BC and Back Again

Just got back from our vacation in BC. I presented two workshops at the Vineyard National Gathering - The Ladd Who Lit the Fire and Theology Pubs: Postmodern Hermeneutics. Both went really well and there will be slides up (at some point) on our new Thoughtworks website. In the first session I presented on Wimber's read of Ladd's Kingdom Theology. The big insight for me was how Wimber saw our relationship to God's reign as one of obedience. Obedience is a huge cornerstone in Wimber's theology and I think it is a brilliant approach to understanding the Kingdom of God as a dynamic expressed reign. Of course you can't spend an hour talking about the Kingdom without doing Kingdom ministry - so we spent the last half hour practicing our obedience, listening and responding to the King. The second session was different. I did a short presentation on Theology Pubs and how they work, then as a workshop we had one... actually two. Mark Taverner of North Langley Vineyard helped me out by leading a second group due to the large number of participants (Mark is a pastor and thinker I really respect, and he has a huge passion for our topic - Post-Modern Hermeneutics). I set up the pub by talking about how we would discuss Post-Modern Hermeneutics, including my own suspicions about the term post-modern. Then we made circles and chatted. What I had hoped for happened in my group - we had folks with completely different ideas able to have a conversation which didn't devolve into a debate. I was really happy with how it went. Also I was happy that the model seemed to strike a chord with many of the participants, they saw how it could open up conversations that are no longer possible with traditional evangelism approaches. Not that these theology pubs are overtly or even covertly evangelism outreaches, except that they allow us to engage in public theology, that is theology in a public venue where we don't expect to have all the answers. The evangelistic thrust is in the fact that it presents a face of the church that evangelicals haven't been good at showing - letting our faith seek understanding. I think such conversations actually lay aside the modernist quest for certainty that has been so problematic.

For our vacation we camped around the province in an old '77 camper van. It was totally Scooby Doo. At one gas station I emerged to have folks flashing me the peace symbol! Nice. We saw tonnes of deer (a few dead ones too unfortunately) and even a black bear on Vancouver Island. We marveled at Cathedral Grove. My wife and oldest daughter learned to surf. We swam in many rivers and lakes - some quite frigid. We bathed in hot springs, that was really nice. And we roasted hot dogs (gluten and dairy free was not easy to find!) over camp fires. So much fun.

Despite all this, I'm happy to be in my own bed again. Just wish I could get to sleep tonight.

Vineyard Family

We were at the Vineyard National Gathering in Penticton, BC. Such an awesome time! I love gatherings like this, it reminds me again why I love my Vineyard family so much. I was asked to teach a couple of workshops - one on Wimber's reading of Ladd and another modelling theology pubs using the topic of post-modern hermeneutics. Both were very well attended and really went well. I loved the experimental worship night we did, I think Dan Wilt started a tradition for us four years ago, thanks Dan. And when we left the park Larry Levy was announcing a baptism. So cool. I made lots of connections that I will treasure, and lots that I will continue through the web. There are so many cool God hungry people in this movement, it is a privilege to be a part of it!

Review: The Holy Spirit is Not for Sale

J. Lee Grady is not, by his own admission, a theologian. But he is an observer from within a movement and his observations are worth engaging with. The reason I start where I did is that his theological analysis is not very well done. This leads to some problems in his suggested solutions to the problems that his beloved Pentecostal movement faces. Despite the lack of a compelling self-critical analysis - he does make a good case that something has shifted and allowed the movement to be characterized by what Grady might call false spiritualities. He is calling for a reformation of sorts, part return to the first passions of Pentecostalism and part new passion for personal piety.

A couple notable new ideas, at least for old school Pentecostals, are the recognition that the Spirit's activity is not restricted to the Pentecostals and the ways in which even Pentecostal practice/theology has pandered to enlightenment individualistic ideas. His critiques are often good. Where he goes with them, not always so. He seems to hold the same fear of intellectualism that prevents Pentecostal theology from improving (thank God that there are so many great Pentecostal intellectuals coming on the scene these days - there is much to be encouraged about in this area) and he also seems to hold a truncated version of the gospel missing that this individualistic gospel is part of the problem that he has noticed.

