netland's book is important if you can handle some dense academia. Roof's book has some really important implications on the state of religion in our society, but again, you've gotta wade through some pretty dense and dry territory. Mostly, they're the kind of books you wouldn't choose to pick up and read unless you're taking a class like this one.
Anyway, now I just have to finish my 'take-home final' for this class, which consists of five different essays totaling nine to fifteen pages. Summer's going out with a bang. Time to get away from the internet and get started.
It was going so well, really. I had things scheduled out. It was ambitious, but doable. I was on a roll. Finished the Watsons go to Birmingham and loved it. Finished Nickel and Dimed and had plenty of complaints about it. Finished The Shack and while there were plenty of positives I'm still wondering what exactly the hype was about.
And then classes started and the whole plan was hijacked and derailed. But that doesn't mean I stopped reading. The revised reading list turned into something like this:
The Watsons Go to Birmingham--1963 by Christopher Paul Curtis
Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich
The Shack by William P. Young
Encountering Religious Pluralism by Harold Netland
Spiritual Marketplace by Wade Clark Roof
The Sacred and the Profane by Mircea Eliade
The World's Religions by William A. Young
Most of The Bhagavad Gita
Most of The Koran
I've been a bit disappointed that I didn't get to read all I wanted to read. But now that I look at this list, I guess I can't be that disappointed. I think I've learned quite a bit from it all, and hopefully I'll get to those other books soon enough.
If I had to recommend anything to everyone, it would probably be The Sacred and the Profane. It's a pretty interesting read on the history and nature of religion, as long as you don't mind a guy who drops Latin phrases like it's slang.
Netland's book is important if you can handle some dense academia. Roof's book has some really important implications on the state of religion in our society, but again, you've gotta wade through some pretty dense and dry territory. Mostly, they're the kind of books you wouldn't choose to pick up and read unless you're taking a class like this one.
Anyway, now I just have to finish my 'take-home final' for this class, which consists of five different essays totaling nine to fifteen pages. Summer's going out with a bang. Time to get away from the internet and get started.
The Reason You Shouldn't Buy a Large Basket of Peaches From the Orchard Even if It's Only 8 Dollars:
They're all unripe at the same time.
They all go rotten at the same time.
You can only consume so many peaches in one day.
And fruit flies are a pain.
They all go rotten at the same time.
You can only consume so many peaches in one day.
And fruit flies are a pain.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Waiting for the Universe to Implode on Itself...
...because two of the world's most wonderful people passed away this week: #1) Les Paul, who I just heard an old interview with on NPR, and he seemed pretty amazing and #2) Evalyn Wetzel, a woman from church who loved us because she understood who God was.
...and because two of the world's most wonderful weddings are happening tomorrow, on the same day in history: #1) Jared Cheek to his lovely bride Annie out in Indiana, and #2) Erica's brother Wesley Checkeye to his lovely bride Roshelle right here in PA.
Crazy times these are...brace yourselves...
...and because two of the world's most wonderful weddings are happening tomorrow, on the same day in history: #1) Jared Cheek to his lovely bride Annie out in Indiana, and #2) Erica's brother Wesley Checkeye to his lovely bride Roshelle right here in PA.
Crazy times these are...brace yourselves...
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Cultured Kids
I got a call this morning from a little boy speaking in a British accent. "Would you like to come over and play some games?" he asked, sounding a bit like Tiny Tim. It turns out it was my nephew, who at only 6 years of age has already perfected the British accent far more than I ever will. He kept speaking with it for some reason, and I could hardly answer I was giggling so hard. Where he and his sister learned this, I'm not sure, but I hope they keep it up.
So of course I went over to play some games, and they guessed that I agreed just because of the British accents. They know me really well.
After the games, my niece asked in her accent if I would be joining them for a bit of dinner and dessert. She recommended one of her "mini-omelets" and informed me that peaches and vanilla ice cream would be for dessert. Again, how could I turn it down? Especially when being asked in a British accent.
The girl--with only a very little help from her grandmother--whipped up the most amazing omelet I've had in recent memory, filled with spinach, turkey breast, and gorgonzola cheese, garnished perfectly with extra spinach and fresh, chopped tomato. It was so good!
So of course I went over to play some games, and they guessed that I agreed just because of the British accents. They know me really well.
