New Year's Music
So it is left to me to have the auspicious honor of ringing in 2010 on Word! The topic this month is regarding the use or lack of use of music in writing. Now, to be sure, I am participating in this blog in the context of a reader much more than a writer. For reading I pretty much never put on music. It doesn't bother me if music is playing in the background, but it's never a purposeful act on my part. In terms of writing I have been known to launch some tunes in order to help me stay focused on the task at hand. For this reason, it usually matches the topic (eg. writing a biblical studies paper? throw on some contemporary/alternative worship songs; writing an article for a self-published mag with a friend, some indie rock is called forth; writing toddler lesson, time for Veggie Tales Rocks or other kid selection). I also resort to classical (primarily some Bach fugues or assorted piano concertos) or jazz (Herbie Hancock, John Coltrane and Miles Davis fit the bill) at any time if focus is becoming a very great problem. I occasionally avoid heavily stringed arrangements as they can enrapture me too much! I think classical and jazz are the go tos primarily because of the lack of lyrics. This is not a very musical insight, but I am a lyrics person and if the music doesn't stay background it becomes a distraction rather than an aid. By the same token, I have my songs I really like and because I value the lyricism in these I believe they can subconsciously aid in the flow.

testing...
OK! Experiment time! The above was written in silence. What will follow is written while my iTunes is on random shuffle.

What is Calling?
I am to address another question (p.s. "Love and Some Verses" by Iron and Wine is playing in a currently DISTRACTING manner...it's total chill music...very difficult to be productive!). The other question is whether writing is my calling. There is a way in which this is easy to answer since writing is not my passion in any true sense (argh! why does iTunes hate me? Regina Spector is maintaining a totally chill mood!!). Still, I think the very idea of "calling" requires some serious defining. First of all, where do we get the idea that calling is diversified? Clearly gifts are different for each person, but I cannot find where calling makes reference to anything other than being called into covenant with God reconciled through Jesus Christ. Romans 11:29 speaks of the Israelites as a nation being called; 1 Corinthians 1:26 speaks of calling as a universal and 7:20 is interesting because circumcised and uncircumcised are spoken of as two distinct callings, but still reference is made such that calling is to be understood as being drawn into covenant with God. Also check Ephesians 1:18; 4:1-6; 2 Thess 1:11; 2 Timothy 1:9; Hebrews 3:1. All of these indicate to me that there is only one way to speak of calling and this is in reference to the fact that God has called us out of darkness into His marvelous light. Period.

Calling vs. Giftedness
Now why do I think this is important? Because I think confusing calling and giftedness sets people up for a faulty relationship with God and others. Calling is by definition an external act (God calls you) which does not have any guards on it (if you say God called you to preach, how can I speak to that? No other person has input on this) whereas giftedness is more internal and much more able to be assessed from the outside. Additionally, a study on giftedness quickly reveals that gifts are always operational within the context of community and for the purpose of edifying the church. One cannot (should not) operate in their gifts in a vacuum. Thus if one speaks about writing as a calling there is room for that person to think of writing as an activity which exists solely between him or her and God; however, what I would deem a more biblical definition of calling indicates that the only thing which exists solely between a person and God is salvation and the relationship engendered through this. Speaking of writing as a gift (which I think would be more appropriate) necessitates interaction with and feedback from other members of the body. There is a purpose for which one writes when this is one's gift. It is "for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love." According to these criteria then, one's writing can be judged.

That's Enough!
So apologies always for the jumble-iness!! The music was fun to have on, but the only time I think it really worked as an aid was Nick Cave's "Song for Bob" which...does not have lyrics and is not thoroughly chillaxed (which characterizes nearly all the other songs which played!). So let me know if you think these distinctions are 1. correct and 2. meaningful!

P.S.
The pic features my new glasses!