Year: 2013 (Page 2 of 6)

Legalize Hit Men?

October 24, 2013 / Trent / 8 Comments

I observed an English class at my school reading the recent post by Betsy Childs entitled “Why We Should Legalize Murder for Hire.”

Some were horrified at first at the suggestion that “hit men [could] provide a valuable service to society” by helping women deal with “unwanted marriages,” but they quickly understood they were dealing with satire. Their appreciation of the author’s wit was evidenced by the readers’ giggles and parenthetic comments.

Students see that the author is building a parallel between killing one’s spouse and killing one’s unborn child.

The students commended the cleverness of Childs’ analogy when she says that “matrimony severely curtails a woman’s freedom” and that “the better course is to avoid unwanted marriage in the first place,” and “it is her marriage; only she can decide when it must end” . . .

One student pointed out that Childs correlates adoption to divorce when she says the latter “may be an attractive alternative to murder” but “some woman do not have the emotional and financial resources to go through a divorce.”

The students’ initial reaction to this article was positive.

Critical Thinking and Discernment

Teacher: How would you take this if you were pro-choice?

Student: I’d be mad.

It wasn’t very long and one student used the word “fallacy.”

The students continued to ask each other questions:

Stacked evidence?

Not quite.

Faulty analogy?

Yeah, that fits.

(Faulty analogy: an argument is based on misleading, superficial, or implausible comparisons.)

The students suggested that this argument is only effective if someone accepts that premise that a fetus was comparable to a husband. Someone who is pro-choice would not accept the premise. They concluded that if your audience was pro-life, Childs’ argument was effective, but if it was pro-choice the argument would be ineffective.

Who is the audience?

Since this article was posted on The Gospel Coalition website, one can assume that the audience was conservative to moderate Christians. The effect of the article was to reinforce the views of the audience. In other words, it was preaching to the choir.

What’s the point of writing this if your audience already agrees?

It was observed that the only effect of the article was to reinforce the view of those who agree that our society “celebrates [the murder of] family members”. Several students pointed out that this, in itself, is not wrong, but because the tone was mocking this article would simultaneously alienate opponents and inflame the passions of supporters.

Was this the purpose of the article?

Students wondered, if you get the two sides all riled up you can’t get anywhere.

How can Christians write about this issue that promotes dialogue?

Doing the Dishes and the Gnashing of Teeth

October 21, 2013 / Trent / 3 Comments

chefkeem / Pixabay

When my kids were younger they had chores—one of which was doing the dishes.

It should have been as simple as everyone taking a turn on a rotating basis, but was never that simple.

Lacrosse games or ballet practices meant that somebody would miss their turn. To ask another child to take care of it resulted in anguished lamentations. These were even louder if the prospective dishwasher could conjure up a scenario where this debt might not be repaid. Then there was the was wailing and gnashing of teeth over the unfairness of having to do dishes on a night when we had a roast, as opposed the other night when a sibling had only to contend with the remains of a meal of bread and soup. Sometimes I got so sick of it that I just did them myself.

Grudging Obedience

I wouldn’t have been any happier if I had their silent obedience either. It certainly would have been quieter, and possibly less frustrating, but it wouldn’t have lead to their happiness, and in my better moments what I wish most for my children is fulfillment regardless of the circumstances.

The problem in both of these responses, wailing lamentations or grudging obedience, is that doing the dishes is seen as a duty. The idea of duty or obligation or requirement is set in opposition to happiness and joy. For my young children, happiness and joy could only be achieved by doing what they wanted as opposed to what they had to do. My kids put freedom first.

All this was a long time ago. My children have all grown up. The great thing now is that when they come over for a meal, they joyfully do the dishes. It’s the same activity, but their attitude is completely different.

What accounts for this difference? Surely, it’s maturity. They’ve lived away from home and know how much money and work it takes to put a delicious meal onto the table.

But it’s more than maturity; the most important thing for them is no longer freedom from duties and obligations, but a relationship with me, their parent. I cook for them a delicious meal because I love them and they wash the dishes because they love me.

If we think that Freedom is more important than anything else in order to live the good life (read more here), our focus will usually be hostilely directed toward those things which limit one’s freedom, and those who seemingly impose duties, obligations, responsibilities.

This creates resentful people.

If relationship is more important than freedom, our focus will be lovingly directed toward other persons who we love.

It’s obvious which leads to greater joy and happiness–fulfillment.

