This Great Argument

On NyQuil

2007-02-22T16:18:00.000-06:00

It's a few weeks after Christmas, about midnight on a weekend, and my friend and I are engaging in some theological wrangling in the living room of my home. The night is growing longer and the wind howls outside, promising a treacherous It's ok, though; he's staying with us for a few days, sleeping in our spare room, so my wife leaves the two of us to hash things out. Not that it's an unpleasant conversation; no, the reason that she leaves us to our own devices is that we are both suffering from serious head colds. My wife (bless her) had been looking after us all day, making us tea, bringing us more Kleenex, and nodding sympathetically as we bemoaned our situations. All sympathy had gone, however, when it was revealed that instead of trying to fall asleep we were going to stay up and further extend the burden on our already weakened constitutions. Something in my wife's eyes as she went upstairs led me to believe that if we wanted tea the next day, we would bloody well have to get it ourselves.

The fact is, my friend here is one of the few people who I can really, truly, and completely lay my theology on the line with. Many of my friends are more aggressive - they spot a theological weakness, and they spring for the theological jugular. All well and good, except when you're feeling vulnerable, lost, and perhaps wondering if there's anything to this God stuff after all. Why do Christians shoot their wounded?

We've been chatting most of the evening, and had arrived at the point where you know - where you can just feel it in your gut - that you've hit a vein of gold in the conversation. You folks know what I mean - when it seems like God himself has decided that for a limited time only, the talk and the love will flow from himself and there is no miscommunication, no misunderstanding, only affirmation and truth. Where two or three are gathered, there he truly is. And we've decided that continuing on in this is much more important then getting a good night sleep when a cold is a knockin'.

We aren't complete morons, however. Between us sits a bottle of Vick's NyQuil and a solemn promise - we shall go to sleep once the awesome powers of NyQuil kicks in. For those of you who don't know, NyQuil is a beautiful creation of God that takes away cold symptoms long enough for you to get asleep - and tosses in some truly marvelous sleep inducers as well. The whole effect - depending on how much you take, which will change depending on how used to it you are - is like 3 pints in ten minutes on an empty stomach. Very popular at Bible college, let me tell you.

We toss back a dose and a half each, along with a shot of pure Alaskan vodka - vile stuff that I keep for medical purposes, but the best I could do on short notice. The label on Vick's NyQuil warns away any alcohol, claiming that it will "increase the drowsiness effect" - which is what we're counting on. Colds tend to make me lay awake and fall in and out of a vague, dreamlike state, sometimes leading to amusing midnight outbursts. Amusing in retrospect, that is - my wife has never liked to be awakened by my semi-hallucinations. Very Twilight-Zone-ish.

The conversation continues, and as the minutes tick by the "Golden Moment" seems to be passing. We've been trying to sum up our beliefs, nail it down in a short creed or statement of faith that we can both agree on. Finally my friend says something very profound.

"I hate statements of faith."

"What?" I'm rubbing watery eyes at this point. "What do you mean?"

"These," he indicated a short copy of our church's statement of faith, "are facts and words and - and other stuff. It's not real - it's not alive." He waves his hand at it. "This skeleton, this dead thing, it isn't my faith. It's not what I believe. Jesus is what I believe."

I find that very profound. "But how do you sum that up? Just hand someone a copy of the New testament and say, 'it's in there, trust me?'"

We are both quiet for a few more moments. If you could have looked at us, you would have seen that we were both sitting upright very still, yet swaying very slightly, as though a breeze were coming through the room. The NyQuil is starting to do it's business, and I can tell I've got about three more minutes of coherency left. Finally he speaks up again.

"Love."

"What?"

"Just love. That's it."

I want to ask him to explain, but suddenly, I don't have to. It bursts into brilliant, utter clarity in my mind. The heavens are opened and I glimpse the firmament. It makes such utter, painful sense that I think I actually might cry. I'm not even kidding; this is serious stuff. The word 'epiphany' seems inadequate. Something life-changing and world-altering has entered my brain. I must write this down before I forget it.

I stand up.

Like a warm wave, the NyQuil washes over me. I grip the edge of the couch, shaking, as I struggle to remain upright. For a split, crazy second I can see the "blue screen of death" in front of my eyes - but I'm not a computer, am I?

What were we talking about?

It's gone. SO is most of my balance - an unnerving experience, to say the least. I calm down, rub my face, and say, "I think I'm about done for tonight. You?"

He nods. "yeah. Goodnight Dan."

I walk up the stairs. That was really intense - I don't remember NyQuil affecting me like that before. Must be that awful Alaskan vodka. Nobody but the Russians have any business calling what they make vodka. Wait, isn't vodka made from potatoes? What were the Irish up to for all those years? How'd they miss that?

I'm lying down now. Consciousness is an expensive commodity, and I have run out. I hope I remembered to get undressed before bed, then I hope that I'm actually in bed. It feels soft enough, wherever I am.

What were we talking about again?

Sick as a dog...

2007-02-15T15:54:00.000-06:00

and in no shape to blog. I hate germs.

Next week - I want to talk about something near and dear to my heart. Will you come back then?

Place in This World

2007-02-01T11:11:00.000-06:00

No, not the Smitty song, although I do enjoy singing along to it. That is, when I can be alone with my cd player. I don't want to subject anyone else to that horror...

Warning - I'm just in a rambling mood today.

What is the church's place in this world? I have asked myself that question many times over the last few months. When I was in Edinburgh, I went one morning to an Episcopalian church to pray alone. I also got a chance to pray in ancient Catholic cathedrals, and walk through the ruins of other, more ancient places of worship. Since these places were made the world has moved on - no longer is the church the source of the art, the culture, and the philosophy of the areas it inhabits. Some of these churches, old as they were, were left empty, grey skeletons of lifeless bodies. Other had been converted for different uses; pubs, community halls, and in one case the best East Indian restaurant in town.

In North America, our churches are more commercial, more democratic. Is that a good thing? It sometimes feels like churches exist to steal members of other churches, plug them in, and forget about them. This is one of the reasons the emerging church is of such interest to folks like me.

But at the same time, it all feels so useless. Christian bookstores depress the shit out of me. Mountains of literature, all of it claiming to be the next big thing, the book you need to get to know God, the book that every good/real christian needs, whatever, it offends me. I sometimes think it offends God - we spend more money on crap like that then we do on the things Jesus told us to do - feed the poor, help the sick, visit the imprisoned. I spend more money on books in a year than I do almost anything else. The EC now has a host of books - some of them very good, I won't deny that - and now established itself as an "official" movement, complete with conferences (how's it going over there cindy?), book clubs and membership fees. Soon we'll have emerging christian music, workshops, music videos, artwork, and everything else to match the rest of Evangelicalism. Why does most expressions of Christianity in the West seem like sensationalized garbage? I get the feeling that in the West, Christians are by and large (and I include myself in this) too rich to be faithful.

Sometimes I think that if this (North American Christianity) is true Christianity, then God is either incompetant, unreal, or insane.

So.

What brings me out of this mood? What keeps me from quitting my job and going to join a Buddhist temple in the mountains? Obviously I'm still here, and I usually don't just complain and then log off - what am I still doing here?

A few weeks ago, I was listening to an Irish missionary talk about churches in Africa and Asia. I was doing my best to pay attention because the speaker was actually quite interesting (as the Irish tend to be, even when sober), but I was going on about 4 hours of sleep and trying to unkink my back after an 11 hour van ride across the country. I was zoning in and out, but managed to jerk awake at a phrase the speaker used-

"...in the Majority World..."

I blinked and sat up straighter. What did that mean? Fortunately, he was just explaining what it was.

"We have a tendancy in 'developed countries' to refer to this area as the 'Third World,' or the "10/40 Window,' or 'Underdeveloped Countries,' or something that minimizes them. What we don't realize is that the 'average Christian' lives in this area. The 'average Christian' is not wealthy, he is poor. The 'average Christian' is not a business owner, he is a labourer. The 'average Christian' lives right where the 'average human being' lives," and he thrust his hand at the map behind him, "here, in the so-called Third World."

I was thunderstruck. On an intellectual level I had already known the facts he was stating, but some deeper truth was making itself glaringly obvious to me.

He continued. "Don't you see? We are the minority in the world. We aren't the ones on top, we're the ones on the bottom. The so-called 'Third World' is the majority, which is why some people have begun to call it the Majority World. And with it, the Majority Church exists apart from us. We are the Minority Church - not unimportant, just not the center of it all." He stuck his hands in his pockets and bounced up and down on the spot, poorly containing his glee. "And we've got alot to learn from them."

I re-learned something valuble from this - the Western Church is not the only church. We are a portion, a small minority, of what makes up the greater Body of Christ in the world. And you know what? That actually gives me alot of peace about the mistakes that we continually make - mistakes of greed, of pride and arrogance. They are still wrong, and I hate them, but I am reminded that we are not alone. We are Corinth - a messed up, dysfuntional family. But there's many more believers out there, and despite our differences of culture and skin they pray for us and are a reminder that Jesus came for everyone - not just the religious.

We aren't the beginning and ending of the Church. Thank God for that.

I want to share a video clip with you, and hopefully it works (first time embedding something like this), but the lyrics follow. I find this inspiring, and perhaps you will too. Thanks for reading. It's good to be back.

Newsboys - He Reigns

It’s the song of the redeemed
Rising from the African plain
It’s the song of the forgiven
Drowning out the Amazon rain
The song of Asian believers
Filled with God’s holy fire
It’s every tribe, every tongue, every nation
A love song born of a grateful choir

It’s all God’s children singing
Glory, glory, hallelujah
He reigns, He reigns
It’s all God’s children singing
Glory, glory, hallelujah
He reigns, He reigns

Let it rise about the four winds
Caught up in the heavenly sound
Let praises echo from the towers of cathedrals
To the faithful gathered underground
Of all the songs sung from the dawn of creation
Some were meant to persist
Of all the bells rung from a thousand steeples
None rings truer than this

And all the powers of darkness
Tremble at what they’ve just heard
‘Cause all the powers of darkness
Can’t drown out a single word

When all God’s children sing out
Glory, glory, hallelujah
He reigns, He reigns
All God’s people singing
Glory, glory, hallelujah
He reigns, He reigns

Half a Year Away

2007-01-25T13:23:00.000-06:00

It's hard to believe how much time has really passed since I posted my last blog. I feel as though I should explain myself, give an account of where I've been and what I've been up to. At the same time, I find myself frustrated again by the medium and culture of blogging. It's just way too easy to shoot one's mouth off, to be offensive and stupid and not care who you may be hurting. It's too easy to be filled with self-importance and arrogance when you're sending your words out to the world, standing on your very own personalized soapbox. I guess I had started to get a little sick of it all, which started me thinking about this break. As always, though, there was more to it.

Our new home has not internet. This was a calculated decision, made almost entirely by the fact that we had a perfectly good cell phone - and, as such, no reason to get a land line. What get an internet connection without a phone line? Seems silly, really. So that was part of the decision.

My work schedule changed, taking up more of my free time. As the fall dragged on I became increasingly distant from the people in my life, sometimes spending more time at work than at home in a week. I worked evenings and weekends, and not because I had more work than usualy. It was because I was pushing myself, trying hard to make up for some percieved failures I had made, and trying not to give myself much time to introspect.

In addition to work becoming busier, I also started work on my Master's Degree - part time only, but combined with a work schedule more hectic than I'd ever had before it made for a semester of all work and no play. I didn't see my wife for days at a time, and I was wondering if either my job or my schooling would have to go.

We stopped going to church, my wife and I - stopped going to a church that I'd been a member at for almost 10 years. Proximity was the biggest factor; driving almost an hour to church makes sunday feel more like work for me, especially when the church population is growing increasingly unfamiliar. We've been church hunting ever since, with limited success.

In the midst of all of this, we needed to get away. We needed to get away from work, home, all of it, and an opportunity arose.

Scotland.

For two weeks we backpacked around scotland in the middle of December. A cold and wet country at the best of times, Scotland was experiencing flooding on a scale they hadn't see in over 50 years. It was frigid, and even the trains were freezing. It was the most beautiful place I've ever been. I'll tell you more about it later.

When I came back, things started to change. I refused to get drawn back into 60-hour weeks, instead relying on my support systems to get back on track. My wife and I picked a church to try, and we're committing to it for a few months to see how we fit in. I backed off in my schooling, and set aside more time for prayer.

Then one day I logged on to the net, and started to read.

I had been out of touch - no way I could catch up on all of the posts I missed. I had completely missed the Ted Haggard storm that swept the Christian blogs, and I felt no sadness at that. Much had happened, but I felt like I may be ready to come back. I don't know what that will look like, but I hope to contribute on a weekly basis some of my thoughts. Even if most of my friends and readers have moved on, it will be good to air my laundry again, good to say what is on my heart. Perhaps it will go unread, but then again, who do we write for?

There is one piece of unfinished buisness for me, and then I shall begin to tell you of the last six months. Expect an update mid-week, if you care to return. And to those who waited, thanks. It's good to be back.

Coming soon...

2007-01-19T14:31:00.000-06:00

Grey Owl's coming back, and he just might poop on your Chevy. More to come.

Uncertain future

2006-08-01T16:25:00.000-05:00

Not sure if blogging fits into my non-wired lifestyle at the moment. Finding it difficult to get the stuff done i need to, let alone the stuff i want to. What does this mean for this site? Not sure yet... More next week.

On Fantasy

2006-07-10T13:55:00.000-05:00

You're going to come to this conclusion anyway, and I think I'd rather you hear it from me than figure it out on your own and think that, somehow, I misled you in the past. If you still feel that way when you're finished reading this, then I am well and truly sorry.

I am a huge nerd. It's not a secret, nor necessarily a surprise to those who know me, although the level to which I sometimes slide can be shocking to some. Many people like the Lord of the Rings; fewer can give you a history of Middle Earth from creation through to the end of the Thirds Age. Many grown adults collect and read comic books (the average age of today's comic book reader is in their 30's), but not many have ever contemplated using Batman's relationship with the Joker as a basis for a future thesis in social psychology. God only knows how I got married like this, but my wife actually puts up with my foibles and - most shockingly - seems to enjoy being around me. For a guy who once wore Star Trek pajamas (and had a picture of himself in said pajamas on the big screen at his wedding), this is a pretty big deal.

So. Now that the unpleasentness is out of the way, I'd like to share with you some of the books that have been formative for me. By that, I mean that they have, through their stories, characters and themes have impacted me to the point that I can honestly say I have been changed through them. I'm sharing this in the hopes that some conversation will ensue, and perhaps other nerds will feel some hope and cameradarie. Also, I'd like to point out a few places where my faith has been impacted by book that are - at least not by standard definitions - Christian.

The Fionavar Tapastry - Some people call it "Diet Lord of the Rings." I had my doubts about it when I first picked it up almost two years ago. I mean, the premise seems pretty identical. Evil Dark Lord making war with his army of very, very ugly critters against the humans and elf-like creatures. Oh yeah, and the elves sail into the west when they become tired of life, to a place prepared for them alone. At first glance, it seems to border on plagerism. Of course, you just need to dig a little deeper. The author, Guy Gavriel Kay (a Winnipegger), actually worked with Christopher Tolkien on editing the Silmarillion. He's a huge Tolkien fan. And the premise of the Fionavar Tapestry pays homage to many fantasy classics, including T.H. White's Once and Future King.

In the novel, five university students from Toronto are taken into another world - to Fionavar, the First World from which all other worlds come. This is reflected in the many similarities the book has to our fantasy and mythological classics, like LOTR and Norse mythology. Each of the students comes to appreciate and value a part of this new world - and consequently, ours as well. And each of them play a part in the war against the darkness, though the final outcome is far from certain.

The story paints a beautiful picture of sovergienty in the depiction of The Weaver, the creator god that spins the stories of all the worlds into the Tapestry. And Kay writes masterfully, drawing you in to caring about the various threads that make up his story. Like all great tales, it is both grand and sad, a bittersweet exploration of good verses evil. It's a very real book. I urge you to check it out.

The Vampire Chronicles - As mentioned in a previous post, I am an Anne Rice fan. While her most recent work does not hit the heights that some of her earlier novels, I will likely read everything that she publishes. There is an honesty in questioning, and a refreshing breath of air in her ruthlessness. When you open The Vampire Lestat, no safe church walls keep out the relentless onslaught of that terrible question - "Why?"

Through the spiritual adventures and meanderings of the main characters, Rice addresses so many of the toughest questions that we as a race have had to face. And are in some cases (especially as North American Christians), afraid to answer. Pain, suffering, despair - why do we suffer from these things? Does God truely care about his suffering children? Or - as postulated in Memnoch the Devil - is God actually confused, uncaring, or insane? Is God to be trusted?

Reading these books forced me to evaluate my preconcieved notions. With the protective coating that so often infects Christian writing ("Don't worry, all the questions have easy answers, and we'll wrap up all the problems before the end so you can sleep at night") removed, the only safe haven for anyone to run to is to God - genuinely, unflinchingly, to rest in Him and not our cookie-cutter answers. It also helped me realize one ever-important truth - God is big enough to handle whatever questioning we can throw at him. Lestat reminds me a little of Job. And a little of me.

The Dark Tower - Stephan King's penultimate work. I finished book seven only a couple of weeks ago, forcing myself to spread them out instead of devouring them in a three-week gluttonous spree. If you've ever read them - and read the last chapter in spite of King's warnings to leave it be - you'll understand what I mean when I say that the books are iconic. The vastness of the worlds he creates, and the way the stories tie into his larger body of work, is unmatched by any modern author that I know of.

King's writing has alway been very, very good. But the Dark Tower takes it to a level that I didn't expect. The way the stories draw you in, making you a part of the Gunslinger's ka-tet as they chase the man in black and then finally to the ultimate showdown with the Crimson King. When you close your eyes, you see the Tower rising from a field of red roses. And in the end, you climb the stairs yourself to the room at the top (tell God and the Man Jesus thankya).

I can't tell you everything about how it affected me, because I'd ruin it for you and I intend to make all of you read it before I die. But let me say this: you will be changed. I don't know if it's possible to read it without being changed. Good vs evil is always good to think about, but witnessing the redemption of Father Callahan, the power of Christ holding back the forces of darkness... it was better than anything else I've read on the subject. And King's ultimate statement about the heart of evil... I can't say any more. The books were beautiful, painful, and bizarrly innocent. You won't understand unless you read them.

