Home Page

Why Poland?

In Uncategorized on August 21, 2016 at 9:47 pm

When we told people that we were going to Poland for our holiday this summer, they invariably asked, “Poland? Why Poland?”

The main reason we wanted to go to Poland, I suppose, was because it’s in Europe. My wife, Dani, and I love Europe. We love European history and culture, so anywhere in Europe is great.

Now that we have returned from this trip, I can report that Poland is an incredible vacation destination and I am much more qualified to answer the question, “Why Poland?”

The History

WP_20160715_17_24_38_RawI found myself regularly and meaningfully interacting with Poland’s incredible history. Recalling the Tartar invasions of the 13th century, every hour on the hour we heard a trumpeter in Krakow playing the Hejnal, or Hymn to our Lady, out of the tower windows of St. Mary Basilica. Tradition has it that when the Tartars appeared on the horizon, a trumpeter sounded a warning which saved the city.  After the battle, the trumpeter was found slain by an enemy arrow. This is why, at each sounding of the Henjal, the song is interrupted mid-note, commemorating the sudden death of the trumpeter. It was awesome to even hear the trumpeter clearly through the open windows of our room just off the square (Tango House).

We also stayed at in the renovated stables, converted to a charming hotel, of 16th century Palac Stuga. On our WP_20160721_08_11_44_Rawpersonal tour of the old palace we saw the original circular wooden staircases and wall decorations, and also Renaissance additions. The palace itself suffered from Nazi and Soviet degradations, but with government grants, the proprietor hopes to restore Palac Struga to it’s former glory. One evening, I took a four kilometer hike through fields and forest to the ruins of the much older Cisy Castle. We also took a look at Książ Castle, which, they say, Adolf Hitler planned to make one of his residences.

WP_20160719_11_22_47_RawIt is an understatement to say that Hitler and the Nazis were a significant part of Polish history. It was in probably in Poland that Nazi atrocities were the greatest. The murder of Polish Jews was essentially accomplished and the enslavement of the Polish people was well underway. Visiting Birkenau you walk among the physical remnants of an ideology that came dangerously close to conquering Europe, or more. We walked along the railroad tracks, and through the large area where people were sorted–live or die–and down the road which led to the crematoriums. We’d been to Dachau, but the scale of Auschwitz-Birkenau is overwhelming.

Built on top of the rubble of the Warsaw Ghetto

Built on top of the rubble of the Warsaw Ghetto

Although very little of the Warsaw Ghetto wall exists, for me, the idea of the Ghetto dominated our visit to Warsaw. What shocked me was the size of the thing. The northern point of the ghetto was the train yard where, in the summer of 1942, 250,000 Jews were loaded for the 75k trip to Treblinka. From this point you can see the very tall Palace of Culture and Science, which stands at the most southern point of the Ghetto’s former boundaries–it’s a long way down there! Some neighbourhoods in this area are 15 feet higher than the streets around them. This is because they are build on top of the rubble of the Ghetto.

We went to several museums including the Warsaw Uprising Museum and the Solidarity Museum, but by far the best was The Museum of the History of Polish Jews. This museum is probably the best narrative museum I have ever been too.

Food

I often say that the only reason I go to the historical sights is to give me something to do between meals. I love good food, and Poland has a lot of it.

WP_20160729_14_46_47_RawMilk bars have been in Poland for a long time (late 19th century). They were government subsidized canteens where workers could get a nutritious and affordable meal. Every time the Polish people found themselves in dire economic straits, bar mleczny (milk bars) flourished. It seems as if the requirement for the middle-aged women who work in the milk bars, besides hard-working efficiency, is that they speak no English. So you point to items you think you’d like to eat, and nod in the affirmative to any clarifying question they ask you in Polish. They you pay the equivalent of about $4 and enjoy your pork knuckle with mustard, beet soups and cabbage roll.

Before we left, we were told by a former resident that we’d be eating nothing but pork and cabbage. We did eat a InstagramCapture_0a5dc3e4-5b5e-43a7-9f07-94277fb849f1lot of traditional polish food, and, yes, there was always pork knuckle, neck, breaded pork steaks, but there was almost always duck and trout on every menu. There was also bigos, a cabbage and meat stew and amazing soups: zurek, which has several kinds of meat in a sour base, and tasty beet soups, served both hot and cold. But we had some incredible non-Polish meals as well, including Italian, Thai and Spanish. These meals were almost always significantly better than what I have eaten in North America.

One of my favourite things about my previous trips to Europe is the restaurant patio. The inside of restaurants WP_20160724_12_18_10_Raware empty; the seating that spills out onto streets and squares is full. This culture is alive and flourishing in Poland. We ate at least two meals and made several beverage stops in an outdoor restaurant.

If all this sounds good to you, wait till you hear about how much it costs! Poland is very inexpensive. Museums cost about $4. A B&B in the center of all the action is less than $80, and in the country closer to $50. Most of our dinners, a generous main and a beverage, were less than $30, often less than $20, for the two of us.

So that’s why I loved traveling in Poland this summer.  If you are looking for a wonderful European experience, full of history and great food, try Poland.

Why, in Africa, take-out is more expensive that eat-in.

In Uncategorized on July 8, 2016 at 9:56 pm

In Africa, Take-Out is more expensive that Eating -In.

Well, at least it is Yaoundé, Cameroon.

My wife and I had just picked up some Take-Out Sushi. We were discussing if the tipping percentage should be different for Take-Out than for Eating-In. She then recalled that she always paid more for Take-Out when she lived in Africa. I thought this peculiar, as did she when she first encountered it. But then someone explained it to her.

It has to do with the fact that with Take-Out, you are leaving the store with something extra–the container in which the food is packaged. Any of the costs associated with Eating-In is not a factor, since most of the labour is performed by a family member and the dishes can be washed and be as good as new. In the mind of the restaurants proprietors, there is a tangible sense of loss as the cardboard container walks out the door.

I just thought you should know.

A Case for Infant Baptism (2)

In Uncategorized on June 21, 2016 at 6:05 pm

I want to move from the scriptural support for the practice of infant baptism to some that is worldview related.  Mixed with these are some personal, perhaps even sentimental, considerations as to why I remain a paedobaptist.

Believer baptism puts the offer of God’s promises with the acceptance of same; infant baptism separates the offer from the acceptance.

In my mind, separation has a couple of advantages.

For one thing, applying the sign of baptism on an infant emphasizes God’s promises, rather than the individuals reception of these promises. In infant baptism, God promises–He is the agent–and the little helpless human simply receives. Every time we witness this ceremony we see again this picture of Grace.  The individual is incapable of responding to God.  They can’t reject him, can’t say thank you. There is no way that we deserve or in any way can earn the blessings of God and unity with Christ as symbolized in baptism.  The very helplessness of the recipient reinforces this idea.

This is a strange idea in our modern culture where the individual is supreme, but not so in the ancient world.   It is likely that the first century writers of the New Testament couldn’t conceive of believer baptism for they were community and family oriented, rather than individual oriented.  When they report that “households” (Acts 16:15 and again in verse 31) were baptized, they would likely be shocked that anyone could think that this didn’t involve children.  It wasn’t until the sixteenth century–the century in which the individual was born–that Christians began to question the legitimacy of infant baptism.

While, primarily emphasizing the actions of God, infant baptism also emphasises the nuclear family, biological or adoptive, and the church family. At an infant baptism, following the promises of God, the parents promise and the church body also make some heavy promises. The Bible is very clear that just because you are in the family, doesn’t mean that you will necessarily grow into the transformation for which circumcision is the sign, but God still has established family as the means by which God’s Word is to be taught and lived. This same principle is embodied in infant baptism.  From my position as the father, infant baptism was a daunting event. In it there is an awareness that this baptism is no guarantee that the child will receive the ultimate spiritual blessings for which it is a signifier. And that if the helpless child in your arms is to know about God’s promises, it is pretty much up to you communicate them. Standing there you become poignantly aware of the awesome responsibility that is yours to train and teach the child in your arms so that they become the individual who professes their acceptance of God’s promises.

When the parents have made their promises, the church body makes theirs–they accept the obligation to support the parents as they raise the child.  The ceremony of infant baptism emphasises the actions of God and his agents.

We are talking about two very important events in the life of a Christian–every Christian acknowledges the importance of doing something about the children of believers; every Church also recognizes the importance of the new Christian publically professing their faith in Christ. The questions is where do we put baptism? And what do we use to commemorate the other significant event?

When those who have been baptized as infants come to faith in Jesus Christ, they publically profess their faith. This is commemorated in many different ways, but this is how it went with my children. They attended a year long class where they were instructed in the foundational beliefs of the church and discipled in being a member of the Body of Christ. Then they were examined by the church leadership. During a church service, an individual who had been a significant mentor on their spiritual journey, introduced my child. She then offered their testimony, after which hands were laid on her by friends and family and she was blessed with prayer. The church service was followed by a time of fellowship with the church family and later, at home, with the extended family. This was a significant event, and it was treated at such.

Many (all?) churches that practice adult baptism alone, practice child dedication.Child dedication emphasizes primarily the actions of the parents who bring the child forward for dedication.  I have contended that infant baptism emphasize the actions of God at the baptism and believer baptism emphasizes the actions of the believer.  Those who espouse infant baptism would argue that the practice that acknowledges God as the primary agent is the preferred, and more Biblical, approach.

Who is speaking in baptism? God or the baptized? Or both? For the infant baptizers, it is clearly God–he speaks first and human beings receive (as opposed to, human beings are active and God responds to our obedience). In my tradition, the believer will have their chance to speak, but that won’t be until he or she becomes a beleiver.

In a culture where the individual is god, to baptize infants is counter-cultural.  We swim in the waters of individualism, and a ritual that focuses us on God’s action rather than our own, that focuses on the offer of Grace, rather than on our acceptance of it, is a ritual we ought to observe–if it’s scriptural.  I think that there is strong evidence infant baptism is scriptural.

I understand that there are some who do not.  This is an important issue, but it is not a foundational issue, so I can easily continue to worship in my wonderful credobaptist church.