Coffee Shop Witnessing

The other night I went off to the coffee shop to continue my reading, seems like that is almost all I do these days. So in comes a young couple, Kenny and Sarah. They began to chat with the barrista who sent them in my direction, figuring a theologian was better able to deal with their questions of heaven. So over they come and Kenny begins asking me if I'm born again. Like many evangelicals he was looking for certain phrases that would indicate I was actually what he considers a "real" Christian. I was happy to brush aside much of the probing and ask them some questions about themselves and what they were up to that night. Fortunately Kenny had heard about the Vineyard so they found me relatively safe.

So here is what is interesting, Kenny and Sarah are on their first date. I ended up praying for them and hopefully encouraging them. In fact what they were doing was pretty cool, going out trying to follow God's leading to share "the gospel" with folks. Unfortunately, Sarah didn't do much of the talking and Kenny had pretty simple notions of what this "gospel" was supposed to be. I think challenging them would have messed up something more interesting that was happening - they were living out their convictions and trying to bless people.

Now there probably was another side of this, see Kenny is courting Sarah so in evangelical culture sharing the gospel with strangers can be akin to slaying a dragon or bringing home the bacon. But it seemed like Sarah was the instigator. Earlier that evening she had made some brownies and they went to a random door with them and "the gospel". Turns out they were led to another Christian who they blessed with a bible and snackage. Nice. I imagine Sarah's brownies were pretty good as she was out to impress the new "man". But in the midst of this interesting courting ritual Sarah and Kenny were doing something pretty cool.

So here I am sitting with these really nice young people. I'm dodging the occasional probe to see if I'm really an evangelical Christian, the barristas' are cringing (they apologized to me later, unnecessary but also pretty nice) and I find out this is their first date. Nice. So I decide to encourage them and ask to pray. I think they will continue to have some really interesting encounters. I hope that they do it long enough to let their ideas of "the gospel" mature. I also hope they end up encouraging many people with their witnessing. Bless you Kenny and Sarah, thanks for witnessing to me.

Justice and Relationships

In reading Fuellenbach's awesome book on the Kingdom of God he notes that in Old Testament terms Justice is always a matter of relationships. Hence, it is often synonymous with the word righteousness - or right relationships. In fact death indicates an end of relationships and the possibility of making these right (of course themes of judgment might challenge this). Fuellenbach also cautions us not to truncate this notion of relationship to the personal world of our relationship with God. It has to do with all relationships, yes with God, with self and others - but also with the world God so loved. This notion opens up some wonderful ways of understanding incarnation as God's act of restoring the relationship God has with all of creation (indeed all of the cosmos if we take the Greek wording of John 3:16 serious). So, by implication, to be a Kingdom people requires that we be about relationships. Restoring relationships to their right form and function. Of course that opens up a whole huge discussion about what the right form and function actually consists of - this is not at all self-evident. Regardless, the Kingdom of God should always lead us smack dab into the centre of that discussion. And further it should lead us to act on our convictions about the nature of relationships.

History - Competing Views

I'm reflecting a bit on notions of history. I find that the prevailing evangelical view is that history is really salvation history, or the story of God's saving work throughout time. The big problem with this view is that it was torpedoed by the Enlightenment, our capacity, as a species, to change the course of history (transforming nature and society) has led to a view of history that is very anthropocentric. This is the notion of history behind old school liberal social gospel thinking that says we are the ones who create/build the Kingdom of God. Ironically that language is also pervasive in evangelical circles, but then again we are known for our incapacity for self-reflection, no matter. These two views of history obviously have little in common - except that they are both true! Yeah, that's the twist. I have a sense that the working understanding of truth (function and form) is partly to blame, but also the existential questions that prevail in North American thinking also contributes to our polarization of the notions of history. Certainly there is a fear of the follies of the Social Gospel, but perhaps the answer is not to write it off but take it seriously as part of the truth, just not the whole truth.

This allows us to come up with a different understanding of history - one of participation and trust. We can trust that God has the last word in history, but that at the same time history is open to our significant participation. And yes, we can screw it up (just as much as we can work on making it better). History becomes our story and God's story, one we are writing together. Not just the story we find ourselves in, but the one we are actively writing through our free choices. And the important part is that this is the story that is important! That is the nuance that is missed in telling it as God's story (that is God's alone). When we polarize the stories, we can acknowledge our stories, but we diminish their value and their worth. This sort of fatalism has no real answer to the tough questions of our day.

So let me invite you into a new story. One that says both you and God are significant (and indispensable) partners. One where life has meaning and we are called on to work with God towards Kingdom ideals like justice, equity and love. Anyone else want in on this?

Jubilee

I found this interesting thought in Fuellenbach. The notion of a Jubilee year, which comes every twenty, is more than just a social reset, it is about revisiting the ideal by which Jewish society was structured. Basically as an egalitarian society of equal land owners - run that long enough and disparity occurs. But every twenty years debt is canceled and land reverts back to the fair distribution, not as a second chance but rather as a return to the ideal of egalitarian society. What is fascinating to me is that almost 20 years ago I was out praying through a neighbourhood in Mississauga and felt strongly impressed to declare a Jubilee year, I need to work out the dates but it was likely 3+ years before the Toronto Blessing (making it 1990-91). So here I am almost 20 years later meditating once again on this theme of Jubilee in the context of the Kingdom of God. As we have discussed before, the Kingdom of God always functions like an ideal, so it is fitting and encouraging in terms of timing.

I Write Backwards...

I was re-reading one of my posts and it occurred to me that I naturally write backwards. That is I construct sentences where it is difficult to follow on a single read, the thoughts are not ordered well. I know I end up doing a lot of editing on my papers, I wonder if there is a way to nip this in the bud.

Summertime Blues

Sharon's observation is that I am always happiest when I am in school. This phase of my academic life is very solitary, and even though I am by nature an introvert I do better when I can bounce ideas off of people. Funny thing is that the ideas I need to bounce off of people have whole worlds behind them - something that is easy to do in a group of theology and philosophy students. I've learned the hard way that dropping an idea from the swirl in my head can lead to an exhausting dialogue and always the potential of hitting one of those mines that shuts down the conversation with many Evangelicals. Well, I should say I have tried to learn. The reality is that I love to teach so I am apt to launch into such discussions recklessly. Mostly I can navigate my way through them, but there are the odd unavoidable mines (such as when some of my old Pentecostal friends decided to write me off as a dangerous heretic, all because I like to think). So I can't wait to be through this process. I wish I had a course to teach in the Fall, but alas it probably won't be until the Winter semester. As a result I'm having a few really blue days lately, not that I'm despairing really, but just not feeling very happy some days. I still laugh and smile most of the time, but there are times I'm less patient with my kids then I should be.

OK rant over, I'll return to normal posts soon. Pannenberg rocks! If you are following my Tweets you would know that already. Lots to think about and write about.

Trust and God

I've been reflecting a lot on the amount of distrust I encounter in life, particularly from Christians who express concern over my academic, entertainment and even health choices. I freely admit that I make choices that many of my friends would not entertain, but the assumption that my choices are naive and leading me towards a supposed path of destruction, well that really troubles me. I've often commented on the culture of fear that is North American Evangelicalism, fortunately it is not all there is to Evangelicalism, but it is pretty darn pervasive. So it has me thinking about the roots of fear and the reasons why, Evangelicals in particular, should not be ruled by fear. So I want to reflect here on the connection between trust and God.

Now, my presupposition here is a particular understanding of God. I am not confident that these observations will translate for readers who have either no concept of God or an impersonal concept of God. In the abstraction of god concepts the rules change. But for those of us with a commitment and conviction towards the personhood of God, it is the relationship with that person that hinges entirely on the notion of trust. This clearly translates into human-human relationships (and even relationships between other animal species, for example your trust for your dog will dictate the freedom to which your dog will be given). When I distrust another human person, then I withhold something of myself in the relationship. The reason for this is my fears (often well grounded) in the other's ability to compensate my trust appropriately. Here is precisely the issue that theodicy seeks to illuminate - how can we trust in any God who allows evil to ravage the earth? But here again the presupposition of God's personhood is called into question: is our confidence in God based on a notion about how God should act towards our species? Based on what? I love the answer that Job provides - surveying all that goes on in this world with all the various forms of life God asks Job if Job might not be able to do things better? Job is silent where often we are not.

In our discomfort with the often harshness of reality, we make God out to be the villain. In fact the Jobian account does the same in the introduction that intimates God as the bad guy. Certainly, the primitive karmic notion should work in favour of our comfort - should it not? Probably the best proof against such naive notions of God-human relations is the incarnation of Jesus. In the incarnation God is not distant and arbitrary, but present and made co-sufferer in the rigors of life. Jesus does not come advocating our comfort, but rather doing the right thing no matter the outcome and the cost to our comfort. The maxim of if it feels good, do it is utterly washed away in the self-emptying of God through the person of Jesus.

