Rant On Proposition 8

At the same time as the presidential election, the state of California voted on Proposition 8 – whether or not to amend the state constitution by adding, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Doing so passed.

Now I recognize that this issue is quite contentious in my native Christian circles. The widely-respected Focus on the Family, (though even writing the name makes me cringe) using language like states being “vulnerable to pro-homosexual forces” and warning us that “the Senate in 1996 came within a single vote of passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would have wreaked havoc on American culture. This legislation would have made sexual orientation a protected class equivalent to racial minorities under federal civil rights laws.” That made me feel quite enraged, Mr. Dobson, if that’s what you want, but somehow not at the “homosexual activists”.

This reddit comment made a better point, but still not quite where I would place my views:

I am an evangelical Christian … Personally, I do believe that the practice of homosexuality is morally wrong. I also believe most abortions are wrong. At the same time, I do not believe that it is the government’s prerogative to legislate on these matters except insofar as there are scientific or otherwise objective (i.e. not moral or religious) grounds for said legislation. If demonstrable harm to society results from a certain practice, generally that’s a good reason to restrict or outlaw it. Until that is shown, however, I will not speak against the government recognizing civil unions between people regardless of what I believe the moral status of that union is. Marriage is indeed a religious institution and I believe that the government’s choice to recognize that institution as having civil ramifications is a good one. Who am I, and for that matter, who are religious organizations in general, to say that the government cannot or should not also recognize other unions in the same way?

However, I question this person’s assumptions that (1) the government acts, or ought to act objectively, and (2) the domain of religious organizations stops where government begins.

Rather, some observations:

• There are many generally accepted laws that fall short of enforcing Christian “values”. For instance, it is not illegal to conceive a child out of wedlock, although most Christians I know would say doing so is immoral.
• There is no one set of “values” that all Christians hold. For instance, according to the Pew Forum, even on the hot-button issue of abortion, 24% of evangelicals say abortion should be “legal in most cases”.
• I wish to challenge the concept of “values” altogether. I would define such as moral conclusions. Would not the route taken be of more interest? I also have a huge amount of pent-up distaste at groups such as those lead by Dobson, which use the concept to make it morally unacceptable to disagree.

I thus am not afraid to say I would have voted against Proposition 8, had I been a Californian.

My original train of thought would be that marraige ought to lie outside the state’s domain. However, there are things that only the state can provide that are beneficial to married life, such as visitation rights in hospitals.

Rather, I think that since the state needs to get involved, it ought not to care who marries. I pay taxes, regardless of whether I am Christian, Muslim or Hindu. I am allowed to use the roads, regardless of my gender or sexual orientation. In the same vein, if the marriage must be a state “service” (for lack of better word), it ought to be disinterested in who I am.

Also, I see no pragmatic reason the state should care. I don’t feel allowing homosexuals to marry would endanger marriage at all, especially in light that divorce is legal and common, even in evangelical circles, (13% are divorced, not including those who have remarried, according to the Pew Forum) which is by all accounts, incredibly destructive. Should I ever get married, (cue Ryan: ha ha-ha ha) I would find divorce much more “devaluing” (if indeed I was to care) than allowing a gay person to visit their partner when they are about to die.

Perhaps if people wanted something worthwhile to complain about, officially changing the spelling of “marriage” would help a lot more.

Thanksgiving (see Gloating)

Today being Thanksgiving here in Canada, there has been more discussion about our abundance of material things, and how we ought to thank God for giving them to us.

As well obvious, there is lack of almost nothing here. Many families are celebrating their good fortune with dinners of unusual size. Even the homeless in the city are well-fed. Though things aren’t exactly as they ought to be, saying so is being overly picky.

At the same time, I read an article yesterday, describing people in Haiti that are so poor as to literally eat baked mud, for lack of anything else.

However, I would propose that those with excess have been given the greater problem, for they, empowered with wealth, cannot let things be, as it is the epitome of injustice to withhold another’s necessity. There is something disturbing about eating huge dinners while other people eat mud.

