Overheard…

A relatively larger first year student who lives in residence at the university to her relatively thinner first year classmate (who seem to incessantly have a predisposition to high-fiving each other over the most meaningless trivialities), “university student breakfast” = one half of a bagel and a whole Roma tomato.

“In both philosophy and everyday life we imagine that there is a real or true self which lies deep within us. On the surface is  found the clothing which may represent us and may reveal a truth about ourselves, but it may also lie. It is as though if we peeled off the outer layers we would finally get to the real self within. But what was revealed by the absence of clothes was not the Emperor’s (of the infamous fairytale) inner self but his outward conceit. Actually, as Ibsen’s Peer Gynt observed, we are all onions. If you keep peeling off our layers you find – absolutely nothing left. there is not true inner self. We are not Emperors represented by clothes, because if we remove the clothes there isn’t an inner core. The clothes were not superficial, they actually were what made us what we think we are.” – Daniel Miller in STUFF

The point Miller is trying to make is that the illusion of an inner self might actually be illusory especially in the sense that it might somehow be distinct from its external representation. I believe another wise ONE said something like, “By their fruit you will recognize them”. This concept is not easily reconciled with the modern conception of the self where we talk about finding ourselves and seeing ourselves in a new light. But really when you think of it those ideas are actually quite odd since they clearly suggest that we somehow live outside of ourselves almost like two people. What Miller is saying about clothing – we can surely say about food especially if we follow Barthes ideas in the previous post.
So my classmate is not just trying to produce an identity the food itself is identifying her or rather it is constituting her – both physiologically and socially…
The interesting thing might be to see how indeed those food item speak. I have been known as a coffee expert – a moniker that although I treasure it somewhat I feel uncomfortable wearing – it is restrictive in many situations where people find it necessary to justify their apparently inferior coffee when serving it to me. I always say, “Listen, I seriously don’t mind drinking any coffee at all – as long as it is black and caffeinated.” Of course this is not actually true since there clearly are some coffees that I refuse to drink. But saying allows me to negotiate what might otherwise be regarded a peculiar arrogance. Or is it my way of reinforcing my social construction as connoisseur by granting a certain ‘grace’ to my hosts in drinking their beverage? And what might happen if after losing all this weight I can no longer lay claim to the that same status?

Weight log:227lb

my favorite chapter

ht: Paul

from: Wordle

I was right.

I think.
The most valuable tool that we can give adolescents as they grow is the ability to value questions. More specifically, it is crucial that we focus not on giving them the information that will guide their lives but the appropriate tools to accommodate the knowledge they will acquire throughout their lives. This is especially true with regard to any spiritual training we seek to engage in.
In my classes already I have noticed a systematic, both subtle and overt, rejection of Christianity as viable in comparison to scientific understanding. Rejection of spirituality in general has been strong but Christianity has suffered more derision. I think this is due to the fact that Christianity, in general, is perceived to be rigid – portraying itself to be infallible and dogmatic. This is especially true since I am taking mostly courses in the humanities – I think.
As an aside: I wonder if the reason some of the humanities seem to be railing against Christianity is due to their own feelings of illegitimacy within the intellectual pursuits of academia. Almost like, “At least we are not so naïve as those Christians who believe in superstitions.”
The attack on Christian belief has been ardent. And I can imagine that students who adhere to ‘the faith’ might find themselves struggling with the often black-and-white nature of the faith they have been given to adopt. And I suspect the hand wringing at the local Christian women’s league is duly justified when they hear of little Tommy or Cindy losing their way spiritually due to the big bad world of university. This only serves to heighten the fear factor that motivates most Christian churches to concentrate their education with filling their children with information.
Instead over the last few years I have been convinced that far more important than giving children and adolescents the information of faith (quantity), they need to be given the tools with which to engage in the discovery of the mystery of faith. My experience in the first few days of university seems to quantify my convictions.
As a result I think a shift needs to happen. A) We need to work extremely hard to allow wonder to be a central part of our programming. We need to establish a safe place where kids can feel free to discover and test ideas about faith without being rushed, accused or pacified. B) We need to actively teach spiritual methodology. We need to foster the ability to debate important theological and doctrinal issues within the context of a loving community. We need to build the tools like discovery, research, literary criticism, historical contextualization, and original languages way earlier in the process of spiritual pedagogy. Along side that, we need to convey to kids, the disciplines and mystical practices that lead to revelation and affirmation of truth. C) Above all we need to help make these things priorities for parents to practice with their kids.
I remember hearing the alarm from one of our Bible College personnel regarding how terribly illiterate kids were about the Bible as they entered Bible College. It seemed alarming at the time that churches did not seem to be doing a good enough job of downloading the contents of the Scriptures into the minds of children in such a way as to be able to spew it out on command. And it’s probably true that local churches have become lax in their approach to Christian education. But I think that target outcome is skewed as well. I think we miss the mark if we aim to give kids all the information about faith without the tools to really appropriate it personally and practically in the context of real life.
So when we give room for open and careful discussion. When we wander away from the script and play in the margins while honoring the narrative of the text - we do a more honest job of conveying real faith than if we do it the way it has been done for years. And when professors and teachers and pastors take seriously their role as disciplemakers you end up with students who can lean on the learning passed on to them. So thank-you Gil, Mark, Ryan, Jeff, Andre, Gord, Mike, Paul, James, and Mom and Dad for being just that sort of person…

School boy

For those of you who care and actually stop this e-rag:
-I am really enjoying my classes
-they are stimulating and very much ‘up my alley’…
-my legs have turned to jelly from the 500 plus stairs and excessive kms required to get to and from class each day.
My first day jitters are mostly subsided and I have started to relax with my MUCH younger classmates.
I am taking mostly introductory courses in: sociology (stuff I am very familiar with from previous experience); anthropology (likely the class I enjoy the most – good prof. – engaging and succinct); Spanish (I got bumped up into the intermediate level course after taking the advanced placement test and scoring well enough to get in. The Ms. Housley spoke mostly in Spanish all class – very cool almost like a breath of fresh air. Kids are pretty reluctant to speak in class. I might even have a slight advantage in this class.); Philosophy (this is a freak show of a class. The prof is a distractible tangent loving blabberer who has already got into trouble with a few students for straying from the outline of the course. We’ve spent the last two classes talking about the Bible (might post more about this)
Psych is tomorrow night – so we’ll see…
No essays, just multiple guess exams and a lot of them. Oh yeah some short answer in Philosophy…
It is all good. I like it and my legs will just have to get used to it…

Jesus was sinless right?

Sermon on Sunday made me think…
It’s interesting that we always talk about Jesus being the sinless atonement for our sins. I’m just wondering how we measure that statement. Sometimes it feels like we have to do a bunch of wiggling to make that idea true. Lets’ look at a couple ideas…
According to whose standards is/was Jesus sinless:
Measured against the religious laws of the day as up held by the Pharisees Jesus could not have been sinless. We often look at Jesus’ trail as evidence that the Pharisees did not have anything on Jesus. Truth is they had a lot on Jesus – otherwise Jesus would not have been a threat to them. Jesus broke the rules of cleanliness, working on the Sabbath. He contravened the prescriptions against association with women and other undesirables. He allow a harlot to perform an intrinsically provocative act. What the Pharisees did not have on Jesus was something to put him to death.
Now of course we easily dismiss the Pharisaic laws because of their own hypocrisy. But we should not dismiss them so easily. After all, their laws were the laws of the religious context that Jesus lived in. And let’s not forget that many of those same laws have been upheld over the years in the church. Working on Sunday, rules about association have al been a part of the church’s historical perspective. So why does Jesus get to break the rules and still be called sinless. None of the rest of us could get away with it. Is it because the fact that he was God that he gets to operate by his own set of laws or regulations? If that is true then how are we supposed know which laws are supposed to be followed?
But then there is that time at the temple. Did Jesus have a good reason for being angry? You bet! But the fact was that he was angry. And his anger affected other people.
He makes wine and drinks it also –
So how do we account for all that?
Jesus needs to be sinless in order for his death and resurrection to mean anything at all. But Jesus would not have and been considered sinless back in his day – shoot he wouldn’t get a clean grade in our more ‘enlightened’ age. So how does he do it?
I think that the deal is that Jesus is living a principled life. It’s not that he chose a new set of standards to live by. He made his actions match the principles that guided the intention of the laws. So in places where the laws matched his principles he followed them. Where they did not he chose other actions which seemingly broke the convention.
This makes me think that it is important to continually evaluate things we call sin to see if they match the principles that God has set up for human life…

