Theological Oddities

Something of interest

2007-12-13T09:07:00.000-05:00

This one fascinated me. It seems that the very moral ethos that initially empowered women now disarms them when faced wit men who employ it against them. Enjoy the read.

Jesus arrives soon...

2007-07-20T23:33:00.001-04:00

in a Wal-Mart near you. Check it out here.

Proverbs 27:12

2007-06-27T21:39:00.000-04:00

The sensible see danger and take cover; the foolish keep going and are punished.

If I were going to paraphrase this proverb in more modern terms, I might say "A smart person sees the warning signs and heeds them; the fool goes on as if they aren't there."

There is something frustrating about watching people be foolish. People will come up to me, and tell me about the difficulties they are in. That in itself isn't frustrating; the frustration sets in they will speak as though they are so shocked to be where they are. For the life of them they cannot understand how they are where they are.

Now, as I listen I am making a mental list of all the places where they made mistakes. The mistakes are obvious. By the time the list is complete, along with the tale of woe, one thing has become clear: The individual ought reasonably to have surmised that trouble would result from their course of action.

As a counselor, the only question is whether they will accept responsibility or not. If they will, help can be effective. If not, then there is little point in offering assistance. If they want to accept responsibility, then they will heed the signs that I hold up for them. Otherwsie, they won't, and, as the Proverb puts it, be punished.

God

2007-05-22T19:06:00.000-04:00

How to describe God? My first inclination is to be as short possible. God is such that the longer I go on, the likelier I am to say something wrong. Verbosity can lead to heresy, as it were.

Still, I did say I would go into the topic, so...

I could present a lengthy list of attributes, but that wouldn't be what I am about here. Rather than talk about what God is, I am more concerned with God as He relates to us. And how doe He do that?

1) As a Father.
With apologies to those who find the idea of God as a male figure, the reality is that God has chosen to relate to us primarily as our Heavenly Father. That does not mean that there are not feminine aspects to God, but those are clearly secondary. As a father he seeks to protect and provide for us. He seeks to be generous, giving to us out of the bounty of His love for His children. He also is concerned for our growth and development in terms of character. To that end, He is our disciplinarian and teacher.

2) As a Judge.
Some might think that relating to us as a a Judge is incompatible with relating to us as a Father. I find the two to be nicely complementary. As our Father, God knows us perfectly, and so is perfectly able to judge us. How can we expect to get more fairness than from a Judge who both knows us perfectly and still loves us perfectly? That fairness does not guarantee a verdict in our favor on all issues; He will call us on our bad behavior whenever it occurs. But we know that our discipline will be truly commensurate with our crime, and we can take comfort that the disciple comes from someone who is neither arbitrary nor uncaring. Quite the contrary.

If any of this sounds familiar, it is because I have basically posted how God's love and God's justice hold together. Many times I hear people ask how God can be loving if He is willing to allow people to go to Hell.

Hopefully the above shows how God is not only perfectly able to do that, He is the only ONe we should want to do so.

Who are we, anyway?

2007-05-18T23:22:00.000-04:00

Lately I have been reading a book by Miroslav Volf called Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace. In it, Volf goes into who we are. He is clear in pointing out that with respect to God, we are receivers. We have nothing to offer God that He needs. We have nothing that isn't already His. We cannot even be unless God gives us the gift of our next breath.

As Volf points out, this brings us very close to Luther's notion that we are "beggars all". Many might suppose that being such is utterly demeaning and denigrating our dignity as human beings, that to respond in faith to such a being is wrong. Volf responds:

But that feeling of diminishment and humiliation comes from wrongly conceiving our relationship to God. If we were independent from God the way we are independent from each other, and God expected us to just receive, God would be like an overbearing father who always knows better and will not let his daughter do anything on her own. But we are not independent in relation to God. Our power to be and to act comes from God. Faith merely recognizes this. Hence faith doesn't tell us how little we are and what we can't do. On the contrary, it celebrates what we most properly are - God's empowered creatures- and it frees us to our greatest accomplishment.

So we are receivers with respect to God. But that reality doesn't threaten our dignity; it makes it. If we fear looking small and silly, then we might consider how it appears to God when we struggle to assert ourselves independently from God.

What Is Man?

2007-05-17T20:07:00.000-04:00

When I was in seminary, I had many discussions that centered on the question of Pilate: "What is truth?"

There were, and are, many ways to understand that question, and many ways of answering it. Most of those have to do with what we understand the "truth" to be, and how we communicate it to unbelievers such as Pilate was.

These days however I am coming to believe that the key question is not "what is truth?", but "what is man?" That is, the key question is not what truth is as such, as though truth were primarily an existential matter, but what the truth is about us. If we correctly understand what we are we can better understand what the gospel is, and why it is what it is.

I believe that the gospel is what it is because that is the way it has to be in order for us to be saved. Given who and what we are, and Who and What God is, the gospel could only be what is.

So that's what I am thinking. Next time I will go into who and what we are. After that, I'll go into Who and What God is.

Imperfections... Must Sterilize

2007-05-16T19:08:00.000-04:00

That line is from a classic Star Trek episode. The speaker is a freaked out piece of machinery who holds that its programmed mission is to seek out and sterilize imperfections. It is absolutely maniacal about its mission. It cannot stand imperfection.

On the other end of the spectrum is something which says "we must not be perfect." Really I think the intent is to say we must not act perfect when we are not. But what exactly does that mean, practically? Does it mean that we must be willing to acknowledge that we still have a way to go before being fully sanctified? Minimally that should be so. Such admissions would be healthy for one's spiritual life; they ensure that you do not become over-confident with respect to one's spiritual growth and maturity.

But what if it means something more than that? What if it means that if you don't say you are somehow dysfunctional, or have some kind of imbalance, then you are hiding something?
The implications are not at all pleasant. Those who are more spiritually mature end up being marginalized, even viewed as aberrant. The norm would be dysfunctional spiritually immature people.

Really, the goal should not be to emphasize what is a given, that we are imperfect. Rather, we should emphasize what we should be, and will one day be (perfect). Doing so may highlight for some the fact of our imperfection, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. We should not try going through our walk with Christ thinking that we are something other than we are: sinful.

Yes, the "S" word. We tend to think of ourselves as "broken" or "disconnected". We are those things, but only because we are sinful. We should not confuse the symptoms with the disease.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with admitting we are sinful, ungodly. Paul seems to think that God is in the business of justifying such people. Jesus said that he came to save sinners.

If we don't think of ourselves that way, how can we expect to be saved?

Odds and Ends

2007-03-31T14:09:00.000-04:00

I have not had time to get too far in the Revelation work due to stuf at home. But a couple fo things have caught my attention lately.

First is how far our culture, even the Christian sub-culture, has strayed from an interest in being edified to a hunger for being entertained. This puts me in mind of what Paul tells Timothy about how in the last days people will turn to teachers who will teach what they want to hear. Traditionally I have taken this to refer to the propensity of people to ignore sound teaching for false teaching because tey prefer the lie to the truth. But it could be that the lie is turned to just because it is more entertaining than the truth.

Ho do we respond to that?

Certainly there have been times when the Christian Church has been out of step with the culture and managed to turn good news into "o.k. news" through being boring in its delivery. I don't think that this can be said of preaching today, though; many churches feature cutting edge multi media presentations on a regular basis.

The church however may be a victim of its own success in this area. We may just be addicting attenders to the medium at the expense f the message. We may be training people to expect entertainment rather than edification. We may wind up altering our services so that they titillate rather than transform.

This is entirely unintentional, but that may be the scariest part. For this to happen without our notice, or perhaps without our forethought, says a bit about the way we are trying to reach the culture. We are simply looking for the next big thing, the next fad that we can ape and imitate. But isn't the Holy Spirit creative, rather than imitative? Does this not mean we should be setting trends in some sense rather than reacting to them?

Something to think about.

Revelation: The Beginning

2007-02-19T08:20:00.000-05:00

As promised, I am beginning a series on Revelation. I will be using material I have collected for the purpose of teaching a Young Adult Sunday School Class.

As a kind of prologue, I would like to make a few opening comments of a general nature:

1) Although I do have a definite opinion on issues such as the Tribulation and Millennium, I do not intend to present this study as a means of forwarding those opinions. In fact, I intend to say rather little about particular eschatological schemata.

2) While I intend to be somewhat scholarly in my approach, bringing forth the various options for disputed passages, my goal is to make a presentation with potential for personal application, and informed by pastoral concerns.

3) My belief is that Revelation has two primary thrusts: pastoral and ethical. Revelation is written to and for people enduring persecution. It is under such circumstances that the question "How do we live our faith?" is being asked and answered.

4) My format will be a mixture of verse for verse and paragraph for paragraph exegesis. There are times when verse for verse is entirely appropriate, even necessary, to bring out the full meaning of the text. Yet there are also times when verse by verse can encourage one to become bogged down with minutiae that do not really make a contribution to our understanding commensurate with the time and energy they require. I will strive to strike an appropriate balance.

Next time, we will begin with the first few verses of Revelation 1.

Return of the OP

2007-02-06T22:26:00.000-05:00

The Oddball Pastor has returned. It is time to resume blogging on matters of theology.

Where have I been? I have written a devotional commentary on James. Called, "Being Consistently Christian", it is based on research I have done using commentaries in the Tyndale, Pillar, NIV Application and Expositor's series.

Currently I am looking at publishing options.

So what now? Now I am dealing with the impact of a deep study in Revelation. I am convinced that Revelation is a book with far more relevance than those who think only in terms of end-times charts might guess. It is a book deeply concerned with ethics. It has a lot to say about worship, martyrdom, the nature of our victory over evil in this world, and the unity of the Father and the Son. That is just in the first 7 chapters.

I will be blogging the insights I have gained from this study, plus whatever else pops into my head.

Kudos to Tertium Quid on his "promotion" to "Team Apologian."

Blog siting!

2006-08-17T22:50:00.000-04:00

I came across this blog, and I just had to point it out. It is funny, if irreverant.

purgatorio - a panoply of evangelical eccentricities, un-orthodox oddities & christian cultural curiosities

This Man Went Down to His House Justified

2006-08-12T15:57:00.000-04:00

Every once in a while I come across a sermon that really gets to te heart of the mater. This is definitely one of those.
Thank God for John Piper.

This Man Went Down to His House Justified

New Books!

2006-08-11T09:41:00.000-04:00

I love to read. I probably read for 3 hours each day and would read more if I could, but that would mean more or less detaching from everything around me. Not good.

Anyway, I have received a new shipment of commentaries. I purchased Grant Osborne's commentary on Revelation (Baker), Darrell Bock's 2 volume set on Luke (Baker), Don Hagner's 2 volume set on Matthew (Word), and Edwards on Marl (Pillar). Added to what I already own (Carson [Matthew and John], Evans [Luke], Lane [also Mark] I'd say I now have the gospels well covered.

I'll offer reviews as time allows.

I am still reading through John and a couple of commentaries on John. Interesting to see how people used to think John was so Greek, but now are coming to think his gospel is the most Jewish.

I am also reading Elmer Martens book on OT Theology called "God's Design". So far, so good.

After this I will probably get to Revelation for the sake of teaching it, since that is always a popular request.

At the Well

2006-08-02T10:42:00.000-04:00

Sometimes to get the most out of a gospel you have to make comparisons and contrasts within it.

For example, it is instructive to compare and contrast Nicodemus and the Samaritan Woman at the Well.

Nicodemus was a man. The Samaritan was a woman.

Nicodemus was well educated, the Samaritan woman was not.

Nicodemus was powerful among his people. The Samaritan woman was not.

Nicodemus was respected by his people. The Samaritan woman would not have been at the well when she was were she respected. She was likely despised.

Nicodemus was orthodox in his beliefs. The Samaritan woman's beliefs were deficient.

The two characters could hardly be more different. Yet both of them get the same message of salvation.

There is a lesson to be had there.

John the (Humble) Baptist. (John 3:22-30)

2006-07-28T10:57:00.000-04:00

We all would like to be popular to one degree or another. We would like to have people pay attention to us. How we behave when we get what we want can say a lot about our character. What can tell more though is how we handle competition.

John the Baptist was one of the most famous figures of his day. He had a big following. But one day it became clear that his prominence was being eclipsed by another; Jesus of Nazareth. Many people would have become jealous. Many would have decided to oppose Jesus. Not John though. He simply said: "He must become greater; I must become less."

There's a lot packed into that.

One thing that strikes me is that here is no causal relationship. John is not saying that Jesus' becoming greater depends on John's becoming less, as though John's voluntary capitulation was required for Jesus' greatness to grow. John is simply stating the fact that as Jesus becomes greater, he, John, will become less.

There is no hint of regret or anger in that admission of inevitability either. John accepts this as the end result of his ministry. He accepts this as being the fulfillment of all his work. So why then should he be upset? He has done all that he wanted, all that he was born to do.

If I may speculate for a moment: John had something that we typically lack; a sense of destiny. He had a strong sense, a specific sense of why he was alive. He knew specifically what his ministry was about, and when it was finished, when it had accomplished its goal.

The fact that John did not live long afterwards probably didn't bother him; he had done the greatest thing any of us can; fulfill life's purpose. Why would we want to live long after that?

No Heaven Without Faith in Christ

2006-07-25T09:11:00.000-04:00

In John 3:15 John makes the comment that the purpose of Jesus' being lifted up is so that "those who believe might have life in him."

A couple of things come to mind. First, the verb "believe" is used with no object. Taken on its own one might be tempted to think that one must simply be "a person of faith" in order to qualify for eternal life. Surely that is the theological direction that some denominations, most notably the RCC, are drifting towards. This would then promote the idea that being a sincerely religious person is enough. Because you are person who at least believes (apparently this is a meritorious virtue) God will grant you a pass for believing the wrong things.

But this is a good example of why we need to keep verses in context. Doing so helps us to see that we are not free to simply assume that there is no defined content to "believing". For in John 3:12 we see that Jesus includes, at least, trust and faith in himself and his teaching.

That, incidentally, is why I don't think we can say that Nicodemus is, at this point, a believer in Christ. He can say that Jesus is from God, but doesn't understand how much of an understatement that is. He s in fact incredulous about some of what Jesus teaches, and disbelieves some as well. The examples are not deep or minute theological details either, they are basics.

We really do need to be on guard against the notion that sincerity covers a multitude of sins. We need to believe, yes, but we have to believe in something, someone, specific in order to be saved.

The RCC is, IMO, leading people down the garden path in this aspect.

The RCC has this notion of a "baptism of desire" which posits that if a person is sincere they would want to be baptized (they believe baptism regenerates the person, is the instrument of the New Birth Jesus speaks of) and that's what counts. That's rather patronizing. Sincere practitioners a of other beliefs are not Christians, but they will be some day, regardless of what they believe now.

That, as far as I am concerned, is hogwash. There is nothing virtuous about being a person of faith as such in terms of salvation. The Essenes were sincere practitioners of their faith, and the Sadducees were as well. The sadducees were still taken to task by Jesus.

There is no substitute for a real, personal faith. Not in God's eyes.

Yes, A New Birth

2006-07-23T09:59:00.000-04:00

While I often hear Christians refer to being "born again", I wonder if they have given much thought to what it means?

Some seem to equate it with some ritual or other they went through at some time, be it a baptism or an event where they "went forward" and said a "sinner's prayer."

But is that what Jesus was referring to when he spoke of being "born again"?

First, I'd like to point out that Jesus probably did not say that Nicodemus had to be "born again" but "born from above". The word "again" translates a Greek word which, every other time in John, means "from above." That's how we should take it here. Being born from above implies something that comes from God, not something that we do, and and implies a real and radical spiritual event.

Second, I think its important for us to recognize the importance of Jesus' switching terms in 3:5. There Jesus speaks of being born from above in terms of being born of water and spirit. It would be easy to think that Jesus is referring to two births, here, one of water, and the other by the Spirit. I don't think that's accurate though. I think Jesus is referring to a single birth by two modes.

