Falling into a Routine

I've been seriously struggling with the bible now for probably around 5 years now and am still woefully lacking in this elusive "routine" that everyone seems to be scared of.  Some might call it a "rut" or some just say "I'm not growing" but its basically that their life has hit a plateau, neither moving up or moving down.

I've heard it said in countless sermons, sunday schools, and bible studies that we need to avoid falling into the same old routine of reading the bible just to finish it or just praying at dinner time without thinking much of it. But this never made sense to me. After all, aren't we all called to regularly read God's word and to pray?  Aren't we supposed to fall into a routine of spending time with God?

This is what I'm thinking: If we actually have a routine of reading God's word, we would not fall into this fake, made-up trap of feeling like we are on a plateau.  If you are spending time in prayer and in the Word, then how are you not moved by Holy Spirit? How are you staying still?  Are there not enough verbs in your translation of the bible?

Honestly though, I have only ever heard of a routine in the hypothetical.  It is as if saying that it were possible to read God's Word and not be moved or transformed in one way or another, atheist or not. Whether or not someone has ever experienced this type of routine is still a mystery to me and I would love to talk to this person.  After all, I have a hard enough time trying to develop a routine of spending time with God.

Which brings me to the reason why I wanted to put this particular topic out there.  I think a lot of us struggle already with being consistent with our time with God.  Lately, I have heard people telling me that they are not growing or feel lost in their "daily routine" of devotions.  Then the question becomes, "well, when do you do your devotions?"..."umm...three or four times a week."...."(-_-)".

Anyway, onward toward that routine of growth!

The Legacy Effect

While i was listening to a podcast focusing on Microsoft and Windows in general, they started discussing the "legacy effect."  The way I understand it is that in places where infrastructure for certain technologies were created earlier have a harder time upgrading and maintaining the state of the art standard.  This is because people build applications that rely on other applications written before it that require older technologies.  By doing so, it forces the infrastructure to continue to support older ways of doing things.

For example, let's say that we've built an incredible infrastructure allowing people to use their phones to sign up for classes. This system has been in place for several years and nobody sees any reason why it needs to be changed.  Then an alternative way to sign up for classes comes around and its much faster, more reliable, and easier to use.  However, instead of rewriting the system to use this new technology, we decide that it would be easier and better to just simply overlay the new system on top of the old.  Rather than take advantage of everything that the new technology has to offer, we degrade the new to work with the old. (For those of you who recognize this analogy to telebears, good job).

For a more realistic example, we can look at Japan.  When we think of Japan, we think of their robotics and incredible technology that just seems to keep pushing out.  Look at the Wii, it came out, sold a bunch, was amazing, and now, almost 2 years later, XBox and the PS3 are just now starting to copy it.  In the meantime, Japan holds the fastest average for internet speeds and their cell phones receive television.  In fact, many Japanese don't own high-end personal computers.  Some look at the iphone and say, that's it? Why is it that a country whose "industrial revolution" was so late, or at least several decades later than others, is able to outpace even the U.S.?  Perhaps its the legacy effect. Japan was able to start off on a firmer footing.  Not needing to build an infrastructure on mere whim but on a tested and improved foundation.  In short, you can say that a late start may be more beneficial when it comes to infrastructure.

Why do I care about this, you may ask?  Why would I write such a lengthy post on such a subject?  It is because I feel that I have become slow.  A legacy artifact.  Why make myself build on top of a system that has yet to mature?  My previous blog, Collections, seems to have been a step backward in that respect.  Perhaps it is time to start fresh again so as to avert the legacy effect.

Bite Size 1

For Comparative Literature, I've been reading Swann's Way by Marcel Proust which is part of a series called In Search of Lost Time. An interesting quote I found was:

“And as each hour struck, it would seem to me that a few moments only had passed since the hour before; the latest would inscribe itself close to its predecessor on the sky’s surface, and I was unable to believe that sixty minutes could have been squeezed into the tiny arc of blue which was comprised between their two golden figures. Sometimes it would even happen that this precocious hour would sound two strokes more than the last; there must then have been an hour which I had not heard strike; something that had taken place had not taken place for me;"

Chew on this: Perhaps time isn't really a dimension itself but rather something that our mind had created to string memories together. Without memories, would time exist?

Birds of a Feather

Just so I can state the obvious, today is Friday and every Friday, I go to Friday Night Fellowship with Harvest Berkeley (check them out, they're really great people). Tonight we focused on Hebrews 10:24-25 :

"and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking ourown assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near."

In case you can't speak bible too well, it is basically saying that we should love another in our groups and fellowships and to spur each other on in love and in action. We should be getting to know one another and how we can help them in their daily live.

Doesn't this seem like an easy passage to follow? A big thing for me is application. HOW do we go about spurring one another on. I think today's speaker brought a good point in pointing out that this passage doesn't provide anything like a checklist or 'to-do' list for anybody to follow. Instead it just says to do these things as though it were inherent in our lives. You can see how these subtle yet simple abstract ideas become a problem when translated into an action.

So here's my take: You get to know someone first. I doubt you can generalize an entire group into a single personality (even if they're twins and live and breathe together). If you can just get to know how someone is doing you can formulate a plan to help. In the process, you yourself can share and you get something back. If you think about it this way, the passage isn't just saying that you have to get others to help, it also implies that you probably need or want help as well.

Generalizing this even further, I think it doesn't even have to apply to just biblical believers. This idea isn't for the general purpose of salvation but rather of society (and thus salvation). Don't get me wrong, just doing this isn't going to get you saved and for those of you who don't care about God or Jesus, you could care less then. But just think about this, you can do this even in your own groups. Don't go against this ideal just to be rebellious to some religious repulsion. This idea, I think, could do "community" in general a lot of good.