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.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
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
Friday, September 02, 2005
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
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.
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.
Sunday, August 28, 2005
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.
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.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
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...
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.
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.
Friday, August 19, 2005
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.
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.
Friday, August 12, 2005
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
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
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
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.
What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com |
Monday, July 25, 2005
Some thoughts on something not all that vital
What I have been pondering is the fate of my hockey team, the Ottawa Senators.
Deep stuff, I know. Bear with me. If get this out of my system now, I will likely be fine for a few weks if not months. I mean, I said hardly anything during the lockout, so give me a break here...
On the plus side, we finally have a hockey season to look forward to. Of course the price, especially for fans, was pretty steep. The new CBA should provide some pay back, in the form of more competitive balance. Sure, there have been a series of cinderellas making it deep into the Stanley Cup Playoffs the last few years, but I don't think anyone would seriously argue that all teams have a reasonable chance at winning the Cup each year. That should change under the new arrangement, which effectively caps the disparity in payrolls, and the increased movement of players created by liberlaised free agency and the cap, should make more and better players available every year. That means a pretty quick rebuilding process. Revenue sharing should also give encouragement for low incomce teams to spend, further narrowing the payroll disparity.
So what does this mean for my team? Well I am of two minds. On the one hand the liberalised free agency should make it harder to keep the team together. The cap ensures that the team can't just keep paying your players more money all the time. Eventually you bump your head against the cap. So keeping a large core of really good players together may be impossible.
On the other hand, I expect that a team that pays really good attention to scouting, drafting and development should be able to continuallly turnover its roster of middle and low skill players. That would have the impact of keeping the cost of 3rd and 4th line players as well as #5-7 d-men down, freeing up salary for more elite players. Ottawa does excel at drafting and developing, so this may work out alright. The so-called "middle class" player gets squeezed though.
Of course it is also posible that teams will opt to stock their rosters with mostly middle class players. Lots of depth that way. But I confess that when I think of that, I see a whole lot of Minnesotas. That defense first style is what we want to avoid. But that defense first style comes from not being able to compete in terms of skill, which is partly due to inability to compete in terms of salary. Maybe the new CBA will make i so easy for teams to get skill players that there won;t be the need for such stiff defensive strategies.
Of course parity could also make such startegies that mcuh more important.
As for the rule changes, the only one that matters is enforcement. If enforcement on the clutch and grab doesn't happen, the rest is just window dressing.
If it does happen though, teams like Ottawa, which are built on speed, should thrive.
Other little thought for my team:
Sign and trade Todd White, and leave a roster spot open for Alexei Kaigorodov. The Russian is bigger, faster, cheaper, with more offensivce upside.
Don't resign Curtis Leschyshyn. You already have a very solid defense corps in Phillips, Redden, Chara, DeVries, Pothier, and Volchenkov. If depth iw what you want, there are some AHL guys who could stand to be called up, and would be cheaper. Think Christoph Schubert.
The answer to the Sens left wing problems may already be in the system in the form of Brandon Bochenski.
I would favour ditching Chris Neil in favour of B-Sens captain Chris Kelly. Even if you don't get rid of Neil, Kelly deserves a look.
Antone Vermette is wasted on the 4th line. Get that kid on the 3 or even the 2nd line.
Speaking of lines, here is what I would like to see:
(Forwards)
Hossa - Spezza - Vermette
Alfredsson - Smolinski- Fisher
Havlat - Kaigorodov - Langfeld
Kelly - Neil - Varada
Spare: Schaeffer; First call up: Bochenski
(Defense)
Redden - Volchenkov
Phillips - Chara
Pothier - De Vries
Spare: Schubert; First Call up: Platil
(Goaltenders)
Let me first say that if I had my druthers, I'd sign Khabibulin. I am not convinced that Hasek can do it. So, in the absence of anohter signing, here is what I see:
#1- Hasek
#2- Emery
Prusek gets traded. First call up would be Billy Thompson, who will get the #1 job in Binghamton, backed up by Kelly Guard or Jeff Glass.
I Hasek doesn't come bac, then expect Prusek to stay and platoon it with Emery.
I expect Patrick Eaves to sign and play in the AHL. He may get a look towards the end of the season.
So that should be all you hear out of me hockey wsie for a while.
