I have no choice but to acknowledge that my hockey team, the Ottawa Senators, was recently eliminated from the Stanley Cup Playoffs. That acknowledgement constitutes the sum total of my commentary on the topic.
I have weightier matters to ponder.
Like caffeine. As in, I drink too much of it. I have worked far too hard of late, and have spent the last couple of weeks essentially functioning on the strength of coffee. That , of course, could not continue. This past weekend, I slept something close to 24 hours in a 36 hour span. To make matters worse, I did this through Mother's Day.
I am considering this a wake up call. A combination fo workaholism and coffeeholism is dangerous indeed. So I have reached a solution. I will allow myself a maximum of teo caffeinated ocffees per day. Anything above that will have to be decaf.
A radical step? Perhaps. But necessary.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Thursday, May 11, 2006
No, I am not dead
Thanks for asking.
Actually I have been very busy. I am writing a book, a devotional commeantary (if there is such a thing.. if not I just made it up, so consider the term copyrighted) on the book of James.
If anyone cares, let me know and I'll post some of it.
Actually I have been very busy. I am writing a book, a devotional commeantary (if there is such a thing.. if not I just made it up, so consider the term copyrighted) on the book of James.
If anyone cares, let me know and I'll post some of it.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
I knew it all along, but...
My youngest son and I were wrestling today. He eventually gave up, calling "Uncle!" in what was a most unexpected way.
My son is in Judo. One might have expected him to tap out. But no. Instead he roundly and loudly declared: "You're the Alpha Male!"
Where does a 7 year old get this stuf anyway?!
My son is in Judo. One might have expected him to tap out. But no. Instead he roundly and loudly declared: "You're the Alpha Male!"
Where does a 7 year old get this stuf anyway?!
Thoughts On Tide
I am fond of using an expression I learned while I was out East: A high tide raises all the boats. I apply it in a number of contexts. The key is to make clear what the "tide" is and what the "boats" are. For instance I sometimes use it in reference to the tide being a positive attitude that a person can carry, with the boats being the people in the church.
Lately though I have been using it in a slightly different way. If you'll pardon the mixing of the metaphor, the high tide is spiritual/biblical/theological depth, while the boats are the church.
The reason for this has to do with the growth of the church I serve. Numerically we grow all the time. In 2000, our average attendance was about 80. Today it is closer to 150, and we are routinely hitting 170. God is good! What makes this growth so amazing is that most of it is conversion growth, as opposed to transfer from other churches.
Our church has a reputation of taking in people who won't be accepted in other places, people with mental illness, AIDS, and the like. We get people who are utterly unchurched. This speaks volumes about the spiritual maturity of the core of the congregation.
The problem comes in where that core has to be spread out to minister to the expanding congregation. The core gets spread out, spread thin, and, in the absence of intentional training to supplement them as leaders, burnt out. Now, we do have a process to help people grow in their social maturity. We teach them how to live in a Christian way. In some senses maybe you could argue that we help them develop spiritual maturity that way. That doesn't change the fact that they have very little knowledge about Christian doctrine. While maturity is hard to measure in that area, it is probably true that people are not, on average, that much more biblically literate than they were, say, two years ago. They might still struggle to tell you which books are in which Testament.
The net effect, as far as the metaphor is concerned, is that the core of the congregation, the ones who have the biblical and theological depth are concerned, is being let out to serve the newcomers and not being replaced. The tide is going out, so to speak.
So what do we do? Well, I am working on doctrine classes to supplement the ones that are part of our current curriculum on how to live the Christian life. After all, if we don't explain why people ought to live a certain way, and where they get the power to do it, then we are imposing a new legalism on people. The only difference is that we call it "living healthy" instead of "being righteous and holy."
And God wants more than that.
Lately though I have been using it in a slightly different way. If you'll pardon the mixing of the metaphor, the high tide is spiritual/biblical/theological depth, while the boats are the church.
The reason for this has to do with the growth of the church I serve. Numerically we grow all the time. In 2000, our average attendance was about 80. Today it is closer to 150, and we are routinely hitting 170. God is good! What makes this growth so amazing is that most of it is conversion growth, as opposed to transfer from other churches.
Our church has a reputation of taking in people who won't be accepted in other places, people with mental illness, AIDS, and the like. We get people who are utterly unchurched. This speaks volumes about the spiritual maturity of the core of the congregation.
The problem comes in where that core has to be spread out to minister to the expanding congregation. The core gets spread out, spread thin, and, in the absence of intentional training to supplement them as leaders, burnt out. Now, we do have a process to help people grow in their social maturity. We teach them how to live in a Christian way. In some senses maybe you could argue that we help them develop spiritual maturity that way. That doesn't change the fact that they have very little knowledge about Christian doctrine. While maturity is hard to measure in that area, it is probably true that people are not, on average, that much more biblically literate than they were, say, two years ago. They might still struggle to tell you which books are in which Testament.
The net effect, as far as the metaphor is concerned, is that the core of the congregation, the ones who have the biblical and theological depth are concerned, is being let out to serve the newcomers and not being replaced. The tide is going out, so to speak.
