Blessings

I wanted to title this post: How a Cigar and a Fine Single Malt Scotch can Bring You to Prayer, but as you can see that's a little lengthy.

My father-in-law was recently in Cuba and gifted me a cigar that wasn't going to get any fresher and with no looming celebrations in the future and the days not getting any warmer I decided to celebrate the fine occasion of having a cigar.

I bundled up (it's only zero outside, so it's warm compared to the rest of Canada!), poured a drink and sat outside in the dark, smoking a fine Monte Cristo. I'm not a regular smoker but on occasion I enjoy a well-made cigar and this occasion made me think of the other times I've had the pleasure of enjoying one (it was rather contemplative by myself!)

The time the reverend (my Dad) surprised the socks off of me by bringing around cigars to smoke with him and my brother in celebration of Daija's birth. With a friend on our balcony on a low-key New Year's Eve in Ethiopia. On boy's/poker nights with good friends in Victoria. In the middle of the bush while working for Parks Canada.

And then I realized how blessed I am for the moments I've had, the experiences past and the possibilities present and future. I realized how blessed I was for the family that was sleeping soundly inside the house as well as the family that raised me, for the schooling opportunities and the chance to pursue something that challenges me and excites me, for the house, the friends, the cigar... and on.

It was much needed after a day with Daija when she was particularly whiny and I was particularly impatient - it was just one of those rough days of parenthood when you can't wait to put them down for the night. The days when you're not very appreciative of the blessings you have.

I remembered how I love my wife and need to remember to tell her how much I do. And it led to the parallel connection with how I need to remember to thank God for the blessings he has bestowed. Too often I am cynical and lacking grace when it is needed.

All of this brought on by a darkened yard, a random snowflake falling, a cigar, a scotch, and very cold hands. I am going to make sure I go in and kiss my baby again before I go to bed, tell her how much I love her, and then crawl in beside the woman I love.

Islam and Franklin Graham

Deep breaths. Deep breaths. Exhale.

First off, I have to say that I have the utmost respect for Billy Graham, I perceive him to be a Christian leader who was uncompromising in his love and faith for Christ. Not only that but, despite being in the public eye, he maintained an unwavering stance of love and integrity.

As for his successor, his son Franklin, I have been mildly bemused as he takes on a post-911 stance on the US, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Islam. Today that bemusement turns to amazement at his ignorance. I hate to be so harsh but in all honesty that is the only thing I can attribute his recent statements to - ignorance.



This recent interview with CNN's Campbell Brown, in the first 4 minutes pointedly pushes him to define his stance on Islam as a religion and he doesn't waver - "I find Islam to be a very violent religion."

Let me break down the video by his main points.

1.) When asked if the war in Afghanistan is a religious war, Franklin stated: it is for them, but not for us. They see us as a Christian nation, that we are all Christians, it is a religious war for them but, of course not for us.

So Americans are much more open I guess. We can distinguish between a religion and say, a country; we can see the diversity that they can't. Which is probably why after 9/11 Sikhs in turbans got beat up. It's probably why one of the explicit images of the war is the 'freeing' of Muslim women from the hijab. Of course Americans view Iraq or Afghanistan as a Muslim nation! Franklin himself, in a later answer referred to Afghanistan and Iraq (as well as Saudi Arabia) as representing Islam... so does that mean you see them as a Muslim nation? Let's not kid ourselves, this war has many aims and they are all mixed up - economics, religion, politics, culture, imperialism....

2.) "True Islam cannot be practiced in this country (USA)." Why? "You can't beat your wife, you can't murder your children if you think they committed adultery". Brown aptly questions him on this - "And that is true Islam for you?"

'True' Islam is beating your wife and killing your kids? This is the kind of sensationalist images that the American media has been feeding to the American public and Franklin picks it up and touts it as if it is true, he says "If you study Islam" you see this is true! This is the equivalent of saying that 'true' Christianity is assassinating abortion providers (which some do) and supporting Jewish extermination (which some did/do).

So how does Franklin prove that Islam is an "evil religion"?

3.) "When you see countries living under Shari'a law, trust me Campbell, girl, you don't want to live there." (I'll even pass up slamming his condenscending sexist language... alright, so maybe I just did that...)