After the games, my niece asked in her accent if I would be joining them for a bit of dinner and dessert. She recommended one of her "mini-omelets" and informed me that peaches and vanilla ice cream would be for dessert. Again, how could I turn it down? Especially when being asked in a British accent.
The girl--with only a very little help from her grandmother--whipped up the most amazing omelet I've had in recent memory, filled with spinach, turkey breast, and gorgonzola cheese, garnished perfectly with extra spinach and fresh, chopped tomato. It was so good!
She put a straw in my drink and lit a candle on the table to set the proper ambiance. I'm not sure where they're getting all of this, but this uncle sure is proud.
(500) Days of Summer
**Not promising this is spoiler-free**
I've been telling everyone that it's the year of even-keeled, realistic, tolerable, guy-friendly romantic comedies. While the two committed 30-somethings having a baby in Away We Go isn't exactly typical romcom material, I would classify it as such. Then there's (500) Days of Summer. I'm also looking forward to Paper Heart and Adam falling into the same category.
Finally! Some movies my wife and I can enjoy together! It seems to be a rarity sometimes.
(500) Days of Summer might be the most accessible of the bunch; you don't have to be an indie hipster to enjoy it, although it will probably help. It stars the attractive couple Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel and tells the story of them falling in and out of love along with all their quirks and sidesteps and mini-adventures in the city.
On the surface level, the film is a delight of creativity. It takes some unusual risks, like AO Scott was applauding in the article I linked yesterday. The integration of a lovely soundtrack, an unexpected dance sequence, use of split screen, some animation, a focus on architecture and drawing, and references to a myriad of other bits of pop culture will all keep a smile on your face for the duration of the movie. (Did those teeny-boppers sharing the theater with us know what Knightrider and Small Wonder were?? And did I have any idea about the Graduate and Bergman references??) It's lovely! It makes you fall in love with love, with life, with youth, with summer, with Ikea, with the city!
And maybe I should stop there without giving it too much thought. But as I mentioned yesterday, I'm seeing the need more all the time to think critically about any and all movies. So at the risk of sucking the life out of this thing, I feel I must go one step further, like it or not.
And so the question is: What does the story of Summer and Tom tell us about love?
The interesting thing is that Tom believes in true love, and even at first sight. You see the woman, and some subjective feeling let's you know she's the one. Romance ensues until you finally marry and spend the rest of your life together in cloud-nine bliss. Summer thinks that idea's a pile; it's a silly thing to pursue and life's too short to be tied down. She likes her independence and is too young to commit. ("Then why is she in my bed?" Tom rightly asks himself at one point.) As Tom's friend points out by eloquently declaring "She's a dude!" -- typical ideals are reversed here.
At the risk of giving away too much about the movie, I think it's safe to say they both get proven wrong. Tom discovers maybe he's just a bit too idealistic in his idea of love, and Summer discovers love will indeed take some level of commitment.
When frustrated by her fickle feelings, Tom demands some commitment, saying he needs to know she's not going to feel differently the next morning. Summer insists she can't give that to him, and no one can. She's right: Feelings are subjective, fleeting, unreliable, and no one can guarantee the feelings of a moment will remain for a lifetime. A foolish dependence on those feelings is one reason divorce rates are so high. But what she doesn't seem to realize is that she can give a commitment to Tom, agreeing to stick it out even when feelings of puppy-love romance come and go.
In that case, (500) Days of Summer gets love right. It declares the need for commitment in order to make any relationship work.
But I kept wondering, did Tom get that message? He was ready to be committed, but did his commitment run deeper than his feelings? When looking at the tone of the movie as a whole, it definitely celebrated Tom's idea of romance. This is not a bad thing; I walked away celebrating romance too, and that's something I personally need more of in my life over the celebration of commitment. (And I must remind myself: an important part of the commitment is the intentional cultivation of more romance!)
But I'd venture to say our culture needs more of a celebration of commitment, and I was a little disappointed in how overshadowed it was when the credits rolled. I'm afraid the movie primarily--whether intentional or not--supported our idolatry of romance, of seeking complete contentment and fulfillment in another person, our one true love.
