[LIF] Rest in Peace Larry

I had a few brushes with Larry Norman over the years. He is a veritable legend in contemporary Christianity. Larry will be forever remebered for not letting the devil have all the good music. Thank's Larry. I hope your embrace of eternity is sweet.

Larry helped me through a tough breakup, my friend Adam loaned me Only Visiting and I played it over and over letting Larry name my pain. Ironically I recently reconnected with Denise through facebook, both of us have new families of our own and it is nice to reconnect as friends after so long.

Larry came to the Vineyard in Ottawa and put on a great concert. Larry had the kind of stage persona you either loved or hated. It seemed like he was the eternal hippy on stage. It was loads of fun. If I hadn't run into him in any other setting I might have always thought that was the only face of Larry. I would have been wrong.

The last time I ran into Larry in the flesh was in Toronto. They had him doing worship at a conference??? Larry is great and all but his choice of songs for worship was interesting. I enjoyed the concert, but what really blew me away was the session he ran. There I discovered Larry as a deep thinker. He cut right through some of the flippancy that charismatics seem to revel in. I left that session with a tonne of respect for this legend.

The last time I brushed paths with Larry was in a dream. He showed me around the music scene in New York city and called me to embrace my fears. I wonder if now he knows he had a big impact on me. Larry I appreciate you.

You will be missed. Rest in peace my brother, rest in peace.

Larry Norman (1947 - 2008)

[LIF] Sujet aux Rhumes de Cerveau

Just reading the last of Philippe Bordeyne's L'homme et son angoisse and came across this neat little saying. "sujet aux rhumes de cerveau" (p.314) I read it as being subject to being sick in the head! It made me chuckle.

[LIF] Trying to Choose

Well I did it. I sent a first draft of my intended research proposal to my director. There are so many ways I could go with this. I could go old school and work with a single theologian (maybe a Moltmann, Volf or even an NT Wright). Or I could take up Brian McLaren's challenge and try to find a better language for Kingdom Theology. Heck I could also do Brian McLaren - I think it is really high time for someone to do an academic analysis on such an influential thinker. I'm trying to word it in such a way as to leave myself open for any of these possibilities. We'll see what Prof. Eaton says. It is a big step. I'm seeing the light at the end of the tunnel already on my MATh, boy this year is flying by. I'm even semi-competant reading french now!

Once I get my paper in - in need to find me a beach! Get sand in my toes and have my kids bury me up to the chin and frolic with my lovely wife in the ocean. Then I'll be ready for the PhD.

[THO] The Secret Message of Jesus

I finally finished McLaren's "The Secret Message of Jesus". As a primer on Kingdom theology it is amazing. In fact I think it is a lot more accessible than Derek Morphew's "Breakthrough". And McLaren does cover a lot of ground. The chapter on reading Revelation was particularily good and very strongly influenced by N. T. Wright. It is the kind of book I will recommend to my parishoners. But it is not the book I was hoping for.

McLaren is not really writing in an academic way. He is proposing a lot and following some ideas to great conclusions. I can tell there are a good number of influences that have gone into his insights, but I really want these to be spelled out so that I can trace them. But, I have a particular need for works that do this and Brian didn't write this book to help an academic understand the Kingdom. He wrote this so that a popular audience can wrestle with the implications of a Kingdom message.

McLaren is candid and a decent story teller. He approaches these ideas in a very practical way, which makes this book a very valuable contribution to the Church.

[THO] Witchcraft

Witchcraft is best defined as seeking to manipulate a situation to a desired end. This is especially apt when we take it in a spiritual sense. To manipulate spiritual forces or energies to align to a desired pattern and produce a desired effect. So for instance if you create a love potion with the intention of winning the affections of another, you are engaging in a manipulation of spiritual energies.

At this point I have not made a judgement about if this manipulation is good or bad. I imagine a good number of you have already gone to that place. The word manipulate is one of those words that has a very negative semantic range. Add to that the preconceptions of witchcraft and no one would blame you from heading to those negative conclusions. But I want to pull you back, at least long enough to make my argument. Then when you have the insight feel free to move to judgement - I know I will.

Manipulation is not necessarily a negative word. It simply means to adjust or rearrange. We spend a lot of time an energy manipulating objects in our worlds. In fact I'm manipulating words right now to type this message. So it is possible that what I have described as witchcraft can have a wider field of meaning. Which will be helpful because my main argument is that many Christians fall into the practice of witchcraft all the time.

What do we manipulate? Well the fact is we try to manipulate God.

The biggest example I can think of is the way we manipulate the biblical narrative to escape from the discomforts of real life. We love to craft grand decline narratives about how the world is heading to hell in a hand basket, while Christians just have to wait for God to pluck them up into the clouds so that they can enjoy the morbid apocalypse below. We love to create steps and rituals with the guarentee of success (if followed exactly right, a great out for the inevitable failures) for healing, deliverance and even finding a spouse. We do these things because we have a strong aversion to facing live on lifes terms, and above all we do them because we do not truly believe in the goodness of God.

Now the goodness of God is not a magic cure all for whatever ails and discomforts. It is a reality that is only fully encountered in the midst of adversity, discomfort and even suffering. I'm not glorifying suffering, but I'm acknowledging that the human situation is one of great anxiety and great hope. God is found in between these two, right smack dab in the midst of real life. This is the God who enters into the suffering of humanity to speak a word of hope - the gospel.

So why do we not trust this God? Well, the reality is that God is not our personal Santa Claus. If you are looking for a God who can be manipulated to do exactly what you want all the time - don't look to the Christian God. Don't look to the God of the Cross who was completely obedient to the will of the Father. If you do you will find that this God is not trustworthy in the way you want. Simply because this God, the God of the Cross, does not submit to the manipulations of humans.

You show your trust by giving yourself as completely as God gives God's self to you.

See I believe in healing; I believe in deliverance and I even believe that God will help you in major life decisions. But these things happen on God's terms, not ours. There is no magic formula that will make any of these things happen. God is not even bound by the Law, something us non-Jewish believers are especially grateful for.

Now that's my insight. I ask you is the witchcraft that Christians practice good or bad?

God have mercy and help us to respond appropriately.

[THO] The Supposed Crisis of Faith

I've been thinking about this a fair bit. One of my profs insists that there is no such thing as a crisis of faith, but what is often called a crisis of faith is really a crisis of beliefs. The root of a crisis of beliefs is when we discover that we don't really believe in what we say we believe in. It follows then that a large reason we defend our tautologies so intensely is to avoid the uncomfortableness of facing our own beliefs and sorting through them. And at a certain point, academically, it is frustrating to encounter this kind of defensiveness.

Pastorally, this is the water you carefully swim in all the time. Around you are people who come to faith in a modern church that is very inadequate at giving us tools to really think through and own our beliefs. The Church has lots of ways to reinforce dogma and even well developed systems of apologetics which help the "faithful" to defend the beliefs they are supposed to hold. But I'm convinced this is not good enough.

But it is uncomfortable to walk in the valley of the shadow of unbelief. It is hard to not be hounded by your own unreflected beliefs when you are walking through another persons crisis. What is left is a culture of desperate clinging often to quite proposterous "faith" positions. Pastorally this is distracting from the real work of the gospel - and in fact it often replaces the real work of the gospel.*

Academically, and this is where I reflect from for this blog, the notion of defending a tight system for the sake of feeding a culture that idolizes its beliefs is not at all attractive. It is better to work on the distinction between what we really believe and what we have assented to and work from there. This prof. offered a course on Spirituality that I took about 6 years ago, in it you took apart your core of faith, you probed and dissected, and then you put it all back together. That course was incredible hard, but it was also incredibly rewarding. When you believe what you believe, even if it is just a bit of what you are "supposed" to believe, there is nothing you can't face. Reality can be embraced on realities terms and the work of finding a coherent whole is a real work and not a defensive posturing.

The best case example is what a lot of local evangelical pastors fear about my university. From their perspective a few folks have gone to St. Paul and "lost their faith". Not really, but when you get into an academic environment the concern isn't to nurture that core of belief, but to teach you how to think. What falls off are the pretenses and the person is freed from the bonds that kept them from actually coming to believe. Externally that looks like they lost their faith. But I invite you to see the other side that this actually opens them up to the possibility of real faith.

I never really faced this sort of crisis at school, and I would insist that I don't see it as that prevelant (and personally know folks who have had similar experiences at evangelical and reformed schools). But it is a possibility. For me I'd had my beliefs kicked around before I landed in school. What was left was a pretty coherent core. But shaking off the need to defend that core lets me navigate a much deeper ocean of religious theory and beliefs.

=====

* By real work of the gospel I am contending that the gospel is about proclaiming the Kingdom in the world. This was Jesus' gospel and it is what Jesus left the Church. We believe when we see this, not because we've been convinced by the propositions and tautological arguments. Also the message of the Kingdom is inseperable from the encounter of the King. I still owe this blog a series on the Kingdom of God, but I've been reflecting on Kingdom theology a lot lately and decided that it is just not time.

[THO] The Evolution of Man

Spent the morning at the Museum of Nature with Dr. Stephen Cumbaa, a palaeontologist at the museum. It was really amazing to have such a detailed tour. I was completely blown away by the giant turtle skeleton, it was seriously big, I think I could almost crawl inside it (except it was hung from the ceiling). I hadn't been to the museum in quite a while and they have done a lot to fix the place up. The whole thing should be open by 2010, but you can bet I'll be taking the kids there lots before then.

We were there as part of our class on the dialogue between religion and science. We are actually getting quite comfortable with the issues around evolution. And we've spent a lot of time discussing the problems with approaches like Creationism. Creationists, and by that I mean the folks who hold to a young earth, literal reading of Genesis, are really not interested in having a conversation with science. But I can appreciate that these folks have a lot at stake, their beliefs (or should I say their idols) are inflexible propositions and really their priviliged place in the cosmos is at stake. Rather than face reality on its own terms they would rather superimpose a more acceptable vision despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Intelligent Design (ID) is a bit more compelling, but it also has some serious methodological problems. The primary argument, that of irriducable complexity, is not based on anything concrete. Yes it is a reading of the world we find, but in essence it is really a game that says we will permit the data as long as it is read from these presuppositions. That is not good science and it is actually not good theology either. Theology should wrestle with reality as it presents itself, not try to bend the rules to make it work. Besides that speciation, the evolution of one species into another, is quite widely accepted as fact (not theory) in the scientific community. ID isn't happy with speciation because once again our place of privilege is at stake.

So here if the issue of our privileged place is dependent on our species being something other than animal, yes we have a problem. But if our privileged place is the emergence of self-reflection then I fail to see the problem with embracing reality as it presents itself, especially in terms of the amazing process by which Creation has unfolded since the Big Bang. There are implications if we are to take this seriously. First of all we must face the fact that we are not necessarily the sum of all creation. Where we go is largely in our hands. Our treatment of the environment out of an arrogant sense that this is ours to dominate is proof to me that we have a lot to learn yet about responsibility. And this carries over to our relationship to the natural world. Are we willing to see this world as the arena of God's activity or are we holding out for some Platonic otherworld? But more to the point are we willing to see an intrinsic value in the whole realm of creation? I am convinced that the commodification of nature has led directly to the commodification of humans - we need to find a better way to relate to the natural world.

[LIF] PhD Here We Come

My plate is full this week. I actually made it through my readings relatively quickly. But I'm in the process of gathering the pieces for my PhD(Th) application. I have my reference letter lined up, my marks already in their system and my French competency tests are on file. What is left is to craft my proposed area of research carefully and fill out a basic application form - oh and hand over $60! Nothing too difficult, but it does take time.

This week I also found out about a writing project which I can be involved in, so 4000ish words by this time next week - no problem. It is about my ecclesial community so I don't have to do a tonne of research to write this up, just sit down and type. I have already outlined my chapter.

I also met with my research director for the Masters and we found a viable approach to my research that will be doable and will not require me going through an ethics board. Yikes. My target is to have a fully detailed work plan and outline by the end of my courses, that way when the exams are done I put my head down and write. I want to get it done as soon as possible to make sure there are readers for my work, also so I can start the PhD right away. In order to make that happen I have to go through all the books I have gathered on the Emerging Church and see what is actually going to be academically reliable. I was sad to see so few peer reviewed articles available on the movement, I am going to have to do some more digging. There are a fair number of articles out there, it is finding ones in academically respected journals that is the problem. In some ways I am breaking new ground here, but I am trying to do it in a way that is conservative enough to keep the readers happy. This isn't about the paper I want to write as much as the paper that will a) get me my Masters and b) open up the conversation for further work on my own.

I know last week I was really feeling that I needed to have more free time with my family. Sharon and I are going to play a game of Ticket to Ride tonight, that is a great train game BTW. It will be great to just relax. I got a fair bit of work done already today. I am also really looking forward to celebrating Ash Wednesday with my community, this year I'm going to give up potatoe chips for Lent.

[THO] Hymn to Matter

In one of my courses we closed the class with Teilhard de Chardin's Hymn to Matter. I think for too many of us matter does not matter and that makes this hymn unnerving. So grab a rock, read the hymn and post your reflections.

HYMN TO MATTER

Blessed be you, harsh matter, barren soil, stubborn rock: you who yield only to violence, you who force us to work if we would eat.

Blessed be you, perilous matter, violent sea, untameable passion: you who unless we fetter you will devour us.

Blessed be you, mighty matter, irresistible march of evolution, reality ever newborn; you who, by constantly shattering our mental categories, force us to go ever further and further in our pursuit of the truth.

Blessed be you, universal matter, immeasurable time, boundless ether, triple abyss of stars and atoms and generations: you who by overflowing and dissolving our narrow standards or measurement reveal to us the dimensions of God.

Blessed be you, impenetrable matter: you who, interposed between our minds and the world of essences, cause us to languish with the desire to pierce through the seamless veil of phenomena.

Blessed be you, mortal matter: you who one day will undergo the process of dissolution within us and will thereby take us forcibly into the very heart of that which exists.

Without you, without your onslaughts, without your uprootings of us, we should remain all our lives inert, stagnant, puerile, ignorant both of ourselves and of God. You who batter us and then dress our wounds, you who resist us and yield to us, you who wreck and build, you who shackle and liberate, the sap of our souls, the hand of God, the flesh of Christ: it is you, matter, that I bless.

I bless you, matter, and you I acclaim: not as the pontiffs of science or the moralizing preachers depict you, debased, disfigured — a mass of brute forces and base appetites — but as you reveal yourself to mc today, in your totality and your true nature.

You I acclaim as the inexhaustible potentiality for existence and transformation wherein the predestined substance germinates and grows.

I acclaim you as the universal power which brings together and unites, through which the multitudinous monads are bound together and in which they all converge on the way of the spirit.

I acclaim you as the melodious fountain of water whence spring the souls of men2 and as the limpid crystal whereof is fashioned the new Jerusalem.

I acclaim you as the divine milieu, charged with creative power, as the ocean stirred by the Spirit, as the clay moulded and infused with life by the incarnate Word.

Sometimes, thinking they are responding to your irresistible appeal, men will hurl themselves for love of you into the exterior abyss of selfish pleasure-seeking: they are deceived by a reflection or by an echo.

This I now understand.

If we are ever to reach you, matter, we must, having first established contact with the totality of all that lives and moves here below, come little by little to feel that the individual shapes of all we have laid hold on are melting away in our hands, until finally we are at grips with the single essence of all subsistencies and all unions.

If we are ever to possess you, having taken you rapturously in our arms, we must then go on to sublimate you through sorrow.

Your realm comprises those serene heights where saints think to avoid you — but where your flesh is so transparent and so agile as to be no longer distinguishable from spirit.

Raise me up then, matter, to those heights, through struggle and separation and death; raise me up until, at long last, it becomes possible for me in perfect chastity to embrace the universe.

Down below on the desert sands, now tranquil again, someone was weeping and calling out: ‘My Father, my Father! What wild wind can this be that has borne him away?’

And on the ground there lay a cloak.

Jersey, 8th August 1919

[THO] Can't Go Back and the Future Is Up For Grabs

I'm struggling to read french this semester, it is tiring. I read about 8-10 pages per hour (I can read about 10 times as fast in English!). I liked this quote concernign the development of Gaudium et Spes:

[I]l qualifie l’inquiètude modern en l’attribuant à une «accélération de l’histoire qui impose la présence envahissante de l’avenir avec ses angoisses» : dans la modernité technicienne, «l’homme est engagé dans un progrès irréversible» et en même temps «imprévisible».

Philippe Bordeyne, L'homme et son angoisse, 2004.

There is hope when we recognize that we are part of a motion of history and that we can't turn back the hands of time no matter what romantic notions we have. When I hear about the return to pre-Vatican II rites and the undoing of the liturgical reforms that led to Vatican II I think they should go back and read the documents of Vatican II. In some ways these documents hardly go far enough to address the issues of our day, but if you look at their context, they are incredible advances in maturing the Roman Catholic Church.

[THO] Something to Ponder

[THO] Suspicious About the Wrong Thing

I had an interesting conversation recently. It got me thinking. This person proposed that creationists (by that I mean biblical literalists) are really wrestling with the concern that God has not lied to us through the biblical accounts of creation. To me this is the suspicion in the wrong place, because if we follow that logic then God lied to us in the fossil records as well as genetics, biology, etc. If God didn't lie then for some reason God found it amusing to put an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary of Genesis in the natural world. And why does that not arouse our suspicion of the way we are reading Genesis at least as much as our suspicion of how we read the natural world? See I'm convinced that these two books belong together, both declare to us the glory of God. But also they provide a powerful check and bounds. Einstein reminds us that science and religion need each other as the head needs the heart. It is time we turn our suspicions back on ourselves and face reality on reality's terms. The Bible states that God is not the author of confusion, but from what I've seen a heck of a lot of humans are.

[LIF] It's Complicated, Like Usual

That last post was a bit sloppy, but that is stream of consciousness writing for you. I have been wanting to put something more coherent up ever since, but life took a turn for the complicated (again). Sharon called me last Thursday to tell me that she took a tumble snowboarding, yup she broke her wrist. It has been insane here since. I have tonnes of reading to do for my courses. A chunk of photocopying too. And I decided to take a safer tack on my research - which means more work but it is more conventional. So somehow I need to get a survey together, something compact enough that I can convince a good sample of Canadian Emerging Church leaders to respond, yet complete enough to give me usable data.

I attended a doctoral defence today, yikes. I didn't read the thesis, but from the conversation I could tell that the defender didn't have a sufficient theology of suffering for what she was doing. My understanding is that only once in the history of my school has a dissertation been rejected at this point (interrogation is always expected though) and that the deliberation after the examination is about 5-10 minutes. 40 minutes later I could sense that she was in trouble. About 50 minutes later a hesitant acceptance provided the document was revised was announced. I felt bad for her, but I was thinking that it is really important to work with you director to avoid that kind of stress. The defender was really calm until the deliberation dragged on and on. Six years of work is a long time, and she did take a quite adventurous approach. But it was her methodology, or rather lack thereof, that tripped her up. I learned a lot.

First I learned that it is extremely important to deal with all of the main themes a theologian you engage uses. Even if you don't think their other key themes are important to your thesis. This will get called out. This doctoral candidate used a feminist liberationist theologian (Ivona Gebera) without engaging Gebara's redemptive theme of justice. I know that the candidate was trying to do something else, but you need to at least acknowledge why you left off such a major theme.

Second I learned that you need to be clear about what you are doing each step of the way. The criticism that was given explicitely and implicitely was that the readers had to guess at how the research connected to the conclusions. That hurt her and I'm sure by her answers that this is not going to be an easy fix.

And finally I learned that it is good to listen to the wisdom of your supervisor. I know that this will be hard. Not that I don't have tonnes of respect for Prof. Eaton, I certainly do. But it is that I am interested in some radical ideas and I'm not afraid to take radical routes to get to it. But I have to be able to satisfy the examiners. There will be time enough to be a maverick theologian later. I can even take risks in the work provided I use established means to back up my choices. But if it is too far out then I could be number two to not make it through.

Please pray for us. I'm doing almost everything around the home as well as my studies and pastoring. There is a lot on my plate.

[THO] Pope Paul VI on Power Evangelism

"Recognizing that the Spirit also works outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body, Dialogue and Mission argues that the Church is impelled to discern the signs of the Spirit's presence and to serve as its humble and discreet collaborator through a committment to dialogue in its many forms. (#24)"

Gregory Baum, Amazing Church, p.114.

Those familiar with Wimber's concept of Power Evangelism might seem a bit put out by the connection here. Likely not a lot of us who know Wimber's theology have also read too many Vatican documents. I oft times find the Vatican documents lacking and even frustrating. But there are some brilliant insights here. And while this document is about interreligious dialogue, I think there is a place to extend the insights of Wimber to this arena. In Power Evangelism we are called into a partnership with the Holy Spirit in our efforts to bring the gospel to the world. Over the years I have had my understanding of the arena of this work expand to include the whole world. I have also come to realize, as did Wimber, that God is already at work in the lives of people. The best thing we can do as evangelists is watch for the signs of the Spirit's already present work and partner with what we already see God doing.

This is not that attractive for those wanting quick and clean conversions. There is a false expectation in the evangelical church that folks should "clean up" nice for Christ. But life rarely works out in nice tidy ways, so why should we expect that from conversion.

I think the term Power Evangelism is a misnomer. Yes it is a powerful mode of evangelism and yes it does make room for a real power encounter with God. But this isn't the heart of it. The heart is God is at work, so why are we working against God?

My experience of conversion has been messy. I have seen lots of folks come to Christ, but that is really where the work just starts. It isn't about cleaning them up as much as protecting them from all the BS expectation that will let the already "saved" continue to feel comfortable in their places of worship. I would prefer to call it Messy Evangelism. Messy in that it has no pretense that this is easy, quick or even going to work out. Rather it is entirely dependent on God and it calls us to watch carefully for what the Spirit is doing and work there. Even if that isn't sharing a message that they need Jesus (or whatever is the evangelical message of the month these days).

Recently a fellow pastor emailed me about his understanding of the number one priority of God, that is saving folks from eternal damnation. I understood his heart, and I think we end up much in the same place. But this eternal language really misses that God wants to get into the mess of our lives now. God is a redeemer not a benchwarmer. God hasn't prepared a place on the bench for us to sit on an wait out the pre-show. That kind of thinking can maybe justify the horrid expectations placed on those interested in Christianity. This is the real show - and God wants in on it. In fact God wants in so much that the Spirit is already here at work.

Baum brilliantly draws this out of Dialogue and Mission, the Church is called to recognize that God isn't boxed in by "visible" boundaries of Church. God doesn't somehow give up when we screw up. But God continues to work by redeeming our failings, drawing us towards wholeness, showing us love and meeting us in the midst of all life throws at us. And what is most brilliant is that God most often does this through our participation as we look for and cooperate with the Spirit in the lives of others.

[THO] God, History and Evil

'God is not a heavenly sovereign who rules human history and who, while not wanting evil things to happen, nonetheless gives permission for them. No, events such as the Holocaust are totally against God's will. God gives no welcome to the evil powers in history. Evil is purely and simply against the divine will. "God is light and in him is no darkness at all." (1 John 1:5) There is a radical opposition between God and evil. God does not permit evil; God stands against evil, condemns it and transcends it. God is constantly at work among humans, summoning them and strengthening them to discern evil, wrestle against it, be converted away from it, co-operate with others to overcome it, and if so called, to sacrifice their lives as a witness in opposition to it. I conclude that not all events of history belong to divine providence, but only those that are the fruit of divine grace. Providential are the series of events that manifest divine mercy and divine rescue, culminating in Jesus' fidelity to his mission on the cross and his glorious resurrection rehabilitating all the victims of history. God's coming is always rescuing, healing, lifting up and embracing.'

Gregory Baum, Amazing Church, p.50-51.

[THO] Evolution

I'm reading Mayr's "What Evolution Is" and I'm realizing that despite being a book for non-biologists, there is a lot of technical language to get through. It is tough slogging. I have Baum's "Amazing Church" as a sort of comfort food to read in tandem, but the book on Evolution is the starting point for a course I asked for. It got me thinking about what are the legitimate responses to evolution. I'm careful not to call it a theory because I think that for someone taking natural sciences seriously the idea of theory just muddies the water - you either believe it based on the overwhelming evidence or you reject because of another set of overwhelming evidence (although not the sort of evidence that would ever fly in a scientific arena).

There are three real responses I can see, I would venture to say that each has its own validity (even when we disagree with other positions) but the more important thing is to understand our stance including the limitations and opportunities that stance brings. I'm thinking this is a better way to go than to debate whether or not evolution is a reality. And I would again cautiously note that differentiation between interspecial and special evolution is irrelevant - I'm talking here about a full on understanding that life all evolves from a common base and that the movement towards complexity, as a branching, is a life process of our planet. In light of that understanding of evolution here are the options for a person of faith:

a) One can reject the evidence for evolution in favour of a creationist stand point. This does not at all imply that other approaches have to forfeit or compromise a belief in a Creator. This response says that the literal reading of our creation story is more valid than the witness of the earth to its own processes. This position presents a definite and clear bias towards any evidence that is presented - if it supports the thesis it is embraced/acknowledged and if it defies the thesis then it is rejected/ignored and even sometimes discredited falsely. I've read a lot of this position in the past and it can be sensational and also quite intellectually dishonest. Not that this is the intention of the proponents, but it is the reality of where they have invested their time and energy. Another drawback is that it creates an antagonism between the creationists and the world/Earth as well as an antagonism between creationists and scientists. On the other hand it is a paradigm that will always take seriously the need for a Creator, as people of faith this is incredibly attractive. But it is also a product of embracing enlightenment reasoning (and "common sense") as a mode of ascertaining truth. This unlikely bedfellow in Christianity has meant the crippling of religious imagination.

b) One can develop a notion of God in the gaps. This is a trick we can play on the scriptures, we can read evolution into the gaps that exist in the creation stories. I remember a physicist friend who had become a Christian and had concluded that God created the earth complete with the evidence trail for evolution, although he had no idea why God would do such a thing. But for him it was the only way to reconcile to overwhelming bodies of evidence. In this way he is really tricking himself. Trick is the unfortunate word here, I do not mean that in a bad way. We preachers do this all the time - when we are not careful that is - and it is not bad. When we read scripture we need to take into consideration the other ways that reality is revealed. But this position places the two descriptions of reality in conflict with each other - meaning they bash it out until something sort of makes sense. The bias is still in favour of a Creator, but there is a willingness to compromise on the less clear aspects of scripture to make sense of the evidences.

c) One can take evolution on its own terms. The Copernican revolution really upset a balance that once existed between the "book of revelation" (i.e. the Bible) and the "book of nature". This position has a distinctly different relationship to scripture. That relationship is often skewed by enlightenment thinking, but if we were to extract a 'best of' scenario, then we might find a restoration of the medieval synthesis. For people of faith, evolution does not preclude God's involvement with creation, but it does colour how that involvment is seen. I'm not convinced that the ways that this colours seeing divine action are all good. But some are quite helpful. What is the bias is that scripture does not trump science. There are two ways I see this done:

c.1) First there is a notion of compartmentalization. I'm hopeful that this will fade (my own bias). The notion that science is scientific knowledge seperate and apart from religion which is religious knowledge. Both are valid and should be kept seperate. What this leaves is little more than the tricks of b). A creationist will get antsy because this says that there is another truth. In reality this is too passive a position - I think the creationists who critique this are right in that it fails to recognize that God is either God of all or God is not God at all. If God indeed created then there is something of God in creation so that creation reveals the Creator.

c.2) A better option is the notion of a divine mileau. That God who created all is also intimately involved in all creation. Teilhard de Chardin troubled the world with this notion, but at least he took both evolution and the Bible seriously. Thomas Berry is someone in this line of thinking that has really impressed me as well. Here the bias is that the Bible is not teaching us the science of creation - but that doesn't mean its insights are wrong. The Bible reveals the divine relationship between creation and Creator. It is not that God works through evolution as in working through the gaps - rather God is drawing life in a particular direction. Ricoeur talks about this in "Thinking Biblically" as a trajectory towards freedom found in a Adamic myth.

I should say that there is also an option to reject faith altogether. But I'm not really good at that option. I like what my friend Katherine says on her facebook profile - for religion she wrote she is a failed atheist. But I'm certain there are many who out of frustration with the above possibilities default to an atheism (not that I would say by any means that all atheists are so because of this issue). My reason for posting this is that I really believe we need more understanding of each others positions in this issue. I've seen so much fighting over evolution that it sickens me. I am convinced that there are great women and men of faith in all three positions.

[THO] And It Begins

I'm not impressed with the keyboard on this laptop, I seem to have worn it out in a single semester! Yikes.

Yesterday I was back in class. Theological Hermeneutics with John van den Hengel. John rocks as a professor, he studied under Schillibeeckx and did his PhD on Ricoeur. This course is on Ricoeur and I couldn't be happier. Ricoeur also rocks. The reading is pretty heavy, but we each present once in the course and write an exam. They have tried to make the workload more reading than writing to allow us to also work on our research thesis.

Today I had a class with my director. I'm the only real student in the course! Of course that course is going to be intense, Heather Eaton is big on readings. This week I am reading Ernst Mayr's "What Evolution Is", and really looking forward to it. This is a course on the various ways the conversation between science and theology takes place. Our focus will be on those who take evolution seriously, and because it is a reading course we basically wrote the curriculum today. There are two students auditing so I'm not alone, but I am the only one with an obligation to actually do the work! The last thing we will look at is the Intelligent Design conversation which is something that really bugs me - bad science and bad theology put together really irritate me. I had lunch with Prof. Eaton to kick off this semester in terms of my research, unfortunately I'm not sure I have enough support to break new ground methodologically - that means I won't be developing ways to find evidence trails through Emerging Church blogs. But I have some alternate ideas to get at the same information in more "traditional" ways. There will be plenty of time to be a maverick later. ;-)

My afternoon was spent in a class with Carolyn Sharp. The course is a theology and ethics course en francais. I'm actually going to enjoy the class despite the large amount of reading in french that is required. Prof. Sharp was a lot more generous linguistically than I had expected.

I have one more class to experience, it will happen on monday. I am studying von Balthasar with Prof. Peelman. The lectures are likely in french, but the good professor has agreed to let me record the lectures into my notes. MS One Note is great for this, it syncs the recording to your typing! That makes finding critical moments so much easier. I am looking forward to that one too.

I'm not sure the impact on my posting. But I'll try to keep you all up on the evolution of my thought.

[LIF] Golden Compass Points to Spoilers

I went to see the Golden Compass tonight with a friend of mine. He is a Baptist chaplin so I figured we'd have a good conversation on the movie after. Actually I was disappointed, so we just talked about life after. I'm not sure I'd pay to see other installments of this series on the big screen. There are some cool things about the movie (apart from it getting under the skin of religious folks), such as battling polar bears. What is not to love about bears in armour kicking butt! And the concepts are kind of neat, I think that a Magesterium is a great idea for an overarching enemy (sorry Benedict). But there is a lot I didn't like.

I did not like the fact that this film overemphasised a Platonic notion of soul and body. That kind of crap is the bane of good theology. Not that Pullman is concerned with good theology. Also the choice to call these souls demons just opens up too many questions for me to want to take my daughter to see this film (and she has asked to see it). I'm still Pentecostal enough to teach my kids that demons are bad things. However, I did like the fact that if the soul was hurt, that also hurt the body.

Also I think I am impressed that Pullman avoided telling the gospel story, at least so far. Most movies do not do so well. But then again this might be coming later in the story. My buddy Brad has a theory that if you tell stories long enough, you have to tell the story. But what we have instead is a Gnostic sort of story where knowledge equals freedom. Truth plays a role, but the compass is more of a prophetic tool guiding the characters, liberating in a way, but also the author seems to want us to believe that truth is suppressed by the institution/church. I think it is a good critique to make, but I'm not sure that the same can't be said for Gnosticism.

What I liked least is the main character. What was her name? Started with an L. She makes Harry Potter seem well behaved! Her rebellious impertinance is glorified in this movie. I think the actor, Dakota Blue, did a great job, but the character is not one I enjoyed. She didn't win me over to her side. Her demon did a better job actually. And I still can't remember her name - shows you how much I bonded to this character.

This is probably worth renting on a lazy Friday night. But you might want to preview it before showing the kids. Figure out what you will say about the demons and the dust, cause you know those questions are coming. And if they aren't? Well, I think I'd be more worried.

[THO] Pornography

I am totally impressed with Robert Jensen's Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity. I heard him speak on the CBC, caught the tail end of an interview. Then I tried to order the book, only to be told it was not in stock. My dear wife found a way to get it for me, although it arrived just after Christmas. I'm nearly done (just half a chapter and a post-script left). This is the book I have been wishing would be written by Christians, but I fear never will. This book took serious bravery to write. From what I have read on the topics of pornography addiction and masturbation coming out of the Christian world has always left me feeling like they missed the point. Jensen resonated so loud I was going aha all the way through. In fact he unpacks stuff about the domination embedded in pornography that I had intuited a ways back. This is a matter of justice, plain and simple.

I have yet to see Christians responding to pornography as they should. If they are please point that out to me as I'm not sure I can not act now that I've read this book. The typical Christian response is twofold: 1) pornography is indicative of the decline of this world and 2) the Christian should simply flee from pornography. Jensen isn't trying to mitigate his risk in a fallen world, no he is saying we need to face this head on. And his book does this (sometimes with quite explicit descriptions), it calls the reader to save themselves by taking on pornography.

Core to Jensen's message is a feminist critique of masculinity. Jensen is convinced that masculinity is not a helpful social construct in that anything we could ascribe as a good trait of masculinity is really a good trait of humanity. So Jensen argues that masculinity and even femininity should be replaced entirely with a call to humanity. I find this rich.

I dare you to read this book. I dare you to write this book for a Christian market, God knows we need something real on this subject.

[LIF] Kicking Back

The kids are gloriously occupied with their new Barbies and puzzles. Ahhhh. We had a lot of fun wrapping presents and setting the stage for Christmas morning, it was well worth it. I scored some nice bling too. Yoder's The Politics of Jesus and Newbigen's The Gospel in a Pluralist Society were my more serious additions. Sharon also ordered me Getting Off:Pornography and the End of Masculinity (Robert Jensen) but it did not arrive in time. I heard his interview on CBC and am excited to read a male doing a feminist critique on pornography.

I also scored a new guitar case, I nice light gator case. My old one had served me well, but there is only so many times you can repair a case with duct tape! I will miss my Frosted Frog sticker. :-( But the new case is lighter and stronger! We also got a few movies, the latest Harry Potter DVD (me), Moulon Rouge (Sharon), Ella Enchanted (Elyssa) and our dear friends Brad and Mary sent us Brother Sun, Sister Moon and finally Barbie's The Princess and the Pauper (Chelsea). We all really enjoy movies.

Other than that Sharon gave me some gaming gear (Dungeons and Dragons) that I had picked out. A few boosters of miniatures, the Rules Compendium and the latest Tile Set. We are pooling the money we got from our parents to put towards a new camera, we have been eyeing SLRs for a year now. We just have to go and try them out. We'll have to see though, life will soon kick back into full throttle.

Oops, Elyssa needs help with her new Barbie computer thing, have a great day all!

[LIF] Merry Christmas!

I hope all of you have a wonderful Christmas this year.

If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

-- Matthew 7:11

May Christ be incarnated anew in each of us this year.

[LIF] Finally done!

I handed in my last paper (exam) and went to my last meeting of the semester. It sure feels good to be done. I am really confident that two of my courses are A+ and the others should be some sort of As. We'll have to see though. I was writing my exam until 5AM this morning, life just kept throwing curve balls at me. I spent about 12 hours plus a study group on the exam and I still think I could have done better. The more I wrote the more I realized how much deeper my analysis needed to go. At some point you have to say enough and trust that you answered the questions the prof. is looking for.

I'm taking it easy over the Christmas break, well if by easy you mean clearing out that incredible backlog of chores and reading a text that my director assigned before our next chat. Oh and that is not to mention the snow that just won't stop falling on my driveway!!!! At least it is pretty.

[LIF] Almost There With Some Fun On the Journey

We had our first Christmas potluck last night, it was pretty laid back despite the multitude of kids. When I broke out the guitar my girls started dancing with all four of Sarah's boys. It was quite fun to watch the kids all twirl around like that. Greg snapped a lot of pics, of course I put the one of me up. ;-)

Had a great study group today, I'm pretty confident going into my Biblical Interpretation exam Monday. BTW this was a course on the history of interpretation, very cool course. If you want to know how things have shifted throughout the history of Christianity grab "A Short History of the Interpretation of THE BIBLE" (Robert Grant and David Tracy), our course covered more than this book, but I've been reading it as a sort of review and really enjoying it. This is the last scripture course I will ever _have_ to take on my road to a PhD at St. Paul. But I'm thinking I'll take the advanced NT Greek course at some point for kicks and giggles.

I also had a study group on Tuesday for my Spirituality and the Human Sciences course. I just have to carve out some time to write the paper. That one should be fun to write. I'm thinking of getting it done this weekend so that I will wrap everything up by Monday. That is if I can get my exit interview for the Methodologies course in on that day. I have done zero Christmas shopping!

Tomorrow I have some pastoral visitation to do, a lunch party at the Lonergan Centre and try to get the oil changed in the car. If I have any time left I'll get some shopping done, but I'm not holding my breath.

[THO] Assessing Blog Posts

One of the big road blocks I'm hitting in my research is if and how I can use blog content. I am living proof that pretty much anyone with a computer and the requisite time can put up a blog and begin posting. Obviously some blogs are more useful than others and Matthew Hindman did his dissertation (Princeton, 2005) on the state of political blogs. I am about to tackle this, but my issue is that political blogs are a whole different demographic than what I am after - at least I hope so. Karen Ward mentions, in Gibbs and Bolger's EMERGING CHURCHES, how her community all read each others blogs as a means of staying connected, Freedom does this through Facebook and in the past we did it through Yahoo!Groups. It really shouldn't be a problem as I'm doing my critical work mostly with the published corpus. Any thoughts?

[LIF] A Big Day!!!

Twelve years ago today I married the love of my life! I am blessed indeed!

[LIF] Home Stretch

One more week of classes! But this is a crazy week coming up. Monday I formally present my research proposal. I have a Powerpoint slide deck half finished for this. Tuesday I do a short presentation on Thomas Berry, I am a big fan of Berry. This is the last class in a very fun course on Spirituality and Human Sciences. Berry offers a way forward by recognizing and celebrating our embeddedness in the Earth.

Then it really gets crazy. My 7th and last paper on Religious Experience is due Wednesday. I have it outlined and started. The topic is the role of the community in validating religious experience and I decided to pick on my Pentecostal/Charismatic roots. I'm doing a critique of the personalization of religion and how it prevents a barrier for a mature discernment process. Should be fun. This paper is also accompanied with my own syllabus for how I would teach a course on Religious Experience. I have just been thinking about that one.

Finally Thursday I have a paper due for my french course on Biblical Interpretation. I did quite well on the others, it is basically a resume on an article. I have yet to read the article! That is the last official bit of reading I have to do for my semester! Although I do have an oral exam for that class and a concluding paper for my Spirituality class.

Over the holidays I will be continuing my research and reading Phillippe Bordeyne's L'homme et son angoisse: La theologie morale de "Gaugium et spes". I'm not looking forward to reading 349 pages in french! It is one of two french books that I will read this coming semester. They are bound and determined to make me fluently bilingual!

[THO] Ecological Theodicy

Recently I was bothered by a comment on a friends blog. I'll not point to the blog because I don't think they meant ill, but I am convinced that their response represents a growing Christian response to the overwhelming evidence of climate change. The response of fatalism!

Basically this person attributed the bit of snow we've had recently as God proving that God is still in control of the environment despite what the environmentalist whingers say. It is disturbing that ecological events, especially our erradic climate, is re-interpreted to help bring a sense of comfort. This is an inability to deal with life on lifes terms. And worse it represents an inability to deal with history.

The question of where God is in disasterous events is an important one, but it is far from an easy one. The fatalist is crippled in the face of theodicy by an inability to act. The biggest problem with this is it paints an image of God as a celestial puppetmaster yanking the strings of all created things - this is not the God of Jesus Christ and is very hard to imagine, in light of history, as a benevolant God. This God is actually evil. I am convinced that this view of God is a destructive as the view of a divine clockmaker who has no connection to the physical world. Thank God these are not the only choices!

God's response to suffering isn't to prove God is in control. Rather it is to enter into our suffering with us. This is the whole purpose of the incarnation. God takes on the suffering of humanity, taking on humanity (kenosis) and entering into our reality on realities terms. How can we move from a kenotic God to a tyrrant overlord God? Do we somehow think that Jesus was spared from suffering? Can we honestly reflect on the gospels and come to that conclusion? I think not.

I understand the impulse for surity. Surity is one way we ground our hope. I just can't hope in a tyrrant God, that sort of God is fickle and as likely to flick you away as to keep you safe. But I can hope in a God who enters into life with me. Hope is that God, who is ever present, awakens my conscience to the suffering around me. Suffering in humans, animals and the very world that is my home. It is even more home when God is present. Surity comes not from a conviction that I'll be comfortable in life - it comes from a conviction that God's redemptive purposes include the world that I am sent to. This is the conviction that let Jesus embrace the cross (Thy will be done) and it is the conviction that lets me put my hands to the plow.

The central issue here is one of grace. Do we see this life as a gift? Or is it a curse to be born in hopes of simply being purified for the next life? Or worse is this life just an inconvenience? I must confess that this philosophy of life is easily fallen into and I am just as guilty as the next person. But life, this life, is either a gift or God is a cruel tyrrant, not to be trusted at all. And if this life is a gift then how dare we throw that gift back in the face of the God of love? How dare we reject the crys of the outcast and the oppressed? How dare we continue to rape the planet? How dare we thumb our noses at God?

[FUN] I really enjoy Robot Chicken!

This is so typical of Robot Chicken, beware they can be quite offensive.

Mmmmmm gummy bears!

[THO] You Don't Say

OK so I should be writing my paper. But I found this Ethics test and it is pretty interesting. Here are my results:

1. Aquinas (100%)
2. Jean-Paul Sartre (91%)
3. St. Augustine (87%)
4. Ockham (83%)
5. Spinoza (78%)
6. John Stuart Mill (76%)
7. Kant (75%)
8. Aristotle (67%)
9. Jeremy Bentham (54%)
10. Nel Noddings (50%) <--- no clue who that is???
11. Stoics (50%)
12. Prescriptivism (49%)
13. Plato (47%)
14. Nietzsche (38%) <--- much as I like Nietzsche this is comforting.
15. David Hume (36%)
16. Epicureans (32%)
17. Ayn Rand (25%)
18. Cynics (17%)
19. Thomas Hobbes (0%) <--- sorry Hobbes.

[LIF] Lots going on, not much time to post

I am exhausted. After this post I'll probably curl up in bed with a book and that will be it for the day. Sharon is away this weekend so I've been with my girls all day. I love them dearly, but boy does that exhaust you. I don't know how single parents do it.

My research proposal is almost ready for submission, I have a small reading team and it has passed through their comments and my directors comments. I think it is pretty solid now. It is due monday and I'll present it on the 4th of December, after that one more pass and it is submitted as a guiding document for my research due sometime this coming summer! My tentative title is "Social Engagement in the Evangelical Emerging Church" which pretty much sums up my research. I'm probably the first Masters research proposal at St. Paul University to list blogs in the bibliography!

So reading, I'm wading through lots of stuff. Still lots of class work too. And as I read more material from the Emerging Church I keep getting sent off in more and more directions. But I did get a cool tool for my notekeeping. An IRIS pen scanner! This bad boy even translates! I've just used it a bit so far but it is an incredible time saver. For keeping research notes I'm using Nota Bene, I can attach a file for each book, pen scan in the direct quotes I want, type my comments and then search all of them rapidly through Orbis. When I grab the text the footnoting automajically follows and takes on the right style. That is pretty sweet. I tend to not use a lot of direct quotes, relying on footnotes to identify support for my arguments and claims, but it is easier to search Orbis for that quote I know I read than to thumb through fifty books everytime I think of something cool to add into my paper (what I usually ended up doing in previous papers!)

Well, I have the bed to myself, I can stretch out and fall asleep reading. Something I can't do when Sharon is home, not that I'm complaining.

[FUN] Blog Reading Levels

Jim West is to blame for finding this little blog analyser. Apparently the prayer blog I started gets this rating:

But this blog only gets this rating:

Hmmmm. Maybe that says it is far more intellectual to pray than to just talk.
Then again a certain naked pastor rates the highest I've seen!

PS. I keep meaning to add Jim West's blog to my blogroll, next clean up. I often disagree with Jim, but he has a great blog.

[THO] The Role of the Theologian

We had a really excellent discussion in Prof. Martinez de Pison's class regarding the role of the theologian in the Church. It really helped me to put some language around stuff I've been living for a while.

The Theologian is Part of the Community

This was the insight from class, and as a pastor who happens to study at the same time, this really helps me name why I find the whole process of studying so satisfying. Gerald McDermott brings up this point as well, we need to realize where we belong to know who we are. I think that we have no real sense of identity in a lot of our communities, and this is too our detriment. What I love about the Emerging Conversation is that the folks that take part of it are from all sorts of contexts, and their desire isn't to leave their denominational homes, but to bring a gift to their denominations by stepping outside the box and reaching this generation with something really good. So the theologian is first of all a participating member of a community of faith. Yes, this colours their theology, but if we honest about it that shouldn't be a problem. This has too benefits: 1) the theologian knows where she belongs, this is her family and 2) the community knows the theologian and trusts the theologian.

The Theologian Helps the Community Understand their Experience

Because the theologian is a trusted member of the community, they take up the primary task of helping the community reflect upon their corporate history with God. So this would involve helping to articulate faith and also to challenge the notions of faith in light of the shared experience of the group. We see this in one of our kinships as the group becomes more ecologically aware it is my role, as a theologian, to help shape the conversation so that we can effectively and uniquely respond to what God is putting in our hearts.

The Theologian Interfaces Beyond the Community

Beyond the community, the theologian is equipped to draw from the deep resources that exists already. Helping to provide an interface between these disparate sources and the community. We have seen this in action as we've adopted and adapted liturgical practices from various streams within the Church. Without that serious reflection, the role of the theologian, the community risks chasing after fads or living completely in isolation, constantly re-inventing the proverbial wheel.

This is also why I think that the theologian needs to be active in acadamia. How else will she become exposed to alternate views? How will he be able to communicate the relevant insights to the community?

What we have though, is theologians distanced from the community of faith. We often talk about the ivory towers of theology, and it is true that much of what happens never amounts to much more than words on shelves. Some great ideas and profound challenges never make it to the Church. That is a shame, but more than that it is a disfunctionality.

The Eastern Christians have a saying, the theologian is the one who prays. I would encourage us to take a cue from that. Without the theologians the Church is left only with its unreflected experiences (these vary every week which is why we have so many denominations!), and without the community of faith the theologian is irrelevant. We need each other.

[LIF] What an Honour

I was tired yesterday and didn't really want to go to church. So when we had a really small turnout I was kinda relieved thinking I'd just go home early. But the most amazing thing happened. We just started being the community. It was deep too. I ended up leaving at the regular time feeling incredibly blessed and honoured that this is the community I've been privilged to pastor. Freedomites are great people!

I love my church.

[LIF] Cleaning up the Blog

Well as I promised Jamie, I did update my links. Am I the only one bugged by the lack of inclusive language in that last post of mine? I debated making modifications and now regret it. For those to whom such things matter, my apologies.

[photo from here, thanks JP]

[THO] Ponderables

"This truly is the vision of God; Never to be satisfied in the desire to see him. But one must always, by looking at what he can see, rekindle his desire to see more."

Gregory of Nyssa

[THO] Jesus Camp

The other night Sharon and I watched the documentary film Jesus Camp. This film follows the ministry of Becky Fischer, a Pentecostal youth minister. I just noticed from her site that she is now connection with Patricia Cocking (now Pat King, but I knew her as Patricia Cocking and once ministered with her in Mississauga) of the Extreme Prophetic fame. I'm not keen on a lot of the directions the Prophetic movements have taken, but I'll reserve that for another post.



What was most interesting to me is how much of what was shown in the film is normative Pentecostalism. And I'll start by saying some of it is great. Praying over chairs, passion for God, passion for children and even praying for governments. But the good and the bad are thoroughly mixed together here. What I saw most was the unreflective Christianity that I spent my early Christian years in. There is something so good about grabbing the bull by the horns and going for it. But when there is no serious critical reflection it is easy to see, and this film shows this well, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Meaning well and doing well are not always the same thing. As Gary Best always tells us pastors, "it is not good enough to do the right thing, you have to do the right thing for the right reasons."

So from that film (which was at times very painful to watch) a few things are worth engaging here. Hopefully we'll pick up a conversation in the comments.

1) Kids and Politics

Despite Fischer's insistance that this is not political this film shows clearly how incredibly political Christianity is. It actually shows it from both sides. The counterpoint from Mike Papantonio is just as much a call to politics as the rest of the film. Mike insisted on a separation of church and state, I'm convinced that is a delusional position, almost as delusional as Fischer's denial of politics. I'm not doubting their convictions, just their lack of honest critical reflection. What we need to realize is that religion is always politically orienting. Haggard's comment that if the Evangelicals vote they win the election is true - but only because Evangelicals represent a directed voting block. To me that is patently wrong. We need to wake up and help people reflect through the issues and vote from their heart and minds.

Now having said that, the question I have is "how can we expect children to make that kind of assessment?" There is a reason we don't let children vote. But over and over this film showed the manipulation of children's political orientation without even giving them an honest amount of data to work with. When we present complex situations, like the whole issue of abortion, and only tell these children that God hates this act - how are we orienting this generation towards those make other choices?

2) Symbols and Kids

Related to that was the taping of the mouth. What a powerfully charged symbolic action. There is no reflection offered in this film. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt, but Lou Engle really didn't encourage me to give him the benefit of anything but being an alarmist, and assume they unpacked the meaning of the tape before they placed it on the mouths of these kids. But what gets me is that they are calling these kids to take on symbols which have powerful meaning. The word 'LIFE' does not belong to a symbol of silent solidarity that emphasises the helplessness of the unborn. This dichotomizes the issue in ways that are completely offensive, no matter what our opinion of abortion. We need to be more careful. I hope Fischer is right that some of these kids will want to get into politics, but I hope that first folks like Fischer wake up and realize that we don't need more fear based unthinking politicians in this world. Similar problems could be identified with the identification of American military service and the tradition of martyrs.

3) Directional Prophetic and Kids

Lou Engle called up the young boy Levi and prophesied over his life. He was careful to give himself some outs. But this is quite common in the prophetic movement. Everywhere you go God has some big plan for your life. I find this so disturbing. Not that I don't think God wants to do great things, even great things through our lives. But what is done here is that unrealistic expectations are being given. The other problem is that when you start to realize that everyone who is "prophetic" and speaks over you has some big vision (not often the same as the others) then you start to become cynical about the whole prophetic project. I think in the long run this will force the prophetic to the fringes (this is a historically recurring trend). Let me go out on a limb and say I believe in the prophetic. But I believe the prophetic types should shut up, listen and reflect a heck of a lot more than they do. It was so obvious that Lou was Levi as fulfilling what Lou wants in his political agenda - so he projects that, gives it the weight of his "prophetic" title and now you have a recipe for disaster. Folks develop the prophetic within your community and stop bringing in the "prophets". If they are really prophets then they will train your people, not hear for them.

4)Over Simplification of Life

The other thing that sets up these kids for a fall is the over simplification of life presented. God has a wonderful plan for your life. God will protect you from the harshness of life. God will take care of you. While there is some truth in this, God doesn't promise us an easy life, but rather in this world we have trouble. I'll leave the promise of heaven stuff out of this for now, it didn't get much treatment in the film anyway. But the life we live in the world means getting our hands dirty. It means kids like Levi have a rough road ahead. Life is ultimately worthwhile and good. But that is a trajectory that is not always apparent in the day to day living. Fischer loved to oversimplify things. Her object lessons were cute, but really could use some unpacking and reflection. We were watching her tactics as she preached at the camp. Fear and shame are not God's tools. This is always where over simplification leads. It has to. When God is painted as the one that makes everything hunky dory, then adversity has to rest on our shoulders. Life is not as simple as all that. Give kids strenght to face life on life's terms and not fill them with false hope.

4) Evangelism and Kids

I didn't realize that people still used Jack Chick tracts. The only thing worse that Chick tracts are Westboro Baptist placards. Ok, so don't get me started on their ill choice of literature. What really bugs me is that these kids are trying to do what they were told to do, which is proslytize everyone, but they were so obviously ill equipped for the task. At one point the kids start to question if maybe it looks like they are trying to sell something (watch for that moment, it is very interesting), that's good reflection, that should be encouraged. Evangelism isn't just spouting some cute rote statements at folks, it is engaging with people and partnering with God's own efforts to bring them to God's self. But these kids aren't given the tools for that sort of work, they are sent out with cuteness hoping that will win the day.

5) Parenting of Kids

My last critique is about the way we parent our kids. I have my oldest in a Bible club (AWANA). And it drives me nuts at times. I want my kids to be equipped for life in this world. They see our love for Jesus. They ask really good questions and I make of point of not giving them simplified answers. I want to encourage them to think deeply about their faith. I want them to know that there is something good about Christianity, but that they need to choose for themselves. To be honest I'd rather they lived fully and honestly out of their conclusions than to fake being a Christian for the sake of mom and dad. Having said that I am so blessed with how Elyssa's faith in Jesus has been growing, and I want encourage that. I think Christian groups are a great touchstone for kids, but what about when they get into the real world? Not everyone is going to have the same convictions in the real world. That is a tough lesson to learn when you are so sheltered by your parents. Christian schools (or homeschool), a plethora of Church activities, Christian camps, Christian TV and radio (exclusively), the parents in this film live in a bubble! The problem with bubbles is that they burst. What was worse was that the homeschooling was focused on developing a polemic against the rest of the world's thinking. Here you have the chance to develop a real intellectual wealth - seriously homeschooling could be an awesome opportunity to strech a childs mind and develop great habits of thinking. But it is such a wasted opportunity when it is just used to indoctrinate and inocculate children.

I recommend this film to all my Pentecostal and post-Pentecostal friends. It made me really think. It frustrated me but at the same time helped me see that there is work to do. Thank God that not all Pentecostals are like this. Becky Fischer has a great heart, and I'm sure we'd get along. But I hope that folks who follow in her footsteps might read this and pause to think. We want to give the kids great tools for the works God has for them. That is noble and I'll definitely pray for her important ministry. But this is a call to step it up a notch and bring in some needed critical reflection in all we do in the name of Christ.

[THO] The Corporate Church

I get a few different ministry newsletters that point me to web articles, often of dubiuos quality. But occasionally a topic catches my attention. Today I was directed to a short little list on the difference between Corporate Strategy and Ecclesial Strategy, I think it is worth perusing. It is also one of my frustrations with modern ecclesiology and I'm not sure that we can just blame an incorporation of corporate methodology. There is a deeper psychosis at work in the Church, an inward turning that has left it with a diminished witness in the world. The corporate methodologies only strengthened a trend that was already present in the Church.

The core of this is an inward turning of the Church. We have reigned so long that our self-importance has left us unable to cope with any other reality. So we bolster the structures that protect our identity at an organizational level at the expense of the people who are the true Church. Theologically this is rooted in a false equation of the Church with the Kingdom of God. But it lives in a fearful protectionist stance towards the encroaching secular reality of the world we live in.

What the world needs is not a starkly isolated and corporately driven, albeit slickly organized, Church. What it needs is a people in the world, yet not of the world. What the world needs is a Church that is struggling with the reality of this world, just like everyone else, and crafting hope wherever she finds herself. There is a lot I can agree with on Mattera's short list, but a lot of it needs to be properly unpacked and meditated on.

[THO] The Religious Experience

While I might throw out terms like post-charismatic, I am very comfortable in the charismatic world. At least experientially. However, I do have some reservations about the way that charismatics understand their experiences with the Holy Spirit. I am convinced that we charismatics could actually do things in a lot healthier ways.

Let me qualify that just a bit. People get hurt because of the ways that charismatics, and I've been just as guilty as the next charismatic, approach their spirituality. Yet, the temptation is to get so wrapped up and overwhelmed by the event that we miss what God really wants to do. So to that end I propose a few considerations about the religious experience we charismatics like to call the gifts of the Spirit.

Mediation

The first thing that we need to insist, and to this task I would call all charismatic leaders of integrity, is that of recognizing that we only have access to the experience of God by the human. That is when we experience God's presence we can only describe and understand that experience through our own capacities. More harm has been done by well meaning folks who think they have a direct and unmediated understanding of the experience of God. Really understanding what happened takes time and reflection. In fact I would insist it takes a Church because no word of prophecy is of private interpretation. Too often we want to claim the upper ground because we fear invalidating the experience. But the reality is God has asked us to test all prophecy, so to do less is to dishonour God's intent. The experience comes as a grace (and we love it) but it also demands reflection, humility and community to be of real value.

I am always reminded that first Corinthians was written to correct us. A little more reflection and we might find that Paul is right.

God's Purpose in Visiting Us

We should begin our reflection with a question - what is God saying to us through this experience? I've seen too many charismatic junkies running from fix to fix and never pausing to ask why. John White (When the Spirit Comes With Power) reminds us that we are psychological beings, and that we can live in a Pavlovian experience where we react in a pre-determined way whenever the Spirit shows up. At some point our response just serves to deaden us to the voice and intent of God. I remember the first person to tell this Pentecostal to stop speaking in toungues (the usual reaction to being prayed for) and just listen to what God was saying. I was offended, but I now know that person did me an immense favour. I would say that if you always react the same way when the Spirit comes then you need to look for real fruit, if you don't see it then stop and start listening to God. God is more interested in what is going on within us, that is converting us to the mind of Christ, than what is going on externally.

For the Church

The gifts of the Spirit are for the Church. This is so important. If something is disrupting the service then stop it. If something is happening, then share it. The fruit to look for are unity, peace, healing, forgiveness, liberty and joy. I'm not saying shut down things just because someone doesn't like the way it is going, but for heaven's sake if there is confusion then look for clarity. Don't ignore their frustration, ask the folks manifesting what God is doing. If it isn't God then it will likely put a stop to grandstanding, and if it is God then that clarity will bless the Church. But don't stop there either. Take that and reflect, search as a community for what God is calling you to through this. Too often we think that this is just a personal experience - Paul's correction was to tell us that God is not that selfish, the gifts are for the Church.

For the World

The gifts are also for the world. God shows up because God still loves this world. When we miss this we turn into a pathetic bless me club. If the visitation doesn't send you out into the world with good news. Then quesiton it. Seriously. Good news, we've talked about here a lot, it is more than just telling others to come get drunk in the Spirit in some hedonistic festival. It is to love mercy, do justice and walk humbly with God. This is exactly what the world is looking for. This is exactly what God wants for the world. So when the visitation leads us elsewhere - we need to really quesiton if it is God who is visiting, or at least if we are really listening to what God is saying in the visitation.

[LIF] A Bit About My Programme

Now that I'm well into my programme it might be interesting to give you a bit of a snapshot of what I am doing. I have three classes and a seminar this semester, all of them quite intense.

I like least the Biblical Interpretation course, not because the subject matter isn't interesting, a history of Biblical Interpretation is awesome. But the class is in french which makes it exhausting. We are looking at Origen. Honestly I don't find much difference in this course than the undergrad Biblical studies courses I have done. I could not say that about the other courses though.

