The Nomination of Sonia Sotomayor - Placating Feminist and Hispanic Voters

Well, the worst-kept secret was revealed by U.S. President Barack Obama yesterday: his pick for the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the vacancy of retiring justice David Souter is New York Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor. It's not terribly surprising to hear the news, particularly since it has been reported that Obama was under intense pressure to pick a woman and also a minority (whether it be Hispanic, Black, Asian, etc.). Obama obviously buckled under the pressure of special interest groups, the two U.S. New York Senators, and left-wing advocacy groups everywhere in making his pick. But that is not unusual, given that Obama likes to play to the media and whatever position is popular (which is usually media-driven). That is not to say that Sotomayor may not be qualified, but it takes a lot of guts to make a decision which may not be popular - it happened with President Bush all the time and he was chastised for it from the media to the everyday Joe, who seems to more often than not form their opinions based on the media (you can rag all you want about Bush, I think that while he did make some mistakes, he is a man who acted on his convictions, most of which were not popular with the secular mainstream - yet he continued to stay the course). You may recall Bush nominated Chief Justice John Roberts, despite the fact that his wife Laura wanted him to nominate a woman. Now, that takes guts, going against your wife!!!

I find the response to the Sotomayor nomination from Hispanics to be laughable. Oh, so much pride! It is an exciting day! And on and on it goes. Sort of like when Obama was inaugurated. I remember being in a conference room at work here where they decided to televise the inauguration for curious and politically minded employees here. The room was packed when Obama took the oath of office and of the 80 or so people who were crammed in the room, I was the only one who did not applaud (got some dirty looks, but I don't care). What I found interesting were these two Black ladies who were crying and cheering and "thanking the Lord - someone's there for us now!" I think from the perspective of going from slavery to having a half-Black man become President, is definitely overwhelming for those older Black folks who had to endure racism and prejudice. But underlying some of the racial relief is a sense that somehow a Black President will make things easier for Black people. Isn't that preferential treatment? Reverse discrimination?
I have gathered the same sentiments in how Hispanics have responded to the Sotomayor nomination. To say that it's nice to see someone who, from humble beginnings, was able to apply herself (hopefully that was the case and not through affirmative action - nowadays, who really knows) and get into prestigious law schools and become a lawyer and then a judge, is definitely something to be celebrated, regardless of the race of the person. But the sentiments and responses I have been reading seem more along the lines of "Now, finally, someone to represent us!" and "Now we will be treated fairly." There seems to be a sense that by having someone of your race, ethnicity or culture in an influential position, that they may be able to offer you opportunities, preferential treatment, and cut you slack, based on race. That is, and always has been, wrong.

Now, if Obama picked her because she was the best qualified, then I don't think people would have much of an issue here. But Obama encompasses the same thing that most corporate companies try to push: "diversity". For "diversity's" sake. In other words, make sure you have women, minorities, or gays and lesbians represented in your workforce (or in Obama's case, in his cabinet). I have railed against our company's policy on "diversity" and have been reprimanded more than once for speaking against it, but I have always been the firm belief that if the person is qualified, hire them, regardless of their race or culture. I have practiced this and have hired my fair share of women, not because they were women, but because they were qualified. BUT the prevailing mentality in most companies nowadays is a reverse of this: start with filling out a racial quota, and then once you find enough candidates of a certain demographic, choose from one of them. No wonder white males are peeved as they are not being considered for anything nowadays. That is wrong, regardless of the injustices that have been inflicted in the past. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Although I am not an American, I am leery of seeing a person like Sotomayor on the U.S. bench. After all, us Canadians seem to be the recipient of trickle-down effects of U.S. laws., and our legal system, while originally derived from the British, is influenced today heavily by what goes on the U.S. So what goes on in the U.S. does have an effect in Canada. Besides, I've always been interested in U.S. politics, even back to when I was a little kid.

If I recall in what I have read about her in the past few weeks, she seems to have had a number of decisions that are racially-based. She is firmly an advocate of affirmative action, which makes me wonder whether she has some biased towards racially preferential treatment towards a certain group. She has been quoted as saying that judges make the law, which is a bit worrisome.

Even though she is a Roman Catholic, she holds a pro-choice position, which gives hard-core Catholics indigestion, but obviously to those of us who are virulently pro-life, it is not a great sign. Further, I have read that in university papers and essays, she has written about the second amendment and that she believes that gun ownership is unconstitutional (I believe her paper was called Deadly Obsession or something like that). I really have no idea how George H.W. Bush originally nominated her, with such clear left-leaning views, even though she was classified as a moderate liberal. It is no surprise that the uber-liberal Bill Clinton elevated her to a higher court.

Let's hope that Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and to a lesser degree, Anthony Kennedy live long lives and don't have any plans to retire any time soon.

Comic Books and Literacy

It would appear as if this is the 200th entry in this here blog. I was wondering what I would write about, and in doing so remembered that I have always wanted to dispel a misconception that has been told to me by many people since I was a child. Since I assume people come on here to read, I thought I'd talk a little bit about litaracy, and in particular, extol the positive aspects of literacy by comic book reading.

Now, I have heard this all my life - comic books are for kids, comic books are a waste of time, comic books have juvenile language, comic books are for the immature reader, and so forth. Though I do not read comic books anymore, what I can say is that these perceptions are far from the truth. In fact, in my own experience, comic books have enhanced my literacy to the degree that I was able to subsequently win spelling contests, become enough of a decent writer to be accepted into all the journalism schools to which I applied, which allowed me to get a gig as an editor of my college magazine and which enabled me to become a writer/reviewer for a prominent Christian magazine more than 15 years ago. I will be happy to debate with anyone anytime who does not believe comic books have any value when it comes to literacy.

I was a late bloomer when it came to reading. Unlike my son, who at six-years-old, can read at an elementary level, I don't believe that I was able to read with any degree of fluency until I was about eight or nine. Even then, reading was really a forced activity and to me, it was more for academic exercises, rather than personal enjoyment. I do not come from a family of readers; in fact, I don't think my parents ever read a book in their lives from cover-to-cover, aside from the one book I know my Dad read, Lee Iacocca's self-titled autobiography. I believe my Dad once told me that is the only book that he read on his own accord in his entire life (and even then, "on his own accord" is debatable, since the book was either required for business purposes or he was strongly encouraged to read it for the same). My Mom has told me that has never read any books. My brother and sister are not really strong readers either, though they have read the occasional book (we're talking maybe one book every few years). So really, I am an anomaly of sorts, in not only the fact that I have an extensive personal library of books at home (around 1200+ at least count), but I've read hundreds upon hundreds of novels, expository works, non-fiction, biographies, and so forth). I've told my son this, that if it was between watching a movie, and reading a book, I would highly favour the latter.

My late start with reading came in a non-conventional means. Some kids start reading novels early and subsequently gravitate towards more big-kid novels, teen novels, and adult novels. For me, I was never into novels. I remember being in grade six (12-years-old or so) and part of our reading units required that I pick out a different book from the homeroom teacher's library (which, if I recall, was quite thin) and read it for the purposes of providing a book report on it. All I remember is how much of a challenge this was for me, given that I had no interest in any of the books that were in the teacher's collection. I remember picking up the Hobbit and thinking, "that is a thick book, I will never get through that". It was a chore, and I don't recall successfully getting through any of those books, but I must have, since I didn't fail grade six.

It was around that time that I started to excel at creative writing. It was kind of weird, for me as an emerging writer, to thoroughly enjoy writing, yet be wary of reading. You would think that reading and writing were mutually inclusive, but they were not for me. That marriage took place soon after, when I discovered the world of comic books, particularly Marvel and D.C. superhero comic books.

