seeds [cont'd]

I just started a class on the Gospels today, and one of the first assignments was to read through the book of Mark. Since this whole garden thing started, I've noticed more and more the amount of times the idea of seeds and planting is written about in the Bible--either in actuality or in imagery. My ears have become more attuned to any mention of seeds and planting than they've ever been. It's kind of like owning (or previously owning) a Suzuki Swift. Every time I pass another Swift, I notice it. It's not intentional; it just happens because I was associated with that type of car and immediately take notice of it. Yes. Reading about seeds and planting in the Bible is kind of like owning a Suzuki Swift.

Jesus said, "The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground. He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he knows not how. The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come."

Now I know there are scientific and biological reasons for plants growing and sprouting the way they do. Our beans and our onions are doing this, but my naivetée in the science of plant growth renders me astounded by the fact that actual plants are sprouting out of what were once tiny seeds. I sleep and rise night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; I know not how.

It seems that one of the current fashionable ideas about the kingdom of God is that it is 1) a present reality and 2) a future reality--that the kingdom of God is here now and is coming soon. It's a complicated theological idea, but one that, even in this short parable, seems to hold some truth: the kingdom of God is a present reality as it grows and ripens and will be a future reality when it reaches full maturity. The coinciding fashionable idea about the kingdom of God is that we are a part of it--that we are in this kingdom even now, and we are a part of its growth and maturity. There was a time when I thought I had all that figured out, but in a sense, I am relearning what this means--that it is more than simply doing what is right but in believing what is right. The "doing" is nothing without a solid foundation of faith. I think. But if there is no faith, than what is the point in doing? Right? All that to say, that this kingdom--this present and future reality--must grow out of something, just as seeds grow out of soil. Maybe faith is the soil from which this kingdom grows.

seattle.

This past weekend brought an experience much enjoyed in the grand city of Seattle. It only takes a couple of hours to drive to the Emerald City, plus an hour or two for border traffic. Not bad for a lazy Sunday afternoon. I love Seattle. It settles nicely between Vancouver and Los Angeles on my rank of places I would love to live. Not only is it a beautiful city, but it is also extremely well designed, infrastructurally. Seattle boasts a well-organized spiderweb of bridges and tunnels and real highways, of which none exist in the Lower Mainland of BC. It's such a joy to weave through four lanes of highway. Vancouver has so much to live up to.

This latest venture to Seattle brought us to the Moore Theatre to catch Rob Bell in all his story-telling and deconstructing glory. He has an incredible way of picking apart the Christian faith, shuffling it around, and reorganizing it in an easy-to-understand-and-follow manner. Not that he gives a 'how-to' guide towards a better Christian life, like the latest book in the For Dummies series. Though I wouldn't be surprised if he published a book entitled Christianity for Dummies somewhere down the line. Never mind.

But one thing I do value in Rob Bell's words is his understanding of culture, and how certain ideas and stories in the Bible would be understood and read inside that culture. It's a perspective thing. Why would God ask Abraham to sacrifice his only son? Because, in those days, many cultures followed gods that demanded such a sacrifice. Child sacrifice was just a step towards appeasing the gods, and so it may not have come as a surprise to Abraham that the god he chose to follow would demand the life of his son. It's what you do to keep the gods happy. What's different about this god is that, at the last minute, he stops Abraham in mid-stab and provides an animal in recognition of Abraham's faith. The point of the story, according to Bell? Abraham's god is a god of provision. His god is different. His god cares. Unlike the gods of the surrounding cultures who would have allowed the murderous appeasement to continue.

The other aspect of Rob Bell's teaching that I much enjoy is the connection he makes between such age-old faith issues like sacrifice and present-day realities. Is sacrifice dead in our current Christian sphere of life? We'd like to think so. I mean there's no slaughter, no fire, no altar anymore. But we do still have the guilt and shame that was so directly associated with the sacrifices of old (the sacrifice was basically used to 'wipe the slate clean', so-to-speak. Forgiveness of sin came through sacrifice). So how do we deal with that now? Could it be the legalism that the church has fallen under? The 'do's' and 'don'ts' of Christianity? 'Do' this and you'll be right with God again. 'Don't' do this and you won't fall away. Yeesh. Not only does our society continue to pump fear into us, but so do many of the words we hear from the pulpit. And I'm not advocating a watering-down of the truths found in the faith, either. But there has to be a balance.

So what I love the most about the way Rob Bell's mind works is that he weighs everything out on the words and actions of Christ. Why is the altar no longer present in Christianity? Because a final sacrifice has been made. No more blood needs to be spilled. We hear it over and over again, but still struggle with this new foundation of faith: Grace. ...we'll save that topic for another day.

For more from Rob Bell, read his books or watch his movies.

in a community of God doubters...

The other day, I was shown a website for a church down in North Carolina. On top of their awesome Jesus Video parodies, they have a pretty interesting slogan: a community of God seekers, God followers, and God doubters. Hm. It's a slogan that fits well with the emerging church philosophy and it's response to postmodernism. Links abound in this post!

God-doubters. There is a movement, it seems, of churches who are trying to be everything that a church is not. The Meeting House, in Oakville, Ontario, has a slogan that basically states just that: a church for people who aren't into church. What? Are people getting sick of the church? Or are people just longing to see more from church? ...maybe a breakdown of the facade of perfection that many of our North American Churches portray. To suggest that their church is a community of God-doubters seems just as blasphemous as a church that claims it is a community of sinners, isn't it? Wait a minute...

So what's with this movement? Why are there now whole communities of Christians who claim to be anti-establishment, in a sense? Are their churches simply formed by individuals who have grown tired of church, and long to build something new and unique, with new and unique names? Or are they churches that have been built upon a deeper understanding of the world in which we live, the people who live in it, and the questions they are asking? Perhaps the most appealing aspect of the emerging church movement is that it replaces the idea of fixed doctrines and static beliefs with more flexible doctrines and a lot of asking questions. To them, faith is less about answers, and more about questions. It's a dialogue, not an indisputable statement of fact. While this has created animosity between mainstream churches and the emerging movement, it has also, in my opinion, given the church a glimmer of hope. A dose of reality. I have often been told that, when Christ was asked a question, he didn't provide a quick, ready answer. He responded with a question. He was into this dialogue thing. His parables often needed interpretation because he didn't always state outright what his point was. And though he might not answer a question, or might not interpret his parables, he was viewed by many as one who had authority.

So, the question: Does a community of God seekers, God followers and God doubters lose it's impact on the world? Or, through it's authenticity and lack of false-pretense, does it actually earn it's authority?

the coptics. [pt. 2]

"The Egyptian Coptic Church" is a sequence of words that has never crossed my ears before. I had never heard of this denomination of the Christian faith, and was curious to find out more while a group of them lived in Nakina and served in Aroland. All I knew of this group beforehand was that their priest (or Father) had to wear his uniform at all times, and that they were going to have mass every morning. Based on such little information, I had already decided what the Egyptian Coptic Church is: another church bound to a series of man-made laws that overshadow the teachings of Christ. A harsh judgment, sure. But I, along with a number of other young adults have become jaded with the structured, institutionalized churches of our North American society. Turns out, the Coptic church far precedes even the discovery of North America. It also turns out that they are, in fact, Egyptian, and date their beliefs to the gospel writer and apostle, Mark.

The Coptic church claims to have stuck to the original traditions handed down from the apostle Mark to the present day. I experienced and learned a number of these traditions: the holy bread with it's thirteen stamped crosses, the reciting of the Lord's Prayer, the reciting of Psalms, facing east while in communal prayer, the saints and the status of Mary, the incense and the chanting of Scripture. While many post-Reformation denominations form and divide over such trivial matters as whether congregates can wear perfume in the sanctuary (true story), the Egyptian Coptic Church has remained unwavering in the issues that matter. In some ways, it has no choice. Any decisions passed down by the Pope are established and made into law -- no questions asked. While it does put a lot of power into human hands (though the Pope is accountable to its council), it almost leaves no room for the questions that we (those of us who feel we have a better understanding of truth simply through our attitudes towards our modern day North American churches ) have. . I'm still deciding whether that is a good thing or not.

If I were to look at my beliefs, they would look like a mishmash of post-Reformation churches: Christian Reformed, Pentecostal, and Mennonite. I was raised in the Christian Reformed Church, experienced much spiritual growth through the Pentecostal Church and was educated under the Mennonites -- all the while learning more about the nature of an infinite God. My experiences with the Coptics has, in a way, grounded me. I have begun to ask a different set of questions, even of the benefit of Martin Luther's Reformation. Though many of Luther's issues with the Roman Catholic Church of his day were valid, was it necessary to break off from a belief rich in history and tradition? Is that what he really hoped for? This only resulted in a hodge-podge of denominations, each claiming to know the answers to every question of faith. Many of our modern-day North American churches root their beliefs in a set of man-made doctrines. These doctrines were written down hundreds of years ago in response to the heretics of their day. In essence, they were "solid" answers to valid questions, and have since never been questioned in return. And so, the debate continues between child and adult baptism, predestination, the power of the Holy Spirit, the infallibility of the Bible, and all the other theological questions that various demoninations differ on. This brings me back to the only question that should really matter: what does it mean when Christ says to love God and love my neighbour in the world I find myself in?

holey jeans batman!

currently listening to: matt good. white light rock and roll review. good stuff. on to matters of the day. it was sunny. super sunny and warm and sunny and blue skies and mountainous distances and sunny. BC extraordinaire! the day was spent in the church running a team meeting for our summer mission trip to california and then doing all the last-minute-planning for a church service that ended two hours ago. sundays are no longer a day of rest. i'm tired, my feet are sore and i always leave services in which i am involved in planning wondering if things could have been different. or if things should have been different. or if i need to just sit back and understand that God enjoyed it. services can be stress city. i was gonna write about a holey jean incident that happened last week, but in the end decided it wasn't worth it. the title's staying though. i like it. two more days of work before i hit the beaches of california. i intend to spend my time soaking in much of the sun i missed out on today. good times had by all...

toes.

sometimes when i hug people...i step on their toes. think about that one...not only is it true physically [i inevitably do step on someone's toes when i hug them] but it's true in more than the physical. sometimes to show someone you love them, you have to step on their toes. we need to be challenged. we need the wake-up call. we need to know that our toes aren't the only toes in this world of toes. the problem comes when we are so afraid of stepping on eachother's toes that we keep an arms-length away from eachother. this method works in our individualistic society that is north america, but it can't work in a church that wants to be community-focused. we need to hug eachother...and when we do that, there's gonna be some toe-steppin'. the question is this: what will we remember more? the pain? or the hug? pain subsides, but everyone always wants more hugs.

frustrations

Two posts in a 24-hour period. What is going on? Oh yeah, I'm frustrated. But I don't quite know how to put my frustrations to words quite yet. They were birthed out of a conversation with a friend about her experiences at a CRC church service. I had to agree with her in some respects (ie. lack of excitement during 'worship', formality, structure....if you belong to this demonination or have experienced it at all, you know). But what these frustrations became weren't about my denomination, my church, my tradition. They became a frustration about what I was doing in the CRC. I'm employed by a church of said denomination, I grew up in said denomination, I have become traditionalized in the sense that I don't question why we do things a certain way....well I do, but what do I do about them? Heck, James (the drumming one)...you know. How many conversations have we had about our church back home? Maybe the question shouldn't be 'what do I do about them', but 'should I be doing something about them?' And I think that's where I'm frustrated. I find myself frozen with fear when it comes to facing the politics of my church. I want to make sure everyone is happy with what I am doing. And I think this may be causing me to become a product of the environment I'm in...ie. I live for the fear of man, not the fear of God (thanks, Mary Ann for that realization). But what would happen if I lived out of the latter fear? What would that look like? Do I even know? Would God allow my frustrations to be an avenue of change? And I think my biggest question honestly is: Do I really care?

of 38 bills

so bill C-38 has officially passed through parliament. in a short month, it will be officially endorsed by the senate, and Canada will be the 3rd country in the world to support homosexual marriages....hooray!! now maybe the church can move onto more important matters, such as reaching out, loving and guiding those struggling with their sexual orientation instead of condemning them all to hell. hoowee, do i sound cynical or what? sorry.

i tend to look at the positive in situations. in this situation, here is the positive that i see: the government has remained true to its terms that it will not force the church to perform homosexual marriages. awesome! the church should be celebrating that its government supports religious freedom in this country, not condemning the government for turning its back on the church (isn't there something called the separation of church and state in this country?). obviously, this could be taken to the extreme. i hope the government doesn't separate from the church to the extend that the 10 commandment law to not murder will be deemed 'too religious', and therefore should be banned from Canadian law (despite the fact that there are a number of 10 commandement laws that are not recognized in Canadian law). i think that Canadian churches have gotten to the point that, since their money is going to missionaries in foreign countries, they can sit back and relax and enjoy the fact that their money is being put to good work -- that they are 'evangelizing by donation'. unfortunately, that breeds comfort in our church community to the extent that the only way churches feel they can reach out to their neighbour is through politics, not through actually talking to their neighbour. more cynicism. sorry. but i wonder if this trend of our government freeing itself from the church will force the church to be uncomfortable in its own country to the extent that it is forced back to the basics of Christ's teaching that changed people's hearts, not anti-political scheming...something Christ never really got into.

love & acceptance

So I was watching ER last night, a show i haven't watched in a long time....when an interesting concept about love and acceptance came up. dr. weaver had just told her Christian mother that she was a homosexual, to which the mother responded (understandably) in a shocked manner. I say understandably not because that's the kind of reaction one would expect from a christian, but because i think any mother ... christian or not ... would respond similarly. Anyway, the doc asked her mother if she could still be accepted, to which the mother responded, I will still love you...or something like that. hmmmm....interesting. the episode brought up some issues about the church vs. homosexuality that the producers obviously felt needed to get across, like that there are all these horrible things going on in the world, so why are christians jumping on this homosexual issue. point taken. i was watching it with other christians who shared their opinion that the episode painted all of christianity with one anti-gay brush. i would agree with them on that stance, however, the unfortunate truth is that those christians who speak the loudest are the ones who the homosexual community hears. and unfortunately, too many Christians are willing to just sit back and allow that voice speak for fear of getting involved in the issue at hand....

back to the love and acceptance thing. is it possible to love somebody and NOT accept them? i had never thought of this concept previous to last night's episode. a common christian cliché is 'love the sinner, hate the sin'. unfortunately, i think christians apply that philosophy to everyone but the christian community...which in reality is a community of sinners (who, hypothetically, are a community of individuals who have recognized that yes, in fact, I am a sinner...and therefore the only way to accept that fact is to admit it, accept forgiveness for my sinful nature, and commit myself to a life of learning what it takes to be a forgiven sinner in a world of sinners needing forgiveness). hence, my new cliché will be 'love the sinner.' period. that means Christians are (i am) called to love every single person they (i) come in contact with....the greedy, the proud, the selfish, Christian, the non-Christian, the homosexual, the heterosexual, etc. you get my drift.

once again, back to the love and acceptance thing. you understand where i'm coming from on the love issue now. about the acceptance thing. does love automatically mean acceptance? take last night's episode of ER, for example. Weaver's mother could love her daughter, but not accept her for who she was. maybe this is where the cliché should come in....'accept the sinner, don't accept the sin'. is there a difference here between this and the love cliché? or could it be that we are just called to love and accept the sinner, and let God take care of the sin in others while we worry about the sin that is 'crouching at our door'. If, as Christians, we are living up to our calling, will it not follow that our life, our example, our faith, our words, our God will open the eyes of those who haven't recognized the sin in their life to their need of forgiveness as well? i'd like to think so ... anything more could cause us to be proud of those whose lives we've changed, when 'we' have only played the smallest of roles in the mystery that is God.