These are just a few of the books that have so changed me. Anyone else read them? Anyone else have books to share?

I'm a Baaaad Blogger...

2006-06-22T16:34:00.000-05:00

I spent half an hour on a post and had it eaten by the bloggermonster. This is why I hardly ever post!

Actually, it's because we did not, as planned, get the internet installed at our home. So I've been prevented from using the internet recreationally (that includes blogging). But I just got a comment from maryellen, and she sounded concerned as to my whereabouts. I looked at how long it's been and realized; I'm a bad blogger!

But when I have a minute and think about what I'd rather be doing, I think of you guys. My blog-friends, most of whom I've never met nor never will meet in person. I miss Maryellen and her kindness. Jamie and his compassion. Wanderer and his generous intellect. MC and his loyalty to his friends (and his... candor). Bob and his respectful wisdom. Cindy and her encouragement. Robby and his humour and care. And everyone else that I know I'm forgetting but still think about.

Anybody else have such trouble blogging? Or is it just me?

I think what I'll do is try to updtae once a month. But I would rather swing by your sites and chat there than sit here if no one comes by anymore (due to my absences). So I hope you'll see alot more of me in the near future. Thanks for caring.

On Jesus

2006-05-29T08:52:00.000-05:00

"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Phil 2:5-11

I've done alot of thinking about Jesus the past few weeks. That might seem like a "So what?" statement - after all, I am a Christian. Don't I think about Jesus alot? Aren't I always thinking about Jesus?

Err... yeah...

Anyways, as I took a break from blogging I had more time to think, read, and pray. I wish I could say I used all of that time wisely - there were alot of movies rented in the last month - but by and large this was a very insightful time for me. I did alot of introspection, alot of soul searching. I suppose it was inevitable that while searching my own soul I would come across Jesus.

As I mentioned months ago, I have a very special relationship with nature. Going to the lake summer after summer, being alone in the woods, staring up at an infinite sky untainted by city or even country lights... it was a blessed childhood. And I grew so much during those years, learning my lessons from breeze and tree and sky. God was great, and powerful, and as far above me as the stars. This I learned very well - that there was a mindful creator behind the beauty I saw, and it was unreachable. Utterly Beyond. The Great... uh, Whatever-He-Was. Awesome. Powerful.

Inhuman.

I learned this very, very well. And for a long time - even after becoming a Christian, which at the time I did mainly to avoid hell (gotta snap up that "Get Out of Jail Free" card when you can, folks) - I could not escape this view I held of God. It frightened me, and also galvanized me with a strange sort of fury. I could not recount to you all of the Job-like nights spent raging against heaven for the suffering of my fellow person. How could God do this to us? How dare he! He lets children ache with hunger pains, women live in fear of their husbands, allows us the pain and sorrow that accompanies life and that drives so many to suicide - why, if you gave any of us the choice, would we not rather choose oblivion than a life of suffering and then death? Such was my mindset at the time.

It changed since then; I cannot say when exactly. But over time I came to understand that this was not the God of scripture. The person that brought me to this understanding was Jesus, and it was this process that I was reflecting on over the past month.

A good friend of mine once said (accurately), "Dan, you seem to hate God the Father, and the Holy Spirit you could do without. You're lucky that God's not a duo, because I don't think you'd be a Christian without Jesus." And he was mostly right. I would read the gospels and agonize with Christ when he was in agony, feel for him when he wept, rejoice with him when he was happy. I watched him live and breathe and do all the things the rest of us did, and it made me feel something I couldn't quite understand.

I began to understand a bit better when I read the passage above - "though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death." I read it and something clicked -Jesus was a human being. He lived and died just like the rest of us. And he didn't just get born and then die, as our church calander may suggest - he actually lived. As in, he loved, cried, bled, sweated, laughed, smelled, farted, was scared and doubted himself - just like one of us! And yet he was also God, wholly and completely. God experienced all that we do. He was not hiding in the wings, watching our performace with a critical eye. He was onstage, active and tragic just like one of us.

In Deism, God is removed and impersonal. He sets the universe like a gigantic pocket watch and leaves it to run. But the Christian God - Christ - is personal, as in A Person, and he is genuinly interacting with us. Because he was human, we can know him, and because he is God, he can save us.

I've said it before, but for me, that earns him my worship. And that's what I've been thinking of and realizing again the last few weeks. So thanks for reading.

A Hiatus Explained

2006-05-26T21:59:00.000-05:00

My Friends,

I have been silent for over a month now, and it's been surprisingly hard on me to do so. I've missed you - Cindy and Jamie, Maryellen and Wanderer, Bob and Scott and Robby and other Scott and everyone else whose names I'm forgetting but who persist in reading what I write and not sending me letter bombs. I've missed the conversations, and I've missed writing. But I think before I jump back in I ought - no, I OWE it - to give an explanation of where I've been.

There were three factors that contributed to my absence. The first was work. I was reaching the end of my training period - all 2 years of it - and finishing up assignments and paperwork that I had diligently procrastinated on. This involved putting in long hours and late hours, even bringing work along to the lake for the long weekend. It was difficult, but on wednesday night I officially completed the process. Hallelujah!

The second factor was personal - I was simply frustrated with the internet medium. I got involved (under a different name) on some other websites on which dialogue was happeneing concerning other issues. Politics, mostly, but also sites about movies, pop culture, and other mundane matters. What I discovered was that in these other forums there were the same issues of rhetoric, miscommunication and character assasination that happened in the religeous forums. The internet medium encourages people to act their worst, and I got to the point where I needed a break or I would become what I despised.

The third reason was spiritual, and I intend to expand upon that on monday. Look for my post in the AM on monday, and I'll try not to disappoint.

Hopefully peopel still stop by here. Pass the word if you do - Grey Owl is back.

-cue dramatic music

Unexpected Hiatus

2006-04-27T17:12:00.000-05:00

Some life/work stuff has come up, and I have no time to do this. Complicating the situation is the fact that I don't have the internet at home, so my blog time is confined to breaks at work and right now I don't get many. I don't know how long I'll be gone; expect me when you see me.

Whoa.

2006-04-19T09:27:00.000-05:00

Update coming next week, I'd like to touch on yet another tough subject that's on my mind and get your opinions/thoughts on it... but something else is up today. I found an example of the kind of Christian I'm glad I'm not. Keep reading to get the video link.

There's few kinds of people in this world that actually sicken me. Child molesters and pedophiles are one group, white supremacists another. But here we've got a whole new brand of crazy and disturbing. I'm not a Hannity and Colmes fan by any stretch, and even in this clip they irritate me, but the lady they're interviewing is just... wel you have to see it to believe it. Look here before you read on.

Now here's what bugs me. Sure, assert the righteousness of God. Sure, talk about his holiness. Sure, have a political agenda - everyone does. The Iraq war gives me the willies, too. But I have never seen God be gleeful or vicious in scripture, even when he's blasting cities off the map in the OT. And I don't know many that try and say he was - except this group, apparently, which hails from the organization God Hates Fags. Truly, a morbid bunch.

Hey, I'm all about calling people on their sins. Well, for the people I know, anyway, or the people under me at work, because that's the context Paul did in the Bible. But if I ever start picketing funerals or getting that righteous/crazy gleam in my eye, I give you all permission to beat me within an inch of my life. What about that verse I posted last time: "Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?" Eze 18:23. People are really messed up.

On Calvinism pt. 3

2006-04-11T14:52:00.000-05:00

I’ve told you about the first two Calvinists who helped me see the merits of their position. And we’ve had some good discussions about it, which tickles me. I never dreamed this would garner the amount of comments – and hits – that it did. Kinda makes me feel like Riverdancing.

The third leg of this tale is slightly different than the first two. I told about George and Trevor in dialogue format, which I think I write slightly weaker in. This part of the story takes place some time after graduation from college, after I had finally taken Trevor’s advice about who to ask my questions of. However, instead of seeking them out directly, I purchased the book they had written on the subject. You can see it on my rarely-updated sidebar: “Who Can Be Saved?” by Dr. Terrance Theissan, putting forth the view of Accesibilism.

The issue that was tying me up in knots was this: I could conceive how predestination and free will could be amalgamated; in fact I saw the necessity of such a duality. I had arrived at an understanding (albeit a new and fragile one) of God’s relationship to the saved – that is, I for the first time began to see how the concept of “the Elect” did not turn God into and evil deity. Rather, I began to see that God was more loving and more glorious than I had hoped. But one question burned inside me and refused to be quenched: If we are saved by accepting the Gospel of Christ, then what of those who have no opportunity to do so?

I asked this question of a few people, all of whom gave me answers that seemed sound yet tasted foul in my mouth as I repeated them. Answers like, “If God had wanted them saved, they would be,” and, “They live away from the Gospel because they aren’t supposed to hear it and be saved, and when the time is right God will bring the Gospel to them.” My issue with these theories were twofold; for one, it seemed very unfair of God to not give everyone the opportunity to be saved, even if he knew the would reject it; and for another, if that was your theology the WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING IN NORTH AMERICA!? GET YOUR ASS OUT THERE AND SPREAD THE GOSPEL because if you don’t get it out there, they have no chance. Yet it seemed that the majority of folks that held this belief had little or no interest in spreading the Gospel at all, rather they for all intents and purposes withheld the Gospel, and did so with smug superiority.

So I was quite distressed, in fact it was almost a deal-breaker between God and me. All those people – Natives, Incas, Celts, Asians, the unborn – who had never heard the Gospel, yet had rich lives with love and suffering and brightness and pain and all the things we did? Mother loving their kids, making sure they didn’t stay out too late; deeds of valour done by desperate men to protect those they loved; sacrifices made by people for those they loved; suffering and dying and all the rest – why, none of it mattered! Not if they never had a chance! Better off they would have been if they had never been born, then they would have skipped the horrors of life and just been ushered into emptiness. I could not accept it! I would not!

Such was my mindset when I cracked this book. I was in a state, let me tell you. Sleepless night followed sleepless night, and by the time I began to read I was physically and spiritually weak. It was last summer, on my week of vacation at the lake. This is what I learned.

Theissan better defined “the unevangelized” than I had. Namely, he not only included the unborn and people who lived before Christ, but infants who die before being able to understand the Gospel, the mentally handicapped who do not have the ability to understand the Gospel, and everyone living after the resurrection of Jesus who never hear the Gospel in an understandable manner OR those who hear it but are unable to recognize it as Good News because of the actions/atrocities of those who bring it. One could hardly expect a tribesman to accept the Gospel of Jesus when the only Christians he has seen have raped his wife, killed his children, and destroyed his home. What of his fate?

Paul writes in Romans: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen." (Rom 1:18-25) This verse has often been cited as proof that those who do not hear the Gospel are all doomed.

But read it closely - "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." This says clearly that they knew God. That those whom the Gospel had never reached knew God as Creator. Yes, it also says that among those people there were those "who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" - but it does not say that all did so. Those who do suppress the truth and do not honour him are without excuse. What of the rest? Consider the God-fearing Roman that Peter visits in Acts. Through General Revelation - that is, through God revealed to his creation in nature - humanity is aware of God.

So the question was then posed: how are we saved? Through acceptance of the Gospel? That much seems obvious – but what of Abraham, and David, and Moses, and all the Old Testament people? There was no Gospel for them to accept. Perhaps the system of temple sacrifice? But that originated after several characters in Genesis had already lived and died. How were Adam and Eve saved, for that matter? Can someone be saved if all they recieve from God is General Revelation?

Thiessen has this to say: "Salvation has always been by grace through faith, but the faith that God expects (and gives) is appropriate to the revelation of himself that he has given to a particular individual. God requires people who recieve General Revelation to honour him as the Creator and Provider, to be thankful to him... to cast themselves on his mercy when they are aware of their failure to do what is right. If the Spirit of God were graciously to elicit this response in anyone's heart, they would be saved." So what he's saying is that God is revealed to everyone, even if only through General Revelation. And if someone were to respond to that revelation, would God not save them?

Consider this: God asks us for faith. Is it really possible that, in all the billions of people who had lived, that none of them responded to their Creator? Let's go back to the Bible. The criminal on the cross - what did he do to recieve salvation? He turned to Christ and asked to be remembered. That's all. I doubt he even knew what Jesus was. He responded to what little he knew, and it was enough. Could this not be the way it is for the unevangelized?

I'm falling drastically short of explaining this argument. Dr. Theissen's book is 2 inches thick, and he's got more years of schooling than I've been alive. I need to wrap this up, but let me just finish with this: I am not trying to say that evangelism is unnecessary, or that other religions save people. far from it. I'm saying that any who are saved are saved by Christ - but that God's mercy may extend farther than we knew. I don't know who among the unevangelized are saved, but I have hope that some - perhaps many - are. And whenever I fear that God is bloodthristy, or evil, or eagerly desiring the suffering of his children, I think of this: "Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?" Eze 18:23, and "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." 2 Pet 3:9

Scripture tells me that God is more merciful and righteous than I am, than anyone is. If I can trust anyone to do what is right - what is really right - I can trust him. And that is where I arrived. Thanks for tagging along.

On Calvinism: Interlude

2006-04-03T10:40:00.000-05:00

I was planning on heading on to the next point today; that is, talking about the salvation of the unevangelized (as it was so eloquently shot down by George in pt. 1). However, the comments of last post have shown me that there are some things that need to be said before I continue.

I was hanging out with Jon with no H last night, and he pointed out a flaw to me; namely, that I had mislabeled the "argument" that I was putting forward. When talking about the issue, I tended to refer to it as "Free Will VS Predestination." Since my point is not to pit the one against the other but rather to embrace the paradoxal nature of both, defining the discussion in this way was a mistake. So sorry for that, and please bear with me as we continue.

I commented on the last post, saying, "I affirm predestination/God's sovereignty because I see it in scripture, and I also affirm our choosing ability and our independence. Are those things opposites? I don't think so; instead I rather think that the two require each other in some way. How? Like inheritor of heaven said (insightful comment, that) said, we cannot explain every aspect of God, there is some mystery yet." I think that if I had started there, it would have simplified your understanding of what I was saying. But I really wanted to walk you through the journey. For me, I can't separate my current theology from memories of George, Trevor, and all the rest. The thoughts and feelings I had then are just as much the reason I hold my current viewpoint as the logic I used to arrive there. Admittedly, I "adjust" the flow of conversation as I remember it to make it easier to read and comprehend; it is much easier for me to tell you the story of "one afternoon with Trevor" than it is to actually detail every conversation over the last 3 years that I've had with him and that became combined into understandable form in my post. For this, I hope you will forgive me.

I also want to point out to you that we are in the same boat. Not that we all have the same views - far from it - but that we all bring to the discussion our stories. You all bring here your own Georges and Trevors, your own ideas and opinions formed not just by logic but by emotion and experience. We arrive at our destinations for those reasons as much as any. You read what I write and hear someone else's voice float up from the past, and you react to that voice as well as mine. There's no shame in it, I am doing it constantly. But let us try to understand one another, and listen to each other's stories. Perhaps our differences will seem small and insignificant when we look at the paths the other has walked and say, "I have been there before, I know that place."

Next post will be in a few days, on the subject of "Salvation of the Unevangelized," an important subject much debated in this discussion and also connected to another Calvinist I've known. At that time I'll resolve the "cliffhanger" I left you with last time. If anybody noticed it...

Oh yeah. Just for kicks, here's the last two parts of the series edited by Gizoogle. Language warning. Snort.

Part 1
Part 2

On Calvinism pt. 2

2006-03-28T15:12:00.000-06:00

From reading the comments on the last post, I can tell this is a divisive issue. I have to tell you that I am by no means completely certain about my position. I may sometimes act like I am certain, like I am wise and smart and all the rest, but that's more a defense mechanism than anything else. I'm as much adrift here as you are. I have arrived in this particular theological stance because I have been seeking Truth, and I seem to have followed it here. I may wake up tomorrow and find that Truth has inexplicably migrated, and if I am half as wise as I think I am I'll follow it out of the position I am now in. I hope not to convince you about the Rightness of where I am, but rather that you and I can look for truth together. Unlike some, I would rather seek Truth than be Right. If you and I are able to look for Truth together, then you are my friend, regardless of where you seek from. I hope that you see it the same way.

So. On to business. There are 3 people in particular that have affected me greatly when it comes to my position on predestination. All of these people were Calvinists, even though I am not really "one of them." The first person was George, whom you heard about last week. The second is my friend "Trevor," who has the dubious honour of being the only person I know who describes himself as a "Charismatic Calvinist." The conversation in particular that affected me took place during my third year at college, when I was married, commuting, and spending my free time waxing philosophical in the Commuter's Lounge. I walked in to catch the tail end of a tongue-lashing that Trevor was receiving from Margaret, a mutual friend of ours. Here, to the best of my recollection, is what followed.

"And I'll never look at you the same way again!" the woman's voice was audible through the heavy door of the Commuter's Lounge, but once opened it elevated to burning-bush decibel levels. I had obviously walked into an especially inopportune conversation, and I was about to beat a hasty retreat when the owner of that voice - Margaret, a fine-arts student - came round the corner towards the door and swooned dramatically past me. She spun on her heel and attempted to slam the door after her, but it had one of those hydraulic closing systems that are so popular with fire doors and simply refused to accommodate her. After a few brief, frustrating seconds, she gave a little sob, and disappeared. The door hissed shut apologetically a moment later.

"Hey, Trevor, having your customary luck with the ladies?"

He chuckled ruefully at my comment. "Nah, this wasn't a wife-finding attempt. I'm still a student, you know, and some of us don't go looking for our wives in 'bridal college.'"

I took the jab light-heartedly. "Still, you know what they say - if Bible College is the game-"

"Then seminary is sudden-death overtime, I gotcha."

"Right. So what was that all about?"

His face looked uncharacteristically glum. "Well, we were having a discussion about theology..."

"Ah."

"And I told her I was a Calvinist..."

"Ah."

"And then she just blew up. I didn't get to say anything else."

