CYOA: Psalm 139 - Making Babies like Sweaters

This is the first Friday I have been able to actually sit down and type this on a computer rather than using my phone or putting it off. Since Psalms are poetry my first question as I read this is what reaction does it evoke in me? How do I feel about it? and then the task to ask why...

I think that I feel deeply both comfort and fear in response to the Psalm - which I would suggest is probably the intent. The dominant them of theme of the Psalm is the inescapable reality of Yahweh, who knows and sees all. The comfort is that God is always close. The anxiety is that God is always close. God's presence is a comfort in times of distress and uncomfortable in our failures and darkness.

This psalm is often used to argue that Bible is ridiculous with its imagery of God knitting babies in wombs. I find it hard to believe that the author is seriously trying to communicate that God sits' in womb's with knitting needles making babies like sweaters. This seems beyond unreasonable. However, it would suggest that God has ongoing creative work in the world. That Yahweh is intimately involved in sustaining and creating existence continually, in contrast to the Deist image of the watchmaker. God works through the natural processes of cell division, evolution, etc. to create and sustain the cosmos. This is not nonsensical because existence is entirely arbitrary and unnecessary and therefore God's sustaining creative work is a reasonable idea. However, we do wind up with some difficulties as well. If we want to place God intimately into the natural processes of the world, how do we deal with it when those process don't work so well: birth defects, etc. Did God get distracted and miss a stitch? Clearly, this is unworkable.  The standard answer is that this is somehow because of sin. I say 'somehow' because I don't think it is possible to draw any clear cause and effect relationships. This of course is deeply dissatisfying. Why does this amorphous theological concept of sin effect the creation of some babies and not others? It could be argued that it effects all babies but not in all the same ways... but this seems little comfort and again so ambiguous as to be meaningless. It could be argued that in God's sovereignty he either allowed or deliberately made a person's 'defects'. This seems like a defence of God, which is silly, and it of course creates more problems than it solves. Even with the long term good in view, both of all individuals, the community and creation in mind it still seems morally untenable to suggest that missing limbs, mental illness, death etc. are sourced in God's benevolent love and that the ends validly justify the means. Although certainly, some people believe this and many people will testify to how personal challenges of various natures helped them grow to greater maturity and deeper faith.

If we come back to the idea of God sustaining and beholding the universe this allows us to understand God's involvement in and knowledge of the cosmos: from wombs to stars. It also allows us to say God is involved in a good way, without eliminating freedom within the cosmos by demanding God's universal intervention in all things at all times. This is as close as I can get to an understanding I can live with. The Biblical story is filled with the particular, which is uncomfortable for western people who crave impersonal absolutes a la Plato. However, I think that it is only in particulars that relationships are possible and so I suggest that it is somehow in the particulars and the mess that relationship becomes real and does move us and all of the cosmos toward goodness. Does necessary messiness occur with the existence of a personal God?

Thanks to Robert Farrar Capon, author of The Third Peacock, who wrestles so inspiringly with the problem of God and evil in the Judeao Christian tradition.

CYOA: Psalm 139 - Presence in the Womb

I was holding a newborn baby in my arms as I read this psalm today and I could not help but focus on the mother’s womb imagery used to exemplify God’s omniscience and omnipresence.

13For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
14I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
15My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
16Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

Before the baby was born, many dinner conversations in our house revolved around baby development talk and the progression of growth stages the little one was experiencing. The parents agreed that he would have big feet and no bum in reflection of their own body types. The rest of us all placed bets on the date the baby might arrive and guessed his weight. Yet God saw him before we were able to meet him. While we prepared for his arrival and talked to his mother’s stomach, God knew him.

The presence of God is something I find particularly challenging to understand, study and talk about. If I read this passage at any other time I likely would have scoffed and put the Bible away. For some reason while I was holding that magical baby, having watched his mother’s stomach expand to accommodate the creation happening inside her and knowing of his traumatic birth my mind was open to thinking about God’s involvement and presence in this life.

CYOA: Psalm 139 – Not my bag

This week’s CYOA is Psalm 139. I am tired. Today I taught “Empire: A Hermeneutic” for second year students. I worked six and a half hours at my job moving couches and dressers. I cooked dinner for my roommates. I watched an episode of Game of Thrones, by HBO, with my roommate. Game of Thrones is a totally awesome show. I also watched the new episode of Criminal Minds. Those are the facts. That was my day.

I then sat down to write a short blog post. I read the passage. My reflections were…not much. I think Psalm 139 is a nice, generally uplifting psalm. The last time I read or reflected on this psalm was when one of my best friends had a serious work accident and we prayed this psalm a lot. He has recovered well and so my emotional attachment to this psalm is a positive one.

Personally, Psalms is not my favourite section of the Bible. I am quite content not reading them. Maybe it is because I am not overly emotional; I like a story more than a poem. Whatever the case, I have very few thoughts on this Psalm. Like any other psalm, I would not derive any piece of theology solely from this psalm, given the emotionally driven nature with which it was written, as well as the emotional nature of the one reading it. The most intriguing part was the section about hating those who God hates. I, however, would not get all bent out of shape about it because it is a psalm and curses are often a part of this literary format. Sorry if you read this expecting something worth reading. Today’s reading was not my bag.

Baby… Baby… Baby… Oh!

What is it about babies? Whenever I have a baby in my arms my heart melts and I am softened. They always turn my frown upside down because every move and every sound they make is worthy of awe.

This week, a couple in our community house brought their newborn baby home from the hospital. I have fawned over him since the moment he arrived.

When I was three, my father left because he did not want to take care of my sister and I. I have always convinced myself that this had no effect on my development because I never knew any different.

As I reflect on my upbringing, I think my father’s move played a significant role in nourishing my desire to care for children. I love to hold babies and give them everything that they need. I love to play with them and make them smile. I love to praise them when they learn knew things and encourage them to do more. Caring for infants who cannot care for themselves brings me insurmountable joy and satisfaction. I have a deep-rooted desire to care for infants and toddlers in the ways I was not cared for.

I have experienced abandon several times over in my life, by family, significant others, mentors, and God. My heart has become calloused and my attitude bitter towards those who are able to abandon. But for babies and the vulnerable my capacity to love only expands.

Where do we come from?

I had to write a life story last night for a class at Regent in order to introduce myself. It was required to be quite short, a mere 1000 words, but also was supposed to be filled with particularity which communicated a life rather than merely information. For better or for worse the first half of my paper was far more detailed and particular, covering my life from age five to seven. During this time three people in my life died, a friend in my kindergarten class and both my mum's parents. For some reason, last night this made sense in a way that I have not entirely connected with before. I often say, I am white middle class male who has had every advantage and no "real" pain or suffering in my life. This is usually my own disqualification for the deep sense of pessimism, obsession with suffering and generally negative view of life and the world. However, last night I realized that I have spent my life in the valley of the shadow of death. That my life was baptised in death deeply and dramatically at a young age. Is it any wonder that I am not filled with the optimism of other who did not experience loss like this, particularly at a young age? However, this revelation of self also begs the question: has this experience defined me or have I allowed it to? Why does it define me? We know come to evaluation... Do I need to rework my story? Do I need new definition?

It was in the midst of death that I found hope in Jesus, the one who has defeated death. I was anaesthetized with hope and became numb to death and yet I have carried that darkness with me. It has only been in the past few years that my emotions have thawed and I have felt ever more deeply the loss in my life that is unable to filled or healed. And yet as I learn to live in the shadow of death cast over my life, as I embrace the tension between life and death, somehow there is more freedom and life is sweeter. Last night as I reflected on where I come from, I realized the source and authenticity of my melancholy and in an odd way felt vindicated. It seems right to me to not yearn for escape or numb myself out and rather wrestle deep and enter into the pain, suffering, doubt, despair, depression and death of the world both intellectually and in reality.