Deep stuff, I know. Bear with me. If get this out of my system now, I will likely be fine for a few weks if not months. I mean, I said hardly anything during the lockout, so give me a break here...
On the plus side, we finally have a hockey season to look forward to. Of course the price, especially for fans, was pretty steep. The new CBA should provide some pay back, in the form of more competitive balance. Sure, there have been a series of cinderellas making it deep into the Stanley Cup Playoffs the last few years, but I don't think anyone would seriously argue that all teams have a reasonable chance at winning the Cup each year. That should change under the new arrangement, which effectively caps the disparity in payrolls, and the increased movement of players created by liberlaised free agency and the cap, should make more and better players available every year. That means a pretty quick rebuilding process. Revenue sharing should also give encouragement for low incomce teams to spend, further narrowing the payroll disparity.
So what does this mean for my team? Well I am of two minds. On the one hand the liberalised free agency should make it harder to keep the team together. The cap ensures that the team can't just keep paying your players more money all the time. Eventually you bump your head against the cap. So keeping a large core of really good players together may be impossible.
On the other hand, I expect that a team that pays really good attention to scouting, drafting and development should be able to continuallly turnover its roster of middle and low skill players. That would have the impact of keeping the cost of 3rd and 4th line players as well as #5-7 d-men down, freeing up salary for more elite players. Ottawa does excel at drafting and developing, so this may work out alright. The so-called "middle class" player gets squeezed though.
Of course it is also posible that teams will opt to stock their rosters with mostly middle class players. Lots of depth that way. But I confess that when I think of that, I see a whole lot of Minnesotas. That defense first style is what we want to avoid. But that defense first style comes from not being able to compete in terms of skill, which is partly due to inability to compete in terms of salary. Maybe the new CBA will make i so easy for teams to get skill players that there won;t be the need for such stiff defensive strategies.
Of course parity could also make such startegies that mcuh more important.
As for the rule changes, the only one that matters is enforcement. If enforcement on the clutch and grab doesn't happen, the rest is just window dressing.
If it does happen though, teams like Ottawa, which are built on speed, should thrive.
Other little thought for my team:
Sign and trade Todd White, and leave a roster spot open for Alexei Kaigorodov. The Russian is bigger, faster, cheaper, with more offensivce upside.
Don't resign Curtis Leschyshyn. You already have a very solid defense corps in Phillips, Redden, Chara, DeVries, Pothier, and Volchenkov. If depth iw what you want, there are some AHL guys who could stand to be called up, and would be cheaper. Think Christoph Schubert.
The answer to the Sens left wing problems may already be in the system in the form of Brandon Bochenski.
I would favour ditching Chris Neil in favour of B-Sens captain Chris Kelly. Even if you don't get rid of Neil, Kelly deserves a look.
Antone Vermette is wasted on the 4th line. Get that kid on the 3 or even the 2nd line.
Speaking of lines, here is what I would like to see:
(Forwards)
Hossa - Spezza - Vermette
Alfredsson - Smolinski- Fisher
Havlat - Kaigorodov - Langfeld
Kelly - Neil - Varada
Spare: Schaeffer; First call up: Bochenski
(Defense)
Redden - Volchenkov
Phillips - Chara
Pothier - De Vries
Spare: Schubert; First Call up: Platil
(Goaltenders)
Let me first say that if I had my druthers, I'd sign Khabibulin. I am not convinced that Hasek can do it. So, in the absence of anohter signing, here is what I see:
#1- Hasek
#2- Emery
Prusek gets traded. First call up would be Billy Thompson, who will get the #1 job in Binghamton, backed up by Kelly Guard or Jeff Glass.
I Hasek doesn't come bac, then expect Prusek to stay and platoon it with Emery.
I expect Patrick Eaves to sign and play in the AHL. He may get a look towards the end of the season.
So that should be all you hear out of me hockey wsie for a while.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Some things that occurred...
Is there a biblical theology of home ownership? I take possession of my first home in 5 days, and, beyond the borad category of "stewardship", I can't say as I am aware of one. Anyone feel free to enlighten me.
An odd week in the family, with a couple of deaths occurring. In both cases the relations are a bit on the distant side, but its amazing how far the ripples of such events extend into the lake of life.