On another side of it, I come from Pentecostal roots. There are things that I really love about my Pentecostally-formed spirituality. Grady's stories reminded me some of what I loved about that. The passion for God's presence. The desire for a holy life in God. The passion to see God's love transform people all around me. These are good things. Grady is right to lament their weakening in Pentecostal experience. I think some of his suggestions are worth a deeper reflection. Perhaps that is the best place to put this book - Grady starts an honest and hard conversation that Pentecostals must have to move forward. In this he does a real service to the Body of Christ.

Line Between Fatalism and Trust

I'm more and more convinced that the line between these two needs to be participation. We participate in what we are convinced God alone can/will do. And we trust that God will do more than we could ever do on our own. If we lose that edge of participation then we easily slip into pessimism and fatalism. Neither of which are sufficient responses to the great needs of our times - including the need for folks to encounter God's expressed reign.

World of the Text

Just an additional thought. I find that Ladd, along with a lot of biblical scholars, gets lost in the world of the text. Text is prime and the real world is secondary. At least that is how it feels to me. All this talk of what the text really asserts or clearly shows feels to me like it is an inside conversation. The problem I have with this is that it is micro thinking, that is thinking so focused on a narrow scope that it easily becomes oblivious to its presuppositions. I also feel like it needs to have references outside of the text. The real world must have some say, because it does have a say even if we do not acknowledge it. For me the Bible must be in dialogue with real life or it is of no value (and can even be part of the problem). The one biblical scholar I find who does not do this (at least in what little I've read from him) is Brueggemann. Maybe I want a Ladd who is more like Brueggemann?

Dismantling Based on Wrong Criteria

I must admit my bias is that apocalyptic scenarios are largely constructed. Reading historically it seems that the content of apocalyptic scenarios shifts as time marches on unapologetically ignoring the scenario. At a certain moment the US was ripe for a new scenario and in came pre-trib rapture, fine. But as long as the criteria for dismantling the previous scenario (or existing scenarios) is our own construction, we will just be adding to the mess. This is what Ladd does in Blessed Hope. He takes on pre-trib rapture and while he does a good job dismantling it he replaces it with another construct sometime using the same inferential methodology he complains about from the pre-tribbers. I want something that lands outside the scenarios and then can come back to assess the scenario we like best (if we feel compelled to impose a scenario, I'm not convinced that we need to).

So what are the core eschatological notions? Ladd insists that they must culminate with the return of Jesus. I can appreciate that - if we have a Christian hope that is rooted in incarnation/advent then a God who buggers off completely is not an option. God must have the last word in history. Where this becomes a problem is when we flesh this out with gritty details about how this coming will happen. Confession time - I've dreamt several times of Jesus' return, profound dreams that in all cases were answers to prayers regarding what direction I should take next. In one I found myself with a great mass of people dropping everything and heading off to meet the Lord. In another I ran out onto the lawn to see the skies split open. I could easily construct something from these - but then I'd miss the point. I was working through my options trying to find the way my journey could continue to partner with God. Ultimately, God will have the last word, but my conviction (through study, prayers and experience) is that we work towards making that last word manifest even though we only see it dimly, with humility to adjust as God makes it clearer.

All that to say that it is not the clearest thing in my experience - I'm implicated. Yet I still dislike the way we construct end time scenarios. We need a criteria that stands up better than our biased reading of complicated texts. I say this as someone who loves the coming of God, but also someone who has seen how some of these scenarios render the church unable to cope with real life. Pre-trib rapture is a prime example of how destructive a scenario can be.

So here is where I turn to hope. Whatever we say about the future must be said for us here now. It must enable us to navigate the complexities of life, while giving hope for the betterment of society. Scenarios that don't care about society, environment, and the cosmos really will not work in an age where our vision encompasses all of these. To think that the ancient scenarios are sufficient misses that they have always been re-interpreted based on social location and scope of worldview and that they serve higher purposes than laying out a supposed road map to Armageddon. If such a road map were easily constructed there would not be such endless variance in these scenarios. And to be honest, I can construct some pretty Earth friendly readings of scripture if I wanted to (and have in the past).

Does this mean we discard the scenarios in the biblical texts? Not at all. In fact they give us hope that these scenarios can be constructed in ways that give constructive hope to a people. They themselves are often packaged in helpfully complex language allowing each generation to take up the Blessed Hope as a navigating principle leading towards the ultimate salvation of the world. What is even better is that we get to use the energy of such scenarios in our participation in God's work in the world, leading to the day when God will be all in all - the eschatological fulfillment.

