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.

Kenny: The Rise of the Disciplinary Society

In Chapter 2, "The Rise of the Disciplinary Society", Charles Taylor attempts to weave a contrasting set of intellectual and social moves in late medieval and early modern society into a narrative of secularization that does not simply tell what he has called a "subtraction story".

His aim in sections 3 and 4 is to outline how the instrumental view of human reason became dominant in Europe, whereby "a stance of poiesis" enters into "the domain of praxis" (p. 113). This is a set of moves is accompanied by what he calls a science of instrumental efficacy articulated by men like Cusanus, Ficino, and da Vinci.

The instrumental view of nature characterizes God primarily by his unlimited sovereignty, in contrast to the ancient characterizations of the cosmos as the realization of the Form (as in Plato). Nominalist writers like Descartes and Mersenne understand nature as a great mechanism because their God possess an all powerful will that can subject the universe to total manipulation. Efficient causality replaces teleology.

But Taylor wisely wishes to avoid placing all the causal force on a shift in ideas. He also spends a considerable amount of time on Justus Lipsius and the rise of Christian neo-Stoicism. This combines his earlier discussion of the "drive for order" and reform through a new understanding of man and his nature. Lipsius’ man of constancy, who stands above the disorder of the passions, when combined with the new religious drives for reform - including both voluntary and state institutions - represents an important social and cultural shift in Europe at this time: the goals of being totally rid of violence and social disorder, and to bring civility to everyone.

But where did the energy for reform come from? Taylor argues that for the Calvinists it came from a belief in providence attached to their programmes, and for the neo-Stoics a newfound belief in natural order. These two complementary beliefs receive an important column of support from the emergence of early modern natural law: "what emerges out of this reflection on Natural Law is the norm of a stable order of industrious men in the settled courses of their callings, dedicating themselves to growth and prosperity, rather than war and plunder, and accepting a morality of mutual respect and an ethic of self-improvement." (p. 129)

It was no accident that the move towards an ethic of poiesis, whereby virtue was understood as the dominance of the will over passion, was charted by Descartes, schooled by neo-Stoics at La Fleche. For Descartes the passions were to be brought under the instrumental control of reason, a reason fully detached from the proposed outcome of deliberation. Taylor argues that Descartes' key term was generosity: where once it had meant to live with a sense of one's rank and the honour attached to it, Descartes internalized its meaning so that generosity meant living up to a non-socially defined rational agent. What moves us now is not a place in tune with nature but an intrinsic sense of self worth.

And so at the end of section 4 the buffered self has been added to the disengaged rational agent: the one removes fears of spirits, the other now operates on the fears of desire. So equipped early modern man should now be able to stand back from desire and rationally determine how he should order himself.

Comments here.

Review: Out of the Cage

Eric Peters is my neighbour. I met him at a BBQ, but really didn't get to know him until I started to develop my own yoga practice. Like some of the people Eric has helped in the past, I have been suffering with back and neck problems for many years. Haunching over computers, anxious about impending deadlines and generally not taking care of my body has been the source of my problems. In Eric's little book he tells a much more serious tale. His book is very readable, I devoured it in a matter of hours. It is quite candid and if you know Eric his voice is clear on every page. Eric's pain led him into a serious narcotics addiction, and I find he is a bit overly concerned about the use of narcotics today (maybe rightly so though). But the real strength of this story is how he describes the yoga practice as a means to truly get to know one's self. I have found this true too. There is something about bringing awareness to the present moment that is liberating - he proposes a strategy for facing the truth of our situation, not hiding from it (such as through narcotics) or pretending it doesn't exist (fantasizing), but really being present to the way we are in that moment. I think this is good advice. And Eric does a much better job explaining it in an accessible and compelling way. This is not a book on how to do yoga, but a testimonial and encouragement to make some of the more important principles of yoga a part of your daily life practice. If you are at all interested in being free from chronic pain, or even in what the possible benefits of yoga might be, then this book is for you.

Easter 2010

Easter is the highlight of our liturgical year at Freedom Vineyard. We start our celebration with a solemn Good Friday Sensory service. Often we will follow that with a Candle Mass Easter vigil, but this year we had an Easter service on Monday.

We tend to change up the stations a bit from year to year. This year the theme was about our participation in God's redemptive work. I wanted to focus on the three ways we contribute to this work - through our time, energy and money. A cool note, we had a financial need coming up and all the money in our account was accounted for already - but at the provision station (that is a place where you can give or take money) we had almost exactly enough money come in for the need. I think that is pretty cool. We were over by a matter of cents. The provision station isn't new, but the challenge was creating stations that dealt with time and energy.

For time we asked participants to take at least 2 minutes (the timer) and meditate on how they use their time. We included a journal that had over 50 verses and quotes about time, arranged one to a page as reflection starters. The idea was to keep a journal that we could share as a community. I titled this journal "Thoughts on Traveling with God Through Time" and it was quite an interesting experiment. Being fairly activist in orientation (impatient is another way to put it) I often do not reflect enough on the power of waiting. Often Jesus would ask his disciples to wait. I think my reaction is against those who wait for an otherworldly hope, thinking that this means waiting out this life. Actually it is more a waiting for what God is doing in this world, so that we can learn to participate with that life and action. My favourite quote was from Leonard Bernstein - "To achieve great things, two things are needed: a plan, and not quite enough time."

For energy I borrowed something from the Matrix. We presented a dare to the participants - a series of articles, editorial pieces, that gave accounts of injustice. Everything from a recent attempted child abduction from our city to this brilliant piece on the exclusion of homosexuals by evangelicals. If they dared to open their eyes then there was a two-fold response: a cry for God to come and a question "how will they respond?" We added red and blue pills (mini M&Ms) to drive home their choice.

We had a really good attendance to this service including both of my kids. We had a smaller group come out Easter Monday though. But what was cool is that David Kitz, who used to pastor the first church I went to in Ottawa, came and did his one person play - A Centurion's Report. David and I reconnected, through facebook, about a year ago. I hadn't seen him for over 20 years, but we have mutual friends so I'd hear the stories. He does a great job, I think that next time I'd have invited more people - but we had a lot of last minute cancels which if they all came would have filled our home almost too full. We started off with a potluck, I made a big gluten free lasagna (yummy) and had plenty of food. My friend Christine brought really good samosas. And we hung out for quite a while. I led worship for a bit and then interspersed the acts with worship songs. We did Kris MacQueen's "We Cannot Contain All You Pour Out" which is such a great song. I ended up closing with that song too. David did his play. It was really good to have someone come with a passionate presentation of the crucifixion and resurrection. Something very hopeful.

We have one more big event planned for this spring - Sean and Aimee Dayton are coming for a night of worship. We'll be hosting this one at our place. We are suggesting folks donate $10/person. I think it will be an evening well worth it. April 14th, Wed. 7PM- Call my cell eight-seven-eight - eight-four-six-three (613 area code) or find us on facebook (Freedom Vineyard).

Toward a Theology of Marriage - Part II

What does God think about marriage?

I know right off the bat that this is a charged statement. Folks use the God card to support their ideas of marriage and invalidate the ideas that other folks have. Usually they do this by using a selective reading of scripture to support what they consider to be normative realities, omit the stuff that doesn't fit so well and say this is what God thinks. I'm going to try not doing that. I don't find it helpful.

The reality is that scripture approaches marriage in a number of different ways. So when some religious groups claim scriptural support for polygamy, they are right. But that doesn't mean polygamy is an acceptable norm in a particular social context. And it definitely does not support any form of polygamy that is abusive or oppressive. It just does not preclude it as a biblically identified construction of a family. I think that the scriptures, more often than not, are identifying culturally normative notions of family and offering deeper wisdom than what is an acceptable form of family and what is not. (For instance, I don't believe that any biblical text came out of a context that could imagine a same-sex family - which is why same-sex families are never mentioned in scripture. This neither endorses or dismisses such notions of family, we need to look for deeper criteria by which to evaluate possible configurations of family within particular cultural contexts.)

So if form isn't the main point, then what is?

I think a better case can be made for the biblical presentation of what a Godly relationship should be like. Through such an argument we can begin to assess notions of family (monogamous mixed-gender, monogamous same-gender, polygamous matriarchal/patriarchal/communal, etc.). That is we can develop criteria by which we can ask of a family unit - does this unit, within this cultural context, exhibit these values? By this we can get close to what we might say that God thinks about marriage, and separate that from what we think should be the normative form(s) of family in our culture.

So I've shifted from defining marriage to understanding relationship, in particular what we might say is God's view on relationships. I want to make a disclaimer that will help here. We can't really say definitively what God's view is, what we can do is interpret the texts and experiences of communities who have passed on revelation to us. This comes through scripture, tradition and experience. And it is always a mediated transmission meaning that the ones who had the revelation translated it to the transmission form and then we interpret the transmission we receive. This does not mean there is no correspondence between revelation and interpretation - but it does mean we need to approach it with critical rigor. We see but through a glass dimly, but at the same time God has not left God's self without a witness. We have to trust that the Spirit is faithful to lead us in our pursuit of truth - and guard against the surety that short circuits the role of the Spirit in this process. Some think this takes away our confidence, I think this opens up a need for trust in God - faith if you will. It also humbles us as we go forward.

So what does scripture say about relationships?

We'll go here next.

Toward a Theology of Marriage - Part I

I have been thinking a lot about marriage lately. As many of you know celebrating marriage ceremonies is seen as a privilege of religious communities, but I'm concerned with the disconnect between marriage and religious practice. I want to spend a few posts exploring this topic.

First we need to understand the term marriage. You won't hear me talking in terms of traditional definitions - because those tend to beg the question: traditional to what? Plus there is a movement that is really about excluding homosexuals from marriage that claim the term traditional but really mean what has come to be the normative experience in North American society (although I think those notions are internally challenged in ways these groups do not care to admit and they often ignore the emerging normative experiences of marriage). Actually I am more interested in a functional definition and from that seeing what, if anything, a religion like Christianity can bring to marriage.

We could start with the assumption that marriage is the foundation of the family unit. Let's leave aside that society has often given up on this as a reality. But if we think about family units they consist of people bonding together to form a corporate whole that is more than the individuals on their own. This includes some sort of commitment as well as expectations. This would seem to jive with the civil notions of marriage. These notions are codified by the state in order to allow for legal ramifications if the marriage contract is violated or dissolved. I happen to thing this is good, even though it can be expressed poorly in society.

Where the notion of a contract is helpful is when such a bonding (marriage) leads to internal growth (offspring, adoption, integration). It ensures, civilly, that the least capable of fending for themselves are protected in the event of such a contract breaking down. I like that safety feature because I love my kids and would want them to be protected no matter what. Also as a pastor I've seen how adults, in the midst of marital breakdown, can behave like real jerks - it is painful all around. So that is something that is important to me. But this civil union is more about how we navigate society and not necessarily a religious reality.

So what about religion? Is marriage just some leftover sacrament that is no longer necessary? Here is where we need a theology of marriage. We need to know what God thinks (as best we can know the mind of God) of marriage. We need to know where God is made present in marriage and where God can be edged out of the picture. I'll turn to this next.

But first - do you think marriage is fundamentally a contract? if not why? Also do you think that marriage is the fundamental building block of the family?

I Am 5 - Very Unsatisfied with the Service

Ok, time to rant. Nowadays it seems that every service or purchase (over say $20!) comes with a phone call. "Hello Mr. Emmen-yule. Can you answer a few short questions about your satisfaction with..." OK. so at first this seemed cute. A few companies seeming to care enough to check up on you, make sure you were treated right. But slowly these calls have taken over as the primary source of telephone spam. I've had enough.

Here is the deal, if I don't like the service, I'll simply not be back. Yeah. I don't lodge complaints (very often, you really have to screw me over) it is not my nature. So really this kind of survey is about the only feedback you will get unless you suddenly realize I've stopped paying for your services. I freely admit that this seems like the only way to get feedback from folks like me - the worst customers. However, the constant surveys, to me, is just as bad as some idiot salesperson treating me like crap.

It is mostly the predictable nature of these calls that annoys me. It is most impersonal. "Can you rate your experience on a scale of one to five, five being very satisfied and ..." AAARRRRRGGGGHHHH! Come on. You want me to quantify my satisfaction? I might respond better to a friendly, "are you happy with our service?", that opened up a conversation if I was not. At least then I could say "yup" and hang up instead of wasting my time trying to quantify my level of satisfaction with something I probably wasn't paying that kind of attention to. Life people, I have one.

So, I am 5 - very unsatisfied with this stupid phone call. You interrupted my day for this? Come on. I want to retort, "how would you like it if I called you up in the middle of your stupid phone calls and asked how you were satisfied with your last cold call, on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being very unsatisfied and 5 being very satisfied?" But I actually have a better plan.

I'm opting out. No more. I am saying no.

I cant help wondering if this is just a make-work project? If it really is a way of curing bad customer service then the cure is worse than the cause. I don't doubt that some companies use this data to evaluate their service representatives. But when, and this has happened several times now, the service representative asks you to rate then all 1's or 5's (whatever is better) on the impending survey then they are defeating the purpose of the survey. I'm not a jerk, I won't rate them poorly because they asked. But I'm just going to opt out altogether.

End of rant.

Please rate your satisfaction with this blog post in the comments below.

The Rise of the Disciplinary Society 1-2

With many, many apologies for the long delay.

The way that Taylor reads history is really interesting to me. Section 1 of this chapter begins to describe the displacements Taylor wants to track and then by Section 2 he has dove right in. This looking at how ideas become distinct and eventually part ways is a Hegelian tactic that is part of other works that I've read from Taylor. I'm sure Kenny will comment on this, he is the resident historian, but I want to shift our attention to something I really enjoyed in this reading - attitudes.

The attitudes that Taylor flags have far reaching influence. In fact we feel them still today. These attitudes are directed towards the poor, society and nature. They allow us to view these things in particular ways. In fact what he shows is that there is a marked difference in the way 15th century folk viewed the poor, for instance, and folks in the 16th century would see them. These attitudes evolve, but in a way that builds in a specific direction.

In the evolution of the attitude towards nature we see the breakdown of the Thomistic medieval synthesis. How we go from an idea of nature intrinsically connected with our ideas of the divine to a basically notion of utility. We end up with a nature that we can exploit because it has lost its divine significance. But it is more than this, it is that nature becomes something we must assert control over. Nature becomes the enemy (p.101). I think that attitude is what makes it hard to animate sufficient ecological response (I don't find stewardship compelling or sufficient). But it also identifies a root of our love of consumerism. What is life about? It isn't about a quest for the holy grail, the plumbing of divine mystery - but it is now about control, management and the mitigation of fear.

This is similar to the attitude towards society, or civility as Taylor puts it. Taylor insightfully identifies this need to combat nature with civility as the root of the pervasive notion that social transformation is only truly accomplished through religious conversion, and that true religious conversion effects social change. I have a particular frustration with this attitude. While I value religious conversion (I am an evangelical after all) I don't see that it is sufficient or even the tool for social transformation. The reason is that evangelicals are good at compelling religious conversion and yet are often deeply complicit in systemic injustice. There are lots of reasons for this, but I think that attitude, that is the expectations that are attributed towards religious civility, is at the root.

Looking forward to your thoughts!

Thesis Proposal In The Bag!

After some back and forth with the committee and my director, my proposal was accepted! I will present on April 9th, 9AM. The presentation is more of a formality, there is no evaluation but more of a chance for the whole faculty (profs and PhD students) to comment on my work. I'm looking forward to this. But overall what I'm feeling is relief.

I actually had the results last Friday. But it has taken me this long just to recover. And I still have a long list of neglected tasks. This is the Lenten season after all. I will resume my participation in A Secular Age reading/blogging, expect something Thursday. Also I've got to start planning out two papers for May and two seminars for the Vineyard National Gathering in July (even though at this point it is not in the budget - I'm trusting God to provide a way if we are supposed to be there). And various Freedom tasks to do with kinships, mentoring and our book club.

On top of that I'm about ready to make some paper mache terrain for the custom scenario I will run at CanGames in May. I'm making two sets of interlocking valley walls (4 pieces in total) to block off a gauntlet path the players will have to run. I've got enough sketched out to run trials so the terrain is the next piece. I bought some rock casts too, which when painted will look really great. I'll post pictures when it is all together. I also have to do some work on both of the D&D campaigns I'm running. One group is almost at the end of my material and I have one more major quest for them before the final battle. Once that is over I'm going to suggest moving to version 4.0 and starting again 300 years in the future with all new quests and adventures. My current 4.0 game is just starting the 5th level of a dungeon crawl, so I need to start work on the 6th level (already have it mapped). But 4E goes together so much easier than any other version I've worked with.

That's enough to keep me busy for a while.

More About the Way I Work

I sent a full thesis proposal to my director today. Late, but maybe we can squeak it in. Basically it will depend on how much my committee wants to adjust it. Due to a number of personal reasons I ended up trying to do way too much work in way too little time. I'm not usually that bad. If I remember right my Master's thesis was a day early! I do tend to work well under pressure too, but some projects are way to big to do in a short amount of time. And even now thinking about my proposal I can identify at least three places that could use a couple hours more work.

Time to take a bit of a look at what I can improve on for the next project.

First, I have a bad habit of jumping the gun. I will be doing research and then feel like it has all fallen into place - so I start writing and realize it just isn't cooked enough. At this point I'm committed to writing, I've read about half the material and so I'm toggling back and forth between research and writing and my writing shows that it isn't my main focus.

Second, I am not the best at planning out paragraphs. If you remember my previous post on writing like Jazz, I am getting better at that. But my stream of consciousness does tend to leap across ideas quickly. But the best way to fix that problem is to carefully plan out my paragraphs. I am good at mapping out the material and organizing it at a high level, but planning a paragraph is not a skill I've ever developed.

Third, I am not guarding my academic work time well enough. Being a husband, father, and pastor can be very demanding at times. This one is harder for me to tackle.

Solutions

I'm open to other suggestions but I think I know the way forward on a lot of these issues.

First, I need to plan my research process better. I need to map out the material I am going to be responsible for with each chapter. Completely read that material before I start writing. Jot down ideas in a separate note book. I think it will also help to have set deliverables all through the project. This will help me track my progress and keep on task. Thesis writing is lonely work.

Second, when I get to the writing stage I need to go back to the writing technique I used in consulting. Start with a high level outline of the chapter/paper. Write one sentence for each level as to what I will cover in that section. Next outline each section, one point per paragraph. Then write one sentence that is the one idea that paragraph will communicate. Then stick to the outline! This technique is helpful. Whenever you can't write one sentence then you have too many ideas in that section/paragraph. It seems quite AR, but I know from when I took the time to do it that it does work well.

Third, I think I need to establish working hours. If I get funding, I definitely need to rent a studio at the library. Other than that I'm not sure what to do. It is too easy for other things to take precedence over the reading and writing that I need to do. I just need to be on guard better.

BTW I now have a second academic paper accepted - this time for the AAR regionals! May is going to be a crazy busy month.

USA Go Home!

Did that get your attention? This really pisses me off. I get that the US is a paranoid nation, and that their politics thrives on this Straussian fear factor. But as a Canadian I want no part of it. Consistently the US embassies around the world are the most fortified. But this is Canada people. What are they afraid of? I'm not about to waste my maple syrup lobbing it at your windows. Heck if we so much as glanced the wrong way at your ugly building you can bet we'd profusely apologize - we are Canadians. I digress. I get that in the post-9/11 fear exploitation you decided to enlarge your boundaries. (Would it have hurt to have asked?) But now you not only expect to keep the lanes you have appropriated - you want us to pick up the lions share of the tab to make it look a bit less shitty? Come on. If you don't feel safe here then build something somewhere we don't have to look at it, build huge prison walls with guards for all I care. Uh but do it with your own money. Seriously. If that doesn't suit you - go home. It is not like you are very far away anyway.

Lot Up In The Air

This has been a brutal start of the month. First I feel like apologizing, I am the hold up on the A Secular Age reading group. I just have too many things on the go. We also had a relationship go south on us, which has been hard on the whole family. I am happy this hasn't happened very often for us, but when it does it hurts. I think we are starting to get settled again. But I'm also missing deadlines, which is not like me. I was supposed to have my thesis proposal in to my director on Monday. I pushed it to Tuesday and handed something in Friday. My director has also been sick this past week. It is not the end of the world if I have to defer to September, but it is frustrating. A big part of the frustration is that I did not guard my time properly. The thesis proposal is a huge piece of work. One of the areas that I was hoping to critique is evangelical social engagement proposals - but the more I research the more really good ones I find. Where the deficit is is amongst the popular writings and that is much harder to get at and justify writing a thesis on. Hence, it is way more work than if my initial critique held up across the board. And to compound this frustration, I am delighted to find that evangelicals do some fine theology, but having studied in a Catholic institution for so long I am just now discovering it. I have been ordering books like crazy, reading and realizing the richness I've been missing. Now I have to sort out a whole theological culture and my assumptions about that culture. What this means is I will have my head down for a while yet.

Some good news. I am presenting two focused interaction groups at the Vineyard National Gathering this summer - one the fire Ladd lit for Wimber and the other on Post-modern Hermeneutics. I'm also presenting at Congress 2010 (Montreal) for CETA (Canadian Evangelical Theological Association) on evangelicals, language and consensus. And I'm running a custom gauntlet style scenario at CanGames this year - going to start working on the terrain soon.

What is a Pastor?

I'm wondering here. I think that some people think a pastor is someone you can walk all over and will just take it with a smile. The reason I think this is that when folks do that to me long enough I bite back - and when I do I feel like a complete failure. I know that this is really my issue, but I'm wondering if there isn't a better theory of pastor that might encourage me. Help me frame my responses better. Really I should learn to stand up earlier when folks are abusive towards me. Shoulda coulda woulda - yeah.

Looking forward to what you have to share.

When is it Helpful?

I'm watching a few blogs report the sad news about Benny Hinn's immanent divorce. As you know I'm not a real fan of Hinn, I think he is quite heterodox actually. But what I'm wondering is when and how it is actually helpful to bring a critique on a Christian ministry? It is a serious question. I find that sometimes I want to jump right in when folks are slamming what I consider to be gross theological errors. But then another part of me wonders how helpful that is. I'm not afraid to give my opinion, but at the same time I need to be self-aware enough that I realize that I'm not always going to be right.

I'm wondering what your thoughts are? When it is helpful? What form is helpful? Is there a line we shouldn't cross? What do we do when we inadvertently or deliberately cross that line?

For the meanwhile my heart goes out to the folks who have put Benny up on a pedestal. I trust that you will meet God in your pain. I trust that God is working through this whole situation and will ultimately have the last word.

Bulwarks of Belief (B van den Berg; Repost)

By the fifteenth century, Europe had emerged from the Age of Calamity (as referenced by one of my history books), or an age of anxiety as described by Charles Taylor (p.88).

In this new era comes two major societal transformations: the Renaissance and the Reformation. On page 75, Taylor turns his attention to the impact of one particular Protestant theology, Calvanism. It emerges* during the Reformation as a continuation of St. Augustine's thoughts on God's sovereignty and our predestination, as furthered by John (Jean) Calvin.

* Could they be the Emergents of their day? But I digress ...


According to Taylor, the Reformation - and particularly Calvanism - is central to the "abolition of the cosmos" (that is, the loss of the enchanted world) and the "eventual creation of a humanist alternative to faith". The Calvanist approach to faith leaves little room for mystery. In an attempt to create a rigid system of theology (and by rigid, I mean the need to have everything figured out), there is a "lock on the mysteries" (p.78). Anyone with experience in Calvanism recognizes this trait; there is little room for mystery or wonder. Taylor states that this "offers a model for the later humanist hostility to mystery" (p78).

Taylor discusses three levels that are emphasized with the Calvanist Reform: 1) a disciplined personal life, 2) a well ordered society, and 3) a right inner attitude. The third level creates a cycle that oscillates between salvation and depravity. We are saved, but before we become too comfortable we are reminded that we are depraved, but before we become too distraught we are reminded that we are saved ... The second level results in attempts to engineer society through social reforms, and causes the pendulum to swing between spasms of Arminianism and Calvinism.

Finally, this age also sees the "succession of elites from popular culture" (p.87). The elites begin to view moments of anti-structure (that is, the times the populace lets off steam, such as Carnival) as simply depraved acts, whereas previously they would have actively participated; there had been little difference in the activities of elites (clergy, nobility) and the common folk. It is here that Taylor argues this is the forerunner of political correctness. There is also the establishment of a "less enchanted" version of the Catholic church by the elites.

And now, for my own observations:

Recognizing that Taylor doesn't normally opine, his use of phrases like "horrifying conclusions" (p.78) and "repelling people from the faith" (p.79) make it easy to infer his views on Calvanism. Without forgetting about the log in my own eye, the phrases could be applied to his own Catholic faith too. There have been many other so-called Christian institutions fraught with corruption, playgrounds for bloodshed, politics, and power (in the manner of repelling people from the faith). I agree with him more so on the Problem of Evil - which cannot be addressed by Calvanism - and the movement towards total disenchantment (abolition of mystery). Whereas one cannot base an entire system of theology on Romans 9, one cannot dismiss it either.

I am hesitant to accept that one specific Protestant theology can be given as large a responsibility for ushering in certain aspects of the modern secular age as Taylor initially suggests, but there are over 700 pages left and I hope to find more answers there.

I gave thought to our own elites in North Atlantic societies; whereas the sixteenth century saw a succession between elites and the common folk, our own society sees an entire class of elites created by popular culture. We create icons out of movie stars, athletes, musicians, and politicians (for example, the recent Obama Mania). We adore them, gossip about them, keep track of them, and then discard them when they no longer interest us (or fail us). This is almost akin to the anti-structure described by Taylor, such as fools made king for a day, or a child in Bishop's clothes. Is our society coming full circle on some of these things?

Finally, his quick statement about the birth of political correctness could have used more fleshing out (as in, some data or studies to support his argument). What can I say? zetetic skepsis ...

Please comment here.

So Sad...

This makes me want to weep. What leap of logic could support the idea that our interaction with God could possibly automated? Has God become that depersonalized? Is it possible to think that God responds to petitions that cost us nothing but a wee bit of money - oh wait, that's that the whole notion of charities is based on. Sorry, my bad. Carry on. I'll be the one weeping in the corner over here.

So Is This

Thanks Byron.

Well Worth Watching

Paper Proposals

I fired off two paper proposals this week. Well one just got back from my director and will be packaged up and emailed out in the next day or two. It is a bit of a challenge to choose something that will help with my dissertation work, but will also not be too much my dissertation. I think I have hit on it, hopefully one or both will get accepted.

The first is for the AAR Eastern Regionals, here in Ottawa! I'm proposing to write on the the Emerging church as an evangelical effort to return from a self-imposed cultural exile. Basically I'll be comparing Carl Henry's project in The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism with what is written about Emerging church forays into social justice.

The second is for CETA at Congress 2010 (Concordia, Mtl). And I want to look at the problem of imprecision in popular evangelical terminology. In this one I'll be taking a focused look at the term missional. I have written about that term here in the past, this will be a good opportunity to spend quality time with the Gospel and Our Culture Network folks (their books anyway). The title I have so far is: Is there a Missional Bridge to Evangelical Unity? I think it is catchy.

I figure I'll just try for two this year. I did two proposals last year and ended up with both being accepted. This was great, except both conferences are in the same month, the same month as the Vineyard pastoral retreat! It made for a busy month and this year Sharon is also writing an exam in that same month.

The Bulwarks of Belief (M Samson; Repost)

Picking up where Kenneth left off, chapter 1 on Charles Taylor's book "A Secular Age" continues in sections 5-6 to develop his thoughts on the shift in the "conditions of belief" which have taken place in pre-modern to modern societies using as marker dates the years 1500 to 2000.

After looking at disenchantment and the eclipse of anti-structure, Taylor examines the shift in time-consciousness between moderns and pre-moderns, and in particular the time placing of events which to pre-moderns could be and were placed in more than one kind of time. For moderns, at least Taylor cites Walter Benjamin in saying that time is "homogeneous, empty time." (pg. 54). Or in other words, our present outlook for the most part enshrines homogeneity, coupled with a view of indifference to content. For earlier pre-moderns, there were three "kinds" of time. The 'secular' or 'ordinary,' 'higher times,' which introduce the kairotic knots and 'warps' according to Taylor, and thirdly the idea of 'The Great Time.' The 'Great Time' is the time of creation, or the beginning, which is behind us, but also above us. The Middle Ages inherits two kinds of 'Higher Time' or 'Eternity,' one from Plato and the Greeks, that of objective time of process and movement, and that of St. Augustine who wrestles with 'time' in his 11th book of his Confessions. St. Augustine sees eternity as the gathering together of past into present to project a future. Unlike the pre-moderns, we moderns tend to live their lives and conceive of them entirely within the horizontal flow of 'secular time.' Now I must confess, I have never really thought about this. Franks Comment captures this beautifully for me. This is indeed a complex thread to trace out. These shifts are not easily explained, and I too am enjoying this monster book.

Bound up closely with the change in time-consciousness is another shift in the way we understand the universe in which we live. We have moved from the idea of a 'cosmos,' an ordered whole with meaning for humanity, to a universe having its own kind of order, that of exceptionless natural laws. This insight I found tantalizing indeed! I once held to the young earth creationist viewpoint. It is no secret either as Taylor points out that many of the battles between belief and unbelief of the modern era, have been fought over this issue of 'cosmos' vs 'universe.' and the challenge of 'universe' to Biblical religion. Creation vs Evolution is fast becoming or else already is a political hot potato in the USA. For me the irony of the Ussher chronology using modern calculation methods to entrench the Bible in the 'cosmos' was startling! I never heard it put that way before. I will be following Taylor closely here, and hope he develops this further.

Lastly, Taylor looks at the issue of "Reform" and "reform." He spells out with refreshing candor for a Catholic the spiritual abuses that arise in the Middle Ages and how the stage gets set for the Reformation. Being a catholic myself, I appreciate his openness. He also seems to hint at how it may have been avoided. Latin Christendom in the late medieval period attempts to bridge the gap between the laity and the 'elites' if you will. Between those who are 'clergy' and or 'religious.' Interestingly Taylor sees this drive to reform and remake society as playing a key role in the undoing of the old enchanted cosmos idea, and further, the creation of a visible alternative in exclusive humanism, as he puts it. Again, I'm going to follow this closely.

Now, I don't really feel that I am in a position to be critical of Taylor at this point. This is the first work I have read from him, and I am in uncharted waters right now. I may need to supplement my reading of this book in order to get a better handle on him. I'm still taking it all in. This is far more complex than any of the 'subtraction stories' I have read quickly over the years. I wish I could say more at this point and make a better contribution, but this will have to do for now... still reading.....

To comment on this post go here.

Evangelicals Politically Engaged

It would be foolish to claim that evangelicals are not politically engaged in society. However, there are a number of drawbacks to the ways in which many evangelicals approach issues of social importance. Evangelicals tend towards a fairly pragmatic view of political engagement. This is because the primary concern is not the political engagement but rather the ability to witness. It is impressive how readily polarized evangelical groups can be when the issues are framed in terms of their witness and their perceived ability to witness.1 The classic example of this is the work of the Christian Right in the US. I find that Canadians tend to be less animated (more forgiving and flexible) in how they express their commitments, but these political commitments should not be underestimated (I believe that this is part of the reason the Conservatives have made it this far in our Country). This propensity for polarization reveals that what is lacking is an ability for individuals to sustain a reflection on political engagement. What suffers most is the very thing that is believed to be preserved - witness.

The witness of any religion is always tied to the ability of that religion to foster political engagement. The kind of political engagement that prophetically stands up in the face of injustice. While Christianity is not alone in its capacity to evoke the prophetic spirit, it is surely a rich part of Christianity's own formation. But what has been traded for the political prophetic voice is an apocalyptic and ecstatic spirit that deems overt political involvement as participation in a world which has no lasting hope. Pat Robertson's recent racist remarks about Haiti prove this point. What is unfortunate is that this is what passes as prophetic in much of evangelical culture. That is the prophetic is an ability for enforcing a deep apathy towards critical political issues. The church has become the state church preserving the state's status quo at all costs. What cost you might ask? The cost is the witness.

In Power Evangelism John Wimber claims that a faulty gospel message can at best create weak Christians. His claim comes in the midst of a discussion of the Kingdom message as the kerygma of Jesus' own gospel proclamation. I think he hits something important. The gospel that many North American evangelicals have bought into often has no reference to such political notions as the Kingdom of God. In fact Kingdom is only mentioned as an afterward as if saying the sinners prayer somehow transports one into the Kingdom. This could not be further from the message of Jesus. The Kingdom isn't something we can usher people into, a veritable holding place where we can plug up our eyes and ears and await the great yanking away. No. The Kingdom was central and its direction was always incarnational not escape. Sometimes I'm convinced that our gospel messages have more to do with our own personal comfort than with anything we read in the four gospels.

This weakness is already hurting evangelical witness. There is a growing awareness that the issues of our day demand a profound and prophetic response. And with none coming from our churches and ministries it should not surprise us that our numbers are dwindling. The plea of this argument is not to water down our gospel - I think we've done that enough. But to reflect on how our gospel actually might have the prophetic capacity to be, once again, a force for good in our world. This won't happen while we happily clap in our pews. It happens when we follow Jesus into the highways and byways and become like a certain famous Baptist who prepared the way for the Kingdom to come in the person of Jesus Christ.


1. By witness, I am referring to the active sharing of ones own faith in hopes of leading other individuals into a similar religious orientation.

Role Players Unite... and take over!

All I Need To Know About Life I learned From Dungeons and Dragons. An IgniteOKC Talk. from Chad Henderson on Vimeo.

The Bulwarks of Belief (K Sheppard; repost)

Charles Taylor's A Secular Age is a sustained criticism of negative secularization theories. As we saw in the introduction that Frank's post provided, Taylor is primarily concerned to narrate the transformation of the "conditions of belief" from premodern to modern societies. He does so in order to reveal how the background to lived experiences (and the aspiration to flourishing, fullness) proves crucial to understanding the shift from naive belief to an awareness of many belief options.

Chapter 1, "The Bulwarks of Belief", begins with differences between what Taylor calls an "enchanted" and "disenchanted" world, borrowing from Max Weber and Marcel Gauchet. But this shift is only one part of the story, which Taylor discusses under the headings "obstacle", "equilibrium" and "a common understanding done away with".

(I) The enchanted world is a world filled with what Taylor calls "porous" selves. A porous, premodern self places the locus of meaning and action in the world "outside" him or herself, "exogenously". The enchanted word was spiritual, where things themselves had meaning, where meaning could be extra-human and intra-cosmic. This contrasts with the modern, disenchanted world where meaning is fundamentally construed as "within" ("endogenously"), and specifically within the human mind. This buffered self sets up a series of boundaries not present in premodern selves: between agents and forces, mind and world, physical and moral. Where the natural world, the existence of society and the enchanted cosmos affirmed the existence of God, it was very hard to embrace unbelief. If someone denied God they did not thereby leave the "field of forces" that remained, many of which were malevolent, making unbelief difficult to entertain.

(II) Porous selves were thus vulnerable selves. They were also part of communities that felt themselves to be part of a spiritual and force-filled world. That is why, Taylor argues, there was such enormous pressure to conform, such intolerance for heretics, and so little unbelief.

(III) Porous selves were also part of a society that held two goals in tension: that of self-transcendence associated with the ideals of Christianity, and that of normal human flourishing. Taylor uses Turner's concept of play between structure and anti-structure, as embodied in medieval Carnival, for example, to demonstrate how this equilibrium was held in balance. It was both functional, in "letting off steam", and affirmational, in confirming the normal order of society.

Subtraction stories do not pay enough attention to these changing conditions of belief and are therefore unable to explain the transition from naive belief to an awareness of belief options. Taylor supplements this criticism with a narration of such changes, from the enchanted to the disenchanted world, from the porous to the buffered self, and from the world of play between structure and anti-structure to its restriction in contemporary life.

One may perhaps suggest a few avenues of criticism: first, on a methodological level, with Taylor's argument that the conditions of belief and background need to be front and centre in any account of secularization; second, even if one accepted Taylor's methodology, one might then criticize his use of existing scholarly material to posit the transitions he does. While it would be foolish to think consensus was ever likely to emerge on either point, evaluating Taylor's contribution must begin here.

Comment on this post here.

The Vineyard and Post-Christian Reality

Jason Coker has been posting some excellent articles on the Vineyard in the aftermath of Tony Jones' comments. His recent description of a missional think tank (which included David Ruis!) is very helpful. Two things that encouraged me were the fact that they were resisting trashing the attractional models and that they are also wrestling with how to incorporate whole families into some sort of post-Christiandom church life. I've struggled with this a lot in my own church planting/pastoring work. I have to agree that we are in for a hard road. And I see two reasons for this: 1) Churches are stubbornly hanging on to Christendom models. We shouldn't always have to arrive late to the party. And 2) the culture that rejects organized religion on religion's terms does not have clear models for developing an ecclesiology. The resistance that is part of the cultural makeup actually works against efforts to define what a post-Christiandom church might look like.

I think the question is: Is it worth it? And for that the only answer I can give is yes. The reason for that is because of what I've seen the encounter of God do in the lives of people. Heck, my own life is completely revolutionized because of the God who met me in my brokenness. For that reason alone it is worth the wrestling to build a church that can carry this message of hope to the world. Do you think it is worth it?

Heaven Misplaced (Review)

This is the second of Douglas Wilson's books that I have reviewed. And I'm happy to say this is a much better book. However, he makes some methodological choices that hurt his argument and toward the end of the book he has lost his flow of coherency. But his project of historical optimism is a good one, I just wish he'd spend more time unpacking it.

The book is a very reformed reading of Kingdom theology. That is he is developing a theology about the concept of God's reign, its implications for Christian life and thought, from a reformed position. In fact he imagines a more dispensational view of history as an opposing view. Several times I truly agreed with his conclusions but would never have tackled the issue in the way that he does. In many cases his evaluation of theological problems is simply not sustained enough to get the reader where he wants them to go. This is important because of his methodological choices.

Early on Wilson asks us to read this book as if it were a story, that is suspending out judgment until it is done. That would be great if he were telling a story, but his style is polemics - he is arguing. So this tactic is not helpful, it sets up the reader to expect a piece of exploratory theology only to serve up a completely different dish. As a reader this was disappointing, a missed opportunity on Wilson's part.

The other methodological problem I have is one of target audience. This book is definitely written to a popular audience. It comes complete with bible studyish questions on each chapter. It also has some nice break out definitions (and while he does some nice defining, every now and then he drops something in without really explaining it) that are aimed to help the reader who might not have a theological or historical background. The reason this is disappointing to me is that I think he has some good insights and I'd like to see more of his underlying thoughts. For example, he tries to expand our notions of atonement, but his clear bias towards penal substitution are resoundingly clear. What is worse, he introduces alternate views and never pursues them - perhaps he doesn't know how/where they fit?

Despite these weaknesses, I did enjoy the book. He does a good job re-interpreting the classic "end times" texts. And he also does a good job making the Kingdom of God a central theme in his theology. I give this book 2.5 stars out of 5.

[EDIT] One of the things I forgot to mention about this book is that Wilson is entirely too triumphalistic. His project of historic optimism should be more invitational than it is. A good example of this is how he deals with ecological issues, in short he doesn't. And the very critique he levels against eco-theology also applies to his own theology that has a distinct and privileged view of our species (although I think this is not a true assessment of much eco-theology). Here he resorts to substitutionary atonement as the paradigm of choice and basically says our only task, as the Church, is to make disciples of the nations. A fine claim, but he fails to unpack it adequately. And he also fails to note what implications disciple making has on self-identity. It is almost like he wants to push the envelope, but only so far. I think the whole envelope needs to be remade from scratch (there is my bias). It also struck me as odd that in this whole project he doesn't once tackle the chief objection - theodicy. What we end up with is a repackaged (Christianized) version of human progress when it seems to me that is the last thing he really wants to do.

Coming Revival Amongst the Gays???

Some of you have caught wind that Tony Jones has stirred up a bit of conversation about the possible demise of Vineyard and Calvary Chapel. Now Iggy has weighed in with a very interesting comment:

It seems there are many Vineyards that may be as you described, yet there are also many that are not. Presently I attend a great one. I know also that Jason Clark in the UK is Vineyard… so I wonder… is your analysis quite as right on as it could be? Remember we entered the Anita Baker era in the 80’s so homophobia was rampant… so it would follow suit that many CC and Vineyards would turn against those they found to be gay. Yet, I see a openness that is returning… Vineyard is actually turning to N.T. Wright as far as theology… and many of us are looking at the gay community as the next wave of God’s grace. To put it in the old terms… some are seeing a revival coming out of the gay communities.

A couple of things struck me as I read Iggy's comment.

1) Finally someone said it. Really I think we need to recognize the context in which Lonnie carried out his ministry. This is not an excuse for homophobia, or even a watering down of the gravity of the injustice of homophobia, but a simple recognition that this is what was being done at the time. We need to look back and say in that context we probably wouldn't have done any better - but that should provoke us to make sure we don't perpetuate the ignorance that was the homophobia of the 80s. What I took from David's film is that John didn't respond until it was thrown out in the open by someone else. My gut tells me we just don't know enough about what happened and neither man is around to probe into this any further.

2) About time. I have been feeling for a while that there is a work of grace that God wants to do in the homosexual community. I say this as someone who hasn't completely worked out what I believe about homosexuality. So far I'm convinced that orientation is not sin and that the scriptures are far from clear on the topic (despite what some have asserted). I'm also confident that God loves homosexuals, and that God has put a huge love in my heart for homosexuals that are in my life, some of whom I know also love God in profound ways. Maybe I should have taken a clue from my friend James, way back in my early Christian days he befriended me and let me in on his struggles with self-worth. All of them centered on a lack of acceptance for him as he knew he was - didn't James deserve unconditional love too? He asked me what I thought of him being gay (this was the first thing he ever said to me) and I told him I didn't think God approved but that I was ok with that. I don't think he expected that from the fundie Pentecostal he worked with. As I got to know James I began to see the ways in which God was reaching into his broken life and trying to heal the rejection he'd faced. I also noted that God's agenda was bigger than Jame's sexual orientation - James was a person Jesus loved and longed to be with. I'm not sure where it would go from there, I leave that to God. I moved away and left James with another very capable Christian to be friend and counselor. What saddens me most though is that finding Christians who were capable of seeing someone like James through the eyes of God's love are still few and far between.