So what do we do? Well, I am working on doctrine classes to supplement the ones that are part of our current curriculum on how to live the Christian life. After all, if we don't explain why people ought to live a certain way, and where they get the power to do it, then we are imposing a new legalism on people. The only difference is that we call it "living healthy" instead of "being righteous and holy."
And God wants more than that.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Coincidence? I Think Not!
My wife and I are both busy people. We get few enough opportunities to do what we mutually enjoy, and so we occasionally (read: rarely) schedule times to just hang out. Without the kids. Today is one such.
Today is also the first snow day of 2006. School is cancelled, and the kids are home.
The name of God, I am convinced, is "Murphy".
Let it be said that this snow day, unlike many others this year, is justified. It is a mess out there. That said, I am desperate enough to hang out with my wife that I am going to try to make the drive to Cambridge (where apparently it is not currently snowing) regardless.
Today is also the first snow day of 2006. School is cancelled, and the kids are home.
The name of God, I am convinced, is "Murphy".
Let it be said that this snow day, unlike many others this year, is justified. It is a mess out there. That said, I am desperate enough to hang out with my wife that I am going to try to make the drive to Cambridge (where apparently it is not currently snowing) regardless.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
It's Hard To Be Humble
There is a country and western song, I believe it is by Merle Haggard, which goes "Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble..." Loathe as I am to agree with anything country, I have in this case little choice. It isn't that I think I am perfect in every way. No one who knows me would suggest that, and I do have my two boys who, in their youthful honesty, remind me daily of my shortcomings.
No, the reason I find it hard to be humble is because I find it hard to know what being humble means. Some people seem to think that being humble means you having to constantly downplay your strengths, or at least remain silent about them. If you are not self-deprecating, or if you speak of your strengths, then you aren't humble. I haven't quite figured out why. Perhaps it is because of an assumption that self-promotion is inherently egotistical. Maybe it is because it is believed that to speak well of yourself is to automatically imply a commensurate negative assessment of others.
This is, in my opinion, neither a healthy nor a biblical view of humility. I believe that a healthy humility is one that sees a person have a balanced, sensible, and sober assessment of his or her strengths and weaknesses. Both can be spoken of, and with equal ease. In the case of the strengths, they are spoken of with due deference to the Lord who gave them. In the case of weaknesses, they are spoken of with due concession that these will be dealt with by that same Lord.
Too restrictive a view of humility denies us the chance to celebrate what God has done. Let us not go that route.
No, the reason I find it hard to be humble is because I find it hard to know what being humble means. Some people seem to think that being humble means you having to constantly downplay your strengths, or at least remain silent about them. If you are not self-deprecating, or if you speak of your strengths, then you aren't humble. I haven't quite figured out why. Perhaps it is because of an assumption that self-promotion is inherently egotistical. Maybe it is because it is believed that to speak well of yourself is to automatically imply a commensurate negative assessment of others.
This is, in my opinion, neither a healthy nor a biblical view of humility. I believe that a healthy humility is one that sees a person have a balanced, sensible, and sober assessment of his or her strengths and weaknesses. Both can be spoken of, and with equal ease. In the case of the strengths, they are spoken of with due deference to the Lord who gave them. In the case of weaknesses, they are spoken of with due concession that these will be dealt with by that same Lord.
Too restrictive a view of humility denies us the chance to celebrate what God has done. Let us not go that route.
Friday, February 24, 2006
No Ghosts
This week we completed our survey of reasons why it is vital for Christians to hold to the full humanity of Jesus Christ. Next week we'll be tackling the deity I think.
What we focused on this week was the resurrection body of Jesus. It is a pretty speculative question since there is really very little about it that is said. One thing that really boggled my mind though was how eager people were to see Jesus' body as being able to walk through walls. Not that I want to say that it is impossible, but really the evidence isn't there to support the notion.
If you look at John's Gospel, chapter 20, you read the following:
The problem though is that the question is not really rhetorical; there are answers other than "there is no other way." In Acts you see how people escape from cells in a similar fashion, and we don't assume they were immaterial (Acts 5:19,23; 12:6-10). Further we do see how people's perceptions are manipulated so as t be unable to see things that in fact are right before them (Lk. 24:16).
In other words, the Bible provides us with precedent for other explanations. Precedents, to me , should be accepted as explanations ahead of the idea of walking through walls.
What we focused on this week was the resurrection body of Jesus. It is a pretty speculative question since there is really very little about it that is said. One thing that really boggled my mind though was how eager people were to see Jesus' body as being able to walk through walls. Not that I want to say that it is impossible, but really the evidence isn't there to support the notion.
If you look at John's Gospel, chapter 20, you read the following:
19 In the evening of that first day of the week, the disciples were [gathered together] with the doors locked because of their fear of the Jews. Then Jesus came, stood among them, and said to them,"Peace to you!" 26 After eight days His disciples were indoors again, and Thomas was with them. Even though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them. He said,"Peace to you!"
The problem though is that the question is not really rhetorical; there are answers other than "there is no other way." In Acts you see how people escape from cells in a similar fashion, and we don't assume they were immaterial (Acts 5:19,23; 12:6-10). Further we do see how people's perceptions are manipulated so as t be unable to see things that in fact are right before them (Lk. 24:16).
