Posted by LT in on October 18, 2016
I think I want to go out a limb here and explain why I think my fellow residents of Saskatchewan shouldn’t be so up in arms about this carbon tax idea.
I believe that the earth is warming. It is kind of hard to argue with temperature records. We have thermometers, we record what they tell us, we compare numbers. My own anecdotal observations only confirm this. Frosts come later in the year, we have actually had Christmas’ with no or little snow, and we had 30 degree weather in early May this year.
I believe it is most likely human activity that is causing it. Scientists have studied all sorts of alternative causes but none explain the warming better than green house gases. We know that certain gasses trap heat and we know they are increasing in the atmosphere. It is the best explanation. Far better than any skeptic has ever put forward.
So if global warming is really happening and we are causing it should we act to limit it. The long term social and economic ramifications are very likely to be much worse than the actions we should take to mitigate global warming. We are talking about forest fires, floods, droughts, coral bleaching, and rising oceans which will on balance out weigh the benefits we get from things like increased crop yields and lower heating bills. Droughts in the wrong area can cause upheaval and social breakdown. Before the civil war in Syria there was a massive long term drought and displaced countless farmers. Considering the cost war and refugees, switching to renewable power seems like a pretty cheap option.
Consider something a little closer to home: forest fires. According to one recent study the amount of forest lost to fires has doubled in the last 30 years. The forest fire season started very early this year and very likely contributed the size and scope of the fire that burned down 15% of Fort Mac at a cost of over 2.5 billion dollars. This is only going to get worse.
Recapping my points: warming is happening, human activity is causing it, and it is costing us money and heartache now and it will get worse.
So then what do we do? We have to reduce our GHG emissions too next to nothing by about 2060. Hopefully we will have discovered an efficient way to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere by then so we do reduce so much GHG emissions. What this looks like is limited use of diesel, gasoline, natural gas and coal. Our homes will be heated by electricity or wood, our transportation will be with electric cars and buses and all electricity will be generated by wind, solar, hydro and perhaps nuclear.
How do we get there? The 3 main approaches are regulation, cap and trade, and a carbon tax. Cap and trade is what Europe has done, and what Ontario and Quebec are planning to do. Companies can emit so much carbon. Companies that are under the cap have a credit which they can sell to another company who is over the cap. Regulation, is just making rules to force industries to change. It requires a large bureaucracy to make assessments to ensure all organizations are compliant. The 3rd is a carbon tax. A carbon tax increases the price of everything we want to eliminate so it curbs the demand of these things and creates an incentive to find alternatives.
All three of these options will result in some sort of drag on the economy but most economists agree the carbon tax is actually the easiest to swallow. You simply slap a tax on transport fuels, heating fuel, and electricity and let people make the best decisions in their own best interest. Some carbon taxes are less of a drag than other. BC returns all proceeds of their carbon tax back as income tax cuts which is the most popular approach among market economists. Cap and trade also creates a financial incentive to curb emissions but it is a more complicated and therefore a less efficient mechanism. Government needs to set caps, and mechanisms need to be in place to ensure companies are honest about their emissions, and a market for trading credits needs to be created. Regulation was the failed approach of the previous federal government. It might have done more, but they really didn’t implement anything. It generally regarded as the most expensive approach.
For an economy to thrive there needs to be an efficient and accurate pricing of items in its market. If the pricing is accurate the market can decide which is the best product or service to use. Sometimes however the total cost of a product isn’t reflected in the cost of its production. Taking cigarettes for example. The cost of putting tobacco in a paper and sliding them in a box is next to nothing compared to the cost of lung cancer treatment. Governments put a tax on tobacco products so the users end up paying something closer to the total real cost of that product.
The total cost of burning coal is much more than the cost of digging it out of the ground, constructing a power plant and burning it. If we factored the true cost of coal, and the warming resulting from it, energy from renewables and even nuclear power would seem cheap.
If we had to pay the trust cost of gasoline/diesel, coal and even natural gas we would act differently. We would likely live as close to work as possible, use public transport when we could, drive smaller vehicles and build well insulated energy efficient homes. There would be a greater impetus to innovate and find cheaper ways to do things. One of the bedrock assumptions of a free market economy is that in general individual people make better decisions than the government.
A carbon tax or carbon "pricing" is a mechanism to get people to pay the true cost of energy. Having that energy priced appropriately the market will figure out the most efficient way to deliver products and services.