3) But haven't we also heard... Even though I felt that news of a grace revival amongst the gay communities was hopeful I can't help remembering all the other sources that us charismatics have been claiming revival would come. I am tired of it. Revival is coming from the North. Revival is coming to the Middle East. I can't help wondering how much of that is individuals crafting false hopes because they simply don't have the psychic energy needed to deal with the spiritual needs around them. Or worse because they can't cope with the fallen world we live in and want to escape. I'm not sure this is the same thing, but I feel caution is the word. Revival is not a word I like that much anyway. Revival never comes by our initiative, although I do believe that true revival is proceeded by prayer - not all prayer efforts resulted in revival (nor should they). Rather I think these things must be processed as invitations. I think that if you feel God wants to move in a particular community - then do something about it. That might be the very call to prayer that I was talking about earlier. But it is also a call to act. I am not confident in revivals (they don't usually end well), but I am confident in God's desire to reach into all communities and bring Good News that changes lives. Sadly, I'm also convinced that Jesus' assessment is still good today - the workers are few.

PhD Seminar - Winter 2010. My Last One!

On April 9th I'm scheduled to present my Project Proposal, at which time the University sends me off to write my thesis. What a long haul this has been! But good, I think ultimately the process has been a good one. The key at this point is to identify what do I have the passion to sustain study on long enough to produce a new contribution to my field in? I have been thinking a lot about public and private spheres and the construction of self-identity. I think that is going to be pivotal for my research. But it could also simply reflect my ramping up for some good Taylor discussion. Focus, focus, focus.

I just received the official seminar schedule, we start off with preparing for the comprehensive exams - I've already written these so I'm tempted to come late for that one. But the bulk of the sessions look like they are concerned with this whole idea of process. I think that will help, in order to structure my time I will definitely need to develop a process specific to my research. Along those lines I've been thinking a lot about methodology.

I want to us a dialectic methodology. That is I want to put one school of thought in conversation with another. Specifically I want to put political theology (via Moltmann and possibly Pannenberg) in conversation with conservative evangelical Kingdom of God theology. I think Russell Moore's The Kingdom of Christ lays out what I'm talking about in terms of Kingdom theology, that will be my starting point. What I think I need are a small set of questions to animate the conversation. That means I'll spend a bit of time outlining my intentions and the players, and then I will be posing those questions to each body of theological inquiry. From there I will attempt to see how each of these conversation partners will respond to the approaches of the other partner. Hence, creating a conversation. A good example of this is Moltmann's dialectic style of theology. He is really good at letting the partners have a fair say even before he brings in the next voice. Hopefully I can limit the voices so that the project does not get out of hand. But my intuition is that such a conversation will at least identify some key insights that can be used in the creation of a Conservative Evangelical Political Theology.

A Secular Age - Reading Schedule

For those of you wanting to follow along with our reading and blogging adventure here is the reading schedule we are attempting to follow. Link this post as I'll be updating it with links to the posts as they are created. Also we will try to keep our main comments on the latest post, but feel free to comment on specific ones as well. If you post a comment on an older reading you might not get a response right away. Also note that the names represent the five official commentators of this project.

Introduction - Frank
Bulwarks of Belief 1-4 - Kenny (Jan. 14th)
Bulwarks of Belief 5-6 - Mike (Jan. 21st)
Bulwarks of Belief 7-9 - Ben (Feb. 4th)
Rise of Disciplinary Society 1-2 - Frank (Mar. 25th)
Rise of Disciplinary Society 3-4 - Kenny (Apr. 1st)
Rise of Disciplinary Society 5-6 - Frank (Apr. 15th)
The Great Disembedding 1 - Mike (Apr. 22th)
The Great Disembedding 2-3 - Ben (Apr. 29nd)
The Great Disembedding 4-6 - Frank (Apr. 29th)
The Spectre of Idealism - TBD (May. 6th)
Providential Deism 1-2 - Kenny (May. 13th)
Providential Deism 3-4 - Kenny (May. 20th)
The Impersonal Order - Mike (May. 27th)
The Malaises of Modernity - Frank (June 3rd (my birthday!))
The Dark Abyss of Time - Ben (June. 10th)
Expanding Universe of Unbelief - TBD (June 17th)
19thC Trajectories 1 - Kenny (June 24th)
19thC Trajectories 2-5 - Mike
Age of Mobilization 1-2 - Frank
Age of Mobilization 3-4 - Ben
Age of Authenticity 5 - TBD
Age of Authenticity 6- Religion Today 7 - Kenny
Religion Today 8-10 - Mike
The Immanent Frame 1-4 - Frank
The Immanent Frame 5-6 - Ben
The Immanent Frame 7-10 - TBD
Cross Pressures - Kenny
Dilemmas I 1-3 - Mike
Dilemmas I 4-6 - Frank
Dilemmas I 7-8 - Ben
Dilemmas II 9-11 - TBD
Dilemmas II 12 - Unquiet Frontiers 16 - Kenny
Conversions 1-2 Mike
Conversions 3 - Epilogue

Edited Mar. 25/10

4th Edition as a Player

After DMing 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons for many months, today I had my first chance to experience it as a player. I must say that I'm liking this version more and more. It promotes cooperation and makes every player's contribution (role) valuable. I still dislike some of the more video game like aspects (squares, simplified movement, allies not giving cover for ranged attacks, etc.) but I cannot complain with how the system works. It is not hard to teach. It makes game play similar for all classes (which I did not like at first) which means you all always have something to do and you all basically go about doing it the same way. It is overall a big improvement on previous editions of the game. I spent much of one epic battle (we were 1st level characters) in the belly of a giant frog! That's me in the far frog. One of the things I like about this version is that it is not hard to drop a character, but it is rather hard to kill them. I'm slowly being digested by this frog, I've stopped making saves to get out (I couldn't roll over ten four times in a row! And I'm rolling to make sure I don't die, but still taking damage. I was 2 HP away from the magic -11 dead mark when Glen made a miraculous hit on my frog, freeing me! I managed to hang out long enough for a healing to get me back up. But I had missed most of that fight. That's the last time I volunteer to open the door for the party while they hold back at the entrance! Sheesh. It was much fun though, the fact that it came so close made it exciting. I was already envisioning my brother Jimm the Shady taking over (my character was the eladerin artful dodger rogue Slimm the shady) so I could keep playing. Fun day!