The Master's Seminar, which is new to the programme, combines a course in theological methodology (the next section) and a way of preparing with each other for our research project. That has been good and we are all pretty well narrowed in our topics (and we all have directors now). I started out with an idea to open a dialogue between the Evangelical church and the Emerging church on the issue of social engagement, but I am doing a much smaller slice of that now. The goal is to become a local expert on your topic so hopefully at some point I will be able to teach on the contemporary Emerging church. Fun stuff.

My other two courses have a lot of overlap. One is a reading course on Religious Experience and the other is a course on Spirituality and the Human Sciences. Both are heavy reading, but very rich. I'm just finishing up Transcendant Experiences by Louis Roy and am going to start Helmeniak's The Human Core of Spirituality. In the course of studying religious experience I've been spinning off and looking at some of the spiritual expressions from my own traditions (Pentecostal and Charismatic). I've been able to bring some dialogue with this material and the ecstatic experiences of the Toronto Blessing as well as the Asuza Street Revival. That has been very interesting, I get to design a course on Religious Experience as part of the reading course, so I'll definitely have a section on the psychology and theology of ecstatic experiences. One of the things I've come to realize is that we don't process those experiences well. I'll have to unpack that in a later post, maybe when I'm more awake.

[LIF] This felt great!

[LIF] Progress

I now have a working outline to direct my research. That means I can more readily filter the material I am diving into. I'm really excited to pour into some of the books I've been collecting in anticipation of this project. I'll finish up Mark Noll and then go right to Grenz's primer on postmodernity, a book I've wanted to read for quite a while now. Then I'll finally get to McLaren's new book.

My undergrad convocation is tomorrow. My parents couldn't get away so it is my dear wife and my wonderful mother-in-law who are coming to see me wear the robes. Christopher Plummer will be there getting an honourary degree, that should be interesting. I was told it is a long ceremony and the St. Paul grads (there are four of us this time) are up first! We do our convocation with Ottawa U. I'm going to have a book under my robes, shhhh don't tell anyone.

[LIF] Resolving Tension

It is funny that I just finished (yesterday) a paper critiquing our human tendency to not live with unresolved tension (even if we just develop tactics to ignore the tensions) and yet I am overjoyed that the tension with my youngest daughter has been resolved - at least for now. We still meet with her principal and teacher Monday, but my girl apologized to the bus driver already. Thanks for the prayers all.

[LIF] Parenting Heartaches

My youngest is misbehaving on the bus. It is fairly serious in that if she gets kicked off the bus we have no way to get her to school and back. I had to punish her, gave her several dice (dice get put in a jar when one of the girls is bad and they have to work them off before they can have any playdates or watch any movies). I also made it clear that if she doesn't apologize to the bus driver, he's such a nice guy too and she just laughed at him when he tried to tell her to sit down, she will miss out on halloween.

Now the thing is after all that I absolutely feel like crap. I feel let down and disappointed. Chelsea can be very strong willed. We try to direct that knowing it is good to be strong in who your identity in this world. But strong willed is just the other side of the belligerant coin. Chelsea is only four which doesn't help.

Pray for us. Thanks.

[LIF] Books!

It has been a while since I've posted my book purchases, fear not they are aplenty. Here are a few highlights.

The Craft of Research (Booth, Colomb and Williams) - Man I wish I had had this book years ago! Some great insights into the whole writing process. If you are just starting out in studies this book will be a great boon to your work and get you up and running in no time.

The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Noll) - I'm a Noll fan. I have a feeling that this book will be a great springboard for my studies this year. BTW Kenny reviewed this one already. [EDIT: Kenny actually reviews Ron Sider's Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience, not Noll's book. But that review is where I heard of Noll's book in the first place. It was a while ago that I read it.]

Spirituality and Society: Postmodern Visions (Griffin ed) - I've started this and am considering some more from this series. The essays are excellent and postmodernity is the issue of our time. Griffin is a reconstructionist thinker.

Everything Must Change (McLaren) - I've been waiting a while for this one. I have really appreciated McLaren over the years and this book is right on topic for my research project. Thanks Brian.

I bought a slew of emergent titles and have been reading the ones I already had on the shelves. My shelves, BTW, are bursting. I do thin out the herd from time to time, but I really like books, even books I strongly disagree with.

OK one more of note, and this is a really special one.

About the Fruit (Young) - A while back I reviewed MJ Young's _What Does God Expect?_ and as a way of saying thanks MJ sent me his latest. He even put a little note inside the front cover. It isn't a huge book but it looks like a great scriptural study. I like how careful MJ has been in the past, he has a lot of wisdom to share. Thanks Mark, I'll let you know when the review goes up. BTW my last name only have one 'm' :-)

[THO] What are you saved from?

I might have asked this here before, it came up in a class again. We are so fond of using easy slogans to try and articulate our religious experiences, that is part of the process of mediation that we all go through. The problem is that these slogans don't often translate well outside of our communities. Now this would not be a problem if we reflected deeply on our slogans. What does it mean to be 'saved'? What does it mean to be 'born again'?

I readily admit to being a born again Christian and can easily articulate a further slew of slogans to back that up - of course it means that I was born spiritually when I gave my life to Jesus. But think about all the assumptions even in that explaination? What does it mean born spiritually? or even to give your life to Jesus? and further what is Jesus? It is not simple stuff. But it is worthwhile stuff. In fact it is so worthwhile that people have given their lives to understand (and often live out) even just one of those assumptions. Unfortunately the average believer does not reflect upon their slogans.

I want to encourage you to answer just this one: what are you saved from? What I want to do is keep prodding behind the answers to get at the real question to which 'saved' is an answer. If nothing else, I would love to encourage you to think deeply about your faith, because the deeper you reflect the more of a claim it will make on your life.

[THO] Sacred Epistemology?

I'm getting much closer to having my research topic refined, I'm confident enough that I ordered a slew of books on topic. The refining is important because it will determine how I read those books. Should be fun though as most of the books are out of the Emerging Church. As I've been reflecting on the engagement of the Emergent church with postmodernity, and also on the response of the evangelical stalwarts like Carson and MacArthur, I'm wondering if we haven't mistaken our epistemology as sacred?

It is interesting that in the modernist revisions of Christianity there is an emphasis on faith being something reasonable. The modern church presents a primarily propositional gospel message, assent to these truth claims and you are in. But that sort of understanding does not get very far in postmodernity. In the postmodern mind those truth claims are also a created reality so they need to be brought into the matrix of community forming. The postmodern mind also doesn't expect faith to be reasonable, but rather uses a different criteria of authenticity.

Authenticity is different than truth. The way truth is used assumes that there is an unmediated communication of said truth and that there is a faithful encapsulation of that truth in the form of doctrine or dogma. But here is where most of the mainline evangelicals mess it up, they assume that to think anything else less about truth is less of a committment to truth, by that I mean what is truly true. It is not truth that is rejected, it is how we arrive at and appropriate truth that is at stake in the postmodern turn.

Here is where the disconnect of lived experience and creedal affirmation comes in. The great proponents of propositional truth have claimed to live according to truth, but really there are two types of truth operative: the truth we say we believe and the lives we truly live. What we live is what we really believe, no matter what we say we believe. So if you say it is wrong to steal, but you enjoy pirating videos, well the truth that is operative in you is not a simple proposition against theft, but rather a complex belief about degrees of theft and possibly a belief about what constitutes an apparently victemless crime. Now when you try and navigate to the true truth this gets messy. Which is why the need for a new category: authenticity.

Authenticity is a way of affirming a lived truth. To be real or authentic is to be in touch with the greyness of our lives. It is to recognize that each of us is embedded in systems and ideologies that are not helping the world, our community or even our selves. So you now have a generation that want to keep it real. This scares the crap out of those who are staunch defenders of the truth, not the least because this authenticity is messy and doesn't care about the old categories of truth that were so important to the modern revision of Christianity.

But here is the opportunity, and if you have been here a while you know that I see postmodernity as an incredible opportunity. In the past, when the lived life comes into focus we've fallen to systems of personal holiness to help us navigate the greyness of society. I think in the past these have been very beneficial to the church, although not always. But such efforts are based on propositional thinking and readings of the scriptures. This has to shift slightly for the postmodern setting.

Postmodernity is not only a call to authenticity, it is a recognition that the myth of progress has failed us. The world is screwed up and we are implicated strongly in the actions that have led us to this place. So those same passions for holiness can be used to call for deeper committment to an authenticity that leans into common good. Here is the opportunity we have to craft a hope filled generation. See the postmodern mind is concerned with truth, but it is just less picky how it arrives there. That is an incredible opportunity.