To say that a carbon tax/pricing won’t reduce emissions is to disavow one of the fundamental assumptions of fiscal conservative market ideology. Increased price invariable results in decreased demand. To say that it will cost jobs and do nothing to reduce emissions is actually self-contradictory. There is a real risk that if a company is forced to pay the true cost of coal that they will simply pick up and move to place where they don’t have to pay the true cost. Which is why the rest of Canada will have little to no sympathy for Saskatchewan because BC, AB, On and PQ have already elected to pay a higher cost for carbon. It is easier to change provinces than countries. The only way through this is if we all act. Europe already has, it is our turn and hopefully the US will do the same.
There are industries which rely on fossil fuels for which there is no current viable alternative. I haven’t heard of tractor that runs on batteries or hydrogen. Any carbon pricing needs to tweaked so that it doesn’t unjustly punish operators that simply have no alternative to switch to. For the rest of us we do need to change.
The argument that Canada emits so little carbon we don’t matter is flawed. I think we are about 12th overall in the world in GHG emissions. If Canada and every country that emits less green house gasses than Canada decided they didn’t have act because they are such a small part of the problem that would leave ¼ of global emissions unchanged. There is no way we can reach our global goal leaving 25% of emissions unchanged. It also seems quite preposterous that we would expect much poorer countries to change while we do nothing. This is a global problem, and if we truly assessed responsibility there is no reason to divide along national lines. We are part of the same economy as the US, one could simply lump us together and as an economic block and suddenly we are now one of the largest emitters with India and China. In fact the only way to truly and fairly assess responsibility would be to assess emissions on a per-capita basis and on that measure Saskatchewan is pretty much the worst in the whole world.
I can just imagine how the people of India might consider us: So your GDP per capita is 30 times ours, but you think we should keep burning turds for energy while you get to drive your ¾ ton truck 50 kilometers to pick up your groceries at Costco.
There is a moral imperative to act. The most productive way to fight global warming is not regulations, cap and trade systems or a carbon tax. It is voluntary action. We can all be part of the solution to ensure that as a society we remain prosperous, safe and secure. Hopefully technology will evolve to make it less painful. The cost of renewable energy is steadily and swiftly declining. New breakthroughs in battery technology and CO2 capture may eventually make this far easier than it looks right now. There is a lot we can do right now. The easiest and least expensive changes are just found in becoming more energy efficient. If all you can do is spend $50 on LED bulbs do it. Call Saskpower to pick up your 30 year old beer fridge. Fix your leaky windows. Find work close to home. Walk everywhere you can. Drive a car instead of a truck when you don’t need to haul anything. Insulate your home. Share your stuff. The easy stuff actually saves you money.
These are just first steps, by themselves are modest measures, but the first biggest change has to happen in our conscious awareness.
Posted by LT in on August 2, 2016
I just finished a second run through the book Four Views on Hell. In it there are 3 perspectives on hell offered, and one perspective on a purgatorial heaven. The three perspectives on hell are eternal conscious torment, conditional immortality/terminal judgement and universal reconciliation. Dennis Burk argued for ECT, John Stackhouse for CI and Robin Parry for UR.
Eternal conscious torment is that God punishes the wicked forever.
Conditional immortality holds that God makes the wicked cease to exist.
Universal reconciliation holds that those who do not know Jesus will come to know him after death and will eventually be reconciled to him.
I think a lot of the debate hinged around three concepts found in scripture and what they really mean:
Does eternal mean forever? (Mat 25:36)
Does destroy mean utter termination? (2Th 1:9)
Does all mean everyone? (Rom 5:18)
In ECT eternal means forever but for advocates of CI and UR it doesn’t.
In CI destroy means the end, but for advocates of ECT and UR it doesn’t.
In UR all means everyone, but for advocates of ECT and CI it doesn’t.
It is like an old western movie where 3 characters each have 2 guns and they are all pointing at each other in a circle.
The pivot point seems to be in defining and reconciling the concepts of divine holiness and love. If holiness is moral perfection and an insatiable desire for justice meted out through retributive punishment, then one naturally falls in to the traditional ECT camp. The problem with this view is that scripture doesn’t not directly define holiness in this way. It is inferred from the recorded punishments through the history of Israel. It is inferred from the belief that Jesus taught ECT. The reasoning becomes circular. The infinite punishment of the wicked teaches us that God infinitely retributive. Jesus is teaching that punishment is infinite because God is infinitely holy requiring infinite retribution.
