Since everyone has an opinion
When Megan and I return to the states in July, we’ll need to buy a few things to get us settled in again: new stamps, groceries, sunscreen, and…a, oh yeah, a car. See we sold both of our cars before we left for our year abroad.
I’ve been researching for what seems like forever and narrowed it down to two (well, basically–I took the Jetta TDI out since it may not start well in very cold weather, and the Civic is a fantastic car, but a bit wee, and Megan just doesn’t we don’t think the Prius fits our style).
So let’s pretend we’re choosing between the CR-V and Accord. We’re going to be a one car family so we need the vehicle to be reliable – both are. We need something safe, big enough for car pools, and fun to drive is always nice – both got it. So here’s my thoughts…
CR-V: Everyone I know who has one loves it. Great room everywhere, especially the back – that’d be real handy for our bikes. It’s crazy safe. And, hey, it’s much cooler than I am. The main problem is ethical. It gets the best mileage in its class, better than most cars, but 20 city 30 hwy isn’t a hybrid. Then again, if we’re going to keep it 10+ years it’s upkeep costs are lower than the Accord. But would I be joining the ranks of an SUV owner (rather than a “crossover vehicle”)?
Accord: My previous car was an Accord and my experience was as most: great solid car. It’s not a looker, but it performs like none other. The bikes would be more of a problem, but the mileage would pay for the annoyingness of a rack. We’d get a manual, which the CR-V doesn’t offer. Dual AC is pretty spiffy. But would I be the boring predictable pastor?
So I’d be real interested in what folks had to say. Are we sinners if we get the CR-V? Is the classic styling of the Accord just too boring for my uber-boring personality?
To vote, go to this simple, straight-forward, bound-to-work poll here. If you vote “other” I’d love to know what “other” you have in mind.
(and if anyone knows how a better way for polls in posts in wordpress please let me know)
Sermon Workshop
Though I’m trying not to think about next week’s sermon while on holiday, I’m not doing the best job. Since the epistle reading focuses on heaven–what I preached on last week–and since the gospel passage is eschatological–what I spoke on last month–I’m going go preach on the psalm for change.
Here’s Psalm 98 in the NIV (as taken from this page: Bible Gateway link)
1 Sing to the LORD a new song,
for he has done marvelous things;
his right hand and his holy arm
have worked salvation for him.
2 The LORD has made his salvation known
and revealed his righteousness to the nations.
3 He has remembered his love
and his faithfulness to the house of Israel;
all the ends of the earth have seen
the salvation of our God.4 Shout for joy to the LORD, all the earth,
burst into jubilant song with music;
5 make music to the LORD with the harp,
with the harp and the sound of singing,
6 with trumpets and the blast of the ram’s horn—
shout for joy before the LORD, the King.
7 Let the sea resound, and everything in it,
the world, and all who live in it.
8 Let the rivers clap their hands,
Let the mountains sing together for joy; 9 let them sing before the LORD,
for he comes to judge the earth.
He will judge the world in righteousness
and the peoples with equity.
According to the one commentary-like book I have here, the psalm is usually broken into three parts: 1) God’s cool deeds, 2) response to God’s cool deeds, 3) response intensified. Rebel that I am, though, I put the psalm above in two sections because I’m working on an idea.
What if the last two parts are really one part? It makes sense for post-enlightenment commentators to judge the psalm in three parts because that’s how they viewed the world. One part about God. One part about humans. One part about the earth and animals. Everything had its place. But what if we think of the psalm not as in three parts but two? Rather than separating humans from the rest of the earth, what if the final two sections are really one? What if it’s not that we praise first, and then the earth dutifully follows suit but the praise of God is not sufficient until the entire earth, and all the creatures in it, praise together. What if we’re only a small piece of the puzzle? What if God cares less about our individual praise and more about the praise of all people, animals, plants, and earth together?
Now for the application. Any ideas out there?
I guess my main idea runs something like this: if the psalmist is calling us to praise God with all the earth, we might as well start now. To do so we should probably start viewing animals as more than merely means to an end, mountains as more than presenting hiking challenges, rivers as more than places in which to fish. But what else does this reading imply? How do we help the rivers clap their hands? How do we support the praise of the sea and all that lives in it?
And what to make of the promise of judgement at the end?
Connect Online