It is a pleasure to welcome Holly Adele into the world.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think its weird that the same country can refuse to call the people responsible for the bombings in London "terrorists" while at the same time denying the reigning Miss Universe (a national) the opportunity to be greeted at Toronto City Hall?
Do mainline protestant Christians who deny the deity of Jesus consider themselves Trinitarians? I don't see how they can.
When ants come marching into the house, it ain't by no measly two by two.
Speaking as someone who grew up as an only child, every day I seeing how and why my two boys fight is a revelation. Speaking as a parent, its an Apocalypse.
My oldest arrived home from summer camp with a great attitude. God is good.
My youngest greeted his arrival with a lot of grief about no longer being the center of attention. God is still good.
An odd week in the family, with a couple of deaths occurring. In both cases the relations are a bit on the distant side, but its amazing how far the ripples of such events extend into the lake of life.
It is a pleasure to welcome Holly Adele into the world.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think its weird that the same country can refuse to call the people responsible for the bombings in London "terrorists" while at the same time denying the reigning Miss Universe (a national) the opportunity to be greeted at Toronto City Hall?
Do mainline protestant Christians who deny the deity of Jesus consider themselves Trinitarians? I don't see how they can.
When ants come marching into the house, it ain't by no measly two by two.
Speaking as someone who grew up as an only child, every day I seeing how and why my two boys fight is a revelation. Speaking as a parent, its an Apocalypse.
My oldest arrived home from summer camp with a great attitude. God is good.
My youngest greeted his arrival with a lot of grief about no longer being the center of attention. God is still good.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
I'm Back
I had a great time, too.
This was a three day retreat from pretty well everyone. I spoke to virtually no one. It was great.
This was a big step for me. I am an extrovert, so I tend to thrive on being around and interacting with other people. I really enjoyed the solitude though. I realized that I have really come to be comfortable with who I am. I have really gotten to know who and what I am, both good and bad. I am not satisfied with who I am. I want to be more godly, more effective for Christ. But I am comfortable with who I am at this moment. I don't need external validation like I once did. I now realize that part of the reason for being an extrovert was a need to find such external validation.
But I was alone, and I was happy to be so. I played 27 holes of golf, and I was just happy to be on the links. I really didn't care if I scored well or not. I just wanted to enjoy the time. As it happened (and I understand this is normal) I ended up playing my best 27 holes in over 5 years. I scored a combined 138, with 9 hole breakdowns of 44, 53, and 41, for an average of 46 per 9 holes. I lost exactly 1 ball. I know that isn't stellar, but considering that the last time I played 18 holes I scored 135, I think I have reason to be pleased.
I also got a lot of opportunity to read my Bible as well as a commentary on Luke. Over the three days, I read James, Luke, and some scattered old Testament passages. I also read about half of a book by Greg Laurie, called "God of the Second Chance." I enjoy the book; its a nice change of pace from the other things I usually read.
Well, I look forward to sharing some of the insights I gained in my (very) mini-sabbatical next time.
This was a three day retreat from pretty well everyone. I spoke to virtually no one. It was great.
This was a big step for me. I am an extrovert, so I tend to thrive on being around and interacting with other people. I really enjoyed the solitude though. I realized that I have really come to be comfortable with who I am. I have really gotten to know who and what I am, both good and bad. I am not satisfied with who I am. I want to be more godly, more effective for Christ. But I am comfortable with who I am at this moment. I don't need external validation like I once did. I now realize that part of the reason for being an extrovert was a need to find such external validation.
But I was alone, and I was happy to be so. I played 27 holes of golf, and I was just happy to be on the links. I really didn't care if I scored well or not. I just wanted to enjoy the time. As it happened (and I understand this is normal) I ended up playing my best 27 holes in over 5 years. I scored a combined 138, with 9 hole breakdowns of 44, 53, and 41, for an average of 46 per 9 holes. I lost exactly 1 ball. I know that isn't stellar, but considering that the last time I played 18 holes I scored 135, I think I have reason to be pleased.
I also got a lot of opportunity to read my Bible as well as a commentary on Luke. Over the three days, I read James, Luke, and some scattered old Testament passages. I also read about half of a book by Greg Laurie, called "God of the Second Chance." I enjoy the book; its a nice change of pace from the other things I usually read.
Well, I look forward to sharing some of the insights I gained in my (very) mini-sabbatical next time.