In retrospect, I think that part of the reason why I was able to write well at that point, was because I enjoyed using my imagination, and writing gross and seemingly crude stories about burping, farting, boogers, and what not. I remember being able to aptly describe something that was a normal body function in such great detail, that it had the class in stitches. Of course, this had its downside as well, oftentimes with me sitting in the front of the class facing the wall with a dunce cap place upon my head (yes, they did that kind of stuff back then). But the classmate response far outweighed any disciplinary action, so it was one of those cases of "it was worth it".

Comic books helped to really bring the marriage of imagination, writing, and vocabulary expansion to its full extent for me. My parents, my teachers and other parents were highly critical of comic books, claiming that there is no long-term beneift in reading these, as the vocabulary is infantile and does not enhance learning. Maybe that is true if you are reading the good ol' Whitman type of comics, but the Marvel and D.C. types were highly proficient in their use of language, so much so that I often had to check a dictionary in order to find out the meaning of a word. I had the impetus to do so, since without knowing the respective word's meaning, I could not progress further in the plot. Meanwhile, my Dad, who was a harsh critic of comics, read the Toronto Sun newspaper, which subsequent studies have shown to have about a grade 4-6 reading vocabulary, whereas the comic books that I was reading were about grade 9-11.

Some feel the illustrations in comic books are too much of an aid in telling the story, but there are different perspectives on this. Mine is that I viewed the illustrations as having artistic value rather than simply visual translation. It's no different than graphics on video games - I enjoy seeing advanced graphics, not because I am expecting some sort of realistic fantasy escape, but I simply admire the artist's ability to render at such a high degree of proficiency. Similarly, my admiration of comic art was more for artistic value and attention to detail than anything else. It was the story that was the draw, and bear in mind that the comics that I read were more than simply a bubble with a sentence or two in it. Most conversations or thoughts had complex sentences with varying sentence structure to give it that variety of reading flow. If you read anything that is just a collection of single sentences with a period at the end, it will get boring really fast. But comic books were not like that for me.

Further, comics oftentimes had complex plots, with multi-faceted characters, and delved in a variety of issues, sometimes touching on ethnical or moral dilemmas. It's not what people think of - the old Popeye beating the crap out of Brutus and saving Olive Oyl - type of plots). After a while, you really do get a sense of the psychology of characters and their personas. This has really helped me to transition to novels, something that I was not able to read and fully appreciate until I was in my mid-to-late 20s. Part of my difficulty was bridging my own imaginary thought processes with someone else's. To this day, one of the hardest things for me to get through in a novel is reading someone else's descriptions of a setting or an environment. We all come by with our own perception of how things should look, based on the framework of our experiences and environment, all of which are influenced by cultural and social factors. But comic books were able to help me to better appreciate how someone else may have painted that scene and challenged my own perceptions of how something should look. This is a big reason why I would rather read books than watch movies, since the books will allow me to open my mind up to an endless possibilty of how as scene is set, how a character looks and behaves, and so forth.

Based on our family's socio-economic status, comic books were an affordable way to learn how to read. My parents could not afford to buy even a steady stream of Scholastic titles and I suspect that even if they had, I would not have read it. Since comic books were varied in subject, title, and genre, there was a lot of selection to choose from, and every month, either the variety store or comic book shop's stock was replenished. This added much excitement to my monthly foray into these places, making me wonder what story I will pick up next. Comics back then were 50 cents to a dollar, so based on my measly allowance, I could pick up several titles. With gaining interest in a series, I was then introduced to the whole world of back-issues. Remember, reading a novel generally encompasses elements that are self-contained; that is, the plot, characters and so forth are not re-occuring and do not cross-over to other books (there are, of course, exceptions to this, with children's series and what not, but even then, their release and publication is limited by the ability of the author to churn out material). Multiple titles of comic books were released on a monthly basis (back in the day, I seem to recall that Marvel had something like 30-40 titles going on per month. That's a lot of selection from which to choose). That's a lot of reading opportunities that became available.

These days, unfortuantely, literacy is not as highly regarded as it once was. You see this the ghetto-ization of the English language, with inner city urban-speak now enjoying everyday usage. I cringe when I see words deliberately mis-spelled and are commonly passed off as younger generation communicative expression. Instant messaging has turned the English language into a series of abbreviated, mis-spelled "words". And basic words are constantly fouled up, even by those who you think would know better (like older executives, who you assume have been through a better educational system from yesteryear). How many people spell the plural for compact discs as "CD's" when it fact it should be spelled "CDs". People have no clue that the apostrophe is for either contraction or possession only. The words "their" and "there" are inter-mingled frequently. "Dependent" is often spelled "dependant", and so forth.

I also find it disconcerting to see that society and the educational system has now become a haven for English-as-a-second-langage toleration. You have to remember that I am speaking this as an Asian guy whose original language was Chinese (Cantonese). My parents spoke very broken English when we first came to Canada, and so anything I know in my writing or speaking of English was credited to both the schools to which I attended, and also, to my willingness to suck it up and learn English. Nowadays, there is so much accomodation for the speaking of other languages, that English is relegated to the backdrop of "as-needed" status. I completely reject this type of approach and in fact, when I am stopped on the street (which happens often) by a Chinese person who assumes I speak Chinese, I will not respond to them in Chinese, because I do not want to perpetuate that language crutch. I will speak to them in English and if they do not understand, well, that's too bad - they better learn English. The only exception to this are elderly people, for whom it may be too late to start learning a new language.

My son is starting to develop an interest in reading. While I can give him some kid novels to read, I am not certain that that is the right approach. Kids can and do get discouraged in reading a tome, where many words are beyond their comprehension. It would be, in my estimation, far better to simply transition them in the wonderful world of reading with the use of vocabulary-level-appropriate comic books. This will allow them to use their imagination, help them to visualize words and settings and prepare them for a future world of reading where they can enjoy the vast breadth of the English language.

The Dumbing Down of Today's Christians

Just yesterday, at church, our pastor announced that in the Fall, our church will begin an in-depth and comprehensive series, on Christian doctrine and foundational beliefs. I was so pleased to hear this, and it is yet another affirmation that God brought us to the right place, when we changed churches earlier this year (we were at our previous church for 13 years).

This got me thinking last night when I went to bed. I wonder how a typical church nowadays would think of a regular course on doctrine. Though I am not a betting man, I would bet that many churches would not be on board with such a course. You see, when you talk doctrine, you are starting to talk in absolute terms, and I think that the overall church community (at least in North America) has covertly fought against this for years. Even at our new church, as I have become more integrated into it, I found out that it wasn't even five years ago that our church had a major church split, losing 400+ members (who incidentally went and formed their own church). The sticking point? There was a segment of people who did not like the fact that the denomination specifically brought in a sound-doctrine Bible teacher who teaches only from the Word of God (the Bible) and will not compromise on this - this was in response to concerns that the church's former pastor was watering down the teaching of God's Word). Needless to say, this rather large splinter group ended up forming their own church (which like many "contemporary" churches nowadays, don't even use the word "Church" in their name anymore). Now, even before I knew anything about this splinter "church", I suspected that this church had as part of its philosophy one or more (if not all) of the following items:

a) come as you are - no dress code or no expectations of dress
b) this is a non-threatening environment
c) the music here is cool
d) we strive to redefine church - you may be surprised by what you see
e) we have or are open to women in ministry
f) we don't use "stuffy" versions of the Bible, it's Eugene Peterson's "The Message" that is for us, baby!
g) it doesn't matter where you are or what you have done, God loves you

Now, the last point is sticky - it is technically true, but most of these churches don't teach this Biblically; that is, they don't discuss this from a sin and salvation and a forgiveness overall standpoint, but from a "we all have hangups, it's not a big deal and God cares more about you coming to Him than what you are doing"). More on this later.