Biblical Basis of Fulfillment

It’s all there in Deteronomy 10. The writer implores God’s people to

¹² . . .walk in obedience to him, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, ¹³and to observe the Lord’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good.

Obedience certainly restricts our freedom, but washing the dishes after a good meal is a loving and joyful response to a great meal prepared for you in joy and love, and it’s all for our own good anyway.

My kids were miserable when they were focused on the duty and they are happy now that they are focused on the relationship. God wants what’s best for his people, and it turns out that is obedience.

Not Simply Obedience

But it’s not simply obedience.

Simple obedience is for the simply religious, and they are miserable. It’s joyful obedience that God is after and that will be a blessing to us. In verse 16 of the Deuteronomy 10, it says

Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer.

Circumcision was a duty for the people of God and if they understood it only as an obligation, they’d be stiff-necked. God certainly didn’t want disobedience, but silent and grudging obedience wasn’t any better; he wanted their hearts so that we can flourish.

Human flourishing is not about freedom, nor is it about fulfilling religious obligations, it’s about relationship.

Made for Freedom?

October 12, 2013 / Trent / 2 Comments

Free-Photos / Pixabay

When I got married, I was no longer free. I couldn’t play League of Legends whenever I wanted. I couldn’t eat chicken wings in bed. I had to tell my wife that I was going down to the store to get a jug of milk.

But I don’t mind. Not at all.

I’m not sure why exactly. It’s not because I’ve somehow gained more than I’ve lost–it’s more like I’ve gained what I lost as well as gained what I’ve gained. It doesn’t really make sense but that’s the way it is.

I don’t think I’m alone in this. I think that this sort of counterintuitive accounting occurs when anyone is in a good relationship.

A. C. Grayling recently presented the first of eight “Fragile Freedoms” lectures on CBC’s Ideas. In it he said that there is no possibility of “living the good life” if one is not free.

Grayling, along with most other modernists, would be right if human beings were made for autonomy. But what if we weren’t primarily made to be free? What if we were made first for something else?

Made for Relationship?

What if we were made for relationship? Not just in marriage, but in friendship and family, and not just with people but with animals and even the physical world.

The Biblical story suggests human beings are made to be in relationship, first with their Creator and, after, with everything else. We were made to be the objects of God’s love. He says through Jeremiah, “I have loved you with an everlasting love” (31:3). Suppose we were made to receive and the to return his love and to spread it out to the rest of the creation?

If this is the purpose for which we were made, freedom is still a very important part of who we are. Love is impossible without freedom. There is no possibility to love someone if there is no freedom to reject their love. It’s all there in Genesis 1-3. Humanity was created for relationship with God (and with each other and with the world). We had a choice and chose to reject God’s love. This didn’t change our purpose, just our ability to fulfill it.

So who is right about human nature? The modernists like Grayling or those who adhere to the Biblical view of man?

There is a simple test: Who experiences more fulfillment in life? The person whose freedom is expressed through relationships or the one whose relationship is subordinate to his freedom.

[click_to_tweet tweet=”Who is more fulfilled? The person whose freedom is expressed through relationships or the one whose relationship is subordinate to his freedom.” quote=”Who is more fulfilled? The person whose freedom is expressed through relationships or the one whose relationship is subordinate to his freedom.”]

In my experience, freedom is best enjoyed in the context of relationships, even though you surrender it most of the time. I think this is a universal experience when we are talking about “good” relationships. Those who insist on freedom first will be able to eat chicken wings in bed, but they won’t have anyone who cares that they stepped out for a jug of milk.

Christian Modernism? Modern Christianism?

October 9, 2013 / Trent / 0 Comments

We just can’t escape the modern worldview. The term “worldview” is itself a product of the modern worldview.

The modern worldview sees the world in terms of clear boundaries between categories. Well, one of the most cherished categorical distinctions is between subject and object. Implicit in the term worldview is the division between the object, the world, and the subject, the viewer.

But it all evens out because a person who deliberately rejects the Christian worldview can’t escape it either.

Judeo-Christian Roots of Secular Modernism

Those who claim they have a secular-Modern worldview, don’t really. Their understanding of the world and themselves is unavoidably infused with the Judeo-Christian worldview out of which it grew.

The concept of “secular” is itself rooted in the Judeo-Christian past. A linear understanding of history, the importance of human rights and freedoms, are two tenets of Modernism that are basic to Judeo-Christianity. Science flourished in the west because the universe was understood to be ordered–“In the beginning was the Logos. Ordered means predictable and this is the basis of the scientific method.

These are just a few of many examples where the modern “secular” worldview is not truly secular.

Just as the secular worldview isn’t purely secular, the so-called “Christian worldview” of our day has been influenced by modern secular ideas.

The Influence of Modern Secularism on Western Christianity

First, there are many Christians that accept the modern reductionist understanding of “truth.” They are trapped within this syllogism: Truth is rational and empirical; The Bible is true; therefore, the Bible is rational and empirical. At a popular level, this idea leads to two common errors: that the Bible is true like an encyclopedia is true, or that it’s not true at all. Since this reductionist view of truth is so recent and so limited, it is neither appropriate nor useful to hold the Bible to this narrow understanding of truth.
Another way the modern worldview has infiltrated our churches is the valuing of reason over emotion. This is the one I need to own up to. I like the rational bits of the worship service–the sermon–far more than the more emotional components–the singing. And you notice that even by classifying the elements of the church service as emotional and rational I am being very modern.
Third, we have a tendency to be individualistic and we put more emphasis on the individual autonomy than in preceding centuries. We speak of having a “personal relationship with Jesus” and we sing songs like “I have decided to follow Jesus.” OK, we don’t sing that song anymore, but we sing a lot of songs that are essentially personal reflections. There is, obviously, an important personal or individual dimension to Christian faith, but modernism has lead us to put an unbalanced emphasis on the importance of the individual.
Modernism considers faith a private affair that ought to be kept out of the public arena. Some in the church find it handy to live within this false dichotomy. In these cases, one’s public life has nothing to do with one’s religious life. This makes it possible to not claim some income on your tax forms, or to underpay employees, or cheat customers, or pollute the environment, or fail to adequately tip servers in restaurants, etc. These behaviors do not really touch upon one’s conscience because “business is business.” In other words, the demands of the Bible are separated from one’s public activity.
A related dichotomy, equally false, divides the world into sacred and secular spheres. There are many examples of this kind of thinking. When I was a teenager, there was much debate as to whether or not Christian young people ought to listen to “secular” music. For many, it was clear that Christians ought not to do so, and no consideration was given to whether or not the “Christian” music was true, or even good. Some Christian schools are based on the sacred/secular dichotomy. The problem with the idea of the secular, as we understand it today, is it suggests there are areas of creation over which Jesus is not Lord. This idea is completely incompatible with scripture.

[click_to_tweet tweet=”Five ways that the Modern Secular worldview has influenced Western Christianity #ModernFaith #Christianty” quote=”Five ways that the Modern Secular worldview has influenced Western Christianity”]

It is no easy thing, purging modernism from our minds and if we could ever completely succeed in doing so, we’d then have to purge our minds of post-modernism. I really don’t believe we can ever avoid being a product of our times. But reading the Bible helps a lot. It also helps a great deal to read history and non-western literature–the Bible nicely fits into these categories as well. These help us to provide a context for the idolatrous worldviews out of which we live.

The Story of Human Rights

October 2, 2013 / Trent / 0 Comments

dimitrisvetsikas1969 / Pixabay

While driving to one lecture, I was listening to another. The one I was listening to was delivered by A. C. Grayling on CBC’s Ideas. This was the first of eight “Fragile Freedoms” lectures held at the not yet officially opened Canadian Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg (listen here).

This is an excellent lecture. It’s clear, unified, thorough and entertaining, but in his historical survey of the development of the idea of rights, Grayling begins in the wrong place.

The Modern Story of Autonomy–Human Rights and Freedoms

His story beings in the 16th century. It goes like this:

In the Reformation, humanity took its first step toward the freedoms that culminated in the Enlightenment and were embodied in the documents of the French and American Revolutions. Martin Luther and the other reformers freed people from the hegemony of the church by giving them direct and individual access to God without the mediation of the church. This freedom Grayling calls “liberty of conscience” and it began an “inevitable “process leading to “liberty of thought” and then “liberty of action.” These liberties led to the freedom to ask all sort of questions, first, of the natural world, which led to the scientific revolution and then, of the social and political systems, which resulted in the revolutions in France and America.

Grayling is telling the Modern Story, the dominant story in our culture. It is a story of, among other things, the quest for individual human autonomy. This story begins in 1517.

The Ancient Origin of Human Rights and Freedoms

It is generally agreed upon that human freedoms and rights are a good thing. And we all like to take credit for good things. The Soviets claimed credit for the invention of the telephone, the Dutch for the sinking of the Spanish Armada and the Americans for the invention of basketball. So too, the Moderns claim credit for human rights and freedoms, and they do this by linking human rights to the modern quest for autonomy.

But the idea of human rights is not, in the first place, rooted in autonomy but rather in the idea of human worth. And this idea has a much more ancient origin.

[click_to_tweet tweet=”Are human rights and freedoms rooted in autonomy or human value? #freedom #rightsandfreedoms ” quote=”Are human rights and freedoms rooted in autonomy or human value?”]

Genesis 1:27 says, “God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” The Biblical story says that human beings–male and female–were created with inherent value.

It is likely we are not all that impressed at such a declaration. We have heard these words, literally, for millennia. (And this is sort of my point; we’ve heard them so long, we were bound to listen to them at some point.) But how would these words have sounded in the ancient world–ridiculous, preposterous?

Human Value? Absurd!

The cultures that dominated the ancient near east, Early Babylonian and Egyptian, revolved around a priest-king, who represented the gods and as such, needed to be treated like one.

This idea was reinforced in the creation myths where humanity was created for the soul purpose of serving the Gods. The myth upheld the socio-political reality of the culture–inferior people are meant to serve the superior representative of the divine.

Imagine the how scandalous the idea that mankind–both male AND FEMALE–itself was the image, read “replacement for the idol.” This idea was immediately reinforced in the next chapter (2:20) when we see Adam naming things, an activity carried out by the gods in the stories of other cultures.

The idea that human beings were not existentially equivalent to the muck on the god’s celestial shoes would have been unthinkable, yet it is this radical idea of human value that undergirds the entire Bible.

[click_to_tweet tweet=”The idea that human beings were not existentially equivalent to the muck on the god’s celestial shoes would have been unthinkable, yet it is this radical idea of human value that undergirds the entire Bible. #rightsandfreedoms, #freedom #humanvalue” quote=”The idea that human beings were not existentially equivalent to the muck on the god’s celestial shoes would have been unthinkable, yet it is this radical idea of human value that undergirds the entire Bible. “]

Jesus summarizes the law and the prophets, which amounts to pretty much the entire Old Testament, saying love God more than anything and “your neighbour as yourself.” Further, the central event in the Bible, Christians would say in human history, is the son of God giving up his life for the world and its people. And the reason consistently given for this sacrifice is God’s love for people.

Christians believe that a human being is the Lord of the entire universe.

This is a very high view of humanity, indeed.

And it is this understanding of humanity, which comes directly out of our Judeo-Christian heritage, which is the foundation of human rights. The events of the 16th century and following amount to a discovery of what faithful readers of scripture had been saying all along.

A. C. Grayling is telling the Modern Story, a story which is based and draws upon the Judeo-Christian worldview.

I hope that the new Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg will give more credit to the ultimate source of human rights as it strives to fulfill its worthy task “to explore the subject of human rights in order to enhance the publics understanding of human rights, and encourage reflection and dialogue.”

The Modern Worldview

September 21, 2013 / Trent / 0 Comments

Lesslie Newbigin’s book, Foolishness to the Greeks, changed my life. I don’t remember a lot of the specifics, but by reading this book I came to realize that I was looking at the world through some very thick and tinted lenses. Everyone looks at the world through the metaphorical spectacles of a worldview.

Competing Worldviews

There are competing worldviews in the West, by which I mean Europe and North America. One of the dominant ones has been around for a while–the Modern story. This may be in the process of being replaced by the newer “Post-Modern” story. Another worldview that has been around much longer is derived from the Bible. Although very different, we in the West look at the world through a weird blend of all three.

If you are going to understand the glasses through which you are view yourself and the world, you need to begin by understanding the basic characteristics of each worldview which is tinting the lenses by which you look at everything.

In our culture, all our glasses are being strongly tinted by modernism. The roots of the Modern worldview are in the 18th century, the Enlightenment. While it took some pretty big hits in the 20th century, many of the ideas which characterize this perspective are with us today.

[click_to_tweet tweet=”To understand the glasses through which you are view yourself and the world, you need to begin by understanding the basic characteristics of each worldview which is tinting the lenses by which you look at everything. #worldview ModernWorldview” quote=”To understand the glasses through which you are view yourself and the world, you need to begin by understanding the basic characteristics of each worldview which is tinting the lenses by which you look at everything.”]

The Main Ideas in the Modern Worldview:

1. Human reason is the source of truth; the light, in Enlightenment, is Reason. Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes really got this idea going and it has stuck with us. They trusted in reason to be the arbiter of truth (Read “Fact versus Truth“) albeit from different starting points. Bacon used reason to take him from observation of particular phenomenon to universal principles, and Descartes saw the human mind as the final authority in understanding reality. Although they approached it from different angles, both trusted reason to lead to the truth.
2. Reality is material. There is nothing that transcends the material world, or, if there is, it has no relevance to one’s life. In other words, there is no such thing as the supernatural, only the natural. This idea is called materialism or naturalism. If human reason is the source of truth, then Bacon’s approach, called empiricism, will help us to discover the truth. This only works in the natural world, but since nothing else is real, there is no problem.
3. The individual is of primary importance. In the modern worldview, human reason is autonomous. So also is the individual whose motto has become, “You’re not the boss of me!” Our history is one of emancipation from those who would curb our independence: kings and queens, God and the church, communism and socialism, and tradition and social conventions. Our free economies and liberal democracies are testaments to our individual autonomy. One source of this idea is Rene Descartes whose “I think therefore I am” not only grounded truth in the reason but in the reason of the individual.
4. Faith in Progress. Humanity is on an upward trajectory. Because of human reason and its offspring, science and technology, Modernity places a lot of faith in progress. It has long believed that we need to get rid of silly superstitions and religious beliefs. Reason rather than religion will allow the human race to continue up the road toward perfection and science and technology will solve the problems that we face.
5. Categories and more categories. Because human reason is only autonomous if the world is only material, the modern mind establishes and defends boundaries between categories. There are many. Here are a few: mind/body, natural/supernatural, material/spiritual, immanent/transcendent, public/private, rational/emotional, fact/value, reason/faith, knowledge/belief, sacred/secular and objective/subjective.

[click_to_tweet tweet=”5 ways in which the Christian Worldview is different than the Modern Worldview. #Worldview #ChristianWorldview #Modern Worldview” quote=”5 ways in which the Christian Worldview is different than the Modern Worldview.”]

Main Differences between the Modern and Christian Worldviews

The Biblical worldview differs significantly with the Modern worldview on each of these points.

Human reason is part of God’s good creation, but it has also been distorted by sin, so it cannot be completely trusted.
Obviously, the Biblical worldview is not materialist or naturalist because it proclaims a transcendent God who is the source of objective realities like The Good, The True and The Beautiful.
The communal nature of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit challenges the idea that those created in the image of the triune God ought to be understood first as an autonomous individual.
God’s Grace and not man’s ability will be the cause of any progress we experience in this world, and that’s only if we surrender to Christ because he’s the only one that can deal with our real problem–SIN.
Christ, who is wholly God, became wholly human and yet did not surrender any of his divinity; this alone presents a challenge to the clean categories so loved by the Modern mind. An honest reading of the Bible will blur many of the other boundaries between the other categories held so dear by modernism.

The problem is, the Biblical worldview and the modern worldview are not kept distinct. Our glasses are tinted by both of these (and other) contradictory worldviews.

A Christian Worldview?

September 14, 2013 / Trent / 0 Comments

msandersmusic / Pixabay

The term “Christian worldview” is often used, but not always understood.

Too often, people think that if you simply believe the Bible, oppose abortion and avoid R-rated movies you have a Christian worldview.

OK, this is a bit of a caricature, but my point is, Christians often have a far too superficial understanding of worldview.

Even Nancy Pearcy’s book Total Truth, which is a book about worldview, begins with the story of Sarah, a Christian woman who works as a counselor in a Planned Parenthood Clinic. Pearcy explains this incongruity:

Sarah’s story illustrates how even sincere believers may find themselves drawn into a secular worldview–while remaining orthodox in their theological beliefs (32).

Although Sarah’s story may illustrate what Pearcy says it does, it does not help readers to understand the depth at which we hold worldviews–Christian, Secular or whatever.

The Depth of Worldview

Here’s an illustration that I think better illustrates how deeply worldviews are held and the conflict between a Christian and a “Secular” worldview.

I’m teaching Grade 9 Humanities this year so I started reading the textbook. I think it’s a standard textbook for Social Studies across the province. I didn’t get beyond the first page and I knew that this year I would be teaching a lot of worldview in my class. Two sentences in the introduction to the first chapter entitled “The Early Modern Age” grabbed my attention.

They present a worldview that is completely contrary to a Biblical one.

Here’s the first sentence:

Sometime around the year 1500, Europe began to experience profound changes in its political, religious, social, economic and intellectual life. As a result of these changes, European history began to enter a new era–the Early Modern Age.

This is the second:

All civilizations experience a kind of evolutionary change in their histories.

The significant word here is “evolutionary.” The popular use of the term “evolutionary” connotes a positive change. The Free Online Dictionary captures the developmental aspect of the word when it defines evolutionary as “A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.”

Together these sentences suggest that humanity is moving toward a better world and that the Early-Modern Age was a significant step in that direction. Many people in our culture accept this without batting an eye. This is their worldview. And it’s held far more deeply than the idea that reproductive freedom is good or bad or whatever.

It is true that there were a lot of changes going on in Europe around the year 1500. It is also true that some things have improved over the last 500 years–transportation, for example, is much faster than it used to be. But is it true to say that our civilization has improved just because some aspects of it has?

A survey of the last hundred years–with two World Wars, one Great Depression, the nuclear arms race, ecological disasters, new and deadly diseases–provides a lot of evidence to the contradict the idea that things are getting better.

So why does the textbook make this claim?

They make it because it is true within a certain story.

Grand Stories–Metanarratives

No claim (or “fact,” thing, event, person) means anything until we place it into a story. This is why human beings always tell stories — we are always seeking meaning.

All stories, whether myths or movies, share some common elements. They always have a protagonist, a person who strives for some goal. This quest drives the story toward a meaningful end. Stories also have conflict because there are always antagonists, that is, a person (or people or a force) that impedes the protagonist in the fulfillment of his or her purpose.

Two stories concern us here: the so-called “secular” story and the Christian story.

The Secular Story

In the secular story, the dominant myth in our culture, the protagonist, humanity, is on a long quest for autonomy (freedom from authority). The antagonists in the secular story oppose human freedom. These are monarchs, God and the church, communism, fascism, socialism, tradition and social conventions. Many of these villains and monsters have been vanquished and only a few remain.

Because my grade 9 Social Studies textbook has placed the events following 1500 into this Secular story, it can claim that we have experienced evolutionary change in our history.

This is the dominant story in our culture, but it isn’t the only one.

The Christian Story

The Christian story says that humanity will find fulfillment only in the presence of the loving God who made him. Sin and Satan, the antagonists, thwart humanity at every turn, but the hero of the story has come to find us and will bring us home (actually, bring home here). This is the meaningful end of the Christian story.

When you consider civilization from this story, change has not been evolutionary–civilization has not improved because we have come no closer to dealing with our basic problem. Freedom, according to this story, is a good thing, but Sin causes us to make GOOD things into ultimate things. This inversion is, in essence, to make Freedom, into a god, a false god, an idol. Freedom is a good thing, but it is not the ultimate thing.

Textbooks and Stories

The secular story, or worldview, is foundational to my entire grade 9 social studies textbook and most of the other textbooks used in schools all over North America.

And it’s not just textbooks; it’s the worldview upon which the whole curriculum is built. And it’s not just in schools, this story is reinforced by popular culture. We are inundated with this story, and it is a powerful story.

When we consider the people who have fallen away from the church, I don’t doubt that many they left to seek autonomy–they wanted to do what they wanted to do and not have anyone or anything restrict their freedom. This is not necessarily a choice freely made, but one that makes sense because of warming toward the secular story.

One’s position on abortion is not a worldview–worldview runs much deeper–but your position on the issue of abortion is dictated by your worldview. So will be your position on other issues that are, at their core, about human freedom.

I’m still using that textbook though, because discerning worldviews is one of the objectives of this and every other class taught at my school. I worry for the Christian kids who aren’t in a school that is deliberate about exposing the competing stories in our culture. And I also worry about the kids who are, because the secular story seems so true, because we are immersed in it.

I take more than a little comfort in the fact that none of the competing stories ring so true as the one where sin is the antagonist and the end is being reunited with the One who gave us every good thing–including Freedom.

“Just a Symbol?”–Communion in a Cathedral

September 12, 2013 / Trent / 3 Comments

The Hapsburgs were christened, married and buried at St. Augustine in Vienna. This cathedral has seen a lot of pageantry and ceremony and the mass still reflects a polish and flair consistent with this history. I particularly noticed this in the treatment of the elements of the Eucharist.

In all Catholic services, the host is treated with a great deal of respect. When congregants enter the door, they make the sign of the cross, and they genuflect before entering the pew. Both these actions are directed toward the host. After the Eucharist, the priest is careful that to gather and consume all possible remnants of the host. Water is swirled in each vessel and consumed so even the residue is collected. The plate and cup are then wiped with a cloth and this is folded and wrapped in an embroidered envelope and later taken to, what I imagine, is a ceremonial cleansing. This reverence for the host is seen in every Catholic service. In the mass at St. Augustine, all this was done with particular precision and flourish.

This elaborate treatment of the Communion elements is easily explained. Catholics believe in transubstantiation, that is, the conversion of the communion elements into the body and blood of Christ. They are treated accordingly–even the last crumb.

Because, in Protestant services, the elements are not seen as the actual body and blood of Christ, the sacrament has become less profound a ritual than is the Catholic Eucharist. In Protestant churches, Communion is a solemn event, but while I watched the celebration of the Eucharist at St. Augustine, I wondered if we could do more, especially in the language we use in our Communion services, to increase the significance and mystery of this sacrament.

Just a Symbol

I’ve had Communion in a variety of Protestant churches across North America. On more than one occasion, I have heard the officiating pastor explain that the bread and wine are “just a symbol” of the body and blood of Christ.

I do not contest that Communion is symbolic, but the use of the word “just” indicates that the speaker has fallen into a very limited understanding of both symbol and sacrament: a Modern understanding.

[click_to_tweet tweet=”I do not contest that Communion is symbolic, but the use of the word ‘just’ indicates that we have fallen into a very limited understanding of both symbol and sacrament: a Modern understanding. #JustaSymbol #Communion #Eucharist #Worship #Sacrament” quote=”I do not contest that Communion is symbolic, but the use of the word ‘just’ indicates that we have fallen into a very limited understanding of both symbol and sacrament: a Modern understanding.”]

Modern Categories are not Biblical Categories

The Modern mind is a rationalistic mind, and as such, it likes to establish clear categorical boundaries–nature/grace, faith/reason, spiritual/physical. To say that communion is “just a symbol” is to accept these modern dichotomies and suggests the physical elements in sacrament merely point to an intangible spiritual reality.

The Christian ought to understand the limitations of this approach and see the fundamental unity in all of reality. The ultimate expression of this unity is the Incarnation; when the Word became flesh, “the eternal entered the temporal, but without ceasing to be eternal” (Zimmerman 265).

God’s redemptive work in the death and resurrection of Jesus occurs in both the physical and the spiritual realm. The sacrament by which we remember this work is not simply a physical symbol, but also profound and literal spiritual event, for here, divine Grace intersects with nature, and the rational human agent partakes in faith and so is brought up to the divine. And through it all, God remains fully God.

Does that sound a little confusing? It ought to be. While I watched the Eucharist at St. Augustine, I was impressed with the mystery and wonder of it all. I thought I could bring some of this wonder to my own participation of the Lord’s Supper.

The Communion meal is symbolic but it is not “just a symbol.” And although we don’t believe that it changes into the body of Christ, the bread is far more than just bread.

And should never be referred to as “gluten-free Rice Chex” (even if that’s exactly what it is).

Cathedrals aren’t practical, they’re just awesome

September 6, 2013 / Trent / 0 Comments

Practicality, Utility, and Efficiency

In the modern world, we evaluate almost everything against the standard of practicality, utility, and efficiency.

I know people who won’t buy a hybrid, because it will take 10 years before the additional cost of a hybrid is recouped through lower fuel consumption. Therefore, it’s simply not practical to buy a hybrid. All other considerations are irrelevant.

I have been asked, “What’s the point of a humanities degree? ” It’s not practical to get a degree that won’t get you a job that pays six figures. Unfortunately, this is the reality in a culture that values science, technology, and entertainment. The money goes to these fields while philosophers and literary theorists work at Starbucks.

We produce beef, pork, and chicken very efficiently, but we disregard the wellbeing of the animal, the worker, the environment. And the taste doesn’t even factor into the equation. The same principles of efficiency are evidenced by the fact that almost every dress shirt in the major department stores comes from Bangladesh.