And sometimes I fear thankfulness is even a celebration of inequality. Perhaps an analogy would help my explanation:

There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. The rich man had very many flocks and herds, but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. He brought it up; it grew up with him and his children. It ate his same food and drink from his cup, and it would lie in his arms, as it was like a daughter to him.

The rich man, living next door, held a great feast one day. There was foodstuffs of all kinds, and the meat of choice was lamb. Seven lambs he slaughtered for he and his friends to eat with relish. Now seven lambs were too many for the banqueters; there was a great quantity of meat left over. The rich man fed it to his dogs.

The poor man, insulted greatly by the rich man’s sense of worth, looked on this with overwhelming disgust. The rich man and his friends conversed about how glad they were not to be a poor like him.

It troubles me that we put emphasis on being thankful alone. It seems like another way of us asserting how much more blessed we are than those Haitians, and therefore how much more favoured in God’s eyes we must be. We eat fancy meals to convince ourselves we have excess wealth to make ourselves feel assured of our worth. We thank God in prayer that he spared us from being like the rest of the world, being his chosen fortunate ones.

To show then that we don’t have this lack of humility, I believe that it is very necessary to live in a generous way. Living generously then means that I am not the prime beneficiary of my work – I work to better the lives of others, and afterward use what I need to maintain myself. With such an understanding of resources, I am not morally trapped by having much, because it is not primarily for me.

Required Reading: Ahmadinejad’s Letter to Bush

Wandering along yon intertubes, I came across this, a 2006 letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to George Bush. While I can’t say I agree with everything Ahmadinejad has ever said, this letter seems to sum up quite a bit about what I see as wrong with the Western, and especially American, attitudes and foreign policies. It’s quite long, but it’s an absorbing read.

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
Mr. George Bush,
President of the United States of America,

For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena – which are being constantly debated, especially in political forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hope that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them.

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God, feel obliged to respect human rights, present liberalism as a civilization model, announce one’s opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, make “War on Terror” his slogan, and finally, work towards the establishment of a unified international community – a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, but at the same time, have countries attacked. The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the presence of a few criminals in a village, city, or convoy for example, the entire village, city or convoy set ablaze.

Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women – as occupation troops – put in harms way, taken away from family and loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of ailments; while some are killed and their bodies handed to their families.

On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with.

Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal; nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the imposed war on Iran, Saddam was supported by the West.

Mr. President,

You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can these actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness? There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals.

European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e. the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values.

Young people, university students, and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.

Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.

Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did not exist. They show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

I tell them to study the history of WWI and WWII. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalized or explained?

Mr. President,

I am sure you know how – and at what cost – Israel was established:

• Many thousands were killed in the process.

• Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.

• Hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.

This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for sixty years now.

A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures, and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique – or at the very least extremely rare – in recent memory.

Another big question asked by the people is “why is this regime being supported?” Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) or liberal values? Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands – inside and outside Palestine – whether they are Christian, Moslem or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum? The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observers have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognize the Israeli regime, abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.

If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also asking “Why are all UNSC resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?”

Mr. President, As you are well aware, I live amongst the people and am in constant contact with them – many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They do not have faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with such policies.

It is not my intention to pose too many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well.

Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of nations? You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilized for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed.

Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.

Mr. President,

Don’t Latin Americans have the right to ask why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, Why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear? The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don’t they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth – including minerals – is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others? Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights? The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d’etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborate this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and celebrating their country’s progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.

Mr. President,

September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.

All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems – and even hunts its opponents abroad. September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial? All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbors of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people – who had been immensely traumatized by the attacks – some Western media only intensified the climate of fear and insecurity – some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic? American citizens lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity? Some believe that the hype paved the way – and was the justification – for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media.

In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly – for the public to finally believe – and the ground set for an attack on Iraq.

Will the truth not be lost in a contrived and deceptive climate? Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned values? Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?

Mr. President,

In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them.

The question here is “what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?” As Your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these problems exist – to a larger or lesser extent – in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign – paid from the public treasury – be explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles? What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region and in your country. But my main contention – which I am hoping you will agree to some of it – is: Those in power have a specific time in office and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures.

The people will scrutinize our presidencies.

Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment? Did we intend to establish justice or just supported especial interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful – thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs’? Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them? Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them? Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats? Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted version of it? Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors? Did our administrations set out to promote rational behavior, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns, intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trample on people’s rights? And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office – to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets – or not?

Mr. President,

How much longer can the world tolerate this situation? Where will this trend lead the world? How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers? How much longer will the specter of insecurity – raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction – hunt the people of the world? How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people’s houses destroyed over their heads? Are you pleased with the current condition of the world? Do you think present policies can continue? If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states, and extinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts, where would the world be today? Would not your government and people be justifiably proud? Would not your administration’s political and economic standing have been stronger? And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the American government?

Mr. President,

It is not my intention to distress anyone.

If Prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph, or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us today, how would they have judged such behavior? Will we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (PBUH) will be present? Will they even accept us? My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Muslims and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH). All divine religions share and respect one word and that is “monotheism” or belief in a single God and no other in the world.

The Holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on all followers of divine religions and says: [3.64] Say: O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah; but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran)

Mr. President,

According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine Prophets.

“To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases.” “The Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes on in the Hearts of His servants and records their deeds.” “The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is His court” “planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of mercy and forgiveness of sins” “He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of oppressors” “He is the Compassionate, the Merciful” “He is the recourse of the faithful and guides them towards the light from darkness” “He is witness to the actions of His servants” “He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of righteousness and remain steadfast” “Calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a witness to their deeds” “A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world and disobey Him and oppress His servants” and “A good end and eternal paradise belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves.”

We believe that a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvation. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH) and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth.

We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Koran as well: [19.36] And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path. Marium Service to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers.

The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and the rest of the world is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants. He has given greatness to Humans.

We again read in the Holy Book: “The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purify them from sins and pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid the rebellious”.

All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well.

Divine prophets have promised: The day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that their deeds are examined. The good will be directed towards Heaven and evildoers will meet divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and all others whose lives have been directly or indirectly affected by our actions.

All prophets, speak of peace and tranquility for man – based on monotheism, justice and respect for human dignity.

Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems of the world – that are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets – and improve our performance? Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and justice? Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected? Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?

Mr. President,

History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted the fate of men to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own devices.

Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.

Can one deny the signs of change in the world today? Is the situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years ago? Changes happen fast and come at a furious pace.

The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the world feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept dubious policies.

The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries.

The people are disgusted with increasing corruption.

The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion. The people of the world have no faith in international organizations, because their rights are not advocated by these organizations.

Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point – that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: “Do you not want to join them?”

Mr. President,

Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.

Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda
Mahmood Ahmadi-Nejad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Some Egypt Videos

Visiting St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mt. Sinai:

Wadi Natron Coptic monastery; includes a great but completely incomprehensible example of Coptic Chant at the end:

Series on (unofficial) persecution of Christians in Egypt, again with some Coptic Chant at the end of the last video:

Suburban Church Case Study: The Well, Feasterville

In an earlier post, I highlighted Todd Hiestand’s essay about being church in suburbia. I discovered that he indeed was putting these ideas into practice in a church, called The Well, in which he serves as one of the pastors. The Well is situated in the suburbs of Philadelphia (Feasterville).

The Well chose to have a warehouse as their building, as they put it “a new kind of church building that we believe will allow us to best be a blessing to our community”. This is because they see fostering the arts as an integral part of their mission:

More than likely you’ll notice a lot of really diverse and exceptional art on the walls when you come in. We use our space as an art gallery and concert venue for the local and greater Philadelphia artists and bands. This is a way for us to be a blessing to the world around us and allows us to simply try and be representatives of Jesus Christ in our world. While people who do not call The Well their church home do much of the art, we do have a number of gifted artists in our community. Often, you will see some of our artists painting during the service.

It is well worth looking at their flickr stream. Especially considering it is a warehouse, this is a beautiful place!

They also have an emphasis on the service as a time of community. This is something that has been bothering me at my church, where people hold almost all their talking until after the service, which I think negates some of the value of having a service. I very much enjoy their approach to ensuring this doesn’t happen:

People often say that the centerpiece to our Sunday morning is community. Whether it’s the 5-10 minute conversation/greeting time in the middle of the service, worshiping together or even a Q & A time during the message we understand and want to practice the fact that we are in this “faith thing” together.