Now, I took an opportunity to actually visit the splinter church's website and lo and behold, everything on it confirmed my suspicions. I happen to have had some spare time that day, so I thought I'd give them a call and chat with one of the pastors there just to ask some curiosity questions. I asked them some hypothetical questions that if I was looking for a new church, why would I feel welcome there. His answers confirmed all the above criteria of the standard "seeker-friendly" type of church. So there ya go.

Now, what is my problem with all this? Well, I see that such churches are in large part, contributing to a "dumbing down" of Christianity and by extension, of Christians, in today's world (at least in North America, where this phenomenon of the "seeker friendly" church is rampant. This is a big deal for me, since if, as Christians, we are supposed to bear witness to the world of the gospel of Christ, using God's Word as our sole evidentiary mechanism, it is imperative that we get to know the Word intimately, and by this I mean understanding it properly and in context. Is it no wonder that most Christians would poop their pants at seeing a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness at their door, since their recognize that their lack of familiarity with their Bible would not make them ideal candidates to have a frank discussion about theological differences with these groups.

Years ago, I attended a memorial/funeral for a colleague of mine. It was quite a long drive, but I wanted to show my support for him at this difficult time. It so happened that one of my other colleagues, a Christian gal, tagged along for the ride. Now, she is of a completely different denomination than me, but I don't consider our denominational differences to be major - I know she is saved and she loves the Lord and she is a really strong believer. Anyway, on the car ride, we talked about what was then all the rage in modern Christiandom, Rick Warren's "The Purpose Drive Life." She didn't read it yet, but had some reservations about the book based on the title itself (I don't remember exactly what her objections were, since it was many years ago). She asked me if I had read it and I simply said yes. She asked me to elaborate, and so I did. Now, that book, while most of it may be technically correct, is not theologically sound. Just like my above comment on criteria G, while God loves you, there is still action on our part we must take. If we are in sinful behaviour, we must go to God and repent (a word you never hear anymore in churches) and ask Him for forvigness. In fact, in order to be saved, one has to repent and turn away from their sins and accept Jesus Christ as Saviour. It's our sins that put Christ on the cross in the first place! Yet many churches seem to conveniently sweep that one under the carpet, opting to focus on one side of the equation, which is God's grace and love and forgiveness, while ignoring the other, which is our sin and depravity and our response to God. See what I'm saying here? If you teach half the doctrine, you're going to get some misled and confused people. Check out the latest rage in Christian circles (well at least last year), that book called "The Shack" that is making the rounds. If new Christians are being exposed to this, there is no way on God's green earth that they will ever be exposed to the full gospel message, in this politically-correct, spiritually unoffending, feel-good treastise. This sells in volumes on the Christian and non-Christian market because of its lack of discussion about sin and hell and the righteousness of God. It is again, a one-sided "God is love" approach to things, which, if you examine the Bible in its entirety, is not telling the whole story.

Churches like the splinter church described above don't believe in "rules". That's good, because I don't either, at least when it comes to faith in Christ. However, I think that churches like the one I described above miss the mark when it comes to this - they are pushing away from a works-based understanding of the Christian life, which is good in a sense, since that's what Jesus railed against when he criticized the Pharisees; however, as many of the epistles will show us (Corinthians, Timothy, Ephesians, Philippians, etc.), and especially James, the Christian, in his or her new life, should, by virtue of his/her obedience to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, show fruit from his/her faith. I think this is what James is saying - while what you do will not save you, your actions as a result of living a new life in Christ, should show some evidence of your new life. Now, I am the first to admit that it is easy to ignore the promptings of the Spirit. Sometimes it's just easier to just do what you want to do, according to the flesh. Heck, I've been guilty of that for years. But over the last little while, I've really given my life back to God for Him to repair, and He has really changed my heart to quite a large degree and I am happy for that; I am still far from perfect (just ask my wife!) but doing better now, thanks!

You know, it's amazing, one of the things which will always elicit a reaction as asking Christians about John MacArthur, who is considered one of the top Bible teachers in the world today and is Pastor and Bible teacher for Grace Community Church in California. Do I agree with everything he says? No. But I think that for one to argue against him, it is necessary to exercise the same amount (or more) of Biblical literacy that he has. Which means that Christians need to go into their Bibles more if you want to counter a point of contention - it's not good enough to just say, "well, I just don't feel...". For the past two months, I've been listening to a Bible Questions and Answers series, which features Pastor MacArthur answering Bible and Chrsitianity-related questions posed from MacArthur's congregation of about 10,000. The Bible Q&A sessions are unscripted and are based over 37 years (there's 55 CDs and counting of pure Bible questions and answers). I love listening to these, not because I like hearing MacArthur's voice, but because he always answers his questions with Biblical support and I learn something new. It also points me back to Scripture and gets me into the Word more than I've been for years. None of his questions are responded with "I think..." unless there is no clear Biblical reference to it. MacArthur has 40+ years of sermons available for download and study and has written 70+ books. To me, this is the kind of love and interest in God's Word that I'd like to have in my own life. Yet, you know, there are a lot of people who don't like MacArthur, which is fine, since I don't expect everyone to agree on everything, but it's always for one of the following reasons: a) he's boring. b) it's too indepth and c) not much contemporary application.

You see what I'm saying here? Today's Christians will find expository preaching boring, you know why? As the Bible says, they are infant Christians in their understanding, and infants drink, what? Infant milk! If these Christians go to a church in which in-depth expository and contextual Bible study is hardly contemplated, much less practiced, they are going to turn out to be not very well grounded on their doctrinal foundations, if at all.

Based on the complaints noted above regarding MacArthur, I have found the reverse to be true when it comes to in-depth Bible study recently in my life. If the study is done properly in understanding the historical context and cultural context and religious context, it really can and does bring the passage to life in that we better understand why it was said the way it was said and why it was said. People nowadays can take any verse out of context from the Bible. Of course, when this is done, no one has any clue as to why this archaic Bible verse is quoted, but their motivation to find out is stymied by their culturally-taught desire not to question anything - so they blindly recite verses without any passion and understanding behind it. A quick example - 1 Corinthians 3:16 is often used on me to tell me that I should have never gotten my tattoos. It says that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and if one destroys the body, God will destroy him. There are two problems with this: a) this verse is not saying this (even though for years I thought it did). If you look at the context of this passage (ie. the chapter before and after as well as the historical context of the Corintian church at the time), you'll see that Paul was writing to the Corinthian church (the body of believers as referenced) about divisions in the church and how some in that church at that time was thinking that Paul was the head of the church or Apollos was, etc.) The church is what is referenced to by the word "body" (and this is confirmed by examining the Greek word's origins and meaning). Based on what the topic was before and after that passage, it makes absolutely not sense why Paul would all of the sudden stop what he is saying and talk about the physical body, when in the context of that passage, body mean "the church". b) I did my tattoos before I was a Christian, so it's not like I knew any better. But regardless, my personal opinion of tattoos is neither here nor there since I don't see it as a paramount theological issue, but I would question Christians who get tattoos of things that are obviously not pleasing to God (such as evil symbols, witchcraft things, sexual things, etc.).

While it is getting a bit off topic, my point about is to demonstrate that most Christians don't even bother (or know how) to look at a passage contextually. And churches nowadays are not teaching this, unfortunately. And I've visted more than a few churches to be able to make this comment with some confidence.