I'm sounding like an old-fashioned married person that doubts the power and pleasure of romance, but this was a rare movie-going experience where my wife and I were some of the oldest in the theater. All I saw was a bunch of teenagers leaving the theater to go fall in love, with all its included side-effects, where commitment is only based on how long the feelings last.
Does that mean we should boycott the movie? Absolutely not. We need more movies like this one. But it does mean we should think and talk about it, as with all movies.
It's a lovely little film that I really did enjoy a lot. I appreciated its celebration of romance and its assertion of the need for commitment. But without some critical thought, I'm afraid its themes can be misleading. Despite all this, most of all, I'm just glad to see a movie that isn't following the typical conventions of romantic comedies.
I've been telling everyone that it's the year of even-keeled, realistic, tolerable, guy-friendly romantic comedies. While the two committed 30-somethings having a baby in Away We Go isn't exactly typical romcom material, I would classify it as such. Then there's (500) Days of Summer. I'm also looking forward to Paper Heart and Adam falling into the same category.
Finally! Some movies my wife and I can enjoy together! It seems to be a rarity sometimes.
(500) Days of Summer might be the most accessible of the bunch; you don't have to be an indie hipster to enjoy it, although it will probably help. It stars the attractive couple Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel and tells the story of them falling in and out of love along with all their quirks and sidesteps and mini-adventures in the city.
On the surface level, the film is a delight of creativity. It takes some unusual risks, like AO Scott was applauding in the article I linked yesterday. The integration of a lovely soundtrack, an unexpected dance sequence, use of split screen, some animation, a focus on architecture and drawing, and references to a myriad of other bits of pop culture will all keep a smile on your face for the duration of the movie. (Did those teeny-boppers sharing the theater with us know what Knightrider and Small Wonder were?? And did I have any idea about the Graduate and Bergman references??) It's lovely! It makes you fall in love with love, with life, with youth, with summer, with Ikea, with the city!
And maybe I should stop there without giving it too much thought. But as I mentioned yesterday, I'm seeing the need more all the time to think critically about any and all movies. So at the risk of sucking the life out of this thing, I feel I must go one step further, like it or not.
And so the question is: What does the story of Summer and Tom tell us about love?
The interesting thing is that Tom believes in true love, and even at first sight. You see the woman, and some subjective feeling let's you know she's the one. Romance ensues until you finally marry and spend the rest of your life together in cloud-nine bliss. Summer thinks that idea's a pile; it's a silly thing to pursue and life's too short to be tied down. She likes her independence and is too young to commit. ("Then why is she in my bed?" Tom rightly asks himself at one point.) As Tom's friend points out by eloquently declaring "She's a dude!" -- typical ideals are reversed here.At the risk of giving away too much about the movie, I think it's safe to say they both get proven wrong. Tom discovers maybe he's just a bit too idealistic in his idea of love, and Summer discovers love will indeed take some level of commitment.
When frustrated by her fickle feelings, Tom demands some commitment, saying he needs to know she's not going to feel differently the next morning. Summer insists she can't give that to him, and no one can. She's right: Feelings are subjective, fleeting, unreliable, and no one can guarantee the feelings of a moment will remain for a lifetime. A foolish dependence on those feelings is one reason divorce rates are so high. But what she doesn't seem to realize is that she can give a commitment to Tom, agreeing to stick it out even when feelings of puppy-love romance come and go.
In that case, (500) Days of Summer gets love right. It declares the need for commitment in order to make any relationship work.
But I kept wondering, did Tom get that message? He was ready to be committed, but did his commitment run deeper than his feelings? When looking at the tone of the movie as a whole, it definitely celebrated Tom's idea of romance. This is not a bad thing; I walked away celebrating romance too, and that's something I personally need more of in my life over the celebration of commitment. (And I must remind myself: an important part of the commitment is the intentional cultivation of more romance!)
But I'd venture to say our culture needs more of a celebration of commitment, and I was a little disappointed in how overshadowed it was when the credits rolled. I'm afraid the movie primarily--whether intentional or not--supported our idolatry of romance, of seeking complete contentment and fulfillment in another person, our one true love.
I'm sounding like an old-fashioned married person that doubts the power and pleasure of romance, but this was a rare movie-going experience where my wife and I were some of the oldest in the theater. All I saw was a bunch of teenagers leaving the theater to go fall in love, with all its included side-effects, where commitment is only based on how long the feelings last.