Just some thoughts as I process Ladd.

Game Summit is a Hit!

Look out CanGames, Game Summit is here. It is well organized, kid friendly, located in excellent facilities with plenty of parking, and quite a bit cheaper. Colour me impressed. They started these things in 2008 and a lot of the same wargamers go to both cons. However, a live DJ, hourly prizes, vendors all around the perimeter, carpeted floors that don't suck the very life out of you, and art/painting workshops - I think GS will give CanGames a run for the money. Plus, I ran games at both events this year. As a game master they really took care of me, I felt valued. Lots of volunteers made sure I had everything I needed to run my games and helped me get the players I needed even though I signed up late and didn't make it to any of their pre-meetings for ambassadors. When I registered I also noted some deficiencies in their GM sign-up material - while I was there Marquis, one of the main organizers, came up to me and, without my prodding, explained how they were going to make that sign up process better for next year. That is pretty sweet.

The pic shows some of the folks who played my Injurius Games scenario. My oldest also played as we demoed the game. Next year I'll try to run a full day of IG demos, maybe even their new pirate game if they have it ready. My daughter also played in a Monopoly tournament (me too) and won a copy of Monopoly City. She was over the moon. I also sold a pile of old games, which cleans up my shelves a bit. I wonder if it is time to sell off my D&D 3.5 - 4E has me sold completely. I don't expect I'll bother going back to 3.5.

Lies Christians Love

I think about a lot of troubling things. I was speaking to a class last night and defined my motivating theological impulse as a conviction that evangelical Christians can do much better than we are doing. I mean this in a lot of ways: how we treat people, how we think about social injustice, how we read scripture, how we worship, how we love, even how we work towards social transformation. Fortunately, I do find a lot of sites of hope in the world of evangelicals, even in the North American context which is my object of study. But one of the more disheartening things I run into is the love of lies that evangelicals have. I'm not saying this lightly. I first ran into it when I came to Christ from quite a bit of involvement in New Age spirituality. Some of the first books handed to me were by the cult sensationalists throwing out all kinds of matter-of-fact (and unsubstantiated) claims about the New Age being a highly organized out-to-get all Christians organization. While I'm not in any way endorsing New Age philosophy or spirituality - but the idea that this was a hyper-organized, actively anti-Christian organization was laughable. What I was part of was quite disorganized, multi-faceted and more concerned with its own spiritual insights than attacking Christianity.

Some of the lies that I keep hearing Christians tell are as follows:
- there is a gay agenda that is anti-Christian (I think my gay Christian friends would have a lot of trouble with this one)
- there is a gay agenda that wants to convert our kids to homosexuality (I think this fear is based on the realization that evangelicals want to convert kids so why wouldn't everyone else?)
- Dungeons and Dragons was created by Satanists to recruit kids to the occult (Actually it was created by a JW and a Baptist and a central idea for them was the epic battle between good and evil)
- Catholics (by which they mean Roman Catholics) can't be saved (that lie makes me want to cry actually)
- Pentecostals and Charismatics are so much closer to God than other Christians because they have the Holy Ghost (another one that makes me want to cry, seriously there are Christians who love lies about each other and not just about those outside of their religion)
- The slogan love the sinner and hate the sin isn't just an excuse to exclude people who aren't like us (I've come to detest most Christian platitudes)
- That their 'literal' reading of scripture is not actually another picking and choosing (this one goes out to all you shellfish loving homophobic literalists)
- That the King James bible is the only legitimate English translation (I'm being kind, I've run into KJ only folk who literally think it was the version Jesus used???)
- That it is ok to condemn sinners and sit around on their arses waiting for a rapture. (What makes you sure you'd qualify for a rapture?)

I could go one, but not without getting depressed. The thing is I'm convinced Christians should be lovers of truth. So the need of our day is to get off our complacent backsides and seek the Truth. I recently had a Christian minister send me a raft of homophobic hate articles telling me that if I was really interested in the TRUTH (her emphasis) then I should read these. I read three of the four - and all I found were lies. Maddening lies that were meant to dehumanize and justify hatred. Enough, this love of lies should really tell us something. The biblical father of lies is not God. Lies are not good. If you claim to have the Holy Spirit and are loving lies - well you would be the one I question if you really have the Spirit. I've spoken in the past of how certainty is the idol that has seduced modern North American evangelicals. That idol is entrenched in a fortress of lies. If we listen perhaps we'll hear another voice, "come out of her my beloved." And turn from the lies we love to tell.