In the OT water refers (figuratively) to renewal and cleansing, while Spirit is the divine principle of life, which, according to Joel 2:28, the Jews (like Nicodemus) were supposed to look forward to in the New Covenant. The two are linked in passages like Ps. 51:9,10; Is. 32:15; 44:3-5; 55:1-3. Most telling of all is Ezekiel 36:25-27. It is this passage which I think lies behind Jesus teaching about a birth that is of water and spirit. It speaks to the radical nature of the effect of being born from above.

But do we appreciate that?

I honestly have to say that it feels like we don't when we too readily associate it with going forward at a rally or crusade or a ritual like baptism. It feels like we are making something radical into something religious. But Nicodemus was of the religious establishment...

Something to think about.

Little Nicky

2006-07-21T23:20:00.000-04:00

As in "Little Nicodemus."

That's what Nicodemus thought Jesus was trying to create; a little physically reborn Nicky!

That of course comes from Nicodemus' interview with Jesus in John 3, which I have recently been studying.

There are many possible ideas as to why Nic would say "How can this be?" when Jesus told him that he needed to be born again, but I frankly find that Nic just didn't get it. He just could not grasp or believe that new birth was a requirement for entrance into the Kingdom of God. He figured, as he had been taught, that he had only to be obedient to the law already being a Jew, and hence, favored.

But Jesus was clear; the problem is not one that can be touched by rituals and such. Only a radical transformation of the entire person can make a person fit for the Kingdom.

Nicodemus' inability to understand says a lot about Jesus' words to him. Nicodemus had said "we see that you are from God". Jesus' response "that unless you are born again you won't see the Kingdom of God" implied that they didn't really see as much as they thought. In fact they could not, having not been born again. Nicodemus' lack of understanding simply confirmed Jesus words.

Its a nice bit of irony really, and highly applicable to us today:

We tend to think that we need to conform rather than be transformed. The fact is we can't conform to God's pattern apart from being transformed (Ro. 12:1-3). We can try to conform otherwise, but then we'll be like Nicodemus.

The problem of course is that, unless we have someone to tell us we don't see like we think we do because we are in need of transformation, we probably won't get it when we go to the Judgment and are found wanting.

That's not ironic though. Its tragic.

Destroy This Temple

2006-07-15T15:36:00.000-04:00

I mentioned yesterday that I had noted two things about the whole cleansing of the temple discourse in John's gospel. The first had to do with the propriety of commerce of any kind in our churches. Today I want to focus on a second aspect of the cleansing of the temple.

Let me explain. I am referring to the portion of John 2 where Jesus is being questioned about his activity in cleansing the temple. Such a cleansing was not automatically a bad thing, but it was exceptional. It was the sort fo thing that would be taken on by a prophet from God the likes of which would not have been seen for many decades if not, indeed, centuries. The people questioning Jesus were wanting to know about Jesus credentials as a prophet for cleansing the temple.

Jesus' response is a bit confusing to those speaking with him. He effectively lays out a challenge; if they want to know about his credentials, then all they have to do is "Destroy this temple" and Jesus will raise it up in three days. This, presumably, would be a sign that would confirm his credentials.

The inquisitors assumed that by "this temple" Jesus was referring to the physical temple. IN fact he meant his own body. A few things are stirred in my mind as I consider this.

1) Although "the Jews" did not immediately call what they probably assumed was a bluff on Jesus' part, they ultimately did. They would eventually kill Jesus, thus destroying the temple of his body, and Jesus did raise it up in three days.

2) There seems to be a connection between the actual temple and the temple of Jesus' body, one that actually plays up the deity of Jesus. The temple in Judaism was very much the special place where God made His presence felt on earth. But Jesus is God made flesh. That means that when Jesus refers to His body as the temple he is saying that in his flesh you have God's presence uniquely manifested. That speaks both to the incarnation spoken of in John 1 (especially about revealing the Father), and to his statements equating seeing Jesus in the flesh with seeing the Father in John 14.

In a very real sense then, we should think about Jesus as a replacement for the Temple under the New Covenant.

One might be tempted to think that this should make what happens in our church buildings less important, but I am inclined to think in exactly the opposite way. We are now the temple of God on earth, both individually and corporately, manifesting the presence of God. (1Co. 3:16; 1Co. 6:19; cf. Eph. 2:22). What happen in us, around us and to us as we gather for worship then becomes at least as important, if not moreso, sine the temple of Jesus' day was but a shadow. We embody the reality that the shadow was pointing to.

It is worth thinking about, anyway.

Zeal For Your House

2006-07-14T12:33:00.000-04:00

I've been reflecting on the implications of Jesus' actions in the temple.

(Just in case someone cares: I think that there are two cleansings, not one. John describes the one at the beginning of his ministry, the Synoptics referring to one 2 or three years later.)

There are, I think, two aspects to Jesus' actions, at least one of which doesn't get enough attention.

The first aspect is the implication for what is becoming a common church practice. We make a habit of inviting people, usually musicians and/or singers, and we allow them to set up a promotional table somewhere and sell their wares.

Is this really allowable given the temple cleansings?

The excuse is usually something like this: Jesus problem was with the exorbitant prices being charged, which amounted to practical barrier to people coming into the presence of God. That's why Jesus wanted them out; they were gouging.

Is that true? Not in the first cleansing. In John, Jesus says nothing about the particulars of their business practice; he just says they don't belong in the temple courts at all. In John it seems clear that Jesus does not think commerce is appropriate in the outer courts, regardless of whether they are honest businessmen or not. It seems more that Jesus is saying that business is for the market and the temple is for worship, and we ought not mix the two.

It isn't even true in the second cleansing. People et the idea about dishonest business practices from Jesus' words about turning the temple into a den of thieves. But this misses the fact that the Greek expression implies zealotry and not robbery. As D.A. Carson notes, "by setting up in the court of the Gentiles, they have excluded the Gentiles who might have come to pray...". In that case, it really doesn't matter whether they were using fair business practices or not; they didn't belong there.

So there seems no good reason to permit these vendor tables in our churches.

What reinforces this is the fact that Jesus actions and words probably allude to passages like Zech. 14:21 and Mal. 3:1,3. The whole thing has to do with purity of worship. With that in mind we can see that having vendors is not conducive to worshipping with an undivided and undistracted heart.

That's the first aspect. The second I will deal with tomorrow.

Look! Up In The Sky...!

2006-07-12T10:02:00.000-04:00

There was an actual story in Superman Returns, which my family and I took in last night.

The story is about a young man named Clark Kent who went away to find himself, and came back home having failed in his quest. However upon his return he discovered that during the time he was trying to find what he did not have, he lost even what he had left behind.

The rest of the movie is about Clark's rediscovering his place in the world he had once thought to abandon in favor of a personal quest.

In a nice bit of irony Clark ends up getting the piece of "home" (Krypton) he had sought, only to find that it was deadly to him and to the home he knew. To save the home he knows, he has to get rid of the one he had spent years looking for.

That is a nice allegory for life really. We are meant to be with God. We were designed for that relationship, and yet we spend out time looking for it elsewhere. We end up finding that the life we are trying to find is poisonous to the one we really need.

I recommend Superman; he really is just an alienated person, looking for where he belongs. We belong with God.

To Keep You Interested

2006-07-06T17:01:00.000-04:00

I am going away for a few days in order to deliver my firstborn son to summer camp. In the meantime, to keep you interested in things theological, I offer the following related to the Da Vinci Code...

The main characters seem to think that Jesus being married represents a threat to the doctrine of Jesus' Deity. That's not true. It is not the case that if Jesus is proven to be human then he is not divine; Christians hold that Jesus was both human and divine. We don;t hold that Jesus was 50% God and 50% human, such that anything that adds to one nature necessarily takes away from the other. We hold that Jesus was 100% God and 100% human. Anything that shows Jesus was human therefore supports one part of the Christian belief about Jesus without taking away from the other. If Jesus were married then it does no harm at all to the belief that Jesus was divine. There really is no theological need to cover up a lineage of Jesus, even if there were one.
Some might disagree, but I think its important to deal with Brown's book. Yes, I know it is just a work of fiction, but the reality is that Brown's book blurs the distinction between fiction and non-fiction with the claim to represent some concrete elements accurately. The average person though isn't equipped to know where the fiction begins and ends. If we don't stand up and say so, they'll make up their own minds, and, most likely, will get it wrong to the detriment of their spiritual walk.
I do not understand why people would think it so odd that Jesus would be celibate. Granted it was normal for a man to marry, Jesus was not an official rabbi. The pharisees, who were official rabbis, did not accord him that status (and Jesus never claimed it at any rate) that he should be required to marry. Besides, it isn't like it was unheard of for a man to marry for religious reasons; there was a group of very pious people in the area called Essenes who lived at Qumran (they were the keepers of the Dead Sea Scrolls) and they did not marry. They were well respected for that practice by the average Jew, too.
Why do these characters treat Gnosticism like it was a united, monolithic movement? It wasn't. There were several versions of it, often with mutually exclusive teachings. They would never buy Brown's assertion that these are all legitimate versions of Christianity; they all competed with each other to be the true Christianity.

Have a good weekend.

Theology in Music

2006-07-05T10:03:00.000-04:00

Why the World does not turn to God, by Squeeze:

Alone here in the Kitchen
I feel there's something missin'
I'd beg for some forgiveness,
but begging's not my business.

From "Up the Junction"

Ah, pride...

But can you dance to it?

2006-07-05T08:56:00.000-04:00

Let me say right away, that I love music. I listen as often as I can, and I really only have one volume setting: loud! I prefer driving music with a message. But that's at home.

At church... Well that's bit different. The songs I enjoy there are more mellow. Not that these are my favorite kinds of songs, but they are the best of what I have to choose from. My choices are somewhat slim.

That isn't a reflection on the worship leaders in my church; they have the same limited selection I do. The reality is that the music typically produced for radio has thick melodies and sickly sweet sentimentality for lyrics.

There are exceptions of course. On the side of the fast-paced, "Days of Elijah" has a nice hook, it has energy, and it calls us to both look forward and see the future in the present; a nice inaugurated eschatology. There is a slow tune called "In Christ alone" which has a very nice tone of forensic justification.

I find a lot of worship music is the love song type of ballad. Which is fine if you're a woman or a really sensitive, in touch with your inner child male. But for those of us who prefer a more "barbarian way" of doing things, these songs don't do all that they could.

I want to stress that the problem isn't ballads as such. I like ballads. What I don't like are ballads that could have been written fort top 40 radio in both music style AND lyric. If I can change a worship tune to a top 40 ballad by changing 'Lord" to "girl" or something, then there is a problem. Ballads like "How Deep the Father's Love For Us" use biblical themes.

That's what we need more of. I used to defend contemporary music on the basis of precedent. Luther took bar tunes, songs relevant to the people he was trying to reach, and injected them with theologically significant themes and lyrics. We only do the first part of that now.

Time for a correction.

Time For Hockey Talk

2006-07-03T21:16:00.000-04:00

Ottawa Senators Hockey Talk of course!

Zdeno Chara: The Sens did all they could to keep Chara, but there was no way they were going to offer 7.5 milllion per season. What is really maddening is where he ended up: with Boston. Now the Sens did well to make sure that new Bruins GM and former Sens assistant GM Chiarrelli could not go after Chara himself. Too much conflict of interest stuff involved. But Chiarreli did, in his interview witheh Bruins, give a detailed plan of what he would do as GM, and ther is no reason to think that did not include signing Chara. Is this tampering? Not strictly, since Chiarreli doubltess did not do any talking. Were the Bruins following Chiarrelli's plan? There is every reason to think so. It doesn't smell good at all.

Martin Gerber: At first, I thought this was an odd signing. Ray Emery proved himself capable of doing the #1 goalie job. Then again, if you look at the teams that made the final four of the Stanley Cup Playoffs, at least 3, and arguably all four, had goalies that were 1a and 1b. Anaheim, Buffalo, and Carolina all had two goalies that were starters. Edmonton, inlight of the way Markkannen picked it up after Rollie went down, made a case for himself in that role as well. It may well be the way of the future to have such depth in goal. On the whole, a good signing for a reasonable price and reasonable term.

Joe Corvo: This guy is NOT a replacement for Zdeno Chara. He is a replacement for Brian Pothier. On balance I think he is a better D-Man for the money than Pothier. Strictly speaking, we don't have a replacement for Chara. It isn't possible. Ottawa's defense will not be as good in the size and strength department, that's all. Corvo is a very good skater, with good offense. He is also locked in at a reasonable price for a long term. Good job Muckler.

Jason Spezza: I have already heard people complaining about Spezza gettgin too much on his new 2 year 9 mill deal. The comaprisons to Eric Staal are legion. But really the average salary for the two deals is identical. The fact that it is a year shorter is probably good. Granted it means that most of our bbest players will be up for signing in 2 years, we will have almost no salary commitments, and have a lot of felxibility. Muckler is thinking ahead.

Martin Havlat: It would be nice to be able to keep him, but we don't have the cap space. I am thinking that Havlat will be packaged with Smolinski, because we need to clear some space. We need to sign Peter Schaeffer yet, not to mention Ray Emery, Chris Neil, and Antoine Vermette. We just don't have the cap room for all of them. We need to fill out the roster on an average salary of $500,000. That isn't going to happen.

I am just not sure how we're going to get to the 22 man roster with only 5-7 mil to spend for 9 guys. At the moment we have 2 offensive lines (plus 1) and 5 defensemen signed, and one goalie, for 14 total. It may be that the Sens plan to only carry 12 forwards and 6 d and one guy who can do eiether, for 19 guys, plus two goalies (for 21 total) but even so, it will be tight. Assuming the roster number is kept to that, and we spend the 7 mil, that is still only 1 million per player. It doesn't seem likely we'll get to re-sign what we have for that much.

Bottom line, watch for trades.

Illogical Odds and Ends

2006-07-03T10:41:00.001-04:00

Over the last few days I have encountered the same kind of bad reasoning in several, unrelated contexts.

It goes somethign like this (this is not one of the actual examples):

"The moon orbiting that distant star is too far away. It isn't important to life on earth."

"So is our moon. You need a telescope to see them both. There fore our moon is unimportant too. "

Now of course the comparison is ridiclulous. After all I can go to Zellers and pick up a cheap elescope and see our moon just fine; nothing short fo the multi-million dollar hubble is going to catch the moon around the distant star.

So what is this? It is ignoring the relevant differences, subsuming them under an irrelevant commonality.

Saying that two doctrines both require inference on our part to detect them and are therfore equally ambiguous in Scripture is a false argument when:

doctrine rests on 1 verse whch rests in a highly symbolic context (like Revelation)
the other docrine rests on 10 verses found in comapratively starightforward contexts (like letters)

Obvisouly this is ingoring the differnece in quantitiy and quality of evidence in favour of the fact that they both require inference.

But people do this sort of thing, and worse.

I also encounterd a situation where one person held that a new interpretive method was false because it was too subjective.

The oppsition came in the form of "well you have subjectivity too!" This commits two errors. The first is that described above (since the new method is used in addition to the old, yo are actually compounding subjectivity. You can't ignore that and say they are both equally invialid becuase they are both subjective when the amount of subjectivity in vovled in each is vastly different.). The second fallacy is accusing the eprson ofnot following their own advice. But that isn't an argument in favour of the new method.

I don't want every one to be a logician. I am not a logician myself. I would however like to see peple think just a wee bit more.

Charge of the Light Brigade

2006-06-29T09:29:00.000-04:00

That's the sense I have right now; being part of the Charge fo the Light Brigade. Mine is not to question why. Mine is but to do or die.

Yes, summer vacation has begun, and with it, more intense parenting. The boys will now be home a lot more than they have been.

I am however prepared. Or as prepared as one can be. I have ideas of things for them to do, projects. I refuse to let them vegetate all day only to spin like tornados come bed time.