To ensure they are continuing to examine their role in their context, they hold “midrash mettings” quarterly:

Because we believe that theology is best discussed in the context of a community of faith, we come together four times a year to discuss issues of theology and practice that are important to our community so that we may be more effective in being a part of God’s kingdom becoming a reality on earth as it is in heaven.

This all ties into the church’s suburban location, which Hiestand’s article shows has individualism at its core. Art fosters community by being an accessible expression of someone else’s feelings and thoughts. Including fellowship into the worship service provides an environment for community to grow. And the church values being continually relevant through regular re-examination of its context.

Church as Liberation

Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.

I was reading the Boff brothers’ excellent book about Liberation Theology this past week. I highly recommend this book, even though liberation theology seems to have already had its heyday. The common perception of Liberation Theology constrains it to the Latin American situation, but the Boffs show that it goes far beyond that.

Liberation theology sought to liberate the oppressed, especially the poor. But the Boffs how that there are two types of poverty. Those who make less than a living, the socio-economic poor, first come to mind. The process of liberation here brings these people out of their poverty.

However, there are also those that Jesus described as poor in spirit, the Boffs’ evangelically poor. Unlike socio-economically, those who are not poor in spirit are the oppressed; people are liberated into this poverty.

After looking at this exposition, I saw that both types of liberation are brought about by the same thing: generosity.

To solve the extreme problem of socio-economic poverty, we need to be generous with our resources. We are to give things as money, grain (especially with its recent surge in cost), and prayer. We must also speak out against the injustices that our capitalistic system brings about in some parts of the world. However, I wish to remind all that it is a fallacy to say that this is the complete solution to poverty; personal involvement of many is very necessary as well. If anyone is looking for a very worthy cause in this area, have a look at Emmanuel’s Wish, a small charity which supports African orphanages; also don’t forget your local homeless!

But to be poor in spirit, we must go beyond just our resources, instead giving away our very selves. To be poor in spirit is to counter our natural tendency to hoard ourselves, instead by being devoted completely to God (as Paul put it, a “living sacrifice”), and following his command to love our neighbour. And liberated from the oppression of individualism, Christians can form a community of the truly free.

This is where the second part of the Beatitude comes into play. The poor in spirit have the Kingdom of Heaven, for they make it up, and set free from self-interest, are ready to create it anew together.

And the first part of this is casting off oppressive ideologies. Both the physical and spiritual elements of life can be appreciated, throwing away both the Platonism in some Christianity and the denial of the spiritual in humanism. Each individual can be appreciated in their own peculiar way, as preference and prejudice can be disposed of. This creates the opportunity for vibrant and rich community.

Basically, the church becomes a community in itself, but inside the communities of the temporal world. But, because the church is the medium in which the Kingdom is developed, it shows to the temporal community what it ought to be like, and in its life, persuade the temporal community and its members that the Christian way is better. Francis Shaeffer put it this way:

“…We must exhibit that, on the basis of the work of Christ, the Chruch can acheive partially, but substantially, what the secular world wants and cannot get. The Church ought to be a “pilot plant,” where men can see in our congregations and missions a substantial healing of all the divisions, the alienations, man’s rebellion has produced.” (Pollution and the Death of Man, 81-82)

This is the dream of the missional church. For the world is starving spiritually in a way as severe as the hungry. The compassion demanded by our love in Christ ought to extend to all the oppressed: both the economically poor and the spiritually rich. And in generosity, we have the tools to live this compassion out.

Suburban Ministry, Part 2 – Stuck In A Little Box

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.

Forget me nots and second thoughts
Live in isolation
Heads or tails and fairytales in my mind
Are we, we are,
Are we, we are the waiting unknown
The rage and love,
The story of my life
The Jesus of Suburbia is a lie.

–Green Day, Are We the Waiting

Christian Ecology per Francis Schaeffer

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.

Suburban Ministry, Part 1

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.]

Helping the Economy The Exciting Way

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.