That being said, one of the best sermons I heard at my previous church was preached by the, at the time 30-year-old or so pastoral intern who taught on the passage about the Good Samaritan. I've heard and read that passage many times, but this time, he spent time looking at the context of that passage. At face value, we often read contemporary things into Scirptural text. For me, I always envisioned a straight country road where the guy was attacked. And I just saw that the guys who passed him (except for the Samaritan) were simply arrogant, snobby guys who didn't want to help him. It was until it was told the type of winding angled road and that it was dangerous because of the hiding spots in the areas the road that I started realizing that this was no stroll in the park. And also the relationships that the Jews and Samaritans had was not simply that they didn't associate with one another, but when you discovered why and the societial stigmas that will result, etc., it helps you to appreciate the account better, as well as understand the setting from which our Biblical stories come.

But most churches don't teach this, and if they do they will teach it once in a blue moon. Instead, we get, as I witnessed in 2006 in a church in Alberta, a quick sermon (and these churches always have quick sermons since they seem to think that people have more important things to do rather than study God's Word - if nothing else, they are making their real intentions known) about some lovey-dovey topic that will not cause any offense and uncomfortableness with the congregants. The topic was something like "What If Jesus Had a Blackberry?" What an utterly stupid topic it was, and I remember telling my cousin, who asked me about what I thought of the sermon, that "to be honest, it wasn't very good." Honestly, if you have to start reading your 21st century viewpoint back into the Biblical text, you are in a world of hurt.

The pursuit of a holy life is not taught in most churches today. This is true. I am seeing more and more instances of non married Christian couples vacationing together by themselves. That seems to be OK with other Christians, few of whom speak up. When was the last time you heard of a church talking about waiting until marriage to have sex? Just yesterday, our new church's pastor preached a challenging sermon about integrity and watching what one watches, and watching what they say (ie. slander, lying, gossip). Are those warnings taught in any churches nowadays, especially in light of the fact that the church has historically been a place where such sins are openly practiced? I have found many Christians nowadays to be much more accepting of other Christians who use foul language and swearing - even I have been known to historically use it without anyone really chastizing me. That is not good. As with anything else in the Christian life, it's better to surround yourself in an environment where you don't get exposed to things that are not good for your spiritual health. If you aren't in a good church that encourages you to pursue a life of Godly living, find one that does.

Many churches nowadays are not teaching doctrine (they say it's divisive, which is true, but that's by design - no one will be convicted of anything if there's no objective standard by which to measure their behaviour). Their challenge is whether they will be obedient and submit to God's authority in the Bible, even if it makes them uncomfortable. Case in point - one of the reasons we left our previous church was their hiring of a female pastor. My wife and I felt that God's Word is clear on this issue and while there were many things which we could tolerate (and even that I reflect, is probably not good as we probably should have gone with our convictions earlier), I think this issue was really what did it for us, though it was one of a few other doctrinal and Biblical issues. To me, I think many people on this issue (and not just at our previous church, but in churches around the country) want to appeal to a worldly sense of equality and not offend the feminists out there. They will always tell you that the passages in Timothy and Titus that deal with pastors are outdated or antiquated, or it doesn't fit their secular, feminist interpretation. For us, even when we ultimately did not agree, I think it was more important for us to maintain peaceful relations with our old church and not rail on them but simply say that we disagree and move on and wish them the best. Personally, it has been almost 3 months now and I am glad we made the switch, for our spiritual health's sake.

Going forward, I don't expect churches across Canada and especially across the USA, to change to a Biblically focussed, expository preaching-based system, where God's Word is studied vigorously and properly. But if there is some encouragement to glean, it can be seen in how the once seeker-friendly Willow Creek church, in the past few years, recognized in a published paper, that they were trying to "run church" all the wrong ways, opting to lure people in by marketing gimmacks and a watered-down gospel, rather than preach the Gospel with all of its challenges to the status quo and its call for changing how one thinks and behaves. People nowadays often cite the situation where a woman who was caught in adultery was brought before Jesus and how Jesus said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." What these same people conveniently leave out is Jesus' charge to the woman near the end of the discourse, to "Go and sin no more". Jesus challenges our works-based mentality but also indicates that action is required on our part and the first step is to humbly come before God and admit our shortcomings and our sinful actions and attitudes.

The Best Defence, by Robert Waters: A Book Review

If you are either a proponent of firearms for self-defence, you would have probably heard of the following three books, which are commonly referenced in discussions or articles: Chris Bird's "Thank God I Had a Gun", Dave Workman and Alan Gottlieb's "American Fights Back" and Robert Waters' "The Best Defense". I have all three and have read all three, and I can honestly say without hesitation that if you only have enough money to buy one of these books, THE book to get is Waters' "The Best Defense". I just finished reading it and it is a tremendously easily read, yet captivating and highly informative.

While the scope of this review is not a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the two other books I mentioned above, I do want to indicate, at least in my view, why I think Robert Waters' book is the book to get. First, it is very well written and edited, which you may think should be the case with all published books, but I've read many (even New York Times bestsellers) that have basic spelling mistakes (now, that being said, I don't use spell-check at all, so I'm sure my blog entries are full of errors too, but my stuff is not really in the professionally published and edited realm anyway - ie. I don't get paid to do any of this). The Workman/Gottlieb book is full of spelling, grammatical, and sentence structure errors, so much so that after a while, it started detracting from the positives in the book. The Bird book is well written, but the Waters' book is better. There was only one case where I noticed a clear sentence structure boo-boo (and it was probably a case of cutting and pasting issues).

Second, there is no visible racial bias. Look, I understand that Blacks do commit a disproportionate amount of crime and have stated that in my other articles, but the Bird book seems to really bend over backwards to highlight and reiterate that fact, almost as if it was written specifically to Whites to instill fear (sure, there was one chapter about a Black gun owner who defended himself, but the tone of the book does not appear to be racially neutral). Waters' book does not mention race per se in most cases, though you can figure some of this out by just reading the story. I think that by Waters' simply stating the facts without a racial agenda, he is lending credibility to his writing and reporting, instead of getting caught up in incessant obsessions with talking about Blacks and Black crime).

Third, there is no clear political bias. The stories are reported based on numerous accounts from different sources and Waters never injects his own two cents as far as either being pro-gun or pro-gun control. The Gottlieb/Workman book is notorious for this, in that the authors make wise-cracks and sarcastic jokes within the accounts or inject their own personal opinions into the story. While this may OK for some, I found it distracting and unprofessional. Waters, on the other hand, does not do any of this, and really seems to report the stories with a sincerity and humility that is very refreshing to see. In the end, it's hard to tell where he is on the gun issue; while he does support personal ownership of firearms for self-defence, he also states that he sees the other side of the argument, in terms of gun safety and accessibility to children, etc. I really also think that he goes out of his way to not embellish the accounts with machismo. It helps for the reader to take the issue more seriously and form conclusions on objective facts (and this is coming from me, as a gun owner and an NRA member).

I also enjoyed the fact that these stories were all "fresh" stories. I mean, how many gun books have you read which refer to the same old accounts - it makes you wonder whether the Gary Kleck estimate of 2.5 million defensive gun use scenarios a year is plausible (I personally think that number is way too high, unless someone can actually substantiate it, which I haven't seen yet). The Waters book retells stories that I have not read anywhere else.

Finally, I really liked the fact that the Robert Waters' stories were full-length and had sufficient detail. I never really "got into" any of the stories in the Workman/Gottlieb book, because they were so short, and also because they injected unnecessary details such as the name of a baby which is not really related to the story. Waters' re-telling of the stories and his descriptive prowess really helps the reader to immerse himself/herself into the shoes of the victim (and maybe to a lesser extent, the shoes of the perpetrator). The background information and level of detail is relevant and adds to moving the plot along. I think that in large measure, that's what made the book so easy to read - it was written so that the progressions of the plot and its transitions between scenes were logical and were at a decent pace.