Appropriate to laugh? and The Topic of Appropriateness

Today on Facebook my older brother posted a picture, one I had seen before, but one that is worth looking at again. I believe the sign was made for the occasion of John Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s rally in Washington: “The Rally To Restore Sanity” and “The March To Keep Fear Alive”. The question my brother wanted me to blog about was “whether it or not it’s appropriate to think that this is hilarious”.

My simple answer is yes. I think it is a great spot of wit. First off, because it makes fun of Republicans, which is just as funny as making fun of any other group one can make vast generalizations about. Second, because free healthcare is awesome. Third, it calls out the underlying racism driving much of the Obama-hate. (This is not to say that I am for Obama and Democrats. To be honest, I think there is little difference between the parties; either option is too limited). From a Biblical perspective, this sign finds its correspondence in making fun of Pharisees, who were disturbed by Jesus shaking up the social order, or any other proponent of the status quo.

I like the question my brother poses…What is appropriate? Beyond this entertaining picture, appropriateness has been on my mind of late. My simple answer is” freedom in Christ”, implying that one is free to find such humour hilarious. I know that this “freedom in Christ” thing has swung this way and that way throughout history. I, however, refuse to take a stream of logic that states “when in a grey area always hedge toward the conservative side”. I refuse such logic because history has not proven this to be the correct approach. Karen Armstrong, in A History of God, considers such swings, one of such she critiques this way, “In our own day, we have witnessed the permissive society of the 1960s giving way to the more puritan ethic of the 1980s, which has also coincided with the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the west.” All that to say, always defaulting to a more conservative ethic is not necessarily the best route. That is because following such logic leads to some undesirable outcomes, fundamentalism being the case and point.

I bring up freedom in Christ and the permissive nature of Christianity to speak to other whisperings surrounding this blog. What is appropriate to blog about? I thought we had dealt with this topic in a series of posts that all engaged the topic of censorship. Specifically, what is and is not appropriate to post on this blog. There have been some whisperings (yes it is amazing what all comes back to the sources even beyond cyberspace) that some of our posts have been “too far”, or “you are asking questions that should not be asked”. I am frustrated by this.

I am frustrated because there are people who have disagreed with posts and are too timid to comment their disagreements. We have a comment section for a reason. We by no means want to state that we are somehow authoritative on any of the topics we ponder. I believe I speak for Duncan and Danielle when I say that we would welcome a different opinions being posted in the comment section, we would probably be rather excited by such engagement. I am frustrated because this does not happen, but people continue to read, continue to be offended, and they gather their “evidence”, making their “case”. It finally comes to a head when they come out guns blazing, telling us to reconsider what we are doing, stating we are harming others. This I find frustrating because I also have people tell me how much they love the blog, it makes their day, or they wish we went further on some topics. Too be honest, I did not think we were pushing the limits as of late…some posts were downright hopeful! So what then am I to censor?

Rather than reiterate what has already been discussed in other posts about censorship, I want to state a little bit of my personal philosophy on why I do not always censor. I believe freedom in Christ ought to be embodied by those who claim to follow this rebel and social disturber. I believe this is relevant to one’s personal and social ethics, but beyond that I think freedom in Christ MUST relate to one’s academic and intellectual endeavours. It has been said before, but obviously it need to be repeated, “At the root of all fear is a lack of trust”. The limiting of academic and intellectual freedom, by “questions you should not ask”, I believe is rooted in a fear of where they might lead. I see the lack of trust directly relating to one’s perception of God. If your God is stagnant and dormant, then you will spend all you time defending that God. Whereas, if you believe in a living God, a God of personhood, who ought to be able to defend himself or herself, there is no fear to honestly question. Thus, to fear a question is to lack trust in the deity’s ability to deal with such questions. In my opinion, any deity who cannot handle a question is not a deity worth believing in or following.

I find appropriateness frustrating because the line of appropriateness is so hard to gage over the internet. There are many conversations I refuse to have when I am face-to-face with someone, because the other individual is not yet at a place to journey with me into a certain topic or way of thinking. On the other hand, if I do have the discussion I can precede slowly and appropriately, given the other person’s receptivity to an idea. On the internet, however, I have far less ability to perceive such things. There is some interaction in the comment sections, which is great. I also know many people who read the blog, but there are friends and acquaintances of Danielle and Duncan I do not know. Alternatively, even farther afield, other wonderful people who stumble upon the blog while upon their noble quests to read the entirety of the intertubes. How then am I to judge what might or might not be appropriate?

It is here I come to Paul’s concept of not doing everything that is permissible, but only doing what is beneficial. To this concept, I have no answer or rebuttal. My response is that you please engage us and the blog, rather than being hurt by it. If you disagree, comment. If you think something is too far and heretical, click the heretical button. If you are continually offended and are too timid to engage and be stretched in your perspective, please stop reading the blog. Please do what is beneficial for you. Govern your use of this public space and avoid the harm it is causing you. I am not about to be intellectually timid, because I see that as the most horrendous blasphemy and heresy. And with that, the ball is now in your court, your move.

CYOA: Genesis 37-50 - Sold into Slavery

As I read the story of Joseph through a couple times, especially after reading Silas' post, what stood out to me the most was how pervasive the theme of slavery was. It begins with Joseph being sold into slavery, another in a list of fine examples of failure to be one's brother's keeper (Gen. 4:9), and it finishes with Joseph enslaving the entire Egyptian population, which of course includes his own family, but besides these two there are numerous other slave and servant remarks. Ultimately, This is the story of how Israel sold itself into the slavery of Egypt thus setting the stage for the Exodus, which begins not with enslavement but oppression, made possible by their previous enslavement. 

Genesis 48:

 ²⁰ So Joseph bought all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh. The Egyptians, one and all, sold their fields, because the famine was too severe for them. The land became Pharaoh’s, ²¹ and Joseph reduced the people to servitude, from one end of Egypt to the other. ²² However, he did not buy the land of the priests, because they received a regular allotment from Pharaoh and had food enough from the allotment Pharaoh gave them. That is why they did not sell their land.

 ²³ Joseph said to the people, “Now that I have bought you and your land today for Pharaoh, here is seed for you so you can plant the ground. ²⁴ But when the crop comes in, give a fifth of it to Pharaoh. The other four-fifths you may keep as seed for the fields and as food for yourselves and your households and your children.”

 ²⁵ “You have saved our lives,” they said. “May we find favor in the eyes of our lord; we will be in bondage to Pharaoh.”

 ²⁶ So Joseph established it as a law concerning land in Egypt—still in force today—that a fifth of the produce belongs to Pharaoh. It was only the land of the priests that did not become Pharaoh’s.

Once Joseph was sold into slavery he never ceased to be a slave he simply changed owners. I don't think there is any reason to understand Joseph's relation to Pharaoh any differently than his previous relationship to Potiphar. In fact the narrator goes out his way to highlight the similarities between Joseph's situation with Potiphar, the jailor, and then Pharaoh. 


This was a revelation to me. I have grown up thinking that the Egyptians' enslaved Israel but as I read the text again I am convinced that Israel sells itself into slavery. At the time of course with Joseph in power this was fine, if not rather enjoyable but it then led to their oppression. 


The other thing that struck me was that the story of Judah and Tamar (Gen. 38) sits in the middle of the story of Joseph. Judah is two for two in back to back chapters, first he suggests selling Joseph in to slavery and then he is sleeping with his daughter in law and trying to have her killed. Perhaps, this is to deter the tribe of Judah of ever thinking too highly of itself; perhaps, it is to ensure that Judah remember that the blessing of God is all gift. In Genesis 50 Judah definitely receives the best blessing from Jacob and maybe having Judah's sin and failure highlighted at the beginning of the story serves to underline the end of the story as grace.