In other words, the Bible provides us with precedent for other explanations. Precedents, to me , should be accepted as explanations ahead of the idea of walking through walls.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Under the Heading of "Say What?!"
***Your Five Factor Personality Profile***
Extroversion:
You have medium extroversion.
You're not the life of the party, but you do show up for the party.
Sometimes you are full of energy and open to new social experiences.
But you also need to hibernate and enjoy your "down time."
Conscientiousness:
You have medium conscientiousness.
You're generally good at balancing work and play.
When you need to buckle down, you can usually get tasks done.
But you've been known to goof off when you know you can get away with it.
Agreeableness:
You have high agreeableness.
You are easy to get along with, and you value harmony highly.
Helpful and generous, you are willing to compromise with almost anyone.
You give people the benefit of the doubt and don't mind giving someone a second chance.
Neuroticism:
You have low neuroticism.
You are very emotionally stable and mentally together.
Only the greatest setbacks upset you, and you bounce back quickly.
Overall, you are typically calm and relaxed - making others feel secure.
Openness to experience:
Your openness to new experiences is medium.
You are generally broad minded when it come to new things.
But if something crosses a moral line, there's no way you'll approve of it.
You are suspicious of anything too wacky, though you do still consider creativity a virtue.
The Five Factor Personality Test
http://www.blogthings.com/thefivefactorpersonalitytest/
Extroversion:
You have medium extroversion.
You're not the life of the party, but you do show up for the party.
Sometimes you are full of energy and open to new social experiences.
But you also need to hibernate and enjoy your "down time."
Conscientiousness:
You have medium conscientiousness.
You're generally good at balancing work and play.
When you need to buckle down, you can usually get tasks done.
But you've been known to goof off when you know you can get away with it.
Agreeableness:
You have high agreeableness.
You are easy to get along with, and you value harmony highly.
Helpful and generous, you are willing to compromise with almost anyone.
You give people the benefit of the doubt and don't mind giving someone a second chance.
Neuroticism:
You have low neuroticism.
You are very emotionally stable and mentally together.
Only the greatest setbacks upset you, and you bounce back quickly.
Overall, you are typically calm and relaxed - making others feel secure.
Openness to experience:
Your openness to new experiences is medium.
You are generally broad minded when it come to new things.
But if something crosses a moral line, there's no way you'll approve of it.
You are suspicious of anything too wacky, though you do still consider creativity a virtue.
The Five Factor Personality Test
http://www.blogthings.com/thefivefactorpersonalitytest/
| How You Life Your Life |
 You have a good sense of self control and hate to show weakness. You tend to avoid confrontation and stay away from sticky situations. You tend to have one best friend you hang with, as opposed to many aquaintences. Some of your past dreams have disappointed you, but you don't let it get you down. |
Think about it
People are often predictable. They are of course occasionally surprising, but when they are so, it is usally in just how predictable they can be. One likes to think that even the most programmed thinker can rise above his or her programming, that an inidividual might show him or herself to in fact be an individual. One likes to think that. One sometimes even hopes for it and longs for evidence that it is true. One is more oftentimes disappointed.
That is, until God takes over. Then the hold of prior prgramming is broken, and suddenly a certain randomness, a free radical style of thinking comes into play. Hope is born amid new possibilities.
Some people think that giving life over to God means becomng a robot, controlled by soem outsde force. The truht is that people are robots before encountering Jesus, not after. Paul puts it well in his letter to Titus 3:
That is, until God takes over. Then the hold of prior prgramming is broken, and suddenly a certain randomness, a free radical style of thinking comes into play. Hope is born amid new possibilities.
Some people think that giving life over to God means becomng a robot, controlled by soem outsde force. The truht is that people are robots before encountering Jesus, not after. Paul puts it well in his letter to Titus 3:
3It wasn't so long ago that we ourselves were stupid and stubborn, dupes of sin, ordered every which way by our glands, going around with a chip on our shoulder, hated and hating back. 4But when God, our kind and loving Savior God, stepped in, 5he saved us from all that. It was all his doing; we had nothing to do with it. He gave us a good bath, and we came out of it new people, washed inside and out by the Holy Spirit. 6Our Savior Jesus poured out new life so generously. 7God's gift has restored our relationship with him and given us back our lives. And there's more life to come--an eternity of life! 8You can count on this.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Thoughts from last night
Last night I started a study on basic doctrines. To make it a little more interesting, and to try to teach people how to think critically, I approached it in terms of a question: What's the big deal?
The topic was the humanity of Christ. I find it a fascinating doctrine because it is so taken for granted as true, yet it also so downplayed. We prefer to contemplate the glory of the cosmic Christ rather than wonder how Jesus' coped with splinters or what his personal hygiene was like.
But what's the big deal? Well, a lot of very important doctrines are affected if Jesus is not fully human, but perhaps none more so than the Atonement. In theological terms we speak of Jesus as having achieved a substitutionary atonement. Atonement refers to a covering of sin, as well as deflecting the wrath of God towards sin. "Substitutionary" means what you probably think it does; Jesus took our place, and was our substitute in paying the death penalty for sin. His death was a death for us.