Does that mean we should boycott the movie? Absolutely not. We need more movies like this one. But it does mean we should think and talk about it, as with all movies.
It's a lovely little film that I really did enjoy a lot. I appreciated its celebration of romance and its assertion of the need for commitment. But without some critical thought, I'm afraid its themes can be misleading. Despite all this, most of all, I'm just glad to see a movie that isn't following the typical conventions of romantic comedies.
Monday, August 10, 2009
The Movies
Erica and I went to see (500) Days of Summer on Saturday night--which I'll tell you more about shortly--and I was a little depressed and outraged to find that the cinema has bumped up prices yet again, so that our little 90 minute date cost us a total of $19, without popcorn and soda, which we then skipped. Maybe we're a little too cheap, or maybe I'm just surprised at what people are dishing out so much money for.
Since Neville isn't too active in the blogosphere anymore, I'll take the liberty of blogging some of his recent thoughts, like how much money has been spent on movies this summer, and--what may be the greater disappointment--on what kind of movies it's been spent.
He forwarded and article by AO Scott from the New York Times. In it, the man who is one of the most respectable movie reviewers today sounds a little bit cranky and a little ostentatious, coming off in such a way that he'll probably end up preaching only to the choir. But I found myself agreeing, with Neville too, making me realize I'm tired of people declaring certain movies are weird and no movie is meant for thinking too much.
In a lot of ways, I am growing more and more convinced all the time about the need to make, watch, and support certain types of movies and think critically about and thoughtfully discuss all types of movies. At the same time, I am growing less and less vocal about both convictions, a little weary from being shrugged off or just misunderstood so often.
Is this post sounding really really arrogant? It's not meant to at all, I don't think, and perhaps it would be good to explain these thoughts further rather than just whine about it. But you can start by reading the article I'm mentioning:
"From toddlerhood we are fluent in the pop-cultural consumerist idiom: Again! More! Another one! Children are ceaselessly demanding, it’s true; but they are also easily satisfied, and this combination of appetite and docility makes the child an ideal moviegoer. But since there are a finite number of literal children out there, with limited disposable income and short attention spans, Hollywood has to make or find new ones. And so the studios have, with increasing vigor and intensity, carried out a program of mass infantilization."
Since Neville isn't too active in the blogosphere anymore, I'll take the liberty of blogging some of his recent thoughts, like how much money has been spent on movies this summer, and--what may be the greater disappointment--on what kind of movies it's been spent.
He forwarded and article by AO Scott from the New York Times. In it, the man who is one of the most respectable movie reviewers today sounds a little bit cranky and a little ostentatious, coming off in such a way that he'll probably end up preaching only to the choir. But I found myself agreeing, with Neville too, making me realize I'm tired of people declaring certain movies are weird and no movie is meant for thinking too much.
In a lot of ways, I am growing more and more convinced all the time about the need to make, watch, and support certain types of movies and think critically about and thoughtfully discuss all types of movies. At the same time, I am growing less and less vocal about both convictions, a little weary from being shrugged off or just misunderstood so often.
Is this post sounding really really arrogant? It's not meant to at all, I don't think, and perhaps it would be good to explain these thoughts further rather than just whine about it. But you can start by reading the article I'm mentioning:
"From toddlerhood we are fluent in the pop-cultural consumerist idiom: Again! More! Another one! Children are ceaselessly demanding, it’s true; but they are also easily satisfied, and this combination of appetite and docility makes the child an ideal moviegoer. But since there are a finite number of literal children out there, with limited disposable income and short attention spans, Hollywood has to make or find new ones. And so the studios have, with increasing vigor and intensity, carried out a program of mass infantilization."
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Good Preaching
Certain circles in which I meander have been talking a lot about preaching lately. You see, preaching is kind of important. Jesus did a whole lot of it. The guys in Acts did a whole lot of it. And commands all through the Bible to preach and proclaim and declare are quite plentiful.
Other circles in which I meander seem to think that preaching can get too offensive. Humility has come to mean being shy and not speaking up. Keep peace means not stepping on anyone's toes and not saying anything like we might have any sort of authority. We'd rather have a casual chat over coffee, or let our actions do the talking. But, I might suggest--starting first by looking at my own life--that the casual chats rarely seem to get around to God and if they do, they don't get much towards the truth, and the actions are often sketchy at best, hit or miss.