Great Quote!

In discussing the problems with biblical propositions for premillinialist variations, Ladd says this: "Our problems arise when we begin to ask questions which were not in the minds of the authors." (The Blessed Hope, 13) So true. And it is compounded by modern views of Scripture that treat it like an answer or rule book for life. So what happens is that any marginal reference to an issue is grasped at, uncritically I hasten to add, and used to support our ideological stances. For me this is epitomized in the conversation about homosexuality. A scant few references are used to hastily bring the supposed judgment of scripture onto an issue that does not inhabit the same social import then as it does today. The good test of this is to ask, where does Paul ponder whether or not God would bless the lifelong marriage of a homosexual couple? Or where does Jesus ever ask if homosexuals should not be permitted at his table fellowship? Nowhere. In fact we could probably infer that Jesus' table was wide open. So far from saying the scriptures are unable to help us develop a response to the questions of our day - we need to approach them differently and let that question be asked of the Scriptures. The more I do that the less I can find reasons for closing my table, my church and my life to all. About the only ones I'm finding legitimate grounds to critique and condemn are those who behave like the Pharisees of Jesus' time. The ones who want to close the tables, keep their comfortable little religion and pretend the world around them has no relevance to their lives (and as a result participate in the systemic injustice of society, which was very much part of Jesus' critique).

Healing Leprechauns!

Now I already knew Jesus rocked, but in a little known reading of the gospels we find out that Jesus was rockin' the Irish long before Patrick! Thanks Scott for this exegetical wonder and your deft commentary.

Apocalyptic Constructs in Eschatology

I'm spending the next few weeks working my way through some of Ladd's key texts (plus a few that I just have on my shelf!): Blessed Hope, Gospel of the Kingdom, Presence of the Future, NT Theology, & the Last Things. I have some key questions as this is not the first time I've read most of these. However, as I launched into it I find myself wrestling through the apocalyptic scenarios that we attach to eschatology via the book of Revelation (and I would argue some gospel passages we interpret via Revelation). Ladd certainly picks and chooses his way through these - dropping things like the supposed rapture. But still he has a specific end time scenario laid out. For me the essentials are the eschaton in Christ's return - but I'm flexible in how this all plays out. I'm not so sure his discount of immanence based on a literal yet-to-come anti-Christ is solid. I get that this focus on eschatology through narrative does certain things for Ladd - but I'm wondering if the particular narrative that takes Revelation as a sort of timetable to destruction is helpful or even correct.

Maybe part of this is a knee jerk on my part against dispensational narratives that I find dangerous to Christian witness. But I think there needs to be a way to wisely navigate texts which have been the source of huge division and even undermining the mission of the Church (this is how I see it). I'm not willing to throw out the text of Revelation (nor would I propose that), but I think that there have to be other ways to read it - as a fifth gospel perhaps? After all the title is the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Much as I talk about not being a biblical scholar - I guess I have some biblical work ahead of me here.

thoughts?

Injurius Games - Gauntlet

Every year for CanGames I come up with some crazy new Injurious scenario, based on the conference theme. This year I came up with Gauntlet. This one was a lot of fun. There were two types of squads - runners (human marines or orx both with augmented speed) and blockers (mechs, humans or orx). The blockers started up high and the runners had to navigate a valley towards the finish line. Once at the finish line they could turn around and rain steel and energy blasts on whoever they liked. So much chaos, so much fun.

The first running didn't see any runners on the finish line. So I upped their speed for the second go. My buddy Jason took the trophy with his running orx! The second running saw a surprise at the end as a marine seemingly came out of nowhere to take the finish line and set up a defense. In that game one of the new players took it, I hope he found a nice place to show off his trophy. I'm hoping to run a simplified version at Game Summit this month, care to join in the mayhem?


(BTW Firefox is behaving again!)

Firefox Woes....

I've actually tried to do a few blog posts recently but keep forgetting that Firefox crashes when it opens up a file dialogue box! Not fun. I am usually well into the post before I remember and I rarely use Window's Exploder. Sucks because I finally get Firefox working the way I like and this happens. I'm suspicious of AdBlock Plus and Zotero - both of which I use. I'll figure it out and get back to posting more often.