I frowned. "That doesn't sound like her. What about you being a Calvinist set her off?"

"I gather that her family are all non-Christians. I said 'Calvinist,' and she heard 'I believe that God has intentionally damned your whole family.'"

"Yikes!" I tried to be sympathetic, but to be honest with you I could see where she was coming from. Wasn't that what Calvinists believed? I thought I'd try and clear it up. "But isn't that basically what a Calvinist believes?"

Trevor got an Et tu, Brute? look on his face, but gamely responded. "I suppose they could, but they'd only be giving half the picture."

"What do you mean?"

"I mean that it isn't so 2-dimensional. 'God predestines people, therefore no one has a choice and we're just pawns.' Some people make it so cut-and-dried, and I think there's alot more to it than that."

"Like what?"

"I think it's more 3-dimensional. We are still real, choosing creatures, and our choices have consequences."

I held up a hand. "Hang on a second, Trevor. If God is predestining everything, then no one really has a choice, do they? And God's just making people and condemning them arbitrarily."

"Why did you pick a ham sandwich for lunch today?"

I looked down at my lunch, which was sitting on the table in front of me. "Uhh... I like ham?"

"So no one put a gun to your head and said, 'Grey Owl, if you don't take a ham sandwich today I'll kill you?'"

"No... but if God predestined everything, then I had no choice."

"Really? Did you feel coerced? Did God make you take a sandwich you didn't want today?"

This was starting to feel a little silly. "No, of course not."

"So deciding to take a ham sandwich was your decision? One that was made freely and without coercion? One that was made because of Who Grey Owl Is and What He Likes?"

"Yeah..." I was starting to see where this was going.

"Think about it like this. God creates the Universe. He has perfect foreknowledge about what the future holds. He creates humanity. And he creates every individual person unique and truly themselves."

"What do you mean, 'truly themselves?'"

"I mean that everyone makes decisions that are authentically theirs. They are decisions independent of coercion and force. God doesn't 'make them' do anything - he creates them with needs, wants, and choices to make that they will make authentically. God doesn't make the decisions for them - even if he does know what choice they will make."

I wasn't convinced. "I'm not sure I understand. If he creates them unable to respond to him, then isn't he responsible for their sinning?"

Trevor gave this some thought. "I don't think so. He created everyone as themselves. Let's take an imaginary person - Joe. Joe is born, has his life, and dies. Joe has likes, and dislikes. And Joe makes authentic decisions, independent of any interference. And one of those choices is to not repent - to stay as his is, and choose to be apart from God."

"How do we know that God isn't making him choose that?"

"Think about when you've sinned - when you make that decision knowing it's wrong. Is anybody but you making that decision?"

I was forced to admit he was right. "So what about the people who are saved? God just closes his eyes and picks at random the lucky ones he's going to save? The ones he's going to override? Because that's what it is, isn't it? He picks some and decides to ignore their choices and give them faith so they can be saved. Right?"

"Not at all. Think of it this way: You are a sinful person. Now you and Joe are different, because even though you aren't able to choose God because of your sin, you would if you could, because that would be an authentic choice of Grey Owl. But you can't choose God on your own, because your sin prevents you. So God enables you to choose him - gives you faith - so that you can be saved. Because you want to be saved, unlike Joe, who does not."

A light bulb went on in my head. I felt something slide into place and arrive with an almost audible "click." "So it's not that God just picks people at random to be saved, it's that he sees there are people who want to be saved, and he saves them. And he created them as real, authentic creatures, just like the ones who don't want to be saved, even if they could be. Neither group is forced into anything, they act completely as themselves. And despite their inability to save themselves, God saves the ones who truly desire to be saved. So everyone who wants to be saved, is saved." I paused for breath. "That seems to make sense. But this sounds suspiciously like 'Free Will' doctrine - what makes this any different? Because it seems to me once you introduce Predestination, the Free Will ground seems - well, iffy."

"That goes back to the problem I was saying before, about 2-dimensional ideas. Predestination and Free Will aren't mutually exclusive - only their 2-dimensional versions are."

"Huh?"

Trevor took a moment to sip from his water bottle. "It's like this: the problem with 'Free Will only' ideas - 2-dimensional ones - is that they make salvation up to us as humans. God extends salvation to everyone, but he doesn't get it all the way. We still need to choose under our own power, and 'make up' the distance that God couldn't cover. So really, God doesn't save anyone - we do. That's the problem when you refuse to consider the Predestination aspect of salvation."

"Right - and the problem with 2-dimensional Predestination is that it dehumanizes us - makes us not authentic beings. God doesn't pay attention to how he created us, he just arbitrarily picks and chooses who goes up and who goes down. It leaves no room at all for choice."

"Exactly! In a way, they must both be correct - and so we come back to the reason that I'm a Calvinist. John Calvin himself said this; 'Scripture affirms both Free Will and Predestination, and does not attempt to resolve the tension between the two.'"

I felt as though a heavy load had been taken off my back. Trevor and I sat there, awash in the afterglow of a rousing discussion that ended not badly after all. At times it had been the mental equivalent of trying to run through waist-deep mud, but we had arrived. I had to admit that my preconceived notions of Calvinism were far from accurate, and said so.

Trevor grinned. "Yeah, we're not all assholes, are we?"

I chuckled as I rose to leave. "Well, I think the jury'll stay out on that one for a while."

"Blessings, brother."

"You too. Cheers."

I had almost reached the door when another thought occurred to me - this one another serious stumbling block I had to the Predestination argument. With one hand on the door I turned back.
"Hey Trevor - one more question."

"Shoot."

"What about people the gospel never reaches - like bushmen in Africa, or the Incas, or... unborn children? What about them? Are they all in hell?"

Trevor actually shuddered at that. "Why on earth would you want to think about that?"

"It's just a question that's been on my mind. What do you think?"

"To be honest, I've never given it much thought. I can't help you there."

"Ah." I tried not to look disappointed, and turned the handle. Trevor's voice stopped me.

"But I think I can tell you who can."

to be continued...

Delay

2006-03-27T14:22:00.000-06:00

My computer crashed and erased an hour of writing. I lost part 2 of the Calvinism series, completely and irretrivably. I don't know if I have the energy or the time to start it all over again, so it'll be a few more hours or days. Sorry folks.

My computer is evil. That is all.

On Calvinism pt. 1

2006-03-21T13:59:00.000-06:00

Some people call me a Calvinist. Those people would not be entirely accurate - I didn't even know what the Five Points were until earlier this year, and I've never even cracked a book by John Calvin. They would be more accurate in saying I am a believer in predestination, although this itself was a more recent development. So I decided that's what I wanted to talk about.

There are many excellent discussions out there about Free Will vs Predestination vs Open Theism. I don't want to reinvent the wheel, so I'll save the gripping theological analysis for my betters. Instead, I want to tell you about three Calvinists I've known who have helped shape me into the kind of Christian I am today. Hopefully, something I write here will resonate with you and help you understand why I am a believer in what is a decidedly unpopular doctrine today. You should know, however, that I have no interest in "converting" you to my way of thinking. The vast majority of my friends are Arminian, and I couldn't care less about it. This is just what I believe to be true.

My first encounter with a Calvinist was at Providence College, about 6 years ago. It was my first year, first semester, first month and first week of classes. I knew next to nothing about church history and was still unclear about what denomination I belonged to. Needless to say, I was somewhat naive.

Enter George, straight from the American south. I don't remember which state, but he let it be known that he was from the "Bible Belt," and proud of it. Several years older than me, second year student, and On Fire for The Lord. Found the best way to worship God was to engage in discussions about spiritual matters. These discussions would often become heated and frequently turn into arguments. George was a good friend and a decent floor hockey player, but disagree with him theologically and he'd not stop short of questioning your salvation. All of this was unknown to me at the time of our encounter.

We were sitting in the lounge of the men's dorm, drawing close to 1 in the morning. That's prime theology time, for you rookies. I was enjoying the fellowship with my new dorm brothers as we compared classes and shared our stories of faith and Christian service with each other. All was peaceful and Godly. (and not one of us mentioned the cute girls we'd noticed. Honest.)

A couple guys went out to make a 7-11 run, and George and I were alone. He turned to me with one of those roguish Christian smiles on his face. I didn't know enough to be worried.

"So Grey Owl," he said, "Which is it? Calvinist or Arminian?"

"Err, sorry?" I was reasonably sure he was still speaking english, but there were a lot of international students about and I wanted to make sure. "Could you repeat that?"

"Are you a Calvinist or Arminian?" he said it again very slowly. Stared at me with disturbing intensity.

Panicked. Took my best guess. "Uh, I like girls, if that's what you mean."

A blank stare was returned to me. I began to sweat. My first week in dorm and already people thought I was gay! He shook his head slowly and tried again.

"Do you believe in Free Will or Predestination? You know, Arminian or Calvinism?"

"Oh, that!" I laughed with relief. Well, this I thought I could handle. "I guess I believe in Free Will. I mean, we're supposed to make a decision for Christ, right? How could we do that without Free Will?" I gave myself a mental pat on the back. Done and done! My first theological debate a success! I wanted to call my mother, but it was 1 in the morning. That, and George wasn't finished with me yet.

"Oh really?" He sounded decidedly sly. I nodded confidently, and he moved in for the attack. "But Paul says we only respond to God by faith, and God gives us the faith to respond to him. Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 12. We can only be saved if he gives us the faith to be saved."

Confusion. He sounded correct - lots of bible verses at the end, so it must be true - but it sounded so one-sided. Why would God act like that?

I tried asking. "If God wants us to respond to him, but we can't unless he gives us faith, then he can't very well get upset at the people who don't respond, because they can't respond unless he gives them faith, can they? So he's angry at them for nothing, really." It seemed to make sense in my head, but coming out my words were all jumbled. I felt slow and stupid, while Georges argument came out smooth and practiced.

"No, God holds them under righteous condemnation for their sinful nature, which they have since before they were born. They are punished eternally in Hell because he's a just and righteous God, and they deserve it. God only saves the elect, who have heard his Gospel and been given the faith to accept it." He quoted a few more passages but I can't remember the references. I began to get concerned.

"Now hang on a sec, George. This doesn't make any sense to me. Why wouldn't God give everyone an equal chance to be saved? If it's not up to them - I mean, if the choice isn't up to them - then God is condemning them for being exactly what he made them be. That doesn't seem fair." I was a bit more sure of myself here. "And if only people who hear the gospel even have a chance, what about the billions of people who have never heard it? Do they not even matter?"

"They exist to give glory to God. That's what matters." George had drew himself up and was in preaching mode. A thin film of sweat glistened on his forehead, and there was a holy (feverish?) gleam in his eye. He wasn't even looking me in the eye when he continued. "And who ever said God is fair? He's just and he's righteous and he's perfect. Everyone but the elect is sinful and hateful to his eyes. He saves the elect, and only because it glorifies him."

"Sounds awfully Narcissistic to me. Does God have self-esteem issues?"

George ignored me. "The people who die and go to Hell give God glory, and the people he saves give him glory. That's the purpose of mankind."

I tried to recapture some ground. "But it really sucks to be the people who aren't picked, doesn't it? And it's kind of arbitrary - like God just picks some people to save and the rest get sent off to Hell because... because he just decides 'some go up and some go down?'"

"Well, yes. We all belong to God, and we're his to do with as he will. The clay can't get angry with the potter, you know. We don't have the right."

I was getting flustered and more confused by the minute. "But... but the Bible says God is loving. Why would a loving God be so arbitrary? And why would he hold people responsible if he basically makes our decisions for us?"

"Grey Owl, I already told you. He holds us responsible for our sinful nature, which we have from before birth. Even if we don't choose our actions or path, we still have to pay the price for our sins. And God is loving, but you don't expect his idea of love and your to be anything alike, do you? He loves us for - "

" - his glory, right, yeah." Felt absolutely awful. I never knew that this is what God was like. I thought he was a lot nicer than that. I thought God liked me! Loved me, even! Now I felt like a checkmark on some heavenly clipboard. Could George be right?

Suddenly remembered something else he said. "Hey George, you said we have our sinful nature from birth?"

He frowned. "No, our sinful nature is a part of us. That's one of the most important parts of Calvinism - Total depravity, the first of the five points of Calvinism. We are sinful as a part of our being."

"Then what about stillborn or aborted babies? What about children who die from cribdeath?"

"They are under the same condemnation as the rest of the sinners."

I went cold inside. "You mean they're in hell?"

"Well, yes, they are. The gospel could never have reached them, which means that God has destined them for punishment for their sinful nature. If he had wanted them saved, they would be alive and part of the elect."

This was too much. "You're not serious."

"It is all for God's glory. You shouldn't feel bad about them, because they are receiving just punishment -"

I cut him off. "I'm done, George."

He looked pastorally concerned. "Listen -"

"No!" I practically shouted. "This is totally wrong! I could accept what you said on some level, but not this! God would never do that!"

"His ways are not our ways, you know."

"Look George, I'm not as smart as you. But I know Jesus, and he would never let that happen. He loves kids! And if Jesus and God are the same person, then God couldn't do that either." I stopped feeling cold and started to get very, very hot and upset. "And personally, if God is anything like what you say, then I think we're all better off without him."

George started to get angry. "That's heresy! Our doctrines -"

"Oh, fuck your doctrines!" I snapped. That rocked him back a step. "I'm done with listening to this. Everything I've ever heard about the gospel and Jesus tells me that God loves us, and hurts for us, and saves us out of love. If you're trying to convince me that this same God is selfish and gleeful about people going to hell, then I think you and I are worshipping different Gods. And I think mine beats yours all hollow."

I stood up to go. "And next time you want to bring this up with me, think on this: If you convince me that what you told me today is true Christianity, then I will leave the church and never look back. You will drive me away. So you'd better decide if convincing me your right is worth my soul." And I stalked from the room.

We spoke again a few days later. He apologized for not being sensitive, and I apologized for swearing and being "exceedingly dramatic." We played floor hockey together a few times, hung out at dorm, and prayed together at Bible studies. He helped me with my Church History, and I helped him with his Intro Psychology. He didn't return the next year, but we certainly ended on better terms than we began.

It must seem very strange, then, that after a beginning like this I am where I am today. If you want to hear the rest of the story, then stick around. It's been nice talking to you.

Update

2006-03-20T14:19:00.000-06:00

The post planned for today will not be appearing due to some technical difficulties. It will be put up tomorrow by 4pm Central Time. Instead, I share with you a picture that makes me chuckle and then feel guilty.

Tragic and hilareous. I call it, "Tralareous."

Thanking you for your patience and harassment

2006-03-13T11:40:00.000-06:00

Well it's been a month shy a day, but here is the long-prophesied update. I am a negligent blogger and deficient as a human being for letting it go so long. But hey, I was in Texas at the time.

And speaking of Texas, what they say is true: It would be inadvisable to mess with it. I thought the "SUV's with Gun-Racks" comments I'd been hearing before I left were stereotypical at best and prejudiced at worst, but they really were everywhere. You could invade a middle eastern country solely with the arsenal found in the state's Landrover population. It was a little surreal. Of course, driving for 30 hours straight and arriving in a place that is almost 60 degrees C different than you left makes you feel a bit like you've been in a time warp already, but you get what I mean. It's like a whole other country down there.

Friendly people, though. Every restaurant and corner gas store I went into I had very good conversations with the employees and customers. Most of them were vaguely aware that there was a place called Winnipeg "up there," although a few were less sure that I was telling the truth about our current weather. The nicest fellow I met was a used bookstore owner/local treasure hunter (no lie!), who managed to have the next copy I needed in Stephan King's "Dark Tower" series. His quirky little store remains one of the places in my mind that I'll always think of when I think of Texas. The next nicest was the Nebraska State Trooper who gave me a ticket at 2 in the morning on our way through his lovely state (which I have yet to see in daylight). He was such a pleasant fellow that it was impossible to be mad about the situation. Well, not too mad.

We drove down as a family, with my wife's parents and her siblings (a sister, two brothers and a sister-in-law). It was a good group to go down with, although both of my brothers-in-law manage to look as much Islamic as two Mennonites can. Needless to say, we were searched at the border. Not a bad experience, really, although while we sat in the (obviously) bugged waiting room I had to fight an insane desire to lean over to my brother-in-law and say, "Durka durka durka mohammad ali jihad," (see "Team America World Police." No wait don't, it was dreadful).

Great food where we stayed. Ate at an awesome Mexican restaurant which had the best REAL tacos and fahitas I've ever tasted. The salsa was something else, too - kinda like being kicked in the face by a pepper wrapped around a steel toe. Later we had seafood, which disagreed with me for some reason. I swear it was food poisoning, although my in-laws felt no ill effects. This led to some harsh words being exchanged, with opinions about my gastro-intestinal state being debated heatedly. The question was raised, "How can it be food poisoning if we all ate the same thing and you're the only one who's sick?" We were divided on our ultimate conclusion - it was a toss up between "Grey Owl is a nancy-boy" and "the inlaws have the immune systems of junkyard dogs."

Saw palm trees. Never seen them before. Absolutely ridiculous looking things. What was God thinking?

Had to drive through Dallas and Houston on the same day. Never been on the freeway before, so it was an experience, let me tell you. I used to think the Perimeter Highway around Winnipeg was a pretty big deal, but when you see 6 layers of interstate stacked above your head and three more below and there's five lanes one way and everyone's going so fast and was that our exit dammit it was where the hell can you do a u-turn on this crazy highway - I almost had a stroke. Seriously. This prairie boy couldn't take it. Oh, I did alright, but I was about ready to cry when I saw open road again.

So that was our trip. There was a good deal more that happened, but this is a blog about faith and life, so on to the goods.

I've got a serious post in the works for monday. I'm taking long with it because I can't write on the weekends - no internet at home yet; that's what we get for moving into a new development. I'm really behind in reading everyone's blogs, haven't checked them in about 3-4 weeks. So I'll be slowly getting back into the swing of things, hopefully be able to comment here and there. I've missed you folks, and appreciated the emails while I was away. It's nice to know that people care, and even nicer to know that someone likes what I write. So stay tuned, thanks for reading, and I'll be around. Cheers.