But if Jesus was not human, then he could not really be our substitute. One of the faults of the Old Covenant was that the animals that were sacrificed were insufficient to achieve true atonement. Only a human being can substitute for a human being.
But it could not be just any human being. The human being had to be perfectly righteous. In a substitution, a pair of exchanges take place. One is of course that we exchange places. The other is that we exchange positions. We get the righteous standing while the substitute takes on our status of condemned.
So in the exchange between us and Jesus, where does the righteousness we receive come from? Many might think that it comes from Jesus' nature as God. I believe that it comes from Jesus' human nature. Jesus was perfectly obedient to the will of God. Where the first Adam failed, Jesus, as the last Adam, succeeded. His obedience was the means by which he acquired, as a human, the righteousness that gets credited to us.
Take away the humanity of Christ, and there is no righteousness to be credited to us. We might have our sins forgiven, but that doesn't give us in itself the right to stand before God. To be in God's presence you need to be righteous, not just forgiven. So we would not really be any better off if Jesus were not human.
That sounds complicated. It is in a way. It takes into account a lot of different scriptures. It actually touches on a lot of other related issues. But it all works, and it just shows me how awesome God really is.
The topic was the humanity of Christ. I find it a fascinating doctrine because it is so taken for granted as true, yet it also so downplayed. We prefer to contemplate the glory of the cosmic Christ rather than wonder how Jesus' coped with splinters or what his personal hygiene was like.
But what's the big deal? Well, a lot of very important doctrines are affected if Jesus is not fully human, but perhaps none more so than the Atonement. In theological terms we speak of Jesus as having achieved a substitutionary atonement. Atonement refers to a covering of sin, as well as deflecting the wrath of God towards sin. "Substitutionary" means what you probably think it does; Jesus took our place, and was our substitute in paying the death penalty for sin. His death was a death for us.
But if Jesus was not human, then he could not really be our substitute. One of the faults of the Old Covenant was that the animals that were sacrificed were insufficient to achieve true atonement. Only a human being can substitute for a human being.
But it could not be just any human being. The human being had to be perfectly righteous. In a substitution, a pair of exchanges take place. One is of course that we exchange places. The other is that we exchange positions. We get the righteous standing while the substitute takes on our status of condemned.
So in the exchange between us and Jesus, where does the righteousness we receive come from? Many might think that it comes from Jesus' nature as God. I believe that it comes from Jesus' human nature. Jesus was perfectly obedient to the will of God. Where the first Adam failed, Jesus, as the last Adam, succeeded. His obedience was the means by which he acquired, as a human, the righteousness that gets credited to us.
Take away the humanity of Christ, and there is no righteousness to be credited to us. We might have our sins forgiven, but that doesn't give us in itself the right to stand before God. To be in God's presence you need to be righteous, not just forgiven. So we would not really be any better off if Jesus were not human.
That sounds complicated. It is in a way. It takes into account a lot of different scriptures. It actually touches on a lot of other related issues. But it all works, and it just shows me how awesome God really is.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
As Good As It Gets
I suspect that in terms of my health, things are as good as they are going to get for a while. It is just going to take time for my energy and stamina to get back to where they should be.
It is Valentine's Day today. It is one of those days I like to get some historical background on. I am such a romantic. If you are as romantic as I, then feel free to go here.
My kids have their valentines to hand out to their classmates, and a few selected others. They are of course asking questions like "What's a secret admirer?". They are only 7 and 8, so its a bit of a challenge to give then age appropriate answers. Thankfully their interest is pretty superficial. There is one girl who asks my oldest who he loves. I told him to answer that he loves his family and he loves Jesus. I figure that will either shut the girl down (she isn't on the list) or it will confuse her. Either way I hope she will leave him alone.
I told the boys today they don't have to worry about girls because they aren't allowed to date, nor will they be allowed to date. They actually looked relieved. Good for them!
It is Valentine's Day today. It is one of those days I like to get some historical background on. I am such a romantic. If you are as romantic as I, then feel free to go here.
My kids have their valentines to hand out to their classmates, and a few selected others. They are of course asking questions like "What's a secret admirer?". They are only 7 and 8, so its a bit of a challenge to give then age appropriate answers. Thankfully their interest is pretty superficial. There is one girl who asks my oldest who he loves. I told him to answer that he loves his family and he loves Jesus. I figure that will either shut the girl down (she isn't on the list) or it will confuse her. Either way I hope she will leave him alone.
I told the boys today they don't have to worry about girls because they aren't allowed to date, nor will they be allowed to date. They actually looked relieved. Good for them!
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Reports of My Death
are only slightly exaggerated. When I feel better, I'll post more. I really hate pneumonia.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
My Spidey Sense Tells Me...
our results:
You are Spider-Man
Click here to take the Superhero Personality Quiz
You are Spider-Man
| You are intelligent, witty, a bit geeky and have great power and responsibility.  |
Making Mountains Out of Mole Hills?
I have been keeping track of the discussion over "The Homosexual Question" I referred to in an earlier post. I have to say its been fascinating and illustrative.