I think the story deliberately tries to show how God is able to work sovereignly in the midst of our free and bad choices. Even our intentional evil can be used by God for good. However, I think it is also worth noting that redemption does not eliminate pain or consequences. Joseph was still enslaved and in prison, all of Israel winds up in slavery, the relationships between Joseph and his brothers seems never to be fully restored. Joseph who was sold into slavery becomes one who enslaves. So while the good of survival and being fruitful and multiplying occurs, there are some fairly significant consequences and one is curious if perhaps better choices could have led to a happier journey...

CYOA: Genesis 37-50 – The Egyptianization of Joseph

I have been sticking my head into Empire again. It is nice to be enveloped in an academic topic again. The reason for this is an up coming lecture. I have been asked to give a lecture on developing a hermeneutic of Empire, specifically in relation to Colossians. Maybe it is just the nerd inside of me, but this gives me great purpose in life. It gives me a reason to manage my time and a goal of producing something. The enjoyable side effect of having an academic goal is that I get to sick my head into a bunch of different books, find the gems, and synthesis them into a coherent presentation (wow I truly am a nerd). So on my desk is a stack of books relating to Empire, and in my spare time I have been watching the series Rome by HBO (probably the best depiction of the inter-testamental period ever created). All of that rambling to say that when Joseph came up as this weeks topic for Choose Your Own Adventure, I knew exactly what I had to write.

One of the gems I found while sticking my face into many books was an alternative interpretation of the Joseph story. Walter Brueggemann, in his book “Out of Babylon”, borrows from Leon Kass, saying that the trajectory of Joseph’s rise to power in Egypt is effectively Joseph’s “Egyptianization”. That is to say, Joseph becomes corrupted by the drive, imagination, and worldview of Empire. Joseph is effectively an example of accommodating to empire with minimal defiance. Thus, Joseph ought to be seen as a weak example of remaining faithful to a worldview requiring one to keep a unique identity in the face of Empire.

This is how I see Joseph as I reread the story through the lens Brueggemann offers.

First off, one cannot blame Joseph completely for his actions and his accommodation to Empire. He was socially conditioned by his father to feel exceptional, as “Israel loved Joseph more than any of his other sons” 37:2. Therefore, it only makes sense that when Joseph is treated exceptionally by Pharaoh later on, it would only seem natural to accept and accommodate, just as he would have done to his father in his youth. Furthermore, when he invokes policies of exceptionalism, they may be rooted in this upbringing.

I see Joseph’s transformation/slide into Egyptianization as follows:
Gen 39:2 “The Lord was with Joseph and he prospered” (39:2) is a statement showing Joseph has not yet accommodated
Gen 40:15 “for I was forcibly carried off from the land of the Hebrews”. In this statement Joseph continues to keep a unique identity
Gen 41:14 “shaved and changed” – first accommodation to the physical appearance of an Egyptian
Gen 41:16 doubles back to God
Gen 41:41-5 Joseph is in charge, this is not inherently badt – but then he accommodates in dress, jewellery, show (chariots and criers), name (Zaphenath-Paneah. Names show having power over, thus Joseph is put under the power of Egypt and Pharaoh rather than Israel and God), and marriage.
Gen 41:51 Names his son Manasseh, to forget, “forget all my trouble and my father’s household” – Here Joseph goes beyond accommodation to denial of his former identity. Joseph invokes God on his side, but it is not the narrator like it was earlier (39:2).
Gen 41:56-57 Joseph’s economic power play is hard on the peasants and benefits Pharaoh. A monopoly and totalizing of industry is always hard on the most poor.
Gen 42:8 Joseph is so thoroughly Egyptianized that his brothers do not recognize him.
Gen 42:23 Joseph uses deception and façade rather than honesty like he did when he was in Potiphar’s house.
Gen 43:32 Joseph’s food is notably distinct from that of his Hebrew brothers. “Because Egyptians could not eat with Hebrews, for that is detestable to Egyptians”.
Gen 44:5,15 Joseph’s cup was used for divination, notably something Hebrews would not do. (Keep in mind this text was most likely written down in its final form during Babylonian/Persian exile, therefore reading later (historical) jewishness into the text in not necessarily erroneous)
Gen 45:10 “…and all you have” Joseph wants his family to totally commit to Egypt as well.
Gen 47:12-13 Exceptionalism, a trait of empire, everyone else is hungry yet the exceptions are fed
Gen 47:13 What may have started with good intentions, now sucks all the money from the lands of Egypt and Canaan
Gen 47:15-21 Joseph exploits his position and the people, thereby allowing/forcing them into slavery
Gen 47:22 further exceptionalism for the priests
Gen 47:26 Joseph is credited with creating the economic dominance of the Pharaoh, by giving back the land to the peasants with a “1/5 per year to pharaoh” caveat
Gen 50:14 Joseph returned to Egypt after burying Jacob
Gen 50:22 Joseph stayed in Egypt

It is common knowledge that the Israelites end up in Egypt because of Joseph, but I, for one, never really asked why? Why did they not leave once the famine was over? This reading of the text is the first reading (I have encountered) that hedges a bet at the question Why? Why is answered by over accommodating to the Empire. This accommodation with very little defiance is the reason the Israelites find themselves in need of an exodus.

It is a telling tale. A tale of over accommodation to empire. A tale that once revealed can be seen throughout scripture as the reason Israel finds themselves in exile. Maybe this too is our current story. Are we living a story of accommodation without even realizing it? Brian Walsh, another subversive writer, I am reading, would say absolutely! We have become numb to the accommodation of our minds to the imagination of Empire. We have lost the subversive imagination of a Biblical perspective. Our Worldview has become static, static like the Empire rather than dynamic like a living God. That comes as a challenge, a challenge to keep one’s worldview dynamic and to re-enter the difficult spectrum of when to accommodate and when to be defiant.

The struggle of when to accommodate and when to be defiant (because there are no black and white answers) Brueggemann sums up in an adaptation of the famous serenity prayer of Reinhold Neibuhr:

Give me the dignity to accommodate,
When accommodation is the only option;
Give me the courage to resist,
When identity depends on it;
Give me the wisdom to know when to resist and when to accommodate.

"Is monogamy making us miserable?"

This article caused me to think. If it does the same for you, please write your thoughts and responses in the comments section below. 

Is monogamy making us miserable?

Columnist suggests maybe we're just not cut out for staying together

By John Preston, Sunday Telegraph September 17, 2011

Earlier this year, an Algerian pork butcher called Lies Hebbadj was revealed to have been dividing his time between his wife and three mistresses. This prompted the French Interior Minister to declare that he should be stripped of his French citizenship. Greatly affronted, the all-too-aptlynamed Lies hit back saying that keeping mistresses was a French tradition, and if he was stripped of his citizenship then millions of other Frenchmen should hang up their passports too.

Meanwhile, in the United States, the married New York Congressman, Anthony Weiner, was busy emailing photos of his groin to a bemused stranger in Seattle. In between the politician and the pork-butcher came a lengthy procession of men - it is, I fear, almost always men - who have found the chains of monogamy all too easy to break.

Tiger Woods, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Arnold Schwarzenegger, various actors and footballers hunkered down behind their super injunctions; each year brings forth its rich harvest of adulterers who have vaulted out of the marriage bed and scooted off - leaving heartbreak and lawyers' bills in their wake. Across age, race and class, it's the same story. And each year people scratch their heads in puzzlement and wonder where it all went wrong.

'A KIND OF MARRIAGE'

Only this year something different happened. Maybe, suggested America's leading relationships columnist, Dan Savage, it's time we looked more closely at monogamy and asked if we're really cut out for it as a species.

