Smoky Rooms and Crushed Velvet Jackets Or….
So there we were, in one of our strategy sessions. We were trying to think through some of the issues associated with our new building at 960 Eastland Ave. The important issue of interior signage came up. Since we were renovating a former lumber yard, we thought it would be a good idea (maybe even clever) to name the various rooms, spaces, etc. with an ‘industrial’ motif. That, not to mention the fact that we feel a strong conviction that we desire our worship space to be a point of cultural connectivity (’becoming all things to all men in order to win some’). In other words, we want our building to be inviting to people. So we dubbed the high school sanctuary the ‘Warehouse’; the junior high sanctuary the ‘Refinery’; the main sanctuary became the ‘Auditorium’, etc. Cafe Agape sounded much too……mmmm….not industrial, so we dubbed the new cafe the ‘Grindhouse’ (as in coffee grind).
Then came the toughy. The semi-round room in the foyer with the fireplace was a tough call. ‘Hearth Room’ was the initial name. It didn’t sit well. It was too…something. The ‘Fireside Room’ fell into the same category. Then it came. It was either creative genius or a really bad idea. There could be no inbetween. Someone (who shall remain nameless-at least until the verdict is in) suggested the ‘Lounge’. Hmmm. Interesting. My first thought was a smoky room with a guy in a crushed velvet jacket sitting at a piano singing cheezy versions of light pop and jazz tunes while people drink martinis and pretend to be suave. Then I thought ‘Hey, maybe that’s a generational connotation of the word ‘lounge’.’ So we discussed the name further and indeed discovered a generational divide. The older generation (of which I am a part) thinks smoky room, velvet jacket guy, etc. while the younger generation thinks something different.
I warmed to the idea. And then I had another thought that moved me further in the direction of the ‘Lounge’. Shakespeare’s profound question and answer came to mind, ‘What’s in a name? A rose by any other name is still a rose.’ To put it in the modern vernacular, it is what it is. The room with the fireplace is going to being the room with a fireplace where people gather before and after services with a cup of coffee and chat with friends or make new ones. It will be the room where lifegroups meet and prayer meetings happen. It will be a room where you go sit down on a comfy sofa or chair and crack open your bible in front of the fireplace on a cold winter day. It will never be a smoke-filled room with a guy in a crushed velvet jacket sitting at a piano singing cheezy versions of light pop and jazz tunes while people drink martinis and pretend to be suave.
So I’m betting that the word ‘lounge’ will actually shift in our collective minds to reflect what our fireplace room actually is. Just like many great rock and roll bands have had to overcome really stupid names-think ‘Beatles’, ‘Pink Floyd’, ‘Hootie and the Blowfish’, etc. Those stupid names eventually morphed in our minds to reflect what those bands actually were. So too, the ‘Lounge’ will change in our thinking…I think.
What do you think?….be nice :)
peace, g
What’s On Your Ipod?
Currently dominating my ipod is a girl from New Zealand called ‘Brooke Fraser’. ‘Albertine’ is a brilliant album filled with challenging themes and Brooke’s stunning vocals. She can be found at the iTunes store.
Anyone care to share what’s dominating your iPod (or zune, or cd player, cassette deck, 8-track, etc)?
g
Things that make you go, ‘Hmmm’
I read an interesting quote today that I thoroughly agree with: “If I should hear a man advocate the erroneous principles he had imbibed through education, and oppose those principles, some might imagine that I was opposed to that man, when in fact I am only opposed to every evil and erroneous principle he advances.”
When Christians speak against false teachings we inevitably get accused of ‘bashing’. Then when we try and say, ‘We love the person but oppose the teaching’, we are given a deaf ear.
I read another great quote today: “If a faith will not bear investigation; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be weak.”
Again, when Christians examine the various teachings and hold them up to the scrutiny of the Bible (as we are commanded to do), we get accused of bashing and hating. Why is that? Why are we accused of persecuting other faiths and bashing other religions? Why can’t we investigate the claims of self-proclaimed prophets and examine the doctrines of the various religions and gurus to see if they stand up under scrutiny? Why must our motives be suspect? Is it not possible for our motive to be noble? Could it be out of concern for the eternal well-being of people?
By the way, the first quote above was uttered by none other than Brigham Young in 1859 (Journal of Discourses 7:191). The second quote was uttered by Young’s first counselor George A. Smith (Journal of Discourses 14:216). I couldn’t agree more with each of them!
Why do modern-day Mormons fail to see what Brigham Young and George A. Smith saw? It makes me go, ‘Hmmm’.
Mr. Positive
Oh, how I wish we could always be just sunshine and positivity. Joel Osteen makes a handsome living that way. Oh, how I wish we could just talk about how to be successful and happy in life. Oh, how I wish we didn’t have to preach (eek! cultural bad word) the gospel to every creature. Oh, how I wish that everyone went to heaven no matter what they believed. Oh, how I wish…..
But there’s this pesky little book called the Bible. And unfortunately, it says that we have to:
-’contend/agonize/fight for-the faith once and for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3)
-’stand fast in one spirit…striving for the faith of the gospel….suffering for Jesus’ sake (because of people coming against us)’ (Phili. 1:27-29)
-Warn of false prophets who deceive people (2 Peter 2:1-3)
-Warn of different gospels (Gal. 1:6-9) and different Jesuses (2 Cor. 11:1-4)
-Be a ‘fragrance of death’ to those who are dying. (2 Cor. 2:16)
-Be considered ‘fools’ (2 Cor. 4:10)
Peter, Paul, Jude, James, John and even Jesus Himself were all such wet blankets. They were all so denigrating to other religions and doctrines-having the audacity to declare them false (and of Satan-oh my!). They were all so adamant on there being only one way to salvation. They were all so passionate about the eternal realities of heaven and hell. It’s all so……negative. And it got them all in trouble with their communities and culture and the various religious groups. Their negativity drew great criticism. They were willing to suffer for the sake of those who would be saved and for the sake of the God who called them. What about us?
Oh, I wish we didn’t have to be so negative.
Mr. Positive