Just to let you know, I'm not actually going to waste an entire post on Peter Popoff (believe me, the guy ain't worth it), but moreso to address the spirit in which people like Peter Popoff are operating.
Its funny how much applicable truth you can find in the Bible if you look just a little bit. Some of you who know me may have noticed that I can get a little bit caught up in being frustrated over all of the irrationally blind things that people do because they are deceived to the truth that a lot of Christians (including myself, apparently) take for granted.
The latest big thing, of course, was my pseudo-political rant about the whole Danish/Moslem cartoon thing (the violence continues to escalate, I might add), which, though I still find it entirely unbelievable, I am well aware that the existance of religious double-standards should come as no surprise - the spirits run deep in this kind of thing, and the world can't help but be deceived. I guess that is sort of the definition of "the world" in a lot of ways. And it doesn't come as a surprise, but like many things, it irks me. Yes it does, and its not alone.
Something that has mystified, infuriated and frustrated me in equal parts since time immemorial is the existance and apparent power of the charlatan: the psychics, the mediums and the phony faith healers. All are operating under the same premise and power, namely the devil. All depend upon the fragile emotions of hurting people to add digits to their bank accounts and worst yet, all of these pervert and twist the character of God, preventing their victims from ever knowing the REAL father, and from knowing true freedom. For those who see through these sheisters, they are often lumped together with real believers and thus the gap is widened between the skeptics and the truth.
I think the worst of these, in my mind, are the phony faith healers (ala Peter Popoff). Deceitful men (and women - Peter Popoff's wife is a key player in his deceptions) who call upon the name of Jesus to "heal" people, while gluing their hands firmly into the pockets of their followers. And yet there are circumstances in which they demonstrate the power to produce the signs, wonders and in some cases miracles to back up their lies. Why? How can these deceivers have the power to do such things? This is a question that has always bothered me. I was always under the impression that only Christ could empower people to do things like that, and it bugged me.
Funny how, after reading a mere 7 chapters into the gospels that this, like a great many of the irksome things that go on in the world, that this very thing is so directly addressed by Jesus. Check this out (I love the way the NLT puts this):
21"Not all people who sound religious are really godly. They may refer to me as `Lord,' but they still won't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The decisive issue is whether they obey my Father in heaven. 22On judgment day many will tell me, `Lord, Lord, we prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.' 23But I will reply, `I never knew you. Go away; the things you did were unauthorized.' " Matt 7:21-23
I love that - "the things you did were unauthorized". That just sums it up so perfectly for me. So, to sum it up - Peter Popoff, Reverend Moon, Miss Chloe, Ramtha and all the rest of the devil-powered miracle workers in the world may be able to do some genuinely amazing things, but without the authorization that comes from Christ for such things, all they really have is a lot of smoke and mirrors.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Babbling in Tongues?
Okay, this is MEANT to be a shorty, in my mind. We'll see how it actually plays out.
So, I feel as though I have often been criticised (perhaps not vocally, and perhaps it is mostly myself that is to blame) for being less visual about my faith, or not as emotively engaged in worship.
Admittedly, I'm not that comfortable with overt signs of outward emotion in this regard, and I can't pin down exactly why that is. It comes out in my relationships - most people who know me can probably tell you that I tend not to react to things a lot of the time, whether they be negative or positive things. If a close friend tells me about something great they have accomplished, I am not the person who is going to jump up and down and scream with excitement, though I am likely doing so inside for them. The same could be said about tragedy - if somebody close to me were to die, I probably wouldn't cry or be outwardly distressed about it, whatever I feel on the inside. Again, not sure why - I think part of it may be the result of me having been damaged at some point in my life.
What I am learning though, is that a lot of this simply is because this is the way that I am. I do things and process things differently than a lot of people - I prefer quiet, inward (and usually slow) contemplation over outward manifestations of joy. I derive greater satisfaction from really chewing something over and appreciating it in my mind than I do in blowing off steam. If this sometimes gives off the impression that I am being disingenuous, well that bothers me, because I'm really not!
As I started off saying, this translates largely into my spiritual life - I'm not the throwing-my-hands-up-in-the-air-halleluiah! kind of person. I've tried, and it doesn't feel natural - it just isn't me. I don't particularly like getting in front of a group of people and spiritualizing, or blubbing or falling over or whatever it is that people apparently are supposed to do when they are being "spiritual".
Me, I think about things a lot. I have often wondered if something was wrong with me (as, I am aware, have others), however it brings me great pleasure and contentment to read these words of Jesus and know that he knew where I am coming from.
"And now, about prayer. When you pray, don't be like the hypocrites who love to pray publicly on street corners and in the synagogues where everyone can see them. I assure you, that is all the reward they will ever get. But when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father secretly. Then your Father, who knows all secrets, will reward you.
"When you pray, don't babble on and on as people of other religions do. They think their prayers are answered only by repeating their words again and again. Don't be like them, because your Father knows exactly what you need even before you ask him!" Matt 6:5-8
So, I feel as though I have often been criticised (perhaps not vocally, and perhaps it is mostly myself that is to blame) for being less visual about my faith, or not as emotively engaged in worship.
Admittedly, I'm not that comfortable with overt signs of outward emotion in this regard, and I can't pin down exactly why that is. It comes out in my relationships - most people who know me can probably tell you that I tend not to react to things a lot of the time, whether they be negative or positive things. If a close friend tells me about something great they have accomplished, I am not the person who is going to jump up and down and scream with excitement, though I am likely doing so inside for them. The same could be said about tragedy - if somebody close to me were to die, I probably wouldn't cry or be outwardly distressed about it, whatever I feel on the inside. Again, not sure why - I think part of it may be the result of me having been damaged at some point in my life.
What I am learning though, is that a lot of this simply is because this is the way that I am. I do things and process things differently than a lot of people - I prefer quiet, inward (and usually slow) contemplation over outward manifestations of joy. I derive greater satisfaction from really chewing something over and appreciating it in my mind than I do in blowing off steam. If this sometimes gives off the impression that I am being disingenuous, well that bothers me, because I'm really not!
As I started off saying, this translates largely into my spiritual life - I'm not the throwing-my-hands-up-in-the-air-halleluiah! kind of person. I've tried, and it doesn't feel natural - it just isn't me. I don't particularly like getting in front of a group of people and spiritualizing, or blubbing or falling over or whatever it is that people apparently are supposed to do when they are being "spiritual".
Me, I think about things a lot. I have often wondered if something was wrong with me (as, I am aware, have others), however it brings me great pleasure and contentment to read these words of Jesus and know that he knew where I am coming from.
"And now, about prayer. When you pray, don't be like the hypocrites who love to pray publicly on street corners and in the synagogues where everyone can see them. I assure you, that is all the reward they will ever get. But when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father secretly. Then your Father, who knows all secrets, will reward you.
"When you pray, don't babble on and on as people of other religions do. They think their prayers are answered only by repeating their words again and again. Don't be like them, because your Father knows exactly what you need even before you ask him!" Matt 6:5-8
Friday, February 10, 2006
/rant off
I feel compelled to offer apologies for the level of vitriol that came out of my previous little rant there.. what started out as a simple venting of frustrations quickly turned into a monster of the kind of scale previously only achieved by Godzilla, or perhaps Mothra.
In any case, I am loathe to continue feeding the rant monster with the bloody carcasses of my dearest friends, so I am turning him off. That's right, off. Thanks to the incredible technology contained in my monster control collar I can deactivate the beast within with a few simple keystrokes. So in the name of Peace, Democracy and Friendly Banter --
/rant off
In any case, I am loathe to continue feeding the rant monster with the bloody carcasses of my dearest friends, so I am turning him off. That's right, off. Thanks to the incredible technology contained in my monster control collar I can deactivate the beast within with a few simple keystrokes. So in the name of Peace, Democracy and Friendly Banter --
/rant off
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
I don't mean to be an alarmist, but..
.. what in the hell is wrong with people??!
I am so bloody sick and tired of how much ridicule Christianity garners around the world - what is it that we ever did to make so many people so badly deride us? Yes, I can understand that some people like to think they don't believe in God, or maybe they believe in a different god, or maybe they think that people who believe in God are doing so as a mean of allaying our fear of death or fate.
I can understand those attitudes, I really can. But why, oh why, do so many people put so much effort into mocking and ridiculing Christianity? Why is it that anytime a muslim imam, or a hindu priest, or a buddhist monk is depicted on TV or the movies, they are played by talented dramatic actors and portrayed as wise, deeply spiritual and sagely, with unshakeable faith and hearts of gold, while the vast majority of Christians one sees are all played for laughs by some moronic, barely-even-qualifies-as-comedic character actor and portrayed as hyper-spastic, time-forgotten, patriarchal, domineering, under-handed and closed-minded familial dictators who subscribe to extreme forms of corporal punish administered to the entire family, all accompanied by the most red-neck inspired southern accent imaginable??!!
Even better is when the character actor in question is an outspoken atheist, anti-Christian, gay activist(the kind that believe that all people are really gay inside and that all church related notions are complete garbage), etc, etc, and the Christian or Minister character is a closet homosexual/pedophile/mysogynist/all of the above. And people eat it up - they think its absolutely hilarious! "How dare those dang Christians act all sacred about their beliefs?!" one might ask.
I suppose it should be no surprise when I heard that Britney Spears was slated to appear on Will & Grace as the ridiculous host of a "Christian" cooking show called "Cruci-fixin's", in an episode in which a Christian broadcaster takes over a gay-themed TV Network and starts making changes to the roster. http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/01/people.spears.ap/
And surprise, surprise a group described as a "Conservative Christian Organization" lodged a complaint, for which they were, subsequently derided by the public. Hell, if I was in a position to lodge a complaint, I would too - its ridiculous that they can get away with that, and even more-so that Christians come off looking like the closed-minded bad guy in the scenario. But did we stage a riot, or burn the American flag, or attacked the U.S. embassy in protest?! No - we lodged a complaint. What a bunch of jerks we are.
Seriously though, I don't even want to imagine the kind of religio-political backlash that might occur if, for instance, some independant newspaper published a funny cartoon about the prophet Muhammed - after all, while Muhammed may be no more sacred to his respective followers than Christ is to his, Muhammed, being a muslim prophet, must be taken seriously at all times, unlike anything related to Christianity.
Just imagine the chaos - my conservative (not really, but you see my point) Christian mind can conceive of unimaginable numbers of angry letters written to that newspaper, and maybe even peaceful protests by Danish muslims outside the doors of their office. This is a serious issue. Heck, I might even write a letter to the government of Denmark just to make sure that my opinions were heard.
Apparently, though, when you are a muslim and your beliefs have been mocked, you have a lot more in your arsenal than words to fling against those who have insulted you with words or cartoons. It is apparently somehow justified for muslims to burn Danish flags and attack / set fire to Danish embassies (apparently any European embassy is fair game, now) with molotov cocktails and rocks and who knows what else. For some reason it is okay for them to stage massive riots and kill people as well. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/07/cartoon.protests/index.html
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to colour all muslims as violent and insane - I've been friends with muslim people who I greatly respected and respect to this day, but I have to honestly wonder why the world is so caught up in making fun of Christians.
We may well be stuck up and religious and prideful and all of those other things, but no Christian I've ever heard of has ever flown an airliner into the side of a building, or organized suicide bombings for no other reason than to kill as many of the heathens as we can. People may call the United States under President Bush a theocracy, but hey, unlike some Islamic states (Saudi Arabia, for on), they haven't started imprisoning, torturing and publicly beheading people of other religions quite yet.
And so I remain, baffled by the idiocy that is public opinion. In all honesty, I do not believe that Christians are better people than people of other religions, or that we are somehow less capable of doing horrible things, but the fact is that we AREN'T doing those horrible things, and yet the world still delights in hating us. I suppose Jesus warned us, but when I see things like this Will & Grace fiasco side-by-side with this Danish Cartoon thing on the news, and the Christians are still made to look like the bigger idiots, I just can't help but be a little bit confused.
Thank you for tolerating my incoherent rantings and ravings. I promise I'll get better :)
I am so bloody sick and tired of how much ridicule Christianity garners around the world - what is it that we ever did to make so many people so badly deride us? Yes, I can understand that some people like to think they don't believe in God, or maybe they believe in a different god, or maybe they think that people who believe in God are doing so as a mean of allaying our fear of death or fate.
I can understand those attitudes, I really can. But why, oh why, do so many people put so much effort into mocking and ridiculing Christianity? Why is it that anytime a muslim imam, or a hindu priest, or a buddhist monk is depicted on TV or the movies, they are played by talented dramatic actors and portrayed as wise, deeply spiritual and sagely, with unshakeable faith and hearts of gold, while the vast majority of Christians one sees are all played for laughs by some moronic, barely-even-qualifies-as-comedic character actor and portrayed as hyper-spastic, time-forgotten, patriarchal, domineering, under-handed and closed-minded familial dictators who subscribe to extreme forms of corporal punish administered to the entire family, all accompanied by the most red-neck inspired southern accent imaginable??!!
Even better is when the character actor in question is an outspoken atheist, anti-Christian, gay activist(the kind that believe that all people are really gay inside and that all church related notions are complete garbage), etc, etc, and the Christian or Minister character is a closet homosexual/pedophile/mysogynist/all of the above. And people eat it up - they think its absolutely hilarious! "How dare those dang Christians act all sacred about their beliefs?!" one might ask.
I suppose it should be no surprise when I heard that Britney Spears was slated to appear on Will & Grace as the ridiculous host of a "Christian" cooking show called "Cruci-fixin's", in an episode in which a Christian broadcaster takes over a gay-themed TV Network and starts making changes to the roster. http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/01/people.spears.ap/
And surprise, surprise a group described as a "Conservative Christian Organization" lodged a complaint, for which they were, subsequently derided by the public. Hell, if I was in a position to lodge a complaint, I would too - its ridiculous that they can get away with that, and even more-so that Christians come off looking like the closed-minded bad guy in the scenario. But did we stage a riot, or burn the American flag, or attacked the U.S. embassy in protest?! No - we lodged a complaint. What a bunch of jerks we are.
Seriously though, I don't even want to imagine the kind of religio-political backlash that might occur if, for instance, some independant newspaper published a funny cartoon about the prophet Muhammed - after all, while Muhammed may be no more sacred to his respective followers than Christ is to his, Muhammed, being a muslim prophet, must be taken seriously at all times, unlike anything related to Christianity.
Just imagine the chaos - my conservative (not really, but you see my point) Christian mind can conceive of unimaginable numbers of angry letters written to that newspaper, and maybe even peaceful protests by Danish muslims outside the doors of their office. This is a serious issue. Heck, I might even write a letter to the government of Denmark just to make sure that my opinions were heard.
Apparently, though, when you are a muslim and your beliefs have been mocked, you have a lot more in your arsenal than words to fling against those who have insulted you with words or cartoons. It is apparently somehow justified for muslims to burn Danish flags and attack / set fire to Danish embassies (apparently any European embassy is fair game, now) with molotov cocktails and rocks and who knows what else. For some reason it is okay for them to stage massive riots and kill people as well. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/07/cartoon.protests/index.html
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to colour all muslims as violent and insane - I've been friends with muslim people who I greatly respected and respect to this day, but I have to honestly wonder why the world is so caught up in making fun of Christians.
We may well be stuck up and religious and prideful and all of those other things, but no Christian I've ever heard of has ever flown an airliner into the side of a building, or organized suicide bombings for no other reason than to kill as many of the heathens as we can. People may call the United States under President Bush a theocracy, but hey, unlike some Islamic states (Saudi Arabia, for on), they haven't started imprisoning, torturing and publicly beheading people of other religions quite yet.
And so I remain, baffled by the idiocy that is public opinion. In all honesty, I do not believe that Christians are better people than people of other religions, or that we are somehow less capable of doing horrible things, but the fact is that we AREN'T doing those horrible things, and yet the world still delights in hating us. I suppose Jesus warned us, but when I see things like this Will & Grace fiasco side-by-side with this Danish Cartoon thing on the news, and the Christians are still made to look like the bigger idiots, I just can't help but be a little bit confused.
Thank you for tolerating my incoherent rantings and ravings. I promise I'll get better :)
Friday, January 20, 2006
There's Passion, and then there's PASSION
A friend of mine who is teaching a young adult's class on the topic of Passion, asked me for my thoughts on the subject just a few minutes ago, and I thought I would share those on here as well.
It is interesting actually that just last night I attended a talk on the subject of the Importance of Male Friendships, and the speaker (Mr. David Bentall) explained that he really isn't a very relational person - he describes himself as a "Task-Oriented Functionary" who had to put a lot of effort into learning how to build and maintain a frienship. It is a concept that I think applies to all kinds of things, including this.
So here is what I told my friend about Passion:
* * *
I think the idea of passion is highly misunderstood by most people as being simply a strong feeling about something, but I think there is a lot missing from that definition. Passion, to me, involves two things, one of them is the emotional feeling you have about whatever it is you are passionate about. Of course, feelings of passion cause you to feel excited and moved by whatever it is, which is important, but not always necessary. The other part of passion involves commitment and practice.
I'm sure that somewhere in a person's mind they recognize these two things, but in my experience, 99% of the people on earth seem to emphasize FEELING passionate or being passionately committed, and I think that in reality this is very backwards. Ideally, both of those things should be present, but if you have to have one without the other, committment will win every time.
Case in point - my writing. I felt very passionate about the idea of writing a novel for probably 5 or 6 years. I pondered it passionately and dreamt about it passionately and talked about it passionately with other people. I even gave myself the title of "writer" or "novelist" during that period. And yet, for all my feelings of passion, I hadn't written a single word of my book. With that kind of passion alone, I could never succeed at the very thing I was most passionate about, because I would never get it off the ground.
There came a point where I thought to myself "okay - I have all these passionate ideas about what I'd like to write, but for some reason I just haven't done it - I need to learn how to make this more than just something I feel passionate about, but also something that I DO passionately." So I started my blog and made a start. I had forced myself to put something in place that would force me to DO something with my passionate feelings. But it wasn't enough. At the rate I was going, it would take me 30 years to finish my book, because my feelings of passion for it ebbed and flowed, as they must do naturally. When they were flowing, I'd write like a madman, and when they were ebbing I'd be on hiatus for weeks or months at a time.
And this is where I taught myself to not only feel passionately about what I was doing, but to passionately commit to it. I committed to devoting every lunch hour I had to going around the corner to Radar's Roost and writing for that time. That simple act of committment has made all the difference, not only in the quantity and speed, but also in the quality of my writing.
My feelings of passion still come and go, but because I am passionately committed to what I am doing, I still get it done, every lunch hour. Every lunch hour, whether I feel like it or not, I go sit down with my laptop and I write. During times when both the feeling and the committment are working together wonderful things happen, but when the feeling is gone, the passion remains.
Love is a very similar idea. There are feelings of love, which come and go (after three years of marriage I can attest to the fact that those lovey-dovey feelings are absent more often than present a lot of the time), but the TRUE definition of love is not a feeling at all, it is a committment which remains.
People who have affairs often blame this on the "passion of the moment", but I think this is a complete cop-out. What they were feeling wasn't passion, it was lust, hormones and a lack of commitment not only to their spouse, but to the person they were sleeping around with and to God.
So I guess what I am saying is that in order for passion to endure, we do need to LEARN how to make it stay, even when we don't feel like it.
It is interesting actually that just last night I attended a talk on the subject of the Importance of Male Friendships, and the speaker (Mr. David Bentall) explained that he really isn't a very relational person - he describes himself as a "Task-Oriented Functionary" who had to put a lot of effort into learning how to build and maintain a frienship. It is a concept that I think applies to all kinds of things, including this.
So here is what I told my friend about Passion:
* * *
I think the idea of passion is highly misunderstood by most people as being simply a strong feeling about something, but I think there is a lot missing from that definition. Passion, to me, involves two things, one of them is the emotional feeling you have about whatever it is you are passionate about. Of course, feelings of passion cause you to feel excited and moved by whatever it is, which is important, but not always necessary. The other part of passion involves commitment and practice.
I'm sure that somewhere in a person's mind they recognize these two things, but in my experience, 99% of the people on earth seem to emphasize FEELING passionate or being passionately committed, and I think that in reality this is very backwards. Ideally, both of those things should be present, but if you have to have one without the other, committment will win every time.
Case in point - my writing. I felt very passionate about the idea of writing a novel for probably 5 or 6 years. I pondered it passionately and dreamt about it passionately and talked about it passionately with other people. I even gave myself the title of "writer" or "novelist" during that period. And yet, for all my feelings of passion, I hadn't written a single word of my book. With that kind of passion alone, I could never succeed at the very thing I was most passionate about, because I would never get it off the ground.
There came a point where I thought to myself "okay - I have all these passionate ideas about what I'd like to write, but for some reason I just haven't done it - I need to learn how to make this more than just something I feel passionate about, but also something that I DO passionately." So I started my blog and made a start. I had forced myself to put something in place that would force me to DO something with my passionate feelings. But it wasn't enough. At the rate I was going, it would take me 30 years to finish my book, because my feelings of passion for it ebbed and flowed, as they must do naturally. When they were flowing, I'd write like a madman, and when they were ebbing I'd be on hiatus for weeks or months at a time.
And this is where I taught myself to not only feel passionately about what I was doing, but to passionately commit to it. I committed to devoting every lunch hour I had to going around the corner to Radar's Roost and writing for that time. That simple act of committment has made all the difference, not only in the quantity and speed, but also in the quality of my writing.
My feelings of passion still come and go, but because I am passionately committed to what I am doing, I still get it done, every lunch hour. Every lunch hour, whether I feel like it or not, I go sit down with my laptop and I write. During times when both the feeling and the committment are working together wonderful things happen, but when the feeling is gone, the passion remains.
Love is a very similar idea. There are feelings of love, which come and go (after three years of marriage I can attest to the fact that those lovey-dovey feelings are absent more often than present a lot of the time), but the TRUE definition of love is not a feeling at all, it is a committment which remains.
People who have affairs often blame this on the "passion of the moment", but I think this is a complete cop-out. What they were feeling wasn't passion, it was lust, hormones and a lack of commitment not only to their spouse, but to the person they were sleeping around with and to God.
So I guess what I am saying is that in order for passion to endure, we do need to LEARN how to make it stay, even when we don't feel like it.
Friday, October 28, 2005
The Way we Were..
"It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." Eph 4:11-13
This is a picture of how the church was meant to work, and how it was conducted in its earliest (and purest) form. In modern circles it is referred to as the 5-fold ministry, or 5 areas of apointment (thanks to Richard for this little bit of commentary). Notice that each of the 5 assignements seems given to equal important, and in fact the language of the verse indicates (to me at least) that the body was meant to be run with each of these aspects in its proper focus. Just as a physical body cannot function without a brain, a heart, lungs, stomach and bowels, so the church cannot properly run without these five components working in their proper place.
The word 'pastor' used in this passage, by the way, is in the original greek - 'poimen' which means shepherd. This is a vastly different concept than the people we now know as 'pastors'. So what happened?!
99% of Christians go to a "church". 99% (not an exact statistic, but I would say it is a conservative estimate, if anything) of "churches" subsist on a "pastor" who teaches on sunday mornings and occasionally visits people throughout the week when they are sick, or to "touch base", but there isn't a really cohesive sense of actual pastoring (shepherding) between "pastor" and congregant unless there is a decided need for it, such as being sick, or with the recent and disturbing events at my usual gathering, which prompted our "pastor" to pay a visit.
Now don't get me wrong, I love our "pastor", and I think he does an incredibly good job at the role in which in he is in. I consider him a friend and a man of God, but having a relationship with a person that consists of seeing them once a week (and only if I decide to go to "church"), usually while they are preaching to the congregation, can hardly be considered the same as the shepherding relationship we see as being the pastor's role in the Bible. A Pastor is someone who exists in your day-to-day life as a mentor or a guide. Someone who really knows you and walks alongside. Clearly this is not what the modern-day "pastor" is for.
I get a picture of the new testament churches being extremely lively and unpredictable much of time, with new people constantly coming in to teach the congregation about new and exciting revelations of God. It was probably impossible to ever hear the same teaching twice because there was always something new happening in the spirit.
At the same time you would have prophets in the gathering who would be hearing from God and sharing this with gathering, or maybe praying over people IN the prophetic, and this would be every bit as important as the teaching. You would have evangelists who would be engaging unbelievers in RELATIONAL evangelism - being a friend and a helper and evangelising through everyday life first, and through words last, and only when needed.
There would be apostles (aka missionaries) and these would be sent out not only to other countries but into our own communities - into the slums and dark places, and all over, as God led. And then, walking alongside the congregation would be the pastors, quietly ministering, guiding and counselling those under his care, through life, not just through church services.
A very different dynamic exists today.
Instead of the original 5-fold ministry where everyone was annointed with one of the five appointments and each was just as important as all the others, albeit having different roles, we have turned it into a 1-fold ministry where the "pastor" is the king of the castle - a bastard cross of the biblical appointments of teacher/preacher and evangelist, while apostles, prophets and shepherds are generally relegated to the "lay-person" category, or don't really factor into the equation for most Christians.
In my life, there are pastors - people who walk alongside with an air of experience who not only serve as mentors and guides, but as friends and confidantes. People with whom I can share things that I would never tell a deacon, or an intercessor or even my "pastor". It would be nice if we could call apples apples and oranges oranges, and recognize the differences as well as the value of each in the balanced diet that should be our church. Personally, I'm tired of having a steady diet of macaroni and cheese, but I'll write more about that a little later.
This is a picture of how the church was meant to work, and how it was conducted in its earliest (and purest) form. In modern circles it is referred to as the 5-fold ministry, or 5 areas of apointment (thanks to Richard for this little bit of commentary). Notice that each of the 5 assignements seems given to equal important, and in fact the language of the verse indicates (to me at least) that the body was meant to be run with each of these aspects in its proper focus. Just as a physical body cannot function without a brain, a heart, lungs, stomach and bowels, so the church cannot properly run without these five components working in their proper place.
The word 'pastor' used in this passage, by the way, is in the original greek - 'poimen' which means shepherd. This is a vastly different concept than the people we now know as 'pastors'. So what happened?!
99% of Christians go to a "church". 99% (not an exact statistic, but I would say it is a conservative estimate, if anything) of "churches" subsist on a "pastor" who teaches on sunday mornings and occasionally visits people throughout the week when they are sick, or to "touch base", but there isn't a really cohesive sense of actual pastoring (shepherding) between "pastor" and congregant unless there is a decided need for it, such as being sick, or with the recent and disturbing events at my usual gathering, which prompted our "pastor" to pay a visit.
Now don't get me wrong, I love our "pastor", and I think he does an incredibly good job at the role in which in he is in. I consider him a friend and a man of God, but having a relationship with a person that consists of seeing them once a week (and only if I decide to go to "church"), usually while they are preaching to the congregation, can hardly be considered the same as the shepherding relationship we see as being the pastor's role in the Bible. A Pastor is someone who exists in your day-to-day life as a mentor or a guide. Someone who really knows you and walks alongside. Clearly this is not what the modern-day "pastor" is for.
I get a picture of the new testament churches being extremely lively and unpredictable much of time, with new people constantly coming in to teach the congregation about new and exciting revelations of God. It was probably impossible to ever hear the same teaching twice because there was always something new happening in the spirit.
At the same time you would have prophets in the gathering who would be hearing from God and sharing this with gathering, or maybe praying over people IN the prophetic, and this would be every bit as important as the teaching. You would have evangelists who would be engaging unbelievers in RELATIONAL evangelism - being a friend and a helper and evangelising through everyday life first, and through words last, and only when needed.
There would be apostles (aka missionaries) and these would be sent out not only to other countries but into our own communities - into the slums and dark places, and all over, as God led. And then, walking alongside the congregation would be the pastors, quietly ministering, guiding and counselling those under his care, through life, not just through church services.
A very different dynamic exists today.
Instead of the original 5-fold ministry where everyone was annointed with one of the five appointments and each was just as important as all the others, albeit having different roles, we have turned it into a 1-fold ministry where the "pastor" is the king of the castle - a bastard cross of the biblical appointments of teacher/preacher and evangelist, while apostles, prophets and shepherds are generally relegated to the "lay-person" category, or don't really factor into the equation for most Christians.
In my life, there are pastors - people who walk alongside with an air of experience who not only serve as mentors and guides, but as friends and confidantes. People with whom I can share things that I would never tell a deacon, or an intercessor or even my "pastor". It would be nice if we could call apples apples and oranges oranges, and recognize the differences as well as the value of each in the balanced diet that should be our church. Personally, I'm tired of having a steady diet of macaroni and cheese, but I'll write more about that a little later.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Absentee Poster??!
Okay, so it would appear I have been out of the blogging loop for quite some time, but I can explain - honestly I can!
A few updates..
I've been super busy at work - recently got promoted into a whole new arena and it is the busiest I have ever been since working here. Good, but hella busy!
Most of my free writing time has been spent on the novel, which has been renamed (permanently this time, I am fairly certain) to "Truestar's Fire". If I ever want to get anything published I've gotta put the nose to the grindstone in that area for sure.
Lisa and Ron and I went camping up at Strathcona (Ralph River) with Baron and had a jolly old time - Baron, as it turns out, is a capital swimmer, though I think we tired him out between all the of the kong retrieval, swimming and the icey cold glacier water, as he immediately demanded entry into our tent and slept for about 15 hours straight upon our return to camp.
Things within the community at SPC have started to see some redemption in areas that have been of great concern to me - this is truly a Godsend, but I will post more on that another time.
Also, Lisa and I are hopelessly addicted to CSI .. we've been renting the DVDs like they were going out of style and watched 6 episodes on saturday alone. That night I dreamt that I was part of the team. What can I say, it is a good show. Anyway, that's all for now.. I have some real meaty posts brewing that will hopefully be posted soon - stay tuned boys and girls!
A few updates..
I've been super busy at work - recently got promoted into a whole new arena and it is the busiest I have ever been since working here. Good, but hella busy!
Most of my free writing time has been spent on the novel, which has been renamed (permanently this time, I am fairly certain) to "Truestar's Fire". If I ever want to get anything published I've gotta put the nose to the grindstone in that area for sure.
Lisa and Ron and I went camping up at Strathcona (Ralph River) with Baron and had a jolly old time - Baron, as it turns out, is a capital swimmer, though I think we tired him out between all the of the kong retrieval, swimming and the icey cold glacier water, as he immediately demanded entry into our tent and slept for about 15 hours straight upon our return to camp.
Things within the community at SPC have started to see some redemption in areas that have been of great concern to me - this is truly a Godsend, but I will post more on that another time.
Also, Lisa and I are hopelessly addicted to CSI .. we've been renting the DVDs like they were going out of style and watched 6 episodes on saturday alone. That night I dreamt that I was part of the team. What can I say, it is a good show. Anyway, that's all for now.. I have some real meaty posts brewing that will hopefully be posted soon - stay tuned boys and girls!
Monday, August 15, 2005
A Sound of Thunder
Can you feel it? A deep rumbling coming from the very foundations of the Church. A change is on its way - a movement of God to usher his people into deeper relationship and deeper truth. Some are calling it the Next Reformation - just as the modern era ushered in the end of the domination of the Roman Catholic religion and the entry into denominational, charismatic expressions of Church, now the modern era has ended and we are being ushered into the post-modern. While the modern Church sought to erect artificial walls, structures and organizations (i.e. denominations) and started to "do church" instead of "be church", the post-modern now seeks to breaks those artificual structures apart - to effect relationships in place of divisions. Some people also use the image of a brand new generation of Church that is the process of Emerging - the state of being Emergent.
There is a kind of freedom involved - a step away from being religionists and toward being simply Christian. That is to say human, flawed, sinful - and yet forgiven, redeemed and related both to God and to each other. Instead of sunday-morning preaching (where a large group of people get together inside the walls of a building in order to act as audience while one person talks about what is on his or her heart) being the primary mode of expounding truth, the emphasis is starting to become focused on a conversation (a dialogue between two or more people that allows for the hearts of all involved to be expressed equally)- perhaps one that meanders throughout the week through emails or blogs, or by getting together with friends over dinner or coffee.
For just about a year now, I have been a part of "The Feast", which is an informal gathering of Christian people who just want to get together over coffee, sing some songs and talk about what is on our hearts this week. It has been remarkable to me how much more I get out of that simple meeting than I do out of sunday services at "church". Not that God is not moving within that community, but there is a feeling of boxiness about it. We have a great pastor who has a lot of really good things to say, but more often than not what is being preached on sunday doesn't meet me where I am at that day. Sometimes it meets me where I was at a month ago, or where I will be a month from now, and that's the problem - what is on my heart now needs to be addressed right now, and that can only happen through organic conversation among equals.
A few nights ago Lisa and I had our close friends, the Petries (Anna and Richard) over for steak and stuff (my new found BBQing skills we put to the test, but I rose to the challenge), and it was so good to just be able to (as Richard said) "let it all hang out." To talk about things that were going on in our lives - work, play, church, etc, all of it culminating in SNL's The Best of Will Ferrell Volume 1 ("I've got a fever.. and the only prescription is more cowbell! Say it babies!").
Over the past little while we have also had the opportunity to spend a lot of time with our friends the Coles (Ron, Colleen, Megan and Ashley), hanging out, watching movies, having coffee, eating chilli or trying to coax some semblance of service out of little seaside eateries. But most of all talking. There is a feeling of acceptance there - where we can say whatever we feel like saying, and they just listen. No judgements, no attempts at correction - just conversation. It felt so good to be able to just drawl on about our marital difficulties, fights and general dysfunction, or our sordid family histories and pasts (some of it, I will admit, is rather shocking) and NOT to get the usual knee-jerk reaction. Instead it is a feeling of knowing familiarity that says "yeah, we've been there too, in fact we're STILL there." That, to me, is what the idea of the conversation is all about.
We all have places in which we are right and strong, and places where we are wrong and weak. Conversation allows for us to understand where another soul is at in their walk and also be understood by others without having to become defensive about it. It allows for the ability to CHOOSE the right paths instead of being forced down them through shame and unacceptance of where we are right now. Richard said something quite insightly when speaking of a mutual friend - he said that though he did not always understand or agree with everything said by our friend, he chose to love him anyway, because "I see Christ in him."
So now the church of the modern era has a choice to make in the face of this oncoming shift into the post-modern era. The institution can choose to embrace God's deeper revelations and break down its own walls in preparation for the shaking of its foundation. Or it can build higher walls and large pillars and stubbornly hold onto an instituation that clearly (attendance in denominational churches has been dropping sharply since the 1970's) is in its death throes, and be broken in the upheaval.
This is starting to happen for me in a very personal way - my community is starting to be shaken in a very real and sometimes startling way. The cracks are starting to show in our walls and in our pillars, and the question remains - what will we do about it?
There is a kind of freedom involved - a step away from being religionists and toward being simply Christian. That is to say human, flawed, sinful - and yet forgiven, redeemed and related both to God and to each other. Instead of sunday-morning preaching (where a large group of people get together inside the walls of a building in order to act as audience while one person talks about what is on his or her heart) being the primary mode of expounding truth, the emphasis is starting to become focused on a conversation (a dialogue between two or more people that allows for the hearts of all involved to be expressed equally)- perhaps one that meanders throughout the week through emails or blogs, or by getting together with friends over dinner or coffee.
For just about a year now, I have been a part of "The Feast", which is an informal gathering of Christian people who just want to get together over coffee, sing some songs and talk about what is on our hearts this week. It has been remarkable to me how much more I get out of that simple meeting than I do out of sunday services at "church". Not that God is not moving within that community, but there is a feeling of boxiness about it. We have a great pastor who has a lot of really good things to say, but more often than not what is being preached on sunday doesn't meet me where I am at that day. Sometimes it meets me where I was at a month ago, or where I will be a month from now, and that's the problem - what is on my heart now needs to be addressed right now, and that can only happen through organic conversation among equals.
A few nights ago Lisa and I had our close friends, the Petries (Anna and Richard) over for steak and stuff (my new found BBQing skills we put to the test, but I rose to the challenge), and it was so good to just be able to (as Richard said) "let it all hang out." To talk about things that were going on in our lives - work, play, church, etc, all of it culminating in SNL's The Best of Will Ferrell Volume 1 ("I've got a fever.. and the only prescription is more cowbell! Say it babies!").
Over the past little while we have also had the opportunity to spend a lot of time with our friends the Coles (Ron, Colleen, Megan and Ashley), hanging out, watching movies, having coffee, eating chilli or trying to coax some semblance of service out of little seaside eateries. But most of all talking. There is a feeling of acceptance there - where we can say whatever we feel like saying, and they just listen. No judgements, no attempts at correction - just conversation. It felt so good to be able to just drawl on about our marital difficulties, fights and general dysfunction, or our sordid family histories and pasts (some of it, I will admit, is rather shocking) and NOT to get the usual knee-jerk reaction. Instead it is a feeling of knowing familiarity that says "yeah, we've been there too, in fact we're STILL there." That, to me, is what the idea of the conversation is all about.
We all have places in which we are right and strong, and places where we are wrong and weak. Conversation allows for us to understand where another soul is at in their walk and also be understood by others without having to become defensive about it. It allows for the ability to CHOOSE the right paths instead of being forced down them through shame and unacceptance of where we are right now. Richard said something quite insightly when speaking of a mutual friend - he said that though he did not always understand or agree with everything said by our friend, he chose to love him anyway, because "I see Christ in him."
So now the church of the modern era has a choice to make in the face of this oncoming shift into the post-modern era. The institution can choose to embrace God's deeper revelations and break down its own walls in preparation for the shaking of its foundation. Or it can build higher walls and large pillars and stubbornly hold onto an instituation that clearly (attendance in denominational churches has been dropping sharply since the 1970's) is in its death throes, and be broken in the upheaval.
This is starting to happen for me in a very personal way - my community is starting to be shaken in a very real and sometimes startling way. The cracks are starting to show in our walls and in our pillars, and the question remains - what will we do about it?
Monday, July 18, 2005
If These are the Pillars of the church, Its Time to Knock the House Down
Pillar: A tall cylindrical vertical upright and used to support a building or other structure.
In religious terms, the word 'pillar' is often used to describe a person within the organization ("the church") who has been in the "church" for a particularly long time and/or is a staunch supporter of the ideals of the congregation. Pillars usually enjoy a fair amount of influence, especially when it comes to the politics behind that generally define the denominational church's inner workings.
By 'politics' I mean this: In order to have any kind of say in what the typical denominational "church" does, what it stands for or what programs it offers, one must become a "member" of the "church" in order to receive the ability to vote on any of these things. Before one can become a "member" they usually are required to stand in front of the congregation and publicly commit to some kind of "church" creedo or agree to follow certain rules and uphold this or that.
By 'influence' I mean this: A pillar is usually one of these "members" and often has an inordinate ability to get what they want whenever a vote occurs on various issues that occur on a regular basis (i.e. whether or not to spend money on some new-fangled piece of technological wizardry or sell the antediluvian organ that has been gathering dust in the basement for a hundred years.) Another way that a pillar gains influence is by acting as a role model of sorts either by way of other members of the congregation who lift them into that position or by acting themselves as though they have won some kind of "Pentecostal Idol" competition.
Let us not forgot as well that there is power in numbers - a Pillar is rarely alone. It is not uncommon for an entire family to be the "pillars of the church", a scenario typified by the ability of someone to attend any random church event, throw a rock up into the air and have an extremely high probability of hitting someone from said family. This can also extend from family into cliques, and that is where the real fun begins.
A clique is very dangerous to the unity of the body because of the simply fact that a clique implies exclusivity, which is the opposite of inclusivity. If one can assume that inclusivity is necessary in order to have unity, then a clique is an extremely effective of shutting down unity. It goes beyond simply having a group of close friends that you hang out with all the time. I have one of those and it is a great thing. A clique is more like a social club that no one else is allowed to visit. Of course in a congregational setting, you can't really get away with overtly telling people to get lost (at least I certainly hope not), so a church clique does this in more subtle ways. Sure, they'll invite everyone to their prayer gatherings, worship services and dinner parties and maybe they'll even seem friendly for a little while. Until you do something that rubs their religious sensibilities the wrong way like say something controversial or wear too much (or too little) makeup, or have a foible of some kind. Then suddenly you find yourself wandering around in a daze seeing a lot of people's backs. But hey, we have a head office or a diocese to keep in mind - we can't let the inmates start running the asylum now can we?
So we come back to the pillars. As I said before, a pillar is something that we use to hold up a building or a structure. This could also be translated as "organization" or "institution". All of these words imply the putting up of walls, either to keep the bad people OUT of our "church", or perhaps to keep the good people IN?
So here is the question - what is the point of a ministry when revelation is replaced by church programs and submission to God is replaced by politics? How frightened should we be when a pastor's primary concern isn't leading his sheep to the place God has set out for them, but reporting to the organization about why he isn't meeting his goal for church membership and service attendance this month?
A pillar sounds great in theory, and as long as we keep the outside looking tall and strong - maybe slap on a new coat of paint every so often. But what happens when the insides are rotten? Eventually the ugly interior can no longer hide behind a new coat of paint, and the building threatens to topple. While the "faithful" rush to hold it up as if nothing at all were wrong, those who come truly seeking the face of God realize they aren't as safe as they thought they were, and they run for the hills.
What does the Bible tell us we are individuals, standing under the strength of personal virtue? Nothing. "God saved you by his special favor when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it. " (Ephesians 2:8-10)
What can we become as equal parts of the body of Christ? Everything. Conquerors. More than conquerors even. "..until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work." (Ephesians 4:13-16)
We need to pull down the dividing walls and stop raising people up into pillars. Smash down the little building that is "our church" and let the light of day back in. Then maybe we'd have something worth calling the church.
In religious terms, the word 'pillar' is often used to describe a person within the organization ("the church") who has been in the "church" for a particularly long time and/or is a staunch supporter of the ideals of the congregation. Pillars usually enjoy a fair amount of influence, especially when it comes to the politics behind that generally define the denominational church's inner workings.
By 'politics' I mean this: In order to have any kind of say in what the typical denominational "church" does, what it stands for or what programs it offers, one must become a "member" of the "church" in order to receive the ability to vote on any of these things. Before one can become a "member" they usually are required to stand in front of the congregation and publicly commit to some kind of "church" creedo or agree to follow certain rules and uphold this or that.
By 'influence' I mean this: A pillar is usually one of these "members" and often has an inordinate ability to get what they want whenever a vote occurs on various issues that occur on a regular basis (i.e. whether or not to spend money on some new-fangled piece of technological wizardry or sell the antediluvian organ that has been gathering dust in the basement for a hundred years.) Another way that a pillar gains influence is by acting as a role model of sorts either by way of other members of the congregation who lift them into that position or by acting themselves as though they have won some kind of "Pentecostal Idol" competition.
Let us not forgot as well that there is power in numbers - a Pillar is rarely alone. It is not uncommon for an entire family to be the "pillars of the church", a scenario typified by the ability of someone to attend any random church event, throw a rock up into the air and have an extremely high probability of hitting someone from said family. This can also extend from family into cliques, and that is where the real fun begins.
A clique is very dangerous to the unity of the body because of the simply fact that a clique implies exclusivity, which is the opposite of inclusivity. If one can assume that inclusivity is necessary in order to have unity, then a clique is an extremely effective of shutting down unity. It goes beyond simply having a group of close friends that you hang out with all the time. I have one of those and it is a great thing. A clique is more like a social club that no one else is allowed to visit. Of course in a congregational setting, you can't really get away with overtly telling people to get lost (at least I certainly hope not), so a church clique does this in more subtle ways. Sure, they'll invite everyone to their prayer gatherings, worship services and dinner parties and maybe they'll even seem friendly for a little while. Until you do something that rubs their religious sensibilities the wrong way like say something controversial or wear too much (or too little) makeup, or have a foible of some kind. Then suddenly you find yourself wandering around in a daze seeing a lot of people's backs. But hey, we have a head office or a diocese to keep in mind - we can't let the inmates start running the asylum now can we?
So we come back to the pillars. As I said before, a pillar is something that we use to hold up a building or a structure. This could also be translated as "organization" or "institution". All of these words imply the putting up of walls, either to keep the bad people OUT of our "church", or perhaps to keep the good people IN?
So here is the question - what is the point of a ministry when revelation is replaced by church programs and submission to God is replaced by politics? How frightened should we be when a pastor's primary concern isn't leading his sheep to the place God has set out for them, but reporting to the organization about why he isn't meeting his goal for church membership and service attendance this month?
A pillar sounds great in theory, and as long as we keep the outside looking tall and strong - maybe slap on a new coat of paint every so often. But what happens when the insides are rotten? Eventually the ugly interior can no longer hide behind a new coat of paint, and the building threatens to topple. While the "faithful" rush to hold it up as if nothing at all were wrong, those who come truly seeking the face of God realize they aren't as safe as they thought they were, and they run for the hills.
What does the Bible tell us we are individuals, standing under the strength of personal virtue? Nothing. "God saved you by his special favor when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it. " (Ephesians 2:8-10)
What can we become as equal parts of the body of Christ? Everything. Conquerors. More than conquerors even. "..until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work." (Ephesians 4:13-16)
We need to pull down the dividing walls and stop raising people up into pillars. Smash down the little building that is "our church" and let the light of day back in. Then maybe we'd have something worth calling the church.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
BTK: Child of God?
By now we all know that Dennis Rader, the congregation president of a lutheran church in Wichita, a man who has been described as "devoutly Christian", is also the BTK (an acronym that stands for his preferred modus operandi: Bind, Torture and Kill) Killer. A few days ago, Rader pleaded guilty to 10 counts of murder in the first degree and calmly described the horrible acts that ended the lives of 10 unsuspecting and seemingly random victims. All this, by Rader's admission, was done to satisfy his "sexual fantasies", whatever that means.
The natural response to hearing this kind of news (certainly it was my first response and I'm not sure that I don't still feel the same way) is to despise this obviously sick and disturbed individual as some kind of inhuman monster who has coated the eternal slip n' slide to hell with the blood of his victims.
But how to we reconcile this with the idea that he was an active member of the church and still professes to being a Christian? The other members of his congregation must be going through agony right now, grappling with this question. He has been visited, as well, by his Pastor who said he would not turn his back on Dennis, no matter his crimes and that he would continue to support him as a brother in Christ, while also fully supported the actions of authorities on the case. The pastor also said something to the effect of "nobody is really that much different than Dennis - in the end we're all sinners."
I have to admit that while I can intellectually say with confidence that I am a sinner, in my heart I have trouble putting my own sins in the same category as this brutal serial killer, who routinely killed his victims by tying plastic bags over their heads and letting them suffocate to death.
Pastor Nagle of Wichita had some very interesting things to say:
"..But something amazing happened. Jesus stood outside Lazarus’ tomb and called out his name, and said to the dead man, “Lazarus, come out!” And he did come out. Much to the shock of the sisters, much to the horror of the crowd, much to the amazement of the disciples, much to the delight of Lazarus, Jesus turned everything around and brought the dead back to life.
And here’s a question: if Jesus could and did turn everything around and bring Lazarus of Bethany back to life, do you think Jesus can and will turn everything around and bring life to Dennis Rader, that pillar of the Lutheran Church in Wichita who is charged as a brutal serial killer? "
"..if the charges hold, we have to say that he was a sinner. A really really bad sinner. A sick and savage sinner. And likely, that’s so. But from our childhood, what have we learned in church? What do we sing in our hymns and read in our Bibles? Didn’t Jesus die for sinners? Yes—but (we protest) surely he didn’t die for that kind of sinner! But what does that mean—that we believe Jesus died only for the nice sinners? The little sinners? The clean and undisgusting sinners? It sounds as if what we say we believe and what we really believe are two different things."
Read the full article
It definately makes me think. But hey, apparently Jeffery Dahmer came to Christ before his murder in prison by a fellow inmate. Who knows, maybe Dennis Rader can be redeemed too.
I think Rader's pastor summed it up best when he said "If Dennis has done what they've alleged he did, then he must pay the price. It still does not have any effect on how I minister to him, I still will love him."
The natural response to hearing this kind of news (certainly it was my first response and I'm not sure that I don't still feel the same way) is to despise this obviously sick and disturbed individual as some kind of inhuman monster who has coated the eternal slip n' slide to hell with the blood of his victims.
But how to we reconcile this with the idea that he was an active member of the church and still professes to being a Christian? The other members of his congregation must be going through agony right now, grappling with this question. He has been visited, as well, by his Pastor who said he would not turn his back on Dennis, no matter his crimes and that he would continue to support him as a brother in Christ, while also fully supported the actions of authorities on the case. The pastor also said something to the effect of "nobody is really that much different than Dennis - in the end we're all sinners."
I have to admit that while I can intellectually say with confidence that I am a sinner, in my heart I have trouble putting my own sins in the same category as this brutal serial killer, who routinely killed his victims by tying plastic bags over their heads and letting them suffocate to death.
Pastor Nagle of Wichita had some very interesting things to say:
"..But something amazing happened. Jesus stood outside Lazarus’ tomb and called out his name, and said to the dead man, “Lazarus, come out!” And he did come out. Much to the shock of the sisters, much to the horror of the crowd, much to the amazement of the disciples, much to the delight of Lazarus, Jesus turned everything around and brought the dead back to life.
And here’s a question: if Jesus could and did turn everything around and bring Lazarus of Bethany back to life, do you think Jesus can and will turn everything around and bring life to Dennis Rader, that pillar of the Lutheran Church in Wichita who is charged as a brutal serial killer? "
"..if the charges hold, we have to say that he was a sinner. A really really bad sinner. A sick and savage sinner. And likely, that’s so. But from our childhood, what have we learned in church? What do we sing in our hymns and read in our Bibles? Didn’t Jesus die for sinners? Yes—but (we protest) surely he didn’t die for that kind of sinner! But what does that mean—that we believe Jesus died only for the nice sinners? The little sinners? The clean and undisgusting sinners? It sounds as if what we say we believe and what we really believe are two different things."
Read the full article
It definately makes me think. But hey, apparently Jeffery Dahmer came to Christ before his murder in prison by a fellow inmate. Who knows, maybe Dennis Rader can be redeemed too.
I think Rader's pastor summed it up best when he said "If Dennis has done what they've alleged he did, then he must pay the price. It still does not have any effect on how I minister to him, I still will love him."
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
The devil Loves (to eat) Your Children
"Teach your children to choose the right path, and when they are older, they will remain upon it." Proverbs 22:6 (NLT)
Although the scripture above is several thousand years old, it is perhaps even more applicable today that it was back in the day. I talk a lot about the world system because I have come to realize that it is an extremely cunning and sinister system of control and degradation that seeks to subtly destroy people. It is a conspiracy in the truest sense of the word, started right from day 1 by that old serpent back in the garden, and has continued to flourish in bigger and deeper ways to the point where these days even the strongest of Christ's disciples have trouble distinguishing God's ways from the world's ways.
While in White Rock over the weekend I was talking to Joan (Lisa's dad's girlfriend), who is a kindergarten teacher. She was telling us how things have changed over the past few years in the way that children are being taught.
I remember when kindergarten (and most of the early grades, for that matter) was all about learning how to interact socially, learn how to be creative and get kind of geared up to start learning. It is a very important stage in a child's life and social training is extremely important. I don't think I could read to any great degree, or do times tables until grade 2 sometime (actually I couldn't do those until about grade 6, but whatever), which seems about the right time to really start learning academically in a really serious way.
According to Joan the curriculum has been seriously changed over the past few years and even at the kindergarten level is VERY centred on literacy and numeracy, to the point now where there is no time for social interaction or playing. 5 year old children are now experiencing failure because, as Joan says and I agree with, the majority of children just don't have the mental development at that age to properly absorb the material. Some do and a lot do not - it has nothing to do with the child's intelligent, they simply aren't ready for that yet - and honestly why should they be?
Joan made the interesting comment that it is switch to a more Asian way of doing things. Interesting to note seeing as there are almost more Asian people in Vancouver now than any other ethinicity (including caucasian). Not that I would use a stereotype when dealing with individual people, but taking a look at cultural stereotypes can give a clue about cultural trends. It seems to me that Asian family life in general often characterized by a very unabalanced combination of diminutive, quiet and subservient women who are dominated and in some cases abused by wealthy and ruthless husbands.
This is just one symptom of a society that seems to value business and productivity over ethics and relationships and obviously teaches that to their children very early in life. When a young child's social development is put aside in favour of numbers and grades, what kind of adults are likely to grow out of that? It makes me wonder what kind of leaders we might have in twenty or thirty years.
Its not enough that children are bombarded with terrible messages coming from TV shows, movies, video games and the internet - now the very underpinings of their early education and development are being used against them. More than ever, parents must take an increasingly active and resonsible role in raising children, because if the parents won't do it there is a little red man with horns, hooves and pitchfork tail who is more than happy to teach them everything they need to know . . .
Although the scripture above is several thousand years old, it is perhaps even more applicable today that it was back in the day. I talk a lot about the world system because I have come to realize that it is an extremely cunning and sinister system of control and degradation that seeks to subtly destroy people. It is a conspiracy in the truest sense of the word, started right from day 1 by that old serpent back in the garden, and has continued to flourish in bigger and deeper ways to the point where these days even the strongest of Christ's disciples have trouble distinguishing God's ways from the world's ways.
While in White Rock over the weekend I was talking to Joan (Lisa's dad's girlfriend), who is a kindergarten teacher. She was telling us how things have changed over the past few years in the way that children are being taught.
I remember when kindergarten (and most of the early grades, for that matter) was all about learning how to interact socially, learn how to be creative and get kind of geared up to start learning. It is a very important stage in a child's life and social training is extremely important. I don't think I could read to any great degree, or do times tables until grade 2 sometime (actually I couldn't do those until about grade 6, but whatever), which seems about the right time to really start learning academically in a really serious way.
According to Joan the curriculum has been seriously changed over the past few years and even at the kindergarten level is VERY centred on literacy and numeracy, to the point now where there is no time for social interaction or playing. 5 year old children are now experiencing failure because, as Joan says and I agree with, the majority of children just don't have the mental development at that age to properly absorb the material. Some do and a lot do not - it has nothing to do with the child's intelligent, they simply aren't ready for that yet - and honestly why should they be?
Joan made the interesting comment that it is switch to a more Asian way of doing things. Interesting to note seeing as there are almost more Asian people in Vancouver now than any other ethinicity (including caucasian). Not that I would use a stereotype when dealing with individual people, but taking a look at cultural stereotypes can give a clue about cultural trends. It seems to me that Asian family life in general often characterized by a very unabalanced combination of diminutive, quiet and subservient women who are dominated and in some cases abused by wealthy and ruthless husbands.
This is just one symptom of a society that seems to value business and productivity over ethics and relationships and obviously teaches that to their children very early in life. When a young child's social development is put aside in favour of numbers and grades, what kind of adults are likely to grow out of that? It makes me wonder what kind of leaders we might have in twenty or thirty years.
Its not enough that children are bombarded with terrible messages coming from TV shows, movies, video games and the internet - now the very underpinings of their early education and development are being used against them. More than ever, parents must take an increasingly active and resonsible role in raising children, because if the parents won't do it there is a little red man with horns, hooves and pitchfork tail who is more than happy to teach them everything they need to know . . .
Monday, June 27, 2005
Apparently ..
This is a pretty good survey being done by MIT. Not sure exactly what they are trying to accomplish but anything that gets more exposure for blogging is a good thing. If you are a fellow blogger, click on the button and go take the survey yourself.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
What is YOUR Theological Worldview?
So following along with my good pals Ron at The Weary Pilgrim and Casey over at Jacob's Generation , I decided to do this little quiz and find out what kind of Christian I am. I found the results to be pretty darned interesting actually...
| You scored as Emergent/Postmodern. You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this. |
What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com |
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Breaking the Two Century Milestone
For the past year and a bit I have been on a continuous quest to get healthier and rid myself of the stigma of diabetes. Because of my skepticism about the western medical system I have also gone out of my way to prove all of their "facts" about problems like diabetes wrong, and for the most part I have succeeded.
When I originally went to Dr. Forester he basically told me I would be stuck on medication for the rest of my life - a few quotes:
"You're not going to get out of this with some kind of special cook book, you know."
(After my refusal to take medication immediately) "This can have serious repercussions on your driver's license. If you were older I might feel obliged to report to the MVB that you were not controlling your blood sugar."
ME: "So is it type 1 or type 2?"
DR F: "Umm... I'd call it... type 1."
ME: "Even though I don't have any symptoms?"
DR F: "Well.. there are some who might call it type 2".
(For those who don't know, Types 1 and 2 are completely different disorders that share similar symptoms, although in all cases of type 1 the symptoms are acute and would result in death if not treated immediately with insulin injections. After diagnosing with Type 1 the Dr proceeded to prescribe metformin, which is a Type 2 medication and wouldn't do anything for type 1 except make it worse more than likely).
I wrestled for a long while about whether to take medication or not, but when I read this verse I knew what I needed to do :
"This is what the LORD says: Yours is an incurable bruise, a terrible wound. There is no one to help you or bind up your injury. You are beyond the help of any medicine. All your allies have left you and do not care about you anymore. I have wounded you cruelly, as though I were your enemy. For your sins are many, and your guilt is great. Why do you protest your punishment--this wound that has no cure? I have had to punish you because your sins are many and your guilt is great.
"But in that coming day, all who destroy you will be destroyed, and all your enemies will be sent into exile. Those who plunder you will be plundered, and those who attack you will be attacked. I will give you back your health and heal your wounds, says the LORD." Jeremiah 30:12-17
This spoke to me because diabetes is considered an incurable disease, one that I knew resulted in my poor lifestyle. Dr. Nielsen explained to me that often people become diabetic overnight - the body reaches a point where it becomes over-stressed with too much weight and unhealth and just switches into diabetic mode. This prompted me to start thinking that if the body can switch INTO diabetic mode, why couldn't it switch OUT OF diabetic mode?
The major part in my journey to cure myself has been losing weight. Weight is almost always connected to Type 2 diabetes and holistic health resources will say that losing weight is the only known way of curing it.
At my heaviest I was around 280 pounds. No wonder my body couldn't hack it. I have since lost a lot of weight and I have seen my blood sugar reading all return to normal. I feel healthier and better than ever since I can remember.
The other day (Sunday, I believe), I hit a milestone. I stood on the scale and saw the number 199.5 . For the first time in my life since high school I am under 200 pounds.
Praise God!
When I originally went to Dr. Forester he basically told me I would be stuck on medication for the rest of my life - a few quotes:
"You're not going to get out of this with some kind of special cook book, you know."
(After my refusal to take medication immediately) "This can have serious repercussions on your driver's license. If you were older I might feel obliged to report to the MVB that you were not controlling your blood sugar."
ME: "So is it type 1 or type 2?"
DR F: "Umm... I'd call it... type 1."
ME: "Even though I don't have any symptoms?"
DR F: "Well.. there are some who might call it type 2".
(For those who don't know, Types 1 and 2 are completely different disorders that share similar symptoms, although in all cases of type 1 the symptoms are acute and would result in death if not treated immediately with insulin injections. After diagnosing with Type 1 the Dr proceeded to prescribe metformin, which is a Type 2 medication and wouldn't do anything for type 1 except make it worse more than likely).
I wrestled for a long while about whether to take medication or not, but when I read this verse I knew what I needed to do :
"This is what the LORD says: Yours is an incurable bruise, a terrible wound. There is no one to help you or bind up your injury. You are beyond the help of any medicine. All your allies have left you and do not care about you anymore. I have wounded you cruelly, as though I were your enemy. For your sins are many, and your guilt is great. Why do you protest your punishment--this wound that has no cure? I have had to punish you because your sins are many and your guilt is great.
"But in that coming day, all who destroy you will be destroyed, and all your enemies will be sent into exile. Those who plunder you will be plundered, and those who attack you will be attacked. I will give you back your health and heal your wounds, says the LORD." Jeremiah 30:12-17
This spoke to me because diabetes is considered an incurable disease, one that I knew resulted in my poor lifestyle. Dr. Nielsen explained to me that often people become diabetic overnight - the body reaches a point where it becomes over-stressed with too much weight and unhealth and just switches into diabetic mode. This prompted me to start thinking that if the body can switch INTO diabetic mode, why couldn't it switch OUT OF diabetic mode?
The major part in my journey to cure myself has been losing weight. Weight is almost always connected to Type 2 diabetes and holistic health resources will say that losing weight is the only known way of curing it.
At my heaviest I was around 280 pounds. No wonder my body couldn't hack it. I have since lost a lot of weight and I have seen my blood sugar reading all return to normal. I feel healthier and better than ever since I can remember.
The other day (Sunday, I believe), I hit a milestone. I stood on the scale and saw the number 199.5 . For the first time in my life since high school I am under 200 pounds.
Praise God!
Friday, May 20, 2005
Book Update!
Part 5 of the Prologue is ready for your reading pleasure - enjoy!
(for those of you who haven't read it in awhile I reccomend starting from the beginning or at least making sure you haven't skipped any parts).
http://sentinelstory.blogspot.com
(for those of you who haven't read it in awhile I reccomend starting from the beginning or at least making sure you haven't skipped any parts).
http://sentinelstory.blogspot.com
Friday, May 13, 2005
Scarecrow
I like how Meg over at The Tangled Void sometimes posts song lyrics so I figured I would get in on the act.
I was listening to some older Skillet tunes and came across this song whose words have always resonated with me somehow. It strikes me as being one of the most poignant and vulnerable prayers I think anyone can pray.
************************
SCARECROW
Hanging on a post in my dirty clothes
Try to concentrate on you but I keep forgetting
Safe enough to not let go
Scared enough to not release
Open up to drink the wind
You tear me up when you come in
Take me down, shake me out
Give me a brain so I might know you better
Hanging in the sun
Waiting for the rain
Saw a field catch on fire
I caught myself just watching
Safe enough to not let go
Scared enough to not release
Open up to drink the wind
You tear me up when you come in
Take me down, shake me out
Give me a heart that I might love you better
Hanging on a post just next to yours
I want to curse and spit
I weep aloud at your mercy
Take me down, shake me out
Give me a life that I might serve you better
Take me down, shake me out
Give me a life that I might serve you better.
I was listening to some older Skillet tunes and came across this song whose words have always resonated with me somehow. It strikes me as being one of the most poignant and vulnerable prayers I think anyone can pray.
************************
SCARECROW
Hanging on a post in my dirty clothes
Try to concentrate on you but I keep forgetting
Safe enough to not let go
Scared enough to not release
Open up to drink the wind
You tear me up when you come in
Take me down, shake me out
Give me a brain so I might know you better
Hanging in the sun
Waiting for the rain
Saw a field catch on fire
I caught myself just watching
Safe enough to not let go
Scared enough to not release
Open up to drink the wind
You tear me up when you come in
Take me down, shake me out
Give me a heart that I might love you better
Hanging on a post just next to yours
I want to curse and spit
I weep aloud at your mercy
Take me down, shake me out
Give me a life that I might serve you better
Take me down, shake me out
Give me a life that I might serve you better.
Controversial Origins
Last night I was watching a news type show on TV that was talking about the big fight going on in Kansas right now over what theory should be taught in school about the origins of life on Earth. There are three primary teachings - Creationism (which seems to also assume the existence of God), Evolution and Intelligent Design (which to me sounds like creationism on a smaller scale. I guess they figured God was too politically incorrect so they aren't stating WHO the intelligence was.)
This of course is not a new debate but it seems that in the case of Kansas they actually at one point had stopped teaching Evolution - at least I think that's how it went down. Evolutionists naturally fought back in an attempt to have their theory of choice taught as it is in most schools these days. So now these creationists and intelligent designists are (or were?) fighting to keep the theory of evolution out of schools.
Is it just me or does this seem really dumb to anyone else? Now I'm not going to pretend to be all ecumenical and "open minded" enough to say "those evolutionists could be right!" because as I'm sure most of you know, I don't believe in evolution. I am an extremely confident creationist because I do know that God exists and that he was behind all of creation.
Having said that, let's be fair about this - we're talking about school here, not "church", so why do all the Christians feel that teaching evolution is wrong? Its like we're so insecure and worried about REAL scientists knocking holes in our beliefs that we don't want anyone to know about the other theories out there. And the thing is, all three ideas ARE just that- theories. No one has ever been able to prove anything about where we come from. I believe in creation because I believe in God - it is a faith issue, not a science issue. I also happen to believe that science and the various laws of probability DO support the idea of creation, but I recognize that there is room in there for other theories.
Its not like the evolutionists are all a bunch of ignorant, lying snake-oil salesmen - they believe in evolution every bit as much as I believe in creation. But what happens when we fight about it? People become polarized - they pick a side and then just stick to it out of principle. People who might normally seek the truth instead become defenders of this theory or that theory.
To all you creationists out there who want to ban education on the theory of evolution or intelligent design - WHAT ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF!!?? Do you REALLY believe, or do you just THINK you believe? I believe in the power of the truth and I believe that a real truth seeker WILL find what he seeks, because God promised that. So don't be afraid of evolution and science and all the rest of it.
How about we start teaching all the theories and let everyone come to their own conclusions?
This of course is not a new debate but it seems that in the case of Kansas they actually at one point had stopped teaching Evolution - at least I think that's how it went down. Evolutionists naturally fought back in an attempt to have their theory of choice taught as it is in most schools these days. So now these creationists and intelligent designists are (or were?) fighting to keep the theory of evolution out of schools.
Is it just me or does this seem really dumb to anyone else? Now I'm not going to pretend to be all ecumenical and "open minded" enough to say "those evolutionists could be right!" because as I'm sure most of you know, I don't believe in evolution. I am an extremely confident creationist because I do know that God exists and that he was behind all of creation.
Having said that, let's be fair about this - we're talking about school here, not "church", so why do all the Christians feel that teaching evolution is wrong? Its like we're so insecure and worried about REAL scientists knocking holes in our beliefs that we don't want anyone to know about the other theories out there. And the thing is, all three ideas ARE just that- theories. No one has ever been able to prove anything about where we come from. I believe in creation because I believe in God - it is a faith issue, not a science issue. I also happen to believe that science and the various laws of probability DO support the idea of creation, but I recognize that there is room in there for other theories.
Its not like the evolutionists are all a bunch of ignorant, lying snake-oil salesmen - they believe in evolution every bit as much as I believe in creation. But what happens when we fight about it? People become polarized - they pick a side and then just stick to it out of principle. People who might normally seek the truth instead become defenders of this theory or that theory.
To all you creationists out there who want to ban education on the theory of evolution or intelligent design - WHAT ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF!!?? Do you REALLY believe, or do you just THINK you believe? I believe in the power of the truth and I believe that a real truth seeker WILL find what he seeks, because God promised that. So don't be afraid of evolution and science and all the rest of it.
How about we start teaching all the theories and let everyone come to their own conclusions?
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Our Goldfish, the PC Killer
Yeah so we finally broke down and ordered a new computer from Dell. This is in response to our previous computer finally having a mental breakdown and committing suicide.
I say "suicide", however it is clear that foul play on the part of our fish was involved. I will now recount the horrific story as I recall it:
It was tuesday - yesterday. I returned home from work to find that the fish seemed hungry, so I decided to feed him. I successfully dropped some fish flakes into the tank, and then reached for the fish pellets (as I am told fish should be fed a variety of foods) with no idea of the horror that was about to begin. I dropped a few pellets into the tank and closed the lid. It was then, that hell and hades opened figuratively beneath my feet, engulfing me in flames so fierce I thought I might not make it.
Yes, that's right, I dropped the bag of pellets. They spilled from the bag, creating a pile of pellets on the carpet directly in front of and below the fish tank. I knew something had to be done immediately, so I rushed into the kitchen and grabbed the vaccuum cleaner. Rushing back into the office I proceeded to plug the vaccuum in and stepped on the on switch. At that very moment, time and space seemed suddenly to freeze as if the very rotation of the universe had been stopped inexorably by an invisible and yet omnipotent hand. The vaccuum did not turn on.. and furthermore, the computer (which heretofore had been left running almost constantly) had lost its power. I had tripped a breaker.
I ran down into the dungeon.. er basement, fighting against the cold drafts and damp cement that clawed at my skin like a drooling beast, hungry for all the warmth in my body. I reach the breakers without injury and found the errant switch, which I proceeded to reset. The sudden and yet unmistakable whine of the vaccuum echoed eerily from above.
I vaulted back upstairs and vaccuumed up the fish pellets, then turned off the vaccuum cleaner and turned my attention to the computer. Its power remained off, so I turned it back on and left it for a few minutes while it performed the inevitable dance called "Scandisk". After a few moments I returned, prepared to check my email only to find the screen completely blank except for a blinking cursor in the upper left hand corner.
I had seen this before - 3 times before the computer had died so, and each time I had resuscitated it by reinstalling the operating system overtop of the current configuration. So I did this. With baited breath I restarted the computer after completing the reinstallation.. and a blinking cursor stared back at me from the upper left corner of the screen.
It was then I knew that there was no going back for our wounded computer. I had been too slow, and the computer's soul had entered its final resting place.
I looked over at the fishtank and there was the fish, staring at me, unblinking, mouth opening and closing as if mocking my misfortune. That is when I knew my fish was a PC Killer.
I say "suicide", however it is clear that foul play on the part of our fish was involved. I will now recount the horrific story as I recall it:
It was tuesday - yesterday. I returned home from work to find that the fish seemed hungry, so I decided to feed him. I successfully dropped some fish flakes into the tank, and then reached for the fish pellets (as I am told fish should be fed a variety of foods) with no idea of the horror that was about to begin. I dropped a few pellets into the tank and closed the lid. It was then, that hell and hades opened figuratively beneath my feet, engulfing me in flames so fierce I thought I might not make it.
Yes, that's right, I dropped the bag of pellets. They spilled from the bag, creating a pile of pellets on the carpet directly in front of and below the fish tank. I knew something had to be done immediately, so I rushed into the kitchen and grabbed the vaccuum cleaner. Rushing back into the office I proceeded to plug the vaccuum in and stepped on the on switch. At that very moment, time and space seemed suddenly to freeze as if the very rotation of the universe had been stopped inexorably by an invisible and yet omnipotent hand. The vaccuum did not turn on.. and furthermore, the computer (which heretofore had been left running almost constantly) had lost its power. I had tripped a breaker.
I ran down into the dungeon.. er basement, fighting against the cold drafts and damp cement that clawed at my skin like a drooling beast, hungry for all the warmth in my body. I reach the breakers without injury and found the errant switch, which I proceeded to reset. The sudden and yet unmistakable whine of the vaccuum echoed eerily from above.
I vaulted back upstairs and vaccuumed up the fish pellets, then turned off the vaccuum cleaner and turned my attention to the computer. Its power remained off, so I turned it back on and left it for a few minutes while it performed the inevitable dance called "Scandisk". After a few moments I returned, prepared to check my email only to find the screen completely blank except for a blinking cursor in the upper left hand corner.
I had seen this before - 3 times before the computer had died so, and each time I had resuscitated it by reinstalling the operating system overtop of the current configuration. So I did this. With baited breath I restarted the computer after completing the reinstallation.. and a blinking cursor stared back at me from the upper left corner of the screen.
It was then I knew that there was no going back for our wounded computer. I had been too slow, and the computer's soul had entered its final resting place.
I looked over at the fishtank and there was the fish, staring at me, unblinking, mouth opening and closing as if mocking my misfortune. That is when I knew my fish was a PC Killer.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
The Dog who Itched too Much
That would be our dog, Baron. As previously posted, we took him to the vet about a month ago because of a large hot spot (hair had been licked/bitten off) on his side and also at the time he had been pooping and peeing without seeming to have control over himself. At the time the vet had treated his stomach problems which are now fine, but the itching will not stop.
I feel really bad he has been wearing a buster collar for over a month now, when we aren't watching him, because everytime we leave him alone he starts eating himself! We finally took him to the vet today expecting to discover that he has flears or something, and our groomer also said his ears are infected. Fleas are easy and relatively inexpensive to treat and would have been the best scenario. Instead the vet says that he doesn't seem fleas but is obviously an extremely itchy dog.
So, she reccomends doing a skin scrape to rule out mites, which are the easiest and least expensive possible cause of the problem. She also prescribes antibiotic. So after the scrape and the antibiotics our vet bill today ended up at about $125. And lo and behold, he doesn't have mites apparently, which means that we now have to move into the next level of investigation, including a biopsy and possible blood work. Added up we come to just about $500. For an 11 year old dog. I think we're gong to try some natural remedies first and hope the anti-biotics help.
Unfortunately we left the dog unattended without his buster collar as not only is the patch on his side much larger and worse, but he has created a bunch of new spots all up and down his front leg that he has done a great job chewing on. One of them was actually quite bloody and the rest are new. All I can say is that it is extremely frustrating and disheartening.
Anyway, I prayed over the dog and "laid hands" on him.. I told God that Baron is his creature and God promised to take care of the smallest of his creations. We can't afford $500 in vet treatments at this point so something else is going to have to be done. If you think of it, would you pray for my dog too? He's a really good boy who deserves better.
Well that's enough out of me - later.
I feel really bad he has been wearing a buster collar for over a month now, when we aren't watching him, because everytime we leave him alone he starts eating himself! We finally took him to the vet today expecting to discover that he has flears or something, and our groomer also said his ears are infected. Fleas are easy and relatively inexpensive to treat and would have been the best scenario. Instead the vet says that he doesn't seem fleas but is obviously an extremely itchy dog.
So, she reccomends doing a skin scrape to rule out mites, which are the easiest and least expensive possible cause of the problem. She also prescribes antibiotic. So after the scrape and the antibiotics our vet bill today ended up at about $125. And lo and behold, he doesn't have mites apparently, which means that we now have to move into the next level of investigation, including a biopsy and possible blood work. Added up we come to just about $500. For an 11 year old dog. I think we're gong to try some natural remedies first and hope the anti-biotics help.
Unfortunately we left the dog unattended without his buster collar as not only is the patch on his side much larger and worse, but he has created a bunch of new spots all up and down his front leg that he has done a great job chewing on. One of them was actually quite bloody and the rest are new. All I can say is that it is extremely frustrating and disheartening.
Anyway, I prayed over the dog and "laid hands" on him.. I told God that Baron is his creature and God promised to take care of the smallest of his creations. We can't afford $500 in vet treatments at this point so something else is going to have to be done. If you think of it, would you pray for my dog too? He's a really good boy who deserves better.
Well that's enough out of me - later.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Does writing about evil make me the Devil?
A month or so ago, my friend Gwen (yes, the same one who is thankfully still attached to Russ at the hip!) emailed me a question that really hit home for me. We had been talking about the fact that she and I and my best friend Rich are all kindred spirits of the dorky variety (i.e. we love Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, etc) when Gwen asked me (being, as she implied, a fairly "experienced" Christian), what I thought about fantasy and science fiction from a spiritual perspective. As I had been pondering that very question at that time, this naturally led to a lengthy rant by yours truly, which I have now doctored up slightly (so that it reads more like a post and less like an email to someone) and reproduced for you reading pleasure.
I didn't really come into my own in (in terms of my walk with Christ) until I was around 14 or so, but I have always had the belief. I have also had my struggles on the issue of the "Good" and "Evil" inherent in things like fantasy and science-fiction as well as other art forms, specifically music and TV/Movies, etc, etc..
For a long while I really wasn't overly concerned about this, especially in terms of music which has been a big part of my life for a long time. As some of you may have noticed I listen to fairly heavy music and have done so since I was 17 or 18 - I really didn't censor it too much unless it was really blatantly gross or Satanic (i.e. Marilyn Manson), but because I pretty well hated Christian music and loved Industrial/Metal style stuff I got into a lot of Nine Inch Nails and things of that nature. I really had no interest in thinking about whether I should be listening to this or that because I just wanted music I could enjoy regardless of anything else.
It was probably a year or two ago that I really got turned onto Christian music in the vein that I
listen to and started listening to bands like Skillet, Thousand Foot Krutch, Massivivid, etc and realized that music is so much cooler when you connect to it spiritually. Since then I have been very careful about the music I listen to and have realized that there is a huge potential for evil
things to creep in through music and art in general.
Have said all of that - specifically speaking into the fantasy and sci-fi vein of things, I think there is definately a huge potential for both Good and Evil to be glorified through fiction, but I don't feel this is an inherent thing in the genre - rather to me is all dependent on the intentions and spiritual approach of the author.
To take C.S. Lewis for example - The Chronicles of Narnia were extremely allegorical of his Christian Faith and yet you can read it with or without that aspect and still enjoy the story as simply a fantasy story. Even for a non-Christian who reads it just for enjoyment, the spirit of the story will still have an impact because that was what the author intended.
Another example is The Lord of the Rings - to hear it from the author, his intention in writing it
was simply and purely to write a damn good story - he detested "allegory" in all of its forms and wanted to write something that was left up to the interpretation of the reader. Having said that - Tolkien was also a devout (believing) Catholic Christian and that aspect of his personality naturally comes out in his writing. So while he wasn't intentionally trying to "preach" through his books, his worldview and beliefs are in there.
I think this can definately be true of non-Christian writers as well - I've read a lot of "secular" fantasy and Sci-Fi that I have absolutely no problem with.. the author didn't have a purposefully anti-Christian agenda and their worldview and beliefs, while not necessarily Christian are also
not "Satanic" or whatever. One aspect of fantasy that I have always found problematic is the concept of "magic", which is always present but takes on many different forms and has different explanations depending on who is writing the story. I am always careful about any book that glorifies the use of the occult for power - this I have a problem with because intentional or not, the author is basically promoting witchcraft.
In this there is also a huge difference between pure fantasy (as in fantasy based in a completely fictional world with completely fictional spiritual dynamics, etc - i.e. LOTR) and fantasy based in the real world (i.e. Harry Potter). I have always had a huge check in myself about Harry Potter because it is not exactly a fantasy story - it is in fact a story about a boy from OUR world
(meaning that OUR God exists here, and our Devil) who is the hero because of his powers as a Wizard. This is not only promoting the occult and witchcraft on a fantastical/conceptual level, but is DIRECTLY promoting witchcraft and the occult in the REAL world.
While pure fantasy in this vein might encourage a child to want to be a great fantasical wizard in a fantasy world (which is not really a good thing, but is also not real or possible), a series like Harry Potter makes little boys and little girls want to actually BE witches and warlocks in OUR world (which is entirely possible and readily available if you know where to look - like your local family book store).
So basically I avoid occultic fantasy in general and real-world based occultic fantasy like the plague. There are tons of good books out there that take the occult out of magic, which I appreciate - Tolkien did this. If you read LOTR and really pay attention to what "Magic" is, there is no mention of occultic power used by the heroes - in fact none of the human
characters or heroes use what can be considered to be "magic". There are Elves, who are thought to be magical and use magic, however the Elven magic is actually an innate characteristic of their nature and is offered up to Illuvatar (God) as worship. Take away Elves and the only "Magic" in that book comes from the dark powers (Sauron) and the Wizards (Gandalf and Saruman). Tolkien's Wizards are often misunderstood as being human beings
with magical powers when in fact they are closer to what we would call angels. As such their "magic" is also infused into the nature of what they are and for what purpose they were created. When Saruman turns to sorcery this is depicted by machines and fires and artificial power destroying and perverting the natural order. This arrangment, of course, was all intentional, not because Tolkien was writing a Christian story but because he was a Christian writing a story.
I've read books where this comes out in the other way - one in specific that I can recall included a journey by the main character at the end of which he runs into a secret society of Elves, whom the book had setup as wise and sagelike people whose job it was to guide the main character to
the right way of doing things. At one point this character sees a painting depicting a meeting of "the gods" in which all of the Gods are portrayed as beams of light. When he questions one of the very wise elvish types about this, the response is "What did you expect the Gods to look like -
yourself? Only a fool believes that he is made in the image of god." As soon as I read that I felt that "slimed" feeling like I've just been party to something spiritually underhanded. The remark just seemed so specifically aimed at Christians and I couldn't get that out of my mind.
I just honestly had the feeling afterwards that the book was just no good, so I got rid of it and felt much better.
I think in the end it requires a lot of discernment to decide what is okay and what isn't - in my mind it is all about the author's intentions and their worldview and beliefs. The genre itself can be used in a very Godly way, or it can (as is usual) be used for something else. I myself have
been writing a very long fantasy story (see "The Chronicle of the Sentinels" under my links if you don't know what I am talking about) that I have intended to contain Christian allegory while being completely removed from the real world. There is "magic" involved, but I am writing this to behave (in an embellished way) the way it does in real life. Basically there are "Saints" who follow the true God and are granted certain powers by that God. These powers are always dispensed by the God of their world and are not contained in the person. Alternately there are evildoers who have access to supernatural powers by way of demonic entities and what we would call the occult. In this way I am trying to make a distinction between what the good and bad guys are drawing upon.. the bad guys use "magic", which is self-serving and evil, while the good guys call upon their power and authority from God and use it for God's purposes. In a way my story is almost like a more adult oriented Chronicles of Narnia - imagine C.S.
Lewis' theme done with a Tolkien-esque skin.
So, to summarize - I believe whole-heartedly that God can used ANY artform for his glory, and that the Devil can take that artform and corrupt into something else. I also believe that what is acceptable for some to read or watch or whatever may be different for someone else. While one person may be able to read Harry Potter without be affected negatively by it, I believe that children and anyone with an unhealthy fascination in the occult should definately stay away.
I am definately tired of fundamentalist types labelling anything that contains characterizations of evil or the occult or the devil as being "Of the devil". And there's a lot of people like that who will look at LOTR and say "Oh look how ugly that thing is! Look that man is a sorceror! This movie (or book) must be evil!". By that logic the Bible would be the most satanic writing in human history. The devil is real, and his tricks are real - portraying these realities is not wrong as long as we don't start to confuse evil with good and make the bad guys the good guys or the good guys good because they are in fact so bad. There is a difference between depicting evil and glorifying it!
Anyway that's enough outta me. Peace out.
I didn't really come into my own in (in terms of my walk with Christ) until I was around 14 or so, but I have always had the belief. I have also had my struggles on the issue of the "Good" and "Evil" inherent in things like fantasy and science-fiction as well as other art forms, specifically music and TV/Movies, etc, etc..
For a long while I really wasn't overly concerned about this, especially in terms of music which has been a big part of my life for a long time. As some of you may have noticed I listen to fairly heavy music and have done so since I was 17 or 18 - I really didn't censor it too much unless it was really blatantly gross or Satanic (i.e. Marilyn Manson), but because I pretty well hated Christian music and loved Industrial/Metal style stuff I got into a lot of Nine Inch Nails and things of that nature. I really had no interest in thinking about whether I should be listening to this or that because I just wanted music I could enjoy regardless of anything else.
It was probably a year or two ago that I really got turned onto Christian music in the vein that I
listen to and started listening to bands like Skillet, Thousand Foot Krutch, Massivivid, etc and realized that music is so much cooler when you connect to it spiritually. Since then I have been very careful about the music I listen to and have realized that there is a huge potential for evil
things to creep in through music and art in general.
Have said all of that - specifically speaking into the fantasy and sci-fi vein of things, I think there is definately a huge potential for both Good and Evil to be glorified through fiction, but I don't feel this is an inherent thing in the genre - rather to me is all dependent on the intentions and spiritual approach of the author.
To take C.S. Lewis for example - The Chronicles of Narnia were extremely allegorical of his Christian Faith and yet you can read it with or without that aspect and still enjoy the story as simply a fantasy story. Even for a non-Christian who reads it just for enjoyment, the spirit of the story will still have an impact because that was what the author intended.
Another example is The Lord of the Rings - to hear it from the author, his intention in writing it
was simply and purely to write a damn good story - he detested "allegory" in all of its forms and wanted to write something that was left up to the interpretation of the reader. Having said that - Tolkien was also a devout (believing) Catholic Christian and that aspect of his personality naturally comes out in his writing. So while he wasn't intentionally trying to "preach" through his books, his worldview and beliefs are in there.
I think this can definately be true of non-Christian writers as well - I've read a lot of "secular" fantasy and Sci-Fi that I have absolutely no problem with.. the author didn't have a purposefully anti-Christian agenda and their worldview and beliefs, while not necessarily Christian are also
not "Satanic" or whatever. One aspect of fantasy that I have always found problematic is the concept of "magic", which is always present but takes on many different forms and has different explanations depending on who is writing the story. I am always careful about any book that glorifies the use of the occult for power - this I have a problem with because intentional or not, the author is basically promoting witchcraft.
In this there is also a huge difference between pure fantasy (as in fantasy based in a completely fictional world with completely fictional spiritual dynamics, etc - i.e. LOTR) and fantasy based in the real world (i.e. Harry Potter). I have always had a huge check in myself about Harry Potter because it is not exactly a fantasy story - it is in fact a story about a boy from OUR world
(meaning that OUR God exists here, and our Devil) who is the hero because of his powers as a Wizard. This is not only promoting the occult and witchcraft on a fantastical/conceptual level, but is DIRECTLY promoting witchcraft and the occult in the REAL world.
While pure fantasy in this vein might encourage a child to want to be a great fantasical wizard in a fantasy world (which is not really a good thing, but is also not real or possible), a series like Harry Potter makes little boys and little girls want to actually BE witches and warlocks in OUR world (which is entirely possible and readily available if you know where to look - like your local family book store).
So basically I avoid occultic fantasy in general and real-world based occultic fantasy like the plague. There are tons of good books out there that take the occult out of magic, which I appreciate - Tolkien did this. If you read LOTR and really pay attention to what "Magic" is, there is no mention of occultic power used by the heroes - in fact none of the human
characters or heroes use what can be considered to be "magic". There are Elves, who are thought to be magical and use magic, however the Elven magic is actually an innate characteristic of their nature and is offered up to Illuvatar (God) as worship. Take away Elves and the only "Magic" in that book comes from the dark powers (Sauron) and the Wizards (Gandalf and Saruman). Tolkien's Wizards are often misunderstood as being human beings
with magical powers when in fact they are closer to what we would call angels. As such their "magic" is also infused into the nature of what they are and for what purpose they were created. When Saruman turns to sorcery this is depicted by machines and fires and artificial power destroying and perverting the natural order. This arrangment, of course, was all intentional, not because Tolkien was writing a Christian story but because he was a Christian writing a story.
I've read books where this comes out in the other way - one in specific that I can recall included a journey by the main character at the end of which he runs into a secret society of Elves, whom the book had setup as wise and sagelike people whose job it was to guide the main character to
the right way of doing things. At one point this character sees a painting depicting a meeting of "the gods" in which all of the Gods are portrayed as beams of light. When he questions one of the very wise elvish types about this, the response is "What did you expect the Gods to look like -
yourself? Only a fool believes that he is made in the image of god." As soon as I read that I felt that "slimed" feeling like I've just been party to something spiritually underhanded. The remark just seemed so specifically aimed at Christians and I couldn't get that out of my mind.
I just honestly had the feeling afterwards that the book was just no good, so I got rid of it and felt much better.
I think in the end it requires a lot of discernment to decide what is okay and what isn't - in my mind it is all about the author's intentions and their worldview and beliefs. The genre itself can be used in a very Godly way, or it can (as is usual) be used for something else. I myself have
been writing a very long fantasy story (see "The Chronicle of the Sentinels" under my links if you don't know what I am talking about) that I have intended to contain Christian allegory while being completely removed from the real world. There is "magic" involved, but I am writing this to behave (in an embellished way) the way it does in real life. Basically there are "Saints" who follow the true God and are granted certain powers by that God. These powers are always dispensed by the God of their world and are not contained in the person. Alternately there are evildoers who have access to supernatural powers by way of demonic entities and what we would call the occult. In this way I am trying to make a distinction between what the good and bad guys are drawing upon.. the bad guys use "magic", which is self-serving and evil, while the good guys call upon their power and authority from God and use it for God's purposes. In a way my story is almost like a more adult oriented Chronicles of Narnia - imagine C.S.
Lewis' theme done with a Tolkien-esque skin.
So, to summarize - I believe whole-heartedly that God can used ANY artform for his glory, and that the Devil can take that artform and corrupt into something else. I also believe that what is acceptable for some to read or watch or whatever may be different for someone else. While one person may be able to read Harry Potter without be affected negatively by it, I believe that children and anyone with an unhealthy fascination in the occult should definately stay away.
I am definately tired of fundamentalist types labelling anything that contains characterizations of evil or the occult or the devil as being "Of the devil". And there's a lot of people like that who will look at LOTR and say "Oh look how ugly that thing is! Look that man is a sorceror! This movie (or book) must be evil!". By that logic the Bible would be the most satanic writing in human history. The devil is real, and his tricks are real - portraying these realities is not wrong as long as we don't start to confuse evil with good and make the bad guys the good guys or the good guys good because they are in fact so bad. There is a difference between depicting evil and glorifying it!
Anyway that's enough outta me. Peace out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