Franklin points to Saudi Arabia and later Southern Sudan as examples of the killing and murder that goes on under the name of Islam. When Brown pushes him in saying, "Well not all Muslims practice to such extremes", Franklin glibly replies "Well, they all want to get out... but if you're Muslim you cannot change."

First, Sudan is probably the worst example he could have picked of "Islamic murder" for these reasons: The 2 million Christians he quoted murdered in Southern Sudan, most of them are 'Christian' only in location, in that by residing in the South the West perceives of them as Christian, when in reality most of them are "animist" or practising indigenous religions; secondly, they killing in the South, much like the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, is motivated by much more than religion. In fact it has way more to do with "divide-and-rule" tactics implemented under British colonialism, resources and economics, and how to get part of the international aid that is coming in.

Second, and more serious is the idea that countries under Shari'a law represent true religion. When religion and politics are mixed, the resulting ideologies can hardly be claimed to represent the true religion. Christianity has its own striking examples in Munster during the Reformation when Anabaptism when political and created a city where those who resisted were killed, the 'godless' were thrown out or killed, and polygamy was enforced because too many women seemed to be "wearing the trousers". Or look to Calvin in Geneva who hoped to create the perfect Christian city by burning heretics and creating a police state. Is that true Christianity?

Neither Saudi Arabia or Shari'a can claim to represent Islam and those who look to them as "true Islam" are those who refuse to study beyond the images that are portrayed in the Western press, images of the bomb carrying Jihadist, images of the veiled wife who gets beaten at home for wearing lipstick. This is not true Islam.

As for the "they can't change" and "all moderate Muslims want out" comments, I won't go on. As a Christian, I understand how frustrating it is to me when Christianity is mis-represented or when its more unsavoury aspects are highlighted as "true Christianity". Why should it by any different for Islam? For a Christian leader to distort, stereotype and be generally ignorant about the world about him (despite his claim that he's worked in Muslim countries for 50yrs which would have made him 7 years old when he started....), this is not the Christianity that I strive for or that I wish was represented in the media. It's not the kind of Christianity that seeks to bring love and peace.


For those who might be interested in actually doing some study into the religion of Islam I recommend an excellent introduction called "No God but God" by Reza Aslan.

When God Shows Up

How many times have you heard the phrase, usually after some intensely emotional church event, retreat, camp, worship night, etc..., "God showed up tonight" or "I love it when God shows up, it was awesome!"? When I hear this it grates on me. God showed up? Like a party guest, he knocked on the door, waited for you to let him in and then ate all your pretzels? Or was it more like the Aladdin genie who, with a rub of the lamp, popped out ready to give you your heart's desires? What do we mean by this?

Certainly there are times in scripture that give us some basis of this "showing up" phenomenon. There was the Holy of Holies in the temple where God permanently crashed, there was God talking to all sorts of people in the Old Testament (Moses in a burning bush, Elijah in a cave, Gideon, etc...), he arrived in tongues of fire at Pentecost. So let's not dismiss that perhaps God does indeed "show up" at times. What strikes me though about these examples, is that they are all to some extent physical manifestations of God (as long as we read the stories literally). Voices, bushes, flames - God showed up in ways that were direct, physical and validated in a sensory manner.

Is this what we mean when God shows up at the latest worship night? I hesitate to argue the point, but most likely no one saw any physical manifestations of God (unless someone spotted his outline in a grilled cheese...) The intended meaning is usually something akin to "I felt God's presence." Again, nothing wrong with this, that's a powerful feeling to be in the presence of the divine.

Yet, this statement feels to me a little juvenile, perhaps based too much on emotion. I think it feels this way to me because I believe God is everywhere. I know with every breath I take he is the sustainer, with every bud that grows that he is the creator, with every relationship built that he is the glue, with every trial faced that he is the healer. The idea behind the Pentecost was that that God left his spirit here to do his work among us, not just in prayer meetings or church services or summer camps, but in everything.

Perhaps, what really happens in settings such as church is that we are finally able to remove the multiplicity of distractions that close our eyes to God around us. In those moments we become aware of the closeness, the intimacy of our relationship. Perhaps it is not that God "shows up" but, in fact, we who "show up". The party has been going on the whole time, God has been in the house eating pretzels all the while, and finally we took time to stop, look around, knock on the door and join.