After all, Roget's Thesaurus defines monogamy as "a kind of marriage." In other words, there are other kinds, and perhaps one of these might suit us a little better.

Savage's suggestion was a novel one. Heterosexuals, he reckoned, should learn to behave more like homosexuals - and gay males in particular. What this means is that they should re-examine their ideas about fidelity. Savage, who's gay himself, insists he's faithful to his partner, and vice versa.

"My partner's fidelity to me is as important as anyone who's in a monogamous relationship with someone else; we just don't define sexual exclusivity as the be-all and end-all of commitment. In other words, we're faithful to each other, but sometimes we have sex with other people.

"However, that in no way violates our commitment to each other."

Savage insists he wasn't trying to ignite a huge moral blaze - yet that's exactly what happened. "I couldn't believe how worked up people got," he tells me. "It was like they were this bunch of children and I'd just told them that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

"What made the greatest impression on me was just how vulnerable the idea of monogamy must be. Otherwise, why would anyone who just clears their throat and points out that monogamy might not be for everyone, be accused of ruining it for everyone else?"

If, as Savage suggests, we're not cut out for monogamy as a species, we're not alone here. Quite the reverse. We now know that swans do not - as once thought - repine in a pitiful, floppy-necked way after the death of their partner. Rather they swallow their grief, plump out their feathers and find another one.

And then of course there's the red-tailed blackbird, longbelieved to mate for life. In a recent effort to reduce population numbers, a large number of male blackbirds were sterilized, which, in theory, should have knocked the birthrate on the head. However, to the surprise of biologists, the females continued to lay eggs which hatched. The conclusion: when those female blackbirds couldn't get what they wanted, they simply went elsewhere.

'THE DIVORCE GENE'
But we are not red-tailed blackbirds, you cry indignantly. We are humans and what's natural for them isn't necessarily natural for us. But what exactly is natural? As the humorist Ogden Nash once observed, "Smallpox is natural - vaccine ain't." Monogamy may be no more natural for us than it is for anyone - or anything - else.

Recent research at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden suggests that the way in which men bond to their partners may, in part, be dictated by a specific gene variant - christened the "divorce gene." The more of it you have in your genetic makeup, the more likely you are to stray. If you're a man, that is.

If biology isn't on the side of monogamy, then nor is history. The idea that romantic love should play any part in marriage is a comparatively recent one. Before the 18th century, it would have been considered the height of folly - mainly because it gave women the right not to enter a loveless marriage, and paved the way to their getting divorced if they did. Marriage and sex simply didn't go together - at least not as far as men were concerned. Women, it hardly needs adding, were expected to remain models of constancy and fidelity.

Then along came romanticism, bringing ballads, soppy sentiments and a host of unfulfillable expectations with it. A very bad move, reckons Savage. All at once the "monogamous expectation" was imposed on men. "Prior to that, they were never expected to be monogamous. They had access to concubines, mistresses, prostitutes and all the rest of it."

Skip forward to the feminist revolution of the '60s. "Rather than extending to women the same latitude that men always enjoyed, we extended to men the confines women have always endured. And it's been a disaster for marriage."

So what should we do? Savage has coined a handy acronym for how he thinks couples should behave - "GGG," which stands for good, giving and game. If couples can't fulfil one another's desires, then maybe the best thing is to venture outside the marriage for a while.

"I'm absolutely not saying that people should be free to sleep with whoever they want. I'm just saying that if you're married to someone for 50 years and you cheat on them once or twice, that doesn't mean you're bad at monogamy.

"In fact, I'd say you were pretty good at it. All I'm arguing for is a little latitude, a little forgiveness, a little realism."

HONESTY THE BEST POLICY?
Forgiveness. Here we come to perhaps the trickiest question of all to do with infidelity. If you do happen to stray, should you tell your husband or wife?

Traditional wisdom holds that honesty is always the best policy. Might it not be more practical to argue for something better suited to our human frailties?

Here I refer to a flagrantly unscientific survey of some male friends of mine which I conducted.

Honesty, say my friends, is for losers. There's nothing to be gained from telling. Far from being an act of admirable honesty, it's actually one of supreme selfishness. This is what we might call the Great Paradox of Extra-Marital Affairs: not telling the truth is both the kinder and more honourable thing to do.

After all, they ask, who benefits from such reckless candour? Far better to keep schtum and carry on. There are plenty of cultures which take a more relaxed attitude to fidelity than we do. Inuit men, for example, have long had "temporary wives" which they take with them on otherwise lonely treks across the tundra, leaving their more permanent wives at home. Countries like France and Italy have practically enshrined infidelity in their national identity.

No way around betrayal

So is it time to draw down the curtain on monogamy, to acknowledge that it simply doesn't work for us? Perhaps - but before we do, let us pause for a moment and refer back to my panel of friends. All have succumbed to temptation. All cling feverishly to the idea that they've done nothing that bad. Yet there's something else they have in common: all are divorced and all are steeped in record levels of confusion, misery and self-pity.

Surely this alone should give one pause for thought. To be unfaithful is a betrayal - there's no way around this.

Nor is infidelity a shallow pool into which you can dip your toe every so often. The overwhelming likelihood is that you will be caught.

When that happens you will be heaping humiliation upon the person that - in theory at least - you care most about.

Once broken, the bond of trust between two people frequently proves impossible to repair.

Andrew Marshall, author of How Can I Ever Trust You Again? From Infidelity to Recovery in Seven Steps, believes there are strong practical and moral arguments in favour of monogamy. For a start, he says, he's never met a heterosexual couple who have made licensed infidelity work.

"The only couple I've counselled who tried to do that fell at the first hurdle. They tried to be honest with one another, but the amount of jealousy and upset was extraordinary.

"And if people aren't being honest then I suspect it's even worse. You may think you're having uncomplicated sex, only there's no such thing.

"You're playing with fire and you'll almost certainly get burned." And, of course, it's not just you and your partner - any children you may have are almost certain to suffer too.

Here's yet another reason why, Dan Savage's many critics point out, it's absurd to suggest that heterosexual couples should behave more like homosexuals. In Marshall's experience, infidelity doesn't necessarily work for gay couples, either. "What tends to happen is that they have a don't ask/don't tell policy, but someone invariably ends up getting jealous. Or else they have sex with everyone apart from each other and drift into a sibling relationship."

Humans, Marshall believes, "are always at our best when we aim to be as good as we possibly can. I think we have to aim high. But I also think we should try to be a little more charitable and try to solve the underlying causes that lie behind infidelity. If people put the same energy they expend on an affair into their marriage or relationship, it's quite possible they could solve their problems."

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/life/monogamy+making+miserable/5418722/story.html#ixzz1YVvQ3lzu

Out on a limb...

Last week I went apple picking with my mum. There was an apple tree behind the community centre and my mum recruited me to go up and pick the apple which were perfectly ripe and very delicious. I have always liked climbing trees and throughout my life I have made my mum nervous on many occasions as I placed myself in precarious situations. However, last week she was egging me on... "There is lot just out and up a bit farther," she said. And so I found myself probably the farthest out on a limb I think I have ever been. I was careful, I was cautious but I also pushed myself to the very limit because that was the place I needed to be to get the good apples.

The line between madness and genius is thin. The line between success and failure is thin. The line between life and death is thin. The thing I find interesting is that we are notoriously bad and knowing where the line is... We are notoriously bad at evaluation in general. The drummer before Ringo Starr, quit the Beatles because he thought they were no good. Way too many people go on American Idol and think they are great. We try and evaluate results but which results are relevant? Einstein had early speech difficulties, Van Gogh had no success while alive. Our understanding of the present and the stories that history will tell are often different...