The precise nature of the projects is of course confidential.

But on to weightier matters...

Having made a rant regarding post-modernism , it is worth supplying some links that will help peple get a grip on the whole mess.

In the interest of fairness, I provide links both in favor of and in opposition to, the movement. Some are somewhat in the middle. I don't claim to have read everything on the websites, nor do I claim to support or endorse any or all of it.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/013/7.74.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/013/8.76.html
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artid=70

Ok so it isn't much, but I wanted to avoid sites that were blatantly promotional one way or the other.

Post-Mondernism in Action

2006-06-28T08:25:00.000-04:00

While a difficult by nature thing to define (even its proponents don't know exactly what it is), there are certain things that are characteristic of post-moderns.

One is a love of the "conversation." Some think that po-mos don't beleive in absolute truth, but that's not quite true; they just want to talk it over and see if we have it. They will talk and talk and talk. They will inject irrelevancies and needless levels of complexity in order to keep the discussion going. In a way, it is wrong to say want to have disucssion about issues, since they don't really engage in discussion for the reasons most of us do: to arrive at an end. For most folks, conversations are means to an end, but in po-mo thought the conversation is elevated to being an end. They don't want the discussion to end. In a discussion about truth then they won't let you say you have truth, not because they don't beleive it exists, but because you would be ending the discussion, in thier eyes, preamturely (though it is not clear whether they think the conversation should ever truly end).

Now this is a bad thing. Not that I am opposed to conversation, I enjoy a good chat. But when complexities get added constantly and irrelevancies and rabbit trails are exalted to the status of core issue then I am not having a discussion. As I said, discussions have a goal in coming to agreement and resolution. Po-mos just want to keep you talking.

Now you don't have to be young to be like this. Nor do you have to be self-consciously post-modern to engage in this behaviour. I suspect a lot of peopel aren't aware. So do thema favour and let them know.

Let them know that keeping the discussion going by inserting extraneous detail is actually opposed to what you understand to be the goal of a discussion; ending it with an agreement or other resolution. It can't go on forever, and not every point is worth discussing at length or even at all.

A Stray Poem

2006-06-27T07:09:00.000-04:00

Something I wrote while waiting for... I don't remember. But I was waiting and listening to Cheap Trick (if that tells you anything.)

Neither Dearth Nor Deprivation

In the endless, in the timeless
there stands a structure of unknown dimension.
Tall as the trees, silent in the breeze
it casts an ephemeral shadow.
What resides therein?
Therein lies the mystery.
Tantalizing the several senses,
deceitful as the faded memory.
The answer lies without.
Seek you it form or its function?
Have you that discovering unction?
Let not the voices dissuade you.
Do not permit them to persuade you
that your cause is without import.
The hunger to know, unmet,
is sharper than any blade they possess.
It fosters in you piercing regret.

Interesting (To Me)

2006-06-26T09:40:00.000-04:00

I spent about 3 hours on Saturday watching the NHL Draft being braodcast live from Vancouver. The result was, well, slightly underwhelming. It was a relatively quiet draft with only one trade of any sigificance at all (at least IMO), that being the one that sent Pavol Demitra out of Los Angeles and to Minnesota.

What has been intersting is all the talk about Chris Pronger. Some blame his wife for not letting him stay in Edmonton. Others, viewing the spouse as a lame excuse, blame Pronger himself.

I don't know; spouses are worth more than Stanley Cups to me. If your wife isn't happy then you can't be happy at work, no matter what you make.

So where does Chris end up? I would like to see a sign and trade of Zdeno Chara for Pronger myself. That isn't all that likely though. More likely, from a Senators' standpoint, is a trade for a goalie involving Vesa Toskala from San Jose with Martin Havlat and a goalie prospect (either Kelly Guard or Jeff Glass).

I think people wanting him in Toronto are dreaming; the Leafs are at least 2 years from contending. Better to put your resources elsewhere.

On the church front, we had our annual picnic yesterday. It was reasonably well attended. I have decided though that tghere is no connection between attendance and advertising. We advertised earlier and more this year and had fewer people in spite of better weather.

On a more literary front, I have been contemplating starting research for another devotional commentary. I am considerng a gospel (probably John) and a Pauline Epistle (Ephesians or Romans). Only one will "make the cut" of course. Any preferences?

Harder Than Writing a Book

2006-06-22T08:21:00.000-04:00

Any fool can write a book. I know, becuase I am as much a fool as the next person, and I have written one. So writing a book is not that hard.

What is hard is writing a book that someone else will publish. So what does it take to get someone to publish your book? Well you have to convince a publisher that what you have written is somethign they should want to publish. Publishing houses ususally restrict themselves to certain genres of books, having already determined they want to publish for a particular audience. So you have to convicne the publisher that what you have writtn will reach thier audience. You also have to convince the publisher it will sell.

The way you do that is through a successful book proposal. You have to write that too. Writing the proposal is infinitely harder than writing the book itself, nevermind that it is proabbly just a fraction the length of the book itself.

Yes, I am in the process of writing a proposal. And I am struggling with it. Yuck.

All About Bart

2006-06-20T22:20:00.000-04:00

Normally I don't respond to comments posted here. That's because the comments rarely require one when they appeasr, whic is itself a rare event.

The the other day this person "Seven Star Hand" leaves a comment longer than just about every blog entry I have ever made. Most of it I frankly did not follow up on. There was however a name mentiond that caught my eye: "Bart."

When I saw that I had a good idea that the reference was to Bart Ehrman, not Bart Simpson, and I was right. Ehrman is a scholar whose specialty is lower textual criticism, which deals specifically with wading thr0ugh the various copies we have of the New Testament, with all the differences between them, to come to a a complete New Testament in the original Koine Greek.

Now the methods and science involved is not exactly stirring stuff. In fact its a pretty dull read. For that amtter a lot of biblical studies is a pretty dull read as far as the average person is concerned. Ehrman though has used senatioanlist claims as the springboard for selling his vision of hte Greek New Testament. Ehrman claims that in his study he found that the Bible we have bears little resemblace to the original.

Sounds a bit like Brown's claims doesn't it? That may be why Seven Star Hand has linked the two. Anyway, Ehrman , like many scholars looking to hit the best seller list, has overstated his case and exaggertaed his conclusions. A solid interaction with his ideas and a refutation of his claims can be found here. Additinonal information that deals with the issues is here.

Yes that's all I wanted to do: point those out.

So I saw The Da Vinci Code

2006-06-18T13:17:00.000-04:00

Due to a convergence of unforeseen and rather unlikely events, my wife and I managed to have an evening out together. Because the local theatre is inexpensive, we took the time to see a movie. It was DAvinci Code or Nacho Libre.

The historical errors in the film are well documented, and by smarter people than me, so I won't go into that. What I will comment is the movie as a movie.

The movie was, at best, ok. I was never able to get into Tom Hanks' character. In some places he came off as a skeptic, others as a believer, but on the whole there was never any real sense that he really cared one way or the other all that passionately, such as to justify either his skepticism or his belief. He came across, mostly, as bored. Even the Langdon character's claustrophobia was not all that believable.

The characters by and large were disjointed. I never really had the sense of destiny that you look for in a character like Sophie's. You don't really sense the kind of menace that you should in Molina's Bishop character. Nor do you really get a chance to feel tragedy for him as a betrayed person, a manipulated pawn in Teabing's game. The best character was by far McKellan's Teabing, although his identity as the Teacher was quite predictable.

Frankly I found it too non-violent to be an action film, too slow to be a thriller, and too fast to be a true mystery. For the treasure hunt aspect "National Treasure" was better.

Even the effects didn't do anything for me. There were elements that I found has been done before and better in other films, such as the highlighting of letters to discern clues was reminiscent of "A Beautiful Mind" but it had actual effect in that film.

On the whole, it was just a disappointment as a film. Not a bad film, but it was not what it was hyped to be.

Sad Days

2006-06-17T15:36:00.000-04:00

I was saddened to learn yesterday that friend and member of the congregation Murray Boyd died. He was a good man, who had a real desire to grow in Christ. He will be missed by many, not least his family and those of his care group.

Sudden death is a great thing in sports, but in the real world it just hurts. It is worth remembering though that for Christians, the "real world" isn't this one, it is the eternity that we spend in the presence of God. This world is not our home; we just live here for a bit.

Still, we forget that. We think that this world is the "real one". May one of the legacies of Murray's passing be that he cause some to consider ultiamte reality, with the result that they find Jesus and end up standing next to Murray in the sight of the Lord.

Update on the book and other things

2006-06-14T08:38:00.001-04:00

The first draft of the book should be finished today, and I may even get to start on the second draft. I must say that I am almsot purturbed by how quickly the first draft has gone. For some reason I exepcted it would take a lot longer. It may mean somethign or nothing, but I alsmot feel like I have not worked hard enough on it to this point. I suppose that means the second draft will take somewhat longer to do.

Everyone I have spoken to seems to think I should try to get it published. In the end I suppose I will. I am not expecting anythign from that and I maintain that the writing process itself has been sufficiently rewarding for me to want to do it again.

I attended a Town Council meeting last night wherein one of the Councilors took the time to engage in little more than character assassination of people who put forward information he did not agree with. His actions may not have been illegal, or in violation of accepted Council decorum, but it was surely a sign of no class.

I continue to study the various erors in the Da Vinci Code. I continue to be amazed at just how many errors are in it, and how many implausibilities are introduced. Probably the most obvious (for me) deals withthe role of Constnatine. I woder If Brown ever read Eusebius "Life of Constantine"? There seems little relationship between Eusebius' account and Brown's. The assertion that Constnatine made wholesale changes to teh gospels is ridiulous on its face; we have pre-Nicene copies to compare the post-niocen copies to. If there were changes they would show up in that comparison, but nothing does.

Then ther are the Nag Hamadi texts which Brown has as being the earliest Chriustioan documents. For tha ssertion to be true, every single New Testament document would have to be dated a couple of hundred years later than it is now. Also the Nag Hamadi texts are gnostic. They are not, in fact, Christian, unless one wishes to begin by assuming that Christianity was originally gnostic (good luck proving that!).

What kills me is that these errors are easy to discover. Even a google search will reveal it. So why people take Brown seriously on this I don't know.

The Wedding Weekend

2006-06-11T22:41:00.000-04:00

We (the family) have returned from a weekend wedding in Windsor Ontario. Windsor is interesting for a very few reasons:

1) It is one of the rare places where a Canadian goes north to enter the U.S.

2) It has a good deal of French heritage.

3)... there is no 3.

Windsor is a pretty dirty, heavily industrialized city. It produces a lot of motor vehicles. It has a casino. But it has no discernable charm.

To their credit, the people of Windsor to whom I spoke seem aware fo the situastion, and deal with it in a postive manner. Well, that may be putting it a bit strongly. Actually they seemed to accept it much in the same way that they do the shift work that goes with the auto plants.

The wedding itself was unusually short. I had gotten used to the notion of Catholic weddings being at least an hour with communion involved, but such was not the case.
Thw whole service was about 40 minutes, and that with the priest having to wing hs way through the ceremony a bit. He forgot the order for the service. Perhaps he was thrown off by the very prominent Italian (about 1/3 of the sevice was spoken in Italian). In the end, the service went off with only the one hitch that was supposed to happen.

The Church itse;f was not quite my moher's Catholic Church. Oh, the architecture was the same, and all that, the sam old over emphasis on Mary. But the prayer candles are no longe candles but electric lights. Insurance needs claim another victim.

The reception was very loud, very alcoholic and very fattening. The desert and fruit table belonged in an art gallery. The reception hall itself was almost as intersting for me, being called the Giovanni Caboto Club. That, if you know your Canadian history (or geogrpahy) is the Italian version of John Cabot, he of the famed trail in Nova Scotia. That I took the time to ponder this in no way means that I was uninterested in the other things going on around me which included:

1) My wife, decked out as a Bridesmaid, outdoing pretty well every other woman in the place.

2) The food, delicious and endless.

3) My kids, one of whom fell asleep while the other discovered his "inner boogie".

4) People who shook what their mamma gave them, blissfully unaware that mamma had taken it back about 15 years ago.

I don't belong in 4). Not because I refrained from dancing. I did dance. Not because momma never gave me anything to shake. She did. No, the reaosn I don't belong in 4) is simple: Momma never took back what she gave me. Rather it has become overgrown. And I am aware of it.

Thanks to you all for not laughing.

What I am Reading

2006-06-07T08:28:00.000-04:00

For those who don't know, I have been invited to do a day-long seminar on philosophical ethics at a local school. They are grade 8's, og he "gifted and motivated learner" variety.

Who knew there was such a thing?

Anyway, in preparation for that I have been going over some of my old text books on the topic:

1. Principles of Ethics, by Paul W. Taylor
2. Elements of Moral Philosophy, by James Rachels
3. Various Articles in the "New International Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology" (IVP)

I am also, as always, reading commentaries. I am obne fo those poele who reads thm front to back. I am currently reading two out of the Pillar NT series:

Ephesians, by P.T. O'Brien and John by D.A. Carson

I am enjoying O'Brien because he sems to be intent on not being immediately painted into an exegetical corner by virtue of belonging to a particular denomination or theological tradition. I have particularly enjoyed his critical evaluation of the issues surrounding the question ofPauline authorship. He gives good reasons to hold that Paul wrote Ephesians, dealing in some length with the issue of pseudonymous authorship and the canon.

Carson is just a good read, full of intersting insights. It is, however not presented in my preferred style. Carson gives basic explanations with extende notes at the end of sections. That is something I take to be for the sake of people who don't want to wade through technical stuff to get the answers they are looking for. Instead I have to flip back and forth between pages to keep the general comments in line with the Additional Notes. Not a huge issue, but it is annoyig.

Also, for the sake of the small group I lead, I am reading Love & Respet by Emerson Eggerichs. It is a challenging book in many ways, however it could reaosnably be about half as many pages and be at least as effective.

So yes, a fair bit of reading.

The bok on James continues. I am up to about 45 pages, single spaced. I anticipate the first draft to be ready in a week or so. What I will do with it then, I have no idea.

No Post Mortem

2006-05-16T08:37:00.000-04:00

I have no choice but to acknowledge that my hockey team, the Ottawa Senators, was recently eliminated from the Stanley Cup Playoffs. That acknowledgement constitutes the sum total of my commentary on the topic.

I have weightier matters to ponder.

Like caffeine. As in, I drink too much of it. I have worked far too hard of late, and have spent the last couple of weeks essentially functioning on the strength of coffee. That , of course, could not continue. This past weekend, I slept something close to 24 hours in a 36 hour span. To make matters worse, I did this through Mother's Day.

I am considering this a wake up call. A combination fo workaholism and coffeeholism is dangerous indeed. So I have reached a solution. I will allow myself a maximum of teo caffeinated ocffees per day. Anything above that will have to be decaf.

A radical step? Perhaps. But necessary.

No, I am not dead

2006-05-11T00:24:00.000-04:00

Thanks for asking.

Actually I have been very busy. I am writing a book, a devotional commeantary (if there is such a thing.. if not I just made it up, so consider the term copyrighted) on the book of James.

If anyone cares, let me know and I'll post some of it.

I knew it all along, but...

2006-03-07T19:23:00.000-05:00

My youngest son and I were wrestling today. He eventually gave up, calling "Uncle!" in what was a most unexpected way.

My son is in Judo. One might have expected him to tap out. But no. Instead he roundly and loudly declared: "You're the Alpha Male!"

Where does a 7 year old get this stuf anyway?!

Thoughts On Tide

2006-03-07T08:48:00.000-05:00

I am fond of using an expression I learned while I was out East: A high tide raises all the boats. I apply it in a number of contexts. The key is to make clear what the "tide" is and what the "boats" are. For instance I sometimes use it in reference to the tide being a positive attitude that a person can carry, with the boats being the people in the church.

Lately though I have been using it in a slightly different way. If you'll pardon the mixing of the metaphor, the high tide is spiritual/biblical/theological depth, while the boats are the church.