Often when I encounter people who are suspicious of my life they are not interested in hearing the ways that I integrate my spirituality into such activities - even when I play games with friends I am hoping and praying for opportunities to see God's Kingdom manifest (even if that is so simple as entering into the rigors of their lives with them). But that is not what the accusers hear, it is that I am living outside of the constraints their own fears have inflicted upon them. So there is not even an opportunity to find God in the midst of these activities, they reveal the limits of their trust in God.

Now, to be certain, there are activities that are not healthy for anyone to engage. That is not the question here. I would be the first to declare that immoral actions play havoc on ones soul. And even in very wholesome activities, one can encounter situations that should be suspect, lest we think that there are safe places where we can be comfortable in a naive way. (BTW I wholeheartedly reject the notion that naivety is somehow closeness to God, I think often it is more of an unwillingness to let God be God, but this should be another post.) The proof is rather to be fully engaged and aware when one lives. Aware and conscious of God's presence, but even more our own presence towards the situation. Often, I am convinced, it is simply assumed that I engage in activities without thought, as if I'm blindly stumbling towards a trap.

An example is my recent adoption of a yoga practice. The reality is that I've spent a lot of time thinking about yoga, discussing and learning even before I attempted to get on the mat. And once I got on the mat I didn't stop, in fact I'm even conscious of the music that is used in practices, did you know that there is Sikh worship music that sounds incredibly contemporary Christian? It is precisely because I know yoga is a spiritual practice that I engage it with a critical mind. Unfortunately that term critical mind often means, for Evangelicals at least, critical about there being any value in something rather than coming to understanding and really thinking through the implications of a practice. But it isn't just thinking something through that becomes my criteria for engagement - it is a matter of trust.

Trust, in the context of God as person, means that I don't enter into any practice alone. In fact it is in the context of engaging with life that the character of my trust relationship is defined and honed. This doesn't mean I'm naively assuming God will rescue me from any wayward decision I might make - heavens forbid. Rather that God is ever present, even in terrible mistakes, and a hugely contributing factor to my ability to engage, understand and partake in all life has to offer. My friend George once said that the need is to trust God's ability to lead more than the devil's ability to deceive. I think that is wise. Trust brings freedom. When we trust our relationship with God then it opens space to have real relationships with each other. This is foundational to ecumenical dialogue, and the chief obstacle for Evangelicals to engage with other religious traditions (except to denigrate those traditions in an attempt to maintain the comfort of assumed superiority, in other words to pander to fear).

Trust is the way past fear. Perfect love actually cannot allow fear to rule the day. Which leads me to question how much North American Evangelicals actually get the message of God's love. I am not advocating doing what feels good, or even whatever you want. But trust is about doing the right thing, even when it is a risk, even if it risks the notions you have which seem to protect your comfort. My hope is that my fearless life might be an example, an example of life lived to the fullest in and through the presence of God.

Something to Ponder from Bram Stoker

"To believe in things that you cannot. Let me illustrate. I heard once of an American who so defined faith: 'that faculty which enables us to believe things which we know to be untrue.' For one, I follow that man. He meant that we shall have an open mind, and not let a little bit of truth check the rush of a big truth, like a small rock does a railway truck. We get the small truth first. Good! We keep him, and we value him; but all the same we must not let him think himself all the truth in the universe."

Abraham van Helsing

Naked Church

Whenever I travel I love visiting churches, usually Vineyards. What was a special treat is going to Rothsay Vineyard, the church we affectionately call the Naked Church, and finally meeting the Haywards! So nice. My favourite part was having a whole lot of them gather around my family and pray into us. I love my ecclesial family. Oh, we are on the road, not for too long though. Posts might be sparse.

Too Much Jesus?

In thinking about Moltmann's Hope Theology, the question of Christology takes the center stage. I am reminded of Neuhaus' claim about Pannenberg and the particularity of Christian history and its claims for Jesus. Eventually Pannenberg finds common ground, at least with many Jewish scholars, in the coming reign of God (focus of his hope project). But is this true with Moltmann as well? And if it isn't then what is the problem? I mean, the Christian claims about Jesus are pretty lofty (and I believe rightly so), but does this present a liability to the Theology of Hope? At the very least it presents some tricky obstacles.

The main issue is one of history. Is history something we take at face value or is it something we need to impose a framework (worldview maybe) upon? There are several realities of history that we need to bear in mind here: a) history is accomplished b) history has winners and losers (and it is not always easy to see who is who) c) history is told by the living who interpret the past d) history is not the test of veracity.

That last one is where I think many evangelicals trip up. We like to read history as support for our preconceptions, just like we do with our sacred texts. What we end up with is a very skewed view of history. One year I decided to study Count Zinzendorf, the much loved patron saint of the 24/7 movement. What is interesting is Zin was one wacky man. No doubt he championed pietism and has had an indelible influence on the history of the Church, but it is a sanitized version of the Count that we know and love. History, seen this way, is merely a tool to serve an ulterior motive. When we treat history in such a way we not only miss the lessons of history, but we grind underfoot those caught on the underside of history.

If Christology is the lens we bring to our reading of history, then we end up with a sort of his-story, but not with the whole-story. That doesn't mean there isn't a place for a high Christology, but if our theological reading of history continues to trample underfoot the losers of history, then really we have done nothing but comforted our ears with what we want to hear. This does not stop us from looking for Christ in history, I am not suggesting we delimit the sciences, but it is the imposition of Christ onto history that is the problem. In this theology should be the second act and it should be a redemptive (not deformative) act.

But how does this square with a Christology that claims Jesus' as the hinge of all that ever has and will happen? If the Christ event is the one defining event of all history, then can we not make the assumption that all history is ultimately his-story and the rest, if there is anything, is superfluous? I think that ultimately the question comes down to why we need such certainty in our Christological assumptions. My concern is that we are simply treating the past with the same fear we treat the future - we need to mitigate our risk by increasing our certitude. However, this is not a stance of faith it is a stance of fear. History can be both and needs to be both if Christ is to enter into history as saviour and redeemer.

Grace petering

Part of writing the last post was the realization that this theology of grace is more what I want to see in Hope Theology, I needed to get it out to recognize that. I think I can build this case, but it is not as simple as I would like.

Another aspect of grace that I really want to explore is grace as the great equalizer. I really dislike the notion of spiritual levels, that is an understanding that some people are further along in their spirituality than others. The reason I dislike it is because I've seen many examples of this simply manifesting as arrogance. Don't get me wrong, I do think there are some people who just exude wisdom. But usually they are the last people to claim a higher level of spirituality. Grace is a great proof against such nonsense.

Grace says that our relationship with God is contingent on nothing I could achieve in and of myself. It is freely offered with no strings attached. Now this bugs people. How can that horrible adulterous backstabber have a clean conscience before God while I, the one who works so hard to please God, have the same standing. It strikes us as unjust. But the reality is it has nothing to do with justice, at least not in the ways we like to conceive of justice. It is a triumph of mercy over judgment. It doesn't mean that God leaves us messed up (when we are messed up), but that God meets us individually with the same offer of grace. It means that even though each of us is treated as a completely different person, we are all loved and accepted in the same way.

OK now I can move on to Christology, that one will be a bit harder to tackle.

Grace

The last couple of posts, and likely many of the future posts for this summer, are simply stream of consciousness writing to help me process the themes I'm studying for my comprehensive exams in the Fall. The first theme is Hope Theology. I'd love to have feedback and even challenges, I'm going to try and stay within the frameworks of each theme when interacting though - even where I disagree with the dialogue partners in that theme. Just to give you a heads up, my next theme traces Kingdom of God theology from Dodds to Fuellenbach (Ladd is a whole theme to himself!). But on with the show...

I mentioned that I would tackle grace and Christology in their own posts. Grace has been a really interesting pre-occupation for me. I have argued in the past that evangelicals have a pretty wimpy notion of grace, at least some of us do. It was really The Future of Hope (Volf and Katerberg) that convinced me of that. But, what has me thinking about the importance of our theology of grace is my growing yoga practice.

In yoga there is a lot of discussion about karma. It is actually quite nuanced, so to do it justice I need to acknowledge that there are karmic notions that place an impetus on grace, grace being an impulse that opens the possibility for us to exhibit good karma (prevenient grace perhaps). But typically the notion of karma is simple and attractive - if you do good then good will happen to you. Even Jesus affirms such a life philosophy through the golden rule. In fact this notion of karma is consistent throughout world religions. (Many naive Christian theologies are actually adaptations of this simple idea of karma.)

Karma is a way of trying to navigate the ambiguities of life while affirming a moral directive. Karma explains theodicy in a mechanistic causal relationship that is actually fatalistic, especially when expressed in terms of inherited karma. Consider the Hindu caste system, which attributes families of origin with karmic debt. What is interesting is that these systems and ideas fit well into the cyclic views of life experienced by agrarian societies. What goes around comes around and as the Jewish wisdom literature says, a curse does not arrive without a cause. But while there is a cyclic aspect to life, one that is helpful to acknowledge if you livelihood depends on seasonality, Judaism introduces a different thrust in history. History is not the endless repetition of karmic cycles, but rather a journey that is best articulated by a theology of grace.

Grace actually has nothing to do with responsibility. Although even the Apostle Paul will tell us that our response to grace should be nothing short of complete surrender. But grace never hinges on our actions. Rather grace begins and ends with God. Grace gives God the first and last word in every situation. Grace initiates our journey and grace leads us forward. The great symbol of this is the Exodus.

Recognizing the paradigmatic shift that the Exodus presents, Moltmann presents his critique of Christianity in a chapter called the Exodus Church (ToH). Yet, he doesn't focus on an exegetic (Gutierrez is worth reading here) but rather a critique. He shows the ways that Christianity has simply become mired in cultural expectations, robbed of a real vision of hope. This is clear in the indictment that missions are basically useless unless they inspire hope, I would add that any form of evangelism that does not engender hope is equally useless. Hope, in this case is rooted in the promise of God (ToH 328). Just as the Exodus leads a people to the promised land, so hope becomes our utopian (sorry Dodd) expectation in history. Grace is the mechanism of our participation in this hope.

Grace should rightly be seen as the activity of God (God alone) at work in the world undoing the ravages of sin. Grace functions always like an invitation. Like a gift it must be received, engaged with and enjoyed (or endured). "[W]e can have it only by confidently waiting for it and wholeheartedly seeking it." (ToH 326) Grace is the promoter of hope, the assurance that the project of the restoration and renewal of this world is God's own project. Grace is God entering into the suffering of this life for the sake of the whole world.

Interventionist History And Theodicy

A key aspect of the Theology of Hope is their theory of history. In many of the Pentecostal/Charismatic communities I've been part of, an interventionist view of history prevails. That is a view where God intervenes in history from another place, often bending the natural order. This view of God as miracle worker is often questioned by those who wrestle with theodicy, specifically why does God seemingly intervene in some situations and not in others? While this denotes an underlying karmic expectation of God, it is a legitimate complaint. If God is so fickle as to pander to the cause of just those who (especially in affluent countries) pray the "right" way, then is that a God worth worshipping? I think not. Fortunately, Theology of Hope offers a different, and I think more satisfactory, approach.

It is important to note that Theology of Hope has its roots in WWII. It is theology after Auschwitz and Hiroshima. And it is theology that is convinced that hope for the world has to be hope for the victims of these tragedies. These events can lead one to think that God is distant from and unconcerned with the follies of humans. But neither the deist clockmaker or the fickle interventionist will do as God - both should die.

Theology of Hope places history as the main place of God's activity. But not as a puppeteer pulling strings from the outside, rather as an actor who has entered into our history with us. This theology takes a distinctly incarnational view of God's relationship with history. But it also takes very seriously an idea the aforementioned views of God reject - God is a passable participant in history. God doesn't enter history to eradicate the mess carte blanche, God enters into history to live our suffering with us. This notion of historical solidarity is not passive. It comes as a response of God to the cries of God's people - just as in the story of the Exodus. But also like the Exodus we learn that God's people undergo the journey of hope, even though they may never see the final destination (and like the Exodus the journey continues to unfold).

History is not some preview to the "real" show. At the heart of interventionist notions (and its only response to theodicy) of history is the idea that ultimately this world does not matter. Theology of Hope rejects this view of history. History is where God meets us. God's action in history opens up possibilities for the future of this world. It is hope that says all the deaths and suffering of this world is not in vane, it is not just to be endured until the real show begins. It means our lives count - or should count! It calls us to act and gives us the resources to act beyond our assumed capacities, simply because we act with God. (Implicit in Theology of Hope are theologies of Grace and Christology, I will turn to those in further posts.)

This view of history is also the proof against a reason controlled deistic world of laws. If God works outside of laws then God is guilty of failing to intervene in the most horrific situations. If God is restricted by the laws then God is simply a functionary and probably no more than a construct of our minds. But God who meets us in the midst of life, where life is a dynamic range of possibilities (grace) opens a place for God's activity in history. An activity that does not violate our freedom, yet calls us to a deeper freedom that involves our conscious participation in God's project of undoing the ravages of what might easily be called our sinful acts of freedom in this world.

Hope as a Neglected Category

Kant presents three questions that should direct the inquiry of reason:

1) What can I know?
2) What ought I to do?
3) What may I hope?

I find that Evangelical theology has beat the first one to death. Despite the fact that there are still lots of diverse understandings of God, life and humanity. We tend to focus on the knowing as the prime mode of becoming. It is knowing the right thing (such as your sinfulness and need for Jesus) that matters. If you get it right then you can rest assured.

The second question has really animated what we call our liberal sisters and brothers. I really dislike the liberal/conservative dichotomy, especially when it is used to paint everything we distrust as evil. But there definitely are streams of Christian thoughts that are all about action, doing. The moral imperatives of the faith are the substance for these folks. And while they tend to do great things, they are in just as much danger of missing the boat as those who focus exclusively on the first question.

See it is not what you know or even what you do that matters. But it is about why you do what you do. The third question takes us into the realm of why. But the funny thing is that this third question is not taken up a lot. And when it is taken up it is perverted into otherworldly categories that are more about our comfort than about hope (which is a main theme of The Future of Hope edited by Volf and Katerberg). Taking up this question is the main theme of Hope Theology.

I find that the third question guides the other two. If our hope is based on a way of knowing and being in this world, then we have a context. Dogma, in that context, matters. If there is no hope implicated in dogma then it matters not what you believe. But belief and hope are dialectic with each other - hope keeps us from endless genealogies, that is theology with no practical impact on anything. And hope is also dialectic on how we live, move and have our beings in this world. Hope prevents us from simple charity meant to assuage our consciences. It calls us to action that brings justice, life and freedom to this world. It believes that this world is the object of God's love and that we participate in God's redemptive thrust in history.

Hope is an important category. What may I hope? It is a good question.

Fresh and Re:Fresh

OK it is finally out! At least there is a website for the book. Published by Allelon Publishing, whose website has been not working for ages now. I should have a book in my hands soon, they have been printed. But I really hope that it ends up on indigo and amazon so folks can actually get a copy in their hands too. These stories are important. I don't think this is an earth shattering theological book (in fact I'd say it isn't) but it does give a good Canadian sense of what is happening at the edges of our traditional church communities. For me this is my first published chapter in a book, really it is an essay and Freedom Vineyard is the focus. I look at how we are wrestling with the term missional in our context. Would love to hear comments from any of you who read it.

Thomas Berry

This month started with the very sad news that Thomas Berry had passed. He went peacefully surrounded by family. His impact on me, and many others, is hard to measure. I find Berry incredibly challenging and actually often wonder how he'd approach the issues and challenges that I run into. The earlier material I've read and watched was filled with a sense of optimism - but the realist that his later material conveyed confirmed the gravity of our future on this planet. Thursday, June 26th there will be a remembrance ceremony at Saint Paul University. I am hoping to put together a bit of a tribute in the form of a slide show depicting the wonderful story of our universe. Berry helped so many of us see that it is the arrogance of our species that has led to the toxification of our planet. In telling the universe story we see that no matter how significant, our species is but the briefest of blips in this story. As Moltmann said in "Progress and Abyss", this planet can easily go on without us, but we are utterly dependent on this planet for our survival. May Berry's life continue to foster a humble attitude towards the Earth and a sense of wonder in this amazing universe!

4E Gameplay

We had our first session of the Dungeon Crawl scenario. It was quite fun. Whole new group of players too! 4E plays quite differently than previous versions. Of course role playing is the same, I had a lively bunch so that was quite entertaining (especially Malcolm's acrobatic shenanigans!) Despite the lack of experience with 4E (and in one case with the tabletop RPG) we navigated things quite well. The odd incredulous eyebrow was raised, which is often entertaining. Here are a few of the notable differences, good and bad:

Powers Are Really Different
I love power cards, that is a great innovation. We've used something like that in 3.5 and it means my frustrations with characters not knowing their spells (I even ended up making a spellbook for one player!) are potentially over. Only one player chose not to use the cards and it slowed down their gameplay considerably. But the other thing about powers is that this is a completely different way of doing things. Powers interact (marking) and allow some pretty cool maneuvers. Powers also gives the players a nice way to make their characters unique, so big thumbs up. The only reservation I have is that now every character plays the same - they all have powers. This makes wizards more useful, although with a low BAB they are still quite useless in combat once their auto-damage spells (flaming sphere is quite nice in this edition) are used up.

Movement and Freaking Squares

Ok so I'm still not sold on diagonals counting the same as straight movements, I'll live. But now all the effects are squares?

Wizard "Watch me cast a fire cube!"
Fighter "A what?"
Wizard "A firecube, you know to avoid pesky pixelation."
Fighter "Pixie-whation?"
Rogue "My mother was killed by damn pixies!"
Frustrated Wizard "No! Pixelation. It is when..."
Party is eaten by monsters annoyed by their debate.

Squares? Really?

New Math

Remember THAC0? What a great innovation. Then D20 made things even more simple by making all the math move in the same direction! Yay! In every version it takes a while to get used to the math. Last night we discovered the addition of variables. Now weapons do damage based on interesting algebra: 2(W)+STR+WIS = ???? It is actually quite elegant when you get your head around it. But there are a lot of fun little numbers to calculate - best to do these before hand. Passive checks (nice!), Surge values (Surges are actually quite interesting. We had some fun with those in the first encounters!), attack bonus', etc. What I would say is that this is quite doable, once you have your head around the crunch of the system you are golden. Now what was W again?

Got Rid of Skill Creep

The last one I'll look at is a big Kudo. They got rid of skill creep. By combining skills into categories (and killed the ability to max these out) skill become a lot more playable. DCs are simplified as well, based on the tier you are playing at you have a baseline DC value that you can fudge around. As a DM it is nice to have a baseline.

I had a lot of fun DMing the new version. I think it is quite playable. I ditched a few things - milestones? meh. I'd rather award things like that in a more arbitrary fashion. The scenario we are running does have a boss on each level so that warrants an Action Point. I'll have to give milestones some more thought later. BTW for the DMs out there, nothing beats a creepy tapestry to cause the players to waste an hour in an empty room.

D&D 4E Initial Thoughts

Ok, so colour me skeptical. Part of my problem was that I had spent so much money already on 3.5E and you know that game works. We've house ruled it just the way we like it and so why would I want another version of the game? Well a couple of factors led to my purchase. First, there is no denying that the game is, at least in some ways, simplified. So when we hatched the idea of running a game for kids 4E seemed like an option worth looking at. Second, I did a bit of work for Wizards of the Coast and they paid me enough to pick up the new set (plus an extra book). I like to support the company that produces such a fine game so in went my Chapters order.

The books have mostly sat on my shelf since then. My local barista, Ric, has been after me to run a game for him and his boys. He plays 4E, being a young'un, and has this silly notion that writing the odd piece for Wizards gives me some DMing cred. I would say that I do have some DMing cred, but only because I've got quite a few years DMing under my belt. So I pitched the idea of running a 4E version of Richard Dufault's thoroughly enjoyable Dungeon Crawl. In that game I played a Warpriest named Marvin. It is a pure dungeon crawl, so the DM is free to level the dungeon appropriately.

Well, one of the biggest hassles for a DM is all the preparation she/he has to make before running the game. I know back in my own youth filled days Advanced D&D had rules for random dungeon generation - 4E brings some of that back but I find it isn't that good for spontaneous sessions as the original. But I'm not sure I'd find those random sessions fun anymore - I sometimes use randomly generated dungeons in my 3.5 game, but with heavy modifications. (My players like to tease me about the infintely thin walls!) But here is where 4E really delights me - it is very easy to put together.

The hurdles first, there are a few. I use DM Genie for 3.5 to create stat blocks, it is amazing. There are tools for this in 4E, but you have to pay a subscription for them and they are online. I am sure DM Genie will have something, if it hasn't already. But until then it is not easy to customize monster stat blocks. How the designers compensate for this is to have lots of examples in the Monster Manuals. For now that is a great option, but it means buying more books - something I'd rather spend money on than a subscription! The other hurdle is that everything in the rule books seems to lean towards highly leveled encounters that favour the players reliance on combat to solve problems - an experienced DM can easily recognize and reject this ideology. Part of the fun of D&D is creating a role playing environment where all different types of gamers can have their moment to shine - not just the combat tacticians.

So the boon is that putting together adventure materials is so easy. It took me no time to understand what was required for an encounter to function. Monster stat blocks are actually quite impressive, and so is the emphasis on tactics for each particular foe. I made up a MS Word template for the stat blocks, believe me I tried to find something useful online - if you know of anything that isn't subscription based please let me know. And then I banged out a quick and dirty process. Create a random encounter chart - I actually didn't like the way they do this, encounter decks are something I liked for a while, but not flexible enough on the fly. So I created 12 variable (in numbers of critters) encounters that are ordered based on XP ranges.

Second step is to create the treasure parcels. I was skeptical of this, but it is really an improvement. Treasure is tied to a particular level and not a specific monster. This way I can spread it out or even pile it up with just the level boss! As treasure is placed in rooms, with encounters, it simply gets scratched off the list. Nice.

Third step is to map out and populate the dungeon. I stuck to the 8-12 room range, the theory is that 10 rooms should be a level. That's a good ballpark for what I am doing in the dungeon crawl - each level ends with a boss (usually a dragon). Populating the rooms is then quite simple. I write a bit of flavour text about the level in general (halls, doors, etc.) then I list the rooms. I've named each one, but that is just for my own amusement - Layover at the Roxbury is one of my rooms - and each one has a bit of readable flavour text. Then I list the Features of the room, including Perception and Thievery DCs needed as well as gp values for items that the party might take the time to remove. The next step is to list the monsters present (if any) and then the treasure (if any). Voila you have a dungeon!

After I have a list of all the possible monsters, both random and pre-planned, I then create a second file that is the stat blocks. Keeping these handy for fights is my main concern. A level works out to two pages of text, a map and 3-5 pages of stat blocks. Now that I have a bunch of blocks done it is pretty easy to put that part together. I just wish I had better action symbols! Anyone got a font out there? I found a nice font for re-charge dice.

The next step is to see how this plays. I am thinking Saturday night at my place. I want to limit it to six players, there might still be space if you are interested in a bi-weekly dungeon crawl - 4E style! I'll let you know how it goes.

Missional

I was recently in a conversation where the word missional was being thrown around. At least three different church leaders used this term in describing their own church, and all of them meant something different by it. A couple years back a number of my emerging church friends ditched emerging/emergent for this term. While emerging/emergent can mean everything you like or dislike about modern Christianity - missional has a root that is harder to deny. For many of us in the evangelical world, missional sounds like it should be a definitive word for what we are doing - after all isn't our role to treat the world like a mission field? I'll let you mull that over.

The idea of missional needs some qualifiers though. Do you mean missional in terms of a general disposition of your congregation to support traditional missions abroad and maybe even at home? That is one way I hear it being used. Or do you mean missional in terms of an orientation of your congregation towards bringing people into your church - by whatever means you feel God has led you to employ of course? I hear that a lot too - it is basically using missional to describe what others have named attractional. Or do you mean missional as a means of saying that your congregation is embedded in the cultures they are trying to reach - implicated in their very lives? This is where some would get antsy - but this is another way this term is being used.

One of the problems is that these terms represent ecclesiologies that are often contrasted against each other, somehow captured up in one little word. I have two problems with this. First evangelicals have a weakness for words, we love to use them but we are less enamoured with precisely defining them. This is actually a liberal impulse that is meant to preserve religious diversity, but it leads rather to a relativistic use of words and impoverishes the majority of evangelical writing. (I know that is a judgment, one shared by others frustrated with the lack of precision and unpacking of assumptions in evangelical literature.) The second problem is that this word is skirting a battle that needs to be had. This one might surprise you.

Watching folks throw the word missional around uncarefully leads to some interesting situations. I can see how the other views of missional are looking for ways to express their paradigm but with a sense that their knees have been knocked out. The attractional-incarnational battle is still there beneath the surface. This actually creates a distrust that festers beneath the surface and prevents folks from connecting and understanding where the other is coming from. I think those things need to battle it out - and with the traditionalists thrown in the mix. And not because I think one is better than the other - I don't. I think they are simply different. And the only way to hold difference in tension and unity is to acknowledge it and commit to mutual understanding. One question I never hear is why does that person/group gravitate to that paradigm? I think about that in these conversations - and it amazes me how little we actually know ourselves let alone each other. This reality compounds the problem. The less we know why something appeals to us, the more afraid we will be of losing it.

In the end I'm wondering if we haven't just wrecked yet another word. Missional? What is missional?

Busy Week

Monday I drove to Bancroft to hang out with leaders from the various Vineyards in Ontario. I always appreciate those gatherings. Larry Levy (Halifax Metro Vineyard) came up from the Atlantic region to bless us. Larry is an amazing guy and we love visiting his church when we are down East visiting my family. I really felt affirmed amongst my peers, I have taken over as the regional representative for Thoughtworks. Thoughtworks is the theological development group for the Vineyard in Canada and I am hoping to find some ways to do theological mentoring of our Ontario pastors and leaders in a way that will work for folks already very busy. Ontario is a funny place that way. The reality is that there is a lot of work that could/should be done but most pastors are so busy that their own personal development is low on the priority chart. I think most of us know the value of continuing to grow, but it is easier said than done. The other focus I'm going to bring is trying to connect and encourage our Vineyard folks in formal theological education. I have seen many students trashed by their local churches (not in the Vineyard so far, but I bet they have been) because they started to push questions that make many evangelicals uncomfortable.

I'm back from the conference and scrambling for CanGames this weekend. This year I'm running just one game! Tomorrow morning I have a custom scenario for Injurious Games called Gatecrasher! Basically it is capture the flag, but with rocket launchers! I have the glue setting on my last piece - a robot with a heavy laser and a huge fist (the technical name is the Nut Crusher). That guy speeds after the flag and pummels anyone who dares capture it. It is going to be a lot of fun. I'll spend the whole day at the con tomorrow and at least the morning session on Sunday. Monday, I'm going to Star Trek. So much to do.