Throughout the history of Israel most judgements did not involve God directly punishing Israel, like raining down fire on Sodom and Gomorrah. Israel was turned over to the whims of her enemies. The worst punishments ever experienced by anyone in the history of Israel pale comparison to the notion of unending infinite torture. Lots of people died, many suffered the deprivations of siege, some had their bodies dragged through the street by wild animals but there is no ceaseless torture. I think this is one reason why conditional immortality is gaining more and more favour. There is far more consistency with CI and the history of God’s judgement of Israel than ECT. Combine that with the passages that talk about how immortality is a benefit of salvation implying the soul is not inherently immortal, and that the end of the wicked is destruction (Phil 3:19) they make a pretty compelling case. One that injects at least a sliver of compassion in to God’s retribution.
One of the better lines in the book belongs to Stackhouse when wrote that UR is the “triumph of hope over exegesis” which may be a nice way of calling it naïve wishful thinking. I disagree with Stackhouse because there was lots of exegesis in Parry’s chapter he just approached his exegesis with a different lens that views the scriptures through the lens of Christ, the gospel and the broad story of Genesis to Revelation. Can anyone imagine the Jesus we see in the gospels torturing anyone? The one who befriended sinners. The one who suffered and died for them. I personally believe that Jesus is the best revelation we have of the nature of God. It isn’t the prophets and it isn’t Moses. We see passages that describe Jesus as the image of the invisible God. John wrote that the law came through Moses but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. At the mount of transfiguration Jesus appeared with Moses and Elijah. A voice from the cloud said, “This is my one dear son…listen to him” and Jesus was the only one left. There are lots of things in the law and prophets that aren’t consistent with the life and teachings of Jesus, and in trying to make them fit together we risk placing an interpretive lens that distorts the picture of God that Jesus gives us. Some will say that I risk undermining the authority of scripture. I think the reality is we all have our favoured parts, I’m just aware of it and intentional in how I do it.
In Romans 5:15 Paul wrote that the “gracious gift is not like the transgression” in that is more abundant (v17). Most evangelicals have no problem with the idea that Christ’s death is universal. He did extend grace and life to everyone. The problem is that not everyone accepts it. This runs in to a logical problem. If God in his abundant love and grace decided to favour everyone would he then say: “Well I’ve decided to love you but you don’t want my love, so now I have to torture you forever.” It just doesn’t make any sense. Now if salvation was more about rescuing humanity from their inherent corruption and people chose to reject God’s cure, they would still be saddled with ravages of this disease. They would suffer until they let God make them better. In this scenario it is easy to see how God could favour people yet they still suffer if they reject his favour. This is pretty consistent with how Jesus describes judgement in John 3:18-21. When looking at it this way is incomprehensible that God wouldn’t offer the cure in the age to come as he has in this age. This is especially true when we realize that God didn’t just decide to love us, he is love, he is only acting out of his true being.
Robin Parry believes that eventually everyone will see the light and reconcile. On that point I find it more difficult to agree. The problem with our corruption is that it distorts our perception to the point where the light becomes darkness to us (Mat 6:23). The depths in which the human soul can sink is surprising. If a being whom God loved was truly in a spiral of despair and hopelessness I think that God might intervene against their freewill in order to free them. He might “put them out of their misery” or let death consume them in to nothingness. He might reset them like we might format the hard drive on a computer and restore them back to their created image. Can anyone get so consumed by darkness there is no way back? I hope not, but I don’t know.
It just feels right to believe in the triumph of hope and I don’t believe we compromise our exegesis to do it.
Posted by LT in on July 24, 2016
I can’t say that I’ve invested a lot of time researching the imbalanced treatment of minorities by US law enforcement. In the few articles I’ve read it seems as though police killings are relatively balanced by race but other things like getting pulled over aren’t. I have a local friend whose parents came from Sri Lanka (south of India). He is just brown enough that in the dark he was accosted three times by local police in one night. It was immensely frustrating for my friend. It seemed very dehumanizing. I’ve never experienced anything like that.
I don’t think “black lives matter” precludes the notion that “all lives matter” or “blue lives matter.” Deep down we believe in conditional humanity. We value you if you meet certain conditions and if you don’t meet them you are lesser. The most obvious condition is incarceration. As soon as you are in jail in most places you are less than human and should be treated as such. The problem with this approach is that if you treat people like animals they are more likely to act like them when you let them out of their cage. They are much more likely to victimize someone else. I don’t know that we’ve fully grasped the reality that there is a direct connection between how we treat offenders and continuing crime. If we treat people in a way that makes them much more likely to reoffend do we not share responsibility for that crime?
At least with the dehumanizing of criminals we have an understandable reason for doing so. We want retribution. We need a deterrent. We have much less reason to dehumanize people because they are too young, too old, too poor, the wrong race, the wrong colour, the wrong religion, from the wrong town or live in the wrong part of town, or had the wrong parents. As soon we believe in conditional humanity we open ourselves to all sorts of prejudice.
I believe in something even more profound than all lives matter. I believe in grace. Grace is the English rendering of the greek word charis, which means unmerited favour. You’ll find it over 100 times in the New Testament. “The law came through Moses; but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17 NIV). The very definition of this word changed my faith forever. Not only do all lives matter, all lives are favoured by God. In fact, God deemed all lives so valuable that he would suffer to heal and restore all of them.
How does this translate in everyday life? We treat people with dignity, respect and compassion regardless of whether they can do anything for us. I think it also means we take difficult measures to ensure people are safe from those who would exploit or victimize them. In some cases people are victimized by criminal activity, and sometimes it is unfair treatment from people in power in society.
Posted by LT in on July 23, 2016
Just the other day I was having a long talk with a good friend. While we both have identified ourselves as evangelicals, we both felt increasingly uncomfortable in the evangelical culture. For myself I think part of it is theological. Depending on your definition I’d still call myself an evangelical, even if I’d call myself a moderate one. I still love the bible and view it as authoritative. Like many other Anabaptists I see the life and teachings of Jesus as the focal point of scripture. So I’ve studied, and I’ve invested in my education and resources in order to better understand God, the Christian faith and my world. So much of my participation in the evangelical world was based on the assumption that others in this movement had similar values.
In the last few years I’ve come to realize, that just isn’t true. It is a really, really difficult realization to come to.
While I readily acknowledge there are lots of people who do deeply care about biblical values and just interpret the bible differently…with those types of people I love to engage, discuss and debate and learn things from.
I think the heart of Christianity is Christ, but following Jesus requires the following:
A fearless devotion to the truth
Following Jesus required people put their ingrained knowledge and values to side to fully consider what he was saying. When Jesus told everyone they would have to eat his body and drink his blood only those fearlessly devoted to following the truth at any cost continued to follow him.
The human mind can only handle so much connection, so when we hit a certain point we simplify things by interpreting people through stereotypes or other models. Some of these types and models are developed in community. We tend absorb our perspective from our community. When the assumptions and expectations of that community become the dominant lens by which truth and situations are judged regardless of evidence that is tribalism.
What has frustrated me is that when an issue comes along that calls for a fearless devotion to the truth or unselfish love I see evangelicals holding fast to the tribal value rather than reconsidering things from a biblical perspective. In fact, evangelicals assume their tribal values are biblical values. In that we are not so different from the religious leaders of Jesus day who persecuted him.
I’ll give you an example: assisted dying. There are some who work in the field of social work or health care that actively affirm the biblical value of the sanctity of all life. I don’t begrudge these fine people as they attempt to shape the laws and policies of our governments. Assisted dying at this point only impacts people who are so incapacitated that they can’t end their own life. These people are generally older, are suffering from a chronic or terminal condition and are therefore a relatively small contingent of people. There is a much larger contingent of people who commit suicide because they have lost hope, are mired with addictions or are afflicted with mental illness. The church has very little leverage to shape the outcome of the legal changes forced by the supreme court of Canada. We could make a huge difference by advocating for social justice for the vulnerable sectors of society with high rates of suicide. We could help fund addictions and mental health programs. Aside from 12 step programs evangelicals don’t do much on this front.
The reason is we don’t really care about people. We just get upset when people violate the rules of our tribe.
Posted by LT in on July 14, 2016
In the aftermath of another high profile Christian leader stepping down to a moral failure there are the usual comments about accountability, moral failure and the difficulties of pastoral leadership. Last winter my annual seasonal mood issues began but unlike other years they did not recede with the end of winter. I relieved myself of any ministry and community obligations that I felt too heavy to bear. Since May I’ve felt significantly better, but I’m still very tentative and wary of taking on more burden than I can handle. It has been great, letting myself off the hook. It took until my summer vacation, where I finally go to the point where I felt blissfully bored. No immediate anxieties, no urgent projects, and nothing but my role as a father, husband and friend. The time has given me some perspective.
I think a lot of people in church leadership turn to a vice like booze, drugs or sex because of a conflict between their subconscious and conscious selves. The primary driver is not the “temptation.” The sinful activity is an escape channel. At one level there is the commitments to position, colleagues and church community. There are the self-assigned burdens and expectations. These are prioritized above personal needs which results an ever depending mental and emotional health deficit. Inside this cocoon of pressure something has to give. Without even fully understanding it people make drastic choices masked under the impulse of vice. In the moment it is just a fling with the secretary but deep down underneath it is all is a desperate psyche that wants to be free. It happens to lots of people, not just pastors.
Sadly, most people who to travel this path are shamed and discarded despite the carefully crafted public announcements of ongoing encouragement and support. It seems odd, the very community or organisation that watched the leader spiral out of control thinks they can now navigate a delicate restoration process. What I’ve observed too many times is that Christian leaders are valued for what they bring to the life the organization. When they become a liability they become effectively worthless and are treated as such. Fortunately, this isn’t always the case. Some leaders have real friends who will value them regardless of their perceived or real failures. Some leaders don’t travel the path of moral failure they just burn out, and the long term disability insurance contract forces the organization to try to reintegrate them.
I’ve been part of and had friends in many Christian organizations. I’ve never observed the kind of support, community and acceptance I’ve experience in simple church ministry whether it be a small group or a house church. This winter and spring I leaned on a lot of people for support. I am thankful for the rich friendships that have been mutually cultivated inside and outside my core community. I have a web of relationships that helped me immensely. Without the pressure of position, I could step back without shame, and it was easy to turn to people to help.
Most of the purposed for solutions for pastoral burnout are ineffective or obviously too hard to follow. I think more than anything we need real community and solid relationships with people that you know will accept you in your failings. Sadly, in most ministry situations this notion is unrealistic.
I’m better. I feel tentative though. It is kind of like that point after you sprain your ankle, the pain is gone but you don’t want risk anything more than a slow sure walk until you know the healing is solid. I can’t say I’m eager to rush back in and try to change the world. In fact, I’m learning how my life’s desire, my life ethos to change the world has hurt me. That subject will have to wait for another post.
Posted by LT in on June 12, 2016
From 1992 to today I’ve had a nearly uninterrupted connection with Bethany College/Bible Institute. I’ve been a student twice, a volunteer, intern, and IT support. Bethany ran for 88 years, which means was connected with it for ¼ of its life. It has been almost impossible for me to write about the school, it’s death and future possibilities because the grieving has been hard. I knew my friends and former colleagues were grieving as well. It was hard watching it die. Like so many others I felt I had a lot invested in the school and I know others were more connected.
I’m convinced now that any discipleship ministry needs to be deeply connected to and responsive to the local church. Up until the early 2000’s Bethany had something called the Convention. Delegates from the churches would come, see the budget, ask questions etc. It wasn’t generally that exciting but it was a form of connection and accountability to the local church. When we ended that we lost something.
There is a natural fault line between academics and local church leaders. Academics do tend to favour the perspectives of those with higher academic credentials. Some local church leaders view academics as out of touch with on the ground realities and can be suspicious of the more nuanced theological perspectives of academics. These are just tendencies and don’t have to be the reality. It takes intentionality on both sides to maintain a fruitful connection.
Any institution needs to get outside it’s own echo chamber. There is a deep temptation to listen to our supporters and subtly dismiss our critics as people who don’t “get it.” True critical engagement is very difficult because very few people want to hurt anyone’s feelings. When we tend to describe everything we do with spiritual language it is hard for anyone to point out the flaws in what is going on. When honest people see the flaws or have reservations they tend to not say anything. If a culture develops where almost all the feedback you engage with is from supporters it can lull you to thinking you have broader support than you actually have.
Transparency is something I think most Christian institutions struggle with. In most institutions, Christian or not, there is the “inside story” and the “outside story” on sensitive issues. The inside story it is the full account and the outside story is the sanitized version. This strategy is legitimately used to protect people’s dignity or privacy. However, there is always the temptation to sanitize merely to protect the image of the institution. We see the institution as God’s work and we convince ourselves that we are protecting God’s project. This is flawed because if it is God’s project a negative response isn’t going to derail it. If things are so bad we need a miracle to keep going, you might as well be honest and stop trying manage people’s perspectives.
Sometimes the hardest person to be honest with is ourselves. This is true of a community as it is with and individual. Some very difficult realities at Bethany were not acknowledged until it was too late. It can be difficult to sort things out. I know that not everyone agrees with me on some of the issues I believed to be pressing. One thing that is impossible to disregard is the outcome and how surprised people were inside and outside the institution when everything unfolded at the end.
I hope that any future endeavours will avoid the same mistakes. It is vitally important to remember whom we serve. We serve God and his church. Any discipleship ministry will not stay healthy or viable for long without transparency, critical intentional engagement, and accountability to the local church.
Posted by LT in on January 22, 2016
For the last few years I’ve sporadically studied the meaning and significance of Christ’s death and resurrection. We have a theological word for it: atonement. It started when I watched a video that illustrated how many modern presentations of the gospel make Jesus and the Father to be very different kinds of people. The Father is holy and unrelenting in his need to dispense retribution on depraved sinners and Jesus the loving and forgiving saviour sent to provide us an escape from God’s wrath. This view is called Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) and there are versions of it that attempt to maintain the unity of the Father and the Son but I’m not convinced they do a very good job.
I’ve spent many hours studying the scriptures, and now I’ve moved on to books on the subject. I’m still neck deep in it. It has been a fascinating study. The dominate evangelical view really only goes back to Luther and wasn’t fully articulated until John Calvin. When I read proponents of PSA they proudly proclaim this is the heart of the gospel and if we are missing this we are impaired in our faith. So if that were true almost the entire church missed the core component of the gospel until the reformation. That is an astounding assertion.
What have I concluded from my study so far?
That the atonement and our notion of salvation runs far deeper and far wider than forgiveness and the punishment of sin. The themes of victory over sin, death and the devil, reconciliation, redemption, ransom, cleansing, healing, receiving life are all tied with Jesus death and resurrection are all strong and directly related to Christ’s death and resurrection.
At the very least we’ve been proclaiming a gospel message that so heavily oversimplified it is a rump of what is known in the scriptures.
The most common expressions of PSA make God out to be an unrelenting autocrat that cannot tolerate any deviation from his divine will. It finds no common ground between holiness and love, justice and compassion, righteousness and forgiveness.
By viewing all salvation through lens of appeasing God’s wrath we ignore all the wonderful things the atonement has done and is doing for us.
The gospel has many facets and no one way of looking at it captures all the dimensions of it. We should carefully consider the early church’s view on this. It is beautiful.
Like many theological mysteries, where we end up is largely dependant on where we start. One of the most crucial questions is “What is the problem atonement is trying to solve?” I think the problem is human corruption through Adam’s choice to “know” good and evil. Rebellion is a symptom of corruption, and thus corruption is the heart of problem. When we start here Jesus’ death is more about cleansing, healing and restoring in order that we stop rebelling and in doing so end the hostility we have towards the holiness of God and resolve God’s anger over sin. God is satisfied, not because someone was punished for humanity’s sin, but because humanity has been freed from sin, cleansed of corruption and reconciliation has taken place. Jesus’ death frees the prodigal to return home and find the Father is already waiting for him with open arms.
Posted by LT in on January 20, 2016
What does the church need for discipleship? It is almost a backwards question. It should be the disciples asking, how do we function as a church. But that is the state of things today. We have churches full of people that haven’t been discipled.
With the demise of bible schools, and one close to my heart, a lot of people are asking questions like: how do we replace these ministries geared towards young adults? How do we replace the schools that taught our movement’s distinctive theology? How can we ensure that our kids have the same kind of experience that we did?
Those are the wrong questions.
Here is a better one: how does one reach maturity in Christ? I’ve participated in many discipleship ministries and activities. I’ve taught at the college level, led small groups, house churches, preached, mentored and personally cared for people. Here is what I found.
The process of progressing towards Christlikeness is as much about healing as it is learning, it is more about perspective than knowledge, it is more about relationship than accomplishment.
In this post I’m going to talk about the first one: healing and learning.
I’ve walked with, cared for, mentored a number of different people over the last 10 years. What they need more than anything is healing and for that they need connection. Now connection is kind of modern word but it summarizes the biblical concepts of fellowship, abiding, oneness with Christ and each other.
Why is healing important? Without healing we don’t see things accurately. Our perspective is skewed. With our perspective skewed we our ability to learn is impaired. We can teach broken people things, we can give them biblical principles to learn and apply, but their ability to live these things out is significantly diminished. The more wounded people are, the more they live in shame, the more Christianity turns in to a dead religion that just becomes another means to find some sense of personal worth or distract themselves from the pain that lives inside them. Sometimes things get so twisted that what people hear is completely different from what is being said.
I think good theology is as beautiful as art. One needs have to be geared a certain way to see it that way, but that is the way I am geared. I am not geared to appreciate a fine painting in a gallery, but I do know what would even more difficult for me to appreciate it if my vision was blurry. Teaching beautiful theology to broken people is like getting people who can’t see well to appreciate a visual art.
Luk 11:34 NET. Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eye is healthy, your whole body is full of light, but when it is diseased, your body is full of darkness.
I think this is one reason the church spends most of its time teaching and yet people learn so little. We have the cart before the horse. We cannot learn until healing has started. To continue the healing process, we need to learn and come to a better understand of who God is. One is no less essential than the other, but an inordinate focus on either leaves us in an impoverished state.
Posted by LT in on October 6, 2015
I’m learning that not all polls are equal, nor is the reporting on them free from editorial bias.
The three main methods for polling are IVR, Online and telephone. IVR is when a computer calls you and you enter your answer buy hitting a number on your phone.
Online polls (Ipsos, Angus Reid, Leger, Innovative Research, Abacus) rely on using a database of people that are signed up to do polls. So they tend to reflect the attitudes of people that would sign up for these things. This election year they have been largely consistent.
IVR pollsters (Forum, Ekos, Mainstreet) have been all over the map. One week the NDP are winning a majority. A few weeks later the Conservatives are cruising towards one. The response rate on an IVR poll is less than 1%. They have to call a lot of people to get anyone to answer.
Telephone polls (Nanos) are the most expensive to do but the response rate is much better at 9%. Nanos has consistently proven to be accurate when compared to the final results. They are generally regarded as the most accurate.
Some polls are properly weighted according to demographics (age, gender, education) and some aren’t. One IVR poll just released today polled 5000 people but only 400 between 18-35 and 2000 for 65+. That is going to skew results heavily towards Conservatives. While those 65 and over vote twice as much as the 18-35 group, the 18-35 group is 23% of the population and seniors account for only 16%.
If I were to get a sense how things turn out on election day I’d have to weigh seniors about 1/3 higher than the youth vote, not 5 times the youth vote.
Sometimes polls are released a number of days actually after they finished polling. The IVR poll I mentioned before finished on Oct 1st. Where three other pollsters have released much different numbers and were in the field in the last couple of days.
So who is winning? I would guess the Liberals but not by much. They need to be winning by at least a couple points to actually win more seats than the Conservatives.
Posted by LT in on September 4, 2015
This whole refugee situation deeply bothers me. Like most people I really, really was blissfully ignorant of a massive humanitarian crisis. I see one little boy lying dead in the sand and poof, suddenly I care. Like so many others my empathy for others is fickle. A week from now, two weeks from now will I be distracted?
So it turns out this boy’s family was trying to get to Canada. They had one application for one member of family rejected, they got desperate and tried to make it to Greece and then the tragedy occurred.
The Prime Minister gets in front of the camera and tells everyone Canada already is the most generous nation in world at settling immigrants and refugees. It is a carefully crafted statement that is true in one sense but it obscures the reality that we don’t take in as many asylum seekers as other nations. Relative to many other countries we aren’t that generous at all.
It was typical political BS. Say something that is technically true but that communicates something untrue. We’ve come to expect that our political leaders will do this over the budgets, programs, and gaffes. Many times it doesn’t really matter because what they are spinning one way or the other isn’t that big a deal.
In this situation however, Canadians have been stirred from their complacency on something that really matters. A real leader would have harnessed the collective compassion of our nation and steered it towards something truly good.
Instead our leader told us to go back to sleep. We already do more than anyone else, he said, and by the way we really need to keep bombing those bad guys. It doesn’t matter that the “bad guys” only displaced about 1/5th of the refugees in question. Perhaps you believe that bombing actually kills more terrorists than it inspires, I don’t. But even if we kept up the military campaign why can’t we find another 100 million in our 275 billion dollar budget to take in more refugees now that Canadians really want to take in more? Can’t we clear away the red tape so that we can take in more than a thousand people year?
I find it reprehensible that we would engage in dishonest political rhetoric when the suffering and survival of the weakest among us is at stake.