Enough with the comparisons. Let's examine a couple of the highlights of the Waters' book.

I enjoyed Waters' discussion on how drugs, and in particular, crack-cocaine causes the perpetrator to act differently. We have all heard the arguments about what ammo to use for self-defence and home defence weapons, and one consideration I hear over and over again is, for instance, one should use buckshot with a shotgun, as it has X-amount of penetrating and stopping power for those who are on some sort of drug. I often wondered whether that was really true, but Waters' in a few of the stories, has really shown that low powered rounds, like .22s, may eventually cause the bad guy's death, but it may not stop him immediately (as a result, the perpetrator can still inflict damage while his vitals are slowly shutting down). This side-point did not need to be discussed explicitly, but in reading the chapters, any reasonable person can form that conclusion.

There were chapters such as "Death of a Serial Killer", that seemed so surreal, so unbelievable, that I had to double-check and verify the facts myself, since I found it so hard to believe that something like this could have happened. The strength with which Kristen and Doug Wells was able to defy certain death and their desire to keep living was inspiring - and thanks to them, they put a serial killer scumbag to pasture. This chapter itself is worth the price of the book.

The chapter on Robert Stella and Judy Davis, entitled, "The Stalker" was literally chilling to read - I had to curl up under a blanket to keep warm even though it is 27 celsius on my thermostat. That chapter was written so well that one could easily envision oneself in the victim's shoes, feeling all the rage and frustration that today's lenient criminal justice system would let her down, despite numerous threats and carrying on of violence against her. The fact that Stella, the stalker, was released so often, despite his crimes, and put on probation rather than behind bars, makes a strong argument for the keeping of firearms for personal defence.

Stories are only good if you can remember them, and one thing that I found as a real positive about Waters' book, is that the stories are really relevant and stay in your mind. I think partly, it's because Waters' looks at stories of everyday, normal people, from store owners, to families, to single people, and from young folks to old folks. He examines the stories from different geographies and time frames. Even reading a story from the 1970s does not seem any less relevant than a story from the 1990s. He also clearly describes the weapon of choice for the perpetrator and what the would-be victim ended up using to defend him/herself. He provides ample detail about the history of the bad guy (whether it be mental history, criminal history, etc.) and I think that it helps to understand, at least in part, the psychology of the assailant.

I am a discriminating book reader (I read a lot of books), and in general, I don't recommend a book, unless I wholeheartedly think that it has multi-faceted benefits. So it is for all these reasons already stated that I highly recommend Robert Waters' book, "The Best Defense" as a must-have in your self-defense and firearms library, but don't just put it on your shelf - read it, and heed its lessons that were gleaned from those brave men and women who considered life much more precious than to simply just give it away to those who demand it without good reason.

-Jeremy

5/26/2009 Update: I have had the pleasure to have been in correspondence with the author, Robert Waters, regarding his book, passing along my comments and compliments to him for such a fine book. He has since informed me that several of the would-be victims (heroes, I would call them) have since passed on. While I am saddened by this, I am deeply grateful that they were able to share their stories before their passing and inspire countless others to learn from them.

Analyzing My Pay Cut

I had planned to turn in and get some shut eye, after a night of hearing my daughter wail her brains out due to a fever. But I just remembered that I picked up my paystub today, and tomorrow will be the first payday where in my whole career of working, I have taken a paycut. Now, I'll set some context here - I am not the only one who took a paycut. In fact, all 300,000+ employees in my company took a pay cut. So while I realize I am not alone, it still stinks nonetheless.

In thinking about this further, I am angry at having to take this paycut. I had no choice. But consider this. In the 12+ years I have worked with this company, I have exceeded my job goals and performance goals every year. In fact, for many years on end, I was in the top 5% of performers in my company. Of course, I got the corresponding raises that went with that, and enjoyed getting raises every year, until last year. I was then told that as a means of savings, they started to bell curve the performance of the team. Only x-percentage of people (and it was very low percentage) can be in the top 15 percentile performers. I was ranked there, but my manager was forced to move me into the standard ranking (which 70% of people in the company get, and despite the statements of my manager that my ranking was still good, I said to her, "whatever, you don't have to sell me this." I was told to my face that I should have been ranked higher. I know I should have, and both my performance and peer reviews would indicate such, not to mention my historic pattern of excellence in my performance. I track all my contributions, goal timeframes, performance expectations and have a huge spreadsheet every year which I send to my manager to buttress and demonstrate that he/she did not go wrong in ranking me as highly as they did. Guess that doesn't matter anymore.

So you can imagine my irritation at being told that we are all being forced to take a pay cut due to the economic climate. Well, my paycut essentially erased two years worth of raises that I worked hard to earn. Further, the paycut is not reversible at a later date. There is no justification aside from, "well, it was this or let people go." At first, I accepted that explanation, but the more I thought of it, it goes against everything I know is right about earning one's pay. And shockingly, it has made me evaluate the role of unions, something I have always been against.

I can't see legally how they can cut my pay. If it was sucky performance, then fine, it's justified. But it's not - it's just a cost savings measure, though it has been apparent to me that it also is used by company brass to line their pockets with bonuses. They should not be allowed to arbitrarily cut my pay like this. It has effects on any future severance package and pension. In some jurisdictions around the world, the company had to ask people to accept a pay cut. So far the overwhelming answer for people who have been tried to be sold this, is a resounding "no". Why is it that their pay structure is protected, but ours in North America is not?

Now, I can understand if a pay cut works like this - we don't pay you for x amount of days, so take x amount of days off. It's almost equivalent to asking you to stay home without pay. That, I suppose is a bit more palatable. But the way this pay cut is structured, we are still required to put in our normal hours, and our executives are telling us that we need to focus on the job more than ever. Well, perhaps I am missing something, but this is a huge morale blow to employees. How can you expect them to exceed, if not simply just maintain current service levels to the customer if they are essentially devaluing the services of the same employee by pay cuts. But legally, how are they able to do this? Conversely, what is to prevent me from deciding to work with a commensurate percentage less effort, in relation to the percentage of my pay cut? Now, I would not do that, since I have a bit more personal integrity than that, but this is what's happening around the company, with people showing up whenever the please, hoping that they may simply get let go so they don't have to deal with this. Remember, these are not lazy people here - these are not troublemakers - those were canned by the tens of thousands already via layoffs and cutbacks. These remaining folks are hard working individuals who have poured their daily energy in putting their best foot forward. It has made it tremendous difficult to maintain the same fervour.

Now, in times like this I try to remind others (and myself) that it can always be worse. My sister lost her well-paying job a few months back, instead of accepting a whopping 35% pay cut. Some people who have left frustrated have not found other jobs. And unlike many in my position, I still actually enjoy my job to a degree and really enjoy working with the people with whom I have been privileged to be colleagues. My job offers much flexibility for my family schedule and it is rather low stress at this point. So I can easily look at my pay cut and say that yeah, it sucks, but it can be worse, and I just need to find the fringe benefits of the job that may not be monetary. It's true not everyone would be in a similar situation - some people have rotten bosses, rotten colleagues, are overworked and are then forced to take a pay cut - thankfully, I'm not in that bad of a situation, so I have to remain thankful that I have a job.

But it does make me think about the value of unions, in particular how they would protect stuff like this from happening, at least without agreeing to it on behalf of the workers. Unlike 20, 30, 40 years ago, where hard work was almost always guaranteed with a raise and / or a promotion, nowadays, it's hard to send the same message to kids that if you work hard, you'll do well. Oftentimes nowadays, companies will not care about how you perform as an employee and would not structure the pay to work like that (even though many of these companies have so-called pay for performance type of systems - at least by name only). I have a real challenging time telling my son straight faced that hard work pays off. I really can't say that for sure, since I'm not sure if I still believe that, as much as I would like to. Publicly traded companies are so concerned about their stock price that they would forego proper employee compensation treatment in order to save a couple of bucks. I think that overall, however, this will really come back to bit many companies in the butt, in the long term.