McClaren has been gracious, if less than direct, with his views. At first I thought he was just being pastoral in his dealing with homosexuality. That is a concern I can say I share, and I think my post in response reflects that.
However, I have started to think that in fact McClaren is not being pastoral for its own sake, or because being pastoral is the right thing to be when you're a pastor. Instead, I have begun to think that McClaren is being pastoral because it is consistent with his more postmodern mindset.
Postmodern/Emergent types are generally loathe to say what they actually believe. They can't; positions are incompatible with the dialogue or conversation that emergent prizes.
That much I knew, but reading McClaren I am beginning to think that emergent actually goes out of its way to make it hard to even reach positions or conclusions. The constant invoking of questions would seem to point in that direction. Most interesting though is McClaren's appeal to scholarly debate on the question of homosexuality. I am familiar with those debates, and, while the conclusions one reaches on the finer points would certainly have a significant impact, the fact is the debates themselves are very often tempests in teapots.
Let me explain: scholars, in a bid to mine the mind of God, will ask all kinds of questions, and raise all kinds of issues. They will be significant in that the answer will have an impact on the understanding of a passage under consideration. However sometimes scholars will ask questions which are almost moot. That is, they will raise the possibility of an alternative explanation for something that is possible, but highly unlikely. The result is a scholarly debate that produces a lot of light, but little heat.
Such debates are good for the academy in that they help maintain the integrity of academic rigor. They may even lead at some point to a significant contribution to the life of the Body of Christ at large. Most often however they do not; they raise questions rather than provide answers. For the average person who is looking for guidance for life, debates ad nauseum on points ad absurdum is not helpful may actually be harmful.
For emergents, those people who want to continually converse, such debates are useful in that they provide reasons to not reach conclusions and continue conversations. But to the extent that such conversations can be harmful to the Body at large, it is a method that is actually antithetical to a truly pastoral approach. This is in fact what McClaren does. He appeals to complexity as a basis for not making pronouncements. The fact that the complexity is to an extent fabricated and over issues which are themselves unlikely is not mentioned.
This leads me to the conclusion that McClaren is in fact not being pastoral at all. He is just being postmodern. That he confuses the two, either intentionally or otherwise is worrisome.
By the way, I am not arguing for a return to anti-intellectualism in any way. I support academic thoroughly. I do believe however that when we are using academics in the context of pastoral ministry, and communicating issues which are in debate in the academy, we need to do so while also evaluating the "weight" of a given debate. If a debate is only 1% likely to really end up impacting our understanding, then ought we be raising it before the people in the pews? I don't think so. I was taught to "not preach our doubts." There is a pastoral wisdom there that postmoderns, and McClaren in particular, seem to forget.
McClaren has been gracious, if less than direct, with his views. At first I thought he was just being pastoral in his dealing with homosexuality. That is a concern I can say I share, and I think my post in response reflects that.
However, I have started to think that in fact McClaren is not being pastoral for its own sake, or because being pastoral is the right thing to be when you're a pastor. Instead, I have begun to think that McClaren is being pastoral because it is consistent with his more postmodern mindset.
Postmodern/Emergent types are generally loathe to say what they actually believe. They can't; positions are incompatible with the dialogue or conversation that emergent prizes.
That much I knew, but reading McClaren I am beginning to think that emergent actually goes out of its way to make it hard to even reach positions or conclusions. The constant invoking of questions would seem to point in that direction. Most interesting though is McClaren's appeal to scholarly debate on the question of homosexuality. I am familiar with those debates, and, while the conclusions one reaches on the finer points would certainly have a significant impact, the fact is the debates themselves are very often tempests in teapots.
Let me explain: scholars, in a bid to mine the mind of God, will ask all kinds of questions, and raise all kinds of issues. They will be significant in that the answer will have an impact on the understanding of a passage under consideration. However sometimes scholars will ask questions which are almost moot. That is, they will raise the possibility of an alternative explanation for something that is possible, but highly unlikely. The result is a scholarly debate that produces a lot of light, but little heat.
Such debates are good for the academy in that they help maintain the integrity of academic rigor. They may even lead at some point to a significant contribution to the life of the Body of Christ at large. Most often however they do not; they raise questions rather than provide answers. For the average person who is looking for guidance for life, debates ad nauseum on points ad absurdum is not helpful may actually be harmful.
For emergents, those people who want to continually converse, such debates are useful in that they provide reasons to not reach conclusions and continue conversations. But to the extent that such conversations can be harmful to the Body at large, it is a method that is actually antithetical to a truly pastoral approach. This is in fact what McClaren does. He appeals to complexity as a basis for not making pronouncements. The fact that the complexity is to an extent fabricated and over issues which are themselves unlikely is not mentioned.
This leads me to the conclusion that McClaren is in fact not being pastoral at all. He is just being postmodern. That he confuses the two, either intentionally or otherwise is worrisome.
