The Problem With Exceptions

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

John Piper and Cancer

With Friends Like These

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.

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

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

Respect Beliefs or Believers?

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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"

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.

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:

1. I am getting more guilt trips from management, and even some staff this week than in the previous 2 combined.
2. 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.
3. I have the ominous feeling that there is a shoe todrop, like Satan is going to try something.
4. 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:

1. I have the feeling of waiting to exhale. I am so ready to be done.
2. I am thinking of this in terms of being faithful to my family, not being unfaithful to my employer.
3. I am getting excited about the several projects I can finally get to after this week.
4. 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?

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

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:

1. John' Gospel
2. John's Letters
3. Ephesians
4. James

That ought to keep me busy for a bit.

Life! Don't Talk To Me About Life!

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

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

You are Rerun!


Which Peanuts Character are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

While You Were Out

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

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

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)

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.)

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

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?

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"

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

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?

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.

You are Romans.


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

The Better Part of Valor?

So my hockey team (Ottawa Senators) has begun the season with a very strong 4-0 run. IN accumulating that reconrd they have beaten Montreal, Buffalo, and Toronto (twice). I am pretty proud of this team. I love the style of hockey it plays. Its a colourful team with a lot of persoality to it.

First there is the Spezz Dispenser (Jason Spezza) who is still very much a kid in the way he plays and grins at the camera. You also have Zdeno Chara, who is one of the very few elite defensemen who will actually fight when called out. The Dominator (Hasek) is always interesting just because you're always waiting to see what move he pulls to stop a puck. Alfredsson is a guy with a sense of humour.

Without a doubt though the most intriguing personality in the room for me is Razor Ray (or Sugar Ray) Emery. For a goalie, he gets into a lot of fights, and he makes no bones about that fact. He sems to actually enjoy the fights. Last night, a Montreal player, Ivanans, was yapping at him, and Emery claimed he hadn't realised it, but that it was probably a good thing since he "wouldn't want to hurt" Ivanans.

Now don't get me wrong, I am still a pacifist; I am just pointing out the humour and personality that lies behind comments like that. Ottawa has historically been about as colourful as white bread, so its nice to see these things happening.

That said, colourful is a lot easier to enjoy when your 4-0.

Now, throughout this post I have steadfastly avoided making comments about the other teams. I could have made many. But some peopel I know seem to think that it is inappropriate to say negative things (even if they are true) about another team. If I do I am trashing the team. Saying nothing is supposedly the better part of valour.

Let me say that I don't support real trash talk. I have been to enough game to know what trash talk really is a bout; personal comments against ones parentage, sexuality, race, ethnicity, etc. I would even include such vague comments as calling a player a bum or saying they can't play.

But I do believe I can make some comments, provided they are true, without them being considered trashing the team. There are players out there who are just slow skaters. They look lost on the ice and can't keep up with the pace. Simply pointing to these things is not trashing the team. There is nothing personal about the comment.

I believe in giving a team its due, both in the positive and the negative. That is the better part of valor.

Except where the Leafs are concerned. (wink)

Dilemma?

Tonight I took my kids grocery shopping with me. I generally enjoy doing that, since it affords me some good, fun time with them. I usually make silly with them while shopping, simply because I recognise that grocery shopping for kids is not an incredibly fulfilling experience.

Usually the grocery run follows a pretty predictable course. We start at the deli counter where the kids get a slice of bologna, then get the milk and other dairy prodicts, followed by frozen things, and then bread at the bakery where the boys get a cookie. From there, its through the last few aisles to the checkout. Finally its off to the van , there to place the bagged groceries in preparation for the short drive home.

Tonight though, while I was loading the groceries into the van I found a couple of items of deli meat that didn't get rung through because they were under the flyer. Once I saw them I had to make a couple of decisions. The first was pretty easy: I was going to go back into the store and pay for the deli meat.

The second decision was harder. I debated how much to tell the boys. On the one hand I thought it would be a good chance to illustrate what you are supposed to do as a Christian in these situations. On the other hand I was conscious that I might be puffing myself up. In the end I decided that it was more important for the boys to get an example than to worry about whether I was being humble enough. Still, it was a bit of a dilemma for me.

Its a bit silly I know. But these are my boys and I reallt wonder about how I teach them to behave. Maybe too much, eh?

Sad Things

I have been doing some reading of various opinions about the Iraq War and the so-called war on terrorism. It isn't a pretty picture.

One thing that has become very disturbing is the propensity to play chicken with sin. Many tactics are being employed by the American military in order to extract information. Some Christians seem quite comfortable with this, apparently wanting to justify it with a certain "ends justifies the means" argument. They think it courageous to want to debate the finer points of what constitutes torture and what is justified in extracting information.

This of course runs exactly counter Jesus' teaching. Jesus did not commend to us a process of seeing how close we can get to the line without crossing it. Rather he told us to hold to his teaching. Any process that tries to see how we might go about doing what we feel justified in doing without being overtly disobedient is sophistry, and closer to the spirit of the Pharisee than to the Holy Spirit.

One of the most facile justifications is that "I am sorry but they started it." Now Americans will likely find my next statement repugnant because I am Canadian and 9/11 "didn't happen to me," but it must be said: Jesus said "turn the other cheek." He did not say we would be justified in hitting back. Love your enemies, pray for them, yes. Hit them back, no.

Some might wish to point to the scale of 9/11, but that really is a bogus argument. No one has ever been more justified for retaliating against personal attacks, for no one has suffered more or more severe ones, than God. God the Father sent God the Son to reconcile the world to Himself. In short the War on Iraq, as it is nothing more than a pretense for vengeance, and a false pretense at that (no WMD) cannot be supported by Christians.

Another simplistic reason for supporting the war is the "fact" that Christians make up a good size chunk of the armed forces. This is also false. We should support the troops in prayer for safety, that they will be proper agents of reconciliation, that they will not compromise their Christian witness. Should we support them in the sense of giving approval if they do breach their witness or do harm? No. If they sin then we need to simply say that they need to repent and offer them forgiveness and help so that they do not lapse into further sin.

It is also unfortunate that some try to make false comparisons in justifying torture. One blogger mentioned that we don't send surgeons to the Haag when they inflict pain and suffering as a means to an end. This argument is offered after pointing out the definition of torture involves coercion. Patients submit to surgery willingly.

This particular blogger has a habit of making this kind of argument. It involves going from a specific situation allegedly analogous to the one under discussion (ostensibly for "clarity") to a general principle. That general principle is justified and then is then used to justify, not the allegedly analogous situation, but the one under discussion. Of course if the analogous situation is not analogous at all, the argument does not work. As noted the blogger fails to provide a truly analogous situation.

IT is very sad that we actually do manage to live down to the caricatures that Muslim extremists have of us. If we were more Christlike, I have no doubt that things would be better.

No doubt some will say that Christians should expect to be hated. That is true, but they are to be hated for being Christlike. No one I think would argue that Muslims hate the US for its being an exceptionally Christian nation.

Signifying Nothing.

Long ago I learned that there are relatively few things that are so complicated that they can't be simply stated.

Sadly, that fact is lost on many people of intelligence.

Over the years of reading shcolars, I have often lamented that while they may be great thinkers, they are not therefore also great communicators. In fact, it is most often the opposite that is true.

Why this is the case is a mystery, but I have a few thoughts. The one that I find most liekly is that these thinkers have become basically disconnected from the world they live in. It doesn't matter that they may be husbands and fathers, mothers and wives, or whatever else. Fundamentally they "live" in their area of expertise. Its where they spend most of their time, and are most at home. Its laguage has become thier first language. The people in it are more real to them. Their feelings and opinions matter more.

Now one may argue that a person cannot become a true authority in their field without making such acccomodatioons, but that is empirically false. There are scholars who are able to communicate complex ideas accurately in simple ways. They have not lost touch with the world outside their area of expertise.

Why?

Becuase they have remained balanced. They have not taken the world of the academy moe seriously than the one outside the academy. They remain essentially "down to earth."
That's why they are such good communicators fo ideas. Great scholars who are also great communicators are essentially great translators. They take ideas conceived in one world (the academy) and elucidated in that one world's laguage and translate them into laguage which is used by another world (the one outside the academy). That requires being well versed in both laguages, being connected to both worlds.

Some folks are out of balance, too connected to one world. They take themselves and their ideas too seriously. They deride those who don't. In the end all they do is isolate themselves furhter, make themselves more irrelevant.

That's too bad; the world needs people of intelligence to provide a certain leadership.

Some scary stuff

At least its scary for those of us who have kids in the public school system. Read about it: http://christianity.ca/news/weblog/2005/9.07.html

Katrina and the Waves

I don't know that I'll ever think of the name Katrina witout reference to the recent storms that hit the Louissiana coast recently. The destruction is beyond anything that I would have imagined.

But apart from the physical destruction that the strom caused is the spiritual damage that is being caused. Of course Katrina herself is not causing it, but there are peopel, Christians and non-Christians alike, who seize upon the opporutnity afforded by Katrina to grind an axe.

So far, I have seen three such axes. The first is one that I am sure Christians have come to expect;the old theodicy argument, which essentially melts down to: "If there is a god and he is so good, how could he allow this to happen?" The problem of evil has confronted Christians, indeed all theists, from the beginning. There are some things that are well worth noticing:

1) It doesn't make sense really for people who posit a non-moral universe to attach moral values such as "evil" to what are, by thier definition, random acts of nature.

2) The presence of evil in the universe, if accpeted, does not mean that the theis is the only one with a philosophical problem. Those arguing for the non-existence of God cannot simply use evil to disprove the existence fo a good God, they have to account for the existence of evil itself.

A second axe comes from Christians who want to show that God really isn't in control of everything, or at least that he doesn't cause things like "evil storms." But that doesn't square with the Bible. The Bible does say he causes things to happen. But the Bible also says that God brings good out of things. Even calamity is a tool in His hand. Perspective is also an issue. We rush to judge something as evil and horrendous without waiting to see what good might result. Certainly I don't want to say that God is into the ends jsutifying the means, but it would be wrong to say that stroms and such show God is not in control or does nt cause, because really we need to wait and see what God is going to do with it.

A third axe also comes from Christians, and it is specifically from ones whose main focus is Israel. There are actually people who want to say that this storm is a judgment because of the American support for the current pull out in the Gaza. There are a lot of problems withthis, not least of which is a post hoc type of reasoning and a blatant sense of America at the center of all things, but the most permicious thing is the timing! The rush to judge ios smply unacceptable. This is no time to be pointing fingers and laying blame. Even if the claim is true, it is also irrelevant to the suffering going on. Those who are calling out "judgment" would be wise to show mercy and send help to those in need.

All in all I think it obvious that for the time being all the axes need to be put away or else be put to use in rebuilding and rescue efforts.

What's been going on:

I had a fun time performing a wedding for a couple who took what they were doing seriously, but not themselves seriously. An excellent combination as it turns out; they were innovative without being irreverant. Highlights included:

Having a wedding reception in a tobacco barn. The stacks of dried leaves made for pungent decoration.

Watching people go ga-ga for what must be the gazillionth time over the "Chicken Dance Song". Praise the Lord, the Macarena failed to make an appearance.

Seeing the bridal party show up in NFL Jerseys.

Seeing at least one person freak out because a rather large bug crawled up her leg.

It was a fun time. What made it really awesome though was the fact that the couple was aunashamedly Christian without being pretentious or stuffy about the fact.

Neo-Orthodox Influence?

Back in the 20th Century there was a movement called Neo-Orthodoxy. It was spearheaded by such theologians as Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, and Rudolph Bultmann.

Beginning as a reaction against liberal Protestantism, one of its key tenets was that historical investigation was not to be relied upon for to provide verification for scriptural historical claims. Instead, Neo-Orthodoxy began with human experience for doing theology.

The reason I bring this up is that some elements of Roman Catholicism, and the so-called "Reformed Catholicism" seem very much, if unintentionally, influenced at this point.

In reading several conversations between Evangelicals and the RCs and "rCs", I have noted that the claim is made that the standard method of biblical interpretation, known as the Grammatical-Historical Method, is invalid as there is no sound epistemological foundation for it (epistemology deals with the question of how we know things). This, it seems to me, is not unlike the claim that the Neo-orthodox made.

Another similarity lies in that RCs and rCs seem to claim that the individual must reckon first with the epistemological issue and then build a theology. This beginning with the individual seems again to hearken to the Neo-Orthodox notion.

(On a side note, the emphasis on the individual is ironic since both RCs and rCs seem to decry the "every individual an interpretational island" idea.)

But if this seeming connection to Neo-Orthodoxy is true, then the thinking of the RCs and rCs would share the same weaknesses, such as it being essentially fideistic, as it insulates itself from any kind of verifiability or falsibility. That makes sense as neither RCs nor rCs have actually put forward a positive case for their position. Perhaps it is because, under the influence of Neo-orthodox-style thinking, they don't see the point of such evidence. It is also vulnerable because it makes a claim about history that is inconsistently applied (in that they accept the historicity of the resurrection on usual historical proof grounds without the issue of epistemology arising) and actually essentially skeptical, meaning it is at bottom negative, and can therefore make no real positive contribution to theological method or hermeneutics.

Now in saying this I am making no claim to being a master of Neo-Orthodox thought; these are at best impressions garnered from a few years of seminary and some random book reading from Neo-0rthodox authors. Please take this post for what it is; a suggestion, and perhaps a starting point for discussion, thought, and debate.

A note about spam

I suppose it was only a matter of time. In our materially-driven society, selling is everything, and sales are tied very closely to advertising. This of course leads to junk mail of various types, especially "spam" in the e-world.

I have noted that sme enterprising people have started sending "junk comments." Until I can figure out how to delete or otherwuse filter comments. I am just turning off the comments feature. If anyone wants to make a commenbt, please contact me using email. A link exists somehere on the page for that purpose.

Can you not hear the "sigh" in this...

The wonder of unity

What is unity in a church?

Some think that it measn every person believeing the same things. I can see value to that. A lot of arguments would be avoided if we all agreed on all theological matters. In fact a lot of arguments are avoided by the level of agreement we already have.

Still, doctrinal agreement isn't everything. I have been in churches where there was as close to 100% doctrinal agreement as I have ever seen, but there wasn't much unity. In fact they fought often like cats and dogs over personality and control issues. So it seems to me that unity without an actual love for one another is impossible.

That kind of love though is from above, and only from above. Only God can give us a love that allows us to disagree with others over important issues and still worship, pray, and work with them.

That kind of love is vry evidet in my church. That's why we have no fear in facing potentially divisive issues. We know that even if there is not unanimity, there will always be a loving consensus.

Hammer Time

I am a stickler for theology, so I tend to be pretty particular on the conclusions that other people reach, as well as the way they reach them. (Yes, I am also that way about my own conclusions and methods, but we don't get into trouble discussing ourselves nearly as often as we do when discussing other people.)

For example, in my conference we are discussing the possibility of eliminating all restrictions to women in ministry leadership (currently only the office of senior pastor is denied to women). The method used to arrive at a consensus, which has been used very well in the recent past, has failed us in this instance. That's because the process has foucssed on what has clearly become the wrong question. The conclusions that people are reaching are by and large being influenced by a new hermeneutic, one whose validity ought really be discussed on its own, independantly of the women in ministry issue. But there doesn't seem to be a desire to really discuss the hermeneutic; it seems that the "need" to answer the question of women in ministry is too pressing.

That distresses me. It seems to me that the value and validity of the hermeneutic must be discussed first, or else we risk arrriving at the right decision for the wrong reasons. Those who are more concerned with the immediate question of women in ministry might not be upset about that, but some of us who take a longer view to things realise that the wrong reasons won't always lead to the right answers, so its better to get your reasons right first. Jesus taught as much with the parable of the two builders.

Then there is the issue of women as elders in our church. Thankfully there is enough wisdom in the elders to realize that we do need to have a sound process for determining what direction the church takes. We still ahve to figure out what the process should look like, but at least ther seems to be more of a commitment to the process than the outcome. IMO, if we fail in that we fail as elders, for we will have begun to lead by pragmatism.

Yes, I am back

Strange to say that, since I have not actually gone anywhere, really. I did move to my newly purchasedhome though, which is the cause of my absence. It took a few days to get the computer up and running, and then Bell didn't transfer my number from the old address to the new one.

Anyway, I thought I'd put a link to some news which ought to be of interest to t believers and non-believers alike on the qquestion of whether the Bible,specifically the gospels, are reliable historical guides.

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOnews.html#siloam

There is no longer any doubt in my mind

That I am confortable with theological tensions. Check this out:

You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan. You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists. Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 79% Reformed Evangelical 79% Neo orthodox 71% Fundamentalist 61% Emergent/Postmodern 57% Charismatic/Pentecostal 46% Classical Liberal 36% Roman Catholic 32% Modern Liberal 18% What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com