iDyllic

Lots of people have been posting, ranting and rave about this new iPhone from Apple. So I collected a bunch of them and well here they are for your enjoyment:
iParody
here is a post about the iBible
here is a commercial in a similar vein
iComedy
an SNL bit
more iJobs
iCommercials
here
iRant
from a good friend who says:
“I confess that, aside from my philosophical objections to the ways in which we are conditioned by the technology we use, I still fail to understand what’s so special about these iPhones.” Read more here
iWonderings
here “Our social fabric is in danger of being ripped to shreds”
iTraffic Report
Michael Krahn gets some shameless iTraffic here and cites a few more iOpinions
iTalk Show
A little Craig Ferguson here
And here


Now back to work?

starting line or new eyes

The day before yesterday I read a devotional thingy (sorta like a daily bread for kids) to my boys before heading off to school. It was based on John 3:1-7, 16. The point of this reading stressed that what this passage was emphasizing was a cognitive decision to accept Christ in the act we have come to know as being born again. It suggested that no one would receive eternal life if they weren’t born again by accepting Jesus as their saviour. I squirmed through it cause something about they way they presented it made me uncomfortable. So I went back to the passage to look for clues as to why I was feeling the way I was. I think we have probably misinterpreted the point of chapter 3 in John.
Read it here or here.
Nicodemus approaches Jesus with an affirmation of who He is – likely an attempt to sorta butter him up to answer the burning question that was on his mind. But we never get a good clue if Nic got to ask Jesus the real question on his mind because Jesus sorta cuts him off.
You see what Nic has just done in v.1, 2 is describe how he has been convinced that Jesus is God. That’s revelation.
And Jesus wants to set him straight it seems – not about who he is but about how Nic looks at reality. Nic figures Jesus is legit because he does all these fantastic signs and wonders but Jesus blindsides him with a paradigm shift. What Jesus challenges Nic on is not on whether he has come to the right conclusion but on what Nic has actually seen (v.3, 8, and especially 12). When Jesus suggests that people must be born again, he seems to actually be talking about gaining a transformed spiritual perspective on reality – NOT – a new decision about what is what. And he says if you want to know how it happens exactly – well you can’t it’s a mystery – a hidden thing just like natural conception happens in a hidden mysterious way.
We have taken this passage to mean that just like being born naturally is the start of a human life so deciding to follow Jesus is the start of eternal life/salvation. I’m not sure we are right in interpreting this passage that way.
It often feels like we superimpose our ideas of in/out onto so much of what Jesus said. Now read me carefully here. I think making life altering decisions is a natural human tendency. But following through on those decisions is what is life altering. Think of Christopher Columbus as an example of this…
It is pretty obvious that he made a cognitive decision. This decision was based on a belief of how to reach the Indies which was based on his faith that the world was round (not a very commonly held belief at the time). Yet all of this would have been for naught unless he had acted on his faith and put his cognitive decision into action. It was the working out of his faith that led him to discover the Americas. His decision was the starting point but actually almost insignificant if he had not acted on it.
In many evangelical circles so much emphasis has been put on the cognitive decision to follow Christ that we have turned it into the standard by which we judge whether some has or does have salvation.
We use passages like the one here in John 3 as proof that we should go this way.
What Jesus seems to be suggesting here is a lot different than trying to define the starting point of salvation. I think he is trying to help Nic (and by extension all of us) to understand that we need a new perspective on reality in order to understand God. If I can summarize Jesus is saying:
“Look for God with new spiritual eyes. Ones that don’t look for proof in the obvious places that humans tend to gravitate to. Instead realize that this spiritual reality is something that is accomplished by the Spirit and it transforms you into a whole new way of living. You might think my credentials are in the miracle – but really my cred comes from the sacrifice which you will witness (v.16)”
Personally, I don’t think this really changes the reality of humans making decisions about who they are going to follow but really for me it changes what I have understood is the starting point of faith – namely following. So there you go…

convergance: atheism

There is an interesting discussion happening here and here. Both of these posts reference the growing acclaim that atheistic positions are achieving in our culture. What is clear from much of the material that is referenced in both of these places is that it is really easy for atheist to take unfettered pot shots at Christian fundamentalists – especially those who espouse a literal interpretation of the Bible. Of course it is frustrating that there seem to be some many over generalizations here that lump the various different Christian positions together into one singular vein of thought (But then it shouldn’t be surprising that that sort of generalization exists when we Christians may well have taught the rest of the world how to do it). Both Gil and Dave make some excellent points in their posts. As many of you will have already read Gil’s let me highlight a quote from Dave:
but first the prayer of Serenity as written by Neibuhr
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and (the) wisdom to know the difference.
"This is why Niebuhr wrote this as a prayer. He believed he was unable to achieve serenity, courage and wisdom by his own power. He knew and saw the ultimate moral weakness and unrestrained evil of, not religion, but all humans and society. His isn’t a pessimistic view of the human race, but one which demanded the exacting exercises of contrition and love."

Hmmmm

ht: Dan King

Reading the Bible with the Damned

I just started reading Reading the Bible with the Damned by Bob Ekblad. I have found it especially refreshing. He reminds us of the reason we ‘read’ the Bible is, “to speak to the heart of today’s “tax collectors and sinners”. In some circles it has become fashionable to mistake the ‘mind transformation (Romans 12:1, 2)’ of redemption. Of course this debate between the social gospel and the decision based evangelism is incredibly myopic. Anyways Ekblad suggests that if the Bible is to be ‘read’ for the benefit of those who are in need of redemption it should be read with them. He suggests that instead of just reading (and by reading he seems to mean: interpreting, understanding, and prescribing) the Bible with ‘insiders’ (scholars, successful religious types) we should read the Bible with the outsiders, the strangers, and the damned. He suggests that when we do that we will get a new vision for what God wants us to see in Scripture. This is still different than suggesting that the ‘damned’ should define our theology. Instead, he gives some examples of a participatory approach to reading the Bible influenced by Carlos Mesters, Ernesto Cardenal Martinez, and Paulo Freire who developed and used lectura popular de la biblia. Ekblad suggests that having monologuing educators deposit information into people’s lives that is alien to them makes them dependant on the authorities and passive to critical evaluation of what they are reading. Instead lectura popular encourages that the voice of the people on the margins be given legitimacy in giving the scripture context.
Ekblad cites three problems that restrict the reading of scripture:
1. The problem of the Bible becoming too culturally familiar. He suggests that we absorb ideas about the Bible by virtue of the culture we live in. These cultural assumptions can often dictate how we interpret the Bible. This is not that that different than the idea I mentioned here.
2. The problem of seeing the Bible as a prescription for what we should do (how we should behave). This is unfortunately all too prevalent in almost every Christian stream. Whether its limiting the stuff we can do (drink and smoke or go with girls that do) or reduce the gospel to a set of tasks that we have to complete to merit redemption. We lose sight of the undeserving grace of God.
3. The problem of using Bible characters as heros. When we elevate Biblical characters to hero status we miss/avoid those things about them that were so much less than heroic and in the process put them precisely out of reach. (To be honest this one I’m not so clear on)
Of course, this opens up some pretty big questions in my mind. Like for instance: who do we turn to for authority on Scripture? How do we develop a theology that we can trust isn’t just self serving?
On the other hand…
Some of the most important places of learning and spiritual inspiration for me have been when I have ‘read’ the Bible with the marginalized. In my field youth are those people. And when I read the scriptures with them I am reminded that the Bible speaks youth-en-ese. I can see when I read it with them how hopefully and reassuringly the Bible talks about relationships. When for instance I read Exodus 21 to my senior highs it was awesome to hear them interact with what on the surface seemed like some outlandish laws that God was laying down. They got it. They said yeah we can see how God is trying to set up some boundaries for this new society that was forming out there in the desert. It speaks to them.
Well, I do think that Ekblad will have a few more interesting turns to throw at me. NEXT: Chapter 2.

More of what do they hear?

McKnight gives more of his take on this book.
Personally, I identified most strongly with the disciples in this case. But of the things that I have to ask based on Mark Powell's study is why to clergy identify mostly with Jesus? Is it perhaps that we have this subverted Christ complex? hmmm!

what do they hear...

This sounds like a fascinating book to read.
Scot McKnight gives us a sneak peak at what looks like it might be very timely piece of work. This topic raises all sorts of questions in my mind. Like:
Should we trust our own individual interpretation of the Scriptures?
Are we to trust our leaders to interpret the Scriptures? Is it appropriate to question that interpretation? How?
If everyone’s reading of scripture is legitimate how do we determine which one is actually accurate?
One thing I am convinced of is the importance to be clear when we communicate from ‘the front’!

I like this little blurb from McKnights post, from the book:

He tells the story of his mom saying she liked one of Mark’s song when he was in high school, listening to Creedence Clearwater Revival. Mark is an expert on music (and I’ve heard of this group but not listened to them that I know of). She heard “There’s a bathroom on the right!” when they were singing “There’s a bad moon on the rise.” The focus of the 1st chp is on this very thing: People hear things we don’t intend because they absorb what we say into their social location. And, he admits, “We want to be taken out of context — but only when that is a good thing.”

Explaining how the Bible was built to Junior High’s

I’ve been doing this series of talks on the nature of the Bible with the senior high’s – it has been pretty good so I thought I would try to adapt it for the junior high crowd and here’s how I am going to do it.
Object: to help youth grasp the complexity of how the Bible has arrived to us. In so doing I want to help kids to have an increased confidence in the authority of Scripture and a desire to ‘worry’ the WORD.
Activity:
I will have one of my sponsors come up with a paragraph of important text. (This will likely be some message about where the students can find the snack for the night or the location of a prize of some sort)(4 or 5 sentences)
I will have that sponsor tell three students that same message separately. Each time the sponsor will use a slightly different approach. One will be a motivational speech. One will be a factual dictation. One will be in the form of an experience (In the case of the message being about the snack I will have the sponsor go and show the student where the snack is instead of reading the paragraph that he/she wrote.
Each of these students need to then write down in their own words the basic idea about what the sponsor has said. They should use three different styles of writing (prose, poetry, drama, song, story, facts or illustrations. One of them should draw the message as a picture.
Then these students will present what they wrote to two other people who will copy what they wrote after seeing it for a minute. The original documents will get discarded (only put them away for later use – but they can not be seen by anyone again till the whole thing is finished)
These six documents will contend for supremacy.
Each of the six people will choose someone else to represent their document. These next six will play a simple game of rock paper scissors until only two contestants remain.
Then the two documents will be shown to the rest of the group. The group then tries to determine what the original message was. They write down what they think is the original message of the sponsor.
Make it even more bizarre have one of the original three write the message down in a different language.
Drawing out comparisons
-talk about the different way that God is like the sponsor. and how God uses different ways to communicate truth to people.
-talk about different writing forms in Scripture and how we have to interpret them differently.
-talk about how certain material was discarded and certain material was kept through dynamics like habitual use, canonical councils etc.
-talk about how important it is that we use our brains in the act of interpretation to find the real message.
Driving home the point:
-help kids realize that they can trust this process precisely because of its intricacy. Reinforce God’s supervision of the construction of the Bible.
-help kids to realize how spectacular the Bible is in its diversity and complexity. Encourage kids to eagerly wrestle through the stuff that is found in the Bible.
-encourage kids to be disciplined about reading and living with the Bible.
I will let you know how this all turns out.

The Bible

Recently, we have been going through a series of talks in Senior High about how to understand the Bible. I’m trying to help lay some ground work for these students so that they become familiar with the complexity and unique beauty of Scripture. So often I the Bible seems to be an assumption that we have taken for granted in our spiritual conversations. So I started with a few images or illustrations to help us compare and relate the Bible’s essence and function. Here’s the list:
An Instruction Manual

A Map
A Billboard
School/Teacher
A Flashlight
A Feast
The Foundation
A Love Letter
A Story Book
A Science Textbook

A Rule Book

A Crystal Ball
A Debate Reference Tool
A Psychiatrist or Self-Help Tool

An illustration always falls short of being able to give a well rounded sense of what something really is. An illustration is usually good at highlighting one particular aspect of the concept we are trying to illuminate. In this case it is my suggestion that some of these illustrations have been overused in our spiritual conversations. In fact in some cases I have had to recognize that I need to repent from seeing the Bible in a particular light. Some pictures of scripture that I think are less than helpful are: instruction manual, crystal ball, science/history textbook (in some cases literally), and a debate reference tool.
What are some pictures of Scripture that you have noticed? How is the Bible being used? Which pictures of the Bible are helpful for you and which ones are harmful?

Metaphors and phrases ‘speakers’ should not use in youth talks…

I was at a retreat this weekend and I heard this phrase:
“Instead of reading the Bible we should let the Bible read us.”
Now I think I understand this convoluted phrase and I think I understand the motivational intention behind it. If I have it right it goes something like this:
- - We should let the concepts in the Bible provide evaluation of the content of our lives. - -
More or less on the surface this seems like a fairly decent statement assuming that youth understand what you mean.
That is where the first problem arises. All too often it seems that in some parts of the evangelical Christian experience, there tends to be a propensity to transform these metaphoric ideas into literal realities. (Especially in the case of impressionable young people.) (As an aside: I used to do ‘devotions’ like this: I placed the open scriptures on my face and promptly fell asleep – allowing the Bible to read me?!?) Unfortunately, it seems many ‘preachers’ all too glibly throw these Christian ditties into their talks in an attempt at deepening/heightening the spiritual intensity of their message. Without adequately giving contextual and figurative explanation to these phrases, the real meaning is lost. They become merely spiritual phraseology for youth to bandy about. (Is there any lack of this?) So for instance when one young person uses the phrase with one of their compatriot youth group members, they mutually understand that the speaker is merely referring to a heightened state of spirituality. And can you imagine the confusion for someone outside of the compatriot faith circle when they hear this phrase?
And if the first problem is that very few of the people who use this phrase will actually intend what it means. The second problem is equally obtuse. We assume that it is possible for us to actually do what the phrase intends.
My suggestion is that allowing the Bible to ‘read’ our lives is almost completely objectively impossible. First of all, in order to allow the Bible to read us we must read it – first! We bring all our personal preconceptions and inclinations to that reading. (Hardly an entirely a reliable way to extract the truth inside Scripture) In an individualistic world it must be said that a phrase like this is especially dangerous because it suggests that we can trust our own interpretation of the Scriptures and then without prejudice allow it to evaluate our behaviour.
Now, I realize that I may be reading too much into this but…
I think in general we must get away from our public predisposition to using these ambiguous metaphors…
And to be completely I have used my fair share of spiritual hype talk metaphors but it is something I am trying to exercise from my speeches, talks, and discussions.

this 'verses' that in Biblical interpretation...

A recent conversation on Gil’s blog has got me blogging my own stuff on the topic (Interpretation of Scripture)
So likely this will not make sense unless you read Gil’s blog entry on Hauerwas. So go there and then come back here… (his blog is the professor)

Sure I guess one does discover truth when one encounters God. I should be clear, I am not trying to identify a dichotomy between experience and intellect as a method of interpretation and as I think you may have understood me to say. I will try to refine once more:
1. Humanity will corrupt the interpretation of Scripture in either a community hermeneutic or through one person. People set agendas for power and exclusion (another form of power). Scripture is full of evidence where both systems of understanding God were abused. It really doesn't matter what system you of interpretation you use the potential for error is great. I see Benny Hinn distorting scripture for his own benefit (and it does not take rocket science to figure that one out) and I see that we can’t trust the bishop method of interpretation. Then I look at my church for instance who maybe in a more insidious way develops doctrine designed to exclude people from entrance in the body. So the potential for error is great. Plus look at the Bible – King Saul got it wrong. But then so did many of the churches Paul wrote to in the NT. Sure we can swing back and forth on the pendulum highlighting whatever emphasis we think is needed to correct the errors of the past but…
There are many dangerous questions that start creeping up when we slide in either direction. Just sitting in the middle is not an option either. Maybe it’s really both and.

2. The proposition of knowing what truth is not related to the method we use to interpret this instrument (the Bible). My suggestion is that our concern should be in the nature of truth and how it is tied to the nature of God instead of these methods. So truth is tied to our relationship to a mysterious God. In a sense it is about training our spiritual eyes to recognize the mystery truth – part of it is clues and part of it is gut level instincts. Truth becomes the payoff of the spiritual disciplines – practiced corporately and individually.

Let me comment briefly on a letter found in the MB HERALD http://www.mbherald.com/44/13/letters.en.html
It could be suggested that Richard Loewen’s comments are the negative result of allowing everyone access to the Bible and letting them interpret it for themselves. And he would certainly suggest, although it seems in a very convoluted fashion, that the community that discerned the position that David Wiebe identified as the recommendation for the conference position on women in ministry, has erred in its hermeneutical approach. So we are at an impasse. But for me this letter identifies how we try to use our interpretive methodology as some sort of spiritual one-upmanship. And our convoluted pretense on this issue obviously results mainly in conflict that calls into question each other’s spiritual integrity rather than trying to resolve this issue fairly.
David wants women in and Richard want women out (of ministry) so fine why do we have to question each others spirituality in the process.
Of course we care about this issue but to use terminology as Loewen does with ogres and liars is inflammatory. And in using the words that he does he heightens the tension that exists in this conflict rather than dissipate it. To me there is a higher calling in this particular issue, one that is revealed to through the spiritual disciplines. The higher issue is how we as a body are going to reflect Christ to the world in this.

The other day I had one of my students answer a question I posed like this: “I have a real fascination with the supernatural works of God like speaking in tongues and being slain in the spirit.” I wanted to jump out of my skin. “So now this stuff has become a fascination for us?” I thought, “much in the same way space exploration or poker is a fascination?” GREAT! I would say my friend needs to mature in his spiritual understanding – what he does not need is to be belittled for the apparent ignorance of his thinking. If the world ended today I am quite sure that we would both stand in front of God and be really fascinated by all He had done.

To me it is amazing the tools we use to exercise our superiority over each other spiritually. Maybe that was kinda the point of the my thing on coffee...

names withheld to protect the innocent

okay so here are the senarios two of them similar yet distinct: what do you think should happen in each case...
1. non-believing friend approaches you for a ride to the nearest big city to get an abortion. you are pretty close to her and she knows your beliefs about abortion. if you take her to the city are you an accomplice to murder or are you one of the only people she trusts and is able to provide her with continued support. do make a point of identifying your convictions about abortion and refuse to take her or by taking her do you have another chance to talk to her and help her sort out her life and this issue.
2. man and woman start attending your Bible study group. they both come from nasty divorces. the man is a christian when he starts attending but you lead the woman to Christ through the influence of your B.S. group. they fall in love. want to get married. ask your pastor to marry them. One couple is very supportive of thier choice to get married but you and your spouse have a clear understanding about what the Bible says about divorce and remarriage - not permitted. so do you attend the wedding or not? if you do what does this say about your convictions? if you don't what does this say about your love?
hmmm...