The reason for this has to do with the growth of the church I serve. Numerically we grow all the time. In 2000, our average attendance was about 80. Today it is closer to 150, and we are routinely hitting 170. God is good! What makes this growth so amazing is that most of it is conversion growth, as opposed to transfer from other churches.

Our church has a reputation of taking in people who won't be accepted in other places, people with mental illness, AIDS, and the like. We get people who are utterly unchurched. This speaks volumes about the spiritual maturity of the core of the congregation.

The problem comes in where that core has to be spread out to minister to the expanding congregation. The core gets spread out, spread thin, and, in the absence of intentional training to supplement them as leaders, burnt out. Now, we do have a process to help people grow in their social maturity. We teach them how to live in a Christian way. In some senses maybe you could argue that we help them develop spiritual maturity that way. That doesn't change the fact that they have very little knowledge about Christian doctrine. While maturity is hard to measure in that area, it is probably true that people are not, on average, that much more biblically literate than they were, say, two years ago. They might still struggle to tell you which books are in which Testament.

The net effect, as far as the metaphor is concerned, is that the core of the congregation, the ones who have the biblical and theological depth are concerned, is being let out to serve the newcomers and not being replaced. The tide is going out, so to speak.

So what do we do? Well, I am working on doctrine classes to supplement the ones that are part of our current curriculum on how to live the Christian life. After all, if we don't explain why people ought to live a certain way, and where they get the power to do it, then we are imposing a new legalism on people. The only difference is that we call it "living healthy" instead of "being righteous and holy."

And God wants more than that.

Coincidence? I Think Not!

2006-03-02T09:05:00.000-05:00

My wife and I are both busy people. We get few enough opportunities to do what we mutually enjoy, and so we occasionally (read: rarely) schedule times to just hang out. Without the kids. Today is one such.

Today is also the first snow day of 2006. School is cancelled, and the kids are home.

The name of God, I am convinced, is "Murphy".

Let it be said that this snow day, unlike many others this year, is justified. It is a mess out there. That said, I am desperate enough to hang out with my wife that I am going to try to make the drive to Cambridge (where apparently it is not currently snowing) regardless.

It's Hard To Be Humble

2006-02-25T17:18:00.000-05:00

There is a country and western song, I believe it is by Merle Haggard, which goes "Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble..." Loathe as I am to agree with anything country, I have in this case little choice. It isn't that I think I am perfect in every way. No one who knows me would suggest that, and I do have my two boys who, in their youthful honesty, remind me daily of my shortcomings.

No, the reason I find it hard to be humble is because I find it hard to know what being humble means. Some people seem to think that being humble means you having to constantly downplay your strengths, or at least remain silent about them. If you are not self-deprecating, or if you speak of your strengths, then you aren't humble. I haven't quite figured out why. Perhaps it is because of an assumption that self-promotion is inherently egotistical. Maybe it is because it is believed that to speak well of yourself is to automatically imply a commensurate negative assessment of others.

This is, in my opinion, neither a healthy nor a biblical view of humility. I believe that a healthy humility is one that sees a person have a balanced, sensible, and sober assessment of his or her strengths and weaknesses. Both can be spoken of, and with equal ease. In the case of the strengths, they are spoken of with due deference to the Lord who gave them. In the case of weaknesses, they are spoken of with due concession that these will be dealt with by that same Lord.

Too restrictive a view of humility denies us the chance to celebrate what God has done. Let us not go that route.

No Ghosts

2006-02-24T08:44:00.000-05:00

This week we completed our survey of reasons why it is vital for Christians to hold to the full humanity of Jesus Christ. Next week we'll be tackling the deity I think.

What we focused on this week was the resurrection body of Jesus. It is a pretty speculative question since there is really very little about it that is said. One thing that really boggled my mind though was how eager people were to see Jesus' body as being able to walk through walls. Not that I want to say that it is impossible, but really the evidence isn't there to support the notion.

If you look at John's Gospel, chapter 20, you read the following:

19 In the evening of that first day of the week, the disciples were [gathered together] with the doors locked because of their fear of the Jews. Then Jesus came, stood among them, and said to them, "Peace to you!"

26 After eight days His disciples were indoors again, and Thomas was with them. Even though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them. He said, "Peace to you!"

It is assumed that in both these cases Jesus body was immaterial and so he was able to walk through walls. I say it is assumed because nowhere does the text actually say that. The argument seems to be more of a rhetorical question: how did he just appear then if he could not walk through walls being immaterial?

The problem though is that the question is not really rhetorical; there are answers other than "there is no other way." In Acts you see how people escape from cells in a similar fashion, and we don't assume they were immaterial (Acts 5:19,23; 12:6-10). Further we do see how people's perceptions are manipulated so as t be unable to see things that in fact are right before them (Lk. 24:16).

In other words, the Bible provides us with precedent for other explanations. Precedents, to me , should be accepted as explanations ahead of the idea of walking through walls.

Under the Heading of "Say What?!"

2006-02-21T22:30:00.000-05:00

***Your Five Factor Personality Profile***

Extroversion:

You have medium extroversion.
You're not the life of the party, but you do show up for the party.
Sometimes you are full of energy and open to new social experiences.
But you also need to hibernate and enjoy your "down time."

Conscientiousness:

You have medium conscientiousness.
You're generally good at balancing work and play.
When you need to buckle down, you can usually get tasks done.
But you've been known to goof off when you know you can get away with it.

Agreeableness:

You have high agreeableness.
You are easy to get along with, and you value harmony highly.
Helpful and generous, you are willing to compromise with almost anyone.
You give people the benefit of the doubt and don't mind giving someone a second chance.

Neuroticism:

You have low neuroticism.
You are very emotionally stable and mentally together.
Only the greatest setbacks upset you, and you bounce back quickly.
Overall, you are typically calm and relaxed - making others feel secure.

Openness to experience:

Your openness to new experiences is medium.
You are generally broad minded when it come to new things.
But if something crosses a moral line, there's no way you'll approve of it.
You are suspicious of anything too wacky, though you do still consider creativity a virtue.

The Five Factor Personality Test
http://www.blogthings.com/thefivefactorpersonalitytest/

How You Life Your Life

You have a good sense of self control and hate to show weakness.
You tend to avoid confrontation and stay away from sticky situations.
You tend to have one best friend you hang with, as opposed to many aquaintences.
Some of your past dreams have disappointed you, but you don't let it get you down.

How Do You Live Your Life?

Think about it

2006-02-21T08:30:00.000-05:00

People are often predictable. They are of course occasionally surprising, but when they are so, it is usally in just how predictable they can be. One likes to think that even the most programmed thinker can rise above his or her programming, that an inidividual might show him or herself to in fact be an individual. One likes to think that. One sometimes even hopes for it and longs for evidence that it is true. One is more oftentimes disappointed.

That is, until God takes over. Then the hold of prior prgramming is broken, and suddenly a certain randomness, a free radical style of thinking comes into play. Hope is born amid new possibilities.

Some people think that giving life over to God means becomng a robot, controlled by soem outsde force. The truht is that people are robots before encountering Jesus, not after. Paul puts it well in his letter to Titus 3:

3It wasn't so long ago that we ourselves were stupid and stubborn, dupes of sin, ordered every which way by our glands, going around with a chip on our shoulder, hated and hating back. 4But when God, our kind and loving Savior God, stepped in, 5he saved us from all that. It was all his doing; we had nothing to do with it. He gave us a good bath, and we came out of it new people, washed inside and out by the Holy Spirit. 6Our Savior Jesus poured out new life so generously. 7God's gift has restored our relationship with him and given us back our lives. And there's more life to come--an eternity of life! 8You can count on this.

Thoughts from last night

2006-02-16T08:53:00.000-05:00

Last night I started a study on basic doctrines. To make it a little more interesting, and to try to teach people how to think critically, I approached it in terms of a question: What's the big deal?

The topic was the humanity of Christ. I find it a fascinating doctrine because it is so taken for granted as true, yet it also so downplayed. We prefer to contemplate the glory of the cosmic Christ rather than wonder how Jesus' coped with splinters or what his personal hygiene was like.

But what's the big deal? Well, a lot of very important doctrines are affected if Jesus is not fully human, but perhaps none more so than the Atonement. In theological terms we speak of Jesus as having achieved a substitutionary atonement. Atonement refers to a covering of sin, as well as deflecting the wrath of God towards sin. "Substitutionary" means what you probably think it does; Jesus took our place, and was our substitute in paying the death penalty for sin. His death was a death for us.

But if Jesus was not human, then he could not really be our substitute. One of the faults of the Old Covenant was that the animals that were sacrificed were insufficient to achieve true atonement. Only a human being can substitute for a human being.

But it could not be just any human being. The human being had to be perfectly righteous. In a substitution, a pair of exchanges take place. One is of course that we exchange places. The other is that we exchange positions. We get the righteous standing while the substitute takes on our status of condemned.

So in the exchange between us and Jesus, where does the righteousness we receive come from? Many might think that it comes from Jesus' nature as God. I believe that it comes from Jesus' human nature. Jesus was perfectly obedient to the will of God. Where the first Adam failed, Jesus, as the last Adam, succeeded. His obedience was the means by which he acquired, as a human, the righteousness that gets credited to us.

Take away the humanity of Christ, and there is no righteousness to be credited to us. We might have our sins forgiven, but that doesn't give us in itself the right to stand before God. To be in God's presence you need to be righteous, not just forgiven. So we would not really be any better off if Jesus were not human.

That sounds complicated. It is in a way. It takes into account a lot of different scriptures. It actually touches on a lot of other related issues. But it all works, and it just shows me how awesome God really is.

As Good As It Gets

2006-02-14T08:32:00.000-05:00

I suspect that in terms of my health, things are as good as they are going to get for a while. It is just going to take time for my energy and stamina to get back to where they should be.

It is Valentine's Day today. It is one of those days I like to get some historical background on. I am such a romantic. If you are as romantic as I, then feel free to go here.

My kids have their valentines to hand out to their classmates, and a few selected others. They are of course asking questions like "What's a secret admirer?". They are only 7 and 8, so its a bit of a challenge to give then age appropriate answers. Thankfully their interest is pretty superficial. There is one girl who asks my oldest who he loves. I told him to answer that he loves his family and he loves Jesus. I figure that will either shut the girl down (she isn't on the list) or it will confuse her. Either way I hope she will leave him alone.

I told the boys today they don't have to worry about girls because they aren't allowed to date, nor will they be allowed to date. They actually looked relieved. Good for them!

Reports of My Death

2006-02-09T22:19:00.000-05:00

are only slightly exaggerated. When I feel better, I'll post more. I really hate pneumonia.

My Spidey Sense Tells Me...

2006-02-01T17:53:00.000-05:00

our results:
You are Spider-Man

Spider-Man		80%
Hulk		55%
The Flash		55%
Batman		50%
Green Lantern		45%
Superman		45%
Robin		37%
Catwoman		30%
Wonder Woman		25%
Supergirl		25%
Iron Man		20%

You are intelligent, witty,
a bit geeky and have great
power and responsibility.

Click here to take the Superhero Personality Quiz

Making Mountains Out of Mole Hills?

2006-02-01T08:51:00.000-05:00

I have been keeping track of the discussion over "The Homosexual Question" I referred to in an earlier post. I have to say its been fascinating and illustrative.

McClaren has been gracious, if less than direct, with his views. At first I thought he was just being pastoral in his dealing with homosexuality. That is a concern I can say I share, and I think my post in response reflects that.

However, I have started to think that in fact McClaren is not being pastoral for its own sake, or because being pastoral is the right thing to be when you're a pastor. Instead, I have begun to think that McClaren is being pastoral because it is consistent with his more postmodern mindset.
Postmodern/Emergent types are generally loathe to say what they actually believe. They can't; positions are incompatible with the dialogue or conversation that emergent prizes.

That much I knew, but reading McClaren I am beginning to think that emergent actually goes out of its way to make it hard to even reach positions or conclusions. The constant invoking of questions would seem to point in that direction. Most interesting though is McClaren's appeal to scholarly debate on the question of homosexuality. I am familiar with those debates, and, while the conclusions one reaches on the finer points would certainly have a significant impact, the fact is the debates themselves are very often tempests in teapots.

Let me explain: scholars, in a bid to mine the mind of God, will ask all kinds of questions, and raise all kinds of issues. They will be significant in that the answer will have an impact on the understanding of a passage under consideration. However sometimes scholars will ask questions which are almost moot. That is, they will raise the possibility of an alternative explanation for something that is possible, but highly unlikely. The result is a scholarly debate that produces a lot of light, but little heat.

Such debates are good for the academy in that they help maintain the integrity of academic rigor. They may even lead at some point to a significant contribution to the life of the Body of Christ at large. Most often however they do not; they raise questions rather than provide answers. For the average person who is looking for guidance for life, debates ad nauseum on points ad absurdum is not helpful may actually be harmful.

For emergents, those people who want to continually converse, such debates are useful in that they provide reasons to not reach conclusions and continue conversations. But to the extent that such conversations can be harmful to the Body at large, it is a method that is actually antithetical to a truly pastoral approach. This is in fact what McClaren does. He appeals to complexity as a basis for not making pronouncements. The fact that the complexity is to an extent fabricated and over issues which are themselves unlikely is not mentioned.

This leads me to the conclusion that McClaren is in fact not being pastoral at all. He is just being postmodern. That he confuses the two, either intentionally or otherwise is worrisome.

By the way, I am not arguing for a return to anti-intellectualism in any way. I support academic thoroughly. I do believe however that when we are using academics in the context of pastoral ministry, and communicating issues which are in debate in the academy, we need to do so while also evaluating the "weight" of a given debate. If a debate is only 1% likely to really end up impacting our understanding, then ought we be raising it before the people in the pews? I don't think so. I was taught to "not preach our doubts." There is a pastoral wisdom there that postmoderns, and McClaren in particular, seem to forget.

Thanks to McDLT

2006-01-30T18:41:00.000-05:00

I have been duly informed that indeed, the Elvis Impersonators are alive and well, and, perhaps, in a pulpit near you.

Check this out.

Bad Karaoke?

2006-01-30T12:41:00.000-05:00

Several months ago I was attendig an anniversary party for one fo the families in my congregation. There was karaoke there.

I don't like Karaoke. For me, it is right up there with bad lounge singers, and cheap E;vis impersonators.

You can imagine then how aback I was taken when O was challenged thusly: "Our worship services are karaoke, you know!"

I had to think about that one. I had to admit that yes we sing along to words on a screen while the music plays. No bouncing ball or anything, but that doesn't seem relevant. The only significant differences are that the music is played live, we are not on stage, and we all sing the song together.

Still, it is basically karaoke.

Is that bad thing? Well, assuming the proper heart and focus for worship is present, no, I don't think so. After all, our "karaoke" is no different from when congregational singing along to music played on organs while reading from hymnals. The instruments have changed, the way we broadcast the words has changed, but that's all.

Sure, we once had choirs; now we have worship bands. Again, assuming the heart is there, the function the two serve in a service is identical.

So , keeping in mind that the heart of worship must always be at the heart of worship, says I: Bring on the Karaoke!

Just don't brign in the Elvis impersonators.

Strange Days Indeed

2006-01-29T23:18:00.000-05:00

Sometimes God puts poeple in your path that cause you to suddenly question what you think you know.

This weekend I encountered two such people.

One was a memebr of the church who stated that having me in their class as a student would be intimidating. I thought that an odd reaction, since I acknowledge this person to be a far better teacher than I.

Juxtapose this with bumping into a pastor friend at a gas station. I had actually driven by his church a couple of weeks ago. At the time I noted that his name as not on the sign outside the building. I didn't think that was (pardont he pun) a good sign. But tonight I met him and inquired as to his activities. He has left the ministry more or less; he is part time only to help pay for his teacher's college courses.

This blew me away; I have long regarded him as an excellent pastor. He possesses a wonderful heart and tremendous patience. But, he says, he got tired of being the bad guy. His family wanted him "back."

If he could not make it in ministry over the ong haul, I have to wonder what I think I am doing. Add to that some other things going on, and, well, like I said, God sometimes makes you question what you think you know. Sometimes it is to re-affirm that you indeed know what you think you know. Other times it is disconfirm your opinion.

Time, and prayer, will tell.

Life After Politics

2006-01-27T09:33:00.000-05:00

Means Sports.

In the news... Rob Babcock gets fired as GM of the Toronto Raptors. That's a bit of a surprise to me. There really isn't anything that a new GM can do to impact things mid-season, so the timing is a bit odd. Personally I think Babcock has improved a lot over the last year, and should have been allowed to finish his contract, or at least get to this point next year. I suspect Richard Peddie is trying to save his own job on this one. After all, neither team at MLSE is doing particularly well right now.

About that other team at MLSE... stuck firmly in the doldrums, the Leafs have only one thing going for them; all the teams they are competing with are in abot the same boat.

Ottawa got a shutout against the Habs... can you believe Hasek only had to face 12 shots? His comment about how shutouts like that shouldn't count is funny. There were two things I particulalrly enjoyed seeing. One was former Senator Radek Bonk getting plastered with an open ice check. He is a seriosuly big guy, Bok is, and he was constantly criticised for not using his body while in Ottawa. Glad to see him see what a check is up close and personal.

The other thing I enjoyed seeing was Sheldon Souray getting turned inside out by, of all people, Zdeno Chara with a nice dangle, who then scoring on an even nicer shot. Big Z is not knon for his stick handling, and you could see where Souray was completely unprepared for the move.

Now for the question that I have spent all of 15 minutes pondering: What is the toughest division in the NHL?

The award goes to the Northwest, where the last place Wild have a .540 winning percentage. Honourable mention goes to the Pacific, with the Northeast picking up third.

The weakest division is easliy the Central, where the third place Balckhawks have a .400 winning percentage. Makes me wonder if the Predators and Red Wings really are as good as their records would suggest.

Odds And Ends

2006-01-26T08:38:00.000-05:00

First, a note about the "new look." I have been feeling for the last couple of weeks that the previous design was, well busy, and hard to read. I wanted to find something that was cleaner. I haven't found anything that really rocks me yet, at least anything that works with Blogger. I intend to keep looking, but in the meantime this will do.

Second, a note about the Biblical. I have noticed that there seems to be a kind of growing restlessness with the Bible. It doesn't seem to be exciting or sexy enough. Thomas Nelson has come up with Bible-zines to try and make it more appealing. Many interpreters are coming up with ways to "go beyond" the text, be it with a "trajectory hermeneutic", a "redemptive-movement hermeneutic" or a penchant to want to interpret clear passages with unclear ones.

I must be getting old. I used to think innovation was cool. I still do actually. But I guess I have lost the "anything goes" mentality. I used to sort of ask the rhetorical question "what harm can it do to try it?" Now I know some of the possible answers to that question. As a result I am a more cautious, and more insistent on being discerning and thoughtful before embracing something new.
For example, the MB Conference leadership has apparently embraced uncritically the Redemptive movement hermeneutic. I see no sign that any thought has been given to possible consequences. The thing is, it is not the consequences you intend so much as the ones you don't that cause the problems. Failure to try to predict consequences is a failure of leadership and vision.

I think this development goes hand in hand with my view of the Creeds of Christendom. We can discuss things, but it isn't like those things are up for grabs; we are not going to re-invent the wheel. So we can discuss Christology, and some of the things surrounding the Hypostatic Union, and such, but Chalcedonian Christology itself is not in question. Its a belief that we are to hold, not because its in a Creed, but because the Creed accurately portrays the Bible's teaching.

Anyway, I have lot more typing to do today. Better get to it before I get finger cramps.

About "The Homosexual Question"

2006-01-24T23:17:00.000-05:00

Note: For those who are wondering what inspires this post, go here.

I have to admit that I have not had much experience with homosexuality as it pertains to pastoral ministry. I have met many homosexual people, counted some as friends. At one point, I was preparing to debate publicly the issue of whether homosexuality is consistent with Christian orthodoxy. I have even done some counseling of believers who have homosexual relatives. That however is but a small fraction of my experience.

The article I read recently (linked above) does not ask the bare question of whether homsoexuality is biblical or not however. It goes into the somewhat murkier waters of how we go about communicating our belief.

We can be honest here: answering a question posed in classroom ought to be answered in a manner different from that which would be used if that same question were posed in, say, a therapy session. The answer should be the same, ultimately. However the two settings are sufficiently distinct to justify different approaches to responding. A classroom setting is strictly informational. However a therapy session is not just looking for information; there is also an element of meaning and significance that is tied into things.

To bring in the current case, in a classroom I would clearly answer that homosexuality is incompatible with biblical Christianity, and I would give my biblical grounds for saying so. I would expect that some questions would arise, but they would deal with the validity of my conclusions and the accuracy of my facts.

In a pastoral visit though, it would be different. I would want to know why they are asking questions about the topic, just as the article's author does. My desire would simply be to discern the question behind the question. That "question behind the question" is really the one that needs to be addressed immediately.

I have made the mistake of not asking about the question behind the question. I was asked once a question about euthanasia. I described what it is, in strictly academic terms. What I did not realize was that the person asking was considering a situation with her father. She was a nurse, and I was addressing the issue as one professional to another; it did not occur to me that there would be any other concerns. The result was that I was labeled as being uncaring, and a relationship was lost.

Now I ask for the question behind the question. I do not assume that people are just looking for information. Most often they are not. Most often I find they are looking to find out if they can trust you. If they can, then they will let you speak to them on the level of dispensing information. At the beginning though there is a need to establish a relationship. Asking about that question behind the question is crucial in establishing that relationship.

Still, we need not abandon or soft peddle our convictions. I have found it effective to simply point out that I do have my convictions, but that for the time being it would be better served to get to know one another. People listen better in the context of a relationship. Once people know our heart we are in a position to give them a piece of our mind.

The Morning After

2006-01-24T09:22:00.000-05:00

I suppose the title of this post is a bit misleading; after all, its also the title of a movie about a post nuclear holocaust world. That description hardly fits the situation today.

As we all know by now, the Conservatives won a minority government, a small one. This is probably, from both a Canadian and Conservative standpoint, the best possible outcome. The reasons are several:

1) Canadians get to punish the Liberals without decimating them. This means that the Liberals will have time to renew their party while eliminating the situation that has plagued Canada the last decade: no effective opposition. The Liberals are very experienced and will be able to hold the Conservatives in check.

2) The Conservatives will not be tempted to govern like they have a majority. We will not have a repeat of the incident with Joe Clark. This means that Conservatives will be forced to govern relatively moderately, from the political center. That will go a long way to easing the fears of those who fear the "conservative social agenda." That should also make it easier for the Conservatives to get re-elected, and with a majority, in a couple of years.

3) With the announced departure of Paul Martin, the Conservatives have an excellent chance of making Parliament work. With no Prime-Minister-in-waiting, there will be not so much concern about the government being toppled.

On a local level, former Liberal MP and cabinet minister was defeated again, and by a larger margin, I believe, than last time. Bob Speller was not able to live down his party. Bob ran a solid campaign (even if I do think the "Bring Back Bob" slogan was campy and amateurish), and worked hard. Bob should not see this as a personal rejection.

That said, Diane Finley will likely give this riding a prominent voice in Cabinet. One of the relatively few women in the caucus, and from Ontario to boot (her husband being on Stephen Harper's personal staff won't hurt) pretty well guarantees that. She is very capable, and will serve the riding well.

On a final note, the departure of Paul Martin Jr., while not surprising, is still worthy of some pathos. His entire political life was geared towards being what his father was not: Prime Minister of Canada. Once he achieved his goal, he found himself, and was found by Canadians, to be lacking. That is going to weigh heavily on his mind for a long time. He is not solely responsible for the outcome of the election, but he made errors, serious ones. In the long run history will judge him to be perhaps Canada's best Finance Minister. That won't be what he wants; it isn't what he wanted. He will have to settle for that though. Most people would say it is enough.

A Bit of Bonhoeffer

2006-01-23T14:56:00.000-05:00

Who Am I?

by Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Who am I? They often tell me

I stepped from my cell’s confinement

Calmly, cheerfully, firmly,

Like a squire from his country-house.

Who am I? They often tell me

I used to speak to my warders

Freely and friendly and clearly,

As though it were mine to command.

Who am I? They also tell me

I bore the days of misfortune

Equally, smilingly, proudly,

Like one accustomed to win.

Am I then really all that which other men tell of?

Or am I only what I myself know of myself?

Restless and longing and sick, like a bird in a cage,

Struggling for breath, as though hands were

compressing my throat,

Yearning for colors, for flowers, for the voices of birds,

Thirsting for words of kindness, for neighborliness,

Tossing in expectation of great events,

Powerlessly trembling for friends at an infinite distance,

Weary and empty at praying, at thinking, at making,

Faint, and ready to say farewell to it all?

Who am I? This or the other?

Am I one person today and tomorrow another?

Am I both at once? A hypocrite before others,

And before myself a contemptibly woebegone weakling?

Or is something within me still like a beaten army,

Fleeing in disorder from victory already achieved?

Who am I? They mock me, these lonely questions of mine.

Whoever I am, Thou knowest, 0 God, I am Thine!

Scary things happen

2006-01-22T22:10:00.000-05:00

I enjoy a good conversation. That's a polite saying I talk a lot. I suppose that, statistically speaking, it was inevitable that something I say should make an impact. I guess I just thought that the infinite number of monkeys the U.S. Government has secreted away, typing on an infinite number of keyboards in Area 51 would produce the next great American Novel first.

That's just the first scary thing to happen this weekend.

The second scary thing was the Ottawa Senators blowing out the Toronto Maple Leafs 7-0. That's three consecutive landslide victories. Why is that scary? Well, partly because it makes me wonder when the bubble is going to burst, and how. Mostly though it scares me because it seems even less probable than my words making an impact. I mean, that's some very improbable things happening in relatively close temporal proximity.

The point? The election is tomorrow. Pray hard.

If only the RCC had been this humble

2006-01-20T21:13:00.000-05:00

prior to the encounter with Luther at the Diet of Worms. The Body of Christ, I think, would be the beter for it.

Catholic Online

Let It Not Be Forgotten

2006-01-18T18:41:00.000-05:00

I am a hockey fan. Almost a fanatic.

It was suggested recently that Bryan McCabe of the Toronto Maple Leafs should have been named to the Canadian Men's Olympic squad over Wade Redden of the Ottawa Senators.

Now, I am a Senators fan. But I am not being a homer when I say that there is no way McCabe should be considered over Redden.

Those who make the suggestion point to McCabe's offensive production. Here it is:
42 GP, 15 Goals, 34 Assists for 49 points (1.17 ppg). Over those games he is a +5 with an average time on ice of 28:11 with 7:30 of that being on the power play.

Now Wade Redden's stats:

34 GP, 7 Goals, 28 assists for 35 points ( 1.03 ppg). Over those games he is a +26 with an average time on ice of 24:25 with 5:50 of that being on hte power play.

Nowif you ask me, the diffference in terms of offense is negligible. Redden's ppg is very close, and that is with about 3:40 minutes less ice time generally and 1:40 less power play time per game specifically.

But the real kicker is the plus/minus. Redden ranks 2nd in that stat among defensemen. 3rd in the entire NHL. McCabe ranks 41stamong defensemen., about 100th in the NHL.

IMO, that means that by having Redden over McCabe you lose nothing if you need a defenseman to make some offense in a game where you're behind, and you gain a lot if you are protecting a lead.

Now if you were to ask me about having McCabe over say Rob Blake, then I would say yes to McCabe.

So for you Leaf fans, let me spell out what I just said directly: I think McCabe should be among the top 6 defensmen for the Olympic squad. Just not over Redden.

The Problem With Exceptions

2006-01-18T09:06:00.000-05:00

You have to respect the enterprising, even entrepreneurial spirit of some in the church these days. They are bastions of innovation, sources of inspiration, and typically covered in perspiration. They have a clearly missionary mindset, and are willing to do what it takes to fulfill the mission and purpose of the local church.

unfortunately they don't like rules. Oh, now of course they won;t say that, but really their love for rules runs dry almost as soon as the rules start to "cramp their style". That's when you get talk of the need to deal with exceptions and make allowances for unique circumstances.

Well, you know what? I am totally up for that discussion. I am totally game for thinking in terms of "normalizing" instead of "normative." I just wish that people would play fair when they play that game.

When you talk about making things normal instead of normative, you are dealing with the nuance that distinguishes a prescriptive rule from a descriptive precedent. Again, I will say I am fine with this. It takes longer, and it deals more in the gray areas, but we are under grace, not law, and that's fine. But some folks just don't play fair.

That's twice I've said that. I had better explain. When I say that some don't play fair, I mean they use the fact that things are not really rules to not follow the descriptions of what is normal, and they do it without decent justification. Saying that you don't have to do something because it is only a normal process doesn't mean you are not accountable; you still have to explain why you don't want to go through the normal process. You can't just ignore the normal process and call it an exception after the fact. There has t be accountability there.

I don't know that everyone gets that.

I know that they don't get it for all the right reasons. It is the very things that make them so good at being innovators in the church.

What's funny is that I tend to think of myself as something of an innovator. I guess I have found my limit.

An Argument For Cessationism

2006-01-17T14:11:00.000-05:00

Inasmuch as we do not want to derive our theology from experience, we need to ask what direct evidence there is from Scripture to support our beliefs. With this in mind we now turn to one of the main passages which is purported to support the Cessationist position.

Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for languages, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when the perfect comes, the partial will come to an end. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put aside childish things. For now we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, as I am fully known. Now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love. (1 Co. 13:8-13 HCSB)

This is one of the most important passages in the discussion regarding cessationism since it addresses a time when gifts will "come to an end," or "cease". No one, to my knowledge, denies that there will come a time when the gifts are to cease operating within the believing community. The real question is just when this is supposed to happen, according to Scripture.

This passage tells us that the gifts of tongues (languages), prophecy, and knowledge will cease when the perfect comes. It is important to note that it is only these three which are mentioned. One of the criticisms of the cessationist position is that it is inconsistent; it allows that a gift of administration or teaching might still be operative, but not tongues or prophecy. In the above passage we see a warrant for this position; if the time of the perfect's arrival is already come, then, according to this passage, we should expect that those gifts specifically mentioned should have indeed ceased. Church history then would seem to support that conclusion. However using church history in that fashion is arguably logically fallacious, using post hoc reasoning.

Crucial at this point is the identification of "the perfect." If we are to say that certain Gifts of the Spirit have ceased, then we must be able to determine what the perfect is that has supplanted them. To attempt to argue that the gifts have ceased without such an identification is to beg the question. To the best of my knowledge the only identification that is put forward is that "the perfect" refers to the canon of Scripture.

Let me clear here: by "the canon of Scripture" I am not referring to the list of books that we recognize today, but rather the books themselves. Canonicity is a function of inspiration; only those writings God inspired can be called canonical. This means the extent of the canon is determined by the number of writings that God inspired. The moment the last document was completed, the canon was closed; it remained only for the Body of Christ to recognize the Voice of God in them.

This is all well and good. The problem is that there is nothing in the context of 1Co. 13 that leads one to expect or suspect that a canon, open or closed is in view. More common is the idea that "the perfect" is the completed Kingdom of God, or even Christ Himself. In either case, it is not possible to say that it has come already, relative to the present day. The conclusion that we are forced to then is that Scripture does not teach, in this passage at least, that we should expect any Gifts of the Spirit to have already ceased.

Some might want to argue that this conclusion should mean that we be able to see the Gifts at work, all of them, uniformly throughout history. But this denies a basic teaching of the New Testament about the Gifts, namely that they are given according to the sovereign will of God the Holy Spirit (1 Co. 12:11). To say that the Gifts have not ceased does not obligate God to provide them in a particular way.

At least, we ought not think in such a way; we want to avoid presumption either way.

More On Cessationism

2006-01-16T08:28:00.000-05:00

One of the criticisms that is leveled against those who insist that the more conspicuous are or at least can be operative today is that they allow themselves, at least on that topic, to be normed more by experience than by Scripture. That is, they think that their experience tells them what is right and wrong instead of Scripture.

It works this way:

People who have had a positive charismatic experience are likely to read the Bible in such a way that validates their experience.

Really it is an accusation of bias, nothing more. The argument really ought to be dismissed, if for no other reason than it can be turned against those who oppose the charismata as well. Cessationists can be accused of letting their experience of no charismata in their life or tradition or a negative experience, determine what they think the Bible says.

But the simple accusation of bias is a poor and lazy argument. Poor because, as noted, it cuts both ways, and lazy since it tends to distract from a more pertinent question: What does the Bible say?

It is a question that needs to be addressed in a way different from what is typically the case on the subject of charismatic gifts. Usually you see to sides lobbing proof texts at one another, without any serious dialogue or interaction. Sometimes things get a bit better; there is the lobbing of competing interpretations of larger texts. Still though interaction with those interpretations, is rare.

That's a shame, because it means that the two sides have already lost sight of something vital: Charismatics and non-charismatics, while maintaining different positions, have he same priorities. Both want to glorify God. Both want to be obedient disciples of Christ Jesus. Both want to be submissive to God's Word.

The fact is that this ought to be an intramural debate. But both sides build such high walls around their positions that it has become in many quarters an inter-mural debate. Both sides need to step back from their positions and reach out to one another on the basis of shared priorities, then move forward.

Practically speaking, moving forward will mean be willing to give in a little. Not compromise truth, but to give where appropriate, such as admitting that difficult or unclear passages are just that, or admitting that an interpretation is not so clearly or directly derived from the text of Scripture as we might like.

That takes humility, and a willingness to see that truth is better served by seeing the best in those with whom we disagree. Too often both of these are lacking.

Next time I'll take a look at a couple of passages which are at the heart of the debate.

One more thing

2006-01-14T18:38:00.000-05:00

I don't believe that "cessationism or non-cessationism (continuationism)?" is the right question. It is a question of authority--biblical authority, not just do certain gifts exist or don't exist today.

Source

This is exactly right. It is also exactly right to say that, as long as charismatics maintain the willingness to allow all things that claim to be manifestations of the Holy Spirit to be scrutinxed bythe Word of God, then they are maintaining a properly biblical approach to authority.

A Note On Cessationism.

2006-01-14T17:54:00.000-05:00

Definitions are important when you get into some discussions. Ok, all discussions, but some more than others.

The reason I note this now is because of a blog called Pyromaniac . In a post labeled "You're probably a cessationist, too" the author essentially concludes that even a charismatic is a cessationist under the right conditions. The relevant paragraph states

Again, consider the implications of that claim: Deere and Grudem have, in effect, conceded the entire cessationist argument. They have admitted that they are themselves cessationists of sorts. They believe that the true apostolic gifts and miracles have ceased, and they are admitting that what they are claiming today is not the same as the charismata described in the New Testament.

Now this seems entirely reasonable until you go back tot eh beginning of the topic and see what the author's operative definition of a cessationist is:

If you believe any of the miraculous spiritual gifts were operative in the apostolic era only, and that some or all of those gifts gradually ceased before the end of the first century, you are a cessationist.

The problem is that this is not a true definition. Cessationism isn't merely the descriptive position that the author takes, but also a theological/exegetical position that states that in fact there can be no gifts operative outside the apostolic era.

This foundational flaw leads to a series of comments about how charismatics are in fact cessationists to some degree, all based on the descriptive definition. Of course the descriptive is the very thing that many cessationists decry in charismatics: an argument from experience.

I find this to be an equivocation on the author's part, possibly to make whatever position he takes later (there are more installments planned I think), possibly out of honest oversight.

At any rate it is an error that wants correcting. Consider it done.

Just when I thought it was getting dull around here

2006-01-14T10:16:00.000-05:00

I tend to ignore local politicians, except inasmuch as they might be able to impact broader policy. That would be why I like to have candidates who are good cabinet material.

But I already talked about that, and some folks thought I was being negative.

Well.

Let's just stick to some facts then. Here are a couple that I found very interesting.

Bob Speller, local Liberal candidate is very proud of his links to agriculture in this riding. Rightly so. Agriculture is very important around here, particularly tobacco.

However that doesn't seem to be enough to win the election. According to this site Bob will likely lose by an even bigger margin than last time.

Maybe that's why Bob is doing so much to convince people that not only is Bob a great guy for agriculture locally, he is a potent force nationally. He features quotes that say as much on his website.

The problem is that some of the quotes are bogus. Not that they are fabricated, but that they are planted. As Greg Weston of the Ottawa Sun reports:

The endorsement, first published in Speller's local newspaper and since featured prominently on his official website, begins: "As Western Canadian farmers ... who have endless respect for Bob Speller and the job he did as our agriculture minister during difficult times, we are writing to the residents of Haldimand-Norfolk (riding) in support of Bob."
Turns out, the three "farmers" who signed the endorsement happen to be a Manitoba Liberal candidate, campaign manager and riding vice-president.

I find this sort of thing hilarious. How are we to take endorsements seriously when they are clearly manufactured for partisan purposes?

I am sure this sort of thing won't help Bob.

Which is too bad, because he is a really nice guy. On the plus side, as long as the NDP and Christian Heritage Party are around, he is one nice guy who won't finish last.

Less than two weeks to go

2006-01-13T09:42:00.000-05:00

Praise God!

I am something of a politicval junkie, and I know something of how the system works, both theoretically (politial science in university) and practically (some political organising back in the early 90s). Even I however can say "enough."

And I am getting very near to that.

Why? I believe we have hit the wall in terms of getting anything productive done in this campaign.

The Liberals have given their entire platform already. No one cares though. There is too much focus being given to scandals, accusations of Chretien/Martin faction infighting, and over the top negative ads. From the LIberals' perspective it might be best to stop while they are only stabbing themselves in the back and shooting themselves in the foot (nevermind sticking that foot in thier mouth). You might not think it could get worse for them. You might think thigns can improve. I don't know; Murphy's Law seems to be throwing the book at the Liberals big time.

The NDP may or may not have given their whole platform. No one seems to care except insofar as they might be an alterntive for people who don't want to vote Liberal but can't hold their nose tightly enough to vote Conservative.

I don't bother with the Bloc or the Green.

The Conservatives haven't given their whole platform yet. I don't think it matters. They got the sexiest ones out already, like money for child care, cash for commuters, and a reduction in the GST. They have also already exceeded expectations in Quebec. Frankly it may not be possible for them to do better. Better to quit while you're ahead.

So let's vote already!

He Loves You, He Loves you Not

2006-01-12T08:22:00.000-05:00

Dear Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

I just wanted to write to encourage you in these difficult days. I understand that you are feeling hurt and confused. Used, even. You are not sure how your main defender (P.M. the PM) really feels.

Let's try to lay aside feelings for a moment. I am sure that if we take a step back and look at your defender's actions then you'll beable to see how he has been very consistent and constant in his love and concern for you.

Several months ago he was talking about how important you are to protecting religious freedom rights. That has to make you feel good. And when recently he spoke with such passion about he was going to stand by you and defend you... that had to fill your mind's eye with visions of a White Knight on his charger.

And look what he said next. He loves you so much that he is going to defend and protect you by changing you. He is going to feature you on Extreme Makeover: Constitution Edition. Nothing says love like "you gotta change".

Um, not really eh? Well maybe we shold think about it this way: Paul wants to make you better by removing the power of politicians to overrule the Supreme Court. Ok, so it would only apply to federal politicians. Ok, so it really sounds like jhe's trying to defend the Supreme Court more than you. Ok, so it looks like he is just trying to use you to attract the attention of other women.

Um, actually it does look like he is using you, abusing you and confusing you...

Maybe we should look at somethign else.

A Pair of Post-Mortems

2006-01-10T09:45:00.000-05:00

Post Mortem #1: The New Approach

Well, my best guess at the moment was that the new approach worked well. Time was prety well perfect. Response was very positive. I had more fun as well. I found that I was more focussed.

The reasons as near as I can tell have to do with different purposes. Typically when I write a sermon I am looking for memorable lines and what not. When doing a lesson I am less concerned with being memorable as being clear and focussed. Approaching the sermon more like a lesson may have resulted in something that was clearer and, oddly, more memorable.

Post Mortem #2: The Debate

Paul Martin either hit an in the park home run last night or he hit into a fielder's choice.

I say an in the park home run because if Martin's ploy to start a constitutional debate (which he obviosuly thinks he can win) does work, then it will take some time to cash in the runs, and it will be dramatic to watch.

Frankly I don't think Martin can get around the bases.

Two reasons. First, Harper responded in a way that was reasonable. He spoke of the need to embrace dialogue and strike a balance between our institutions, rather than taking the bait and responding to a specific case. The other opposition parties helped Harper by essentially agreeing with him. Harper can hardly be painted as a radical to be feared for his stance on minority rights on account fo his response to Martin's proposal when that response is echoed by Jack Layton and the NDP.

The second reason is that Martin has a bit of a credibility problem that he is opening himself to on the question. Consider that Harper has said explicitly that he would not use the notwithstanding clause on the issue of same sex marriage. Then consider that Martin himself said he would invoke the notwithstanding clause to protect clergy from being forced to perform same sex marriages. Certainly Martin might wish to argue that his suggestion on that score was as much in defense of minorty rights as the one he made last night. Yet we should ask Martin: If the notwithstanding clause is a valuable tool in prtoecting minority rights (as he must certainly believe) then why get rid of it?

Perhaps most telling is that post debate analysis seems more focussed on what Martin's proposal says about him and his campaign than what it says about Harper and the Conservatives.

On the whole, Harper needed only to continue to be reasonable, not scary, and calm. That he did, and probably went a way in solidifying his newly-acquired support. For his part, Martin di not accomplish what he needed to really. There is hope for Martin, but that's all, and it isn't immediately apparant that it is all that much.

Jack Layton? Well he is in a tough spot. If he demonises the Conservatives too much, he ends up losing votes to the Liberals. In reality he has to pick his poison. He may not want a Conservative government, but to avoid it he will have to do things that will hurt his own party's electoral prospects. If he wants electoral success for himself and his party, he will likely have to accpet that he will end up helping the Conservatives in that regard as well.

A Humbling Example

2006-01-08T17:40:00.000-05:00

John Piper and Cancer

With Friends Like These

2006-01-06T13:07:00.000-05:00

Pat Robertson is an embarrassment.

Robertson has taken upon himself the responsibility to point the finger directly at God for what has occurred recently to Ariel Sharon. It seems that Robertson is a prophet from God who knows that God does not want any peace that involves giving up land.

Now, if I decide its worthwhile, I may go into some of the theological reasons why Robertson is to Christianity what "Klinger" is to the U.S. Army. For now though its enough to say that the man does more harm to the cause of God and of peace than good.

For information go here.

2006-01-06T09:15:00.000-05:00

I am trying something different for Sunday's message.

I am a guy that likes to experiment. I don't mind trying things. I trust my congregation to be understanding if it doesn't work, and I trust them to lovingly tell me when it doesn't and why it doesn't.

So what am I doing differently?

Well actually just my approach to the preparation. The reason is that it seems to make a difference in my delivery. When I am teaching a lesson, I am (so I am told) animated and excited. When I am preaching I am relatively monotone.

I actually do more preparation for a bible study than for a mesage, because I can get into more depth with a study. I also pay less attention to catchy phrases and alliterative lists when I prepare for a study.

I gues I just "get into " a study more than a sermon.

So we'll try approaching the sermon more like a lesson and see if it impacts the delivery at all.

WorldNetDaily: 'Brokeback Mountain': Rape of the Marlboro Man

2005-12-30T12:55:00.000-05:00

WorldNetDaily: 'Brokeback Mountain': Rape of the Marlboro Man

Respect Beliefs or Believers?

2005-12-15T09:42:00.000-05:00

I was pondering things while drifting off to sleep and the question occurred to me:

Ought we to show respect for beliefs or for the people who hold them?

Having thought this through only a bit, I expect some will see great gaps in the following logic. If so, feel free to point them out.

I tend to see respect as something you give to something or someone you esteem. I esteem people, regardless of who they are or what they think. I do this simply because of the fundamental equality of people. All are created by God in His image. Christ died to assume the sin of all people without exception.

Ideas though are not all fundamentally equal. Some are good. Some are excellent. Some are just dumb. You cannot give respect to all ideas equally. The same I think can be said for beliefs. While I can therefore see fit to respect all persons, I cannot respect all beliefs.

I think the rest of the world can understand and agree with this; there is by and large no problem with dismissing the belief that the Holocaust never happened, for example. That however is because the general consensus (in the global context) holds that such a belief is irrational and unfounded. Were I to use as an example something with no such consensus though, what might happen?

If I were to argue say that Christianity is the only ultimately true religion, I would be well received in my faith community, because that proposition is part of my faith community's consensus. I would be affirmed.

In the rest of the world though, which does not share my faith community's consensus, I would be told I am disrespectful of believers in other religions. I might be called archaic, a bigot or have my intellectual capacity dismissed, and by the same people who would be hailing me for comments I might make against the notion that the Holocaust is a myth.

This leads me to think that in some ways respect really means to fall into line with the governing consensus on an issue.

But if I voice my dissent in a way that speaks unequivocally to my belief while nevertheless affirming the worth of the person holding the opposing belief, am I really being disrespectful? I don't think so.

Perhaps then we should look at respect for what it is: code for "agree" or at least "don't disagree".

One wonders what kind of respect that shows for people...

Patronage and Patronising

2005-12-13T08:13:00.001-05:00

We are all well aware of the problems withthe governing Liberal Pary when it comes to political patronage. They took what is a well established practice and made it into an art form with the whole AdScam affair.

What folks may not recognise is that the Liberals are also developing the art of being patronising.

The Liberals scream that a Conservative Government would be a disaster for National Unity, claiming that the Conservatives, unlikely as they are to win even a single seat in Quebec, cannot hope to be a truly national governing party. The Liberals insist that this is an ideal condition for a Quebec Sovereignty Referendum. Yet it is arguable that no one has done more to support the recent surge in Quebec Sovereignty support than the Liberals.

The AdScam affair has come to be seen as a blatant attempt to bribe Quebecers into staying in Canada. The result is that the people of Quebec are feeling justifiable rage at being so patronised. Quebecers are rpepared to all but eliminate the Liberals from the federal political landscape for that reason, replacing them withthe Bloc Quebecois. Surely such a large presence of the BQ is more of a ideal condition than a Conservative Government.

Whiel that is somethign we can quibble over, here is somethign I don't think is: AdScam is aresult of incompetence and corruption at the highest levels. AdScam was only made possible because of a program that was initiated because of the result of the last referendum which Canada almost lost because of incompetence at the highest level of the Liberal Government's campaign.

In other words, Liberal incompetence in the Referendum begat incompetence and corruption in AdScam. Yet the Liberals claim that they can make it all better.

Forgive me, but I just don't see how the Liberal track record leads to that conclusion. The fact that they obviosuly think they can convince us it does is just more Liberal patronising.

Speaking of which, I have rarely felt so patronised as this week with Liberal comments about the Conservative child care strategy. It began with Ken Dryden's assertion that staying home to care for your child is not in fact providing child care. The worst however was the complaint of a top Liberal that Canadians would spend any money we receive on popcorn and beer.

I see. The Liberals, who completely mismanaged AdScam, think they know how to spend money better than we do. Not only that, they seem to think we are unfit parents, preferring popcorn and beer over adequate childcare.

If that's what they think they better call the Children's Aid Society on us all.

'Tis the Season to Bash Christians

2005-12-12T09:08:00.000-05:00

An intersting column on hw bashing Christians is a seasonal affiar, this year with the added bonus of the first of the Narnia series can be found here.

Inversion of Tyrannies

2005-12-11T16:31:00.000-05:00

An intersting article that mixes politics and religion an be found here.

There are a couple of comments I can make on this:

1) Our so-called Christian Prime Minister is really more f a political pragmatist. Rather than be what he is supposed to be, a Christian buying something for his family's Christmas clebrations, he did a wild jig. Did he really think that peple wuld be offended if he persnally celebrated Christmas?

2) The notion of the inversion of tyrannies is quite something. At frst blush, I agree with it. It deserves more thought though.

CANOE -- JAM! Movies - The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe Review - 'Narnia' movie is pure 'childlike' magic

2005-12-09T13:58:00.000-05:00

CANOE -- JAM! Movies - The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe Review - 'Narnia' movie is pure 'childlike' magic: "Through her, we accept that Narnia has been caught in the icy grip of
the villainous White Queen (Tilda Swinton unleashed and loving the
evil) and that it is populated by giants and dwarfs, by elfs and fauns
and by centaurs, satyrs, minotaurs, minoboars and a woodland of talking
animals."

Does God have a Party?

2005-12-09T08:59:00.000-05:00

Well sure, Heaven is going to be the most wonderful party imaginable and then some!

But does God have a particular political party?

No.

God has priorities, and principles, and these are refelcted in varying degrees in each political party. For example the Green Party certainly has the idea of stewarship of the environment ( a Christian principle). The NDP are concerned about social justice. The Conservative major on moral issues. The Liberals have a bit of all of these.

But these parties also fail to reflect God's priorities to varying degrees as well. The NDP fail on moral issues, as do the Liberals. The Green Party simply has little to say about God's other priorities. The Conservatives are not known for compassion, and IMO fail to take into account the fallen nature of humanity in certain social areas.

You will also find that Christians can be found in all the parties. Contrary to what some columnists might say, Conservative Christians have about the same level of particpation in the LIberal and Conservative parties.

So God may have politics, and He may love a good party, but He does not have a particular political party.

Happy voting (in about 7 weeks)!

All I want for Christmas is a new Government

2005-12-08T08:40:00.000-05:00

Here in Canada we are in the midst of an election campaign that will not end until January 23rd. I of course have my convictions about who the governing party should be. I am a Conservative to the bone, and will almost certainly vote for them in any election.

Once in my life I voted NDP. That time around Bob Rae became Premier of Ontario, and it may be that we are still dealing withthe imapct of that. Never agani will I vote NDP.

Once I voted Liberal. I really didn't want NAFTA. That didn't accomplish anything. Mulroney still won and as it turns out NAFTA has been good for the country on balance.

This time around, with AdScam, the same-sex marriage issue, and the fact that the Conservatives have managed to put out policies which are easy for average canadians to relate to, I fully expect a Conservative government.

But for the moment I want to turn my attention to the local riding. The incumbent is a Conservative, the first federal conservative in a very long time for this area. The Liberal challenger is the guy who was the MP for many years. Clearly he is counting on the riding going back to its traditional colors.

But there are good reasons to keep Diane Finley as our MP.

I think we all know that the real power in government is in the Cabinet. Being out of the cabinet, even if in government, doesn't count for much. Whoever your MP is, you want that person to be in the Cabinet. That being the case, we can see that Diane Finley is the person to elect over Liberal Bob Speller. Why?

The Liberals are not a slam dunk to form the next government. Even if they do, Speller is not liekly to be in cabinet. Yes, he was a cabinet minister the last time he was an MP, but that had little to do with Speller's ability. PM Martin chose Speller because he needed to create a cabinet that was not a Chretien cabinet. Speller had been an MP for many years under Chretien, but never considered for a cabinet post. Speller then was chosen less for what he is than for what he never was.

Finley on the other hand in her first term as an MP has been a member of the shadow cabinet as the Agriculture critic. It is not uncommon for MPs to assume a cabinet post in the same area in which they were the critic while in Opposition. Unlike Martin, who had relatively few chices from which to make his "not-Chretien Cabinet", Conservative Leader Stephen Harper had many choices. He could have overlooked Finley altogether but did not do so.

In short then, Finley is more likely cabinet material than Speller, meaning she is more likely to be able to represent this riding at the highest level.

In terms of voting strategically, and in the interest of this riding, that should speak volumes.

So Today I got "The Question"

2005-12-02T09:06:00.000-05:00

It is now the advent season, and we have a pair of advent calendars hanging in the hallway. They are made by a friend of ours, entirely of flannel, with little pockets for each day below a flannel nativity scene. (Incidentally I am putting the kids halloween candy in the pockets- an easy and organised way to ge them to consume it.)

We play up Jesus for the holiday saeson, and take somethign of a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to Santa Claus. The boys will at times speak their minds about Santa, but we don't make much of it. My oldest has decided that he doesn't beleive in Santa, while my youngest is pretty sure he doesn't exist, but is willing to "believe in him" anyway. Being quite the pragmatists, he is just covering his bases, in case not believing means no presents.

But siblings being what they are the two are arguing about whether Santa Claus is real. I decided to stick my nose in between them (lest someone else's nose get too far out of joint). I thought to make peace, but instead got myself "the question: Daddy, do YOU believe in Santa Claus?"

I hate it when I have to answer a direct question that I am unprepared for. I told them it was a personal question (yes I know, bad cop out). But I said I would get back to them.

Since them I have been researching the actual Saint Nicholas. I intend to expalin to them the "hisotircal Saint Nicholas" and the development of the Santa Claus story (in an age appropriate manner of course).

My point? Well actually I just wanted to pass along a link that I am finding useful for information. I went here.

2005-11-30T09:00:00.000-05:00

In a few short days I will be leaving my post ata local fast food establishment. No longer will I be bi-vocational. I'll just be part time in the church.

The last week is proving to be difficult for a number of reasosn:

I am getting more guilt trips from management, and even some staff this week than in the previous 2 combined.
I notice the time I spend there, and by extension, I miss the time I could be spending foing other things, more this week than ever before.
I have the ominous feeling that there is a shoe todrop, like Satan is going to try something.
More little niggling annoyances have popped up this week already than care for. The basement had water come in, I am feeling sick, that sort of thing.

But I am finding encouragement from a number of things as well:

I have the feeling of waiting to exhale. I am so ready to be done.
I am thinking of this in terms of being faithful to my family, not being unfaithful to my employer.
I am getting excited about the several projects I can finally get to after this week.
I have the strong sense that this is indeed what God wants.

If you're counting that makes the positives and negatives equal. But the truth is that the negatives just feed the positives. They make me more sure, not less, that this is what I should be doing.

God actually does use such obstacles to strengthen your commitment to His will.

Let It Snow?

2005-11-26T12:08:00.000-05:00

I have spent the better part of my day thus far shovelling snow. Thankfully, the snow is of the light and fluffy variety (not unlike the way I prefer my eggs).

If, like me, you don't like shovelling snow, then you may understand that I consider shovelling to be an exercise in contemplation.

What, you might ask, does one contemplate while shovellilng? Besides one's sore back that is?

Well, I contemplated the way in which we consider snow to be so integral a part of Christmas, while much of the world knows nothing of it. Our Christmas is so Norman Rockwell it is almost sickening. It is such a luxurious image, something that is out of synch with the reality of so many lives.

We plan on having a Christmas that is, by the standards of many, spartan. Yet I know that by the standards of the world at large it will be almost extravagant.

Some might consider this contemplation little more than an expression of "white guilt." In reality though it is nothing more than thinking beyond my front door. Simply considering the disparity is not a sign of guilt. If I were to end up despising myself or my culture then I would say there is guilt invovled. I prefer to think of it as simply being reflective and taking note of ways that I might be true to the Old Testament teaching to care for the poor, the widow and the orphan.

We do need to appreciate the privilege of being able to have a Rockwellian Christmas. We need not feel ashamed of it. But we do need to be sensitve to the fact that our experience is not normal in this world, nor is it necessarily even (a) right. We need to subit our visionsof Christmas to Scripture and to teh Lordship of Christ.

Just like we do everythign else in our lives. Right?

Kid in a Candy Shop

2005-11-24T21:41:00.000-05:00

Yes I am gleeful at this moment, having received a good chunk of the aPillar New Testament Commentary Series in themail. I also got J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines.

Yes I got them from Amazon.com.

I have now the following volumes in said series:

John' Gospel
John's Letters
Ephesians
James

That ought to keep me busy for a bit.

Life! Don't Talk To Me About Life!

2005-11-15T21:32:00.000-05:00

This Is My Life, Rated
Life:	7.1
Mind:	7.3
Body:	5.7
Spirit:	7.6
Friends/Family:	5.8
Love:	7.3
Finance:	7.5
Take the Rate My Life Quiz

Here's Hoping This is a Joke Too

2005-11-06T23:16:00.000-05:00

I have come acorss a blog for The Progressive Christian

I would like to see this blog be announced to be a joke in fairly short order. It is, quite simply, offensive.

The reasons are several:

1) The designation of the Bible as a superstition would seem to deny one the right to call onesself a Christian. Saying one is a Christian, a follower of Jesus, whilecalling the only source of Jesus' teaching superstition is irrational. If one does not take the Bible to be reliable, a mere supersition, how do you know what a Christian is?

2) The use of terms like "fundamentalist," without regard for their historic or proper use, is hard to swallow.

3) God is not a She.

I could go on, but you get the point.

In reality I more than half expect it to be a prank blog. Coming as this does on the heels of another recent hoax, and being in a similar vein, I would not be surprised to find someone doing a copy cat effort. Sadly this one is even more over the top, which is to say it isn't even as good a hoax as the other blog, should this blog turn out to be a hoax.

Some people I think have too much time on their hands.

It's Peanuts

2005-11-04T15:15:00.000-05:00

You are Rerun!

Which Peanuts Character are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

While You Were Out

2005-11-04T14:31:00.000-05:00

My wife has been away in Japan for the last week attending her brother's wedding. I have been home with the boys.

It's an adventure.

My oldest son received candy during junior church last Sunday prior to the service. During the service he asked if he could have some. I told him he needed to wait until after the service.

This was not a welcome reply, or so it seemed. His repsonse was to begin yelling and shouting. I picked him to take him out of the sanctuary at which point he started to hit me, yelling he hated me.

Oh boy!

Well we talked it out, and we went back in to the snactuary. I cn honestly say one of the reaosns I am proud to be a part of Ev ergreen is the way such events are handled. Some churches, many in my experience, would have reacted ina way that would have made want to resign on the spot and never walk in the building again. Evergreen though doesn't make me want to resign. They jsut look at you in a resigned way that says they've been there, and they understand.

God is good, and when is poeple reflect His character, so is the church.

I don't get it

2005-10-25T20:19:00.000-04:00

I have been shopping for commentaries, somethign I really enjoy. I get excited at the prospect of having a new commentary to read cover to cover the way I used to when a new issue of X-Men, Wolverine, or Spiderman came out, or later, when the latest issue of Car and Driver or Automobile Magazine.

But I am a frugal sort, wanting to exercise proper stewardship of the money at my disposal. That means I do a fair amount of comparison shopping in order to find the best price. I figured the best place to go would be the publishers, so I tried them first.

Well the results were not entirely satisfactory (too expensive), so I thought I'd try Christian Book Distributors. I had used them in the past, and thought that I at least couldn't do worse price wise, and might do better with the shipping. To my pleasant surprise, I doscopverd that I could save quite a bit through CBD. But still, its an American company, and that led me to try Chapters-Inidigo Canada.

They were expensive for what they had in the way of commentaries, which was not much. That exasperated me, so I went to Amazon Canada, and they were the same as Chapters-Inidigo. That exasperasted me further, so I went to Amazon in the U.S., just to see if anyone other than Christiasn sold commentaries in any real variety and abundance.

I was shocked to discover the best price was at Amazon.com. I was also disappointed. I thought that if anyone was going to give the best price in Chrisitan books it would be CBD, a company I thought was of Christians, selling books by Christians to Christians.

It turns out that the secularists are doing better "ministry" in that regard. Go figure.

Giving away too much

2005-10-22T20:00:00.000-04:00

I am a proponent ofcommunicating the Christian faith in a way that the unsaved and unchurched can relate to. I am a firm advocate of contextualising the Christian message for each new generation.

That said, there are limits. One of those limits would be to try to promote the Christian faith by using a hook that appeals to humanity's baser characteristics. What I mean is that while I don't mind contextualising the Christiam message to answer contemporary questions, to do so in a way that essentially validates negative impulses or questionable assumptions about what is valuable in life is wrong.

Thomas Nelson Publishers has come up with a version of the New Testament geared towards men that validates a number of questionable ideas. For example, one of the "headlines" is "Sexcess: success with the opposite sex!" I realise that the point is likely to point men in the direction of how tio be godly men, but to do so while baiting them with sexuality seems quite opposed to the spirit of biblical teaching, not to mention pandering to the attitudes of an already oversexed society.

I give credit where it is due; this is a slick idea in terms of marketing. Marketing though can either create trends or follow them. It seems to me that Thomas Nelson is following here, and that is disappointing. The Holy Spirit is more creative than imitative, so I am given to wonder whether the Spirit is behind this product.

My Personality (Yes, I have one)

2005-10-20T22:23:00.000-04:00

Your Personality Is

Rational (NT)

You are both logical and creative. You are full of ideas.
You are so rational that you analyze everything. This drives people a little crazy!

Intelligence is important to you. You always like to be around smart people.
In fact, you're often a little short with people who don't impress you mentally.

You seem distant to some - but it's usually because you're deep in thought.
Those who understand you best are fellow Rationals.

In love, you tend to approach things with logic. You seek a compatible mate - who is also very intelligent.

At work, you tend to gravitate toward idea building careers - like programming, medicine, or academia.

With others, you are very honest and direct. People often can't take your criticism well.

As far as your looks go, you're coasting on what you were born with. You think fashion is silly.

On weekends, you spend most of your time thinking, experimenting with new ideas, or learning new things.

The Three Question Personality Test

How I think. (Yes, I do think.)

2005-10-20T22:18:00.000-04:00

Your Brain's Pattern

Your brain is always looking for the connections in life.
You always amaze your friends by figuring out things first.
You're also good at connecting people - and often play match maker.
You see the world in fluid, flexible terms. Nothing is black or white.

What Pattern Is Your Brain?

From the Shortest Personality Test

2005-10-20T18:36:00.000-04:00

Your Personality Profile

You are dependable, popular, and observant.
Deep and thoughtful, you are prone to moodiness.
In fact, your emotions tend to influence everything you do.

You are unique, creative, and expressive.
You don't mind waving your freak flag every once and a while.
And lucky for you, most people find your weird ways charming!

The World's Shortest Personality Test

Talkin' 'Bout My Generation?

2005-10-18T19:50:00.000-04:00

Last night I had the opportunity to describe to someone what a blog is. Now, this person is not tech savvy at all, so I wasn't really expecting a lot if understanding of the technology or anything like that of blogging. No, I didn't really get into the how of blogging at all.

I didn't get the chance.

Once I described what a blog is, I had to answer a question: WHY? Why would someone put heir thoughts, sometimes very intimate ones, out there for the whole world to see?

The question was very nearly rhetorical. Clearly the question stemmed from incredulity rather than curiosity.

Another person offered a very reasonable response. He said that it was about a need for community. I don;t think that is a bad response ( I gave it to him), but I do think it is inadequate top explain the appeal of blogging.

Yes, blogging creates community. It gives connections. It allows people to feel they are part of something far bigger than themselves that they can connect easily to.

But it is also a HUGE ego stroke.

People from all over the world read your writings, and they not only take you seriously (sometimes seriously enough to comment), they will even promote your writing for still more people to take you seriously.

Wow. You can have your own following. You can have a blog empire. You can be, like, a blog god!

Yup, I need to get out more.

Oh, the Sens are 5-0 to start the season. :-)

About the "other blog"

2005-10-16T15:49:00.000-04:00

Below I mentoned two blogs, one of which I was sorely unimpressed with.

I now consider it to be a hoax. Its a spoof. The identity of the author is made up.

Next time I will check on such things before I post.

A Tale of Two blogs

2005-10-15T17:22:00.000-04:00

This week I began reading a cupe fo blogs which are new to me. The two could hardly be more different.

The first is Masterpiece In Progress . The author of this blog is, from my reading, a thoughtful person, reasonably well educated, but not thinking too much of that fact. He has opinions and is not afraid to stand for them, but you never get the sense that he assumes his superiority. He certainly seems ot have a proper disdain for certain ideas (read: bad ones), but does not trnaslate that into a disdain of people.

The second is, shall we simply say, the opposite of that. Fancying himself a "postevangelical" the blog is an outpost for many fringe ideas. The author seems to be nothing more than a liberal (though he considers himself moderate), who is "inclusive" in the worst way. He seems to think that pandering to the spirit of the age is being relevant. It is not a worthwhile read. That's why I am not linking to it.

Why mention the other blog if it is that bad? The contrast struck me. That's all.

Who's afraid of the big bad evangelical?

2005-10-13T23:25:00.000-04:00

An Insider's View of Evangelicals
First of all, they are not fundamentalists. They're your neighbours who read, and try to live by, the Bible, but not to the point of absurdity. Some may see them as boring, but they're definitely not scary.
by Michael Davenport
This article was written to non-believers in response to a series of articles in the Vancouver Sun in July 2005, warning people about Evangelicals. Advertisements for the articles asked, for example, "Are they active in a church near you?" One reader wrote a letter affirming that she was afraid of Evangelicals. The Liberal party of Canada conducted a poll before the last federal election asking Ontarians if they would be "more or less likely to vote for the Conservative/Alliance if they knew it had been taken over by Evangelical Christians."
Mike Davenport wrote to the editors of the Sun suggesting that such rhetoric was marginalizing and thus incompatible with Canadian values. He offered to write an "Insider's View" and promised not to preach. To his surprise, they immediately said "yes" and offered him a quarter page. He said he needed a whole page, and in the end they gave it to him.
The following text is (approximately) the article that he submitted to them. They published a large portion of it, adding the headlines and their own photos and captions.
This article can be helpful to church leaders and individuals who wish to help seekers gain an understanding of the Christian faith and Christian community.
Does it ever happen that you and a friend view the same event or object and see completely different things? We have a blanket in our house that looks grey to me, but when I say so to my son he rolls over laughing and says "no Dad, it's green." Now, I can see green just fine, and that blanket does not look green to me.
… think of this as a National Geographic article about a strange tribe …
That's the sort of disconnect I experience when the media "warn" people about Evangelicals, or when someone writes a letter to the editor saying "I am afraid of Evangelicals." Afraid? Of us? The ones—you know—that bring you a casserole when there's a death in the family, that don't cheat on our taxes, that stop for you at the crosswalk?
My son and I resolved the blanket controversy by taking it outside into the sunlight, where I had to admit that is was green (a grey-green, ok?). My objective in this article is to bring Evangelicals out into the Sun where you can see for yourself what our true colours are. Think of this as a National Geographic article about a strange tribe living in your midst.
Not fundamentalists
Let's get some common misperceptions out of the way. First, don't confuse Evangelicals with TV evangelists—they are no more similar than Conservatives and conservationists. In 30 years of attending Evangelical churches, I have honestly never seen Bible-thumping hucksters or white-shoed crooners … well, except once in New York in 1979, but let's not go there.
What the Words Mean
Christian: a follower of Jesus, whose life is described in the Christian Bible;
A Church: a group of Christians that worship together
Being "Saved": being reconciled to, and declaring allegiance to, Jesus
Evangelist: a Christian (not necessarily an Evangelical) who is telling non-Christians about Jesus;
Evangelical: a movement that affirms traditional theology and submits to the authority of the bible while striving to participate creatively in modern society
Christian Liberalism: a movement to assert intellectual and cultural authority over the bible, including revising traditional theology where it conflicts with modern ideals
Fundamentalism: an extremist movement within any religious or secular group, marked by dogmatic anti-intellectualism, unwillingness to engage opposing points of view, and separation from society.
Second, please don't confuse "Evangelical" with "Fundamentalist"—most Evangelicals would be offended by that. Fundamentalism began in the 1920s as a movement among Christians to separate from their "corrupt" society and to avert their eyes from intellectual attacks on the Bible. By the 1940s, the Fundamentalist movement had strayed so far from Evangelical values of intellectual and cultural engagement with society, that mainstream Evangelicals formed alliances and created programs specifically to strengthen their members against Fundamentalist influence. So you can imagine how galling it is for those same churches to now be called "Fundamentalist"—sort of like mistaking Greenpeace for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
An approach to faith
One source of confusion is that the term "Evangelical" identifies an approach to faith, rather than a separate denomination. The distinguishing features of the Evangelical approach are:
• acceptance of the authority of Scripture over all other documents and traditions;

• affirmation that, suddenly or gradually, individuals are transformed ("reborn") into believers;

• belief that Jesus' death and resurrection were historical facts, necessary for our new life; and

• commitment to prayer, discipleship, and faithful service to wider humanity.

You will find people who believe and live these principles within every Christian church. You can't be a card-carrying Evangelical, because there is no agency issuing "cards." We have no one like the Pope to rule on who may call themselves Evangelicals, and of course no one can control what Evangelicals say. So if you hear a prominent "Evangelical" promoting, say, assassinations of foreign leaders, please know that the real Evangelicals in the audience are as uncomfortable with this as you are.
Evangelicals in the community
… evangelicals: a bit different, but not scary …
Surveys indicate that about 12 percent of Canadians are Protestant Evangelicals. So there's a good chance that you know some from work, hockey, or your kid's preschool. Will they seem any different? Probably not at first. In my experience Evangelicals are often kind, generous, and thoughtful people, but so are people of all backgrounds. There are apparently some statistical differences—polls indicate that compared to average Canadians, Evangelicals
• typically give more money to charity, even when gifts to churches are ignored,

• are less likely to smoke, swear, or get drunk,

• are more likely to volunteer their time, and

• tend to place a higher value on marriage and family.

None of these attributes suggest to me that Evangelicals are scary. Boring, some would say, but definitely not scary.
Social justice
Evangelicals have a long and honourable history of social activism, often as revisionists rather than conservatives. Here are some of my favourite examples of Evangelicals who had an impact on our world:

William Wilberforce, an Evangelical politician,
persuaded England to abolish the slave trade.
• William Wilberforce: an English member of parliament who single-handedly forced the abolition of the slave trade in 1807;

• The Clapham Sect: social activists from the same parish as Wilberforce who set up schools for impoverished children, improved the prisons, and pioneered labour laws and animal welfare laws;

• Tommy Douglas: former premier of Saskatchewan and recently voted the "greatest Canadian," who established universal health care in Canada;

• World Vision: global aid agency that brings crisis relief, feeds and educates children, builds self-sufficiency, and acts against social evils such as child prostitution, all without regard for race or religion;

• Jimmy Carter: former US president who works with "Habitat for Humanity" to build decent homes among the world's poorest people;

• Preston Manning: founder of the Reform Party who badgered the Liberals into eliminating the fiscal deficit;

• Brian McConaghy: RCMP scientist from Richmond who brought medical aid to children in the "Killing Fields" of Cambodia two years before the UN dared to become involved. More recently, he gathered key evidence in Cambodia leading to the first conviction under Canada's new child sex tourism law;

• Lillian To: Vancouverite and immigrant who established "SUCCESS" to help new immigrants adjust to living in Canada.

The environment
The Evangelical Environmental Network, in a widely-endorsed declaration, sums up our attitude to the environment as follows: "We urge individual Christians and churches to be centers of creation's care and renewal, both delighting in creation as God's gift, and enjoying it as God's provision, in ways which sustain and heal the damaged fabric of the creation which God has entrusted to us." This is the only approach to environmental issues that I have ever heard preached in church.
… morality does not revolve around human happiness …
Some fundamentalists (very few as far as I can tell) seem to use end-time prophecies as an excuse to neglect the environment, but that view is definitely not an Evangelical view.
Living from the heart
So what motivates Evangelicals to serve the world with such vigour? Are we, for example, reacting to a guilt trip laid on us by a manipulative church or vengeful God? More frighteningly would an Evangelical, given political power, visit the same guilt trip on you?
The answer is "no," but it is an interesting "no." In ancient times, and I think still in some religions, one tried to avoid God's wrath by following God's laws. Christians believe that this is a hopeless strategy—that we humans are predisposed to screw things up and break the laws. We believe instead that closeness to God comes as a free gift, when by faith we are ready to receive it. This is the "Good News" (in Greek evangelion) that gives our movement its name.
This means, logically, that our good deeds are of no value in "saving" us. So why do we do them? We do good deeds because we have fallen in love with a God of love, and when you love someone there is no greater joy than to please them.
It also means that Evangelicals believe very profoundly that you can't force a belief system or a morality onto others. Our God does not "force" us to believe or behave morally, but rather calls us to do so in love. You can expect that same model from Evangelical leaders—moral leadership based on influence rather than power politics.
Good and evil
I hope this hasn't given the impression that we take morality lightly—as you've probably noticed quite the opposite is true. Evangelicals believe that when a child is abused in Cambodia it is not an isolated tragedy, but rather an assault on the whole world. The grief and the pain ripple out around the globe and for generations forward in time.
The word we use for this is "evil," and it is the visible manifestation of an epic battle—a spiritual Lord of the Rings if you like—that, we believe, rages around our world. It is a battle best fought not with violence but rather with fierce love, patience, kindness, and self-control. And in this battle we do not see the "bad" people—the abusers, the cheaters, the destroyers—as the enemy, but rather as hostages of, and collaborators with, the enemy.
This view of good and evil makes moral relativism untenable for Evangelicals. Some choices, we would say, are inherently and non-negotiably wrong. It is just plain wrong to cheat on your wife even if "she'll never know so it can't hurt her." I mention this because some postmodernists, for example, believe that any talk of "right" and "wrong" is, well, wrong.
I suspect, however, that those who are frightened by Evangelical morality are less frightened by the prevailing environmental morality, which is equally committed to concepts of "right" and "wrong." Surely we can all agree that it is absolutely wrong to hunt a species to extinction. No argument of how "that species helps humanity" need be given, because morality does not revolve around human happiness.
… committed to excellence in biblical scholarship …
Environmentalists also understand the need to be careful of "small sins" which, integrated over time, can add up to great evil. Hiking on Vancouver Island years ago, I went up a forbidden trail to see the Carmanah Giant cedar tree. When a Park Warden stopped me on the way back, I explained that I was just one person, and I had been careful to stay on the path. "It's the path that's killing the tree!" the Ranger explained "What would happen if everyone ignored the trail signs?" He didn't give me a ticket, but I deserved one—not because I lacked concern for the trees but because, thinking I knew what the sign "really meant," I ignored what it plainly said.
High regard for the Bible
Evangelicals believe that humans are equipped to recognize what is right and what is wrong, and that the Bible provides essential "trail signs" to guide that instinct. More specifically, we believe in reading, discussing, and prayerfully considering the whole Bible, and allowing it to direct our morality. Very nasty things have been said and done by people who use segments of the Bible out of context to defend their pet projects.
Evangelicals are sometimes accused of "reading the Bible literally" as if we are blind to its subtleties. The truth is that Evangelicals place a very high value on excellence in biblical scholarship, as exemplified by the writings of CS Lewis. One of the world's leading Evangelical think-tanks, Regent College, is located in Vancouver and draws scholars from all over the world. So we read the Bible literally when appropriate, but we also know a metaphor when it hits us in the face.
Sexual morality
Some people seem to be threatened by Evangelicals' apparently "old fashioned" sexual morality. More disturbingly, some have suggested that we are hateful to people with alternative sexual orientations. On the contrary; I have seen only loving and respectful acceptance of all people at our churches.
One Sunday long ago, when I was a junior Sunday School coordinator, a man came up to me wearing a very nice blouse, skirt, medium-rise shoes, and blonde wig, and offered to help teach a class. I explained that we did not appoint teachers until they had attended our church for some time, and suggested other ministries that might be appropriate in the mean time. Over the coming months he attended regularly, sometimes as a woman and sometimes as a man, and I was very impressed with the complete absence of fuss within the congregation. We accepted him as he was, and trusted that God would make our church for him a place of both grace and transformation just as it had been for so many of us.
So I find the accusations of "hatred" bewildering. Cannot our liberal society just accept Evangelicals as an odd minority group that avoids sex except between husbands and wives? Wouldn't that be just like accepting vegans as an odd minority group that avoids foods derived from animals? Cannot vegans dislike meat and still love meat-eaters? Should our laws forbid vegans from suggesting that their diet is healthier or morally superior? If I go to a vegan home would it be right, when they politely refuse to prepare bacon and eggs for my breakfast, to accuse them of hating me?
And if they refuse to appoint me, a meat-eater, as an official vegan spokesman, can I accuse them of unfair discrimination?
Evangelicals in politics
I am very proud of the achievements of Evangelical politicians such as Wilberforce, Douglas, Carter, and Manning. They show that great good can be done by people with solid moral foundations and a willingness to serve their people in the political arena. They also show that Canadians should welcome, not fear, the contributions of Evangelicals on the political stage.

In a media poll, Evangelical Tommy Douglas
was identified as the "greatest Canadian"
for bringing universal health care to Canada.
1965 CP Photo
But what about Evangelical politicians who seem to be doing bad things? The first thing to remember is that no-one will ever perfectly exemplify Christian principles. Evangelical leaders struggle against many of the same failings and temptations as the rest of humanity, and of course they are not all intellectual giants and brilliant speakers. Furthermore, politics is a complicated dance of rhetoric and compromise, and I suspect there is often no way to move forward without in some way compromising ones ideals.
So if an "Evangelical" politician is making you squirm, take some comfort in knowing that if they were not Evangelical it might have been even worse. Or maybe, just maybe, you have something to learn from them.
It's also possible, of course, that they are just claiming to be Evangelical for political gain. Not that there is much gain to be had in Canadian politics. Polls indicate that in our last election, Evangelicals split their vote approximately evenly between the Liberal and Conservative parties, just as the rest of Canada did. I have never heard any political party endorsed by my church leaders.
Welcome in a liberal society
OK, so after all these words, I'm guessing that some of you still don't really like Evangelicals. Maybe I've convinced you that we're not all dangerous, but even in the bright light of day we don't quite match your colour-scheme. Here's my challenge: get over your fear—it's called xenophobia—and accept us as just one more quirky component of this country we call Canada.
We are a minority group accounting for about one eighth of all Canadians and holding some values that differ from the ruling elite. Should we be encouraged to get politically active? The answer is "yes" if Canada is a liberal democracy, and "no" if it is a liberal hegemony.
With the passage of the same-sex-marriage law, perhaps it is time for social liberals in Canada to accept that they are now the Establishment. As the Establishment they have the primary responsibility for defending Canada's commitment to tolerance and multi-culturalism—core elements of our identity. This means they need to shift from "fighting for their voice to be heard" to "fighting to ensure that other voices are heard."
Judging from some of the rhetoric we read in the media, this may require a bit of an adjustment.
Mike Davenport bases his observations on 25 years of membership in Vancouver Evangelical churches. He has a PhD in theoretical physics, works as a research scientist, and attends St. John's (Shaughnessy) Anglican Church with his family.

2005-10-12T10:13:00.000-04:00

You are Romans.

Which book of the Bible are you?
brought to you by Quizilla