Romancing the Paradox

Rebirth of the Orator?

2009-04-03T16:56:00.003-04:00

The art of public speaking is an incredible canvas. From the rhetoric of the philosophers to the stories of the shaman, public, verbal communication is among the most ancient of human rituals. Perhaps it seems odd that a bunch of humans would sit in relative silence in the presence of a single human’s blabbering, but as far back as ancient times our species has known that speeches (presented intelligibly and with a certain degree of eloquence) can change the minds and behaviors of society.

Today, we are told, public speaking is morphing as fast as technology transforms society. The average listener’s attention span is only 6 to 8 minutes. According to an oft-quoted BBC article, “The addictive nature of web browsing can leave you with an attention span of nine seconds - the same as a goldfish.” Dazzled by the visually stimulating world of mass media are we losing our capacity to learn from the orator as we did in days of old?

Some say yes: the days when the lecturer could stand before others and simply speak (sans PowerPoint and the wizardry of visual gadgetry) are over. However, let us not too quickly abandon what has been a fundamentally primal mode of human interaction. The spoken word is not dead. In fact, it may now be more important than ever.

Despite the stimuli overload of technoculture people do, in fact, still sit in coffee shops, discuss current events with their friends, and engage in communal, verbal activity together. In fact, it could be argued that people long for this kind of “high touch” with other humans more as the world becomes increasingly “high tech” (as immortally coined by John Naisbitt in 1982).

It is therefore not surprising that when today’s sought after speakers share their “tips” about public speaking they always orientates us back to the most human elements:

Seth Godin says the primary trait of a good presenter is that they carry themselves in such a way as to win the respect of the audience and to in return “send love” to the listeners. “The presenter who loves his audience the most, wins.”
Sir Ken Robinson reminds us that public speakers are talking to individuals first, not groups. Robinson believes that connecting at a conversational level is the goal—which means being relaxed and comfortable is paramount (and familiar enough with your content to go without notes and to leave things naturally unscripted).
Kathleen Propp advocates the importance of eye contact. She recommends 3-second intervals while you are speaking. This keeps the audience engaged as individuals.
“Are you teaching because you have to say something, or teaching because you have to say something?” asks pastor Rob Bell. “If I asked you to talk about your wedding or something else that has changed you, would you really need notes?”
Bill Clinton says that “A lot of communication has nothing to do with the words, a lot of it is just your body language, or your tone of voice, or the way you look in your eyes...” He says he tries to make his speeches “like a jazz music piece, where I've got a script and there's this ad-lib” in the middle.
Even ToastMasters say that the most important thing to remember when speaking in front of others is that “your speech should represent you—as an authority and as a person.” The content you communicate is useless unless you are part of it: the medium (you) and the message (content) fully aware of their unity together.

In a high media world, successful orators are the ones who can capture the personal essence of a coffee shop conversation in the presence of any variable sized audience. A real human being, live and in flesh and bone, vibrating wavelengths of the air into your ear, holds the key to something the online social network, the television and text message can never deliver: the ability to look you straight in the eye and feel your plight as another human being.

Speaking is important because it is what humans do—it is in our DNA. It is the most primal part of our communication and unfortunately the part most left neglected for the flashy trinkets of visual “teaching aids.” Recapturing the art of the rhetorician means that public speaking becomes about speaking again: vocalization, tone, pitch and mood are as important as the syllables we verbalize. People are on high alert against manipulation, coercion and phony ego stunts—but listen to an orator who connects with you in real life and all of a sudden you have a whole new reason to live again.

by James Shelley

Do You Find It Difficult To Be Happy?

2009-03-31T16:56:00.003-04:00

Just a question. Do you have problems being content, happy, joyful? Do you find it easy? I've been considering doing a small blog series on happiness, because it doesn't seem a lot of people are. :)

It Made a Difference for That One

2009-03-23T10:47:00.001-04:00

History—even the most rudimentary history—suggests in a subtle (yet pierce-your-ego kind of way) that history is much more akin to a cycle rather than a straight line. Human experience is always, everywhere, lived in a season of advance or decline, impoverishment met with opportunity, rationalism versus fundamentalism, and ideologies of faith versus ideologies of fact. It is fascinating indeed that the core concerns of Aristotle, Aquinas and Nietzsche were centered on the same debates and questions underlying our lives.

Most every generation feels it is at the cusp of potential disaster and potential scientific breakthrough; each generation leaves this ethereal sense of hope and dread in its writings left behind. Like those before us, we marvel at our technological innovations, and worship ourselves for being the most progressive generation yet—which also true of every other generation in history. Self-awe is a trait of each generation, and so in this practice we are certainly not that special.

Since Moses we have worried about disaster. Since Plato we have speculated about utopia. Humanity is simply like jazz—variations on a few themes.

Yes, I hope we “make poverty history” too, but let’s just not get ahead of ourselves: poverty, like wealth, has been a part of our species’ existence from the beginning. It is not something we can just “end” by pushing a button (or by having a big, star-studded concert).

Now enter the modern slogan of philanthropy everywhere: “Change the world.” Few statements when taken literally echo with such obtuse ridiculousness. When a glossy flyer tells me that I, as an individual, can change the world, I cannot help but be cynical. Furthermore, when invited to “Change the world” by granting a charitable organization the privilege of deducting monthly amounts from one’s bank account, it is little wonder that “Changing the world” means little more than a tax receipt to most of us.

The story is told of a man who went to the beach at low tide and saw a young boy rescuing starfish that had been stranded in the sand and throwing them back into the ocean. The beach was literally covered with the doomed little creatures, meaning that the young boy’s mission to save the starfish was painfully futile. The man went up to the boy to speak some sense into him, “This beach is miles long, son—there is no way you can really make a difference.”

The young boy looked at the man straight in the eyes, stooped down, picked up a starfish and threw it back into the ocean. Without breaking his gaze, the boy replied, “It made a difference for that one.”

Nobody has the capacity to change the world, but we all have the capacity to make a difference for a few. In a world where 600 billion dollars of aid money to Africa appears to make precious little difference; in a world accosted by guilt-wrenching infomercials of starving children and 1-800 numbers; in a world where the power systems seem to be out of anyone’s control, the most sacred task before all of us is to learn how see through the complexity and fog to actually make a difference for a few fellow human beings.

Starting small, helping even just one person, is monumentally more helpful than wallowing in a paralyzed, comatose state of overwhelmed apathy.

http://james.plumblinemedia.com

Owning the Paradox

2009-03-11T00:00:00.003-04:00

This post is not meant to be a nostalgic throw-back to days of old, but a rather pedagogical remember of the way life works. Here is a brief history needed for background: I started Romancing the Paradox in 2004 as a personal blog, and then invited other authors to join me in March 2006. The idea was collaboration, multi-perspective learning. The idea took off for a while, and there were some good 'ol raging debates throughout these pages (mostly pertaining to theology and culture). Then sometime around the end of 2006 (or early 2007) I lost interest (as, apparently, most of whole crew did) and I went off to do my own personal blog again. Aside from three posts in 2007, the blog has remained dormant since then.

Quite unintentionally, this site has done more to archive and "time capsule" my ideas than just about any other medium. As I click back to the posts of 2004-2006 I am mildly embarrassed at some of my ideas, convictions and ideologies. The first things that comes to mind, in very poetic terms, is "Gosh, I've changed a lot in a few years." The self-serving, image-management side of me is quite tempted to just delete this whole thing--bury the evidence, as it were. After all, who cares at all what we were all thinking back in 2007, really? Everyone knows a lot changes in three years!

The problem, of course, is that to shut this down now would be to deny what learning is altogether. We are living, growing, thinking beings--morphing, evolving, transforming is what we do. Blushing a bit and shrugging off the ideas of yesteryear as a kind of juvenile insecurity is ludicrous: I will doubtlessly be able to say thing about this post in another few years. Maybe I will utterly disagree with this post. Maybe I won't. The point is, honesty embraces where we've come from. You cannot genuinely second-guess old presumptions if you deny that you even had them in the first place. The freedom to disagree with yourself, to be a little schizophrenic in your mental commitments, is an imperative ingredient to growth and development. It is essential that we own this paradox: loving the truth means getting excited about being wrong.

There is something profound in this archive of ideas and arguments--old ideas lay strewn across the floor here. Here we are, as we were; uncut, uncensored, un-"updated" to the latest version of thinking. If we can get past the minor kick to the ego to embrace it, I think that owning it means we're actually growing.

This could very well be a post flung out to empty space: I have no idea if Errol, nursegirl, Andrea, MyGuitar, Lookupover and the others still check this space. (If you are, I'm curious to what your thoughts are as you look back a couple years!) At the very least, should you care to browse, enjoy this space as Exhibt A: The Evolution of Thought Through the Years.

Disjointed thoughts about American Culture

2007-06-16T11:41:00.000-04:00

You know, I like the name of this blog. I call it "RomPar" in short...because I can. The reason I like this blog is because it's true. My next post will seem a complete contradiction of the last post.

Sometimes, deep down, I hope that the religious culture in the USA would go away.

Actually, most times I hope that.

I am almost cheering for the secularists and atheists to win. Almost. I don't agree with the anger and hostility I see, but I can't blame them. They are reacting to an injustice they perceive, and in most parts, are correct in.

However, I'm not holding my breath. There is more to human life than the experiences that you can understand in the left side of your brain. The belief in God will not die out. They believe it will, because they only think ignorant sheep have faith. They almost can't believe otherwise.

I distrust a lot of philosophy. And the current books on atheism count. Why? Because if you are subject only to a westernized affluent culture, I question your ability to assess life. Myself included. Other affluent cultures like to critique America for being so inwardly focused, and completely unaware of what's happening outside of their own country. Sure, it may be true, but it's no different for us either. We are completely unaware of what life is like in a different culture, a different economic setting, a different perspective. Instead, we posture ourselves to be the most objective person on the planet. We can't see how subjective we truly are.

And I think that you can only understand life when you are in the midst of suffering, which most of the world, unfortunately, is in. For example, a book I read about Mother Theresa is golden. The amount of compassion and grace she displayed astounds me.

That's who atheists need. There is enough anger, judgement and hostility in the world. I would like to read a book by an atheist who is in the midst of suffering, extolling virtues of grace, compassion and forgiveness. Mother Theresa didn't seem to go around touting off how wrong everyone was and how right she was. She didn't go around talking about how everyone else was ignorant, and only she figured out life.

The world is desperately looking for goodness. Yet we constantly contribute to what is vile.

I have nothing against Cultural Religion

2007-06-04T14:36:00.001-04:00

"Religion" gets a lot of flack these days, and I'm talking within the Christian Church. Theism in general is under attack in the internet world, but that's not what I'm referring to.

I'm thinking about "Religion" with a capital R. The rules and regulations that define the traditions within a denomination. And it's hard not to be against it. As people watch the culture that has sprung up (like that "Jesus Camp" documentary), as people hear of the hatred, the violence, the exclusivity, who could not want it done away with?

As Jesus is angered and overturns the money changer's tables in the temple, I can see that He's against it too.

But...I'm human. I like well worn traditions. I like things that are familiar. I like liturgical services. I like my ethnic culture. I like the culture of Canada. I like the traditions of Christmas that my family has created. I like asian films. (Ok, that last one is a bit out)

Humans seem to need that.

Is there a best way to worship? Oh yes, there is. But humans can't achieve it anymore than humans can be sinless. We worship God in our brokenness, and Christ makes us pure.

So how can I be against another cultural form of worship? How can I say that raising your hands up and singing "Shine Jesus Shine" for 90 minutes is wrong? Every fibre of my being would cry out that it is, but seriously, I can't say I'm at any less fault. Sometimes during prayer in church, I can barely keep my mind focused from the latest movie that's coming out.

But then we have the same problem that Paul tries to counteract. Just because we're set free doesn't mean we can happily go on sinning. So we must find out how to worship where we are led by His Spirit.

The traditions aren't wrong, but because each person is different, we can't assume that our way of worship is the way another person should. If we cross the line, saying that a tradition is the proper and true way to worship God, then I think we run into problems.

I'm not trying to open it up so that one can do anything to worship God, there are things that ARE damaging. But God gracefully blesses us anyways. Despite our marred, scratchy record, broken mirror, attempts at worship, He uses that.

The Internet Generation

2007-05-14T15:10:00.000-04:00

The Internet Generation, or the Digital Generation, are those who were born between the period of 1994 - 2001. They are digital natives, growing up in a world with computers and the internet.

This is a generation that is on the computer, with 8 MSN chat windows up, the TV in the background, iTunes playing their favourite song while downloading other ones, Myspace/Facebook open, playing some online game and doing their home work at the same time. And still getting A's in school.

These kids think different, learn different, have developed different and expect different things.

Marc Prensky has a lot of articles on how to teach these kids. How the school systems are still relying on a 17th century method.

Don Tapscott, author of 11 books, writes about how this changes the face of how business should operate in in his latest work, Wikinomics.

I have many peers that tell me they don't understand the allure of sites like Facebook and Myspace. I hear those that desire to put restrictions on those sites, to police them. Governments and companies are trying their best to control them. We took away the popular places for teens to hang out. We put up signs restricting them from stores, we tell them it's too dangerous to hang out in certain areas, we keep them tethered to us whether it be by proximity or a cell phone.

And in response, they have chose the web as their home.

We are not them. We are a different generation that thinks and learns completely different.

How does this affect the church? I'm interested to know if the church can go anywhere with this. Like contemporary christian music, it lags behind with current trends, but this isn't a trend. It's not merely a lack of discipline or a new fad. We have a different generation on our hands, wanting to collaborate, participate, take ownership of things.

The church is structured the same as the schools. Pews are no different than a desk. (I could never find a pencil in my desk, just like a pew). :)

Is anyone on in the Christian field thinking about these things?

Gift Advice for Guys

2006-12-02T15:14:00.000-05:00

Hi Everybody,

Christmas is coming and guys are always screwing it up by buying something stupid for the woman in their life. I posted this on my own blog last year and I thought that the advise was so insightful, wise, helpful and just plain great that I decided to share it again.

Basically, don't buy her any clothes. The odds are against you. Here's why:
If it's too small for her she'll think she's fat.
If it's too big for her she'll think that you think she's fat.
And if by chance it actually does fit it'll just look stupid. Because you're a guy and you have no fashion sense (that's why she has to tell you what to wear).

So do yourself a favor and just buy her some jewelry, or a bowling ball with your name on it.

My Problem with Paul

2006-11-21T13:06:00.001-05:00

Allo all!

So sorry, life has been sooo busy that I haven't had time to even check my internet hangouts, let alone write anything. But things are calming down, and I figured I could write something here! Imp sent me an email awhile back, saying he's busy too and won't be checking this blog that often either. Of course, I wasn't on the blog so I couldn't tell anyone, but hey.

So, what's my post about? Well, it's about Paul, the apostle. I know a lot of people love Paul, and a lot of people don't like him. Personally, I think he had an extremely tough job, the whole grace/holiness thing is hard to explain and understand. However, he tried to make it practical to the churches he wrote to.

My problem with it is that it gives the impression that holiness is attainable.

Now, I'm not saying that Paul said that, nor am I saying that's the crux of his letters. Not at all. But humans have a tendancy to justify themselves and measure other people's worth. And Paul's letters gives them a measuring stick.

The thing is, Jesus teachings were difficult because no one measured up to what he was preaching.

Paul, trying to get the churches to quite being so...well...human... tried to tell them how to act. Good advice yes, but we took it to the extreme.

We are harsh on certain moral aspects, be it sexuality, fashion, language.. and we ignore other moral aspects, like bitterness, slander, malice.

Not that I want to dismiss Paul, not at all. His letters are essential. But the Pharisees had the same problem, they took the law, and made 'holiness' achievable by their own efforts.

*sigh*

Paradoxes are hard to live your life by.

Islamic outcry?

2006-09-18T15:17:00.000-04:00

This post is part questioning, part observation. I am wondering about the lack of an Islamic reaction denouncing the events of 911.

If the attacks of 911 were committed by a group of Christian extremists for example, what would have happened? We would have seen as strong a reaction as you can imagine from Christian leaders everywhere. Pastors from all denominations and branches would have spoken out that these acts do not represent true Christian belief and teaching, books and articles would have been published, interviews made on Larry King Live, and who knows what else in the media.

What I am wondering is, where is the equivalent of this kind of thing in the world of Islam? Has anyone else ever wondered this? Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation. It does seem logical that if the terrorist acts are not reflective of the beliefs held by the vast majority of Islamic believers and leaders, then there would be an observable demonstration about this.

Appearances can often be deceiving, so I ask these questions hoping to be wrong. I have struggled with this issue because the appearance of things really is that only an isolated few, hardly the majority of the Imam or Mufti (an Islamic scholar who interprets and teaches Islamic law) have come out and denounced terrorism. And what reactions their have been haven't been the kind of 'calling out' one would expect. The general pattern seems to be either strong support of violence, from teachers in line with extremist beliefs, or, silence from the majority of others - which raises questions I've tried to express here.

Can Islam be fairly described as a peaceful religion if the Quran states that if someone leaves the faith they are to be put to death? At the same time as asking this question, it is wrong to label an entire faith based on its most extreme elements, and it's important to avoid Islam bashing because the majority of Muslims are not terrorists. I'm just wondering about the "righteous cry" we would expect from leaders - with Islam being as disciplined and intense as it is, their would be a strong outcry from those of the faith towards who have suppsedly misrepresented what they believe to be the truth. Think of the reaction the leaders stirred in Islamic believers everywhere when a cartoon drawing of Mohammed was published, or the reaction (and death threats) when a book was published raising questions about the Quran. On these occasions the reactions from the world of Islam was very observable, to say the least, with all of us being aware of their position... By comparison, how come their is nothing like this indicating that terrorism is anathema to their faith?

Peace,

Rick

Son of Man: Asymetrical Sympathy

2006-09-14T14:37:00.000-04:00

Son of Man: Asymetrical Sympathy

Here is a very interesting post indeed. It's notable for (among other things) the fact that the sentiments expressed are quite different from some opinions about Christians which have been expressed in this forum. It's written by a student at York University, in Toronto. Here's an excerpt:

Most Christians in the room spend the Bible-bashing time sighing, throroughly unimpressed with and not intrigued by the arguments being posed. We're just so used to it. I just thought of something. I think I can say that Christians are the most objective people in the entire world.

Read the rest here.

* Update * Links fixed as of 2.30pm, 09/15/06.

How Simple and Shrewd Viewed Sage

2006-09-04T23:54:00.000-04:00

In a place far from here three men, each on a pilgrimage met each other as they were travelling down a forlorn path. Conversation quickly revealed that the three were all desirous of reaching the same destination. One was an old man named Sage who said he had himself carved these paths many years ago. The second man was Simple, a smithy by trade, who often seemed quite pliable. The third man, a young noble named Shrewd, was wise in his own eyes and often desired to forge new paths, even as he imagined Sage had done when he was young.

As the three travelled on for some days, Sage offered direction time and again as he led them through grounds neither of the younger men had seen before. Every time he provided direction, no matter how unlikely it seemed, his word proved to be true and they found themselves to always be headed in the right direction.

Eventually, when the two young men awoke one morning, they found Sage already dressed for travel. He informed them that he had to depart for some time, but that if they followed his directions, he would meet them at the end of their journey. After some days on the path, he said, they would come to a cave. Despite what they saw, no matter how difficult the path through the cave would become, they were to keep going and not give up. This was the only route, he warned, that would take them to the land they desired.

Sure enough, after two days of walking, Simple and Shrewd found themselves at the mouth of a cave. Shrewd took a good long look at the cave, examining it from various perspectives. He warned Simple that caves such as this had been found to be perilous traps before for clueless pilgrims. Simple, however, was convinced that this was the cave he had been told they would find. Seeing that Simple would not be swayed, Sage reluctantly said he too would enter, but that Simple must go first.

As they entered the cave, they found that it travelled only down. Further and further it went, and the air got increasingly frigid. Soon it was totally black and both Simple and Shrewd were in despair for their lives. Looking ahead as far as he could, evaluating the little of the contours of the cave his eyes could discern, Shrewd began to speak:

'Simple, this is all wrong. Anyone with a half a brain knows that a cave which leads to open land lets in light from both ends. If it is day time outside, and there is a way out of this cave, then we would be able to see light. It makes sense. To follow this path any longer is illogical. We can see that with our eyes. If you insist on staying here anymore, you will have to go it alone, because wisdom advises me to turn around.'

Simple reasoned, 'The man Sage has never lied to me. He has led me safe this far, and even his words about this cave proved true; the way is difficult. Would it not be more foolish now to turn back, having seen that his counsel has been good thus far?' And so he spoke to Shrewd, 'I cannot see the light we both know we should see. But I know the man Sage, and I trust him. I will not turn back.'

So Shrewd and Simple parted ways.

Shrewd quickly, since he was moving towards the light, found his way out. Once out into the forest again, he surveyed the land, checked his compass, and headed off to forge his own path; to take the road less travelled and make his own mark. Not a mile from the cave, as he was looking at his compass, thinking hard about which way made the most sense to him, he happened to walk in between a family of bears, separating a mother from her cubs without even knowing it. He was mawled, and there he died, compass in hand, never having reached his desired land and never having carved the paths he had wanted.

After Shrewd left, Simple continued slowly through the cave. Shortly he had to feel his way along with only his hands as his sight completely failed him in the dark. Several times he hit his head or stubbed his toe, and many times he even began to question whether or not Sage's words had been correctly spoken--or perhaps they had been misunderstood on his own part? He was, after all, an unlearned man.

But after some time of following the dark, damp, cool walls of the cave, Simple noticed that the wall on his right side disappeared and he realized that he was at a corner. Turning the corner, he caught a glimpse--could it be?--just a glimpse of light ahead. The more he walked toward it, the brighter it got, until he was finally able to walk with ease.

Coming out the other side of the cave he found his old friend, Sage to guide him the rest of the way home to the land of rest he had always desired.

-----------

Chris, you are wrong because your premise is this: if something is true, I should be able to reason it through my logical processes. This is pride. Who are you to explain the purposes and the mind of God? You have not taken into consideration either (a) the seriousness of the impact of our finitude, or, (b) the effects of our fallennes on our minds.

I cannot prove to you that the Bible is the word of God, inspired and infallible. The Bible makes those claims, but you simply have to decide what to do with that. You say, 'if the tunnel leads to freedom, there will be light;' and thus, you make yourself the judge of the word, and you exalt yourself over it.

If, however, we submit ourselves to it, we find its claims to be true (not true because we experience them, rather, we experience them because they are true). When, in humility, we follow the word we have received--even when our 'eyes' fail us for the darkness around us as we try to walk, and even though we all hit our heads and stub our toes--then we will find our way to truth.

The gospel is foolishness if you stand aloof to it and judge it. But if you are brave enough to truly admit the reality of a holy God to yourself, and if you are honest enough to confess the true depths of darkness in your own heart, then you'll be eager to hear of a God who loves us sinners so much that he would send his Son to take to the punishment you deserve.

But if you are too afraid to acknowledge the reality of a holy Creator and too proud to admit your sinfulness, and to subject yourself to God's law, then the whole thing makes no sense to you.

So go your way, follow the compass of your choosing. You are the master of your own destiny. The word of the cross is folly.

Human Sacrifice

2006-08-17T19:12:00.000-04:00

Ready for a shake up?

Where do you think this passage came from, and what do you think about it?

Those evil humans down on earth. I hate what they are doing. All this sin...

Since I am all-knowing I know exactly what the humans are doing and I understand exactly why they commit each sin. Since I created the humans in my own image and personally programmed human nature into their brains, I am the direct author of all of this sin. The instant I created them I knew exactly what would happen with every single human being right down to the nanosecond level for all eternity. If I didn't like how it was going to turn out, I could have simply changed them when I created them. And since I am perfect, I know exactly what I am doing. But ignore all that. I hate all these people doing exactly what I perfectly designed them to do and knew they would do from the moment I created them...

So here's what I am going to do. I will artificially inseminate a virgin. She will give birth to an incarnated version of me. The humans will eventually crucify and kill the incarnated me. That will, finally, make me happy. Yes, sending myself down and having the humans crucify me -- that will satisfy me. I feel much better now.

911 Cover Up

2006-08-11T00:17:00.000-04:00


Loose Change 2nd Edition - Korey Rowe / Dylan Avery / Jason Bermas

Maha Prasad

2006-08-07T17:47:00.000-04:00

The Nidus festival (www.nidus2006.ca) this weekend transformed my life in numerous ways.

Brian McLaren spoke (he's one of those "emergent church" guys discussed in MyGuitar's recent "Emerging danger?" post), and grieved aloud how the North American church has imposed all of its broken crap on churches in Africa. Certain cultures there which have BEAUTIFUL singing, drumming, dancing communities are "converted" to a culture and theology where they "meet" Jesus sitting in proverbial Western pews they never had or needed, with less or no room to dance and sing their true identities before the God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

It was lovely, however, for this grievance to be juxtaposed against a ceremony held later that day at Nidus: Maha Prasad, a Christ-centred North Indian Communion service in the context of Hindu traditions. The Church has wounded many cultures, African and Indian just tipping off the iceberg, and it's a joy to have experienced a ceremony which deeply worships Christ, while affirming and employing the celebration means of Hindu culture.

[An aside, some of the people who led this belong to Aradhna, a band which plays some of the most beautiful worship music that's ever reached me. That's not even coming close to explaining who they are or what they play, you'll have to check it out at www.aradhnamusic.com. You can't take your eyes off Jesus listening to these dudes.]

I can't tell you the whole history of this communion I attended, (the place was crowded and I couldn't hear everything!) but it involves singing and reciting Christ-centred liturgy in Hindi, and having the Lord's Supper or Eucharist using a coconut, bananas and milk as a remembrance of Jesus. At the point in liturgy where these elements are shared, a coconut (Called a Sri-Phala, meaning "God's fruit") is cracked with a hammer, to represent Christ's broken body (hopefully this is accurate, as I said, I had trouble hearing). The Sri-Phala is then saved to distribute later. Bananas and milk are then distributed as Christ's "body and blood" to anyone who is a servant of Christ -- those who do not serve Christ are welcome to cross their arms and receive a blessing. At the end of the service, the coconut, or Sri-Phala, now in pieces, is available for everyone present (servant of Christ or not) to consume themselves or to take away and offer to friends.

This final part (as I understand!) is called the Prasad. This is how Wikipedia.org defines the term:

Prasāda (Sanskrit), prasād (Hindi) or prasādam (Tamil) is both a mental condition of generosity, as well as a material substance that is first offered to a deity and then consumed with the faith that the deity's blessing resides within it.

It was explained further by the celebrants of the ceremony that in Hindu ceremonies for other gods, the Prasad is taken away and shared with others (followers of the deity or not) to generously share the deity's goodness.

I think this is a beautiful way to symbolize our offering of Christ's love to our friends. It's lovely to have an aspect of communion that can be consumed by anyone, whether they serve Christ or not. While I believe that the body and blood of Christ (be it bread and wine or bananas and milk) should only be taken by those who acknowledge his salvation in some way, there's something really special about reserving some part of the ceremony that people who can't call Christ "Lord" can partake in, so that we say to each other "I am with you." To a Hindu who does not serve Christ, the Prasad is a familar symbol. When such a Hindu is offered Prasad from a Christ-centred friend, Christ is meeting them in a familiar celebration -- He's meeting them in the place other gods meet them, he's showing up at the party that's already going on, and identifying himself as "The God by the name of Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit," because that's what Jesus does, he goes to where his beloved are. As the Prasad, Jesus says "Consume me, let me consume you. Let me reside in you."

I love that Jesus meets us all in the places where we know how to party, how to celebrate. I love that he identifies himself as the source of joy of that party, the giver of life, the rescuer from death. That he doesn't require us to change who we are, but to invite him in and make him Lord of our celebration.

Organic: Worshipping the Creator by Saving Creation

2006-08-02T16:56:00.000-04:00

Recent series at The Meeting House with Bruxy Cavey:

#1 - Why on Earth am I here? (mp3, notes)
#2 - Heaven is not my home (mp3, notes)
#3 - Living Eternally...NOW! (mp3, notes)

Peace, James

Thoughts on the Dedication of the Temple and Jesus

2006-08-02T10:24:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I got to read through a portion of 1 Kings. My favourite part of what I read was Solomon's building and dedication of the temple. After reading from Genesis all the way through to 1 Kings, it is a wonderful breath of fresh air!

I think sometimes we lose sight of just how momentous an occasion this really was. Finally... after slavery, the exodus, the 40 years of wandering, the failed conquest of the promised land, the pathetic time of the judges, the first king becoming a miserable failure, a lifetime of war and tumult under David... finally, peace! Finally, God's people are able to construct a permanent fixture where God will be honoured and worshiped. It is the place where he has chosen to make his name dwell.

So Solomon has construction of the temple completed, he brings in the ark of the covenant, and offers his prayer of dedication. It's a wonderful scene of celebration and worship of our God as innumerable sacrifices were offered. God is pleased to come down and dwell in his temple--so much so that the priests could not stand to minister in the Holy Place because the glory of YHWH filled the house.