On Humility

2006-02-14T14:26:00.000-06:00

It felt like tossing a big juicy steak to a pack of wild dogs that had been chained up and teased for a week. Or like telling a kid on their first piano lesson that they were going to have to play Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 24 in C minor, blindfolded and one-handed, by the end of the class. I was absolutely convinced that in 2 weeks this poor guy in front of me was going to have to be scraped - physically and emotionally - off the floor and taken somewhere safe so he could glue together the pieces of his shattered worldview. But I get ahead of myself. I'll start from the beginning.

He was one of the first volunteers to come and work for me when I started at the youth centre I am at currently. I'll call him Jeff. Jeff was the son of career farmers, which is a hard profession these days, and had been raised Mennonite/Christian since the very beginning. He was hard working, cheerful, and friendly, and even though I was only 3 years older than him it felt like he was so young. Probably because he was - and is - one of the only people I know who says, "gosh," and "gee" in everyday conversation. There was a gentle naivete about him that was reminiscent of the Beverly Hillbillies. I'm honestly not trying to make him sound simpleminded, but these were the first impressions that he gave me when we met. You'll understand why I say this later.

I came to my position the at centre with the idea in my head that I was going to educate everyone about the social and psychological issues that were plaguing the town. Not a bad idea, really - small towns are rife with disorders, drug problems and all manner of issues that people are by and large uninformed about. And so I began diagnosing problems here and there, writing my thoughts on various "problem teens" and the family issues they likely had and so on. I don't mind telling you that I had a rather high opinion both of myself and of what I thought I could accomplish. I had visions of crowds of people flocking to my office, all clamoring for my aid and wisdom. Oh, I kept these to myself and one often does, but it was always in the back of my mind that I was Wise and Educated, and that they were Lucky to have me.

Enter Jeff. No formal education to speak of - there was some confusion as to whether or not he graduated from high school - and an eagerness to please and to help that stroked my ego in exactly the right way. He read few books except for the Bible, and was very honest about his lack of academic prowess. And so I began the task of teaching him the "necessary skills" to survive in Youth ministry. We met a few times before our doors opened, and I took it on myself to give grad-school worthy (I thought) lessons on what he would be encountering.

There was one teen in particular we talked about. This teen - we'll call him Randy - was born with a mental disability in the Autism Spectrum. He was very high functioning, but the combination of his disorder and subsequent social pressures (high school is cruel to any who are different) had made him into one unpleasant and socially awkward fellow. He'd lash out at volunteers and youth alike, sometimes physically, and generally made life difficult for everyone when the centre was open.

I talked for ages about this kid with Jeff. And I covered the whole nine yards - chemical imbalances, likely triggers of adverse behavior, and a psychological profile. The I'd switch gears and head into socio-economic issues, societal pressures and even a history of mental disorders and how we treated them in Canada. I was on a roll, let me tell you. And Jeff just listened to me prattle on, with a "gosh" thrown in every now and then for good measure. As we kept talking I got the feeling that this was all just a little too much for Jeff. And I was right - he made it clear that he was impressed and interested, but I had a feeling that total comprehension was not in the cards. Hence the feelings of steaks and piano lessons, as mentioned before.

So. On to what actually happened.

The doors open, and I see Jeff make a beeline for Randy as soon as he gets in. I chuckle and shake my head ruefully, figuring that I'll need to go bail the poor guy out in a few minutes. I was convinced that Randy would made mincemeat of him, and I would swoop in with my Bachelor of Arts and save the day. There would be swooning of maidens and singing in the streets. I was ready to buckle some serious swash, let me tell you.

But Jeff didn't need my help. He spent the whole night with Randy - 3 solid hours. Then he did it again next week. And the week after that. He spent every evening he was there for almost 3 months with Randy. He talked with him, drew pictures with him, played games with him, gave him Christian CD's, and invested time in him. All of this with Randy, who for some reason resisted my subsequent attempts to approach him.

And you know what? Randy started getting better. After a while he opened up to more of our volunteers - eventually, to me as well. And Jeff kept on investing in him, and in other kids as well. They thought he was great. He was becoming closer to kids in a few short weeks than I had in months. I couldn't believe it; it made no sense. Eventually I couldn't take it anymore; I took him aside him one night after closing.

"How are you doing it, man?" I asked. "How are you getting through to these kids? To Randy? He's interacting with the others better than I've ever seen. What have you been saying to them?" I was completely bewildered at this point.

He gave it some thought. "Well," he said, "You were talking about all these things that were wrong in their lives. About family problems and problems with their minds. And I just figured that it meant I just needed to love them more than normal. So I decided to try and love them as much as God did. And I prayed that He would give me more love to give them."

It seemed so simple. And it was something that I - in all my learning and my booksmarts - had overlooked. And that Jeff had grasped and given himself to so completely that he affected change where I could not. He shamed me with his faithfulness. Right then I realized that I still had a lot to learn.

It's been a while since then. And I've still struggled with my inflatable ego. I like to think it's a bit smaller now, but I try to be realistic. We've got a different batch of volunteers now, from all walks of life. Farmhands, professionals, college students, and retirees. All of them bring something to the table that I don't have. Don't get me wrong, my schooling has come in handy. It's given me insight, and helped me help others with complicated issues both personal and otherwise. I was just wrong to elevate what I knew above what others could tell me. Mostly, I learned this from Jeff. And when I look back at my education, he'll always be one of my favorite teachers.

Update

2006-02-07T16:12:00.000-06:00

We're in our house!

Work is insane!

And there's no internet hookup at home for us yet. Hence the pathetic showing here for the last 2 weeks, as I'm only able to blog at work and I really ought to be working when I'm at work. You know, just one of those things.

Been doing alot of praying lately; alot of praying and reading. Trying to chip some of the ice off the ol' heart.

So here's something that I've been reading: A selection from the Carmena Gadelica, a collection of Celtic Christian hymns and prayers. Translated from Gaelic.

ACHANAIDH GRAIS - A PRAYER FOR GRACE

I am bending my knee
In the eye of the Father who created me,
In the eye of the Son who died for me,
In the eye of the Spirit who cleansed me,
In love and desire.
Pour down upon us from heaven
The rich blessing of Thy forgiveness;
Thou who art uppermost in the City,
Be Thou patient with us.
Grant to us, Thou Saviour of Glory,
The fear of God, the love of God, and His affection,
And the will of God to do on earth at all times
As angels and saints do in heaven;
Each day and night give us Thy peace.
Each day and night give us Thy peace.

See all y'all later. Peace be with you.

The Secrets are Out...

2006-01-24T15:43:00.000-06:00

Ten Top Trivia Tips about Grey Owl!

The Church of Scientology was founded in 1953, at Washington D.C., by Grey Owl.
There are roughly 10,000 man-made objects the size of Grey Owl orbiting the Earth.
Ninety-six percent of all candles sold are purchased by Grey Owl.
Grey Owl is the world's smallest mammal.
It takes 8 minutes for light to travel from the Sun's surface to Grey Owl.
Influenza got its name because people believed the disease was caused by the evil "influence" of Grey Owl.
Grey Owl is the world's largest rodent.
The number one cause of blindness in the United States is Grey Owl.
There are more than two hundred different kinds of Grey Owl!
Baskin Robbins once made Grey Owl flavoured ice cream!

On Narnia and Un-Tame Lions

2006-01-18T10:50:00.000-06:00

Well, it was no Lord of the Rings. But it was still a great experience.

As some of you know, I took a trip in over Christmas to see the first and hopefully not last installment of the Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Now, I grew up reading these books almost obsessively, so the story was rather near and dear to my heart. As with the Lord of the Rings, this is both good and bad. Good in that there is a rich history built up in my mind, with characters I've known since I was a child being portrayed (very well, IMHO) before my eyes - and bad, because even the slightest deviation from the story as it was written can cause confusion and feelings of betrayal ("What the hell are elves doing at Helm's Deep?!").

That being said, here's my take on the whole experience. If you've got something to add, by all means, share it.

Let's start with the bad - it was too short. Most people won't say that about a movie that weighed in at 2 hours and some change, but it really was. It felt very rushed, and I think a few minutes more of expository dialogue and a few minutes more of interaction between Aslan and the kids would have made it feel alot more true to the book. I understand that on some level they were trying to make a kids movie and you can't expect kids to sit still for 3 hours, but even another 15-20 minutes would have been good.

The editing was a little dodgy at times. Nothing too noticeable, just enough that certain changes of camera angles left you feeling somewhat disoriented. And there were moments where the CG images and the real ones were painfully distinguishable. A little sloppier than I expected.

The marketing of the film really bothered me. It seemed like Focus on the Family and every other Christian organization was jumping on this film like it was the next "Passion of the Christ." I wandered through a Christian bookstore when I was doing my Christmas shopping and found what I thought was the Narnia movie soundtrack. Fortunately before I could purchase it, my wife pointed out that it was not the soundtrack but a "Songs Inspired by" CD containing all manner of garden variety Christian "hits." Also close by were Narnia colouring books, Narnia coffee mugs, Narnia-based devotionals, and there was probably 4 or 5 different kinds of Narnia study Bibles there too.

It just felt a bit to me like it was selling out. And seeing Plugged In fawn (heh heh) all over this movie as they always do when a "Christian" movie comes out, regardless of how good or bad it is, was irritating. Just once I want to see some balanced review coming out of the Christian community. When movies like "Kinsey" and "Rent" get failing grades on the basis of their politics and not on how good of a movie they are while "The Passion of the Christ" gets a free ride... that's not reviewing, that's second-rate hackery.

Ok. I'm done ranting. Now on to the good.

The first time I saw that Wardrobe in the movie, I got chills. I'm sorry, I just did.

The children they picked for the roles were perfect, especially Edmund. You just wanted to slap the little punk silly. There was good acting all around, and Liam Neeson was the perfect pick for Aslan's voice. Tilda Swinton, who played the White Witch, was particularly good. She's setting a new standard for creepy, almost asexual characters (a la Constantine). The special effects (despite what I noted earlier) were great - my wife pointed out that you could make a whole movie of nothing but Aslan's fur rustling in the wind and have people in tears - and you could really see WETA Workshop's handiwork in the creatures, weapons and armor. I also thought the music was very well done. I'll be picking up the soundtrack (the real one) as soon as possible. I hope that this is the first of many Narnia movies - and I hope the quality can rise as the series goes on.

Moving on to my personal feelings...

The thing I liked best about the movie was Aslan. When Peter and the army bows down before Aslan, I just felt like I ought to be bowing too. Knowing what Aslan represents, it was just very personal for me. Allegorical stories like that have always been very meaningful to me. More than any other representation of Christ, Aslan has been very real to me my whole life. It wound up being a very emotional experience for me. That, of course, has very little to do with how good a movie it was - I think that this movie would have been nearly impossible to screw up. I do think that if you haven't read the book before you see the movie, you're really missing out. In fact, it almost felt at times like they were counting on you having read the books first to give you the background they didn't provide - but I suppose that's just the limitations of film. All in all I thought the experience was worthwhile.

Anyone else seen it? What did you think?

Does This Mean I'm a Bad Actor, too?

2006-01-16T13:38:00.000-06:00

You are Neo, from "The Matrix." You
display a perfect fusion of heroism and
compassion.

What Matrix Persona Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

Hmm. Suddenly I have an urge to be really stoic.

Narnia review/discussion by Wednesday. Watch for it.

This One's for Norm!

2006-01-03T14:19:00.000-06:00

I originally started this blog about 6 months ago. I had many purposes in mind for it - some of them loftier than others. In part, it was to be a meeting place for the folks I'd met (online and in person) that shared a passion of mine - ministry in this emerging generation. I hoped it would be a forum in which theology, philosophy, and real-life issues could be discussed. And let's face it, I do enjoy a soapbox every now and then. I'd be lying if I said I don't get a thrill every time someone comments - and I know that for every comment I get there's readers out there who lurk and ponder what gets said while rarely making comments of their own (I know you're out there, Norm).

For the last 2 weeks I haven't touched this blog. Or any blog for that matter. I've read a few here and there - Jamie's new posts on homosexuality are excellent by the way - but I haven't commented. I've been spending time with my wife, my family, and my friends. I've been working on our house - well, on the stuff that I can work on, anyway. I've been to a few movies, watched alot of Firefly on DVD (love that show!), and gone out for wings. I've connected with a few old friends and resolved to make contact with more. So I've been busy, but I also noticed something... even when I did have the time to blog, I'd sit down at the keyboard, open up my page, and just draw a blank.

I haven't felt particularly bad about it, either. I mean, I'd love to be writing, but I have just felt like I've had nothing to say. Perhaps I am seeing the not-so-distant future in which this blog outlives its usefulness in my life and goes the way of the buffalo. We shall see... But I have missed y'all. So this is like my long drawn-out apology for being AWOL over Christmas. Here's what's on my mind.

Got the new Anne Rice book from my brother. Started it, taking a little break at the moment because it's not as smooth a read as her vampire novels. Jury's still out, though... we'll have to wait and see.

About a week until we can move into our new/first house, very exciting times... although I'm a little concerned that the builder won't be delivering everything they promised unless I drag it out of them kicking and screaming. I've already had to harass them to keep them doing what they said they'd do - not my favorite pastime. But my wife and I are thrilled, and we can hardly wait. BTW, if any of you are looking for an inexpensive place to get good quality curtains, area rugs and other house paraphenalia, try the Real Canadian Superstore.

Been spending a bit of time counseling teens, which is probably my favorite part of my job. Thankfully, I have several option for referral when it becomes necessary (as I am still gaining experience). But still, I've felt like God is very active in the lives of many of these young people, and seeing them turn to hope in Christ is a bigger thrill for me than I thought it ever could be.

Watched the new Narnia flick. Fantastic. Got a post up my sleeve about it. King Kong, on the other hand, was sadly forgettable. And full of giant bugs. Ugh.

I want to touch again on Jamie's posts on homosexuality. I haven't commented there yet, but I intend to when part 3 comes out. Part 1 has over 50 comments, and part 2 is gaining. What is most shocking is that the conversation seems to be devoid of hatred, name-calling and any of the general distastefulness that typically follows such a hot topic. I think this is in part to Jamie's level-headedness. Well done, Jamie! I'll be posting s summary of the best comments and such once part 3 wraps up.

Congrats to Wanderer on his 100th post - I hope he sticks around for 100 more. And I'd encourage everyone to check out one of his more recents posts; I for one appreciated the look into his past.

Emergent What?'s been taking up the topic of the Rev. Ken Silva, a fellow who's quite popular over at Slice of Laodicea. I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced the attention is necessary, however, as even a cursory examination of the man's writing and theology reveal a harsh bias and a disregard for truth. I doubt that any fruitful conversation can come about in such a context. I do hope, however, to engage with some genuine critics of the EC this year in hopes of dialogue and good times. Wish me luck.

Thanks to Cindy for checking to make sure I was alive, and alerting me to the existence of another Dan D making himself known in the emerging church. He's been recently spotted at Scot McKnight's site, and all I really can say to that is apparently us Dans think alike. Crazy.

This year I hope to finally wrap up my Ishmael posts, write something on inter-religious dialogue, and maybe buy a new hat. Stay tuned, and I'll try to be a bit more active. I'll try and make the rounds at some of my regular reads, and toss in a comment or two along the way. Pray for our house if you think of it, and thanks for dropping by.

Merry Christmahanakwanzaka!

2005-12-23T12:28:00.000-06:00

Happy Holidays.

That's right, I said it. Happy Holidays. And have a good New Year while you're at it, too. I think the "War on Christmas" debate is one of the sillier things going on. Because we all know Jesus gave the discliples Ipods and candy in their sandals at the last supper and said, "Do this in remembrance of my birthday." But it begs the question; why do North American Christians think the best language to use is war/strife language? It can't be "The Debate about Christmas" or even "The Controversy about Christmas." Why so angry? Can't imagine why people would get the idea that Evangelicals are at war with the "sinners" of the world...

But. This is Christmas/Yule/Hanukkah/Kwanza, and in the spirit of Jolly Old Elves everywhere I'm not going to rant about it. Instead, here's a few things on my mind these days, and if you feel like reading ahead you'll see some of what's been "baking my noodle" these days.

So here's the list...

1. Maryellen (see sidebar) has posted her biggest piece yet on the free-will/predestination debate. While I disagree with her conclusions, it's still a good read. That, and Maryellen happens to be one of the sweetest ladies I've met here on the Net, and yet she attracts all manner of folk denouncing her and her questioning as heresy. I've taken to defending her simply because I can't stand watching someone as gentle and kind as her being attacked. If anyone else out there feels like stepping up and helping out, you can find the post here. There's already over 50 comments and it's only been 3 days...

2. I've been taking those little "What Kind of ____ Are You?" quizzes, and I'm addicted. I know I am.

3. Our house is nearly done, but it's still a few weeks away. Final push is upon us!

4. I'm trying to dialogue with several Critics of the emerging church movement - I've decided to engage with them, hear them out and try to find some common ground. I'm convinced we're more alike than we are different, so hopefully some fruit comes of this.

5. Jamie's Urban Seminary posts have been attracting alot of attention. I've read them all (despite my absence in the comments) and really enjoyed them - if you haven't read them yet please do so.

6. Here's a quote by Phillips Brooks, "The earth has grown old with it's burden of care, but at Christmas it is always young, its soul full of music braks the air when the song of the angels is sung." I love Christmas.

7. Final Ishmael post is going to wait until the New Year, because I'm a lazy punk. And Jamie and I really need to get some coffee/tea/drink beverage and talk about it first...

That's about it for now - I'll update after Christmas sometime. InN the meantime, have a great time off however long it may be, and don't drink too much eggnog. Let's make sure Rudolf is the only one with a red nose this year, k?

This is Me

2005-12-14T11:15:00.000-06:00

Very, very busy.

Our house is getting close to finishing, work is insane, Christmas is coming. No time to blog, no time to comment elsewhere. Next week, perhaps? Cheers.

Kids These Days

2005-12-07T11:47:00.000-06:00

I love my job. The hours, the people, the location - it's a great place to be. For those of you who don't know, I run a drop-in centre in rural Manitoba. And it's great. I get to chat with some great teens about life, religion, God, and all that stuff. I've seen a few kids who were alienated by the church come to a saving knowledge of Jesus. I've been able to answer some of their questions that they were told not to ask, or, if not answer them, I've pointed them in a direction where they can ask the questions better. I never would have said I wanted to be an evangelist, but I have to admit that there's nothing I'd rather be doing right now.

