Having thought about my last couple of posts and what I’ve been talking about, I'm very aware that my last two posts have been critical posts and reasonably serious. While I don’t think this is a bad thing, I wanted to post something that is a bit less along the lines of a “why I'm grumpy today post.”So while there are things that I could complain about I thought I’d take the time to tell you all about the highlight of my bus trip into Uni this morning which was also quite possibly the highlight of my week. (For those of you waiting for my next rant I'll try to get something posted next week)
One of the other guys who (semi) regularly catches the bus down to Uni, Ben, after sitting down on the seat across the aisle from me proceeded to slap his thighs in an attempt to add some rhythm to the bus ride. I followed along suit, more to frustrate his percussive efforts than to add a beat to the bus.
Ben noticed I was throwing out his rhythm and asked “Lachlan, are you deliberately trying to put me off?”
I exclaimed “I’m challenging you to a thigh slapping duel!” (Later on I found out this is apparently called pastching, (pronounced patching and yes the ‘s’ is meant to be there))
The premise of the thigh slapping duel is simple, each competitor takes turns to make a percussive rhythm on their thighs.
When you have finished your percussive attempt you point to the next competitor to signal that it is now their turn.
The next competitor has to outdo the first performance (but only by a little bit) and then passes control on.
And so the cycle continues until one competitor outdoes the other (usually on competitor will mess up, then they lose although recoveries are possible)
Not to brag, but I won. If anyone wants to challenge me to a thigh slapping duel come and challenge me.
I’m more than happy to take you all on!Hope you all have a good weekend- Lachlan
Friday, September 16, 2005
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
A little closer to Monday
I'm a day earlier with my post this week than I was last week, next week I may even make it on Monday as I said I would.
Wouldn't that be novel!
But on to business.
I hate wasted opportunities!
While I may be born and bred in the Anglican Church of Australia, some of the things that we do are stupid (if not in principal then in the way that they are executed).
Case in point: Sunday night was our confirmation service for the year (when people publicly declare in front of the church that they are Christians). One of the brilliant things about confirmation services is that they are an awesome opportunity for the people being confirmed to invite along their friends and family (many of whom will have never before heard the gospel or will have a distorted view of what Christianity is).
This gives us Christians in the church a chance to share the good news that Jesus died for their rejection of God and has been raised back to life as Gods chosen king!
Unfortunately, this didn’t really happen on Sunday night.Instead of presenting a clear and easy to understand gospel message and saying ‘this is what these people are publicly agreeing to tonight’ we seemed to explain what happened when someone was confirmed, used plenty of Christian jargon to explain it, read through the relevant prayer book service and had a chance for photo’s.
This Irks me to no end as not only were there about three times the normal amount of people at the service but many of them were not Christians. Not only did we hold a service that is completely different to the way that we regularly do things but we wasted a fantastic opportunity to share to gospel of Jesus with many people who had not heard it before and challenge them to think about what role Jesus had in their lives.
Very, very frustrating.
Wouldn't that be novel!
But on to business.
I hate wasted opportunities!
While I may be born and bred in the Anglican Church of Australia, some of the things that we do are stupid (if not in principal then in the way that they are executed).
Case in point: Sunday night was our confirmation service for the year (when people publicly declare in front of the church that they are Christians). One of the brilliant things about confirmation services is that they are an awesome opportunity for the people being confirmed to invite along their friends and family (many of whom will have never before heard the gospel or will have a distorted view of what Christianity is).
This gives us Christians in the church a chance to share the good news that Jesus died for their rejection of God and has been raised back to life as Gods chosen king!
Unfortunately, this didn’t really happen on Sunday night.Instead of presenting a clear and easy to understand gospel message and saying ‘this is what these people are publicly agreeing to tonight’ we seemed to explain what happened when someone was confirmed, used plenty of Christian jargon to explain it, read through the relevant prayer book service and had a chance for photo’s.
This Irks me to no end as not only were there about three times the normal amount of people at the service but many of them were not Christians. Not only did we hold a service that is completely different to the way that we regularly do things but we wasted a fantastic opportunity to share to gospel of Jesus with many people who had not heard it before and challenge them to think about what role Jesus had in their lives.
Very, very frustrating.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Nearly Monday
Well I claimed that I would post again on Monday about what the sermon at church was like the night before. The more observant of you will realize that this is a few days past Monday.
There is however a good explanation.
I was not attending my regular church on Sunday night (cue dramatic music) … actually I was visiting a different local church to see what things were like there.
To be Frank, I was disappointed.
While my critics may be quick to point out that having been born and brought up in an Sydney Anglican church, of course I wouldn't like the more Pentecostal way of doing things the this particular church implemented.
Yet that is not what I would like to talk about.
The sermon was on the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). Now you may expect a sermon on this passage what to look at things like human sinfulness and Gods grace (perhaps even in the context of Jesus talking to the Pharisees who were grumbling about Jesus eating with Tax collectors and sinners (Luke 13:2)) But this wasn’t what the sermon was on.
The minister talked for 45 minutes, pointing out that the when the father saw his son returning, he ran out to meet him (Luke 13:20) yet the son didn't run back to the father. He then spend the entire sermon hypothesizing about what could be holding the son back from running to the father and hence what is holding us back from running to God. (If the father met the son and asked him why he wasn’t running back home there could be some merit to this line of arguing but the father doesn’t do this and the net result is that the focus for our salvation shifts towards what we are doing to earn salvation). I could go into more details of what I reckon were exegetical errors but again that’s not exactly why I’m posting this.
I’ve been thinking about what I should do in response to this dodgy preaching. Is it my place to rebuke this guy? If it is then how does one go about doing it?
What do people reckon?
There is however a good explanation.
I was not attending my regular church on Sunday night (cue dramatic music) … actually I was visiting a different local church to see what things were like there.
To be Frank, I was disappointed.
While my critics may be quick to point out that having been born and brought up in an Sydney Anglican church, of course I wouldn't like the more Pentecostal way of doing things the this particular church implemented.
Yet that is not what I would like to talk about.
The sermon was on the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). Now you may expect a sermon on this passage what to look at things like human sinfulness and Gods grace (perhaps even in the context of Jesus talking to the Pharisees who were grumbling about Jesus eating with Tax collectors and sinners (Luke 13:2)) But this wasn’t what the sermon was on.
The minister talked for 45 minutes, pointing out that the when the father saw his son returning, he ran out to meet him (Luke 13:20) yet the son didn't run back to the father. He then spend the entire sermon hypothesizing about what could be holding the son back from running to the father and hence what is holding us back from running to God. (If the father met the son and asked him why he wasn’t running back home there could be some merit to this line of arguing but the father doesn’t do this and the net result is that the focus for our salvation shifts towards what we are doing to earn salvation). I could go into more details of what I reckon were exegetical errors but again that’s not exactly why I’m posting this.
I’ve been thinking about what I should do in response to this dodgy preaching. Is it my place to rebuke this guy? If it is then how does one go about doing it?
What do people reckon?
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Breaking the drought
Breaking the drought
Well it’s been a little while since the last post (which incidentally was my first post). Personally I’d like to blame two things; firstly I would like to blame the Australian climate. There really hasn't been a heap of rain around lately (worst drought in 100 years) which correlates with the amount of postings on my spot. So essentially what I am saying is that my blog predicts the weather.
The other reason I haven't posted recently is because of John Howard. I don't really know how it's his fault, but it seems to be trendy to rag on our PM, and I just want to be popular...
(F.Y.I. I don't really think that Mr. Howard has anything to do with my own laziness nor would I rag on him in a way that wasn't in some way constructive.)
But I Digress.
Anyway, part of the new plan I had for the site was a weekly sermon discussion. The plan being that sometime on Mondays I post some of my thoughts about the sermon that I heard the previous night. (If I'm feeling geeky enough I may throw in some statistics that may or may not be fictitious). I would love to know what other people think about the ideas thoughts passages, exegesis etc.
And finally I would like you all to know...
Well it’s been a little while since the last post (which incidentally was my first post). Personally I’d like to blame two things; firstly I would like to blame the Australian climate. There really hasn't been a heap of rain around lately (worst drought in 100 years) which correlates with the amount of postings on my spot. So essentially what I am saying is that my blog predicts the weather.