By the way, I am not arguing for a return to anti-intellectualism in any way. I support academic thoroughly. I do believe however that when we are using academics in the context of pastoral ministry, and communicating issues which are in debate in the academy, we need to do so while also evaluating the "weight" of a given debate. If a debate is only 1% likely to really end up impacting our understanding, then ought we be raising it before the people in the pews? I don't think so. I was taught to "not preach our doubts." There is a pastoral wisdom there that postmoderns, and McClaren in particular, seem to forget.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Thanks to McDLT
I have been duly informed that indeed, the Elvis Impersonators are alive and well, and, perhaps, in a pulpit near you.
Check this out.
Check this out.
Bad Karaoke?
Several months ago I was attendig an anniversary party for one fo the families in my congregation. There was karaoke there.
I don't like Karaoke. For me, it is right up there with bad lounge singers, and cheap E;vis impersonators.
You can imagine then how aback I was taken when O was challenged thusly: "Our worship services are karaoke, you know!"
I had to think about that one. I had to admit that yes we sing along to words on a screen while the music plays. No bouncing ball or anything, but that doesn't seem relevant. The only significant differences are that the music is played live, we are not on stage, and we all sing the song together.
Still, it is basically karaoke.
Is that bad thing? Well, assuming the proper heart and focus for worship is present, no, I don't think so. After all, our "karaoke" is no different from when congregational singing along to music played on organs while reading from hymnals. The instruments have changed, the way we broadcast the words has changed, but that's all.
Sure, we once had choirs; now we have worship bands. Again, assuming the heart is there, the function the two serve in a service is identical.
So , keeping in mind that the heart of worship must always be at the heart of worship, says I: Bring on the Karaoke!
Just don't brign in the Elvis impersonators.
I don't like Karaoke. For me, it is right up there with bad lounge singers, and cheap E;vis impersonators.
You can imagine then how aback I was taken when O was challenged thusly: "Our worship services are karaoke, you know!"
I had to think about that one. I had to admit that yes we sing along to words on a screen while the music plays. No bouncing ball or anything, but that doesn't seem relevant. The only significant differences are that the music is played live, we are not on stage, and we all sing the song together.
Still, it is basically karaoke.
Is that bad thing? Well, assuming the proper heart and focus for worship is present, no, I don't think so. After all, our "karaoke" is no different from when congregational singing along to music played on organs while reading from hymnals. The instruments have changed, the way we broadcast the words has changed, but that's all.
Sure, we once had choirs; now we have worship bands. Again, assuming the heart is there, the function the two serve in a service is identical.
So , keeping in mind that the heart of worship must always be at the heart of worship, says I: Bring on the Karaoke!
Just don't brign in the Elvis impersonators.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Strange Days Indeed
Sometimes God puts poeple in your path that cause you to suddenly question what you think you know.
This weekend I encountered two such people.
One was a memebr of the church who stated that having me in their class as a student would be intimidating. I thought that an odd reaction, since I acknowledge this person to be a far better teacher than I.
Juxtapose this with bumping into a pastor friend at a gas station. I had actually driven by his church a couple of weeks ago. At the time I noted that his name as not on the sign outside the building. I didn't think that was (pardont he pun) a good sign. But tonight I met him and inquired as to his activities. He has left the ministry more or less; he is part time only to help pay for his teacher's college courses.
This blew me away; I have long regarded him as an excellent pastor. He possesses a wonderful heart and tremendous patience. But, he says, he got tired of being the bad guy. His family wanted him "back."
If he could not make it in ministry over the ong haul, I have to wonder what I think I am doing. Add to that some other things going on, and, well, like I said, God sometimes makes you question what you think you know. Sometimes it is to re-affirm that you indeed know what you think you know. Other times it is disconfirm your opinion.
Time, and prayer, will tell.
This weekend I encountered two such people.
One was a memebr of the church who stated that having me in their class as a student would be intimidating. I thought that an odd reaction, since I acknowledge this person to be a far better teacher than I.
Juxtapose this with bumping into a pastor friend at a gas station. I had actually driven by his church a couple of weeks ago. At the time I noted that his name as not on the sign outside the building. I didn't think that was (pardont he pun) a good sign. But tonight I met him and inquired as to his activities. He has left the ministry more or less; he is part time only to help pay for his teacher's college courses.
This blew me away; I have long regarded him as an excellent pastor. He possesses a wonderful heart and tremendous patience. But, he says, he got tired of being the bad guy. His family wanted him "back."
If he could not make it in ministry over the ong haul, I have to wonder what I think I am doing. Add to that some other things going on, and, well, like I said, God sometimes makes you question what you think you know. Sometimes it is to re-affirm that you indeed know what you think you know. Other times it is disconfirm your opinion.
Time, and prayer, will tell.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Life After Politics
Means Sports.
In the news... Rob Babcock gets fired as GM of the Toronto Raptors. That's a bit of a surprise to me. There really isn't anything that a new GM can do to impact things mid-season, so the timing is a bit odd. Personally I think Babcock has improved a lot over the last year, and should have been allowed to finish his contract, or at least get to this point next year. I suspect Richard Peddie is trying to save his own job on this one. After all, neither team at MLSE is doing particularly well right now.
About that other team at MLSE... stuck firmly in the doldrums, the Leafs have only one thing going for them; all the teams they are competing with are in abot the same boat.
