Once a month in the 4s & 5s room at church, a woman named Patty comes to read a story to the kids. Patty sits in an electric wheelchair. She doesn't have any use of her legs as far as I can tell and I'm guessing that her arm motion and speech used to be smoother too. Patty's always enthusiastic when she comes in to see the kids; she asks them questions throughout the story and lets them honk the horn on her wheelchair before she leaves.
This week Patty read them a story about a caterpillar named Hermie who just wasn't satisfied with life. Throughout the story Hermie's friends tell him to be patient, that God just isn't finished with him yet. Of course as you might guess, at the end of the book Hermie changes into a beautiful butterfly.
After Patty was done reading the story, I walked with her back to the sanctuary to help her with the doors. As we went down the hallway she told me a bit of her story. It went something like this: "I just love that story. You know it's true: God's not finished with any of us yet. I used to be a professor. Did you know that? Yes, a political theory professor. I never did like the 'publish or perish' atmosphere much. Then I had my accident. I was on my bike and a car hit me. Now, I read to the kids here at church and at the school. And you know what? I'm in my element! God wasn't finished with me yet and he's still not finished. And he's not finished with you either."
Man, what a blessing! I talked all of 3 minutes with this woman and she totally just rocked it. Her outlook on life is so encouraging and it's obvious that she completely trusts God with the entirety of it. So many times I see where I am as a daughter, sister, friend, disciple and I'm not satisfied with it. Part of it is me not putting in the effort necessary to move forward sometimes, and part of it is not believing that God will make it happen. But I know that he's not finished with me and just because I screw it up doesn't mean that he can't take it and make it into something beautiful. So if I keep seeking him (keep walking even though sometimes I stop) and trust that he knows best, I can be confident that change will happen. He's not finished with me yet and I think last Sunday he totally knew that I needed to hear that and I needed to hear it from Patty.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Big kids now
Add this to the pile of pictures that are adorable now, but they'll hate when they're teenagers.
(And apparently they're in the living room because they have to be "entertained" in order to get them to sit on the potty chairs for any amount of time. haha)
(And apparently they're in the living room because they have to be "entertained" in order to get them to sit on the potty chairs for any amount of time. haha)
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
dawk and alister, pt 1
With the upcoming 'themester' at IU regarding evolution, I've been thinking through my own viewpoints (albeit incomplete) and extending my knowledge through conversations with friends and literature from scientists and theologians. Today I was talking with a bio professor that I work with (who also happens to be a full time pastor!) about Dawkins' imminent talk coming up on campus. He mentioned that he finds Dawkins' arguments relatively easy to deal with simply for the fact that Dawkins doesn't really seem to understand faith or religion at all.
Tonight, I began listening to this conversation between Dawkins (RD) and Alister McGrath (AM). AM is a Christian theologian who also has a PhD in molecular biophysics. About 12 minutes or so into the video, RD makes a point that Christians should not (cannot) use improbability of nature and living things as a reason for God because the existence of God is just as improbable. That is, he comments that God popping into existence is just as improbable as a complex organ (the eye) popping into existence. I think this in itself goes to show his lack of understanding. AM tries to explain that God is not IN this natural order... He created it. He is outside of that which he created. And despite all improbabilities, you can say that we are here right now in this moment (including our eyes and other complex organs) so at some point you have to make a decision about what improbability is least improbable.
RD goes on to say that if AM believed in a "God that evolved I'd be much happier." Whoa, RD. Again, there's some basic theology you're missing, I think. To believe in a God that evolved would mean that there was room for improvement. That God was not perfect to begin with; that he developed in some way. Again, this is putting God into our natural order that we (try to) observe here on Earth, instead of realizing that He is outside of all that; He's supernatural. RD also mentions that he would be more comfortable with the idea of a simple God. Really? Why do you want to make God wimpy? Why would you be more comfortable with a God who constantly changes or who is simple in our human minds? It seems to me that RD wants to work God into our framework. That he thinks we're the ones that figure it all out and God should fit into our way of being, into the natural world he created. It's kind of like saying that if a man builds a house, he will be part of that house in the same way a wall is; that he would settle as the house does, he would need to be painted and remodeled and developed as the house is. When actually that's not the case at all. The man would be able to interact with the house but he will never BE a part of the house in the way that the wall is (I realize this analogy isn't perfect, but maybe you get my point).
Anyway, that's it for tonight, but there will probably be more to come on this. :)
Tonight, I began listening to this conversation between Dawkins (RD) and Alister McGrath (AM). AM is a Christian theologian who also has a PhD in molecular biophysics. About 12 minutes or so into the video, RD makes a point that Christians should not (cannot) use improbability of nature and living things as a reason for God because the existence of God is just as improbable. That is, he comments that God popping into existence is just as improbable as a complex organ (the eye) popping into existence. I think this in itself goes to show his lack of understanding. AM tries to explain that God is not IN this natural order... He created it. He is outside of that which he created. And despite all improbabilities, you can say that we are here right now in this moment (including our eyes and other complex organs) so at some point you have to make a decision about what improbability is least improbable.
RD goes on to say that if AM believed in a "God that evolved I'd be much happier." Whoa, RD. Again, there's some basic theology you're missing, I think. To believe in a God that evolved would mean that there was room for improvement. That God was not perfect to begin with; that he developed in some way. Again, this is putting God into our natural order that we (try to) observe here on Earth, instead of realizing that He is outside of all that; He's supernatural. RD also mentions that he would be more comfortable with the idea of a simple God. Really? Why do you want to make God wimpy? Why would you be more comfortable with a God who constantly changes or who is simple in our human minds? It seems to me that RD wants to work God into our framework. That he thinks we're the ones that figure it all out and God should fit into our way of being, into the natural world he created. It's kind of like saying that if a man builds a house, he will be part of that house in the same way a wall is; that he would settle as the house does, he would need to be painted and remodeled and developed as the house is. When actually that's not the case at all. The man would be able to interact with the house but he will never BE a part of the house in the way that the wall is (I realize this analogy isn't perfect, but maybe you get my point).
Anyway, that's it for tonight, but there will probably be more to come on this. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)