The other reason I haven't posted recently is because of John Howard. I don't really know how it's his fault, but it seems to be trendy to rag on our PM, and I just want to be popular...
(F.Y.I. I don't really think that Mr. Howard has anything to do with my own laziness nor would I rag on him in a way that wasn't in some way constructive.)
But I Digress.
Anyway, part of the new plan I had for the site was a weekly sermon discussion. The plan being that sometime on Mondays I post some of my thoughts about the sermon that I heard the previous night. (If I'm feeling geeky enough I may throw in some statistics that may or may not be fictitious). I would love to know what other people think about the ideas thoughts passages, exegesis etc.
And finally I would like you all to know...
| If I Were French My Name Would Be... |
 Marlon du Chevalier |
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
The Inception
While sounding a little excessive as a Blog title, ‘The Inception" seems appropriate for a first attempt at a Blog. Now it’s only a website you say, it isn’t like this is the beginning of my New World Order (although one can dream).
What potential does an electronic journal that you can ‘shpeal about whatever pops into your head’ have? A friend of mine reckons he is " biased against them because I believe them a resource for teenage angst (despite the fact I am no longer a teen)."
And after reviewing a number of the online journals that he was referring to, I can see that it is easy for a format like this to be abused.
This is not to say that making notes about what you did today isn’t a valid use of a Blog, but it seems like wasted potential.
This said what should you use a blog for? A presentation of well argued points creating a serious case for a one side in a debate over a social issue? A chance to push your views on the great pumpkin uprising of 114 in Gaul while examining would it have happened if the Roman Emperor had just agreed to lower the pumpkin tax? Or perhaps utilise this medium to show off your swanky (I just wanted to use the suffix ‘wanky’) 11th level fighter and tell the world how awesome his vorpal sword of zombie slaying +4 is. Or perform an episode by episode analyses of Star Trek episodes to determine who really is the better captain of the Enterprise.
These are all fine choices for what you can use your Blog for. And this is by no means a comprehensive list (just to clarify). As for me, myself, personally. I haven’t really decided yet. I don’t intend to post only on one particular issue, but it would be nice if there was some sort of continuity between the articles.
Saying this makes me realise that any gimmick that people suggest (hint hint) will not be assimilated into my postings until after this one. Hence, calling this Blog ‘The Inception’ is wrong in just about every sense of the word. This Blog is no inception at all, rather a planning of the Inception (cue dramatic music). So feel free to post what you think the actual Inception should include. I would be thrilled and challenged to see what people want to see in "Lets Loch it in" in the future.
What potential does an electronic journal that you can ‘shpeal about whatever pops into your head’ have? A friend of mine reckons he is " biased against them because I believe them a resource for teenage angst (despite the fact I am no longer a teen)."
And after reviewing a number of the online journals that he was referring to, I can see that it is easy for a format like this to be abused.
This is not to say that making notes about what you did today isn’t a valid use of a Blog, but it seems like wasted potential.
This said what should you use a blog for? A presentation of well argued points creating a serious case for a one side in a debate over a social issue? A chance to push your views on the great pumpkin uprising of 114 in Gaul while examining would it have happened if the Roman Emperor had just agreed to lower the pumpkin tax? Or perhaps utilise this medium to show off your swanky (I just wanted to use the suffix ‘wanky’) 11th level fighter and tell the world how awesome his vorpal sword of zombie slaying +4 is. Or perform an episode by episode analyses of Star Trek episodes to determine who really is the better captain of the Enterprise.
These are all fine choices for what you can use your Blog for. And this is by no means a comprehensive list (just to clarify). As for me, myself, personally. I haven’t really decided yet. I don’t intend to post only on one particular issue, but it would be nice if there was some sort of continuity between the articles.
Saying this makes me realise that any gimmick that people suggest (hint hint) will not be assimilated into my postings until after this one. Hence, calling this Blog ‘The Inception’ is wrong in just about every sense of the word. This Blog is no inception at all, rather a planning of the Inception (cue dramatic music). So feel free to post what you think the actual Inception should include. I would be thrilled and challenged to see what people want to see in "Lets Loch it in" in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