Ottawa got a shutout against the Habs... can you believe Hasek only had to face 12 shots? His comment about how shutouts like that shouldn't count is funny. There were two things I particulalrly enjoyed seeing. One was former Senator Radek Bonk getting plastered with an open ice check. He is a seriosuly big guy, Bok is, and he was constantly criticised for not using his body while in Ottawa. Glad to see him see what a check is up close and personal.
The other thing I enjoyed seeing was Sheldon Souray getting turned inside out by, of all people, Zdeno Chara with a nice dangle, who then scoring on an even nicer shot. Big Z is not knon for his stick handling, and you could see where Souray was completely unprepared for the move.
Now for the question that I have spent all of 15 minutes pondering: What is the toughest division in the NHL?
The award goes to the Northwest, where the last place Wild have a .540 winning percentage. Honourable mention goes to the Pacific, with the Northeast picking up third.
The weakest division is easliy the Central, where the third place Balckhawks have a .400 winning percentage. Makes me wonder if the Predators and Red Wings really are as good as their records would suggest.
In the news... Rob Babcock gets fired as GM of the Toronto Raptors. That's a bit of a surprise to me. There really isn't anything that a new GM can do to impact things mid-season, so the timing is a bit odd. Personally I think Babcock has improved a lot over the last year, and should have been allowed to finish his contract, or at least get to this point next year. I suspect Richard Peddie is trying to save his own job on this one. After all, neither team at MLSE is doing particularly well right now.
About that other team at MLSE... stuck firmly in the doldrums, the Leafs have only one thing going for them; all the teams they are competing with are in abot the same boat.
Ottawa got a shutout against the Habs... can you believe Hasek only had to face 12 shots? His comment about how shutouts like that shouldn't count is funny. There were two things I particulalrly enjoyed seeing. One was former Senator Radek Bonk getting plastered with an open ice check. He is a seriosuly big guy, Bok is, and he was constantly criticised for not using his body while in Ottawa. Glad to see him see what a check is up close and personal.
The other thing I enjoyed seeing was Sheldon Souray getting turned inside out by, of all people, Zdeno Chara with a nice dangle, who then scoring on an even nicer shot. Big Z is not knon for his stick handling, and you could see where Souray was completely unprepared for the move.
Now for the question that I have spent all of 15 minutes pondering: What is the toughest division in the NHL?
The award goes to the Northwest, where the last place Wild have a .540 winning percentage. Honourable mention goes to the Pacific, with the Northeast picking up third.
The weakest division is easliy the Central, where the third place Balckhawks have a .400 winning percentage. Makes me wonder if the Predators and Red Wings really are as good as their records would suggest.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Odds And Ends
First, a note about the "new look." I have been feeling for the last couple of weeks that the previous design was, well busy, and hard to read. I wanted to find something that was cleaner. I haven't found anything that really rocks me yet, at least anything that works with Blogger. I intend to keep looking, but in the meantime this will do.
Second, a note about the Biblical. I have noticed that there seems to be a kind of growing restlessness with the Bible. It doesn't seem to be exciting or sexy enough. Thomas Nelson has come up with Bible-zines to try and make it more appealing. Many interpreters are coming up with ways to "go beyond" the text, be it with a "trajectory hermeneutic", a "redemptive-movement hermeneutic" or a penchant to want to interpret clear passages with unclear ones.
I must be getting old. I used to think innovation was cool. I still do actually. But I guess I have lost the "anything goes" mentality. I used to sort of ask the rhetorical question "what harm can it do to try it?" Now I know some of the possible answers to that question. As a result I am a more cautious, and more insistent on being discerning and thoughtful before embracing something new.
For example, the MB Conference leadership has apparently embraced uncritically the Redemptive movement hermeneutic. I see no sign that any thought has been given to possible consequences. The thing is, it is not the consequences you intend so much as the ones you don't that cause the problems. Failure to try to predict consequences is a failure of leadership and vision.
I think this development goes hand in hand with my view of the Creeds of Christendom. We can discuss things, but it isn't like those things are up for grabs; we are not going to re-invent the wheel. So we can discuss Christology, and some of the things surrounding the Hypostatic Union, and such, but Chalcedonian Christology itself is not in question. Its a belief that we are to hold, not because its in a Creed, but because the Creed accurately portrays the Bible's teaching.
Anyway, I have lot more typing to do today. Better get to it before I get finger cramps.
Second, a note about the Biblical. I have noticed that there seems to be a kind of growing restlessness with the Bible. It doesn't seem to be exciting or sexy enough. Thomas Nelson has come up with Bible-zines to try and make it more appealing. Many interpreters are coming up with ways to "go beyond" the text, be it with a "trajectory hermeneutic", a "redemptive-movement hermeneutic" or a penchant to want to interpret clear passages with unclear ones.
I must be getting old. I used to think innovation was cool. I still do actually. But I guess I have lost the "anything goes" mentality. I used to sort of ask the rhetorical question "what harm can it do to try it?" Now I know some of the possible answers to that question. As a result I am a more cautious, and more insistent on being discerning and thoughtful before embracing something new.