Practicality, utility, and efficiency are more important than loving our neigbour or being stewards of creation. Whenever something gets preferment over these sacred tasks, we are dealing with an idol.

Idolatry

When our culture abandons a relationship with God as the ultimate source of human fulfillment, there are a plethora of other gods to which to turn. One of the options was this petty, but dangerous, god of many names, Practicality, Utility, and Efficiency.

Christians are a product of the times. When we build our churches today, we consider practicality, utility, and efficiency. There’s nothing inherently wrong in this, but when it trumps all other considerations? What do we lose when our physical building is primarily designed to, for instance, maximize the amount of seating space?

[click_to_tweet tweet=”Should our churches, be practical and efficient, or could they also be beautiful? ” quote=”Should our churches, be practical and efficient, or could they also be beautiful? “]

St. Augustine

From my seat in the pew at St. Augustine, it is obvious that its builders didn’t care much about the efficient utilization of the interior space.

They had a different set of priorities. Perhaps I idealize their motivations, but it seems as if they were attempting to erect sacred structures rather than practical ones. Many churches took generations to complete. The carving of wood and stone clearly had objectives that went far beyond mere utility. Less than half of the available floor space is used during the service. Surely they could have saved a lot of building expense if the roof wasn’t so high.

Although I didn’t understand the sermon because of the language barrier, I did figure out that the sermon was about Mary and Martha. I recalled that Martha complained to Jesus that Mary was ignoring practical concerns like the clearing of dishes. Jesus gently rebuked her and told her, in essence, telling her that some things are more important than utility and efficiency.

The Dom in Salzburg — It’s not about ME

August 30, 2013 / Trent / 0 Comments

Attending Mass in the Salzburg Cathedral was the most memorable experience of a wonderful trip to Europe this summer. The building’s interior was beautifully ornate, but not gaudy. The music included organ, orchestra and, I think, more than one choir. Add to that, the awareness that this was the very church at which Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was christened. In his role as Court Organist, Mozart composed much of his sacred music almost exclusively for this Cathedral.

I had three very strong impressions during this mass.

It’s Not About Me

The first impression–it’s not about me.

The organ, choirs, and orchestra are placed behind and far above the congregation. This placement reinforces the idea that I am not the primary audience for their performance–I can’t even see them.

Back home, it’s not about me either, but the praise band occupies the same place as a performance band, so I have to deliberately remember that they aren’t performing for me. I have to work pretty hard to remember that it doesn’t matter if I don’t like the style in which one of the songs was presented. Nor does it matter that I don’t “feel” like praising God today; he’s worthy of my praise regardless of how I feel. The sermon’s relevance to me is not the standard by which it ought to be judged. Everything in any church service is directed toward the worship of the triune God. But back home, sometimes I forget.

It’s obviously not about me when the whole thing is in German, and I don’t speak German. I ended up thinking about how the audience of every service, is God; he speaks German. He also “speaks” Evangelical, and Reformed and Catholic. I imagined how rich God’s experience of worship must be when he is being praised simultaneously in every language and cultural expression that there is and ever was.

Then there were the pews. Even in this most beautiful of churches, the uniquely carved benches are not comfortable–at all. The seat is set at 90 degrees to the back, which has a board running across it as an elbow rest for the kneeler behind me. This makes it very uncomfortable to lean back. These seats were definitely not designed with my comfort in mind. It certainly is not about me.

The chairs back home are super-comfortable.

The Very Best

Everything in this Mass represents the very best of human ability. I’m talking about architecture, craftsmanship, beauty, painting, and music. Every sense encounters something incredible.

Back home, this was not the compulsion for the design of worship and the worship space. The music and the technology that amplifies it is top-notch, and the space is beautiful, but not extravagantly so. My church back home was designed with the principles of stewardship and utility in mind. That’s fine, but it’s a whole new experience to worship God in a space that is extravagantly beautiful. It seems like a better mode to worship God through beauty rather than utility.

My Third Impression–Grace

If I combine my first two impressions . . .

All that excellence which I so enjoyed doesn’t exist for me at all. All that I see, hear and enjoy are pure grace.

The grace I receive through the worship service in my home church is no less than that with which I was overwhelmed that Sunday morning in Salzburg; the only difference was my awareness of it.