I don't have adequate time to properly think/write this out, but it's been on my mind quite a bit lately. Is it our responsibility to preserve the 'old'... old ways, old traditions, old themes, old mindsets and values, old structures, the good 'ole' days? Do we have the freedom to reinvent these things as we go, and let go of 'what was' to grasp 'what is... as best as we can tell'? In embracing the 'new', do we necessarily have to reject the old paths that got us here?
As we cautiously dream of enlarging our house sometime in the future, we think about the aspects we want to remain true to its 1950's heritage while incorporating more modern elements... you know, like preserving an open floor plan, adding a second bathroom (and a third bedroom), a repaired foundation, a roof made of newer, more durable materials, a breakfast bar in the kitchen with extra storage underneath, clean-lined subway tile wherever I can get it, and a covered patio.
In this election year, I wonder if some American's are holding on to some ideals that made sense at one time, but are harder to live out in today's increasingly small and global world (I say small, because the world seemed a lot larger and scary - and America more insular/isolated - before I could real-time facebook with people in Australia as easily as brushing my teeth). Or are we to steadfastly preserve the ideals of men who founded our country over 200 years ago, as best we can infer them? When it comes to our national identity, what do we keep in a world that looks very different than it did even 100 years ago? What values do we collectively strive to preserve, and what are personal preferences that betray more the lottery of where and when we happened to be born? What do we 'update' when it comes to our core components, like old software that's inhibiting your machine from running as it's meant to? And where does a God of all nations and peoples figure into a singular 'national' identity?
I ask these questions about the church as well. I belong to a tradition that has found some of it's value in attributes that separate it from other churches. This can be both positive and negative, of course... but what I think about these days is how I'm not really concerned with separating myself from other churches. I'm not overly concerned with preserving how we do things, even though I believe there is/was? value in our 'forms'. I believe we can love the old and embrace the new, all at the same time. I wonder if some leaders are saddened by believers like me... I'd certainly understand it. These days, I mostly believe the power of God palpable in the life of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is the only selling point we need and whatever we do should spring from and direct people to THAT, whether we convey it through acapella singing or tambourines or quiet meditation or full-on praise jams. My identity is not in my church... it's in Jesus and finding some - any? - way to connect to him, to find and confirm and live my hiccuppy faith. Frankly, I sometimes wonder what it would be like to unite the churches on W Belfort - from Stella Link to South Post Oak - into one big living organism of believers, letting the Spirit/bible lead us to work together, learn/benefit from each others gifts, and combine our forces to do the most good. I don't pretend that would be an easy undertaking, and I'm sure it would sound scary (and perhaps dangerous) to some.
I also don't pretend I'm right about any of this. Just thinking about it. I welcome any of your thoughts, too, in written or verbal form.
-m.y.
**edit: I'm not suggesting that if one is open to the 'new' that they can't choose to live/experience the 'old'. that's sort of my point... I don't think it's one or the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment