Deanna and I have started a Vlog

Deanna and I have started a VLOG! Should be fun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvnyE-GS4AM

St. Clement I (4th Pope, 92-100 AD, 8/10)

St. Clement's writings are important for affirming the early authority of Paul's epistles, the canonical Gospels, and the integrated application of Hebrew scripture to Christian thought. But Clement's writings are also beautifully written on their own merit and affirm Orthodox belief.

"Day and night declare to us a resurrection. The night sinks to sleep, and the day arises; the day [again] departs, and the night comes on. Let us behold the fruits [of the earth], how the sowing of grain takes place. The sower goes forth, and casts it into the ground; and the seed being thus scattered, though dry and naked when it fell upon the earth, is gradually dissolved. Then out of its dissolution the mighty power of the providence of the Lord raises it up again, and from one seed many arise and bring forth fruit."

-The First Epistle of Clement

Integrity: 4.5/5

Grace: 3.5/5 

Saint Anacletus (3rd Pope, 76-92 AD, rating 7.5/10)

Very little is known about Saint Anacletus. He ordained 25 priests, and might have organized sections of Rome for each one. This might suggest to us that he was okay with certain elements of a having a church bureaucracy.

Speculative history suggests he might have been from a lower social order, and died a martyr.

Integrity 4/5

Grace 3.5/5

Total: 7.5/10

Saint Linus (The 2nd Pope, 64-76 AD, rating 7/10)

Saint Linus

While very little is known about Saint Linus, he appears to have been beloved by the Christian community. My modern bias makes me uncomfortable with him taking Saint Paul out of his own context and enforcing the edict that women cover their heads in church (1 Corinthians 11). Linus also furthered the institutional hierarchy of the church by appointing several bishops during his time. Linus was committed to God as martyr in 76 AD.

Integrity 4/5

Grace 3/5

Total Score: 7/10

  

The Popes! (The 1st Pope, Saint Peter, rating 4/10)

As a fun way of examining the history of the church, I have decided to go through all the Popes of the Roman church and give them a rating as well as a brief explanation for the score given. I will start with Saint Peter and work my way up through Christian history until all 266 Popes have been covered. The rating system will be out of 10 with two subcategories accounting for five points each. The two subcategories will be generally called Integrity and Grace. While there is certainly overlap between the two categories, Integrity will be based on the individual's willingness to hold to the teachings of Jesus and the Bible (in whatever compilation it may be at the time of that Pope's reign.) Grace will be based on that individual's desire to show compassion and forgiveness. I will try to pump out a new Pope rating ever 1-7 days.

Saint Peter (1st Pope)

Integrity 2/5

Grace 2/5

Total Score: 4/10

While Peter appears to have a brief moment of revelation in declaring that Jesus is "The Messiah, the Son of the Living God" in Matthew 16, he shows a rather hot and violent temper in cutting off a soldier's ear (Matthew 26). While I would be willing to chalk that up to simply having a love for Jesus, he than betrays Jesus by denying him three times only a few chapters later.

Now, one of the joys of the Gospel is that in being given grace we are often more willing to show grace. That doesn't seem to happen with Peter. Whether they deserve it or not Peter has no sense of grace for Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5, and is on the wrong side of the Gospel when he chooses to favour legalism over grace in his debate with Paul over the role of Circumcision (Acts 15).

One shouldn't mistake my critique of Peter for believing that Jesus was wrong to choose him however. I think Jesus chose Peter to be a leader of his church because the central point of Christianity is that we are fallen and need God's grace.

 

True Humility is Hope in Emmanuel

Hatred, Ignorance, Nihilism, these are just some of the way we can describe the condition of our splintered and pluralistic North American society this holiday season. We live on the edge of these emotional extremes because it seems there is so much to be thankful for and yet so much to get angry about. If you choose to dive into injustice in both your society and the world it is easy to be become jaded. Is the only option to demand violent revolution or give up on the world entirely? If you choose to embrace the privilege of being born into a society with a powerful economy, the tendency can be to become ignorant to injustice and numb to the suffering all around you. Maybe you are relatively poor in this society filled with wealth and resources. Are you supposed to not give yourself the best chance for survival by shopping at cheap yet oppressive corporate stores?

I think the answer for us today lies in giving up our false pride and embracing the true meaning of humility. Not a humility where we feel too insufficient and insignificant to even care. Nor a pride where we put others in danger for the sake of our own ideology. Choose to watch the suffering, soak it in, understand it, weep for it, and help where you can. Don't ignore it and go back to your shopping because you fear losing your safety and wealth. Don't ignore it because you feel there is nothing you can do anyway. Don't selfishly declare you're too weak to help. But don't delude yourself into thinking you're Jesus Christ either. Help where you can and leave the rest up to God. Today's injustices will not be won through violent revolution, nor can they be ignored and distracted by our wealth and consumption. Our best option is a slow resolve. Love people in small steps and small ways, don't expect to save people, but help them anyway.

Don't expect to end religious violence, welcome refugees anyway

Don't expect to end all poverty, give generously anyway

Don't expect to reverse climate change, care for the planet anyway

Don't expect to end global capitalism, resist it anyway

Emmanuel is coming, place your Hope in him.  

Syrian Style Christian Poetry

Some beautiful liturgical poems from my wife Deanna following the syllabic pattern of Saint Ephrem the Syrian: 

1st Sunday in Lent

You called us while we

       stood under the tree
reaching for the fruit
       under the fig’s shade
You say come and see -
       the prophets spoke true.

You are the one true vine!

Graft us to the branch
       let us bear good fruit
Give us eyes to see,
       You, the gardener.

2nd Sunday in lent

Healer, Redeemer,
       you heal all who come
We are lifted up
       through your forgiveness
Moses raised the bronze
       serpent to Israel

To you, all creation looks.

You stretch out your hands
       in your compassion
As you are raised up
       creation bows down.

3rd Sunday in Lent

One from Jesse’s line,

       You have submitted
to be High Priest;
       brought low to raise up;

Your promise, a bow

       over creation.

Your mercy makes your cross light.

The shoot of Jesse
       takes root and redeems.
You have cleansed the earth,
       making fertile ground.

4th Sunday in Lent

The Lord’s healing hand

       is above all others
Through Him, creation
       hears and speaks His name
Chosen by the Lord,
       Abraham went out.

The Lord calls out and draws in.

We praise the Lord for
      His deliverance!
The land has borne fruit;
       Your promise fulfilled.

5th Sunday in Lent

The way has been made,

       the ram was given;

You hung on the tree
       in your compassion.

The curtain pulled back,
       to heaven itself.

Your grace reaches to the depths.

Your deliverance
       is our assurance.
Ransom for many,
       you clothe us in light.

Deanna Hove on Non-Denominationalism, Grace, and Sacrament

The church that I grew up in was the same that I was dedicated in as a baby and worshipped at for the following twenty-three years. There are many aspects of this experience that I am still unpacking, which can be difficult to do so in earnest when it has been the primary informant for many of my early theological ideas. The church is affiliated with the Associated Gospel Church (AGC) denomination, and has close relationships with other Baptist churches around the city. Additionally, the local university’s seminary is Baptist as well, increasing my insulation to different theological streams. There was a strange tension between having the idea that we were very theologically informed, and yet having no formal catechesis process, which resulted in a kind of culture that the way things were done, and the way things were thought about, were simply what Christianity itself were. I only later understood why those who tended to call themselves “non-denominational” were primarily from Baptist, Evangelical upbringings.

Coming out of this context, I was struck with the depth and significance given of the Eucharist that was in other traditions. It is on this background that I will address the practice of taking the Eucharist at this church. How this was approached at church largely informed how I think of grace and how God relates to us both despite, and due to, the fact that Communion seemed to be a marginal practice. What follows is my evaluation of what the practices meant, or rather, how they manifested themselves to me. Without delving too far into my pre-teen psyche, I will say that my experience with preparing to take Communion was fraught with anxiety. It was generally frowned upon for children to take part in Communion, although some families did allow their children to do so. My parents were particularly insistent on not taking Communion before you could fully understand what was going on. This was part of an emphasis on internal preparation, and ‘readiness’ to come to the table. Turning thirteen allowed me to understand what was really going on through Christ’s death on the cross, however I had been barred from partaking for so long, I did not know how to proceed now that I was allowed to truly remember. It was remembrance that was emphasized, rather than any present grace or future eschaton with the recitation of Luke 22:19 as the closest manifestation of a liturgy. We took of the ‘bread and wine,’ manifested as crackers and grape juice (in individual cups), as what was important was what they represented, rather than the elements themselves. Lacking an overt explanation of why things were done as such implied that there was no objective importance to what was done – it was not tied into our larger experience as the church body or historical narrative, rather our personal reflection on what Christ did for us. Further, by focusing on remembrance there was overwhelming emphasis on Christ’s death. We remember, and are thankful for his sacrifice. 

There was a strange degree of solemnity for a purely symbolic observance. I am inclined to believe that the fact that it was symbolic made it that much less accessible. This emphasis on Christ’s sacrifice was reinforced through the most important and most serious Communion service on Good Friday. Throughout the year, Communion services were held once a month – although not explicitly stated, I was impressed with the importance of the service, with it only being once a month. It should not be taken for granted, or become routine by having it more frequently. The focus on Christ’s sacrifice, and thus his death for our sins reinforced that we needed to acknowledge what this meant for us, personally. The preamble before the monthly service was generally the same, in talking about the importance of remembering Christ’s sacrifice, and we ought to be sure to pay credence to the event of the crucifixion, and remember the price paid for our forgiveness. This seemed to undercut the grace given, as we were sure to feel the appropriate amount of regret as payment for this gift of grace. The operating paradigm was very much that of personal salvation. Salvation primarily means that we are to be thankful to God for forgiving our sins, because Jesus Christ sacrificed so much. We are able to come to the table because we have asked for forgiveness. There was a shift partway through my attendance of this church, from being served in our seats through passing trays of crackers and the juice (although they were still referred to as the bread and wine) to having the elements stationed at the front of the sanctuary. This move was made to represent our active choice to reach out to God and His gift of salvation, as we had to move up to the front, rather than passively receiving the elements in our seats.

The presentation of Communion as something that someone must individually prepared for, and individually partake in showed an incomplete picture of God’s grace. Communion was both incidental to our faith, while at the same time having almost unspeakable importance, in putting it off until one could intellectually grasp what they were entering into. This importance though was not explicitly named, and I would suggest the gravity with which it was presented (in terms of truly understanding Jesus’ sacrifice) tells only part of the story, and is frankly a shadow of what the sacrament of the Eucharist is supposed to be. I am largely in the reaction phase having stepped out of this context, yet I do not want to paint this experience in a wholly negative brush. There are certainly elements of this practice that are important, however the practices enacted that they are trying to avoid (ritualism, transubstantiation, etc.) are not such that they must be so obviously side-stepped as to make Communion hardly a sacrament.

The main elements that were distinctive of this Communion service, or spoke directly to how this congregation conceptualized God were that it was explicitly a symbolic gesture, it was an act of remembrance, particularly remembering Christ’s sacrifice, it was highly individualized and internalized. By not framing a Communion service as sacramental, that is, not a means in which God interacts with us in the physical world, it creates a dualistic framework between spiritual reality and corporeal reality, individual, inner salvation and the ongoing redemption of creation through Christ. This individualized approach not only creates the false dichotomy, but then relegates our salvation to the ‘spiritual side.’ This lends itself to become a personalized experience, and general conception of salvation. Communion is about your response to God, rather than God’s active work in the world – or, simply both. Our encounter of God’s grace does not precipitate at the table itself, but rather in what occurs prior to the table. There is no conceptual overlap through the consumption of the elements and the reception of grace. We are closer to God because we have once again come before him, and have acknowledged his sacrifice, not due to any grace or effectual change that is a result of participating in the Eucharist. There was dialogue of grace, and our reception of God’s grace through Christ’s death and resurrection, but Communion was not a culmination of this. Emphasizing personal preparation to come to the table through reflection, repentance, and prayer makes the elements an accessory – the work has been done. Although approaching the table was explained to be a response to God’s grace, there was still room left for coming improperly (unconfessed sin, or ‘inadequate’ repentance). This is not to dismiss the gravity of abusing the Eucharist, however this is generally warned against due to the real substance that is present in the elements.

Having Communion as a symbolic, internal exercise reduces the scope of what the Eucharist is meant to capture. Focusing on Christ’s death and resurrection very much historically dates the touch point of God’s grace. The Eucharist is indeed grounded in real events in human history. However, when primarily manifested as an exercise of reflection, this becomes limited to an event in the historical past, rather than an event that has far-reaching (all-reaching, rather) effects. Even more than ‘ripple effects,’ there is no ongoing work that is equally grounded in human historical narrative. The message of hope that is presented in this model of Communion is that we have hope because we have been redeemed, but this is limited to our present and past condition. It proclaims that Christ has died for our sins, yet the scope of that message is stunted.

A foundational principle in rhetoric of the sacraments, why they are what they are, and their importance to the Church is that God implemented them due to our creaturely nature and the difficulty that comes with this. He gave us something physical to orient ourselves, as we could not otherwise grasp spiritual principles. This may at first seem to be a simplification of the human condition, or denying the idea that we are both physical and spiritual; having physical reminders is helpful, but without them we cannot begin to encounter God? However, in a real way, we do indeed need physical reminders, as is evidenced by what becomes of our sacraments when this reality is ignored. Even more, we do not simply need physical reminders of spiritual things, but an incarnational model of how God manifests himself in the world.

Regarding the solemnity that surrounded a Communion service at this church (due to the focus on personal sins, and Jesus’ death), there are important theological impulses behind this, and though the practice should not be limited to this focus, it does well to highlights the difficulty of our sinful nature and how it is a real barrier to us before God. It does not fully align with the symbolic nature of that particular service of Communion, yet it is an aspect of salvation that should not be glossed over; our brokenness is complete before God. That said, this is grossly limited in terms of the story it tells and stops short of the nuances of how this gap is bridged. Focus on mental preparation places an undue burden on the receivers of God’s grace. In this context the elements are not an intermediary to God’s grace, but an expression of having already been cleansed. In an ideal context this may not be as problematic as it is often manifested: we remember, we are thankful for God’s grace and come to the table. What makes this difficult to achieve in many similar contexts is that Communion is primarily framed as remembrance, and thus an exercise in re-living the death of Christ and the gravity of sin that brought it about. In this light, we do indeed respond to God’s grace, but this is secondary. The largest misappropriation of the elements in this context is that it inadvertently paints a picture in which God receives us at his table only once we have mentally and emotionally realized the beauty of his grace.

Indeed, God’s grace is sufficient, and grace itself is not transmitted through the ingestion of the elements. Where this story stops short is that we cannot actually be ready to come to the table in a fundamental sense. That is, we do not make ourselves ready. The message and function of the Eucharist is God’s coming to meet us, rather than us preparing to meet God. 

The Left Behind Series May Be Wrong – But the Rapture Still Exists

There have been a lot of warranted theological disagreements with recent release of another Left Behind movie. However some of these these disagreements have led people to conclude not only that 1 Thessalonians 4 needs to carefully reexamined from its modern evangelical interpretation, but that the very idea of people being taken away and left behind is wrong. Those who want to ignore a Rapture even existing tend to maintain that Christ’s central purpose for return is only to heal a broken world. While I agree that God will come and bring restorative justice to the whole planet, Matthew 25:41 also declares that “two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.” And Revelation 21:8 takes it a step further saying that “the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” This is not a pretty picture. I am not pretending to fully understand all that this might mean, but we shouldn't run the other direction and fool ourselves into thinking that Christ’s return is only going to be lollipops and rainbows; because the Bible seems to say otherwise.

Hollywood Actors: A Living Metaphor for Postmodern Pluralism

Often when we examine the life of a hollywood actor we assume their high probability for personal tragedy simply comes with the territory of wealth and celebrity. However, sometimes I think the negative spiral of an actor’s life has more to do with the intrinsic nature of their profession then we often realize.

The hollywood actor is intimately connected to the postmodern concept of fractured worldviews and the idea of play within a pluralized individual autonomy of choice. A well trained actor will assume a new perspective on life with each new role. When an actor performs, their deep devotion to the role is often illumanting but can be dangerous for their personal well being. I question the coincidence of Heath Ledger committing suicide after intricately putting inside himself the deep Nihilism that is at the heart of the Joker.

I think it is due to the very nature of their profession that quality actors often become uneasy with their own personal worldviews. My sense is that with each new role you become less able to ground yourself in a single foundational perspective on life. For some (including myself) this might seem exciting, but I think ultimately it ends in uncertainty and fear.

Interestingly, actors with a fixed worldview tend to play the same type of role. Clint Eastwood is always the tough quiet type, Arnold Schwarzenegger always has a Gun, and Chuck Norris is always well Chuck Norris.  While I am sure we can find examples that fit outside my theory, the analogy generally seems to fit. The more we play with different metanarratives throughout our life, the more uncertain and shaky our world seems to become.

The beauty of this pluralistic life is that we are able to be open to different viewpoints and other ways of living life. The tragedy is often the loss of belonging and foundations for living. Searching for a balance between these two frameworks has often lead me back to my own faith. Christianity declares that objective singular truth chose to enter into the diversity of created human beings. The Word of God remains the Word of God whether it is translated into Greek, Hebrew, or Swahilli. Followers of Christ are being transformed into his image whether we are male or female, Jewish or Chinese. Christianity teaches that diversity and singularity are not so much contrasting as they are paradoxical. We are one in Christ but have individual roles to play. We are different colours in the spectrum of light.  

Learning to Submit to Authority While Remaining Honest About Injustice

                In Ephraim Radner’s book Hope Among The Fragments he suggests that the Donatists “saw the practices of the Christian Church as corrupted and corrupting because of the sinful character of particular priests and lay people who might participate in them,” while “Augustine insisted that Christ’s sanctifying work in baptism and ordination, in particular, was effective over and beyond whatever sullying secrets were harbored by Church members who might participate in these rites. Since God alone effected his plan for the Church through these rites, the disposition of human participants was not determinative of their value for the Church (or world) as a whole” (Hope Among The Fragments, Ephraim Radner, 153).  

               

                 On one level Augustine is right. The work of the Holy Spirit will continue to move throughout history regardless of how sinful people attempt to pervert God's Work. But this is not simply a debate about the importance of human righteousness vs. Divine Providence. The Donatists were Christians before Rome had become a Christian state and they were economically oppressed as Christians by Rome. Now this same “Christian” Empire, was trying to tell them that they are no longer the real Christians. In fact with Augustine’s newly minted Just War Theory, they would be violently oppressed as heretics (The Story of Christianity, Justo Gonzalez, 176-179). This is the danger of our conformity to power and authority; all too often it produces numbness to injustice. Yet standing up for our individual convictions in defiance of our leaders often undermines the common good of a society or religious community, and only further creates more division and injustice.

    How then are we to act in the midst of this dilemma? Scripture calls us to submit to the authorities in our lives even as we look for opportunities to communally push our leaders toward a greater good. 1 Peter 2 tells us that as “slaves, in reverent fear of God” we are called to submit ourselves to our “masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who treat you unjustly” (2:18-20). Jesus suffered patiently, “ giving us an example to follow in his footsteps; he does not lash back, he does not resist, he trusts only in God’s judgment” (1 Peter 2:21-25). The leaders of the church are called to be “willing examples of Christ’s sufferings for their flock,” while “others in the church are to be subject to the elders themselves” (1 Peter 5:1-5).

  

Learning how to leave room for a Prophetic Imagination within this hierarchical based church structure is the central question on my mind these days. How are we to imitate a Christ who eats with, washes the feet of, and maintains Judas’ place as an Apostle (even as Christ knows what Judas intends to do), but also calls out corrupt religious leaders as a “brood of vipers” (Matthew 23:33)?

Pain and Promise: Thoughts on Historical and Figural Interpretation

                The misuse of Scripture by the historical critical perspective has been well documented. Whether it is the silliness of the Jesus Seminar, or trying to prove that Adam and Eve once existed as historical people, these interpretive experiments have often been adventures in missing the point of the canonical Scripture. The central interpretive purpose of the Christian church should be to see Jesus Christ as the “golden thread which runs through the whole of the Scripture” (Gertrude Hove). 

For theologian Ephraim Radner this implies a “deliberate setting aside of certain historical presumptions” for the sake of seeing Jesus Christ in the text. When parts of a text identify characteristics of Jesus, we are called to see the text as a description of Jesus Christ. When a texts’ “narrative whole resonates with the grande themes of Jesus own life” we are called to see Jesus Christ. This way of thinking about Scripture rests on the presupposition that God is ordering “the Bible according to his own creation and recreation of human history” (Hope Among The Fragments, 98-99). It should show us that Christ’s suffering, his broken body, is calling us to suffer for one another as his Church (Colossians 1:24). 

In our modern context the problem that sometimes occurs with this Christological reading of Scripture is that we jump straight to our new life in Christ without recognizes the reality of suffering that still exists in a world that is not yet. We assume that reading Christ into the whole of the Scripture means that we can ignore the pain and brokenness of a Hebrew people, and say “well things were pretty bad before Jesus, but now that we have been made new we don’t have to worry about that anymore.” We assume that because were in Christ things will be so much better, thing will be so much happier, everything will be “so radically new” as Brian Walsh poignantly suggests in his most recent Advent blog post.

 A lot of this is due to the influence of the “principalities and powers” that surround us. The empire wants to numb us so we don’t feel the pain of our own lives, and the lives of those around us (so will continue to operate without question in the system it has designed). This is where a historical look at Scripture can reveal the pain of the people in that text, and relay to us our own pain that we so much want to resist. In Walter Brueggeman’s “Unity and Dynamic in Isaiah” he critiques the father of modern canonical interpretation Brevard Child’s for jumping to quickly from the Judgment of early Isaiah to the promises of God in later Isaiah. For Brueggeman the Judgment or social critique of early Isaiah leaves room for an embrace of pain in the middle of the book and slow movement toward God’s promises. Child’s is moving too quickly from the old to the new without recognizing the pain that is involved. It is here where a historical look at the people in Scripture can keep us in the reality of our brokenness as we “wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies” (Romans 8:23). While Radner sees the over emphasis of historical critical tools as “an almost gnostic yearning for release from a world that is to be cut loose from God” (Hope Among The Fragments, 108) Walsh and Brueggeman see an overly spiritualized view of Scripture as its own gnostic denial of pain in the Christian life.            

Stephen Harper is not the Problem; You Are

I have to admit I am getting a little sick and tired of quasi-marxist Christians demanding a radical shift in the global economic system, when positive change is more likely to occur from compromise, negotiation, and relationship. The reality is that Saint Paul likely sold his tents for.....wait for it......money, Jesus Christ likely sold his furniture, and Lydia sold her purple clothe. They operated within a market driven model. This wasn't compromising Jubilee or the early Christian model of giving to one another “as they had need” (Acts 2:45, 4:32-35) it was choosing to operate in the world they lived. It was choosing to exist as Christians between the now and the not yet. It seems so often people want to operate out of a black and white moral compass regardless of their political or theological worldview. Calgarians are the conservative Christians who even entertain parties like the Wild Rose, yet their Mayor is Naheed Nenshi. People from Toronto are the progressive liberals, yet they elect Rob Ford. Maybe the reality is that people are more willing to entertain different political and religious systems if they perceive them as coherent to their context and social need. My Dad is a small-c conservative Christian who voted for the Green party in the last federal election. He votes Wild Rose provincially. He didn't do it because he was blinded but God himself on the road to Damascus, he did it because Elizabeth May had the most fiscally responsible budget model, aside from an obviously corrupt and manipulative Stephen Harper. We don't have to operate as black and white ideologues to enable change, we need to listen to each other and be willing to compromise. This is true courage. I long for the day when Jubilee is enacted by God himself, but until that day comes we need patiently and relationally promote Kingdom values even as we choose to work within our social and economic context.  

Canada’s Broken Prophet -- Theoren Fleury

The popular television series Friday Night Lights has a special resonance for those who have been influenced by and recognize the deep relationship between a specific sport and country whose national identity is affiliated with it. In Friday Night Lights that “country” is Texas and their sport is Football. In Canada it is hockey.  As a Canadian kid whose only dream was to be a hockey player until I was 19 years old, Theoren Fleury was my role model. Theoren Fleury was a smaller player whose ability was not fully recognized until he proved himself on the biggest stage (The NHL). He was skilled, fast, and most importantly, he was fearless. Like Fleury, hockey was the best way for me to glimpse heaven, to glimpse God’s glory. “Salvation and escape” and are not too strong of words to describe this game for young kids in Canada (Playing With Fire, 8). Hockey was the constant, in the midst of whatever we were dealing with off the ice.  I can only imagine what it would be like for a young player’s coach to betray him the way Graham James did. As a young boy Theoren Fleury was sexually and emotionally abused. But Fleury would stay quiet because he decided that in order to reach his promised land (The NHL) he would have to be willing to descend into hell itself.  

This breach of trust and abuse from his coach would lead him down a trail of drug, alcohol, and sex addiction. With how the media critiques the Catholic church it might seem unbelievable to learn that his childhood priest was a source of comfort and friendship for him, while Graham James the noble hockey coach was the villain. But this is the reality of power, it doesn't matter where it is coming from, it will almost always lead to corruption. In an interview with sports writer Eric Francis, Graham James is reported to have said he wished he was born in Roman times because back then “it was acceptable to have boys as partners” (Playing With Fire, 154).

In his own life, Fleury has not always been a good husband or father. Yet he has asked those he loves for forgiveness and is often a powerful voice against the corruption of his sport and country. While playing for a First Nation’s team toward the end of his career (he is part Cree and Metis) he experienced first-hand Canada’s racism against Native people.  In an 2005 interview with the Edmonton Sun Fleury states:

"The one thing that's really bothered me through this whole thing is the prejudice, still, in this country when it comes to Native people. I've seen it first-hand in every building we go into, how these people are treated, and it's absolutely embarrassing to be a Canadian and know that stuff is still going on."

This is coming from a guy who is deeply in love with his country and has helped us win a number of gold medals on the world stage, including the Olympics in 2002. I have never seen anyone more excited to make a team than when Fleury made Team Canada in 2002.

                

              Today, Fleury is sober and grounded in the reality that there is a power greater then himself.  He uses the tradition of his ancestors to keep himself centered and in relational awareness of God (The Great Spirit). He uses sage, sweet-grass, and smudging, to “get rid of negative spirits” and buries ashes in the four corners of his yard “every morning for protection” (Playing With Fire, 337). He also uses the ancient method of “sweats” to purge himself of negative thoughts, and is a public speaker for Native kids all over the country. In a time where a more militant secular worldview is challenging people of all religious worldviews, the elders of the First Nations people all over Canada fear that “the heart of the people will disappear because their children don’t speak the language or follow the traditions” (Playing With Fire, 322).     

               

               I fear this for Christianity as well. While it is the most popular religion in Canada, it is being transformed by powerful societal undercurrents of corporate division, and individual autonomy. Fleury’s mom was a Jehovah’s Witness, which according to Fleury taught him mixed messages against his Catholic upbringing because the Trinity was taught to be “inspired by Satan” yet here he was “praying to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost every day" he thought he "was in league with the devil” (Playing With Fire, 12). Fleury is moving in the right direction by looking into the tradition of his ancestors, and concerning himself with the public good of his community. He has begun to appreciate what Christian theologian G.K. Chesterton calls the “democracy of the dead.”

      

Ignoring Pain with Post-Liberal Theology

Remember the good ole days when Christianity was all anyone ever talked about? You know those good ole days...sometime between 400 and 1800 Common Era. When all we talked about was the nature of Christ instead of Miley Cyrus. We knew the Bible inside and out because MTV didn't exist yet. The Bible was about something more then just who wrote it, when, and why...it was about canonical inspiration, absolute truth...

The great theologians of the middle ages and the reformation had a lot of important theological insights, and much of it relates to the world we live in today. But the people who wrote the Bible itself also have a lot to say to our world. They often speak as a community in exile, often in the midst of persecution, often as sinners...they like us lived outside of Christendom. We like them live in a world where suffering and pain is a reality that exists all around us and the Bible has a lot to say about pain. Scripture is about more then just intertextual alignment.

In his unpublished systematic theology Post-Liberal theologian David Yaego tells us that before we engage in modern historical interpretation we need to first and foremost see Scripture as a signpost for our new reality in Christ. I would believe Yaego if every reference to our current culture context wasn't about theological correction...here is how the feminists get it wrong..here is how our Christian culture falls into modalism...Who are you defending Orthodoxy to anyway? Who do you think is reading your book?

If we want Scripture to point to Christ in this world, here and now, then we need to acknowledge the suffering that is in it. Israel was God's chosen people and they failed. They got into bed with idols, they committed genocide, they were people enslaved who chose to enslave. Why? To build a temple. Even if God remains faithful to them, there is still consequences for actions and this consequence is often exile.

In the new covenant Christians are God's chosen people and we to have failed him. Christ called us to live counter culturally against the oppression of women, against the segregation of human races, against the slavery of people. There are consequences for actions and refusing to face this reality will not helping anything. I get it. If you read scripture solely for intertextual insight you never really have to deal with the emotional consequences of the people your reading about. Even better you can further transpose an Augustian, Lutheran, or Thomist perspective and get another step further away from the contextual reality and another step further away from the suffering and injustice that is in the Scriptures and in the world around you. You never really have to deal with the emotional and physical reality of how Israel failed and you never have to deal with how Christians failed and continue to fail.

Intertexuality is great, but it is meaningless if it isn't interrelation. I am not saying we pander to political ideologies or stop declaring the creeds. I am saying that only being a good Christian who reads his Bible, reads theology, prays, and goes to Church is ignoring reality; it is living in a fantasy world. Peter J Leithart declares that “Only the good can be good teachers; only the obedient can hear.” I am not convinced. I think the broken also hear God, the broken teach us about his true nature of Grace. Israel is desperate and God calls them to listen, Peter denies Christ and the prophecy is remembered, Paul is broken on the road to damascus and God speaks. The consequences for their actions have only just begun, but God is heard loud and clear. If we assume that we are to just live moral and obedient lives and relevant interpretation will come, then we are fooling ourselves.

Leithart goes on to say that “Again and again, Israel closes herself to God’s word. Isaiah preaches to the deaf and dull of heart, and Jeremiah’s audience closes its ears to his stern message of doom. Jesus, the last prophet, hears and does his Father’s will, and he spends his days making priests. With a touch, he loosens tongues to sing his praise. By the finger of his Spirit, he bores into our ears so the Father’s word can enter and capture our hearts.”

Amen. But we don't look like Jeremiah or Isaiah. We look more like King Saul desperately trying to hold onto his Kingship, we look more like David on his deathbed. If we want to convict culture and inspire new realities like the prophetic voices of old, we need to to first admit we have lost the kingdom, and for good reason.

Russell Brand the Postmodern Prophet

            The first time I encountered Russell Brand's thought was when he interviewed the Westboro Baptist Church and juxtaposed them with some rather liberal Christians. I found this exercise pointless and doubted I could ever give him another chance at bringing forward any meaningful conversation or thought to my universe. However, after a couple months I realized that if I can still enjoy Richard Dawkins on occasion, despite that fact he makes similar types of fruitless arguments toward the end of his book God Delusion (as though a handful of rude Christians or a handful of really open minded Christians represent any real spectrum of Christian thought) then I can give Brand a second chance as well.  

            My girlfriend also happens to be rather fond of Brand, so in an effort to give him a second chance, I acquired tickets for his Aug 23^rd show in Calgary. The stand up show which is entitled Messiah Complex represents an interesting mix of religious pluralism, a touch of postmodern philosophy in the vein of Jean-Francois Lyotard's incredulity toward's metanarratives (whether Brand realizes it or not), along with a few standard sex jokes.

           

            Brand is fully aware that in today's context we have to be intentional about who we are and what we want to follow; otherwise what we understand to be true will be falsified and manipulated for the purpose of those who seek to control us. State authority, corporate advertisers, and religious leaders will often seek to manipulate what is true for their own gain. Che Guevara was a man who was respected for his firm communist ideology along with being incredibly violent. Today he is reduced to a t-shirt logo. Ghandi has become the symbol of all that is good in the world, yet he treated his wife in a way that most today would not approve. In order to describe the world faithfully it requires nuance.

Most impressive was Brand's introduction of modern philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and G.K.Chesterton. Brand described how Nietzsche declares that “God is dead” because society is no longer under the authority of a Christian nation. According to Brand, Chesterton counters that despite this reality; people will still create objects of worship of their own accord. This warning of idolatry continued all throughout his show. In the midst of a diverse and packed out crowd of young and old, Brand was preaching to an audience that most Canadian churches today would dream of having.

While I am excited for the ideas that Russell Brand is bringing forward in his most recent tour, my warning to him is that as a religious pluralist he will never truly be able to immerse himself in the truth of any one religion. For Brand the central message of Christ is simply to love one another. And this generically seems to be what he believes to be the centrality of most religions. By denying the particularity of a belief system, he will never be able to experience the truth of it from the inside out. It will always be as a passing critical observer. While Brand is correct in suggesting that there really is no conclusive historical evidence for any one faith over another, this doesn't mean that the best way to engage them is as though you are at a buffet. Christianity is most real when you are inside of it, and I assume that most people of faith who believe their religion to be ultimate reality would suggest the same. This doesn't mean that there isn't truth in most religions; it simply means that in order experience the heart of a tradition, you have to enter into it fully and submit yourself to it. For us Christians this means that Jesus Christ has never given us the option to simply see him as a good guy or a great teacher. He demands that we see him as God incarnate; he demands that we see his death and resurrection as the ultimate work of his power and glory for the world he created. If we refuse to see this, the truth we see in Christ will always be but a hint of who he truly is. If Russell Brand refuses to dive into one religion with all his heart, he will always be left with crumbs of truth, and never the meal.   

Where the Newsroom goes wrong and the idolatry of Nationalism

Over the last few days I have had the chance to catch up on a few episodes of my new favourite television show the Newsroom. It is a powerful show about journalists working to properly inform voters about political and economic forces running their country. So far it has been a show which has stood for truth, equality, and democracy. Unfortunately this has not been true for the most recent episode I watched where the center of the plot surrounds the killing of Osama Bin Laden and the relief/excitement everyone has at the declaration of his death. Osama Bin Laden was a pretty awful guy. He manipulated his own people into believing in him as a spiritual leader and force for good against western powers, all while accepting money from the United States. He has also likely been behind several violent attacks against opposition countries including American embassies in east Africa. However, there is very little evidence he had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. He did not take credit for the attacks until three years after, and had repeatedly denied he had anything to do with them up until then, though he praised whoever did commit the atrocity. It seems all to convenient for him to claim credibility for the attacks in '04 and would use his new stage to further his message of hate.

I don't like Osama Bin Laden, but the Newsroom has still lost its integrity with me at this episode. While the show tries to come off as a supporter of libertarian thought, it reeks of a nationalistic liberal agenda. The killing of Osama Bin Laden was plain and simply about making the American people feel better about themselves and their country. We caught the bad guy, America is safe, secure, and indestructible once again. Don't mess with America or you will go down like Bin Laden.

It was another Canada yesterday, another year I felt like a Jehovah's Witness on Halloween. I don't celebrate Canada day. It's not because we're a country that supports the abuse of the homeless so we can play sports with other countries, its not because one segment of our population believes justice is locking people up and throwing away the key, while another segment celebrates doctor's who kill unborn babies. It is because Jesus Christ tells me that I am a citizen of absurd grace, I am subject to a King who despite his anger towards injustice loves Osama Bin Laden. While Barack Obama understands very little about theology, he has one thing right about Jesus Christ, His teachings will never cohere with the American ideology. You cannot support the absurd message of Jesus of Christ and support nationalism, it will simply never make sense.

"This Too Shall Pass" Treeplanting and the Importance of Death and Ressurection in the Midst of a Static Empire

The prominent tone of our culture is to embrace superficial change and promote static living. When God frees his people from Egypt and sends them out into the wilderness to rely only on him the insecurity is barely tolerable. They have no way of physically seeing how or when God will feed them and sustain them and so they complain if "only we had died by the Lord’s hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death" (Exodus 16:3). Yet it is these periods of change and limited resources where we are most open to growth and change. The problem of living in a well-established empire is it is easy to become numb to our true purpose and the suffering of others. As long as you play by the rules of the empire you will remain fed, clothed, and housed. Your God given potential to build, imagine, and live for the betterment of others may never be reached, but your hardship will remain small. This is the quandary of the Hebrew people in this passage. They can go back to Egypt and live as slaves to the empire of Pharaoh or they can live into the promise of Genesis 12 that through them "all peoples on earth" will be blessed. The human heart was made for more then just a static slavery to the empires of our world. We were made for a radical dependence on God where we name, produce, and take care of his planet. Our unique gifts our purposed for relationship. These temporal tasks allow us to continually live into a life of death and resurrection. We are made for life and death.  In Tolkien's Middle Earth imagination the greatest gift God bestows on humanity is death. The great elves grow weary of life overtime, while we die and our made new in Christ. Leaving the mystery of our final apocalyptic home aside, this is what we are made for.

In my own life treeplanting has helped me to experience this reality. A few days ago I was planting trees on a particularly cold and rainy day. While it had been raining in intervals throughout the week it came crashing down on this day. The temperature dipped to zero, the wind and rain cut inside me, the cold earth caused my hands to be barely operational, and the reality of death and resurrection moved me forward.
"This Too Shall Pass" allowed for each step to continue. "This Too Shall Pass" allowed for one more tree to be planted until the truth of that day's death and next day's resurrection became reality.

It is no wonder then that great empires of our world want nothing more than to deny this reality. All efforts are made to maintain the status quo, death is discussed at a minimum. Conversations about suffering are about as impolite as the Religion which so deeply promotes its discussion. Even as the collapsing utopian fantasy of the empire becomes blatantly obvious, the establishment will deny their future death until the very end. Until that end those who suffer will remain unheard, the homeless will continue to be sent to the outskirts of Vancouver, the jails will continue to be full of first nations people who barely had a chance, and the empire of Stephen Harper will continue to form a ridiculous line between the criminal offender and the victim as though they are not interconnected. Those of us born on the track of the empire will continue be numbed by the suffering all around us when our central value is based on the measurement of that empire. It is here where we must be continually open to deconstructing the false fantasy of the empire through poetry, music, art, and story. This is a major purpose of the prophets and poets in the Hebrew scripture, and every empire interested in maintaining their stability and oppressing our imaginations is "threatened by the artist" who is willing to speak truth to their power (Walter Brueggemann, Prophetic Imagination).

In Response to Pope Francis: A Call For Mystery

In a recent article Pope Francis declared that some people can be good and not Christian; I agree. In fact both the Pope and I agree with the some foundational principles of creation and redemption. Everything is originally created good. Man and woman as image bearers of God are created very good. This original blueprint becomes the ultimate redemption promise of Christ who through his Death and Resurrection has sought to restore and work all of creation for his purpose. Colossians 1 tells us that in Christ "all things have been created through him and for him" (Colossians 1:16). This includes Atheists, Buddhists  Muslims  etc. "Through him" all things have been reconciled to him, "whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross" (Colossians 1:20).

Beyond this agreement however I am uncomfortable with the  "if-then" clause he is proposing. The Pope suggests that in this life we should "do good" and "we will meet one another there.” While poetically beautiful and reminiscent of  Maximus' famous line in the popular movie Gladiator ("What we do in life echoes in eternity") it is a false order of reality. The central difference between Islam and Christianity as an example is that we receive the grace of God before repentance. Repentance is but an important fruit of what has already been given. I should be clear however that I am not proposing the modern Christian call to intellectual acceptance of Christianity in order to be saved; nor am I proposing the popular understanding of Universalism (ie: we are all touching one part of the same truth).  Rather I propose we accept the beautiful reality that this is God's mystery. Salvation through an intellectual acceptance of Christianity is simply another form of what the Pope is proposing. The prerequisite for salvation in both instances is in human action. Whether through the mind or the body. The mystery of salvation is that Christ has redeemed everyone, but for whatever reason, in the end not all will be at the wedding table. We can you use different passages of Scripture to support our arguments for why that may or may not be. But nobody really knows, and I think that is how Christ wants it.

Just because all have been saved by Christ, this does not mean that all live into that salvation. While those who experience the ultimate power of grace will seek a new life in him we can (and often do) choose to cheapen this by living without discipleship. We rely on a grace that is devoid of the cross, a "grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate” (Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship). But we must always remember that it is "only because he became like us that we can become like him” (Bonhoeffer). This fruit bearing life is always "miraculous" and created by God alone.

"It is never the result of the willing, but always a growth. The fruit of the Spirit is a gift of God, and only He can produce it. They who bear it know as little about it as the tree knows of its fruit. They know only the power of Him on whom their life depends” (Bonhoeffer).

In short the Pope and I agree that God chooses to work good through all people, but this does not mean that  the good that is done will be the reason for our place in the new Jerusalem. The source for all redemption, reconciliation, and new creation is in Christ alone.

Loyalty and the heart of Hockey in Valleyview Alberta

Small towns in Canada represent the heart of Canadian hockey. I was walking around Valleyview, Alberta on my day off today and saw this sign. The call to bring back the Winnipeg Jets in the late nineties became a grassroots movement which moved into a matter of national identity. This is an example of the heart of that movement. Long before the possibility of the Jets ever coming back, people from local communities all over Canada rallied around their long lost team.


2013 Stanley Cup Playoffs

The only team that will be able to stop the stack Pittsburgh Penguins  is the Chicago Blackhawks. Chicago is the only team that can match the wave of experience, power, and skill the comes shift after shift from the Penguins. Not only does this team have the two best players in the world in Malkin and Crosby; but also have a plethora of other offensive options like Iginla, James Neal, Brendan Morrow, Dupius, Letang, and Kunitz just to name a few. The key to these players is not just their offensive ability but also their character. Iginla and Morrow are proven leaders who will do anything to help their team win. That said if the Chicago Blackhawks catch fire I do think they can mount a challenge....all of this is prefaced on Chicago overcoming the pesky and always dangerous Detroit Red Wings. While some might suggest that the power and grit of the Bruins could be enough to end the Penguins Stanley Cup hopes, my guess is that with the additions of Iginla and Morrow will give them enough character to push through. P.S. John Tortella is ridiculous.