Sometimes, though, parts of my job can be very difficult. Dealing with irate parents who want to know why the drop-in has not magically stopped their kids from doing drugs. Defending our mission from more conservative folks who feel that the youth should just "go to church with their parents and not be met where they're at." And then there's the youth themselves.

I'm not complaining, I'm just venting. If you don't want to know how bad it is out there, then go do something else. I wouldn't blame you.

Drugs really bother me. I mean sure, weed's everywhere, and it is a "gateway drug" - that is, it can lead to heavier drug use. The earliest age I've known a kid to start weed is younger than 12. I say that because 12 is the earliest age we allow, and some come to the centre for the first time at age 12 marijuana veterans. But I almost go limp with relief when a kid says that's all they're doing. There's so much worse out there these days, so much worse than what was available to our parents - not saying that your parents did that, of course.

The one that really bugs me is crystal meth. So easy to produce, so easy to find. For 100$ of ingredients you can make thousands in profit. I know for a fact that someone's selling it in the town where I work. The level of addiction and damage it does to the body is enormous - and it's cheap, easily affordable on the most modest of allowances.

It's also really dangerous because of how it makes you act. I've seen police tapes of teens on meth, and they're out of control. Police across North America have been forced to shoot people on meth because all other options are useless. In my Jiu-Jitsu club we had a class on crystal meth, and the instructors told us ,"If you're attacked by someone on meth, the normal rules don't apply. They won't feel pain. You punch them they'll shrug it off. You break their arm they'll keep swinging. If you want out you'll have to break their legs so they can't follow when you run away." I cringe when I think of that substance running through the veins of a 13-year-old.

another huge issue is promiscuity. One of my volunteers was chatting with a young girl of 12, who was in tears because her boyfriend of 14 had broken up with her. She was most upset because they had gone extremely far physically, which she thought would prevent him from leaving her. When she calmed down, she was expressing desire to find a new, older boyfriend with whom she could continue exploring the physical side of dating. Now I'm all for personal freedom and whatnot, but this is disgusting.

Even more concerning to me was listening to a group of 14 and 15 year old girls relate their sexual escapades with a series of men in their early to mid 20's. Just FYI for the non-Canadians in the room, Canada's age of consent is 14. Which no psychologist in the world will tell you is a healthy, fully developed age for children to begin having sex with people twice their age. The predators that take advantage of this law... you just wouldn't believe it. These young girls are being used, and there's no laws to protect them anymore.

And the church is busting its gut trying to stop gay marriage instead of this. Way to go, guys. Gotta prioritize, right?

Why am I venting about this? Well, for starters it's because then teens in our community are being more open with myself and our staff. This is a good thing, because now we are working on programs to combat this. I'm working with the RCMP and CFS to inform the parents of the community about the issues - sadly, many are blind to it. I'm also doing this because I know that some people assume these problems are confined to the cities. They're not. My wife once had a conversation with another YFC employee - one who worked in the city - who told her, "Oh, well the kids we get are inner city kids - you wouldn't understand what they're like." I really hope this attitude is not widespread.

I do feel fortunate, however, that I'm not going in this alone. I've got family, friends, and a small army of volunteers with me. And I also have Christ. Through him alone will anything be accomplished, and it's my prayer that I will be used to bring his hope and life to the kids I work with. Lord knows I can't do this without him.

I'm not really looking for anything here, I just needed to get this all out. Feel free to comment if you want, or if you've got similar experiences to share.

These are my feet.

2005-12-02T14:29:00.000-06:00

Props to Cindy for starting this. Hope it goes far.

Cheers.

Emergent Huh?

2005-11-30T11:06:00.000-06:00

I'm going to be talking about the new Emergent What? site, but first I'll tell you how I wound up there.

When I first googled "Emerging Church" I came across a few sites. Ok, I came across 9 million sites. But there some at the top that caught my eye, and like any savvy (read: lazy) netsurfer I decided to check out the first ones I saw.

On the "pro" side were Andrew Jones, The Emergent Village, and the people I eventually hooked up with (and can be seen on the links sidebar). On the "con" side were the popular Emergent No and the slightly less credible although more humorous Slice of Laodicea. I checked both sides out. Just to be sure. I'll be honest; from the beginning I was concerned that this whole Emergent phenomenon would turn out to be just another fad, and I could do without that. Remind me to tell you about my experiences in Deliverance Ministry circles.

Nope, I was not at all interested in "the next big thing."So I started with the Village's blog, and began reading the comments there. I was impressed at the willingness to talk and share that I found, and after creating a persona I became involved in the conversations -and eventually lives - of the people there. Some of them (like Jamie and Robbymac) I'm still friends with. But I knew I couldn't spend all my time with one side, and so I made my way across no man's land to find the other trenches. I arrived at E-No and was pretty shocked at some of the anger and hate I saw flying both ways. The writers were sarcastic and bitter sounding, and I tried hard to ignore it so I could listen to the criticisms they were making.

I saw some merit in what they were saying. They were noticing alot of the "fringe" aspects that many had also noticed - the side that wanted to throw out the concept of sin/absolute truth, elevate other spiritual texts to the level of the Bible (or take it down a few pegs) and have "free love" or whatever else. We were recycling hippies, I swear. Anyway, I saw Emerging Christians also notice the negative aspects and speak out against it. But few of them would do so at E-No, which I thought was a shame because the majority of the "Emerging Christians" that stopped by would generally be the extreme cases. Some even sent crude or explicit emails to Carla, one of the site's moderators.

I began commenting there in an attempt to be a balancing force. I guess I thought highly of my arbitration abilities, and that maybe Emergent and her critics could come to some kind of middle ground. I spent a frustrating few months there, having a few decent conversations and a whole pile of negative ones. As soon as I was identified as an "Emerging Sympathizer" I was blasted from every angle. I tried to reason with many of them, and some were willing to start from an assumption of mutual respect. Tooaugust/littlec in particular I maintained an email relationship for several months, and Kerri was another that, even though we disagreed, we didn't hate on each other. But many of them weren't and my frustration soon gave way to deep sadness. I couldn't keep going the way I was. Oh yeah - I received crude emails as well. Several of them.

Eventually I gave up, and wrote a farewell post to explain my absence. I let them know that I wouldn't be returning, and that (ironically) they were part of the reason that I now identified myself as emerging. As expected I was maligned for this, although a couple with whom I'd clashed expressed sadness that I was leaving. To my surprise, Carla (who has always been the more moderate of the 3 contributors) thanked me for participating and wished me well in the future. I was pleased to be able to leave on relatively good terms.

I haven't had much chance to engage with the critics of the EC recently, and that has made me sad. But just the other week I found a post on Robbymac's site about a new Emergent No at www.emergentno.com. This one wasn't owned or run by critics of EC, but instead was operated by Justin Baeder. I found this to be confusing, as I knew Justin to be a supporter of the emerging church. But what Justin had done was set up the site to receive all the posts from both the original E-No and Slice, and allow people to comment without fear of being banned for supporting the EC (apparently several supporters had been kicked off the original sites for disagreeing with the site owner, although I'm sure that there have been many who were banned legitimately because of their language or conduct). The name of the new site (when you reach the page) is Emergent What? I chuckled when I saw that because I remember suggesting that name to Jamie a while back for my new blog.

My reaction was mixed at first - the owners of the original site were crying foul, and while I found it humorous that they would accuse someone else of slander I could see how they would feel about it. The URL's are very similar, and there were some copyright issues that still are up in the air. But having a chance to comment on the criticisms levied, and maybe even engage again with some critics themselves? I missed the Village's blog since it shut down, and this looked like it could be a replacement.

Because let's face it - we still need criticisms. We need people who are watching us and keeping us accountable. We need outsiders to look in on us and challenge us. And we need to test our theology and reasoning; what better way to do so than with people who are passionately committed to the Bible and sound doctrine? If we can withstand the criticisms, then great. If some areas of our reasoning are flawed, they will be uncovered. And I hope that my interactions at Emergent What prove as fruitful as some of the others I've had in the past.

What do you think about the new site? Will you check it out? Care to share your stories about your interactions with/as an EC-critic?

I am a Samurai

2005-11-24T01:28:00.000-06:00

Honor: You are an honorable person who is firm with
his/her beliefs and treats others as you are
treated. People would consider you humble at
times and very respectful, and someone to
definitely respect back.

Which Characteristic From the Samurai Code Matches You Best? (You may find out your best trait)
brought to you by Quizilla

I dunno, guys, is this me?

Last quiz for a while, I promise. New post coming by Wednesday, then next week the final Ishmael post. I hope.

Cheers.

On (Mis)Communication

2005-11-23T14:28:00.000-06:00

Recent comments on my Anne Rice post have caused me to think (again) about this precarious mode of interaction we have here on the Net. We are a collection of individuals from all walks of life, brought together by the connection of information flowing between our computers. More specifically, we've encountered each other on a particular form of interaction called Blogging. Blogging is a great tool for dialogue, an excellent way to post one's thoughts about life, philosophy, whatever. As many have said the emerging church may not have existed without it. But let's face facts, people - it's crap when it comes to communication.

When I was studying Social Psychology in college, we had a class on Symbolic Interactionism. This class discussed the use of symbols in language, and how meaning was transformed from our minds into symbols and back again. Simply put, we studied communication. I'll spare you the Social Science rundown of the issue. But I will give you the basic description of what communication is, and why Blogging is really quite a poor place for it.

This example is off the top of my head, so be gentle. I have a thought in my mind. This thought has meaning to me. It could be any thought, but let's just say that the thought is, "I'm hungry." Simple, no? Now supposing I'm on a date, and I want to communicate this to my date and let her know it's time to eat. I take the thought ("I'm hungry") and I put it into words - I encode it in a language common to us. But just saying "I'm hungry" isn't going to tell her what I want to do about it. So I choose to say, "Do you want to get something to eat?" The message, heavy with meaning for myself, is encoded and sent out.

My date receives the encoded message. Now she has to decode it. She takes "Do you want to get something to eat?" much differently than I meant it, though. The meaning that she receives is, "You're fat, do you want to go somewhere where you can stuff your face?" This meaning was not encoded in the original message. But she received it anyway. Now she throws her drink in my face and storms off. This confuses me greatly, as I thought I was communicating my hunger to her. She is now hurt because she thinks I was communicating dislike for her physical appearance, when in reality nothing could be further from the truth.

Of course, that wouldn't happen. Not to me - I'm far too smooth. Or rather, I'm not just communicating with my words. The tone of my voice - light questioning as opposed to heavy sarcasm - my body language - casual, relaxed instead of bracing myself for physical violence - and my excessive salivation will all be adding to the words, "Do you want to get something to eat," and increasing the chance that the correct meaning will be perceived - namely, that I'm hungry, and I just want some chicken wings.

In the movie Hitch Will Smith's character states, "60% of Communication is Non-Verbal, 30% is Tone." While I'm not sure where he gets his numbers, I have to agree with the sentiment. So much of our communication is dependent not on our words but on how we say them. Take sarcasm for example - a simple statement such as "I'm sure you will do the right thing" can be either encouraging or biting depending on the tone it was said with. Our body language adds a great deal to our coded messages. I actually have a natural ability to read body language, one which I've cultivated over the years. In my line of work (YFC drop-in for troubled teens) I often learn more from the posture, walk, hand movements and muscle state from a teen than I do from what they actually tell me. It's like there's a hidden meaning in everything they say that I have to wade through conflicting signals to get at.

In Blogging/text-only communication, we have none of that. In Hitch terms, we are relying on the 10% of communication that includes no non-verbal cues. This creates ample opportunity for miscommunication, or for people receiving meaning from a message that was not intended to be sent. In Blogging especially (where high-intensity issues are often discussed) that means many, many chances for people to get hurt. My wife once pointed out to me (after she'd been following some of the blogs I frequented) that half the conversation was spent trying to explain "What I meant when I said that a few comments ago and why you needn't be upset" instead of actually talking about the subject at hand. Once misunderstandings happen, it's easy to have the conversation derail.

On a side note, part of the problem is that even our words don't mean the same thing to one another. "Fundamentalism" means something castly different to an Emerging Christian as opposed to a Reform Christian, or to a Sociologist. Words can have different definitions for people depending on their upbringing, socialization and current field(s) of expertise. When we don't have a common definition for a term or phrase, the chance of clear communication diminishes even more.

I do know that there are those who actually want to be insulting, who are actively trying to hurt or put down others. But I try not to assume that someone is. I think the best thing to do in any case is something that I struggle with doing - having the patience to back up, take a deep breathe, and ask for clarification. Saying, "I think you meant/implied this when you said X. Is that correct?" may prevent further miscommunication. I know it's not always easy to do (especially when tensions are high) but having patience may prevent more hurt and misunderstanding in the long run.

I enjoy Blogging, but I know there are pitfalls. In my opinion this is one of the more major ones, especially when hurt starts to happen. What about you guys? Any stories of crossed wires? Other drawbacks to text-only dialogue? Grey Owl wants to know.

What Tolkien Race Are You?

2005-11-21T12:27:00.000-06:00

Numenorean

To which race of Middle Earth do you belong?
brought to you by Quizilla

I'd say my results make sense, except for the "tragic" part. Although there was that time I killed the king of Scotland at my wife's urgings...

Well, I Didn't See This Coming

2005-11-17T14:35:00.000-06:00

I'm speechless.

You've probably heard of Anne Rice, author of the wildly popular Interview with the Vampire novel and it's sequels. Christian groups have renounced these books as heretical, evil, and the usual labels we tend to stick on literature that displeases us.

I've been a fan of these novels for some time. I read Interview long before I became a Christian. I read the following books much later, after I was a Christian and married. My wife didn't like it when I read those books, I don't think. I tended to get way too involved in the characters (although contrary to popular rumor I never did try to drink someone else's blood).

So imagine my surprise when I discovered that, apparently, Anne Rice is re-embracing her Catholic Christian roots.

This is very interesting for me. Some of my greatest faith questions came after reading Rice's novels. The character of Lestat, for example, I identified with quite strongly. His existential questioning culminates in the second volume of Rice's vampire novels in what Lestat describes as, "The Dark Moment." Here are some excerpts from that portion of the book:

"I realized aloud in the midst of saying it that even when
we die we probably don't find out the answer as to why were we ever alive. Even
the avowed atheist probably thinks than in death he'll get some answer. I mean
God will be there, or there won't be anything at all. 'But
that's just it,' I said, 'we don't make any discovery at that moment! We merely
stop! We pass into nonexistence without ever knowing a thing.' I saw the
universe, a vision of the sun, the planets, the stars, black night going on
forever. And I began to laugh. 'Do you realize that! We'll
never know why the hell any of it happened, not even when it's over!' I shouted
at Nicolas, who was sitting back on the bed, nodding and drinking his wine out
of a flagon. 'We're going to die and not even know. We'll never know, and all
this meaninglessness will just go on and on and on. And we won't any longer be
witnesses to it. We won't have even that little bit of power to give meaning to
it in our minds. We'll just be gone, dead, dead, dead, without ever
knowing!' But I had stopped laughing. I stood still and I
understood perfectly what I was saying! There was no judgment
day, no final explanation, no luminous moment in which all terrible wrongs would
be made right, all horrors redeemed. The witches burnt at the
stake would never be avenged. No one was ever going to tell us
anything! No, I didn't understand it at this moment. I saw it!
And I began to make the single sound: 'Oh!' I said it again 'Oh!' and then I
said it louder and louder and louder, and I dropped the wine bottle on the
floor. I put my hands to my head and I kept saying it, and I could see my mouth
opened in that perfect circle that I had described to my mother and I kept
saying, 'Oh, oh, oh!' I said it like a great hiccuping that I
couldn't stop... I ran to the window, unlatched it and swung out the heavy
little glass, and stared at the stars. I couldn't stand seeing them. I couldn't
stand seeing the pure emptiness, the silence, the absolute absence of any
answer, and I started roaring as Nicolas pulled me back from the window-sill and
pulled shut the glass.... I stared at everything, seeing behind every
configuration of colour and light and shadow the same thing; death. Only it
wasn't just death as I'd thought of it before, it was death the way I saw it
now. Real death, total death, inevitable, irreversible, and resolving
nothing.... And I knew it wasn't going to pass, and nothing for the moment could
make me forget, but what I felt was inexpressible gratitude for the music, that
in this horror there could be something as beautiful as
that. You couldn't understand anything; and you couldn't change
anything.... nothing natural seemed beautiful to me now! The very sight of a
great tree standing alone in a field could make me tremble and cry out. Fill the
orchard with music. And let me tell you a little secret. It
never did pass, really."
pages 65-70 The Vampire Lestat
Second Volume of The Vampire Chronicles
By Anne Rice

I don't mind telling you that moments like this in Rice's novels filled me with the same kind of terror that her characters felt. Even if it was only for a moment, even if it was only while I was reading the book I felt the same kind of despair as a set of imaginary characters. Sometimes these feelings would last until I could sit down with a good friend and talk them out.

You see, I've struggled with depression my whole life. The concept of being lost in despair is very real to me. Even after I became a Christian there were moments when my faith seems so small and the darkness seemed so big. I remember describing those moments to a friend as, "Walking in a snow-covered field, listening to the wind howling in the great emptiness of the overcast sky above." You prairies-folk know what I mean. It is a wholly terrifying feeling. But it never lasts, and when I come out of it the sun feels warm on my face and I put Rice's novel or whatever it was that triggered these feelings on the shelf. I remember that God is real and he loves me, and then I usually go out for chicken wings or watch a funny movie.

The thing is, feelings of despair are incompatible with the love of God. I'm not saying you'll never feel sad or lonely if you are a Christian; rather, that the message of Christ is one of hope and love. The despair for me only came when I doubted that, when I doubted God existed or loved me. When I was truly looking at the basis for my faith I had to admit that God was a God of love, and he would not abandon his children.

One particular quote comes to mind: "And when the hourglass has run out, the hourglass of temporality,when the noise of secular life has grown silent and its restless or ineffectual activism has come to an end, when everything around you is still, as it is in eternity, then eternity asks you and every individual in these millions and millions about only one thing: whether you have lived in despair or not.-- Soren Kierkegaard,"The Sickness Unto Death"

I find it fascinating that Rice can write what she does and still come to faith in God. I pray that this change would be genuine and life-lasting for her. I'm looking forward to her new book, and I'll review it here when I get my hands on it.

Any other Rice fans out there? Let me know what you think of her books. Is there anything a Christian can learn from them?

On Criticisms of Emergent

2005-11-09T11:10:00.000-06:00

Good gravy, it's been a while. The last month has been one of the most out-of-control months of my life. But I suppose it's been reminding me that I never had control in the first place. Which is a very, very good thing.

So. I'm back, and I've got all these thoughts bouncing around in my head like 6-year-olds at Topo Gigio's. Sorting them out will take some time, but I have a general idea of what I want to say. Let's leave the environmental hot-topic for now, and move on to something else near and dear to my heart; Emerging Christianity.

Emerging Christianity, for those of you who don't know, is a movement within evangelicalism (mostly) that appeared on the scene a few years ago and set some kind of land-speed record for being condemned by the conservative evangelicals. Emergent was unique, however, in actually asking for criticism from Christians in general. The condemnation was in many cases fast an wildly inaccurate, although highly entertaining. After a short time, however, some serious critics emerged (heh) and the dialogue was on.

My experiences with both sides of the debate began when, after reading A New Kind of Christian, I did a Google search on the Emerging Church. I wound up at the old Emergent-US blog, started reading the entries, then began commenting (as Dan-D from Canada). At the time I had a rather naive idea about the Emerging Church and the general public attitude towards it ("Wow, everyone is going to love this! Christianity that puts an emphasis on love! Hooray!"). I was shocked to discover that, apparently, not everyone was as enamored of the movement as I thought they ought to be.

This did 2 things for me. It made me slow down and more closely examine the whole Emergent phenomenon. This was great, because I did start to notice some of the more extreme aspects that have been associated with it (universalism, for example - while not something that McLaren, Miller or any other have even remotely supported there are some who would want to have Emergent hold this view). I became a great deal more cautious with my support, examining the claims of the authors instead of saying, "He's an Emerging Christian, I must agree with what he says!" I began to appreciate more fully what Emergent was actually about rather than the common perceptions/misconceptions. I knew that whatever Emergent was trying to do, it would have to follow the Bible and rely on God to accomplish it.

The second thing it did for me was open me up to dialogue with many, many learned people. I was forced to examine scripture, theological traditions, and philosophy like I hadn't since college. On both sides of the debate I made friends, friends who would challenge me and uplift me. And I found an intellectual community of believers that I felt a part of. Even after I had made the decision to throw my lot in with Emerging Christianity (a decision made largely due to the actions of several critics of Emergent) I kept in contact with several people who were critics. I've been very blessed by those relationships.

However. One thing I've been disheartened by is the actions/words of some critics. I am the first person to admit that there ought to be people watching and making sure that Emergent does not alter the gospel or the person of Christ to be "cool" or "attractive" to people in our age. And this must be done by observing the scriptures and traditions of the church. But some critics have been unnecessarily harsh, sarcastic, and cruel. Even the graciously worded and delivered "Response to Criticisms" that Emergent-US put out was treated with disrespect (or, in the case of Emergent-No, borderline paranoia). And it's not just the critics - both sides have acted disgracefully. What ever happened to "They will know you by your love for one another?" The excuse I've heard from some critics has been that Emerging Christians are heretics, not true Christians, so there's no reason to respect/love them. That makes me very sad.

This is my question: how can we as "Emerging Christians" graciously respond to the sarcastic and hateful criticisms that often come? Where are the thoughtful and constructive criticisms that we've seen in the past? And is there any common ground that we can reach?

I sincerely hope that some genuine, loving critics see this post. We need that dialogue.

So I've been... busy...

2005-11-02T21:42:00.000-06:00

Hey all,

I'm still alive, just had a crazy couple of weeks. It all culminated in burning out from work and developing a respiratory infection (somthing my family is prone to). I've been mostly out of comission for a while, and now the infection is nearly gone but the pills I'm taking are giving me wicked bad side effects. So a post is being slowly written and should be up by this time next week, and I'll probably see all y'all on your blogs by then too.

Cheers,

Grey Owl

Environmentalism Part 2: My Journey with Ishmael

2005-10-21T11:43:00.000-05:00

This post has been a long time coming, and for some reason I still feel like it's half-baked. For space and time purposes I cut out large chunks that I doubt will see the light of day, unless I can use them next week or in the comments section. Ah, well. It still needs to be said.

When I was in first-year sociology at the college I was attending, we had to read a book. Well, we had to read several books. Most of them large and expensive. The largest and most expensive of these we usually bought with someone, to be shared in the spirit of friendship and eventually fought over come exam time. The smaller ones we snapped up right away, as they were typically less expensive (except in the case of Swinburne's Providence and the Problem of Evil, which despite it's 1/2 inch thickness weighed in at an impressive 45 bucks). If you did not locate these lighter readings within the first day of getting your syllabus you were unlikely to find them at all for several weeks.

So it was with no small amount of pride that I snatched the bookstore's final copy of Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. I knew that I'd made a good choice in picking this one up for myself; for starters it was cheap, and in addition to it's student-friendly price it was - get this - a novel. A novel about environmentalism and humanity. You can imagine what I was thinking at the time. We were supposed to read a tree-hugger novel for a college class? Well, sign me up.

On the cover of said novel there was a quote, one of those little soundbites that books have on their covers from famous people who had read it before it went to paperback. I don't remember who wrote the comment, it's not important now. But the comment itself seemed arrogant to me, as it read, "I will forever divide the books I have read into two categories; the ones I read before Ishmael and those read after."

When I read that, I snorted. Really. And then I laughed at it. What kind of narcissistic author puts a quote like that on his book cover? I was in serious doubt of my ability to take this book seriously from now on. In typical college freshman style I decided to go through this book and tear it to shreds. I was confident in my ability to utterly destroy any arguments and insights this self-centered author claimed to have. It was going to be great.

I read it twice in three days.

If you've never read it, I'm not sure how to describe it to you. You simply have to read it for yourself. Through a narrative form of fiction - similar to McLaren's NKOC trilogy - several simple, naturally observable truths about the world were presented and discussed. That's it. And through the course of these discussions I was changed.

It was the mental and emotional equivalent of living in Banff your whole life and suddenly and for the first time noticing the mountains. Or perhaps more accurately being a fish and observing that there was, in fact, this great vast wetness called "water" all around you, and you've never quite realized it was there. Through the conversation in the book I became aware of the influence of aspects of our culture that I had never been aware of before. I realized that the buzzing in my ears was really a cacophony of voices, all saying messages that I've been absorbing all my life without actually hearing them. In Christian terms, it was like becoming conscious of the Devil's voice in your ear, the voice of the cultural and worldly powers that had been seducing you all your life.

I'm trying to say that this book changed me. Not that it taught me, not that it gave me new ideas to think on. I'm saying that when I put the book down I was a fundamentally different person than I was before. The quote on the front no longer seemed arrogant but inadequate. Do you understand? I was no longer who I was before I read Ishmael, rather I was someone new, and going back to the way I was would simply not be possible. I can't think of any other way to say it.

I won't tell you what all occurred in the weeks that followed. I literally didn't know what to do with myself. I got into useless arguments with people who hadn't read the book, or with people who had and didn't get it. I flew into a rage at the simplest things - at someone suggesting we go to McDonald's, for example, or for talking about foreign aid policy. It was a rough month. But enough, leave it alone. It's not important now.

When I'd gotten myself as low as I could have thought, I sat up, took a shower, and decided to get on with it. I wrote my book review, got an A, then tracked down my prof and dragged him into a long, drawn-out conversation about environmentalism, the Bible, Ishmael, humanity and Christianity's place in all of the above. At around the same time I also read Genesis 3:17 (as I mentioned in part 1) and more things fell into place for me. I'm very thankful for my professor, as without him I'm not sure what I would have done.

So. It doesn't do me much good to tell you what happened to me and not tell you why, I suppose. I want to bring up three items I learned from Ishmael and how they affected me. These three points are by no means exhaustive of what the author had to say. I'm looking at them from a Christian perspective, so that "informs" them somewhat. I'm just trying to explain what affected me so deeply.

1. The world was not made for man. It's that simple. Ask anyone these days about the earth and you'll hear it, "OUR oceans," "OUR environment," "OUR oil reserves," "OUR crops." Among almost every single culture alive today there is a pervasive understanding that the world in its entirety belongs to us, so we can do what we damn well please with it. Things like pollution and environmental destruction, well, that's just because the world isn't far enough under our control. If it was, we could control the weather, repair the atmosphere, and continue squeezing every last drop of resources the world has to offer.

Or, in the "Christian" perspective, pollution et al. is a result of sinfulness. Mankind is essentially screwed up, therefore it's to be expected that the world is falling to pieces. And it doesn't really matter, anyways, because it's going to be consumed by fire and a brand new planet will be given to the faithful, one that we can't screw up. Besides, the world really does belong to us - or at least was made specifically for us to rule. We are the culmination of creation.

But in Ishmael, Quinn suggests that the very reason the planet is as bad off as it is is because we are treating it like a servant to do our bidding, or - at our worst - an enemy to be subdued. Hence our language about "natural disasters," which any scientist can tell you plain and simple have been going on for millions of years and are merely the product of a young planet. We have seen the destruction we have wrought because of treating the planet like it belongs to us. It's not ours.

2. Therefore, if the world was not made for us, we were made for the world. Humankind is a part of the order of creation. As was pointed out in the comments section last time, we are highly regarded by God - "higher than the angels" or something to that effect - and I think that's true. But I don't think that means we exist outside of the natural order.

Look at the symbiotic model in nature - the delicate balance between predator, prey, and population. It is a common enough belief that a population never expands beyond its food supply's ability to sustain them. If they did, they would starve and die off. Yet look at humanity - the only organism on the planet that exists in such a state of overpopulation. And we will go on overpopulating because we place no limits on ourselves. We are producing food for a population many times our current size. And millions are starving. Yet our first solution is "produce more food" rather than population control. We are living outside of the order that every other creature on the planet has lived under since the beginning, and we're suffering for it.

3. If man was made for the world, than in order to survive man must live according to its rules. This does not take away the "stewardship" aspect to our God-given nature - and I'll get into that more next week - but it does mean that we cannot expand indefinitely or abuse our environment. I don't think too many people will disagree with that. But what if that means giving something up?

In the movie "Instinct" with Anthony Hopkins and Cuba Gooding Jr, they deal with many of the ideas raised in Ishmael. At one point, Cuba's character asks something to the effect of, "Well, what do we have to do to save ourselves? Go back and live in the jungle? Give up the cities and everything else?" And Hopkins responds, "In order to save itself mankind must give up only one thing: dominion."

I think that it may be especially difficult for us Christians to deal with this last part. We have grown up with "Fill the earth and subdue it" in our ears, and I don't think we're likely to give that up easily. Again, I'll deal with Genesis next week. I think it's safe to say that if we lived according to the same laws as the lion and the bird and the wombat, the earth would look alot different. Would this be positive? Is it still possible?

I know this article falls drastically short of what Ishmael accomplished. Please take any shortcomings as mine and not Daniel Quinn's. I hope that in the comments section we can flesh this out a bit more. If you have anything to add, please share it.

@&#*^%$! (Language Warning)

2005-10-14T15:25:00.000-05:00

I know, I know, I said I'd get the follow-up to the environmentalism post out by today. But life has a habit of doing its own thing and expecting you to keep up. I've been very silent on most blog fronts this week as a combination of work, moving and computer troubles have kept me very busy. If I seem a little disjointed or out of it today, that's why. And I don't want to ruin or rush the follow-up post as it's very near and dear to my heart...

So. Instead, I give you this: A question on foul language and Emergent Christian blogs. It was called to my attention by an astute reader earlier this week that at emergent-no there was some issues taken with a particular commenter's use of the word "bitching" (as in, "Maybe you should stop bitching about the emerging church"). There was an immediate backlash against the choice of language, and apparently there was quite the heated discussion (is there any other kind over there?). Central to this discussion was the apparently widespread belief among the critics of emergent there that emergent blogs are full of foul language - just more examples of "moral degradation" and "worldliness" in the EC. This was interesting to me for a few reasons which I'll get into here. Needless to say, there is a language warning for the post ahead.

Still here? Good. Now, about "foul" language: I've got a bit of a potty mouth myself. My wife gives me a hard time about it - and with good reason, because I'm really a stickler for language among the youth in the drop-in I work at. For me, the issue is that it's inconsistent. I can hardly get after the kids for their words when I'm cussing like a sailor myself.

Of course, my language beliefs need some qualifiers. I don't always get on the teens' cases for what they say. If a kid is talking about his parents breaking up and says it makes him "feel like shit", I'm not going to make a stink about that. How inconsiderate would that be? But if the same kid is calling his friend an asshole, I don't stand for that. Maybe it's the spirit behind the words that makes it wrong.

Of course, I think that sometimes I've used that as an excuse to give into anger. Someone once challenged me when I was at Bible college because I wore a Poppy for Remembrance Day, saying that I was "supporting unchristian wars" and "advocating violence." So I told him to fuck off. I think that I was right in being upset - it's a Poppy for crying out loud, and my family sent plenty of young men off to war. I've had it drilled into me for years that Nov. 11th is a day where you give thanks for those who gave their lives in defense of freedom. And when you've got some specific names and faces to look at, it gets really personal. So it was for a good cause. But I gave into my anger and stooped to a lower level than I could have. Hey, I'm not without my foibles.

Sometimes language is artistic expression. Go to Neal Bailey's site (on my sidebar) and you'll see plenty of language in his articles. But engage with him personally and you'll find he's not cussing every other word. For him, it appears to be expression of emotion, art and frustration (especially in his "Chronicling the Fall" section) over the pitfalls and shortcomings of society. Although I'm sure he (like myself) uses those words in everyday speech as well, I don't think he or artist like him are necessarily doing something wrong when they write like that.

As far as the Bible goes, the book of James is pretty clear (in ch. 3) that the tongue must be "tamed," that it should be used for praise and not cursing. But that kind of cursing isn't the same as saying "fuck" is it? I'm pretty sure that what James was talking about was actual biblical cursing, like wishing someone ill or whatever. Or is this just splitting hairs?

We all know the commandment "thou shalt not take the name of the LORD in vain." I was always taught that this meant not saying"God damn" or "Jesus Christ" when you were upset. But an examination of the text show us that what it really means is swearing by God's name - as in taking an oath you never intend to keep. Although I'll admit there is still something that bothers me when a close friend of mine says, "Christ up a tree!" when he's upset. Perhaps this is more of a respect issue, with showing proper respect to God being the issue at hand. Does there even need to be a command for that?

Anyways, back to the emergent blogs. Is there alot of foul language in them? Someone tell me if that's true. I know that this post will offend some, but I have to admit I haven't seen any EC-er's blogs full of bad language. Am I totally missing something here? Jordon Cooper, Andrew Jones, Jamie from Voyageurs, Robby, I haven't seen a single expletive among the lot of them Where are they getting this apparent epidemic from?

That's all from me for today. If anyone who reads/comments at E-No cares to fill us in on where these foul emergent blogs are, that's be great. Because after running in these circles for most of a year I can't find anything like what they're complaining about - although I never have been able to before...

Environmentalism: Do the Trees Hug Back?

2005-10-05T02:00:00.000-05:00

Warning: This is a loooooong post.

Once, at the youth centre I run, there was a cockroach. Not inside - we're a bit too clean for that - but out on the pavement, wandering around, doing his/her little cockroach thing. I watched it for a minute, fascinated. Bugs usually fascinate me, except for spiders. Can't abide spiders.

Anyway, I watched it for a bit longer, then decided to strike up a chat about nature with some of our teens (as most drop-in workers will tell you, any conversation that isn't about cars, music or video games are always a treat). I then pointed it out to a nearby teen. "Hey look," I said. "A cockroach."

Someday, I'll have to apologize to that cockroach. Wherever he is.

Within seconds an impromptu war party was formed with a singular purpose: the systematic hunting down, torture, and destruction of said cockroach and any of its family that had the misfortune to be in the immediate area. The next 45 minutes were spent (by me) frantically trying to herd local wildlife away from the drop-in, while echoes of stomping feet (by the war party) echoed in the distance. A few minutes after Our Friend the cockroach had been sent to an untimely and decidely two-dimensional end, some of the other youth decided their newfound martial skills could be put to use against squirrels, birds, stray cats, etc. Needless to say, this was a time of high stress, for me as well as the unfortunate local fauna.

In the midst of all this, one of my volunteers - an older gentleman with a great sense of humour - jokingly called me a "druid," due to my efforts to protect what little nature surrounded us. Now, I'm not a druid - at least, not it the long whiskers and moonlit ritual sense, nor in the D&D "True Neutral" sense (props to anyone who understood that). And I'm not a druid in the contemporary sense, aligning myself with the pagan movement (which Wanderer will know much more about than I, I would assume). But despite that I still feel a great deal of care towards the Earth and her creatures.

I was really spoiled growing up. Not in the sense that I got anything I wanted, though. No, I was spoiled because my parents had a cabin at a lake near West Hawk in Ontario. It was a 2-hour drive from our house to the main dock, then a 15 minute boat ride to the cabin itself. And then... And then, you were surrounded by the Canadian Shield, with nothing but bush for miles. This might be a cause of stress to some, but to us it was Heaven.

I spent long days and weeks there during the summer. I hiked through the bush, I went swimming and exploring. I sat and read against an oak tree. I climbed the cliffs that were on either side of the lake and watched the sunset from above the trees. I walked past a stag - easily a 14-pointer, with a chest as broad as you've ever seen - as he stood on a rock shelf above me, watching me pass, and I felt strangely humbled and honoured in that moment. I can't tell you how much it means to me to have that place. It is a "thin" place, as my Celtic ancestors would call it; that is, the veil between myself and God seemed translucent, as though we were closer there than anywhere else.