Men and Respect

It is late into the night, I have to work tomorrow, I'm bummed out that the Washington Capitals were blown out by the Penguins tonight in game seven(another topic for another time), my wife and son are snoring away in the other room, my daughter is wailing once in a while, and I'm sitting here looking at a couple of Beanie Baby ducks that I own. No, I don't do this kind of stuff...ever, but today, my daughter had a fever, so I walked her around and brought her into my messy home office. Perched upon one of my many home computers/servers here are a couple of Beanie Baby ducks, a very fluffy big yellow duck named Quackers and a smaller, more felt-like yellow duck named...Quackers as well. I bought both these Beanie Baby ducks off eBay years ago as a sort-of momento to myself to remind myself that the father duck has a constant role to keep the baby duck safe - my son was also one or two at the time and I also thought that he may wish to look at the ducks and if he is a good boy, handle the ducks, from time to time (they are brand new, still with the plastic nametags affixed). Since then, the larger duck is less fluffy since my daughter seems to always want to hold him when she comes into my home office and as a result, she drools all over him.

I look at these ducks and realize that my son really does look up to me. When I say that I am cheering for the Capitals, he reluctantly says he wants to cheer for the Capitals as well, even though I know he's a diehard Penguins fan, and loves Crosby. I have told him he does not need to like what I like, but I find that he often tries to emulate me at home. If I am sitting around reading in my underwear with no shirt on and one sock off, he will attempt to take off his shirt, strip down to his Bob the Builder briefs and proceed to discard a sock to the floor. With the exception of shrimp and mushrooms, he tends to take after my eating habits (picky) rather than my wife's (adventurous). My wife tells me that he simply respects me as his Dad because I am not only kind to him, but am firm with him as well and consistent in my words and actions. I don't know about that, but it's a nice compliment to hear.

My wife and I have been doing a study on a book called "Love and Respect" by Emerson Eggerichs. We highly recommend this book and its follow-up "Cracking the Communication Code" to any married couple - it will help your relationship for sure. The key component of the Love and Respect book is essentially that the main need for a woman is love and for the man it's respect. Now think about your situation and tell me if it's true for you?

Last year, I was at my cousin's wedding. After a few drinks my cousin's future father-in-law and I had a spirited discussion about hunting and also about speaking Chinese (he is a hardcore Caucasian guy who happens to know a bit of Chinese - probably speaks it better than my brother, who sounds like a foreigner). Anyway, the topic then drifted into politics of some sort and I remember I ended up standing firm on a point that I made (not in an argumentative sense, but just being sure of what I believe). I remember my Dad sitting there listening in and he said something that I have never heard him say before and that I will never forget. "One thing you need to know about Jeremy - while you may not agree with him, you have to respect the fact that he follows his convictions and is not swayed by popular opinion." That meant a lot to hear this from my Dad, who has generally been more stoic in his demeanour.

Late last year, our car was in the shop and it so happened to need critical repairs on a night that we had a family dinner with my parents. My Dad, in his endless generosity of his time, offered to come out in a rain/sleet storm and drive us to his place (in the storm, it was a bout 1hr. 15 minutes each way). In the car, between the internal window defroster not working properly on his crappy Pontiac Montana mini-van, and way too much hot air being blown in the front, but my wife and kids were freezing in the back, my wife and my Dad were talking politics. Now, at the time, it was days before the U.S. elections, and it so happened I happened to wear my "McCain/Palin" shirt. My Dad, being the liberal that he is, scoffed at my choice of outerwear, as did my wife, who is not really a political junkie like myself, and who thinks I am nuts to still own a "Bush/Cheney '04" golf polo shirt that I wear from time to time. My wife was saying to my Dad that no one will ever change my mind since I can be quite stubborn (very true) and that my political leanings have been fairly right-wing for years (can't argue that). My Dad, again to my surprise, said to my wife (and I'm reciting this verbatim, so while the language is strong and offensive, I want to cite it to re-iterate a point), "Yes, he's been like this all his life, but what would you rather have? A guy like him who won't bullshit you, or someone who beats around the bush and talks either out of both sides of his mouth or say something to you nicely and then slam you in private? At least he says what's on his mind and is honest about it." Despite the language, I took that as a compliment.

Who here reading this doesn't feel good when their own father commends them? I work very hard to affirm my son in the positive things that he says and does. I can tell that he very much appreciates it. I think that affirming to my son that I respect the consistency that he shows in his life in his conduct (most days) is the best thing he can hear - he has told me that himself. He doesn't care (well, not so much) about the old "Leave it To Beaver" type of "I Love You" moments; he likes the affirming words that show a respect for him as a young lad. I know for myself, I am deeply moved and encouraged when I am told in my job reviews at work that I am "highly respected". I've told my boss that means more to me than any kudos about the actual work that I do.

Anyway, not sure what my point is here, but if you have't read the "Love and Respect" book, I'd encourage you to check it out. It really hits on these points better than I can articulate, and it also deals with the female side of the equation; that is, women crave love the most. But I can tell you that from my experience and viewpoint, Eggerichs is dead-on regarding the men and respect part.

Book Review: Porn Nation - Michael Leahy

It is not often that a book that I buy on a lark, speaks to me on so many levels. Michael Leahy's "Porn Nation" is a huge exception. I purchased this book through a Christian bookstore closing last year, at a discounted price. Even if it wasn't discounted, I would have purchased it anyway, since the topic would have intrigued me, due to my past issues with what I would describe as pornography addiction (truth be told, I believe no one is truly ever healed from such addictions, but rather they are controlled. Still, it is a topic that has personal interest and application to me. I read heavily (and I mean heavily) and tend to use a bit of discernment in what books I buy (since I am not independently wealthy, but also don't want to read foolishness or stupidity - there are a lot of books out there, Christian and non-Christian, which fall in the previously mentioned categories), so for me to be recommending any book, you will have to know that it has passed my personal standards for quality in content, writing, subject matter, etc. (I realize that this is subjective from person to person, but as I read a lot, I tend to be more discriminating than most).

While this is meant to be a short review (and I mean short), I want to summarize the book as consisely as possible, yet not give away key points and illustrations, since it would be far better if you were to read it for yourself.

I have no idea if this is officially a "Christian" book or not. Sure, I got it at the Christian bookstore, but after reading it, I can say that don't expect too much theology out of it. If you are looking for an exhaustive study of lust from a Biblical viewpoint, you are out of luck. There are other books like that, that I can recommend (and also some that I would recommend you avoid). But in this realm of porn and lust addiction, there are only a small handful of books that I would recommend. One is "Every Man's Battle" by Arterburn and Stoeker (forget their first names, I think Arterburn is Steve). Another is Michael Leahy's "Porn Nation".

So why do I like this book so much? First, he shares his personal story, which is quite remarkable and extremely sad at the same time, and he does so without beating around the bush. So often, Christian books tend to tackle the topic of porn addiction with kid gloves, oftentimes dancing around the subject and injecting Bible passages (some of which are out of context) to pad the book. Authors tend to really draw a vague picture of a situation and let you form your own conclusions as to what he meant (I say he, as most porn addicts are men). Leahy does not do this, but really opens himself up to share his thoughts and feelings about his past experiences with porn, how he got into it, and how it ruined his life, his family and set him on a course that was leading to suicide. The reader really feels for him, as he describes how he tried to hide his addiction, lie about it and cover it up.