For example, the MB Conference leadership has apparently embraced uncritically the Redemptive movement hermeneutic. I see no sign that any thought has been given to possible consequences. The thing is, it is not the consequences you intend so much as the ones you don't that cause the problems. Failure to try to predict consequences is a failure of leadership and vision.
I think this development goes hand in hand with my view of the Creeds of Christendom. We can discuss things, but it isn't like those things are up for grabs; we are not going to re-invent the wheel. So we can discuss Christology, and some of the things surrounding the Hypostatic Union, and such, but Chalcedonian Christology itself is not in question. Its a belief that we are to hold, not because its in a Creed, but because the Creed accurately portrays the Bible's teaching.
Anyway, I have lot more typing to do today. Better get to it before I get finger cramps.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
About "The Homosexual Question"
Note: For those who are wondering what inspires this post, go here.
I have to admit that I have not had much experience with homosexuality as it pertains to pastoral ministry. I have met many homosexual people, counted some as friends. At one point, I was preparing to debate publicly the issue of whether homosexuality is consistent with Christian orthodoxy. I have even done some counseling of believers who have homosexual relatives. That however is but a small fraction of my experience.
The article I read recently (linked above) does not ask the bare question of whether homsoexuality is biblical or not however. It goes into the somewhat murkier waters of how we go about communicating our belief.
We can be honest here: answering a question posed in classroom ought to be answered in a manner different from that which would be used if that same question were posed in, say, a therapy session. The answer should be the same, ultimately. However the two settings are sufficiently distinct to justify different approaches to responding. A classroom setting is strictly informational. However a therapy session is not just looking for information; there is also an element of meaning and significance that is tied into things.
To bring in the current case, in a classroom I would clearly answer that homosexuality is incompatible with biblical Christianity, and I would give my biblical grounds for saying so. I would expect that some questions would arise, but they would deal with the validity of my conclusions and the accuracy of my facts.
In a pastoral visit though, it would be different. I would want to know why they are asking questions about the topic, just as the article's author does. My desire would simply be to discern the question behind the question. That "question behind the question" is really the one that needs to be addressed immediately.
I have made the mistake of not asking about the question behind the question. I was asked once a question about euthanasia. I described what it is, in strictly academic terms. What I did not realize was that the person asking was considering a situation with her father. She was a nurse, and I was addressing the issue as one professional to another; it did not occur to me that there would be any other concerns. The result was that I was labeled as being uncaring, and a relationship was lost.
Now I ask for the question behind the question. I do not assume that people are just looking for information. Most often they are not. Most often I find they are looking to find out if they can trust you. If they can, then they will let you speak to them on the level of dispensing information. At the beginning though there is a need to establish a relationship. Asking about that question behind the question is crucial in establishing that relationship.
Still, we need not abandon or soft peddle our convictions. I have found it effective to simply point out that I do have my convictions, but that for the time being it would be better served to get to know one another. People listen better in the context of a relationship. Once people know our heart we are in a position to give them a piece of our mind.
I have to admit that I have not had much experience with homosexuality as it pertains to pastoral ministry. I have met many homosexual people, counted some as friends. At one point, I was preparing to debate publicly the issue of whether homosexuality is consistent with Christian orthodoxy. I have even done some counseling of believers who have homosexual relatives. That however is but a small fraction of my experience.
The article I read recently (linked above) does not ask the bare question of whether homsoexuality is biblical or not however. It goes into the somewhat murkier waters of how we go about communicating our belief.
We can be honest here: answering a question posed in classroom ought to be answered in a manner different from that which would be used if that same question were posed in, say, a therapy session. The answer should be the same, ultimately. However the two settings are sufficiently distinct to justify different approaches to responding. A classroom setting is strictly informational. However a therapy session is not just looking for information; there is also an element of meaning and significance that is tied into things.
To bring in the current case, in a classroom I would clearly answer that homosexuality is incompatible with biblical Christianity, and I would give my biblical grounds for saying so. I would expect that some questions would arise, but they would deal with the validity of my conclusions and the accuracy of my facts.
In a pastoral visit though, it would be different. I would want to know why they are asking questions about the topic, just as the article's author does. My desire would simply be to discern the question behind the question. That "question behind the question" is really the one that needs to be addressed immediately.
I have made the mistake of not asking about the question behind the question. I was asked once a question about euthanasia. I described what it is, in strictly academic terms. What I did not realize was that the person asking was considering a situation with her father. She was a nurse, and I was addressing the issue as one professional to another; it did not occur to me that there would be any other concerns. The result was that I was labeled as being uncaring, and a relationship was lost.
Now I ask for the question behind the question. I do not assume that people are just looking for information. Most often they are not. Most often I find they are looking to find out if they can trust you. If they can, then they will let you speak to them on the level of dispensing information. At the beginning though there is a need to establish a relationship. Asking about that question behind the question is crucial in establishing that relationship.
Still, we need not abandon or soft peddle our convictions. I have found it effective to simply point out that I do have my convictions, but that for the time being it would be better served to get to know one another. People listen better in the context of a relationship. Once people know our heart we are in a position to give them a piece of our mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)