So when we say, "God showed up" it seems to me that the onus is on God to make an appearance - as if once in a blue moon he takes to the red carpet and graces us with his presence. In fact, every moment of every day he is there. The onus is on us to realize it, to see grace in the day to day, to interrogate what it is that is closing our eyes to it. Perhaps it takes a worship night to lead you to that place, maybe it's a quiet walk in a park while the leaves fall, it could be a the feeling of belonging as you tuck into turkey dinner with your family, perhaps a pint at the pub with great conversation and chicken pot pie. Whatever it is, God is there - it's up to us to see him.

Starving Children in Africa

There’s something within me that breaks every time I see a picture a starving African child. It’s normal, I guess, to feel guilt, shame, shock, horror, etc... when I see such pictures. That’s the typical reaction among us ‘decent’ White folk.

This feeling, though, has to be reconciled with the other feelings I feel when I typically see these pictures - disgust and anger towards people or organizations who exploit the stereotype or the image, those who use it as a means to an end.

I’m truly not sure about how to process this reaction and synthesize it all into a coherent response. The images depict an actuality – people die from starvation. There is little doubt of this. And yet there is something more than the picture, something sinister. Images carry meaning beyond what is explicitly presented. Susanne Langer (an art philosopher) said, “A symbol is understood when we conceive the idea it presents.” Much like the symbol of a cross, for example, can mean many things to different people (faith, Christianity, salvation, oppression, death, life), the image of a starving child is more than ‘the truth’. It has come to represent many things: the collective guilt/responsibility/shame of the affluent Western nations (I feel sorry for them), the wealth of the West (you see pictures of people who are obviously not you), the pride/elevation of the West (we have the resources to help), etc...

Not only does the image no longer simply represent starving children around the world (perhaps it once did, meanings change with time), but it has been co-opted by people and agencies as a tool of manipulation and, sometimes, even deceit. In the book, “Road to Hell” a former aid worker documents how the NGO Save the Children markets child sponsorship to the masses, uses false advertising, and spends a large percentage of their budget figuring out how to do it. It’s wilful manipulation.

They know the power of the image, it’s not accidental misuse. A quote I just took off of the World Vision website calls for donations: “It would be shameful to wait to see images of starving children stalked by vultures before taking action.”

We can even be threatened with more images, it appears. Whatever the case, it works. Money is spent on research to show this, ad agencies or directors are hired, million dollar campaigns initiated. I can accept that not all agencies are perhaps as wilful in their manipulation but it is manipulation nonetheless.

Now, I understand the argument that goes something like this: We all “know” that children are starving and yet we go about our Western lives, purchasing $5 lattes, $50 meals, $150 shoes, etc... The pictures don’t give us any new information but rather bring home what it is truly like to be starving, or at least what it truly looks like to be starving.

And the truly sad thing in all of this, beyond the purposeful exploitation of emotions, beyond our Western-centric approach, is that there’s truth in this argument. Not in the fact that it is inherently true – I don’t think seeing pictures makes us any more aware of what it’s really like to starve or be around starving people (much like a 30hr famine doesn’t really show you how starving people feel). It’s true in that it does prompt response. The whole grand scheme of exploitation depends on you and me, on our feeling guilty enough to send money, to respond in the right way. A recent quote from Geez magazine has an NGO advertising agent say, “Call it McMarketing; it’s all about supply and demand. You want it I need you. I package it. You buy it. I send you another picture for your fridge that reminds you how good you are. I’m happy to oblige....just remember, I’m only the messenger, and I know how you like it.” Images of starving African children work. Studies show it. People have jobs as advertising directors (and salaries paid by your donations) to manipulate images and words in such a way to provoke a response. Not an intellectual response but an emotional one.