We need preaching and we need to hear the Word of God.
Part of the problem is preaching is a lost art. Most Christians don't know what they're missing. They don't know the difference between good and bad preaching, or maybe more specifically, inspired and uninspired preaching.
Dr. Erik Thoennes is one of the only chapel speakers I remember from my time at Taylor University. I remember him bringing me to tears a couple of times, stirring me, his words waking me up from a slumber. The truth he delivered tugged at my heart, trying to uncover it from all the crap it had been buried in over the years.
He came back to Taylor after I was gone, and I just finished listening to a 4 part series he did in 2008. They have done me quite well, again, each one choking me up a bit and leaving me emotional for a couple days after. I'm not exaggerating.
So do yourself a favor, carve out some time, and give them a listen:
1 - Depending on Christ
2 - Obeying Christ
3 - Proclaiming Christ
4 - Suffering like Christ
Other circles in which I meander seem to think that preaching can get too offensive. Humility has come to mean being shy and not speaking up. Keep peace means not stepping on anyone's toes and not saying anything like we might have any sort of authority. We'd rather have a casual chat over coffee, or let our actions do the talking. But, I might suggest--starting first by looking at my own life--that the casual chats rarely seem to get around to God and if they do, they don't get much towards the truth, and the actions are often sketchy at best, hit or miss.
We need preaching and we need to hear the Word of God.
Part of the problem is preaching is a lost art. Most Christians don't know what they're missing. They don't know the difference between good and bad preaching, or maybe more specifically, inspired and uninspired preaching.
Dr. Erik Thoennes is one of the only chapel speakers I remember from my time at Taylor University. I remember him bringing me to tears a couple of times, stirring me, his words waking me up from a slumber. The truth he delivered tugged at my heart, trying to uncover it from all the crap it had been buried in over the years.
He came back to Taylor after I was gone, and I just finished listening to a 4 part series he did in 2008. They have done me quite well, again, each one choking me up a bit and leaving me emotional for a couple days after. I'm not exaggerating.
So do yourself a favor, carve out some time, and give them a listen:
1 - Depending on Christ
2 - Obeying Christ
3 - Proclaiming Christ
4 - Suffering like Christ
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
New Car
I successfully survived about a year without a car of my own. That makes it sound like I did so intentionally, when truth be told I would say to myself just about every day: "I really need to buy a car this week." Turns out I was just too cheap and too scared of car dealerships and Craigslist transactions to actually pursue it.
It worked out nicely about two months ago when my neighbor decided to let me borrow his daughter's car, since she was out on the west coast and it just sits undriven. Finally last week I got the call that he was ready to sell.
So I'm now the proud owner of a '94 Saturn, which is a lovely shade of almost-purple. I'm proud to say it is the youngest car I've ever owned, with the least mileage too -- 118,500. But I'm especially pleased to say it wasn't the most expensive. It was a full $100 less than my most expensive car, cashing out at $350.
It's got two computer-geek bumper stickers on the back. I purchased this to cover one, and I'm looking for an oval sticker to cover the other. Bumper stickers seem to be so out of vogue these days. Keep your eyes out for something fitting and let me know if you've found it. I was thinking about the one that says "I'm Pro-Accordion and I Vote" but then decided it wouldn't have been much of an improvement over the computer geek stickers.
It worked out nicely about two months ago when my neighbor decided to let me borrow his daughter's car, since she was out on the west coast and it just sits undriven. Finally last week I got the call that he was ready to sell.
So I'm now the proud owner of a '94 Saturn, which is a lovely shade of almost-purple. I'm proud to say it is the youngest car I've ever owned, with the least mileage too -- 118,500. But I'm especially pleased to say it wasn't the most expensive. It was a full $100 less than my most expensive car, cashing out at $350.
It's got two computer-geek bumper stickers on the back. I purchased this to cover one, and I'm looking for an oval sticker to cover the other. Bumper stickers seem to be so out of vogue these days. Keep your eyes out for something fitting and let me know if you've found it. I was thinking about the one that says "I'm Pro-Accordion and I Vote" but then decided it wouldn't have been much of an improvement over the computer geek stickers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)