The Unlikely Birth

December 16th, 2009

So the story begins with Abraham. He was old - I mean, he lived a long time (longer than anyone these days does), but this happened when he was already a century old. His wife, Sarah, had a baby. And you know what? She was old, too - she was 90. Well past child bearing years. Yet suddenly, here was this senior citizen having a baby. That’s where the story starts. You see, Sarah gave birth to Isaac. Abraham had been promised, and he was looking for the fulfilment of this promise, that he would have descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky - or as the sand on the seashore. You know what, though? Isaac wasn’t the answer to that promise; he wasn’t the one who had so many children. He was, technically, something of a non-entity. No nation came to name itself after Isaac. He was mainly remembered in a formulaic way - because he came in between two “really” imporant people (as if he himself weren’t). You see, Isaac’s son (Jacob) became the father of the “large nation,” the one who “produced” the descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky, for Abraham. And God renamed Jacob Israel - and his descendants were known by his name.

And so we see that when God’s people (Abraham and Sarah) were really looking for something specific, God didn’t give it to them - He gave them the medium through which they would receive what they were looking for, and He did so by a miraculous birth. Sarah, in her old age, gave birth to Isaac - and he fathered Jacob, the start of Israel.

Consider Elkanah. He had two wives - Hannah and Peninnah. He loved Hannah, but she couldn’t bear him any children. She desperately wanted to have a son, and God did grant this to her - though she didn’t hold him to herself, but offered him up to the service of the Lord, under Eli the priest. This was, of course, Samuel. Now, at the same time as this was happening, the nation of Israel was wanting something. They wanted a king, like the other nations. All through the book of Judges, we are reminded that “there was no king in Israel, and every man did as he pleased.” It is clear that Israel needed someone to keep them in line (for some reason, they wouldn’t let God Himself keep them in line). If we follow the same formula as above, when God’s people are desperate for a specific something (a king, in this case), and there is a miraculous birth (certainly, Hannah was only able to bear Samuel because God specially gifted this to her), then the miracle child will not be the thing that the people desire - but will be the one who leads to the thing desired.

As Isaac was gifted to Abraham and Sarah, and he eventually fathered Jacob (whose sons became known as a nation, called by his own name given to him by God, Israel), so Samuel was gifted to Hannah - and even more, to Israel - and he eventually gave them the king that they wanted so much. First Samuel anointed Saul for this work, but he also anointed David, when the time came - and David has always been recognized as the finest king that Israel ever had. So while Samuel wasn’t the one who fulfilled the wishes of the people in himself, he was the one who brought about the fulfilment of their wishes.

Again, then, we see a miraculous birth. Elizabeth is past the age of child bearing. Yet she is gifted by God to bear a son. At this time, God’s people are looking for a Messiah - someone to save them, deliver them, from their enemy. John, again, is not the one to do this. John is the one who will point ahead to the One that will. John is the child who is born of human parents (just like Isaac was; just like Samuel was), by divine intervention, for a specific purpose. He points to the One that God’s people are looking for; the One they need. He points to Jesus.

Now, there’s something about Mary’s pregnancy that sets it apart from these other miraculous pregnancies. Mary is a virgin. Jesus is not the product of God “opening” a womb that is otherwise beyond child-bearing years. Jesus is not the product of God giving special dispensation to a couple (Elkanah and Hannah) who have otherwise been unable to have children. Jesus is something totally new to the Biblical narrative. Never before had God done something like this; never again will He. Jesus was pointed to by John, but John was a forerunner (in a similar sense to Isaac being the forerunner of Jacob, or to Samuel being the forerunner of David). Jesus pointed to Himself - He is the Way, the Truth, the Life; He is the Vine; He is the Bread of Life.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Snowed in

December 11th, 2009

So apparently there’s going to be another blizzard, the likes of which we haven’t seen here since… last Friday. At any rate, Cindy says that I’m confined to the house - which means that the Halo party will have to go on without me. Conversely, that means that Dransik has my attention for the day. Unfortunately, it also means I have to put off my gaming with Michael until Sunday - but that can be done easily enough. He gets a ride to church in the morning with Greg, can come home with me for the afternoon, and then get a ride home again with Greg after Evensong. Hopefully that will work.

So, what does a day of Dransik look like? Well, for one it’ll probably involve some people giving me some pixels (you know birthday presents in a video game…?). Hopefully it’ll involve a bunch of people coming online to play - do some group hunting, hopefully get the Game Moderators to give us a few events (a race, and a big hell monster attack), maybe do some group reminiscing. One friend has already offered to bake a birthday cake for me, in game (yes, it is possible to bake cakes in Dransik - if you take time to plant and harvest your crops, mill flour, milk cows, and gather eggs!). So I think that’ll be a good time. I’m certainly looking forward to it. Oh, and I have a birthday present for myself, on Dransik, too.

Posted in Who am I, and what do I do? | No Comments »

Birthday Bliss?

December 10th, 2009

So I thought it would be awesome to play lots of video games on my birthday. At first I wanted to have people over to my house - Michael and a few others - to just play some Battlefront II, or maybe Halo 2 (not Halo 3, as I only have 2 360 controllers, so two would have to be spectators). Subsequent to that, it turned out that Jeff Matsumiya was taking care of Jordan Henkelman (both from Holy Trinity), and that they wanted to host a big Halo 3 tournament at Jordan’s house - so why not on Saturday? So part of my birthday celebrations will be diverted to Jordan’s house for Halo 3, it looks like. Yet now, on top of that, I’ve really been itching for some more Dransik - and people who play that game with me are interested in having some kind of event for my birthday. But Dransik is only one player… so how do I fit that in? It’s painful to have so many friends that want to play with you!

Posted in Who am I | 1 Comment »

Where to?

December 8th, 2009

So my position at Holy Trinity is coming to a close. Due to financial considerations, I will not be continuing here beyond January. It hit us kind of hard at first, though we’ve gotten used to it, now. The question, though, is this: where do we go now?

I’ve spoken to a few bishops, and all of these conversations have been very positive. It seems that these types are enthusiastic about the possibility of having me work in their respective dioceses. Or is that just bishop talk? I remember back to a conversation I had with Ron Ferris years ago. I was a youth delegate to synod in Algoma, and we were at Bishophurst for a reception (Bishophurst being the bishop’s residence in that diocese). In a brief conversation with Ron, he commented that my father was doing a fine job in Thunder Bay - and that he could use a dozen more clergy “like him.” I commented that he probably said that to all of the pks (preacher’s kids) in the diocese. His answer was that he didn’t. I asked him what he said to the other ones. He said, “Nothing.” Now, I don’t put too much stock in that - it was a quick conversation. I’m sure that there were many things that he spoke to pks about, even if he wasn’t too impressed with the work that their parents were doing. That said, it was just a few months later that he asked my dad to be the Archdeacon in Thunder Bay. So he was certainly honest with me about his impressions of his ministry. So maybe it’s just the cynic in me that would think that a bishop would express interest, even if there was none. I’ve been burned before, so I guess a little cynicism is to be expected - though not affirmed. Being a trusting individual is one thing that I strive for.

So there are a couple of things on the horizon, I guess. The hard part is being open to all possibilities (thus, giving God free reign to lead me where He will, rather than where I will), even the ones that sound somewhat similar to possibilities that haven’t worked out for me in the past.

Posted in Anglican Church, Who am I | No Comments »

Sickness

November 20th, 2009

So we’ve been sick recently. I spent last Saturday in 3 layers, under blankets - managed to get up for Sunday morning, but was back to it in the afternoon and again on Monday. Michael caught it from me (probably last Wednesday when he was over to play video games with me), and was home sick on Monday as well. I missed a clergy retreat this week, because I was home sick. Then yesterday I was called at work to go pick up Adriana from the day home, as she seemed sick to Susan (luckily it was just diarrhea, probably stemming from her supper the night before, and hasn’t recurred). So we’ve been sick. Fortunately Cindy hasn’t been - but who knows how far off it is for her? She’s been short on sleep, and that often triggers it. Plus her parents are visiting right now, so who knows if she’s feeling any added stress - if so, that often triggers sickness as well. At any rate, we’ve been sick recently.

Well, so what? I mean, lots of people get sick. Has it been H1N1? I don’t think so - though there has been a bit of a fever with it. Oh, so here’s what I haven’t written here yet. I’m moving in a few months. Due to parish finances, my position is being terminated, and so I’ve got to find somewhere to go for the end of January. I’ve lost sleep over this - probably what triggered my sickness; I’ve been extra stressed about this - probably what triggered my sickness. So that’s what’s going on right now, for me. Are there any prospects on the horizon? Yes, I’d say so. What more can I say right now? About that… not much.

Posted in Who am I, and what do I do? | No Comments »

False dichotomy

October 9th, 2009

“I think we should agree with the statement of the Lausanne Covenant that ‘in the church’s mission of sacrificial service evangelism is primary’ (para. 6, “The Church and Evangelism”). Christians should feel an acute pain of conscience and compassion when human beings are oppressed or neglected in any way, whether what is being denied them is civil liberty, racial respect, education, medicine, employment, or adequate food, clothing and shelter. Anything which undermines human dignity should be an offence to us. But is anything so destructive of human dignity as alienation from God through ignorance or rejection of the gospel? And how can we seriously maintain that political and economic liberation is just as important as eternal salvation?”
…and so, “if pressed … *if one has to choose*, eternal salvation is more important than temporal welfare. This seems to be indisputable. But I want immediately to add that one should not normally have to choose. As William Temple put it, ‘if we have to choose between making men Christian and making the social order more Christian, we must make the former. But there is no such antithesis’.”

Written by John Stott. I’m a big fan of the guy - seem to quote him fairly often. So where is the accusatory finger pointing? At me. If those of us who hold that eternal salvation is the most important (aka, people becoming Christians, rather than justly treated in this society) - if we were better at showing that there is no dichotomy between the two, that the latter is a part of the living out of the former… would we be where we are today - with many pushing for just treatment in society as “the” end, in itself, of our faith? My suspicion is that this emphasis is a backlash against the extravagances of the other; just as the other can be seen as a backlash against the extravagances of the first. Where is unity, then? On the y-axis.

If we were better at loving God with our whole selves, and at loving our neighbours as ourselves - as a living out of carrying on the Great Commission - would we be where we are today? Isn’t the rise of putting “love” of others ahead of discipleship a reaction against our failure to do this well, in the past?

To whom does the burden fall? The Father. He sent the angel to herald the Good News; He sent His Son to deliver and, ultimately, BE the Good News; He sends the Spirit to witness to the risen Christ in our lives. It is only in the context of the Father being the Chief Evangelist that we can carry out the commission that He has given us - only in the context of being witnessed to by His Spirit that we can witness to others. And if this is the source of our strength; if this is the drive behind our evangelistic enterprise; if this is our power for advancing God’s Kingdom first - God’s Kingdom only - then William Temple’s words will be true for us: there is no such antithesis. And this will be understood by those around us - there is no antithesis. The coming of God’s Kingdom through His people brings the benefits of God’s Kingdom to those who aren’t yet.

Posted in Anglican Church, Reflections | No Comments »

Appointments

October 9th, 2009

So I finally broke down and went to see the doctor last week. I’ve been having trouble with my hip for years (I couldn’t even guess how many). I suspected that it might stem back from when I was hit by a speeding tractor tire tube with 5 of my friends on it, in high school (so 12, 13 years ago?). Seems it may be something else (though perhaps a combination?). The doctor referred me to a physiotherapist, who I saw a couple days ago. It turns out that from my hips down, my legs are the same length as far as the top of my knee caps… they’re the same length as far as the bottom of my knee caps… my left leg is 3/4 of an inch longer, below that. To compensate, my hip rolls backwards, thus my upper leg muscles are tighter than they should be - which adds strain when I’m stretching them out by doing any kind of physical activity. This is the source of my problem, it seems.

Answer one: stretches for the muscle. This will take away that extra tightness, and allow me to run/jump/be physical without hurting myself. Answer two: acupuncture. I’m going today, actually - apparently I’ll have to go another time (not sure when) as well. Answer three: an orthotic in my right shoe, to give me some added height on that side (otherwise, my left hip will just continue to roll to the back anyways, and the rest is useless).

So that’s what I went to the doctor to talk about. She said she wanted to see me in a month to see how things were going (which was what prompted me to see the physiotherapist as quickly as I did - otherwise I may have put it off, as I have for so many years already) - and she gave me an order to get some bloodwork done. Apparently she thinks it’s important for me to keep my diabetes in check. She’s probably right. Bleah!

Posted in Who am I, and what do I do? | No Comments »

Third Time’s the Charm

October 7th, 2009

Ok - so here’s a little more of the ‘rebuttal’ (in Michael’s words) that I had planned before, facing the idea that some folks seem to have about the Holy Spirit revealing the mind of Christ to the Church. For anyone just tuning in, there seems to be an idea going around which says that “as the Holy Spirit reveals the mind of Christ to us, we are not in need of the Bible (its value is as an historical document, perhaps, or a great literary work) - but only the Spirit.” My rebuttal of this view has been expressed by Matthew and myself in prior comments about voids, and the lack thereof. The Spirit does not speak into a vacuum, but into a substantial tradition - substantial because God’s Word, and therefore Christ’s mind, are already revealed to us sufficiently (as the phrase is turned) in Scripture. We recognize this revelation as sufficient, because otherwise those who have gone before have lacked something of what was necessary; we recognize this revelation as sufficient because it shows us Jesus, God’s ultimate disclosure of Himself to us. The point is this: The Spirit speaks into a substantial, real and relevant tradition which is bult upon God’s Word in the Bible (which we do actually believe is divinely inspired - for more on this, see my previous post), and so when we are discerning the Spirit’s revelation of Christ’s mind for the Church today, it is only appropriate that we seek harmony between the written Word and the newly-revealed word. These two are both revelations of the One God and His one good and perfect will for humanity.

So. What other rebuttal did I have prepared for this view? Matthew had been writing about the historic Christian creeds recently, and it got me thinking about them also. My mind was drawn to the various times that I’ve heard the sentiment expressed that: the creeds weren’t written to describe what we do believe, but to mark off what we don’t believe. The idea behind this sentiment is that the Nicene Creed (in particular) is not a positive statement of faith (telling us what we should believe - ie. Jesus is the Son of God), but is a negative statement of faith (telling us what we should not believe - read: heterodox interpretations of Christian faith). So the idea with this is that the creeds are written to restrict our faith (leftovers from our colonial past, no doubt - a highly patriarchal way of dealing with things).

Now, I’m not here to argue that point. The point of the Nicene Creed very well may be to shut out heterodoxy, rather than to fully define what orthodoxy is. But isn’t that freeing? If its purpose were to tell us the only statements that were appropriate to make re: Jesus, then wouldn’t that make for a very boring theology - where we could only puke up what the creed says, and nothing more? Rather, if its purpose is to shut out heterodoxy, then it actualy gives us license to say anything we want about Jesus, so long as we don’t actually say anything counter to the creedal statements - ie. go ahead and believe that Jesus is an alien who ascended to space in a spaceship that looked like a cloud, as long as you can still affirm that He is God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God - begotten, not made. Isn’t this the freedom that comes from having these kinds of statements?

As Nicky Gumbel says in the Alpha Course - a soccer game is ridiculous if the referee doesn’t know the rules, and if the boundary lines aren’t clearly marked out in the field. It is only when these boundary lines are drawn (so you know when the ball is “in” and when it is “out”), and when the rules are upheld (so a few cheaters can’t ruin the game for everyone else), that people become free to really play the game. It is only when our faith is clearly marked out, and when its tenets are protected and upheld, that people gain the freedom that comes with being in God’s Kingdom. And isn’t this what we’re all about?

So too, then, it is only when we uphold the revelation of Scripture as authoritative - that revelation by which we know that there is a Holy Spirit who guides us; that revelation which cautions us to be on guard against false teachers and powers of darkness; that revelation which exhorts us to test the spirits we encounter - that we be sure that we follow only God’s Spirit… it is only when we uphold the revelation of Scripture as authoritative - that revelation by which the Christian faith has been preserved and protected through the ages; that revelation which instructs us in knowing and recognizing the voice of our Saviour; that revelation which is “God-breathed” - in its own words… it is only when we uphold the revelation of Scripture as authoritative that we are given the freedom to claim the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. To claim the Holy Spirit under any other circumstance (however noble the circumstance may be) is to run the risk of blaspheming Him - a sin for which there is no forgiveness.

So let us be free in God’s Kingdom. Let us embrace His Word, and receive the guidance and warmth of His Spirit into our hearts. The life in God’s Kingdom is lived in worship - in being drawn close to Him. And He desires to draw us close, and He takes us as we are. Yet He does not leave us as we are. He draws us close to Him on our own terms, yet as He abides with us - as we learn to draw our life from the Vine - it becomes more and more on His terms. God will not be mocked.

Posted in Anglican Church, Reflections | 1 Comment »

Current project

October 7th, 2009

So I’ve recently taken two courses in Toronto. The first looked at portrayals of Jesus by different New Testament authors. It got me thinking about the way that these different portrayals get us thinking, and what they license us to do. For instance, perhaps the Gospel of Mark portrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God - and that it is in this role that Jesus is to be understood as the Messiah. Perhaps, then, Matthew portrays Jesus as the suffering King of David’s line - and that it is in this role that Jesus is to be understood as the Messiah. Each writer emphasizes those elements of Jesus’ identity that are most meaningful to him (safe bet that all New Testament authors are men - though also safe to say that there were women in the communities that these men and their writings rose out of). What do these different portrayals tell us? Are these to be normative (ie. the various depictions of Jesus in the New Testament are the only valid depictions of Jesus for Christians (without exception)? Or are they to be taken as requirements that allow for variation - so long as these Scriptural depictions are neither denied nor negated (ie. you can understand Jesus as a werewolf hunter, so long as you aren’t denying that He is God’s Son, David’s heir - the Messiah)? Or perhaps they are a license for us to accept a broad range of understandings of Jesus’ work and life (as each depiction in the New Testament rose from a different group in the early Church, are each of our groups today licensed, by their example, to define who Jesus “is” for us in our own terms)? I believe your answer to this will be dependent upon your understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit, and your understanding of what it means for Scripture to be “divinely inspired.” Also, I think that your understanding of Scripture’s “sufficiency” will influence your answer, too. But let’s leave this for a moment.

Shortly thereafter, I was able to take a course on Pneumatology (theology of the Holy Spirit). Again we are confronted with the way that New Testament authors emphasize different parts of the Spirit’s work in their writing. The same questions which were asked above, regarding Jesus, are begged at this point as well - regarding the Holy Spirit. And the same factors will influence our decisions. What are my answers?

Well, I think that as we approach the question of divine inspiration we do well to consider God’s guidance on a few levels. The first, and most often cited (I think), part of divine inspiration is the idea that the guys who were sitting and writing the words down were inspired in the words to write by the Holy Spirit. Now, it is unlikely that any of the men who wrote the words contained in the New Testament were actually conscious that what they wrote was Scripture - on par with the Old Testament, which they knew and held in high regard - but this does not rule out the Holy Spirit’s work through them as they wrote. While there may be parts of Scripture that show forth the very human-ness of their authors, this view of divine inspiration says that nonetheless, the Holy Spirit used these people in their cultural situations with their particular language skills and ways of relating what they had experienced of Jesus - the Holy Spirit used these people to deliver to Christians the very message that He knows they need to receive.

So that is the first part of divine inspiration. Secondly, I think that we see the divine inspiration of the Scriptures in the setting of canon. In an age when secularists seem to take pleasure in “revealing” the so-called “lost” gospels (gnostic writings which have, generally, been known to the Christian establishment for centuries - not least because they were decided against when the canon of the New Testament was being set), as though such revelations blew the current canon out of the water, as far as authoritative texts go. Rather, for us, we recognize all-the-more that the Holy Spirit has been active in delivering just the writings of the New Testament to the Church - for the very reason that there were other options out there! If the books in the New Testament had been all that the early Christians had written, then it would be no wonder that these were what we received. Yet consider how many options there were - how many so-called gospels to choose from Yet what was selected DOES (in spite of what some ineffectively argue) present a comprehensive and coherent picture of what Jesus was about, and of what it looks like and means to be His follower. This is evidence of the Holy Spirit’s guiding hand in that process (in spite of what some may say about political struggles in the Church, regarding acceptance of what being an “orthodox” Christian meant).

Thirdly, and finally (for today), let me say that I see the divine inspiration of Scripture in the reader. When a person sits down to read Scripture, the Holy Spirit speaks to them through those particular words which are contained therein - whether the person hears His voice or not, the Spirit speaks. It is in this way that the Spirit gives understanding of the Scriptures to the Christian, by faith. When we talk about the act of communication we always have two questions: what does the speaker mean? what does the listener hear? For divine inspiration to truly be about God communicating with people, we recognize that He inspires both the writer AND the reader. Anything less would be insufficient - what good would it be to be gifted by the Holy Spirit if we lacked a standard wherefrom the Spirit spoke to us? or what good would it be to possess the greatest literature (as, indeed, we do in the Bible) if we lacked the voice of understanding to interpret it for us? The Ethiopian eunuch failed to understand the Scriptures until Philip explained them, and he was then baptized - by which he received the Holy Spirit, and was able to share the Scriptures with others when he arrived home to Ethiopia.

So these are my answers regarding divine inspiration. I’m all about it. I do not look to the wisdom of Man (which is the option), though I do hold a degree in philosophy; I look to the revelation of God in and through His Word - for it is here that true understanding and inspiration lie.

Posted in Reflections, Studies | No Comments »

I don’t feel the “suck” (of a vacuum, I mean)

October 7th, 2009

Been listening to an awesome song called ‘Wait’ by the band Shaded Red (one of my favourites, these days) - they have a raw, rough sound… and they are passionate. Look it up on Youtube. Though this is somewhat beside my current point.

My current point is this: While the Spirit of God certainly DOES reveal the mind of Christ for us, to us - this does not take place in a vacuum. While we may accurately say that Christ’s mind is larger than what is contained in Scripture, this does not invalidate what is contained in Scripture as being an accurate portrayal of the mind of Christ! If Scripture does reveal Christ’s mind to us, and if we come to recognize the voice of God by reading it, then it is only by Scripture that we are able to learn to discern the revelation of the Spirit apart from Scripture. Otherwise we have no standard by which to test the revelation that we receive - whether it be from God or from the devil. This is why we faithfully seek the agreement of the Spirit with the Word - because it is one mind (Christ’s mind) which is expressed by both.

*Found this draft sitting in my box… didn’t finish it, but it’s the start of what I was going to post later that day.

Posted in Anglican Church, Reflections, and what do I do? | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries