Monthly Archive

I decided to go on a trek into the local subdivision to see what I may. I went on foot, an increasingly unpopular means of transportation.

In about two hours there, I saw maybe ten people. Perhaps this is because of it being a Sunday afternoon, but I find their ability to hide more than a little impressive.

I noticed there were there churches in the area; all were evangelical and of some size. Two were right beside each other. The other was a five-minute drive away, with no sidewalk leading to it. How is that for fostering a sense of Christian unity? Last time I checked, a car ride is just inviting meeting new people. (sarcasm intended).

But I see what the first issue is. Somehow all these people need to be convinced to get out of their little boxes.

I happened along Francis Schaeffer’s excellent short book Pollution and the Death of Man: The Christian View of Ecology. I will offer a short summary of some of his many profound points made therein.

His argument begins by connecting religion with ecological position. He describes an article where a history professor argued that Christianity, with the view that man was given dominion over the earth, poisoned the modern post-Christian view that created the ecological mess; changing this religious base would resolve the problems. Schaeffer agrees fully with this second part, the first he later shows is not fully representative of a proper Christian view.

Schaeffer moves on to describe two ideas that have been prevalent as a basis for ecological positions. The first he examines is pantheism. In this vein, he examines an article that calls for recognition of morality as extending to humankind’s full environment, including the natural world, instead of the traditional view of just person-to-person. In a broader sense, the pantheistic view sees the essence of mankind and nature as one and the same. Although he recognizes the merit of this position in putting humankind and the natural world on the same plane of existence, he shows that it, by failing to enjoy the particulars of being human or nature, reduces the universe to an absurd system.

He also offers a rebuttal of Platonic dualism, especially in the context of the modern church. He explains that a Christianity concerned only with a “higher” spiritual life, seeing nature as only a proof of the greatness of God, essentially say that God’s creative work is insignificant! I enjoyed very much this story:

…Some years ago I was lecturing in a certain Christian  school. Just across a ravine from the school there is what they call a “hippie community” (though they aren’t real hippies!). On the far side of the ravine one sees trees and some farms. Here, I was told, they had pagan grape stomps. Being interested, I made my way across the ravine and met one of the leading men in this “Bohemian community.

We got on very well as we talked of ecology and I was able to speak of the Christian answer to life and ecology. He paid me the compliment (and I accepted it as such) of telling me that I was the first person form “across the ravine” who had ever been shown the place where they did, indeed, have grape stomps, and the real pagan image they had there, which was the center of the rites. …

Having shown me all this, he looked across to the Christian school and said to me, “Look at that; isn’t that ugly?” And it was! I could not deny it. It was an ugly building, without even trees around it. The thing was ugly!

It was then I realized what a horrible situation this was. When I stood on Christian ground and looked at the Bohemian people’s place, it was beautiful. … Then I stood on pagan ground and looked at the Christian community and saw ugliness. That is horrible. Here you have a Christianity that is failing to take into account man’s responsibility and proper relationship to nature.

So then what is a Christian view of ecology? Schaeffer says right away: Creation. God created everything, both the human and natural, therefore both mankind and the world “are equal in their origin”. Recognizing God as creator, our relationship to the natural world is through him; in Schaeffer’s language “upward” instead of “downward.

Schaeffer goes on about the implications of this. Recognizing God as Creator, in whom all things have their being, means that neither mankind nor the natural world is autonomous. Things have no meaning in themselves; rather because they were created by God, they have the role that God assigned to them. Therefore the Christian sees the natural world, in its natural God-given order, as good. This means God (and we also, if we are wise) deals with things in their own way, as diverse beings with their own function.

Interestingly, he identifies the ascension of Christ as a central part of the affirmation of the worth of the natural. Christ’s natural body in the ascension, became hidden in the unseen, “spiritual” realm. As such, the two “worlds” of the physical and spiritual are not antithetical, but are both good parts of God’s creation.

Thus the Christian view satisfied what Schaeffer identified as needed: it explains why humans ought to feel an affinity with nature, and respects the diversity in kind that exists.

I have studied Hebrew for about a year now after completing Calvin Seminary’s great online course, but one difficulty remains with my Hebrew-reading: vocabulary. There is almost absolutely no vocabulary crossover between Hebrew and English, so all vocabulary needs to be memorized. Many words appear a great multitude of times, making the effort needed to memorize them worthwhile. However, a substantial amount of the Tanach uses words that appear but a handful of times; these words are much more difficult to learn, and the unknown words need to be looked up either in a dictionary or by their rendering in a translation, neither of which is quick or ideal.

To attempt to solve this problem, A Reader’s Hebrew Bible was concieved. For words that appear less than 100 times, a definition is footnoted. Also, proper names that appear but few times are printed in gray so that they are not mistakenly interpreted as words. This volume struck me as a brilliant idea, and I bought one as soon as I could.

And it works just as I expected it to - vocab is mostly no longer an issue when reading it. However, many of the words appearing more than 100 times I never learned, and now feel a greater need to do so. Now also, I can see how helpless I am without an English translation in figuring out the grammar, as I have been depending too much on it.

This volume should help me bring my Hebrew level, in the short-term, to the point to which I do not need a translation to read the text. I also hope I will pick up some vocab from the footnotes so that I eventually will not need helps to read the text.

Unfortunately, there are a few cases I have noted where further editing needs doing. The first page of Esther suffers from a misalignment of the footnotes with the text. Curiously, Appendix A (a lexicon of the words appearing more than 100 times), has the entries sorted front-to-back in regards to the first letter, but has the entries underneath running the other direction. The typesetter, Philip Brown, has a list of errata on his blog.

However, these do not detract from the usefulness of the volume in the slightest. Thanks to Philip Brown and Bryan Smith for compiling this useful resource!

Hunting around for some examples of Gothic art (inspired by James Smith’s post about why he loves Gothic architecture), I stumbled upon the incredibly beautiful Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry (the Very Rich Hours of the Duke of Berry for those who don’t speak French). I have used the pictures of the crucifixion and resurrection in previous posts; but I would like to post one of my favourite pictures in there (many of the other stunning pictures are on Wikimedia Commons).

This entire piece is one great work of contrast. Foremost, Job is naked and half-buried in mud, whereas his friends are richly robed. The house behind Job is made of mud and falling apart, but right beside it is a castle, complete with moat (and curiously a fence that is partially knocked down). In the frame, there are skeletons, and smaller pictures of a grave-digging and a funeral processon, but the frame itself is intact and finely detailed.

But notice also that the “tone” of the picture is not extremely somber, like it seems the subject matter demands. The very bright colours, and especially the bright and clear sky in all the pictures, gives a vivid contrast to the pit of despair that Job is in.

But to me this is where the illustrator “hides” his message. It exposes the disconnect between circumstance and the hope we know we have. In both Job’s situation and in ours, despair is met with and is even present in despair.

Todd Hiestand, in this paper as posted on his blog makes an excellent exposition of the challenge of the suburban environment for ministry. He first describes the concept of the “missional church”, and shows that a very important context for a missional church is suburbia. He notes (though maybe not this strongly) that several values of the suburban dream are antithetical to Christian beliefs, namely individualism, escapism, and especially consumerism. He details four of the major missions of the church in this environment: rejecting individualism, deconstructing comfort, confronting consumerism, and pursuing justice.

He pulled a few of his quotes from Albert Hsu, who blogs here.

I live very near a very large all-suburban area, and my church is situated within; I am looking into the ideas others have had to work to the benefit of this rather spiritually barren place, thus this interests me greatly. Any pointers to elsewhere are very welcome; as of now I know very little about this.

[edit: I mistakenly attributed the post to Alan Roxburgh instead of Todd Hiestand.]

[edit 2: I linked to Hiestand's blog instead of a repost by someone else.]

How beautiful upon the mountains
are the feet of him who brings good news,
who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness,
who publishes salvation,
who says to Zion, “Your God reigns.”

At Easter we celebrate the coming of this messenger. For the women visiting the grave, this was the angels by the tomb. For the disciples, this was the women. For the people, it was the disciples. For us, this is the written Gospel.

For great indeed is this news. There is peace between God and mankind, we are set free from the condemnation of death – our salvation is made real. For today the God of Zion has shown that he reigns over death. And on this day it becomes ours!

The voice of your watchmen – they lift up their voice;
together they sing for joy;
for eye to eye they see
the return of the LORD to Zion.

When Solomon built the first temple, when the Ark of the Covenant was brought inside, “a cloud filled the house of the LORD, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD.” (1 Ki 8:10-11 ESV)

In Ezekiel 10, Ezekiel sees this glory of the LORD leave the temple in a vision because of the idolatry of the people. In a later vision, that of the perfect temple and land, he came again to his residence in his city – “And behold, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the east. And the sound of his coming was like the sound of many waters, and the earth shone with his glory.” (Ez 43:2 ESV)

The glory of the LORD has taken up his residence now inside the temple of each of our hearts. This we can see firsthand in ourselves, as watchpersons, “eye to eye”. The Easter event facilitated the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost; the Spirit, at our conversion and throughout our Christian lives, orchestrates the “dying away of the old self” and the “coming to life of the new”. (Heidelberg Catechism QA 8 In this way the Easter event is yet ongoing inside each of us.

Break forth together into singing,
you waste places of Jerusalem,
for the LORD has comforted his people;
he has redeemed Jerusalem.
The LORD has bared his holy arm
before the eyes of all the nations,
and all the ends of the earth shall see
the salvation of our God.

In the resurrection of Christ and the hearts of his chosen, the LORD shows his power. The LORD showed again the “mighty hand and outstretched arm” (cf. Dt 26: with which he brought the people out of Egypt with; he showed his power now over the evil and death which are intrinsic to our world. For his power reached even the “waste places”, where this evil and death is seen the most. Are we not “waste places” also? Then may we “break forth together into singing”, be driven to praise, because of the peace and redemption the LORD has brought to us troubled people. And may we be the examples of “the salvation of our God” which “the ends of the earth shall see”.

Depart, depart, go out from there;
touch no unclean thing;
go out from the midst of her; purify yourselves,
you who bear the vessels of the LORD.
For you shall not go out in haste,
and you shall not go in flight,
for the LORD will go before you,
and the God of Israel will be your rear guard.

(Is 52:7-12 ESV)

This passage alludes to the (then yet to come) return of the people and vessels to Jerusalem from exile. The Persian king Cyrus told the people to return and rebuild the temple, giving them back the vessels (cups, bowls, and such) used in the temple. (Ez 1) The LORD would facilitate this by protecting his people from harm, as a guard.

Yet God brought his people back from a greater exile, that of his condemnation, through the resurrection of Christ. Upon his death, the curtain in the temple separating the holiness of an inaccessible God from mankind was torn. (Mt 27:51) This is the great accomplishment of Easter. He still protects us by remaining near us (and in us), that we may not have fear.

And in the journey back from this exile, we carry the vessels of our bodies, as our instruments of worship. May they be used as such therefore, in special Easter praise, and in showing through ourselves always how great the good news we have received is.

I have attempted to research the movement known as the emerging church. This movement seeks to create a church that is relevant and engaging in our postmodern society, eschewing the traditional paradigms of what a church is. In my searches, I found an example of such church in Portland. It is called the Evergreen Community.

Like most churches, they meet every Sunday morning. Unlike many churches (some of which might be horrified at this concept), they meet in a pub. They explain that this location is indeed central to their mission link)

Why do you meet in a pub? Well, it’s pretty cheap  Honestly, our desire was to do our worship gatherings in a place that was both affordable and that fit with our philosophy of involvement in the life of the city of Portland. Also, being accessible to those we are trying to integrate into our community was pretty high on the list… And the pub does all that. It really breaks down barriers for people who wouldn’t think about walking into a more traditional church building. It has the added benefit of tending to keep away those who probably wouldn’t fit with our community anyway and might feel more at home in a more “traditional” community.

They describe what typically goes on therein:

A welcome by someone wherein we talk about an aspect of the community- one of our core values or something we are trying to do or be.

We’ll have a few moments of quiet, centering prayer… often accompanied by a reading (usually the whole group, in unison) of a Psalm.

After that, the fun begins…

We generally work through books of the Bible, but occasionally spend some time focusing on different topics. But even when we’re covering a topic, we tend to base it on a section of Scripture- we tend to work verse by verse through the whole passage.

And we talk a lot. For us, the sermon is (at least this is the ideal) the work of the community. We are teaching each other. Whoever is leading that morning still has a role in keeping things on track, doing the majority of the talking, but we do our darndest to get others talking to each other as well. In this way, as a community, we wrestle with the Scriptures.

We prefer this dialogical approach over the more traditional monologue of one person speaking sermons and feel it helps people learn and stay involved better.

However, they emphasize that their Sunday worship is definitely not the extent of their church. They have a set of core values listed, which make their priorities clear. If I can attempt to summarize these:

1.  Mission - The church is set up to be a mission to others - “we are here for the church which is here for the world”.
2. Justice - “The Evergreen Community aims to be a group of people who honor God the way that He wants to be honored, not necessarily in the way that is most comfortable or convenient for us. And that means actually doing something for the poor, because that’s what God wants, even if it pulls us far outside of our comfort zones.”
3. Community - The church “experience” is to move in a progression. Only at the beginning are we to be necessarily concerned with whether the church is something for us; it is imperative that progress beyond that to being something for other people.
4. Hope - “Drawing a picture for those we meet of who they could be, of the person God created them to be… and rather than pushing them towards that out of guilt or obligation, pulling them towards it out a sense of love and hope.”
5. History - “We also want to see ourselves not as a disconnected community, but as a group of people who stand in the stream of something much larger than ourselves: the Church down through history. As a result, we want to look back to that history and draw inspiration, resources and role models from it, while recognizing that we aren’t necessarily bound by it.”

And their community is fostered by their smaller size (I think about 130 people). They reflect this attitude like this:

Will you become a mega church and sell out? Our vision from the beginning has been to remain small as a community but grow through multiplication. Our goal is not to build one large church dynasty because it becomes impossible to remain personal and non-programmatic. Therefore, we seek to remain small enough as a community to where we can know and take care of one another, but at the same time we seek to grow through continually starting new communities where more people can gather and seek to love and serve each other and the neighborhood in which we meet and live.

The Emerging Church is something that interests me greatly; I shall in this too continue my research.

He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

(Is 53:3 ESV)

Today is Good Friday in the Western tradition. Christians today celebrate (if that’s the right word) and remember the death of Christ on a cross, as the act of redemption. I gave a bit of thought to the significance of this, and came up with the following idea:

I thought that it is important to remember that Christ’s suffering was not limited to the single event of the crucifixion on Good Friday. His life did not just end in sorrow, but he was “a man of sorrows and aquainted with grief”. (Is 53:3 ESV) As the Heidelberg Catechism states, “During his whole life on earth, but especially at the end, Christ sustained … the anger of God”. (QA 37, emphasis mine)

This is evident throughout the gospel. At the beginning of his ministry, the people of his town tried to throw him off a cliff. (Lk. 4) His message was a difficult one: “Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.” (Lk. 12:51 ESV) He was constantly and bitterly fighting against those with religious and political power.

In the days closer to his death, this grew stronger. He was betrayed by one of those closest to him. Another of his disciples publicly disowned him. He was given an unfair trial, with the use of false witnesses. (Mt. 26:60) The crowd desired his condemnation rather than “a notorious prisoner”. (Mt. 27:16 ESV) He was mocked in front of an entire battalion of soldiers. (Mt. 27:27)

For the crucifixion is something foreign to us. We have seen nobody being crucified, and certainly none of us has gone through that experience. Thus, Good Friday becomes an event in the past, still, we know, of the utmost significance, but we are removed more than a few steps from it.

But who has not been “despised and rejected”, who has not seen at least some sorrow or grief? We all have firsthand knowledge and experience of these: we have been betrayed, disowned; we have taken up hard fights against those with more power than us; we see injustice everywhere.

In this, we also participate in Good Friday. Those were our sufferings he bore. In the reverse, they are his sufferings we have ourselves and see around us. Through his death, one day these sufferings will be removed from us. Also, we in our moments of pain come to comprehend a small part of the agony of Christ, feeling it firsthand ourselves. This gives us a depth and sincerity to our appreciation for the magnitude of what he did, as his sufferings were so much greater yet than all that is in and around us.

What then should we do? Looking upon the example of Christ, who bore our pain and suffered for us, we ought to also attempt then to bear and eliminate the sufferings of others. This is a call for us – to search out ways we can aid, showing people why Good Friday is indeed Good.

There is some debate in the Christian Reformed Church, (CRC) of which I am a member, concerning the Form of Subscription. If you do not follow any church politics, this post may be a bit foreign.

Confessional churches, like the CRC, have a set of standards by which they are guided. There are some distinct advantages to this – orthodoxy can be judged easily, the heritage of the chuch can be maintained, core beliefs do not change from church to church, and unity is generally fostered.

In the CRC, officebearers, ministers, and professors of theology need to sign a document called the Form of Subscription (FoS) to indicate they subscribe to the doctrinal standards of the CRC – the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dordt. An analogue of this form is a necessary component of a confessional church.

The current debate concerns the content of the form. The synodical committee studying this form (pdf) identified two principles underlying the debate:

1. “… A church’s identity and mission arise out a specific heritage.” (1)
2. “… A regulatory instrument is needed to keep us orthodox.” (1)

The first point, the report presents, the CRC as a whole holds to. It is recognized that the three doctrinal standards are the expression of a particular heritage, a certain way of interpreting Scripture, out of which the CRC has become what it is and done what it does. The leadership of the CRC need to be aware of this heritage to preserve the church’s character and mission.

The second point, the report says, “is increasingly being called into question.” (1)

I would be inclined to disagree with that. I have not heard anyone calling for the abolition of such a “regulatory device” (i.e. the FoS). Rather, I think the aversion to the current FoS is due to its apparent strength.

For by signing the current Form of Subscription, one states they will (in summary):

1. Claim the doctrinal standards fully agree with the Word of God.
2. Not contradict the standards in any way.
3. Reject and refute claims that contradict the standards.
4. Present any difficulties with standards to church leaders.
5. Give explanation of views on an article of the standards to church leaders if asked.
6. Submit to authority of church when dealing with difficulty, with the right of appeal given.

At first glance, it appears to be a more than slightly iron-fisted solution to the problem. Are the doctrinal standards on the same plane of truth as Scripture? May one not disagree with the standards in the least bit? What if the church doesn’t happen to like someone’s valid views and removes them from office?

A more thought-out approach sees that the intention of the Form is not to silence and condemn dissenters, but to make sure the church has the right to deal with true heresy. This is clear especially in Synod 1976’s additions to the commentary on Article 5 of the Church Order. (pdf of the whole thing) But the tone of the document does lead otherwise.

The report cites a few incidences where this is causing problems. A survey by Rev. Ken Nydam revealed that many churches were concerned that the FoS was no longer relevant to the contemporary situation. (3) Fleetwood CRC in British Columbia overtured Synod to examine the form “on the grounds that many churches in that classis no longer used the FOS because many individuals had difficulty signing it.” (3)

Therefore, I agree also that revision of the FoS is necessary and beneficial. By revising this document, the intended meaning would be made much clearer.

The committee also took the opportunity, per Synod’s mandate, to update some elements of the form, notably including reference to Our World Belongs To God.

The proposed new form (page 8 of the report), I believe, expresses this meaning excellently. It is immediately clear, through the language of “covenant” and the positive tone of the form, that it is a positive tool to ensure orthodoxy and keep the church continuing in its historically-grounded direction

(Though, if I could offer a suggestion, the meaning of “submit to its judgement” in the context of the fourth paragraph is unclear.)

Yesterday Barack Obama gave a speech that has been widely talked and thought about. This ought to be another turning-point in his campaign, as he has now transcended the political system he is entering. For a well-written opinion see the NY Times. If you have not read or seen the speech yet, it is imperative you do so (barackobama.com).

And among those writing about this was the Family Research Council, a conservative Evangelical Christian political group founded by James Dobson. They have concerned themselves with the general issues that much of the Religious Right likes so much - ending abortion, abstinence-only sex education, Intelligent Design, et cetera.

However, they seem to have focused themselves on a narrow view of both politics in religion. Among other things, they have likened Al Gore to Chicken Little: “The sky is warming!“, calling him “a prophet of doom”, and stating “the proposed cure is more intrusive government”.

It is in this vein that they responded to Obama’s speech:

“Barack Obama just gave an eloquent speech, but one that does not address the underlying nature of Senator Obama’s beliefs. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, like Mr. Obama, believes in a state-centered 21st century form of big-government socialism. This 21st century form of socialism is at the heart of the Liberation Theology Rev. Wright preaches from the pulpit. Today, Mr. Obama again made it clear, with all his eloquence, that he still embraces these beliefs that would require dismantling the free-market system that has made our country’s economy the most prosperous in all of human history.”

Firstly, the social issues Obama spoke about were education, healthcare, and job outsourcing; he said nothing about dismantling “the free-market system”. Secondly, why should a religious lobby group take such an issue to “big-government socialism”, and value so highly economic prosperity?

“In contrast to Liberation Theology, the Christian orthodoxy teaches about the nature of God, the nature of man, the relationship between the two in this life, and about the hereafter. Liberation Theology, on the other hand, is a belief system about political agendas, socialistic economic policy, and redistribution of wealth. Proponents of Liberation Theology, like Rev. Wright, teach that God commands us to form a government that will supervise our economy to create government-subsidized jobs under central-government planning; guarantee healthcare and education by having government control both; and achieve “economic equality” by redistributing wealth through massive taxes on the affluent and massive government entitlements for the poor. And it advocates replacing governments that do not embrace this socialistic agenda.”

This is more than a bit hypocritical. If the “Christian orthodoxy” has nothing to do with “political agendas, economic policy, and redistribution of wealth”, why did they just argue an anti-socialism, pro-free-market agenda, economic policy, and distribution of wealth in the previous paragraph? Also, it can be noticed that nowhere does the FRC say that Obama is a “proponent of Liberation Theology”, just Rev. Wright. This is the very behaviour Obama spoke out against in his speech:

“We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words.”

Did the FRC even read the speech?

“Those are the beliefs of Liberation Theology. Those are the offensive root beliefs underlying many of Rev. Wright’s sermons. And though Barack Obama does not embrace Mr. Wright’s offensive language, he does embrace this government-solves-everything-through-socialism worldview.

His speech was magnificent in its elegance and rhetoric, but today Mr. Obama reminded me yet again of his worldview that embraces, among other things, partial-birth abortion, military weakness, and economic socialism.” –Ken Blackwell

The progression (Liberation Theology > Offensive Rev. Wright > Obama > socialism > abortion, “military weakness”, “economic socialism”) is logically troubling at just about every step. While I may agree that abortion is immoral, and that Obama’s foreign policy may not be strong enough, I cannot see how this has anything to do with yesterday’s speech.

I appreciate dialogue from all sides, but if any group decides to issue material like this, I cannot take them seriously. Although I support Obama and think socialism is closer to ideal economic policy than the current consumeristic capitalism, I have no qualm respecting more conservative views. However, when a group goes out of its way to issue inflammatory material, contradicting themselves on which views are important, and taking offense in principle to different ideas without considering what their merits might be, I cannot help but see their views as irrelevant.

And I think many others feel the same way. Conservative causes can be presented in a well-reasoned, neatly-considered manner. Perhaps this is done by some people, and I would like to listen to them. But some higher-profile groups and people, have presented propaganda-like material like this. And it is because of things like this that Christianity is having an image problem [time.com].

Shopping malls are a cornerstone of our consumer-oriented society. They are the hubs of capitalism, where people gather together to buy.

I mention this as I went on a trip to Vaughan Mills. This is frankly an awe-inducing place, with over 200 stores and more than 6000 parking spots. I wandered around with a camera; a circuit of the place took me about an hour.

I was considering how every location confers some sort of message to those who are there. For example, a house, being comfortable and personalized, allows its residents to relax because of the atmosphere of ownership and sanctuary. There are various disputes about how to set up an office building, but all are oriented towards increasing productivity. A shopping mall is set up in such a way that puts people into the mood to spend.

Vaughan Mills has tried to emulate a home environment to do this. Attention was given to the floors - they are nicely carpeted or wooden. The place was divided into several “neighbourhoods”, each designed to give a slightly different ambiance, each meticulously styled to a theme and colour. The music played was low-key and unobtrusive. The stores themselves were tidy in presentation and were not visually blaring inside or outside. Several stores had music playing that clashed with that in the hallway. Overall, the atmosphere was tuned to seem quiet with a restricted pallet. Oddly enough, the ceiling was left unfinished, which I found snapped this illusion instantly; this must not be the case for most others.

This metaphor played itself out quite humourously in this rest area. Here there were two banks of chairs that faced each other about 10 metres apart. Between them was an area rug and a coffee table (which was quite useless as nobody could reach it). However, the backs of each of the chairs were tilted upwards towards a circle of TVs, a truly essential element of every living-room metaphor.

Still, it was obvious the mall tried to make one’s time memorable. There were enough exotic elements, like a statue, specially-themed rest areas between “neighbourhoods”, and curiosities like an indoor waterfall. The mall is marketable as an experience, which keeps people returning.

But there were certainly elements of this place that gave it a bleak and empty atmosphere. There was an endless stream of people, few of which seemed concerned with anything friendly at all. The noise of everybody, even over the music, was constant.The mall was anything but a place of peace and relaxation for me.

I believe this is because the drive behind the mall is ideologically rotten. Rarely do we consider why the mall is there. Its objective, strangely enough, is completely different than the reason why people are there. People come to the mall for a social time, for the thrill of buying new things, to see what the market has to offer, to experience the thrill of such a large and exotic place. But they are given these things in order to make sure they come and spend.

This is based on a specific understanding of desire: that which we call consumerism. This philosophy presupposes that having material objects can produce a state of happiness. Therefore, desire describes want of some object, and obtaining that object has potential to produce happiness.

The curious problem is that people do not need to come to the mall due to this desire. The mall or store itself is set up to create it. People come to be thrilled, to have an experience, to be social; these are what produces the happiness. However, people are not unwilling to be part of this otherwise elaborate deception. They easily and willingly become consumers once there, for there is a certain ring to the consumerist promise.

And this brings out the very negative side of such a place. Everyone inside the mall becomes a generic “consumer”, with desire for some object(s) in their minds, and some sum in their pockets. Inside the microcosm of the mall, one becomes but the money in their purse. This brings out an impersonal attitude in many of the shoppers, which is evident.

The rest areas seemed occupied mostly by the elderly. They are a completely different bunch than the shoppers.

I visited a furniture store that was within. The extreme contrast between the busyness of the mall and the furniture was startling. Whereas the mall was set up to be exotic, there was noting less so than the furniture. Each article was some subdued off-white colour, or a dark brown or black. The shapes embodied simplicity and function. Perhaps even those who like shopping at malls need a retreat from such places.

I was listening to this episode of Speaking of Faith, which discusses the original intentions of the American separation of church and state. The guest, Steven Waldman, had researched what many prominent Founding Fathers of America, like Jefferson, Washington, and especially Madison thought about this separation.

His narrative begins in early America, where the Constitution did not include the First Amendment. In this time, there was a large amount of religious persecution between Christian groups. He gives the example of Mary Dyer, who was executed in Massachusetts for being a Quaker.

He points out that during this time, the proponents of the separation of church and state were the predecessors of today’s Evangelicals. Their focus on individual piety and spirituality fit this philosophy well, notwithstanding that they were the ones being persecuted by the existing religious establishments.

And eventually, through various political maneuverings, they got their wish.

Yet strangely enough, the same group that was pushing for this separation is attempting to bridge church and state again. This movement is generally called the “Religious Right”. Their stance is that by putting religious morality into law, that the state can be improved. But there is the problem that disagreement with the conservative politics, some of which is based on these conservative Christian viewpoints, implies that they are in opposition to Christianity. Also, Christianity is blamed for the failures of these conservative politics. People that want to distance themselves from the one side of politics find themselves nominally alienated from a religion.

Waldman notes this: And what we are seeing now is polling data that says that one of the effects of the dominance of religious conservatives in the last 20 years is that it’s soured a generation, not on politics, it’s soured them on Christianity. That’s the big issue that religious leaders have to grapple with right now. I think Waldman has this exactly right.

The problem is that both separation of church and state and merging the two both do not work. A completely separated, secular state becomes the church of the secular. The church-state, as exhibited many times in the past,  is corrupted by absolute power and can be quite intolerant. Therefore, I believe neither is the true answer.

To have a political sphere that is not at odds with the church, the entire constitution of the state must be based on religion. The state needs to exist solely for religious need, with religious objectives, and working towards fostering a just religious society. The church itself looks surprisingly similar to this paradigm. Perhaps the proper state is the church.

This is different than the merging of church and state. This process tries to tack on Christian values to the secular political sphere that has completely different objectives. Church as state is ideologically consistent, and is not corruptible in the same way as historical church-states have been, for the church ought to see power as ultimately Christ’s.

However, I have not the political experience or knowledge to know how this would work out. I can see how it would be very difficult to obtain in the first place, with the very heterogeneous religious areas that would need to unite to make this possible.

This is a complex problem, and I will continue my studies on the subject.