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
A Frightening Thought
A couple of weeks ago, I had the pleasure of performing a marriage. I will have that pleasure again in about 8 weeks. So why am I sad?
The simple answer is that these may be the last two weddings I perform in my life.
No, I am not dying, nor am I leaving the ministry. But I may be abandoning marriage as a legal institution.
This week a parishioner asked me directly if I would ever officiate a same sex-marriage ceremony. I said, equally directly, that no I never would. The Law may have a different view.
It is my hope that denominations would free themselves from any possibility of prosecution or persecution by simply getting out of the marriage business. The arrangement that denominations have with provinces regarding the registration of marriages that ministers solemnize is, to the best of my understanding, a voluntary one. That is, there is no legal requirement that ministers serve as agents of the state in performing a marriage ceremony. My thought is that ministers could continue to perform marriages "in the sight of God" that would be recognized by the churches. Couples would be therefore married in the eyes of God, if not that of the state.
But this week the thought crossed my mind that we ministers may not be permitted to disentangle ourselves so easily. It occurred to me that some might try to accuse ministers of an illegal activity. I know that this probably sounds alarmist, but hear me out. The federal and provincial governments have, with the passage of this Bill and existing jurisprudence, established that they alone have the right to define marriage, and have exclusive control over its solemnization. With that in mind, and assuming that churches do indeed get out of the "marriage business," I ask: If a minister performs a ceremony of marriage, calling it such, would that minister be guilty of performing an unauthorized service?
In a prior post I had said that the government ought have no more say over a marriage performed purely as a matter of religious observance than it does over baptism. Yet the state does claim exclusive right to control marriage. It makes no such claim to baptism.
So what will happen? I don't know. I am no lawyer. Nor am I prophet. But I am sad.
The simple answer is that these may be the last two weddings I perform in my life.
No, I am not dying, nor am I leaving the ministry. But I may be abandoning marriage as a legal institution.
This week a parishioner asked me directly if I would ever officiate a same sex-marriage ceremony. I said, equally directly, that no I never would. The Law may have a different view.
It is my hope that denominations would free themselves from any possibility of prosecution or persecution by simply getting out of the marriage business. The arrangement that denominations have with provinces regarding the registration of marriages that ministers solemnize is, to the best of my understanding, a voluntary one. That is, there is no legal requirement that ministers serve as agents of the state in performing a marriage ceremony. My thought is that ministers could continue to perform marriages "in the sight of God" that would be recognized by the churches. Couples would be therefore married in the eyes of God, if not that of the state.
But this week the thought crossed my mind that we ministers may not be permitted to disentangle ourselves so easily. It occurred to me that some might try to accuse ministers of an illegal activity. I know that this probably sounds alarmist, but hear me out. The federal and provincial governments have, with the passage of this Bill and existing jurisprudence, established that they alone have the right to define marriage, and have exclusive control over its solemnization. With that in mind, and assuming that churches do indeed get out of the "marriage business," I ask: If a minister performs a ceremony of marriage, calling it such, would that minister be guilty of performing an unauthorized service?
In a prior post I had said that the government ought have no more say over a marriage performed purely as a matter of religious observance than it does over baptism. Yet the state does claim exclusive right to control marriage. It makes no such claim to baptism.
So what will happen? I don't know. I am no lawyer. Nor am I prophet. But I am sad.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Why Is It So Hard To Understand?
One of the central issues of the Reformation is also a central issues of human eternal destiny: How does one get right with God?
In theological terms, this is called "justification." It's an ancient legal, or forensic, term that carries a very special meaning in the Bible. Our legal system really has no parallel for it. "acquitted," or "not guilty" comes close but doesn't quite capture it.
The situation that is envisaged in the Bible really is a mixture of what we would call legal and civil proceedings. A legal proceeding is one wherein a law has been broken, and the alleged perpetrator is before judge or jury to determine guilt or innocence. In a civil proceeding, the judge chooses between two parties, one who has been harmed in some way, and the one who has allegedly done the harm.
According to the Bible we are judged by God for our sins, which are at the same time matters of breaking God's Law, and a matters of causing harm to God. One trial, one judgment, speaks to both the "judicial" and "civil" elements.
It would be, in our society, a gross miscarriage of justice for the victim to be the judge in either case, let alone both. We would assume impartiality to be impossible, and that this "justice" is little more than vigilantism.
What then are we to say when it is made clear to us that through faith we are justified by God? As I said earlier, the words we typically apply, "acquitted" and "not guilty," are insufficient. Those terms suggest that we in ourselves are found to be innocent. That isn't the case; if it were then no one would be punished. Yet Christ died for our sins. Clearly in the matter of our sins, we are found guilty. The reason we are not punished though is Christ Jesus. He took our penalty upon Himself. In that process we received his righteousness, and that is stronger than just innocence. Innocence connotes the mere absence of evil, but righteousness gives the idea of having been obedient.
That's what happens when we believe in Jesus Christ. When we trust Him to bear our punishment for us, we find that He did just that. We also find that God declares that we have not been disobedient, but we have been actively obedient to His will, in all ways, and in all things. Our obedience is found to be perfect, because that's the obedience that Jesus had.
Now since that obedience is perfect, there is nothing we can do to add to it. Nothing at all. And it doesn't matter if our obedience from the point of belief onward is not perfect; all our failures were born by Jesus on the Cross, even the ones that follow that moment of faith.
That doesn't mean though that we can just live however and get away with it. The fact is that when you are justified, your whole life orientation changes; you want to serve and please God. Your lifestyle will reflect that inevitably. There is no going back to the old way because you don't want to go back. Sure, there may be moments when you feel like it, but over the long run your life will be characterized by obedience to God, not sin.
So it happens that when the Final Judgment comes, God can say what he already said; you are justified, righteous. He said you were when you believed, and because of that, your life since gives evidence of it.
This is how the Reformation has come to understand the answer to the question: How do you get to be right with God? I confess I don't understand why so many don't believe when they have it explained to them. I don't understand why so many who are Christians don't accept it, but would rather try to add to Jesus' obedience with some of their own.
Maybe its just because I've studied the question so long. Maybe.
In theological terms, this is called "justification." It's an ancient legal, or forensic, term that carries a very special meaning in the Bible. Our legal system really has no parallel for it. "acquitted," or "not guilty" comes close but doesn't quite capture it.
The situation that is envisaged in the Bible really is a mixture of what we would call legal and civil proceedings. A legal proceeding is one wherein a law has been broken, and the alleged perpetrator is before judge or jury to determine guilt or innocence. In a civil proceeding, the judge chooses between two parties, one who has been harmed in some way, and the one who has allegedly done the harm.
According to the Bible we are judged by God for our sins, which are at the same time matters of breaking God's Law, and a matters of causing harm to God. One trial, one judgment, speaks to both the "judicial" and "civil" elements.
It would be, in our society, a gross miscarriage of justice for the victim to be the judge in either case, let alone both. We would assume impartiality to be impossible, and that this "justice" is little more than vigilantism.
What then are we to say when it is made clear to us that through faith we are justified by God? As I said earlier, the words we typically apply, "acquitted" and "not guilty," are insufficient. Those terms suggest that we in ourselves are found to be innocent. That isn't the case; if it were then no one would be punished. Yet Christ died for our sins. Clearly in the matter of our sins, we are found guilty. The reason we are not punished though is Christ Jesus. He took our penalty upon Himself. In that process we received his righteousness, and that is stronger than just innocence. Innocence connotes the mere absence of evil, but righteousness gives the idea of having been obedient.
That's what happens when we believe in Jesus Christ. When we trust Him to bear our punishment for us, we find that He did just that. We also find that God declares that we have not been disobedient, but we have been actively obedient to His will, in all ways, and in all things. Our obedience is found to be perfect, because that's the obedience that Jesus had.
Now since that obedience is perfect, there is nothing we can do to add to it. Nothing at all. And it doesn't matter if our obedience from the point of belief onward is not perfect; all our failures were born by Jesus on the Cross, even the ones that follow that moment of faith.
That doesn't mean though that we can just live however and get away with it. The fact is that when you are justified, your whole life orientation changes; you want to serve and please God. Your lifestyle will reflect that inevitably. There is no going back to the old way because you don't want to go back. Sure, there may be moments when you feel like it, but over the long run your life will be characterized by obedience to God, not sin.
So it happens that when the Final Judgment comes, God can say what he already said; you are justified, righteous. He said you were when you believed, and because of that, your life since gives evidence of it.
This is how the Reformation has come to understand the answer to the question: How do you get to be right with God? I confess I don't understand why so many don't believe when they have it explained to them. I don't understand why so many who are Christians don't accept it, but would rather try to add to Jesus' obedience with some of their own.
Maybe its just because I've studied the question so long. Maybe.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
The Day After
So last night the bill to legalize same sex marriages was passed in the House of Commons. You would think that the world should be ending, or at the very least that Canada would be dramatically changed.
It isn't however, and I think for good reasons. First and foremost is the fact that the bill simply codifies what has been, via jurisprudence, the law of the land for some time now. Then there is the fact that over the course of the entire debate, public opinion has not changed at all; most people still prefer the traditional definition. The fact of this bill becoming law is not likely to change that.
It is likely that whatever changes do come about as a result of the passage of this legislation are likely to take years to be felt fully. Some things I can see happening:
1. Denominations in the free church tradition will experience splits or slips. There are already rumblings that rogue, or "free thinking" ministers will want to marry same sex couples, regardless of denominational beliefs or policy statements. This will test the resolve, internal discipline, and unity of several denominations. Either they will discipline the ministers and the congregations who want to head in that direction, meaning suspension of denominational credentials and membership, or they will compromise.
2. A large percentage of Christian denominations, if not of faith communities generally, will get out of the marriage business. Marriage ceremonies will be performed, but no longer will ministers register them for the government. That function is voluntary, and only matters if the couple wishes their marriage recognized by the government. There are favorable tax implications to not registering the marriage, and there is no legal obligation to do so, thus no issue of failing to submit to authorities is involved. Couples would be free to register their marriage so via a justice of the peace at their option in any case. Spousal benefits are not at risk since the government accepts all conjugal cohabitation arrangements as defacto common law marriages.
3. In fact getting out of the legal marriage business may be the only way for churches to avoid prosecution in the future. If marriage in churches is strictly a religious matter independent from, if parallel to, the legal institution, then it would seem impossible for churches to be sued for discrimination. It would simply be a matter of the church separating from the state, and removing itself from the state's jurisdiction. The state has no say on whom churches may baptize, so making marriage a purely religious ceremony should provide the church a similar jurisdictional hedge. Strange as it may sound, the best way for marriage to be preserved in the church may be for the church and state to amicably divorce over what can only be called irreconcilable differences on the point of the definition of marriage.
Of course it is more politically expedient to try to paint the opposition as a radical fringe that will go to the extreme.
That is an old tactic of the Liberals. In that regard, nothing has changed.
It isn't however, and I think for good reasons. First and foremost is the fact that the bill simply codifies what has been, via jurisprudence, the law of the land for some time now. Then there is the fact that over the course of the entire debate, public opinion has not changed at all; most people still prefer the traditional definition. The fact of this bill becoming law is not likely to change that.
It is likely that whatever changes do come about as a result of the passage of this legislation are likely to take years to be felt fully. Some things I can see happening:
1. Denominations in the free church tradition will experience splits or slips. There are already rumblings that rogue, or "free thinking" ministers will want to marry same sex couples, regardless of denominational beliefs or policy statements. This will test the resolve, internal discipline, and unity of several denominations. Either they will discipline the ministers and the congregations who want to head in that direction, meaning suspension of denominational credentials and membership, or they will compromise.
2. A large percentage of Christian denominations, if not of faith communities generally, will get out of the marriage business. Marriage ceremonies will be performed, but no longer will ministers register them for the government. That function is voluntary, and only matters if the couple wishes their marriage recognized by the government. There are favorable tax implications to not registering the marriage, and there is no legal obligation to do so, thus no issue of failing to submit to authorities is involved. Couples would be free to register their marriage so via a justice of the peace at their option in any case. Spousal benefits are not at risk since the government accepts all conjugal cohabitation arrangements as defacto common law marriages.
3. In fact getting out of the legal marriage business may be the only way for churches to avoid prosecution in the future. If marriage in churches is strictly a religious matter independent from, if parallel to, the legal institution, then it would seem impossible for churches to be sued for discrimination. It would simply be a matter of the church separating from the state, and removing itself from the state's jurisdiction. The state has no say on whom churches may baptize, so making marriage a purely religious ceremony should provide the church a similar jurisdictional hedge. Strange as it may sound, the best way for marriage to be preserved in the church may be for the church and state to amicably divorce over what can only be called irreconcilable differences on the point of the definition of marriage.