At the entrance to the temple at Delphi it said in Greek, "Know thyself." "Who am I?" is one of the ancient philosophical conundrums... The task to know one's self is exceedingly difficult as there is certainly no agreed upon method. Furthermore it is not a question to be answered by a single individual given we are relational beings, our identity is wrapped up in much beyond our own individual psyche. We like to talk about self esteem, and bad self esteem as someone who doesn't know them self. However, "bad" is a judgement we make from the outside based on our perceptions. We are likely to disagree just a strongly with an unrepentant serial killer who has really "good" self esteem.

The line between confidence and arrogance is thin. My father in law says that it is the difference between seeking impress rather than express. And yet I am sure we can all resonate with the experience of knowing someone who liked to express themselves just a little bit too much... I know people who seem to be very comfortable with who they are and they are very "real" but what this looks like is often abrasive or uncomfortable. They are either oblivious or disinterested how there self expression impacts those around them. People deal with it. I put up with it. I find myself often a combination of frustrated and jealous of these people. Frustrated because they can be like a grenade; jealous because they can get away saying and doing things that I cannot, with an earnestness that I would have to fake.

Expectations may well be the death of you...

I find myself farther and father out on the limb of life. My ability to evaluate whether the branch can hold me or not is negligible. Although past experience tells me that I'm ok. But of course past experience tells me I'm ok because one is ok until one is not, one is alive until one is dead, the branch is holding you until it snaps. Will it snap? or will you get a delicious apple?

How much risk is acceptable? How do you determine risk? How do you psychologically manage to get in your car every day knowing the statistics of traffic fatalities: 32, 708 people died in the US last year in a traffic accident.

Coming out Normal...(if that is possible)

As the new school year begins I am experiencing a sense of loss. I miss it. I miss the mental stimulation, I miss making my own schedule, I miss meeting a few new people, and I even miss working late into the night on a paper. BUT I do not miss the crazies.

I have not moved locations, and as a result I am still surrounded by those who are attached to the academic institution. As these people start the school year the stories begin to drift in, stories from every corner. Stories of boys and girls in love, stories of ridiculous questions, stories of ignorance and bigotry, and stories of great conversations and insights. It is a mixed bag, a mixed bag of the good, the bad, and the crazies.

The crazies are everywhere, but they seem to flock to Bible Colleges. Maybe it is their need for community, maybe Bible Colleges are really a collection of outcasts and socially inept people. I will go out on an offensive limb that there are more crazies at Bible College than elsewhere.

Let me explain Bible College crazies before I go on. To make vast generalizations, which are not ideal but necessary because I do not wish to point out specific people, crazies may be defined by having a narrow perspective. We all like to think our own unique view is correct, this is just human, but what sets a crazy apart is that he or she lacks an intellectual humility to acknowledge he or she may be wrong. They pigeon hole God and life into neat boxes, which they are unable to see are boxes. These people may even be proponents of the cliche "Do not put God into a Box", but when challenged on their box they refuse to acknowledge it is a box.

Some common crazy boxes at Bible College are: My life is all predetermined and I am just along for the ride. God is logical, as we understand logic, therefore the logic of Reformed TULIP is inerrant. Proper education is the factory making of good evangelicals who know a lot of information, rather than learning how to think. Life is hyper-spiritualized, therefore everything has other meanings which involve the learning of christianeese in order to be understood, resulting in no one understanding what is being talked about. Terms of liberal and conservative, as used in the contemporary media, equate to "christian" and "non-Christian", rather than perceiving Christian as being unable to fit into either box of liberal and conservative.

The barrage of stories coming out of the Bible College of students and professors being caught up in one or many little boxes has caused me to reflect. I reflect with my friends and my community, which I know is totally bias because for the most part I like them and we often agree more than disagree. yet, as of late there has been a theme of how we were able to come out "normal". Normal being 51% so not very precise, but normal in that we are able to converse about various topics, relate to various points of view, and have diverse interests in art, culture, science, sport, etc.

In a conversation with a friend about how we turned out so "normal", we concluded it largely was how we grew up. We were fortunate to go to a church that did not hyper-spiritualize everything, so we grew up with sermons that related to life, biology, science, environmentalism, politics, depression, and culture. These were all tied to scripture and preached from the pulpit. We also grew up in a community where the parents held differing opinions and conversation always was filtered through respect for the relationship while still holding one's opinion. Beyond all of these, I attribute our "normalness" to the fact that I grew up in a community that read.

One specific memory I have that displays this is memories of mornings when camping. The community I grew up in went camping together and on Saturday and Sunday mornings when people arose and gathered around fires, it was a common sight for a newspaper to appear from here and then another from there. Newspapers that had been stashed along for multiple purposes, first to be read, and second to provide the children with fire starting material. The memories I have of these times have follow up memories, memories of all the parents discussing politics, different perspectives and the news of the week.

One might say, but probably would not, "my parents read too, and I did not come out normal". The difference I might propose in response is "what was the breadth of the reading one experienced". The parents in my community read widely, although committed Christians, it was not unheard-of to listen in on a discussion of theology that included works by Marcus Borg, or relevant points of Buddhist thought, or the similarities in Hinduism and the development of India. The newspapers that were read around the fire were not all the same, some conservative, some liberal, and the discussion of the news would include thoughts and critique of bias. This later would become common practice; learning to distinguish a writers bias and take that into consideration when reading what he or she wrote. Histories were also read, from the ancient near east, to asian, to Europe, and even Mayan and Aztec cultures were understood. "Normalness" came from having to defend one's opinion against any critique no matter how diverse the reference point. This prohibited brainwashed answers and isolated perspectives. Defence of one's ideas may include biblical reference but also needed to be logical given other evidence. It was in the necessity to have this other evidence that promoted me and my peers to understand the world as wide and vast, an incomprehensible treasure trove of ideas and perspectives. Perspectives that shaped one into "normal".

Earlier this summer a friend asked me for a book list, I was busy and failed to get back to her. This, however, seems like the appropriate time and place for a list. The following are either books I have read, books my parents and their friends read which fit in line with this post, or books that are on my bookshelf waiting to be read. The highlights that ought to be read include:

Out of Babylon - Walter Brueggemann
A History of God: The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam - Karen Armstrong
Failed States - Noam Chomsky (or anything else by Noam)
Infidel - Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Che: A Memoir by Fidel Castro
The Divine Comedy - Dante
Lord of the Rings - J.R.R. Tolkien
The Chronicles of Narnia - C.S. Lewis
Harry Potter - J.K. Rowling
Midnight's Children - Salman Rushdie
Colossians Remixed - Walsh & Keesmaat
An Imperfect Offering - James Orbinski
The Shadow of Kilimanjaro - Rick Ridgeway
Reading the Bible Again for the First Time - Marcus Borg
The Gospel in a Pluralist Society
Fugitive Pieces - Anne Michaels
Anarchy and Christianity - Jacques Ellul
I, Claudius - Robert Graves
Guns, Germ, and Steel - Jared Diamonds
A Short History of Nearly Everything - Bill Bryson
The Orthodox Heretic - Pater Rollins

If you have read a book that you think should be added to that list, put it in the comments section below. I am always looking for more books to read, or dream about having the time to read.

CYOA: 1 Samuel 15 - Genocide is Difficult

I am writing this on my phone on a ferry.

I am for better or worse struck with the amusing thought that genocide is a very difficult task. Perhaps, you find it less amusing than I do but I am struck by the sheer difficulty of the task rather than it's horror. Not to diminish or negate it's horror but just to think about it a in a different way. It's difficult, literally, very challenging. This is precisely because it demands absolute destruction and total annihilation, not partial, not mostly but absolutely complete. I think history bears out what I am saying, while there are occasions of attempted genocide I think there are few successful executions, if successful is the right word.