D12 Pirate Game

The boys at Red Shirt Games have a new pirate game. It is pretty sweet. As with their other games, it scales to whatever miniatures (toys) you have on hand. But their presentation with Wizkids boats, foamcore ship record sheets (complete with coloured stickpins) and a gorgeous map and terrain made for a great gaming experience.

The big difference from other D12 games is the hex map, but things ran pretty smoothly. The core mechanic is the same, determine the target number and roll a D12. Easy peasy, as my kids would say. The game moves along pretty nicely and we had a big group of players. Everyone moves at the same time, explores at the same time and resolves combat at the same time. I wrestled with the wind a lot of the time, but did have the satisfaction of messing up a few ships with my cannons! Oh, and I can't not mention rum. Rum is great in this game, keeps the ship running smooth. You don't want to run out though, the after effects are not pleasant. But there is a simple cure - more rum! Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

I think they still need an official name. I'm thinking of calling it D12 Scurvy Dogs, just cause I like that name and D12 Piratey Smash is not much of a name, even though it is similar to another game they like to run.

History is Fun

Fundamentalist Crisis

I delivered my paper at the AAR this past weekend. I was looking at the early 20th century Fundamentalist movement as a self-exile. In the process I've been listening to Randall Balmer, who is an Episcopal historian. He has a very interesting take on the history of evangelicalism in the US. The more I read the more I see how serious an undertaking Fundamentalism was - and the more I see why it is so hard for us to climb out of its shadow. That's the analogy that fits - Fundamentalism was a dark shadow, we welcomed because we thought it solved our immediate problem, but like any dark shadow we realized too late it was sapping our life. I feel like we've been trying to crawl out from under this shadow since the 60s (if not from earlier).

But the other side is that this particular shadow is attractive. In a "the devil you know" sort of way. That is why we got there in the first place. It was not a naive, anti-intellectual movement in the beginning. It was calculated and meant to address a host of anxiety creating problems for evangelicals. Not the least of which were the move towards social sciences and the traction of the social gospel. The Fundamentalist provided an inner logic that seemed to hold up, at least for a while. Shift happened in the mid-20s, but by then the Fundamentalist movement had given itself over to dispensationalism and uncritical literalism. Those two things are a plight still in evangelical culture.

Restore Josh Whedon!

For those of you who cringed at the ass-ianity of Restore Stephen Baldwin - redemption is nigh.

Evangelism

Over on facebook I was asked to clarify my self-identification as an evangelical. It is something I think about a lot. Mostly because I believe there is something amazing about Christianity that I would love to invite everyone into. However, I know that evangelism is often seen as a dirty word. In fact I find most forms of evangelism to be troubling, especially the manipulative hell talk that was common in my street preaching Pentecostal roots.

So what does evangelism mean to me?

When I go to a yoga class I expect my instructor/guide to extol the virtues of yoga. When I visit the place of worship for another religion, such as a Sikh temple where they give you suji and feed you, I expect to hear the virtues of that religion. So if you come to a Christian church then expect to hear about the virtues of following Jesus. That part makes sense and I think won't offend anyone. But if any of these groups begins to speak at a public level then it is a different story. But for me that is exactly where religion needs to be seen and heard. I'm not advocating a return to the fire and brimstone street preacher - in fact I struggled even then with the turn-or-burn type message. But it does need to work its way into our public lives, that is what makes it evangelism. So here are three guidelines that I would impose on my own understanding of evangelism.

It has to be invitational: This is the best attitude I know of. It is not confronting individuals, but giving them opportunity to journey with Jesus. Actually I'm quite convinced that the work of an evangelist is to partner with what Christ is already doing in peoples lives. Sometimes we think God has wholesale abandoned folks and it is up to us to rescue them. This is mostly because we don't care enough about people to listen. We would rather chalk up another convert than actually walk people towards God in patient, wholistic ways. The problem is that those few easy converts either fall away (one pastor recently said to me they fall off the hook? what a horrible image that is) or become similarly uncaring convert seekers themselves.

It has to practice what it preaches: The best evangelism comes from living out loud. This is the part that I think many evangelicals miss. The Fundamentalist movement, for instance, presented an unlivable message. Do we do the same? If we preach a message of God's love then how can we live in ways that exclude, condemn and marginalize others?

It also has to be honest: The other side of this is that we can't be selling something. I know, we are always selling something, but what I mean is that we need to be honest. Following Jesus is not a panacea for all of life's problems. Far from it. Following Jesus demands everything. The problem with the bridge gospel message is that it is only a small piece of the story. Following Jesus is not about some eternal reward, but about a way of living here and now. It is costly and we need to tell people that. It is hard and we need to make that clear as well. This is one of the reasons I'd rather have people walk with me before I ever make a direct invitation - I want them to see that I'm a real person, with real struggles. I also want them to see how my faith helps me navigate those things. How following Jesus leads me to make amends when I screw up, how it helps me to be better than I could be on my own. How prayer is like breathing for me, and how when I don't pray as I should I find myself resting too much on my own strength and knowledge. From my experience, people are open to being invited into something that is evidently real.

It has to have a notion of gospel that matches what Jesus used: Here is where modern apologetics fails us. Modern evangelism methods are about proving that we are right. My big problem is that Jesus never did this. In fact what I see Jesus doing in his cultural context is a far easier way of being in our cultural context. Jesus walked with the ones that society shunned. He was hard on the religious who made it hard on others. But with others he lived his life in such a way that they wanted to be part of that life. Jesus always encouraged those who got the insight to keep running with it, as opposed to those who preach eternal assurances resting on some faith commitment. Jesus knew that life was going to be complicated - he never glossed that over. He declared that the Kingdom had come, broken into the world in a way that would eventually transform all of history. He called us to look for the Kingdom, to watch and be ready. He spoke in aphorisms instead of dogmatics. So my question is how we can transform that into simplistic messages of atonement and eternal destination? This was not Jesus' pre-occupation. Neither should it be ours.

The option I'm presenting is not easy. There is a lot of simplistic religion in evangelical Christianity. A lot of easy methods, methods that frankly do not yield fruit that lasts (at least not fruit that looks much different than the Pharisees of Jesus' time). But it is also not as hard as we might think. What I'm saying is that we should think deeply about our faith. We should live it everywhere we go. We should also look for opportunities to share that faith perspective with others. And we should encourage them right where they are at (trusting God).

Quiet...not really

It's just the blog. I've been really busy, but good busy these days. I have about 2 weeks before my first paper (AAR regionals) and May is simply going to be insane. I'll try and blog when I can, I really want to work on the Marriage series, but time is my problem.

Songs of Worship

We had Sean and Aimee Dayton come share a night of worship singing with us. It was really nice. We had the two of them for dinner and got to hear their hearts. I think their church is really blessed to have them leading the worship in song. I've been thinking a bit about songs recently. Frost, in his terrific book "Exiles", goes on a bit of a rant against the content of modern worship songs. In some ways I completely agree that our songs need to help us imagine a better world - a world of justice. But I'm also torn because for me part of that vision of justice includes a restoration of that relationship with God and a heartfelt response of love towards the one who first loved us. I find that this is a fine line though. When worship songs idolize the personal, as if Jesus were some sort of boyfriend - well that misses it. That makes it too easy for us to stick our heads up our arses, thinking that this all revolves around us. It does not. I don't buy the platitude that if we were the only person Jesus would has died for me - I don't need that kinda self-importance to recognize the utter privilege of Christ's redemptive act on the cross. If it is about anyone it has to be about Jesus. Yet, there is still an intimacy I don't think we should give up. Here is the hard balance I'm looking for.

For me worship, intimate worship in song, has been profoundly liberating. It opens me up to trusting, surrendering myself to God and God's plans for my life. It is a gateway to something bigger. Here is where I think Frost's critique really makes sense - at this point it should help us imagine something bigger. Worship songs should lead us somewhere. If all they do is let us get lost in warm fuzzy feelings I think we are missing a whole dimension of what worship can be. I think we can have both.

I've been longing for worship songs that capture my heart and lead me to justice. I really like Sean's song, You Are Good, because it starts to move towards that vision. Why is God good? If God is good for no good reasons, then is God worth worshiping? But this song reminds us of where God is active - in the mess of life. In recognizing that we get a new vision of where we can find and participate with God. I think that makes good worship sense. What was interesting is that Sean and Aimee started the night with a song that can be interpreted as dangerously individualistic (not one of theirs) and brought us full round to the vision of You Are Good. I really appreciated that.