And this is the final thing that frustrates me. The only appropriate response to such an advertising campaign, we are told, is to donate money. $40 feeds a child for a month, $100 sends him to school, $50 buys a sheep. Donate now! This approach ignores why the children (and the rest of the people!) are starving. It ignores the globalization of trade, the subsidies paid to Western farmers to ensure we can buy sugar, bread, coffee, etc... for cheaper prices, the increased costs of production because of the introduction of Western fertilizers and pesticides. It ignores the exploitation of the disadvantaged. It ignores the system in favour of treating the symptoms. For however much Bono campaigns for debt relief, for however much organizations raise for disaster relief or fresh water (and it’s not to say that these aren’t good things) – for however much we donate – it ignores the bigger issues.

Not only that, our donations seem to exempt us from having to confront these issues; it assuages our guilt enough to help us continue with what we were doing before. We need to stop blindly submitting to the propaganda (harsh word, I know) and actively question the systems that we are a part of, the system of domination and exploitation, the systems that lead to people starving. But this system of images and donations stupefies us, silences us, and renders us immobile. Our donations are so insignificant in the scheme of things. Governments give more than what is privately donated through NGOs. Remittances (relatives sending money back home) bring more money into Third World nations than Western governments. Trade brings in even more than this. This is my frustration: the images are part of a system that satisfies us with cheap, easy answers without solving anything.

These issues are huge; the books written about them could fill a library and a blog post can’t even begin to summarize them (even if it is a long one like this one!). An image is never just the picture, never just the revealing of a moment of time, never just what you see. It can’t reveal everything (it’s limiting) and yet it has endless possibilities through symbolization. It’s powerful.

I was at church the other night and we were shown a video. The background narrative was a sermon on taking action, on going into the nations. The images, every single one of them, were of African children. It carefully placed images of starving children at the right times (to make a point about how bad things were) and juxtaposed them with pictures of happy, smiling African children (to make a point about how good things could be).

People starve the world over. Gypsies in East Europe. Elderly in Latin America. Mothers in Africa. Children in North Korea. And yet, they are not shown. They don’t carry the same weight, the same meaning, as African children. We all (and please note, I certainly include myself in this) accept this barrage of images as the norm, accepting guilt and pity as the best we can do. The system continues on. Pictures flood the TV. Every week more mailings arrive with pleas for aid. The pictures are like currency, you can bank on it. What are we going to do?

What Matters More?

Love or being straight?

Warning: This post might be slightly offensive to certain people. Proceed with caution.

There are few Christian artists who I support these days (and by few I mean one) and that one artist is Derek Webb, formerly of the band Caedmon's call. His first album created a stir with the song "Wedding Dress" and the lyrics,

"i am a whore i do confess
but i put you on just like a wedding dress
and i run down the aisle
i’m a prodigal with no way home
but i put you on just like a ring of gold
and i run down the aisle to you

so could you love this bastard child

though i don’t trust you to provide
with one hand in a pot of gold
and with the other in your side
i am so easily satisfied
by the call of lovers less wild
that i would take a little cash
over your very flesh and blood"

The "naughty" words in the song got the album pulled from a number of sellers despite the message's clarity and honesty.

With future releases he kept at it with the messages but kept the albums toned down language wise. Until now.

Derek has just released the new album "Stockholm Syndrome" on his website. Well, the explicit version of the album. His record label refused to distribute it without some changes so a "clean" version will release in fall minus the song, "What Matters More". I promptly went and bought the version off of Derek's site.

Here's the lyrics to "What Matters More":

"You say you always treat people like you like to be
I guess you love being hated for your sexuality
You love when people put words in your mouth
'Bout what you believe, make you sound like a freak

'Cause if you really believe what you say you believe
You wouldn't be so damn reckless with the words you speak
Wouldn't silently conceal when the liars speak
Denyin' all the dyin' of the remedy

Tell me, brother, what matters more to you?
Tell me, sister, what matters more to you?

If I can tell what's in your heart by what comes out of your mouth
Then it sure looks to me like being straight is all it's about
It looks like being hated for all the wrong things
Like chasin' the wind while the pendulum swings

'Cause we can talk and debate until we're blue in the face
About the language and tradition that he's comin' to save
Meanwhile we sit just like we don't give a shit
About 50,000 people who are dyin' today

Tell me, brother, what matters more to you?
Tell me, sister, what matters more to you? "

And a link to hear it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5pBXY2AkeY

I find it telling that the album is named after a confusion syndrome, where people don't know where their true feelings should lie, aligning themselves with those that hurt them.