I spent alot of time reading when I was there. Not just the sci-fi/fantasy novels that awkward teens like me often read, but books on biology, natural science, and several articles by David Suzuki, the Canadian environmentalist. I even read some work by the original Grey Owl, if you can believe that. That greatly shaped my understanding of the world, and when I later became a Christian I often regarded with perplexment the doctrine that the Earth was "fallen."

I simply did not understand. How did the Fall of Man - the effects of which were plain for anyone to see in human nature - suddenly make the whole world go bad? I had an older Christian man explain to me that before the Fall, no animal harmed another and everything ate plants. This I was quite skeptical about. Why did some animals have claws and sharp teeth, then? For especially troublesome plants? And why then would plants have built-in defenses, like thorns or poison, if they were meant to be eaten? Or did all of these features appear the moment the forbidden fruit was taken? Wicked raw deal if you were the antelope grazing peacefully next to the lion when his claws appeared. It simply didn't add up.

I said so to this gentleman, and he told me to look for the signs in nature. "The natural world is Chaos," he said. "Anyone with the Discovery Channel can tell you that. The Fall brought Chaos into God's world of Order."

This too I was skeptical of. Having spent my share of time learning about nature and biology, I knew that the world was not as chaotic as it may seem. What looks to us like disorder is actually an incredibly delicate balance, held together by a law so basic and irrefutable that any economist would recognize it instantly: supply and demand. When there is an abundance of food, whatever group that eats that food will grow until the food source is exhausted or cannot support them any longer. Then, the consumer will dwindle until the supply is rekindled. Again and again on millions of levels of the food chain this balance is played out and preserved.

Other aspects of nature that seem strange and chaotic are not so as well. The bloody chases and deaths that nature shows have been so fond of make it out to be a desperate struggle for survival, with death around every corner. But there is another law that governs Earth's creatures, and that law seems to say that creatures will only take what they need to survive. You won't see cheetahs slaughter a whole herd of antelopes, or the antelopes chase down and kill all the cheetahs. Sometimes after they've hunted the predators eat their prey quietly while the antelope herd stands just a little ways off, occasionally even with the eating cheetahs in their midst. And the animals are not at war with each other. As Rudyard Kipling wrote, they only kill to eat, or to keep from being eaten.

After telling this to my friend, he sat down and pulled out the Bible. Pointing out Genesis 3, he read me the story of the Fall. "So you see," he said, "God said that because of the Fall the natural world was cursed. God said it, that should settle it for us."

Well, it did for me for a long time. And I accepted a great many other teachings that naturally followed from this - that humankind was given the Earth to rule in God's stead, and we were sinful so it obviously wouldn't turn out ok. But still it was ours to control and abuse, because hey, Jesus is coming back soon and we'll be raptured away and not have to deal with the consequences. Right?

Not so much. I was sitting years later and chatting with a theologian friend of mine about the very same topic, and he pointed something out to me: the kind of language God uses to "give" the Earth to humanity is the same kind that a King would use when asking his nobles to look after the kingdom while he was away. Not saying, "Here you go, do what you want," but "Look after this for me, because it's mine and I'm making you my steward." That made a huge difference for me. We still had an obligation to treat the world well! But this didn't sit very well with me if we were looking after a chaotic, self-destructing planet that had no chance of recovery short of the end of the world. Did it still make Biblical sense that this world was a fallen place because of the actions of Adam and Eve?

I re-read Genesis 3. And stopped cold at verse 17: "... and cursed is the earth because of you." Something clicked when I read that again. That sounded different, somehow, than how it had been read to me before. It almost sounded like it was not a curse from God to the Earth, but a prophecy/warning to Adam. "cursed is the earth because of you." Now this is something I'm not entirely sure on, but is it possible that God was saying that because of Adam - because of us - the world was in for some serious hurt? That it would be us who brought a "curse"
upon it, through our actions and attempts to subjugate what we perceived as chaotic?

I know many people have quoted Romans 8: 19-22 in defense of a "Fallen Creation" theology: "For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now." Is it possible that we are the ones who subject creation to "futility," not because of a curse from long ago but because of our sinfulness, manifested in pollution, waste, and overpopulation? If this is possible, what is our responsibility in terms of response? How does this affect our mission to the world? What are we as evangelicals/emergents/whatever called to do?

I intend to write a follow-up post next week based largely on the conversations that happen after this post, assuming any do happen. If you have any insights or comments, please share them.

This isn't my real post...

2005-10-03T11:25:00.000-05:00

Due to an insane work schedule and a throat infection I've been negligent in getting my "serious" post out this week. However - my goal is to have it finished by thursday. So. In the meantime, here's a question that's been baking my noodle.

I've been hearing all kinds of speculation about God lately. Everyone has their opinions, and I respect that. But almost everywhere - mostly in emergent circles, but also in other circles as well - I've been hearing one thing in particular - that God is "unknowable."This gives me a great deal of confusion.

Sure, I'd agree with the statement if it said, "God is mysterious and we don't understand his ways," or "Certainty about God is impossible, hence the need for faith." But God as unknowable - that just doesn't jive with the Bible.

I actually went to a friend of mine, a theology professor named Tim, and asked him about this phenomenon. He agreed with me that it wasn't a scriptural idea.

"If," he began, "Jesus is 'fully God' - that is, if the Character of God is revealed in him - and he is 'fully man' - if he was actually a human being during his life on earth and wasn't just God 'wearing a human suit' - then not only is he knowable to us, but intimately so. Because we can know each other as humans, be able to build relationships with each other - and, therefore, with Christ. And, through Christ, we come to know God."

That certainly made sense to me. But then where does this idea of God as unknowable come from?

Don't get me wrong; I think that Emergent is doing well to encourage people to accept some things as mystery, to allow that we don't have it all figured out. But I think that when we begin to classify God as distant, unknowable, we do a grave injustice to the Gospel - which, if I'm not mistaken, was about bridging the gap that sin caused betweeen us and God.

Any thoughts?

On Worship Singing

2005-09-26T09:20:00.000-05:00

Warning: This is a rant. If you want something warm and fuzzy then I suggest you go lick a cat or something. Still here? Well at least read all the way to the end before you send me hate mail.

Modern worship (the singing kind) really bugs me. I can hardly explain how much it bugs me. If you've ever sat beside me in a worship service you'd notice that I don't sing. Maybe I read my Bible, maybe I just look around. But I won't sing.

It's not because I don't like music. I love music - everyone in my family plays at least one instrument, myself included, and I've got 2 close relatives who are professional musicians. And the quality of worship music these days could hardly be better - we've got 4-part harmony, brass quartets and jazzy choirs all over the place. No, the music is good.

There's basically two main reasons why I can't stand today's worship. There's more, but I'll keep it simple. I'll expand on each of them straight aways, then I'll tell you why I started feeling this way, and then (if you're really good) I'll tell you a secret. Ready? Here goes: The first reason is the lyrics, the second is the emotionalism. Now for the unpacking.

1. The lyrics piss me off. What kind of crap are we trying to pull? Steve Bell was absolutely right, there is such a lack of genuine theological accuracy in our songs. Some of them sound like they were written for your boyfriend or girlfriend. Some are wildly out of sync with scripture, or at least have extremely problematic wording.

Take Days of Elijah for instance. If there was ever a song that sent me into a quivering rage, this is it. It sounds like someone gathered up all the nice-sounding verses in the Bible and plunked them down all in one happy, confusing mess. It doesn't even make any sense. And if 20 christians in North America singing that song have experienced the stuff in it - "famine and darkness and sword" for instance - I will eat a pair of Dennis Rodman's gym shorts. Used ones. Maybe with some pasta sauce or some catsup. Or another instance that John Mortensen describes:

A minor rhyming disaster may be observed at the close of the song My Lord, What Sacrifice where the lyricist needed something to rhyme with “You took the fall” (never mind the bizarre metaphor of faking defeat in a boxing match) and chose "You thought of me above all”. Not only does the final line sound limp and contrived, but it commits a theological misstep: Christ thought of Me above all? Really? Above doing the Father’s will and defeating powers of evil and the immediate sensation of pain? Begging your pardon: the only person who thinks of Me above all is Me.

I'm sure we can all think of similar lyrical slip-ups made in the name of mushy love or rythmic constraints, but come on folks! If there's anything we should be trying extra special hard to keep from losing anything in the translation to song it's the Gospel!

2. The emotionalism really pisses me off. I don't even know where to start. Typically, the thing that irks me the most is that generally the whole show is about getting people to"experience God." We talk about what a great worship service it was, how we really felt God "move," or (in some cases) how we didn't feel anything and it must be the worship team's fault. We sing songs about how wonderful we feel, and if we don't feel wonderful we "sing it 'till we mean it." We've got our hands in the air and we're saying "yes lord" and "oh Jesus" at all the right times, as indicated by Worship Leader Barbie.

I know that people may be very genuine in their feelings, but the plain and simple fact is this: emotions are very easy to tamper with. I've taken training as a couselor and a psychologist, and I'm well aware of the ins and outs of tricking someone else's mind into doing what you want. It's very hard to sing along when you recognize that the worship leader is trying to pull on your strings to make you dance the way they want. It's really unnerving when you know what they're doing. I've learned that human emotions are fickle and not to be trusted, and that if you go into a situation expecting an experience of a particular kind you'll typically get it, one way or another.

Why do I feel this way? I'm glad you asked. I've had a very rough time of it when it comes to worship. I had a couple charismatic friends after I got saved in my mid teens, and I often went to services with them. They taught me how to worship, how to do all the right things that made God give you the good feelings. They taught me that if I didn't feel anything, then either I was doing it wrong or I had something wrong with me.

I can't tell you how many tearful recommitments I made to God night after night, trying desperately to make the same emotional connection I saw them making. I even faked it for a while, and they rejoiced with me. I did this for three years. Then I started to notice; their mystical connection with God certainly didn't seem to do them much good. They still complained about the worship band, they still spread rumors about others in the group, they still treated those different from them like dirt. There was hypocrisy and all manner of unsavoury things going on.

So I was forced to conclude that the experiences themselves were either a) fake or b) not powerful enough to effect any change in their lives. The second option seemed silly - how could encountering God in such a powerful way as they seemed to on a regular basis not have any effect? That left one option - they were fake - and this filled me with both relief and disappointment.

I've maybe had 2 genuine worship experiences since then. It's been about 5 years, and I've had no indication that I was wrong in my conclusions. I'm not going to judge anyone who chooses to worship God through singing - I'm sure that many are perfectly sincere, and if it makes them more like Christ then hey, why not? I also had some good friends in Jon With no H, Tyler the Charismatic Calvinist and Boon the Trucker, both of whom were immeasurable help in keeping me "in the fold," so to speak, despite the bitterness that threatened to overwhelm me. I'll admit, it's a wound that never fully closed.

But hey, worship really isn't about feelings or singing, is it? After all, Jesus says several times, "I desire mercy not sacrifice," and God himself indicates throughout the Bible that true worship is an attitude, a lifestyle, reflected in our actions towards others. True worship is a life dedicated to God, lived out in Spirit and in Truth, actively choosing to love God with all our hearts, mind and strength and loving our neighbors as ourselves. An I think that beats singing all hollow.

So. Do you want to hear the secret? Well I'll tell you. There's a stoplight that I usually have to stop at on my way home from work. The stoplight is right by a big church. I think it's an evangelical church of some kind, I've never actually checked. This church has a big, well-lit sign outside, usually with a catchy/corny phrase that makes me chuckle or roll my eyes. But that's not the secret.

Once a week when I'm driving home at night I drive past this church, and its parking lot is full. There's a sign out front that says "Wednesday Night Praise and Worship Service." I've never been inside, I have no idea who they are. I look in the windows as I sit at the red light and I see a congregation raising their hands to the roof. It feels a little voyeuristic. But that's not the secret.

The secret is that, sometimes, I want to pull the car over, get out, and go inside. I'll stand in the middle of them, I'll raise my hands and close my eyes and sing, sing as loud as I can and with all of my heart. I'll sing and laugh and cry until all the pent up feelings inside me are spent.

Then the light changes, and I shake myself out of it, and I remind myself that I'm better than that, that I don't give in to silly emotionalism, that I'm not as weak or foolish as they probably are. I press the accelerator and keep driving, but slower this time. I can hardly see the road through my tears.

The Fashion of the Christ

2005-09-20T01:26:00.000-05:00

"Me and Jesus, got our own thing goin'. Me and Jesus, got it all worked out. Me and Jesus, got our own thing goin'. We don't need anybody to tell us what it's all about." - Tom T. Hall

Who is this Jesus guy anyway? I have to tell you, I'm getting some mixed messages. Especially here on the Net - there's about as many different "Christs" as there are blogs. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for free speech, but it seems like every Christian blog I run into these days introduces me to a Jesus that I've never met before.

Some are pretty harmless, and I tend to pass these over. Others seem to be hateful, even cruel, pushing agendas that I don't remember Him ever pushing in the Bible. Some even are distilled down to a "Mr. Rogers" archetype, complete with puppydogs and lambs and a kind word for everyone. Frankly, I'm not sure which is worse. Can a Saviour sue for lible?

A popular t-shirt these days reads, "Jesus is my homeboy." And that's just one example of what happens to Jesus. Jesus has become hip, trendy, a sort of personal mascot. Want to justify X? Talk about how Jesus was the ultimate X. Insert in place of X - hippie, revolutionary, liberal, rebel, conservative, rastafarian, heretic, etc. Just tweak the image and there you go - pre-packaged Christ, ready made to support whatever fool thought flitting through your head. I believe that many Christians are doing a terrible wrong to Jesus . I'll explain why in a moment, but first I'd just like to introduce y'all (all y'all?) to a few of the Jesus' I've met. Here you go:

1. Angry Christ - This is the Jesus you'll encounter most often - at least, the one I encountered most often. He hates - well, a lot of things. Sinners seem to be a popular choice, as do heretics, democrats/liberals, homosexuals, backsliding Christians, abortionists, circus clowns and people named "Doug." People who want this particular Jesus on their side tend to quote a great deal of "fire and brimstone" verses from the bible, as well as verses where Jesus spoke harshly to people (calling them "snakes" and other such things) - usually to justify their ignoring of other verses that call Christians to treat others gently and with kindness.

2. Patriotic Christ - This guy is much more popular in the States than up here, but you still run into him a lot. Try Googling an image search for "Jesus" and "American Flag" and you'll see what I mean. This Jesus is typically a Republican, loves white people best (although it depends who you talk to) and just wants to bless your socks off - financially of course. He's become even more popular since 9/11, which is hardly surprising. You'll find a few different versions of him, but almost all of them have blue eyes. Which personally really creeps me out.

3. Buddy Christ - Best example of this was parodied in Kevin Smith's excellent movie "Dogma." This Jesus is laid back, relaxed, just chillin'. You wanna sin? You go right ahead, Jesus got your back. Feel like sleeping in on Sundays? Jesus'll unplug your alarm clock. Need some blunt? Jesus won't just give you a light, he'll pack the bowl himself. He'll never get you down, he'll never call you on the carpet - he's even pretty sure he can get you off the hook for what you did at Marti Gras, but he'll have to ask his dad. Oh, and he's great at parties because he'll never let you run out of booze.

4. "Mushy Love" Christ (thanks Kerri) - Personally, I find this one the most irritating. This Christ is ALL ABOUT YOU. He is just itching for you to throw your hands back, close your eyes and sing him a pretty song. He never condemns. He never gets upset, except at mean and nasty people and don't worry; you're not one of those. You're the reason he's waiting at your worship service, because he just can't get enough of you - unless you're an emerging Christian, in which case he's at Tim Hortons. This Jesus' favorite song is "All you Need is Love", and he can't wait for you to die so he can give you a great, big hug.

So why so many Christs? Why the franchising of the Saviour? I'll tell you, but you sure won't like it. In a word: shame.

We're ashamed of him. We can't stand him. He makes us uncomfortable. The Jesus that I see in the Bible reaches out from the and pokes us in the eye. He says things like, "Love sinners," and "Do not judge." He holds the religious to impossible standard. He claims to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He praises people we don't think deserve it. He compares God to a corrupt judge and a cruel master. He compares God to a loving Father. He came not as a king or ruler but as a stinky, smelly baby. He left not as a conquering hero but beaten, battered and rejected. He wants us to treat everyone equally. He confuses us and confounds us, and still he demands from us everything and more. Sure, he was revolutionary, sure he was angry, sure he was loving, sure he was human and friendly and harsh and a rebel and all of these things and more. He does not fit into any box we've got prepared for him.

So we change him. We dress him up, make him acceptable for company. We try and change the message of the Gospel into one of laws and rules because this new standard he call us to - sacrificial love - is way too damn confusing. We send him to one extreme or the other, always trying to avoid the impossible, unacceptable truth - that he is God made human and defies all explanation but his own: "Before Abraham was, I Am." And we do this out of shame.

Surprisingly, this isn't a new thing we've done with Jesus. Humanity has been doing it for thousands of years. A close friend of mine wrote an expository article on the "Golden Calf" story in Exodus. The interesting thing is, the Israelites weren't trying to invent a new god to worship - after all, they had just witnessed a whole pile of miracles by God - they were trying to put an understandable "face" on him. They picked the biggest, strongest creature they knew and made that image to try and have a representation of God among them. That's why God was so angry. They weren't worshipping a false god, they were trying to confine and subjugate the one they knew...

This is the same kind of idolatry as what we're doing to Jesus today. And he saw it coming too, "'If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels.'" (Mark 8:38). As much as we try to explain him away, I doubt that Jesus will lose out to the frauds in his place. And it's hard to criticise them because in a way they're all right. Maybe there's more we can do to introduce the genuine Christ - the Christ of the Bible - to the world. That's my question for this week: how can we avoid the pitfalls of creating an idol instead of the true Christ while still making our presentation of the Gospel relevant to this day and age?

On Canada - US Relations

2005-09-13T13:25:00.000-05:00

We have the longest undefended border in the history of the world.

We have a system of free trade that has been envied worldwide.

We freely come and go between our countries, visiting relatives and historical sites.

We even train parts of our military together.

So why can't we stand each other?

Canada-US relations are at an all-time low. The free trade agreement shows signs of dissolving. Protests on Canadian soil against American foreign policy are, if not common, at least unsurprising. Canada's refusal to support both the war in Iraq and the missile defense program has America wondering, "Where did our biggest supporter go?" Canadians harass and ridicule the American's leader. Americans don't know who Canada's leader is. And news programs on both sides of the border speculate that the friendship that has bound us together may be coming to an end.

In the midst of all of this, Christendom in North America is shifting. The more liberal attitudes in the north are becoming apparent, while in the south there are reactions against what many see as "backsliding." The Emerging Church is becoming more and more popular, yet receiving more and more criticism from conservative theologians - most of them seem to be American (or at least the loudest of them are). And here on the Net there are ripples of those changes. Emergent and anti-emergent sites have sprung up, and in my experience the supporters of Emergent have been disproportionately Canadian. That combined with our country's choice to support gay marriage has made some compare Canada to Sweden - we are an "irreligious" country in many eyes. This increases the tensions between us, as the conservative Christian elements in the United States have a very visible presence in the driver's seat.

It seems to me that the problem between us is the same problem you would find in any marriage - a failure to communicate our differences. Here's an example: My wife and I are very different people. I'm a cautious, rational fellow (my comments on Jamie's site not withstanding). She is a quick-thinking, fast-acting woman. Neither of those is better than the other (just to make that very clear in case she wanders by here...). But it caused us no end of grief until we actually sat down and said, "Obviously you don't see the world the way I do. Tell me the way you see things, so I can understand why you act the way you do."

The same thing is necessary for Canada and America. We think differently from each other. We see the world differently. And so we act accordingly - and this confuses the other party. Canadians tend to be more post-modern, with more emphasis on humanitarian interests and less care for power. Americans tend to be more modern, with an emphasis on justice and freedom in the world and less interest in change. I don't think either country has the "right" worldview - there are many things we can learn from each other. But we need to begin by understanding the perspective that the other is coming from. And that, my friends, can begin here.

Well, not HERE. But on the Net. A truly borderless community. We have an opportunity here (which many are taking advantage of) to try and air these differences, undertstand one another, so that in the midst of our diversity we can have unity. And the Emerging Church, with its emphasis on networking different communities of faith, will likely be a big help with that. No matter what our leaders wind up doing, it is my desire that Christians from both our nations can come together in faith and friendship to try and mend the hurts that have been done.

We won't ever be the same. And we will disagree on many, many things. But as long as we're here for each other to offer help like this, we will always be family.

What a Dude we Have in Jesus

2005-09-09T15:49:00.000-05:00

Here it is, the long-prophesied "serious" post of the week. Let's start a few weeks ago: I was on vacation and decided to rent that Mandy Moore movie "Saved." For those of you who don't know, the movie is about a young girl at an evangelical high school in the US somewhere. This teen gets pregnant during her summer break and spends the school year trying to hide her condition from her militant classmates while clinging to a faith that suddenly makes less sense to her, with predictably hilarious results.

Her school is a "stereotypical" white, American evangelical school. While there are certain aspects that are grossly exaggerated (like when classmates attempt to perform an exorcism on a "depressed" fellow student) one scene sticks out in my mind for its brutal honesty (or at least because it reminds me of some folks I knew as a teen). At the opening chapel for the year the campus pastor/principal of the school comes back-flipping onto stage (to loud funky music), comes up to the microphone and says (I kid you not...)

"Yeah! God is in the house! Let's get our Christ on, let's kick it Jesus style!" To which the congregation goes appropriately wild.

Well. What do you say to that? I sat there feeling quite uncomfortable, because I recognized truth in this (exaggerated) portrayal of our Christian leadership. We are desperately trying to be cool. Our strategy is to attract people in with our hipness, our coolness, our attractiveness - you'll never see an unattractive worship leader on Christian TV. Our leaders, by and large, spend vast amounts of time and energy trying to make us into a "religious" version of the best parts of our society. Here's a quote from "Blue Like Jazz" author Don Miller:

There are many problems with trying to market the gospel of Jesus, not the least of which is that, in itself, it is not a cool or fashionable idea. It isn't supposed to be. It is supposed to be revolutionary. It's for people who are tired of trying to be cool, tired of trying to get the world to redeem them. I attended the Dove Awards recently and was brokenhearted. I saw all these beautiful Christians, wonderful people, with this wonderful, revolutionary message of Jesus, who, instead of saying, "Look, fashion doesn't matter, hip doesn't matter," were saying "World, please accept us, we can be just as hip as you, just as fashionable, only in a religious way."

This is a legitimate concern many people have for the emerging church. Is it something revolutionary, ready to reach out to a broken world and affect change? Or is it just another attempt to live off the "fad of the land?"

I think I'm ready to conclude "both." It seems to me that in the emerging church there are true Christians, ready to try anything to get the timeless, hope-filled message of Christ into a hurting world. I've met several of these people, and I know them to be genuine believers.

I also think that there are many - too many - people jumping onto the emerging bandwagon because it's the next big thing, "where God is really moving" or some other garbage. Because the fact is, God doesn't need the emerging church. If God "needs" anything, it's good and faithful servants. These can be found in the emerging church, in the modern church, in the catholic church, anywhere that there is faith.

This isn't meant to discourage people from "signing up" with the emerging church or whatever. I want people to think - to really think - about where God wants them, and about what God wants them to do, instead of just picking the popular choice. And to pray about it, and to listen for God's leading. If he wants you to be an "emerging Christian," then be the best one possible. If he wants you to stay in your seeker-sensitive mega-church, then do so, and serve him with all your heart there. Instead of trying to be cool, hip, "with it" or what the world would find good in its eyes, let's be relevant, loving, and follow the Micah 6:8 example: "He has shown you, O man, what is good - and what does the LORD require of you? But to Do Justice, and to Love Mercy, and to Walk Humbly with your God."

Become an Honourary Canadian

2005-09-05T23:25:00.000-05:00

That's right, folks. Due to the crazy long weekend I've had, a deep and/or meaningful post is going to wait until later in the week. But don't worry; I've got something even better for you, something that will fulfill the hopes and dreams of our American friends, something that will change them forever. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...

10 Steps to Becoming an Honourary Canadian
(These steps can be carried out in any order. Please try to have a registered Canadian present at all times. Possible side effects may include: nausea, shakiness, sore throat, the heebies, the jeebies, drunkenness, a strange desire to end every sentance [written or spoken] with "eh?", pregnancy, blunt force trauma, drowning[see # 8], postmodernism, forgetfulness, diaper rash, dandruff, pink eye, beaver rash, blindness, plaid, spontaneous combustion, hair where there was no hair before, less hair where there used to be hair, forgetfulness, angst, an invasion of angry vikings, shock, horror, an inexplicable attraction to The Tragically Hip, athlete's foot, vampirism and post-nasal drip.)

1. Learn Canadian spelling, the metric system, and to pronounce it "aboot".
2. Learn to calculate the prices you see on cable commercials into Canadian dollers.
3. Swat a mosquito in your car on the highway with a full Tim Horton's travelmug.
4. Say "touque" instead of "stocking cap."
5. Find a place to go during the summer that you can refer to as "the lake." It doesn't matter if it's a cabin, a campsite or even Kenora, you just have to go there and never refer to it by its real name. It is "the lake," and it always will be.
6. Be able to describe the differences between the CFL and the NFL.
7. Jump in a snowbank stark naked in minus 30 (celcius) weather.
8. Have sex in a canoe.
9. Refuse to acknowledge the existance of American "beer."
10. Become teary-eyed during Molsen Canadian commercials.

Following of these short steps ensures, if nothing else, the lasting amusement of the Canadians that you are trying to impress.

To my fellow Canadians: think I've missed anything? Keep adding to that list, maybe we can hit 50 by the end of the week!

Emerging Church Conference

2005-08-31T00:07:00.000-05:00

Providence College and Seminary in Otterburne, Manitoba will be hosting a conference this October on "Ministering with the Emerging Church." Featured speaker: Dr. Gary Collins.

The target audience for this group seems to be pastors and other church leaders, and if I read the info right it looks like the purpose of the conference is to try and introduce these leaders to the concept of the Emerging Church. From what I can tell no one involved with the conference is an "official" member of the emergent organizations - which may not be a bad thing.

The conference looks like it is going to break down into 2 parts; one about counselling and "Christian coaching" (i'm not sure what the difference is); and the second, which looks like it will be more informal/introductory in nature about emergent. Here's a quote from the conference webpage:

"The emergent church movement is a strong new force, mostly evangelical, that is growing all over the world, with churches rising up and having a significant impact. the people in these churches seem to have turned away from traditional churches and many think the seeker-sensitive mega-church model is out of date. The emergent churches seem to have turned away from much of what people like you and I grew up with. How can we minister with them?"

The conference will run from Friday, October 21st to Monday, October 24th. Registration is due by the 10th of October. If anyone's interested in going I will likely be there for at least part of it, if for no other reason than morbid curiosity. Let me know.

Life of Brian (or Random Thoughts on an Emergent Icon)

2005-08-29T10:51:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago over at the original Emergent-US blog, Brian Mclaren gave a three-part series that was supposed to be his response to his critics. Tony Jones gave him the space so he could clear up alot of the misunderstandings that have arisen because of his books, his beliefs, and the various critics thereof. The general hatred that appeared whenever he said or did anything had, apparently, been rather draining on the old boy. Now I don't mind telling you that I like Mclaren - I really do - and that I've enjoyed his books. But I was a little disappointed with his response, mainly because it turned into an autobiography (which I've read in his other books) and it didn't deal with the problems people had with him. Sure, he said that he had been misinterpreted and unfairly characterized, but he never actually got around to dealing with the specific arguments that people had with him. So I was a little frustrated after having finished it, even though I know that he had accomplished his purpose and given people a picture of himself.

I suppose what I really wanted was for him to tackle the issues. Some people have raised some very good questions about his beliefs and what he meant when he said such-and-such, and I had been curious as to what he would say. The dialogue section on his personal website is fairly sparse when it comes to actual explanations, although there is an awful lot of "I'm glad you read my books even though you disagree with me, and thank you for praying for my soul." And while I'm glad he's written the books he has and done so well at what he's trying to do, I can't help but feel that if some of the issues were dealt with and he actually, you know, told people where he stood on certain issues things would go a bit easier for emergent. It seems to me that many people associate his views with emergent's views, and as I continue to dialogue here on the Net I have been encountering an increasing number of people unfairly judge emergent based on something that Brian wrote. I am also curious for my own reasons. Not that it really matters where he stands - I am Christ's disciple, not his - I just would like to know.

So why the hesitation to take a stand? Why the reluctance to make statements that people can point to and say, "This is what Brian thinks"? I think perhaps it's because of the critics. It seems to me that before all this happened - before he became the incredibly popular guy he is now - he was alot more clear on what he thought. Perhaps the attacks of critics that came after his books became more popular spooked him, I don't know. I just know that now he seems a lot more gun-shy to stick his neck out. And who can blame him? If people thought I was the antichrist I'd probably lie low too.

What I find most perplexing about the hugely negative reaction to Brian is that he's not saying anything new. He admits he's not! He's not even saying it better than others can. Want a better discussion on the nature of truth? Read Os Guinness' (excellent last name, that)Time for Truth. Want a caring examination of certainty of faith? Read Daniel Taylor's The Myth of Certainty. Want to hear more about the possibility of salvation for the unevangelized? Read some C.S. Lewis, or if you're feeling ambitious pick up Dr. Terrance Theissan's Who Can Be Saved?. Feel like reading about disillusionment with the church and God? Read Philip Yancy's... well, basically anything by Philip Yancy. I had been hearing all these things for years from these authors, as well as from some friends I had been privileged to make in college who were both excellent professors and compassionate Christians.

Maybe the reason behind the popularity of Brian's books (despite the so-so writing and the recycled premises) is deeper than I originally thought. Maybe God is using those books to reach people and draw them into the conversation. Maybe He wanted people to find the "jumping-off point" in A New Kind of Christian and his other books and enter a world of service and worship that would have been beyond them before. And maybe now that they have reached this new understanding they will be able to effectivly engage the world around them and bring the hope of Christ into a hurting, broken, imperfect "post-modern" world.

True, A New Kind of Christian came at a very formative time for me, and if I hadn't read it... well, I may not be here right now. But having read it and come out of whatever funk I was in at the time, I'm ready to move on. I'm ready to pick up books by more learned people on these subjects. Brian's a good intro, and I'd encourage anyone who is unfamiliar with emergent or just starting to feel burned out to read him. But don't confuse him with emergent, and once you've read him, move on. No one wants him to be a guru - least of all him.

On Movements

2005-08-25T18:30:00.000-05:00

First week and I'm already breaking my own rules...

Since I decided to throw my lot in with the emerging church (or admit that I already was emergent, in Jamie's opinion) I've been asked by several people what made me make that decision. The question I've heard most often has been; "What makes this movement different from all the others?" That's an excellent question, one at the heart of so many criticisms - and, in my opinion, it's a legitimate concern. We've all seen, heard of, or been involved with movements that are "the next thing", or "where God is really moving." It's years later, and who calls themselves a Jesus Freak anymore?

This came up in conversation between myself and several other bloggers at the King's Head the other week - at our "theology pub" session or Rendevous or whatever we wind up calling it. We were talking about the brand spanking new "Emergent Canada" organization that showed up and set some kind of land-speed record for controversy among Canadian bloggers (with it's talk of "purchasing" friendship et al). The question was raised, "Do we really need a franchise of Emergent to call our own? What is the purpose that it hopes to achieve?" Now, the wonderful links over to your right (robbymac, Brother Maynard and Voyageurs) will provide you with some excellent discussions on these questions, better than I could hope to achieve. But what I'll give you here is my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

Screw movements. That's right, screw 'em. Repeat after me (quietly if you're at work), "Screw movements." In my experience they have been distracting, dividing, antagonistic garbage. Poisonous and evil rubbish, as it were.

Now that I've got that out of my system, here's the other side. As much crap as movements can be, I believe that behind some of those movements lies truth. The emergent movement has its issues. They aren't as big as some might suggest, but they're there (and the critics are often bang-on when they point their fingers. The folks over at Emergent No had some really good points, despite their borderline-paranoia and the rampant assholery in the comments section). Movements don't move people, God moves people. And if God is moving people to reimagine church, to reimagine our preconceived notions of who He is and what He wants, then that very well might manifest as or be surrounded by a movement. Some people may need the relative structure that comes with an "organized" conversation, and we shouldn't fault them for that. Some people don't need them and are sensitive to the Spirit's leadings, able to make the changes in their own situations completely independent from any movement, and we shouldn't fault them either. A good friend of mine, the same one who led me to Christ - let's call him Jon With No H - has started a ministry to "post-modern seekers". He's been working on it for a while, and never read a McLaren book until the ministry was basically up and running. He doesn't really care about emergent, but he recognized the same needs and decided to do something about it. So maybe emergent, as flawed as it is, is on to something. And perhaps we should be encouraging that rather than discouraging it.

My belief is that at the end of the day we still have to live our lives clinging to the Truth and following God as best we can. And if a movement helps you to do that, then great, and I'm sorry for the "screw movements" comment. If not, well, do what you gotta do to love God and love your neighbor. That is the point, isn't it?

A bit about me...

2005-08-24T13:06:00.000-05:00

Here's my first "official" post, one I'm pleased to put out and hope that someone reads it. Introducing myself seems like the thing to do. So, here's some for the statistics junkies out there...

I'm twentysomething, about 5'10", Scottish/Irish/English descent born and living in Canada. I was raised Presbyterian, but in my early teens I became disillusioned with organized religion and decided to give nihilism/agnosticism a try. Fast-forward four years and I was depressed, suicidal and lonely. I got dragged to a youth group by a friend and discovered, to my surprise, a surplus of cute girls that were unattatched and pure. I took it upon myself to remedy those conditions, but after a year off chasing girls I made another startling discovery: God. I was baptized into an evangelical church and have been there ever since.

Now, when you come onto the evangelical scene in your mid-teens, you get the feeling that everyone around you in the church are such fantastically perfect Christians that you don't know what to do. For me, I decided (at the encouragement of some of my new friends) to make up for lost time and be the most zealous, uptight and phony Christian you ever met or read about. I jumped in with both feet and fell flat on my ass. It is due to this experience and others like it that I tend to come across a bit jaded and bitter towards certain aspects of Christianity, and I may give the impression that my conversion was handled by absolute twits. This is not the case, however - in fact, the very fellow who helped lead me to Christ is a dear friend to this day and was a steady support when all else seemed like shifting sand.

I started becoming interested in emerging/Postmodern Christianity after I graduated from Bible college. The standard Christian answers weren't cutting it anymore, and I wanted the freedom to continue asking questions. In a dark time I was given A New Kind of Christian, and from that I got enough hope to enter into this conversation. After lurking/posting for about 8 months (as Dan-D from Canada) I am now starting my own blog with the intent of keeping tabs on my new friends, and also to share my thoughts with whoever cares. It will be slow going for the first few weeks due to my job (I am a full-time youth worker) and as I try to remember how to code in html. Hopefully I will put up a post with comments open every Monday, in which I will respond to every comment I get. I may post updates as the week goes on, but may keep those comments closed so as to not snuff out the convos on other posts (as so often happens). Please link to me if you feel your readers would enjoy this place.

The title of this blog comes from the quote beneath it; if you don't understand then please jump up and run extremely fast to the nearest library and don't come out until you've read Paradise Lost twice. My profile name (Grey Owl) comes from an inside joke with Jamie of Emergent Voyageurs, suffice it to say that sometimes I feel (in the emerging church) like I've "gone native", and hope that the true natives of the post-modern village that surround me treat me kindly and allow me to stay. Cheers,

Hello World!

2005-08-22T13:14:00.000-05:00

Hey all,

Due to continued harrassment from my friends here on the big wide Interweb of ours, I have finally succumbed to temptation and started a blog of my very own. It is my fondest wish that this would be a forum for discussion and change for our diverse and wonderful Canadian culture - or we can just plan the next meeting at the King's Head. Either one is good.

This is under construction for the next few days, so feel free to ignore me until then. Cheers!