In thinking about this I draw upon my experience as an auto detailer. Auto detailing is like a genocidal war against dirt - every particle of dirt and dust is sought to be ruthlessly eliminated with chemical, scrub brushes, vacuums, steam, air, q-tips, and tooth brushes. These last two instrument highlight why it is called detailing as well as the incredible challenge of an absolute task. The problem is some one always survives. Even mass sucides, with ensured participation by armed guards have people who manage to hide or escape...

So we appear to have a theocratically ordered genocide and a failure to comply on the part of Saul. However, I'm not sure if the reason God is so upset with Saul a few verses later is disobedience or failure per se so much as what his particular transgression reveals. Instead of total annihilation the king, Agag, and some choice cattle are spared. Saul, didn't spare, children or puppies and I don't think God is upset because his blood lust wasn't satisfied. Rather, Saul's exceptions betray a selfishness and a lack of trust. Saul the king, has come to believe that kings are special. Perhaps, he also sees the political ramifications of killing a king. If Israel is later defeated by not killing Agag he is increasing the likelihood that he would not be killed even if all Israel is destroyed. This selfish attitude of Saul was also demonstrated by his refusal to fight Goliath. The king was supposed to be one of the people, for all of the people. The king was supposed help the people follow God and was therefore an inherently priestly role. A priest, represents God. Yahweh is revealed as one who fights for his people and provides. Saul fails both to represent Yahweh or trust Yahweh and instead hedges his bets.

Faith, like love doesn't work when one is hedging bets. Faith and love are participation in relationship with absolute. Despite the impossibility of the task it is our commitment to the relationship above our selves that gives everything meaning.

CYOA: 1 Samuel 15:2-3 - Obedience

Last fall I took a Samuel and Kings class at CBC. Our weekly assignment involved reading 50 pages of commentary and one journal article on a specified chapter selection. In our class sessions we worked through the books, sharing insights and research that we had gleaned from our reading. These are a few of the points brought up in our class pertaining to 1 Samuel 15.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·      <!--[endif]-->This passage is noted as one of the most controversial chapters in the Bible about God because 1) it says that God can not repent and then he does 2) God tells Israel to innocent kill people

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·      <!--[endif]-->The history: while Moses and the Israelites were crossing the red sea, they were attacked by Amalakites (1440-1250 BC); Saul’s time was 1050-1010 BC therefore we can deduce that the Amalakites were killed for sins committed by their ancestors 400 years earlier

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·      <!--[endif]-->God says to kill all animals - the Hebrew word used is herem, which refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the LORD, often by totally destroying them. In the OT things were given/offered to God by being burnt because smoke rises and therefore can rise up to God. Thus it makes sense that the animals, people and cities (Jericho, Ai and Hatzor) were burned.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·      <!--[endif]-->In the OT, the worst possible desecration was to be denied a proper burial and in this chapter the bodies of the Amalakites were left in the open to be consumed by vultures.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·      <!--[endif]-->The issue of obedience arises when Saul kills bad cattle but keeps the good for himself. Verse 22 makes clear that obedience to God is more important than gifts.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·      <!--[endif]-->Although sins are punished to third generation, love is shown to 1000 generations: God’s loyalty shows greater and longer that punishment. The implication of this text is that generations can change. 

CYOA: 1 Samuel 15:2-3 – Missing the Point

2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Genocide again. I feel like this is a topic we have batted this way and that. To be honest I am feeling apathetic toward these verses today. I am not passionate about defending God’s action, as articulated through Samuel. Nor am I gobsmacked that the charge is to kill the Amalekites. Today I read it as a historical account. It happened…and the answer to “why” is even given in this passage. This is a simple account to tit-for-tat. The Amalekites waylaid Israel when they were coming out of Egypt; therefore, revenge is appropriate. Simple as that. As I read this, I see the eye for an eye ethic being played out. I would no longer condone this kind of action given my understanding of ethics as progressing, but in a time of tribalism, nationalism, and conquest, this seems to fit. The god of one nation is claiming to be with that nation as they go out to destroy another nation, as well as the other nation’s god, which is implied.

What is really grinding my gears is that these two verses are a distraction from the large story. To be honest, I don’t think focussing on such a small section of the Bible is the best. Although I think exegesis is great, looking at the intricacies is important, but for the majority of people this is not the best way to go about reading the Bible. I would propose that theme is better for the general populace. This is because theme is much more difficult to manipulate. Exegesis when done by those who are incompetent of such tough work, leads to a biblical understanding based on proof texting and isolated band-aid answers/understandings.

So genocide aside, I think the purpose of these two verses is to move the plot of the book along. They are plot more than they are meant to tell of theocratic genocide. To miss this and focus in on the genocide demeans the great tale of the book. 1 Samuel tells of a rise and fall of a leader. A great and timeless classic. Beginning with a gift of life and ending with Saul taking his life, the tale tells of the character changes of a leader, eventually cumulating in his downfall. I find the book to be chiastic in structure (although less compellingly chiastic than 2 Samuel). Chapters 15 and 16 are the rough center of the chiasm. The character of Saul has changed from humility and meekness to pride, this lead to the climax of God stating “I am grieved that I have made Saul King” v.10. I cannot help but thinking this is more important, more central, and more relevant to our lives than some theocratic genocide of ancient history. I also wonder whether the grieving of God is more than the personal character of Saul, but also his actions and direction of the nation. If so, this grieving might also include the leading of the nation into a frenzy of revenge that led God to condone and even commission genocide. By situating these verses in this tale, we find that Saul had become so corrupt he could not even do genocide right (if you can say that anyone can do genocide right).

In summary, I hope that our dwelling on the tough parts of the Bible, such as verses intending to move plot forward, do not distract from bigger discussions of theme. If we dwell on the minute, we necessarily need to put the pieces back into a bigger picture or be at risk of missing the point.

Religion in the graphic novel "Watchman" by Moore and Gibbons

March 28, 2007; my first academic exploration of religion and culture for English 12.

Religion in Watchman

Religion is not prominent in Watchman, a graphic novel by Allan Moore and Dave Gibbons, but all characters worship something. Prevalent worldly religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism are scarcely mentioned or are entirely left out of the novel but Rorschach, Viedt and Dr. Manhattan each have faith in something, a belief system, a personal conviction, a specific way of life or a moral code that shapes their life. The characters may not believe in an unseen being or a person or object considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or of highest truth but everybody serves somebody or is a slave to something. There are no churches, temples, synagogues, mosques or specified buildings in Watchman where people meet to perform acts of religious praise, honour, or devotion but worship continues. It is clear that religion does not dominate this society because the highest building in Watchman’s New York City is not a building affiliated with a particular religion but a tower on which Viedt’s name is inscribed. Thorough character exploration will reveal what lies within the heart of these characters, who their ‘gods’ are and what they worship.

Walter Joseph Kovacks, also known as Rorschach, is a dedicated vigilante whom continues his crime fighting practices after the Keene Act is passed in defiance of the law because his life is shaped by a need for revenge. Kovacs had an awful childhood. His mother was a prostitute who neglected and sadistically abused him. He was removed from his mother’s custody and put into government care at age 10 when he attacked two teenage bullies for calling him a “whoreson” and inflicting physical harm upon him. Years later, after hearing about a horrific murder that took place in public while bystanders looked on, he vowed to avenge powerless victims of crime. As a child, Kovacs was a powerless victim and society’s judicial system failed him. Consequently, he decided to take the law into his own hands to pursue justice his own way, by punishing the wicked. Rorschach’s actions and journal entries display a belief in objectivism and moral absolutism, where good and evil are unmistakably defined and evil must be violently punished. Kovacks has shaped his life around these moral codes and is willing to torture or murder criminals in pursuit of his aims. He will “never compromise” his beliefs, “not even in the face of Armageddon.” His steadfast devotion to these values, at the end of the novel, cost him his life. His ethics are shaped by his desire for revenge and justice. Rorschach decided to become the judge of other people’s actions and decide their penalty. Kovacks obviously does not have faith in society’s ability to do justice or in a supreme judge who will do right. Kovacks worships himself as the judge of all.