The temple is the place where God dwells and where man can meet with him--the place where God and man dwell together. It is the place where God's glory abides, where he reveals himself to his people.

Solomon's prayer of dedication is then largely concerned with the request of God that whenever God's people pray toward this temple--where God and his people can meet together, where God himself dwells--these prayers will be heard and answered. This is to be true, even when they have sinned, this will be the way they are to pray for reconciliation--pray toward the temple.

And so Solomon, the king, prays for his people. He intercedes for them before the Lord, pleading with God that their sins will be forgiven and that he will have mercy on them.

The glory of God had descended on this place, the Lord had met with his people and heard the prayers of Solomon--why? All of this is made possible--God's people can approach God in his temple--because of the sacrifices they had made. They sacrificed before the ark as they brought it in, and once Solomon had prayed they offered more: 22,000 oxen, and 120,000 sheep as peace offerings to God.

But all of this was still imperfect, in some sense, because we see that where the holiness and the glory of God dwell, the priests still aren't able to be. After a while, the priests are forced to leave the Holy Place where they ministered because of the presence of God.

Of course, what I love the most about all this is Jesus. Where was he? Where wasn't he?! Jesus is the temple--the perfect meeting place of God and man. In him the fullness of deity dwells bodily. He said, 'destroy this temple and I will raise it in three days.' But of course, he was not referring to the temple of stone, but the temple of his flesh--where God and man truly come together. And because he is the fulfillment of the temple, he's also the reason our prayers are offered freely to God now, because we pray through Christ.

But Christ is more than the temple and the reason our prayers are heard. He's also the true Solomon--the true Son of David who will inherit the eternal throne and promises of God. As the true Son of David and the true King, Jesus is the one true intercessor for his people! Now he offers prayers to God on our behalf!

And of course, Jesus is the true sacrifice which makes God's meeting with his people possible at all. Jesus is the perfect 'once for all' sacrifice for the sins of God's people, that every single one of his people would be perfectly covered and able, finally, to meet with God.

And lastly, it has all been made perfect now, through Christ, because we no longer have to worry about imperfect priests, unable to draw near in the earthly temple, because the earthly temple was only ever 'copy' and a 'shadow' anyway! Now, Christ, who is the true high priest, draws near to God in the perfect, heavenly temple on our behalf.

I could go on and on, but this is too long already. What an absolutely wonderful God! What a wonderful Saviour! What a wonderful book that ties all these things so beautifully together. No wonder Christ said he's the fulfillment of the whole thing! He well deserves the name that is above all names.

Take this tangle of a conversation

2006-08-01T13:28:00.000-04:00

I had one of those insights in my prayer time today that I felt might be a key to changing the way I "do life." I decided get on the blog in order to speak it into the universe somehow, but then I decided to quickly read through the most recent posts, since I haven't been on in a couple months.

In the discussion section of the Emerging Danger post, MyGuitar brings up the passage that God brought to me, but with a different spin. So, I'm going to believe that perhaps this insight is for someone other than just me.

I've been struggling with overwork, burnout, stress, etc for a few months. As I've been trying to figure out why it's so hard to say no, get rest, etc, people have been giving me all sorts of helpful insights. "You've got a Messiah complex" "You don't trust God enough" "You have too much pride"

All of those sentiments are probably true enough. But, I knew that there was something more...something deeper. And then God said to me this morning, "You've spent so much time serving me that you've forgotten about loving me."

"But Lord, I only serve you because I love you. I would much prefer an easier, simpler life, but I love you too much to give you less than my all."

"Love isn't just about service, it's also about intimacy."

Wow! Bang! Lightning Bolt! Fire in the desert! How could I have missed it? When I think about love, my inclanation is to think about serving the person I love. I think about Jesus' true act of love as being the cross, so I try to love people and God by dying to self and pouring out for them.

But, what if Jesus' incarnation -- his choice to be with us -- is equally proof of his love? What if the Holy Spirit's choice to indwell us -- to be so intimate with us that it's hard to tell where He ends and where we begin -- is equally proof of his love?

The Mary and Martha story referred to in the Emerging Dangers comments captures it well. Martha was busy making a meal, and Mary was quietly being with Jesus. MyGuitar had defined that as "loving people" vs "loving God," but who was the guest of honour at Martha's dinner? Jesus, himself. Martha wasn't making the dinner out of love for the disciples, but out of love for Jesus.

So, perhaps it wasn't about Martha not focusing enough on Jesus, but instead on her focusing on loving him by serving him rather than loving him by being close to him.

If so, then that danger is just as real with any branch of the church. Whether our type of service is reading the bible, praying, serving people or "saving souls," the biggest question is whether we choose intimacy or service. Studying the bible or praying every day can be an act of service or one of service+intimacy, as can running a drop-in centre.

If so, then maybe the concern isn't "doing for God" vs "doing for people" but rather, "When I'm serving God and people, ~~is it out of love, or for another reason~~ am I doing it out of a place of intimacy?"

What do you guys think?

Fair Trade Ecuador Coffee

2006-08-01T11:17:00.000-04:00

If anyone (especially from the London, ON region) is interested, I'm pulling together another order of coffee from a group of coffee-growing families in Ecuador. For more information, please visit www.artisticmedia.ca/shelley and read "Fair Trade Coffee - Mid-September Import"

Christianity vs American Christianity

2006-07-31T17:47:00.000-04:00

Since some of you are American, I wonder what you think of the following articles.

Disowning Conservative Politics, Evangelical Pastor Rattles Flock

This was in response to the above:

Christianity versus American Christianity

A Time for Asceticism?

2006-07-27T12:28:00.000-04:00

Ever wonder why asceticism figures so prominently in church history? It started very early on. Many of the figures we are much indebted to (Augustine, Jerome, Basil the Great, Benedict, Patrick, etc.) throughout church history have had some strong leanings toward monasticism.

Now that the 'clean sea breeze of the centuries' has blown our minds clear from excessive faults, we often look back and wonder with amazement: 'How could such great Christians have been so blind as to become ascetics?' We don't understand what brought them to this.

A bit of background, then, is in order. Christianity was persecuted on and off and to varying degrees for the first few centuries after Christ. It is absolutely miraculous, and a wonderful testimony to the power of the Spirit and the grace of God, that the church continued to grow by leaps and bounds throughout the Empire, even under such hardships. After a while, however, the persecution stopped. When Emperor Constantine was converted (around AD 312) the seeds of 'cultural Christianity' were beginning to grow roots. It would still be some years, however, before Christianity became the 'state religion.'

Up to that point, to identify yourself as a Christian cost you something. You had to be willing to suffer and to lose things you had worked for. Once Christianity became cultural, there were no more martyrs, no more persecution. Now it cost nothing to be a Christian. Anyone could do it. The churches were soon all filled to the brim as people began to realize there was much socially and politically to gain from being a 'Christian.'

Where once Christianity had been identified with righteousness of life and high moral standards, the now popular religion began to see moral decay from within. The high standards were lowered to the point that one could hardly tell the difference between 'Christians' and unbelievers.

Of course, the true believers were put off by this! Moral compromise should never be tolerated in the church, under any circumstances, and they recognized this. They knew that to be a Christian should cost them something, that they should stand out and be different than the decadent culture around them.

So... Christianity is popular and acceptable. It costs nothing to be a Christian. The churches are full of 'cultural Christians.' The Christians don't look a lot different than the decadent society in which they live. (Am I describing their culture or ours?)

Their answer, of course, was that the truest, highest form of Christianity is that which costs the most. So they left everything behind: all their possesions, their family and friends, the luxuries of urban living, the right to marry, and the wealth of food, etc.

The New Testament seems relatively clear that we are not called to an ascetic lifestyle. But rather than condemning these brothers and sisters for fleeing to monasteries, we should seek to understand why they did what they did. And understanding that, we need to emulate their desire to stand out! They were not content with Christians who look just like unbelievers--and we shouldn't be either!

So we can err by becoming ascetic and we can err by not seeking to be different at all. But we can also err in another way: We can seek to become 'righteous' in the way that our philosophical climate deems good. Why did they resort to asceticism when they thought they should be different? Because that's what the greatest thinkers of their time valued as great righteousness.

When we seek to be different from the culture around us, we need to be careful that we're not merely emulating the philosophical, ethical ideals of our day. Paul said, 'Do not be conformed to the pattern of this age,' and I think he meant it. Which of course means that we need to think hard.

How do I live as a Christian in a way that is different from nominal Christianity, but not simply according to the patterns that the world has established as right and good and self-sacrificing?

All this, of course, means that we need to continue to let that 'clean sea breeze' blow... we need to read church history so that we're not merely influenced by the ideologies of our day. But more than anything, it means we need to be people of the book. We need to read the Word of God and know it intimately so that we'll be able to discern all that is pleasing and right in the eyes of the God who wrote the book.

That is, after all, why we're here.

Emerging danger?

2006-07-20T00:11:00.000-04:00

Christianity isn't a lifestyle, it's a relationship. Mistakes are made if we talk about other things to the point where this truth is forgotten. One Christian author said (paraphrasing) "the enemy comes as an angel of light if we put the two greatest commandments in the opposite order" (that is, making others our first priority while loving God becomes secondary). What is of interest is that Jesus did draw a distinction between these two things, listing them seperately, and placing people after God, loving God being the greatest commandment.

What is happening with the emerging church is a lot of talk about the poor and marginalized. This is good, but in one sense also poses a potential danger. For example, by talking almost exclusively about such issues the emphasis can create a false message. Please don't take this the wrong way - I'm not undermining at all the importance of loving people. However, as important as this is, it really is a secondary issue. (For one thing, it is impossible to really love people and sacrifice for others without doing so at the right time in the right spirit, which requires a right relationship with God - i.e. the first concern from our hearts must be God).

What I'm saying about the emerging church is that the message conveyed to others is missing this truth because of what is emphasized. Theology really is a matter of emphasis. If 90% of someone's content is doing good deeds for others, then the message that is conveyed is that christianity is primarily a lifestyle, at best a relationship is secondary. The emerging church message is guilty of this (by emphasis) - implying that the way to please God is by doing good works, which Jesus corrected as being a faulty erroneous belief.

Consider what Jesus said. In John 6:28-29 Jesus was asked "What must we do to do the works that God requires?" Jesus answered, "the work of God is this: to believe in the one he sent." Jesus directly said that the main "work" of God was to believe in Him. This belief is on the low end of the scale in emphasis, if it's there at all, in the writings of emerging church authors. (I'm thinking of books like McLaren's "A New Kind of Christian"). The teachings about feeding the poor and loving our neighbour are certainly important, but reflect the outflow of relationship which is the foundation of christianity. In Brian McLaren's writing it is hard to see this foundation.

When challenged for not rebuking one of his disciples for neglecting the poor Jesus commended that disciple for worshipping Him as opposed to selling an item to help the poor. Again, Jesus did teach us to love others, but this is secondary. We must not forget that helping others cannot be achieved by human compassion. We are far too tainted by alterior motives and baggage such as guilt and self-centredness to do something truly effective. It is only by passionately pursuing becoming like Jesus and worshipping Him that then, and only then, we can be transformed by God's grace and be motivated without harmful things getting in the way. Good works done by human compassion alone will ultimately be tainted and we could ask whether they cause more harm than good.

With respect to emerging church teachings I'm submitting that we need to remember how Jesus priorized the two greatest commandments.

Peace,

Rick

Red Letter Christianity

2006-07-17T21:04:00.000-04:00

"A red letter christian is someone who takes the red letters (ie. the words of Jesus)of the bible most seriously. This leads to concern for the poor and the outcast and pours contempt on system building and efforts to exalt pride and self righteousness".

I wish that all Christians were Red Letter Christians. That way they'd read more of the black letters like Jesus did.

The lighter side of law

2006-07-13T23:12:00.000-04:00

I previously worked as a law clerk. One of my jobs was to summarize transcripts from interviews. The idea was to read them over and list only the relevant portions, saving time by providing a reference just containing legally relevant information.

This was one of my favourite things to do, as both lawyers and clients would often say things that were funny and recorded verbatim. I collected a number of humorous quotes from my own and other sources, and here are a few of my favourites. As hard as it may be to believe, these are real. It just goes to show how different perspectives can influence understanding. Enjoy:

Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?

A: No.

Q: Did you check for blood pressure?

A: No.

Q: Did you check for breathing?

A: No.

Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?

A: No.

Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?

A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.

Q: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?

A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere

Q: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?

A: Yes.

Q: And what were you doing at that time?

Q: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?

A: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.

Were these people deliberately trying to be funny? Not sure, but it sure turned out that way.

Peace,

Rick

Confessions of a judgemental Christian

2006-07-12T14:20:00.000-04:00

You know, I thought I was doing quite well on being non-judgemental. I do try my hardest to give the other the benefit of the doubt and try not to expect the same behaviour from another as I would do.

I have my strengths and weaknesses. Sure, it's easy to judge another who is weak in an area that I am strong in, but what about areas that I am weak in? I'm rather forgiving in those areas. I can be empathetic because I know the struggle is hard.

For example, I am actually someone that doesn't worry that much. So I shouldn't be hard on someone who constantly worries. That's who they are and they will eventually have to learn to trust. But just because I have a nature that tends not to worry, I shouldn't glibly say that it's their "lack of faith". If they are fully aware that they worry too much, who am I to rub it in and show off how much I don't worry? Heck, if we were to point out the many areas I am weak in and trying to overcome, I don't need someone there telling me it's a "lack fo faith".

I've matured a lot since I was a teenager, and I must take into account that people take time to grow, just like I did and still do! I will hopefully be a lot more mature ten years from now.

However, I think we expect people we talk to or interact with to be at our level of maturity now! We do not exercise the same set of patience that we would hope that a mentor or teacher would give us. We want people to grow up now, because their weaknesses impedes on whatever right we believe we deserve from them.

So, after all that preamble, one of the things I need to work on is my judgemental, cynical attitude towards Conservative Christians. Now it's not fair that I lump them together. Not all Conservative Christians are created equally.

But it's hard. From the news, to the damaging stories that I hear, to the lack of grace I witness, I find it difficult. However, my perception of their behaviour should not give rise to an unforgiving heart.

And the only thing I can see which can help me is God's Grace. Now I'm not saying that in a trite Christianese sort of way. I mean in a practical, this is how it is, sort of way. Why? Because I can't muster it up on my own. I believe that almost all the virtues that God talks about isn't something that wells up inside of us because of our own determination and human strength.

An example I will give is my wife. She comes from a very conservative background, and currently is a missionary as a nurse to homeless and marginalized people. I am her husband (obviously) that works in the secular world. I do not help her in her ministry.

The church that used to support my wife found this very hard to deal with. In their opinion, a woman's place, if she is not single, is to support her husband. If she has kids, then her first calling is to the children and any other calling is no longer a calling. They constantly had meetings on whether or not to withdraw their support.

At first, before we had kids, I found this attitude they had to be deplorable. My job, as I saw it, was to support her as much as I possibly could because dealing with the brokenness, the pain, and the suffering on a daily basis as she did required a tremendous amount of energy. If I could not be her biggest fan and provide for her the much needed care to help her help those that God commanded us to help, what kind of sucky husband would I be? What was I doing for a job? Supporting networks in a big corporation. I didn't need support for that. (What I needed was a new job, which I eventually did, but that's another story).

It was lost on me, I couldn't figure out why her church had such a problem with it, other than the traditional sense that a woman is of no use other than to stay at home and have no life outside of her husband.

It took me two years and then I finally let God soften my heart.

Do I agree with that church's theology? No. Do I agree with their attitudes? No. Do I think they are wrong? Yes, completely. However, it is not my place to hold contempt for them. It is not my place to judge them.

Why? Because I know now that they truly struggled with it. They wanted to support her, but couldn't reconcile that with what they traditionally knew. However, they continued to struggle and work at it, trying to find out what was the best course of action. They were not trying to be difficult. They thought they were doing the right thing. They're heart was in the right place.

Is that a good excuse? Just to have good intentions? No, I'm not saying that. I still think they're wrong.

However, they supported my wife for a long time. They prayed for her, they financed her, they kept in touch with her, they showed her much support in many other ways. Even if some of the members views differed from mine.

And what did God do? He changed me. He gave me a THANKFUL heart. He graced me with the grace to feel thankful for that church. I'm not trying to brag here, there was NO way I would have been able to do that on my own. None of that was me, because I had no ounce of grace to give them. God helped me grow, helped me mature and get over myself.

The church finally decided they could no longer financially support my wife in good conscience. However, I don't feel bitter about that. I don't feel that they are judgemental, power seeking, conservative christians out to ruin people's lives. I am glad for the support they did give her, but we're also glad that she isn't being supported by them as well. :)

Does this mean I'm against rebuking? Gosh no. In fact, I have had many people rebuke me because they cared about me. It helped me develop as a person and a Christian.

However, what's the point in pointing out "sinners" if you don't care about them in the first place? If you have no intention on seeing them become better Christians and only wish to point out their faults to prove how much more spiritual you are, well then, there's no point.

So I try my best not to get involved in flame wars. I try not to point out the failings of others amongst my peers that agree with me just so that we can all feel better about ourselves... maybe I should emphasize that "try" part more. I fail more than I succeed. *sigh*

But, by God's Grace, he will give me a forgiving heart. I just need to always be conscious of my desire to lift myself up. I need to be constantly wary of why I judge others, because I often wouldn't want to be judged by my same measuring stick.