Of course it is more politically expedient to try to paint the opposition as a radical fringe that will go to the extreme.
That is an old tactic of the Liberals. In that regard, nothing has changed.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
A slightly technical quiz
 | You scored as Karl Barth. The daddy of 20th Century theology. You perceive liberal theology to be a disaster and so you insist that the revelation of Christ, not human experience, should be the starting point for all theology.
Which theologian are you? created with QuizFarm.com |
I sin. I don't know too many people who would say otherwise. It isn't something I am proud of, nor something I enjoy even admitting. Every once in a while though it is wortwhile to remember that I am really no better than anyone else, and in some ways worse, than those around me. Its good for the ego.
I really appreciate how Paul calls himself the chief of sinners, not becuase I am a masochist who likes to beat himself up, ut simply because it helps me keep God's grace in perspective. It can be very easy to forget that what you have and are is a gift of grace. I don't deserve the intelligence, the gifts, the family, the ministry that I have. But as Paul said its all about grace, and God's grace has not been without effect.
I often wish it were of greater effect than it has been; I would like to be more of what I one day will be right now. Patience is hard. But I know the time will come. I just need to trust and obey.
I really appreciate how Paul calls himself the chief of sinners, not becuase I am a masochist who likes to beat himself up, ut simply because it helps me keep God's grace in perspective. It can be very easy to forget that what you have and are is a gift of grace. I don't deserve the intelligence, the gifts, the family, the ministry that I have. But as Paul said its all about grace, and God's grace has not been without effect.
I often wish it were of greater effect than it has been; I would like to be more of what I one day will be right now. Patience is hard. But I know the time will come. I just need to trust and obey.
Monday, June 27, 2005
So what's a right anyway?
It's odd but just about anything is considered a right these days. One seemingly can assert that they have a right to something and support it with nothing other than gratuitous slogans such as the Young Liberals did in wearing buttons that read "It's the Charter Stupid!."
Now, I delpore such argumentation, simply because it assumes so much and says so little. What does it mean to say a thing is a Charter Right? It seems to me that a Charter Right is little more than a legal fiction. The Rights we see being "won" today are won on the basis of legal argumentation not ethical, moral, or philosophical vision. In short if you can win the legal battle you have won a right. This however strikes me as little more than opportunism. Your chances of winning a legal battle depend on timing and who the Supreme Court Justices are. Hardly stirring stuff.
To my mind, it should be that principes that really matter, rights that really are rights, stir the passion and move the soul. Surely the "right" for two people of the same gender to engage in some perversion of God's ordinance of marriage is not to be considered on the same level as the grat fight for freedom of slaves, or the freedom from bondage and tyranny.
Where are the grand principles that guide a nation? They are absent. It seems that the great battles of the past, such as are enshrined in such landmark documents as the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independance are gone. These were issues that could rally the spirit. Freedom from tyranny. Now all we have are a series of far less substantial rights, ones are but motes in the eye comapred to those former rights.
If this is what we are reduced to then surely we are bankrupt as a society, philosophically and intellectually.
Now, I delpore such argumentation, simply because it assumes so much and says so little. What does it mean to say a thing is a Charter Right? It seems to me that a Charter Right is little more than a legal fiction. The Rights we see being "won" today are won on the basis of legal argumentation not ethical, moral, or philosophical vision. In short if you can win the legal battle you have won a right. This however strikes me as little more than opportunism. Your chances of winning a legal battle depend on timing and who the Supreme Court Justices are. Hardly stirring stuff.
To my mind, it should be that principes that really matter, rights that really are rights, stir the passion and move the soul. Surely the "right" for two people of the same gender to engage in some perversion of God's ordinance of marriage is not to be considered on the same level as the grat fight for freedom of slaves, or the freedom from bondage and tyranny.
Where are the grand principles that guide a nation? They are absent. It seems that the great battles of the past, such as are enshrined in such landmark documents as the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independance are gone. These were issues that could rally the spirit. Freedom from tyranny. Now all we have are a series of far less substantial rights, ones are but motes in the eye comapred to those former rights.
If this is what we are reduced to then surely we are bankrupt as a society, philosophically and intellectually.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)