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.