Adrian Viedt is an idealist inspired by his childhood hero Alexander the Great and his ideals of a united world. He became a vigilante, calling himself Ozymandias after Ramesses II, believing that battling crime would decrease evil and world suffering. The Comedian sheds light on this ideal when he points out in the first superhero organisational team gathering that their petty crime fighting actions mean little in the face of nuclear threats, which they have no power to stop. Viedt however, was inspired by the Comedian’s comment to do just that. Being the smartest man in the world, he came up with a genius design to accomplish his new goal. He planned to create a catastrophic event deceiving the world of an alien invasion, generating a common enemy the world could unite against. Part of his ruthless strategy is to eliminate anybody in the way of his plans because he is a utilitarian who wants to achieve the most good for the most people. To finance this scheme Viedt retired from vigilantism and sold his image everywhere. He is a skilled acrobat in peak physical condition, therefore able to sell things such as exercise videos and truthfully sculpted action figures. His wealth, extreme intelligence, goal to perfect the human form and to unite the world reinforces his idealism and utopian desires. Viedt worships perfectionism and strives to get there in all aspects of life, but cannot; at the end of the novel he is unsure that his actions were morally just and seeks conformation.

Jon Osterman, Dr. Manhattan, is the only ‘superhero’ in Watchman who possesses ostensibly god-like super powers. As result of an atomic physics experiment Osterman acquired powers including super human strength, telekinesis and teleportation. Unlike the rest of the world, Osterman does not perceive time in a linear fashion but experiences all moments of life concurrently. He is immortal and indestructible with no need for food, water or air. Sadly, Osterman’s abilities hinder him from connecting with people and building relationships. His declining emotional capacity and connection with humanity throughout the novel is evident and mirrored by the gradual shedding of his uniform. Interestingly, the freedom of choice or will do not seem to be among his many acquired abilities, like the genie in the Disney movie Aladin who is all powerful but has no personal freedom. Even before the freak accident, Osterman did not display strong will. He pursued the career of his father’s choice instead of his own. His worldviews are deterministic, remarking at one point, “We are all puppets, Laurie. I’m just a puppet that can see the strings.” He does not suggest a ‘puppet master” or higher power has control of the strings but that all events are determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. He is a slave to predestination, in a rut where he has all powers except choice and where all human concerns appear pointless and without obvious merit. Osterman submits to fate without question and accepts its rule over his life. He worships this way of life by refusing to become involved in human affairs. For example, he allows the assassination of President J.F. Kennedy to occur although he knew it was going to happen and he knew the world was endangered but separated him from it to a point that he saw no advantage in saving it. He believes in fate so strongly that it brought him to a point of depression.

It is each of these character’s honourable intention to serve the public and “save them from themselves” but accompanying these intentions are self-serving motives. Kovacks and Viedt each are elitists and their own god. Kovacks believes he is the ultimate judge and worships by inflicting punishment on criminals. Viedt takes on a superior stance and self-pride in the name of world unity. His body is his temple, worshiping by maintaining his level of fitness and flawless image. Viedt also worships by pursuing his utopia and uniting the world. Osterman however bows to fate that is out of his powerful hands. He is the only one who believes in something bigger that himself. As Bob Dylan wrote, there is no way out of some form of worship or service:

"You may be an ambassador to England or France,

You may like to gamble, you might like to dance,

You may be the heavyweight champion of the world,

You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed

You're gonna have to serve somebody,

Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord

But you're gonna have to serve somebody." 

The Kingdom of Craigslist

I have recently been putting to the test my claim earlier this year that there was no need to put our furniture in storage. When we moved out, instead of storing our couches or table and chairs, we gave them away. They had been gifted to us when we were married and first moved out and we have appreciated and enjoyed them immensely during our 4 years in Abbotsford. However, there was a lack of room in the storage and 4 years later I didn't love all the furniture that had served us so well. So, with a certain amount of audacity, we gave the furniture away to someone else who was moving out for the first time. If I were to spiritualize this move, I might say that giving the furniture away was an act of faith in God's goodness and provision - that we are called to give generously to those in need and each other out of whatever we have not just abundance. My own retort to my spiritualization would be the question - did I have faith in God or faith in craigslist? The truth, I believe, is both and that they are not mutually exclusive. As we have moved into our new place, by the grace of God (or pure randomness), found a number of new furniture items that we have been given by friends and via craigslist: a loveseat, a chair, an entertainment unit, a table, two kitchen chairs, and a filing cabinet.

The filing cabinet, which is black, quite large and functional but not particularly nice, is the object which leads me to this post. I had responded to the post and arranged a time to pick it up. After this however, I received an email saying that the owner had received offers of money and would I consider making a small donation to the charity which the filing cabinet was from (a leftover from a fundraising garage sale). I tried my best to politely say no. To my surprise, I was still given the filing cabinet, although informed that a donation would be made on my behalf. I said thank you very much and said that was very nice to make a donation. I, however, was left with the nagging feeling of guilt for not offering the donation myself. 

Yesterday, I was able to pick up a custom birch entertainment unit for free that is very nice and I am thrilled with. The person giving it away was wonderful, and explained how she had been given it but was now moving and couldn't take it with her and thus decided to pay it forward to someone else. This was a truly wonderful experience of receiving a spectacular gift for absolutely free. As I have been reflecting on these experiences, I realize how rare it is to be truly given something without expectation. The question "what's the catch?" is not unwarranted. In fact, it is precisely the social expectation of reciprocity that leads fundraising and marketing campaigns to often provide a "free gift." Because of our social constructions we are hard-wired to feel the need to give something in return. The Hare Krishnas benefited greatly from the social rules of reciprocity when they gave away flowers while fundraising. Often there are expectations of relational loyalty, a returned favour, or reciprocal gift that accompany an act of generosity. Amusingly, while we are very familiar with the concept of selling nothing, or buying nothing, we are very unfamiliar and often uncomfortable with receiving something for nothing. To explain what I mean: It is the consumer capitalist's dream to create and profit from the power of a brand: the intangible nothingness of a name that allows Hershey chocolate to simultaneously decrease the amount of chocolate in their bars while increasing their price - the reason we happily pay more for a particular type of shoes or T shirt, despite an overall low quality construction or unethical production.

Evangelicals like to say that salvation is "free". However, they also like to say that Jesus "paid" for your sins. Furthermore, while on the one hand, you don't/can't "earn" your salvation, it does come with rather some very large relational expectations: a life of sacrificial service, devoted to God, modelled after Jesus... I wonder if my experience of receiving the entertainment unit on craigslist did not contain more grace than our typical evangelical salvation narrative? And if there is more grace on craigslist than in our churches, then we are in trouble... 

The power of the rule of reciprocity in relation to generosity seems to function in so far as people seem more inclined to give away that which they have been given. I gave away the furniture I had been given, the entertainment unit was gifted to me for the second time in its life. I like to imagine a world filled with enough trust and compassion to allow everything to be a gift. I like to try and find ways to live in that world because I think that is heaven. I am grateful to craigslist for increasing shalom in Vancouver. 