What really struck me was that he included his ex-wife's diary entries in which she poured her heart out in how his addictions and his affairs were just ruining their marriage and their family. I cried as I read these chapters, recognizing that it can just as easily have been me (or any one of you) in his shoes. He does not paint himself to be a saint nor does he have any heroic stories to share, but what he writes is a powerful incentive to anyone who does not think that ingesting pornography is not destructive. I remember reading the chapters (by the way, I read his book in pretty much one sitting, which is very rare for me, since I have a short attention span - I usually take weeks and maybe months to go through a book, oftentimes writing notes it in and critiquing it from various language, grammar and structure perspectives) and thinking to myself that this is a stark reminder of the personal toll that it can have on a person and their families. And I am reminded and am glad that I am not willing to do such a thing to my own family - I just love them way too much. But I do know that this is a temptation, and a constant one, for most men; most times, no one simply talks about it.

I like the fact that in the crux of the book, he is not offering any instant overnight solutions. He does give some very practical solutions, but it is up to the addict to follow them. And he does share a spiritual component that was key to his continued recovery. He now goes on college campuses and does a traveling debate series with porn legend Ron Jeremy, sharing his story and countering Jeremy's claim that porn is acceptable and will not hurt anyone.

The book is written in a very easy-to-read fashion. It is not easily to read, but the concepts run deep; it is spiritual, but not preachy. While I wouldn't say that his story has a happy ending per se, it ends more optimistically than it began (which I think is also more realistic than the books which claim that porn addicts can be instantly healed). The realness of the book really makes it stand out from all others on this topic. It is in this vein that I would give this book my highest recommendation, particularly to those men out there who have gone through such addictions. It is not only a worthwhile read, but it is an encouraging one as well.

Reflections on Being a Christian in 2009 And My Journey To Here

This fall, I celebrate a milestone of sorts in my personal life. It will have been 18 years since I accepted Christ as Lord and Saviour and while 18 years seems like a bit of an arbitrary number, it is significant when you take into the account than I am 36. I have been a born again believer for half of my life, and I guess I can further say that I have been a Christian for most of my conscious life (unlike some people, I don't remember anything from when I was 2 or 4 years old).

Much has changed since I made that original profession in 1991. You know, at the time, I was going through a period of my life which would have probably put me on a head-on collision with death or being arrested. I was a porn dealer, a drug user, had violent tendencies and just was a miserable person. So it is not lost on me that I could have been in much different circumstances had I not have experienced the love of Christ in my life.

The journey of faith in being a follower of Jesus is not without challenges. Of course, little would I have suspected the degree of hardship which I would have experienced over the years. Just like people who think erroneously that once you are married and have kids, everything is a big old fairy tale, being a Christian carries not guarantee that your life will go well (at least your remaining life on this earth). In fact, I'd hazard to say that the guarantee goes the other way - that you will experience much difficulty in your Christian life. Most Sunday schools and churches try to avoid teaching this, since it can be a bit on the depressing side, but that is really the Biblical pattern, if you look at how God's people weren't exactly popular with the world or its standards of happiness. The good news is that this is all very temporary in the whole scheme of God's plan.

So at this juncture of my life, I thought it would be both interesting and somewhat fun to reflect on the past 18 years of my Christian life. I doubt that this would become as popular of a post as the one I wrote about Toronto protests by the Tamils (about 30 responses as of last count - that has been the most popular blog entry here by far), but this is more for me than anyone else - if you get something out of reading this, then great.

I was driving into work this morning, thinking about all this, and thought about the early years. Recently, at our new church (we started attending March 1, after 13 years at our previous church), our family attended a really nice new visitors luncheon. We happened to end up sitting at a table with one of the church's elders, and he was interested in hearing my testimony, so I gave it to him (actually, I'll write about that very shortly in another post). He noted something which I have never thought about; that is, that he found it interesting (not sure in what way) that I ended up enrolling in Bible school (and was accepted) less than a year after becoming a Christian. Yeah, that was kind of weird, considering the fact that I was on a journalism track, but I have absolutely no regrets whatsoever. At the time, I was deeply immersed in the Word, reading my Bible more than a few times a day and just soaking up Christian literature. It's interesting how this sort of comes full circle, since I'm sort of back in that mindset again (thankfully!) after all these years.

I had no idea what to expect in Bible school, and my Dad didn't expect much, so you can imagine both his shock (and mine too) at the fact that I made Dean's list almost every year that I was there, including 1994-95, when I had the highest GPA in residence. Theological school was very rewarding for me as a new Christian, and while I struggle to answer the question that the occasional person poses to me as to why I am not using the theological degree (I really don't have an answer) but instead worked in the IT industry for the past 12 years), I know that no one - including myself - knows God's purposes, so I'll just leave the planning and life direction up to Him).

Back then, like most new Christians, I was fairly legalistic, not in a Jewish sense, not really in a works-based salvation sense, but more in the "I must produce tangible and visible fruit" sense. In other words, I was petrified when I wasn't visibly manifesting my faith. To a degree, it was almost like a holy show, but my intentions were not really Pharissaical, but more wanting to live a life which was different than my non-Christian counterparts. And such was my first fallacy in understanding the Christian life.

It was only a few years ago that I fully understood that Christians aren't all that different than non-Christians, when it comes to succeptibility to temptation, anger, frustration, relationship problems, and so forth. BUT, Christians stand in stark contrast to non-Christians in that we have hope and we can lean on our Heavenly Father, who will help us in our troubles. That is not to say that Christians don't get depressed - it happens - there were a number of people at the Bible school who had psychological and psychiatric problems. I remember one of the first people I met (like, this is within days of showing up in residence), I accompanied to the hospital as he needed to get treated for an STD that he contracted from his girlfriend. Then there was the friend (a youth pastor major) who told me about his sexual activities with his girlfriend - I later caught him looking at porn one day when I went to visit his room - that was awkward and disappointing). I met another guy who told me the places to go in the school's basement / laundry area, where one can get a "quickie" with one's girlfriend - he claimed to have used that location over 300+ times. All this started to depress me - I guess I had expected better, but I also realized that lot of Christians wore masks.

No one was more surprised as me when I discovered (after I graduated) that my first-year roommate came out of the closet as a very open homosexual later. I started wondering about all the times he jumped on me and tried to wrestle me down on my bed as we were practising WWF wrestling moves. He is apparently now in the U.S. and somehow has gotten "married" to his subsequent boyfriend. I did keep in touch with him for a while and he told me that he was gay, which was a huge shock to me. Things that make you go "hmmmm...."

Unfortunately, five to seven years after becoming a Christian, I started to get a bit depressed in my faith - I realized that it wasn't a works-based faith, but it seemed like no one I knew really gave a hoot about the pursuit of holiness. Christian living seemed to be overshadowed by Christian liberty. At that point, I had switched from my Mom and Dad's church to a new church which was pastored by my theology professor. That was very different at first, since this church was influenced and had split from a United Church. I started to see Christians practise their faith differently, and things like liturgies and such I never saw before. It was interesting.

I remember applying for a job at a Christian school in 1997 to teach computers. I got through the interview with flying colours and they were ready to hire me until they found out that I did not know how to program. I told them that I was clear on this at the outset and that I knew hardware and some operating system stuff. They admitted they assumed that everyone who knew "computers" knew all facets. Bad assumption - guess they weren't IT-savvy. That would have been fun doing that job, but you know, years later that school closed down, so I am glad I didn't take that job.