As for the song, I can see why the label thought it a little controversial and yet love it that there is someone like Derek bringing issues to the table, issues that no one else in Christian arts would dare to do. He uses his medium to add to the dialogue. I'm not going to discuss my stance on homosexuality because that's not what Derek's doing either. He's not advocating for homosexuality but for an increased love for everybody by Christians. That's a message that is dead on Christ-center.

As for the language, I'm pretty sure that you and I and every Christian artist out there has said worse so why judge? Love matters more.

Can We Choose Family?

At some point, I am sure, we have all heard the expression, “You don’t choose your family.” It’s meant to imply that you might as well learn to live with them, learn to love them, and regardless of how it all works out – they’re still your family.

Often we refer to the Church as a body or a family but somehow we rarely seem to apply this idea of not choosing your family. As Nolana and I move to a new city we hope to enter into a new faith community and I am struck with the dilemma of how to “choose” a church for our family. Often people look for good programs, welcoming people, lively worship, a dynamic speaker, convenient location or times, etc, etc.... And I am struck by the way we often shop around to choose a church that seems to fit us. This isn’t how I got stuck with my family!

I think most people find, that like with family, when you become active and involved in a church – when you give of yourself sacrificially – this is when you feel connected and rewarded by community. Before I left I had a good chat about this with a friend whose challenged heart I admire and we discussed in great length what it is that church should be about. Often, when we look for a church, we look for something that fits us and that fits what we define as church. We want to worship with like-minded people who like drums or calls to worship or liturgical prayers. We want what is safe and what we know.

So as we go about figuring out where to call home I am struck by the question: should we just show up one Sunday morning to our local place of worship and, as long as they’re grounded in biblical truth, call it home, choose to make it family, and then stick with it regardless of worship styles or if they have lots of little kids for Daija to play with?

This seems to be along the lines of family. And yet, there seems to be things that I value that I want in a faith community: missional focus, community and social justice minded, built in the scripture, etc... I wonder if some of these are merely selfish desires and if I should be working as an advocate for these things in whatever family I land in? Sometimes it’s hard to separate our wishes, even when they sometimes seem so spiritual, from those of the Father.

Pictures taken from the hilarious site: http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com

Easter Sunrise

Each year our church holds an Easter sunrise service on the beach and it is one of our favorite services to attend. The picture on the right was from the last one we were in Victoria for.

This year, we set our alarms for 5:00a.m. and when we awoke, it was pouring rain. Being the diehard she is, Nolana insisted we still go and I, being the lazy ass I am, didn't want to get out of bed but was also too lazy to argue with her. So we went.

It was a steady rain which was joined by a stiff wind off the ocean. There was no sunrise, just a gradual lightening behind the canopy of ominous, grey rainclouds. The wind whipped smoke from the valiant fires and Daija screamed intermittently at the injustice of being awoken at 5am to be subjected to the cold.

And yet, somehow, it was Easter. I couldn't hear much of the reading or meditation and could only hear myself when singing (despite there being a full band with banjo, stand-up bass, guitar and drum) but it felt like Easter watching the 75 of us huddle in the rain, overlooked by the three crosses.

There were no pictures taken this year and everyone quickly dispersed when the service was over. But there is something magical about getting up at 5am and trekking to the beach with other believers to celebrate the pivotal event in Christian faith. Even if it is in the rain.

Nun-sense?

A recent article on Cnn.com talked about the closing of a number of parishes as numbers, dollars, and priests decline.

One of the upset nuns states: "Too many bishops are treating parishes as if they were Starbucks franchises," said Sister Christine Schenk, a Cleveland-area nun.

Interesting point. Church as a franchise. Church as fast-food service. Or perhaps more along the lines of what she actually meant: Do church governances have the right to "close down" a local body of worshipers?

The nun goes on to say: "It's about more than money. It's about mission to the people," she said. "This isn't what Jesus would do."

She talks of the many good programs to the poor in the area that will be lost. And I wonder if she, while full of good analogies, is still missing the point. If the Church is the building and the programs, then it seems in line to be upset that someone is arbitrarily deciding to end it. But if the Church is bigger than the meeting place and is in fact a living, breathing, active body of believers, what difference is it if the building is locked up? Perhaps, despite her witty remarks, she is in fact guilty of treating church like a Starbucks; a body that can be encapsulated within a building and is not accessible when locked up. What would Jesus do? He would probably keep helping the poor in Cleveland regardless of whether the bishop decided to close the church, he would likely keep worshiping with a body of believers and probably wouldn't be any worse off for it.

The Holy See (And what he doesn't see)

As you may (or may not) have heard, the Pope is currently on a tour of Africa and has followed in his precursor's steps by confirming that the Catholic church is against the use of condoms - and that, in fact, condoms are contributing to the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa.

Let me say a couple things. The Pope is absolutely correct when he says the only sure-fire way to stop HIV/AIDS is abstinence. He is also 100% correct when he says that condoms alone will not stop the tide of HIV/AIDS.

But there are far more things that he is simply turning a blind eye to. The first and most important is this: Abstinence is a good idea but it is simply not reality for most people. The goal of faith communities should be to engage with the real world. Caedmon's Call (on an old old album) had the lyrics, "How can I preserve and light the way for a world I can't admit I'm in?" People are having sex with multiple partners, Catholics are having sex with multiple partners - heck, even some priests are having sex with multiple partners. That doesn't mean it is right, but it is most certainly reality. For those who preach abstinence as the only way to attack HIV/AIDS, they are closing their eyes to reality.

I don't believe condoms are the answer to HIV/AIDS. I don't believe there is one answer. We must piece together many prongs of attack of which condoms is one that has proven to work in some situations. There has been tons of work with condoms in Africa and despite some serious deficiencies, the work has certainly helped people stay HIV/AIDS free. For someone with the clout of the Pope (or the President) to come out and say condoms are a sin seriously hampers the good work that is going on in Africa with condoms. The Pope has, by what he said, most certainly caused someone in Africa, this minute, to be infected with HIV - someone who might have used a condom except that the Pope told him on the radio that it was wrong.

It frustrates me to no end when I hear respected leaders spout off about what is right or wrong for people in Africa - especially when what they say is in direct opposition to the facts. It makes me even more upset when these leaders use God to gain currency for their ideas.

At the bottom of the CBC article there is space for people to comment. The highest rated comment on this article was, "Organized religion is the worst thing to happen to God." I clicked, Agree.

Muslims and Jesus

Here's some interesting excerpts from an interview with a guy named Carl Medearis who wrote this book. He makes some interesting remarks worth noting.

What do Muslims think of when they hear the word "Christian"?
They might think of freedom, capitalism, liberty, democracy. But they also confuse it with Hollywood movies, pornography, and divorce. We export dysfunctional families, books and websites that export filth around the world, and sadly, when Muslims look at that they think of Christians. In Beirut there was an actual line drawn between what was called Muslim West Beirut and Christian East Beirut. If you wanted to gamble or do drugs, guess where you went? To the "Christian side."


What does a Muslim think of when they hear the word "Jesus"?
There's immediate respect. They may not believe as we do that he is the Son og God, but in the Qur'an Jesus is mentioned some 90 times, all of them positive.... He did miracles, he lived a pure and sinless life.... If a Muslim says to me, "I believe in Jesus; he's a great prophet," instead of saying, "Yeah, but..." I say, "That's fantastic. Let's talk about him."

What do you say when asked if you are religious?
I say "Absolutely not!" I used to be. There's a lot of great stuff that comes out of religion, like boundaries, rules to live by.... But what matters is this: Have you seen Jesus for who he really is?

You say Christians need to learn to have fun.
I've found that laughter and hanging out over food and friends anywhere in the world opens the hearts of people. If you don't know how to party, get help from someone who does.

Many have not experienced the success* at leading people to Jesus that you have. What is your secret?
I think that many missionaries have the wrong message: Christianity is better than Islam and you should switch.... I don't build friendships in order to share the gospel. I just build friendships because I love people....I don't start with differences, I honor the culture and try to fit in...

* This word drives me nuts in the missional context. Success! As in we judge our work by the numbers, the converted, the baptized, etc... rather than if we are showing Christ's love. The drive for numbers is what pushes the religion - not Christ!