Educational Ideals

As I mentioned in my last post, I will be starting graduate studies at Regent College next week. During this week, they have attempted to orient the new students. This was not a small 1-5 hour info session, this was a three day long, entirely exhausting, event. Yes, it has taken 3 days to become oriented and I am uncertain if I feel oriented or just overwhelmed. The orientation included a history lecture on the school, an educational mission lecture and a lecture on moral vision. We were also introduced to all the faculty, toured around, forced to meet each other and some returning students, discussed courses, concentrations, ate lunch, had coffee, had communion, sung songs, and were generally informed of very large number of things. During one of the lectures, Regent's view of education was discussed. Ian Provain railed against the modern view of education as a product and students as clients. He told an amusing story of a student complaining to Eugene Peterson for taking too many thoughtful pauses in class and not speaking enough words. Clearly an educational product that contains more words is of more value than one with less, and given the cost of Regent courses, was it really too much to ask for a little less silence and a little more speech? This rant was reminiscent of Zizek's accusation that western society has turned universities from places of education into factories, which produce experts. Provain went on to discuss education as a communal and relational learning experience which ought to be formative for all aspects of person hood and that when it is reduced to an information based product, one has immediately failed. Bruce Hindermarsh added that particularly with theological education to view it as a means to an end is also to fail from the start, for as disciples it is in itself, at least in many senses, the goal.

While I seem in good company at Regent, a last bastion of education for its own sake, I often feel like a dinosaur. Socially, education is viewed almost exclusively as means to a job. So with any education, vocation is the immediate question. And vocational success is also the measure by which we often evaluate the success of an educational investment... BCIT programs advertises their high percentages of graduate employment in a related field, and so they should; BCIT is the ultimate in efficient, expert factory. I say, I feel like a dinosaur because I simply seem unable to be "practical" about education. I keep going to expensive schools, with not obvious or specific job prospects. Furthermore, they are now mostly Christian schools and so barely hold even the value of just general education in the marketplace. I am doomed to be viewed by society as an idiot religious freak and by Christian's as one of those evil educated unspiritual, faith destroying, science believing people. Perhaps, as Zizek points out in the beginning of his book, Living in the End Times: when everyone hates you for opposite and contradictory reasons that perhaps you are on the right track. I will remain hopeful in both God and the ideals of education.

Celebrating a Pilgrimage to Mecca

I think it is time to share my favourite African memory:

Bright and early one morning, my best friend and neighbour, 17 year old Bebe, came into our yard and instructed me to get dressed in my uniform because it was time to go to her family’s village and greet her relative who had returned from a pilgrimage to Mecca. About one month earlier Bebe's mother had bought us matching cloth from the market and we had matching outfits made. Originally, I thought that this was a cute friendship gesture but apparently the outfits were made for this specific celebration.

So I got ready as I was told and made the trek into town with Bebe where we boarded an overloaded bus. After two hours of waiting, the bus began move and the incredibly excited passengers burst into song, which carried on for the duration of the ride. The song they sang went like this: Li Hi Alla, Li Hi Alla, Li Hi Alla, hijah ye bo ni Mecca. It means something along the lines of Praise God, Praise God, Praise God, the pilgrim has returned from Mecca.

When we arrived in Bebe's family village there were already hundreds of people gathered in celebration. Many people congregated at the mosque for prayer and the majority of them were wearing the same special material that Bebe and I had on. As prayers at the mosque came to an end, Bebe ushered me through the large crowd down to the entrance of the mosque to wait for our pilgrim to appear. As soon as she emerged, all dressed in white, I was pushed up right beside her. She took my hand and then we paraded through the village while people chanted the same song that was sung on the bus, old women fanned us, men rang little bells, ancient-looking video cameras were rolling, and I had no idea what was going on. When we got to the pilgrim's yard, we sat down under a palaver hut on a special rug and the whole village came to greet us.

After about an hour, when there was a little break in the crowd, I excused myself. When I found Bebe she was giggling uncontrollably because she knew I was uncomfortable and could not figure out what was happening. In utter frustration I looked at her in the eyes and blurted out, “Why do people go to Mecca anyways?”

She paused, and then answered, “To get rid of their sins of course.” All my frustration faded. Then she asked, “Where do Christians go to get rid of their sins?” With a deep breath, a prayer, the use of multiple languages and awful grammar, I tried my best to say that Christians do not have to go anywhere, but we believe in Jesus who came to us and died so that we could be forgiven from our sins. Then she told me that she had never heard that before.


Often, after pondering the many not-so-good expereinces of Africa, I wonder why I stayed. Sometimes I try to convince myself that all the difficult things that happened in Africa and everything that has happened since is worth it because of this one moment with Bebe. Sometimes the thought is enough to keep me going.

Home - A Reflection and Poem

I was in between permanent residences from May until September. During this time, my wife, Amy, and I lived out of suitcases as we: travelled to Israel, house sat, and stayed with family and friends. I have moved, in some sense of the word, a total of nine times in the last four months. However, as of September first, we got keys to our Vancouver basement suite near Regent College, where I will begin graduate studies next week. As I have relayed to a few people already, Vancouver has never been a draw for me that it has for others. It has always been there and I have always been close but it was never a place I went out of my way to visit often, especially from Abbotsford. I think partially it is because I allow relationships to govern location, and I just don't know many people in Vancouver. So it was always nice, and I would wind up there once a year or so with friends but not often. And I always wondered why we had to drive so far to hang out when we could have just done something near home.

However, all my doubt and ambivalence melted away as I drove over the Lions Gate bridge for the first time in nearly 10 years. I have swam at Spanish banks 2 of the 7 days I have been here, and also went to a beach BBQ tonight. I have a U-PASS and took the bus today very successfully. I live on a tree lined street that has three tire swings. In a few very short days I have found myself converted. I think it would be fair to say, that I feel more at home, more quickly here than I have in the last number of places I have lived and that in this place I somehow in an almost surreal way feel at home in a way that I'm not sure I have necessarily felt in while, not fully at home, but home in a surprising way that I'm not sure I could explain - or maybe I just missed the ocean.

This leads me to the discussion of "home" a word filled with meaning and emotion. "Home" is an elusive concept often talked about and often longed for. It is interesting to consider where and what feels like "home," especially after one has lived in a number of places. It can be quite disconcerting to go away and come home and discover that home doesn't feel like "home" any more. One suddenly finds themselves in an existential crisis of homelessness or exile. Theologically, one could argue that this is actually our perpetual state as we wait for Jesus. Either way, during my time actually being homeless I reflected on this and the pain of the loss of a sense of "home" and wrote a poem. I actually wrote this after binging on spoken word by Taylor Mally and George Watsky, so at some point it may also become a video...

Home.

They say its where the heart is

but what if you're broken hearted

and your home is where it started?

Is home a feeling or place ?

Is it the taste of Christmas dinner

or the the look upon on my face

when exactly where I am

is where I want to be ?

home is where you are

when you are who you're meant to be

Or is home where you are?

Your mother, lover or your friend...

Are we a socially based

relationally placed people

without identity individually,

finding home exclusively within

community?

Say it with me

"home is where you are"

does it become meaningless?

Home is everywhere and no where

a moving shadow

disappearing in the sun.

So is it you are or you are?

Is is it you alone or you together?

Whether or not together is possible

for another discussion with other critical capitals

Have you ever gone home

and found it disappeared?

You don't belong

You don't fit in

You're not safe

You're not loved

You think too much

But its not enough

Its like in Garden State when they just stand in the rain and scream.

We can rebuild it, we have the technology!

But no matter how hard I try I never quite feel at home

I'm always just a bit too alone

Home isn't where I am

It's in another time or space

with Peter Pan in Never Never Land

some how it escapes 

us

as the human race

a race

because we're running

and looking to make the fleeting feeling

last

instead of it slipping into the nostalgic past

doomed to the unreproducible perfection of a rose coloured glass

perpetually exiled from the perfection we aspire to

we persist and perspire in our unyielding desire

to go home

they say home is where the heart is

but home is where you are

and if you are what you eat

then your home is down the street 

on the shelf at Costco with all the other frozen meat

You don't have to go home but you can't stay here.

but if I'm always leaving how will I ever get there.