It is really in the working world that I saw God's hand heavily in my life, and thank goodness for that since that proved to be a huge calming influence in the later years. I ended up with my job in IT (that I do to this day) as a result of not getting that Christian teaching job - so I tell people that even if God may not grant you where you may think you want to go - He has other purposes, and sometimes, you won't know these purposes till a lot later). Anyway, one of my friends in my Bible school recommended me to her boss' boss (a VP) at a large Canadian IT firm. Happens that that VP was a very strong, mature Christian. I was interviewed and got the job and it was a huge learning curve for me, since everything I know at that point was self-taught. But to the company's credit, they sent me on numerous (and very expensive) courses to get me up to speed. Then I met other Christians at the workplace...this was great, since obviously in a non-Christian company, it's nice to know you have people both watching your back and encouraging you. And I saw God's hand at work again when that company folded, and surprisingly, I was the only remnant which survived the eventual dissolution of our group. I was offered a position that made much more money (almost double my current salary at that time) but God had given me a sense not to take it. Turns out that other company went out of business a year later. I was moved to my current job and location where I knew no one and upon starting back in 2000, I remember it was such a nasty, backstabbing environment. Yet, within a year, myself and another Christian from another division of my old company were moved to this account and we really saw God working in us to change both the environment and attitude of our colleagues. Turns out that years later, we found a number of other Christians on our account, and to this day, while due to economic realities, our account staff has been decimated, a number of us Christians remain gainfully employed, despite many cutbacks that we have survived.

Getting married and having kids has obviously changed me - I would think for the better. While it was a steep adjustment for me to have had to learn to live with another person who is not like me at all, my wife has really encouraged me throughout the years, and especially during the last few years, when we have experienced a number of very challenging personal difficulties, to just continue to trust in God. My kids (my son in particular - my daughter's too young to talk) have really been a firm reason for me to try to pursue a life of consistent holiness - that being said, I will be the first to admit that I often come short of the standard which I set for myself, and I'm sure I disappoint God often). I think it was only just this year that we started getting over the hump from all of our financial and medication problems and now I am really glad that we persevered.

Probably to everyone's shock, including mine, I was nominated to be an elder in 2005 at our old church. It was an honour to have been nominated, particularly by another elder, and several others; I was very resistant at first, but with some encouragement from my former pastor, friends and wife, I accepted the nomination and was voted in. After three years of doing it and deciding not to sign up for another term, I knew why I was indecisive at first - I should have listened to my gut and declined the first time - I was not elder material - my spiritual life was not as strong as it should be, and I really think that my expectations were too high (and in retrospect, they should have been based on the 1 Timothy and Titus requirements). While I didn't really contribute a whole lot during my time doing this, I was heavily involved in one situation which turned out really badly, and left a very, very sour taste in my mouth. Church politics, I suppose, but moreover, I think it came down to me seeing that some people really did not care about spiritual maturity. That, I think, was the beginning of the end and when I started thinking that I needed to be elsewhere. In retrospect, I think going through the experience was a good thing, since it showed me that despite my meager contributions during my time as an elder, and my hesitancy in taking on the role, deep down, I still had some Biblical standards that I was trying my best to follow. Anyway, enough of that. The past is the past and that's the last time I'll talk about that.

Moving to a new church this year has really helped me spiritually, as I am now back into regular Bible study and have been challenged to look deeply into the Word, and I am approaching it with excitement in my heart and not grudgingly. My wife has noticed a difference in me and have commented such in the affirmative. It was kind of weird how we ended up at our new church, but it has really been a solid place to worship and a place where God's Word is taught in an expository way. It is incredible what our new church has gone through in the past five years, in that it has experienced a large split of people who want to be more "seeker friendly" (Willow Creek model) and be more marketable and draw numbers of young people, simply leave the church - about 400 of them. That is a good thing, since when I found that out a couple of months back, I immediately realized that this church is for me, if it takes a solid Biblical stand against current watered-down church trends, even if it means the decimation of its numbers. I remember once visiting their website and it was slick - like really corporate-looking. Now, with those seeker-friendly types gone, I guess the webmaster went too, so the church website is pretty basic now, but who really cares when you know that the people behind it are solid believers who love the Word and not the world. Our new church has recovered nicely and due to a pastor that refuses to compromise on God's Word (he did not have an easy go of it since there was much resistance to his Bible-centered teaching), God has blessed the church in the past few years. I am not one for a making commitments in a short timeframe, but my wife and I have felt so much at home at our new church that later this month, we are starting to take membership classes there. You know how sometimes, you just know that you're in the right place at the right time? We are there. What has been an interesting blessing is how God has affirmed our decision to move churches (long story), as tough as that was - we had some dear, old friends at our old church which had a huge impact on us, so moving away was not easy, but thankfully we keep in touch). We met, on our first week at our new church, a family that lives within a football toss of our house - they've been there for years, we've been here for years, yet we never knew them. But we met them at church and have really clicked with this young family. My wife and I have now, for the first time, in years, started praying together again and discussing Bible topics - she has listened to preaching sermons which I have, in the past two months, been downloading and putting on CD to listen to on the car ride to and from work every single day. I just have that spiritual fervour that I admit was lost for quite some time. My son and I have very meaningful Bible discussions and I really feel that responsibility on my shoulders to not only model a consistently decent father for him, but also to model a (hopefully somewhat decent) Christian. Again, I often fall short and make many mistakes, but it has been years since I have felt this fervour to immerse myself in the reading of God's Word, and it has been a good 5 years or so since I have felt the excitement and anticipation of going to church on Sunday mornings. Heck, I even get there early, which is unheard of for me, since I generally am very disorganized and am late for everything (that is to my shame and no one else's). I really feel, to a degree, that it's back to 1991-1992 again when I had that zest for my new-found faith. That is not to say that I am like I was back then - I am certainly not. I am hardly as naive as I was back then, and am paranoially cautious about my social relationships as well as about personal safety issues (I must have gotten that from my Mom). I recognize that even though we are Christians in this world, the world is not a friendly place, despite what well-meaning people will want to tell you. I make no illusions about the fact that I can never fully feel at peace, at home, and content in this world. Of course, very few understand this and look at me funny and ask how can I be a Christian, yet own guns. It's not an easy one to explain, so I don't get into those conversations if I can help it.

There is, of course, much more that I can say, and I'm sure I can edit this so it doesn't sound so structurally disjointed, but I'm naturally lazy so I will forego that. I do want to say that my final comments are for those who have just become saved for the first time in 2009. What should one expect? What is the Christian life like? Well, as one who has been there, I can tell you this truth - God is always in control, whether we think so or not, whether we believe it or not. I have seen more evidence of God working in situations and scenarios that will stump even the most ardent of critics of the Christian faith. Despite my own personal hangups, I know that God is a God of forgiveness and second chances.

I also know that God is One who keeps His promises. When He says that, for instance that we can lay our burdens on Him, He means that. To experience God shouldering the load of life's troubles is very satisfying. I can speak firsthand of this, from personal experience (unfortunately, it took many years and many situations before I finally got this one). The question is, whether we choose to dump our load onto His trusty shoulders.

Third, there is no better way of knowing God than to read His Word. I have neglected it for years, despite my theological education. It's amazing, really, how we can read the Bible many times over, and learn new truths and applications for life each time. Sure, some parts are challenging (like reading genealogies or books like Job, which I think can be easily condensed) - but even then, there are passages which will come out and speak to you at a particular time and place - it's weird, but true.

Also, for the Christian in 2009, stand firm. Don't compromise with the world. Even churches will tend to get muddled in worldly theology and practices - resist the urge to conform to the world, but as Romans says, instead be transformed by the renewing of your mind. To that end, I'd suggest a good way for any Christian (especially a guy) to work on their faith is to watch what they take into their mind. Guys like me who have a history of struggling with porn know that there are things that are not wise for me to watch or situations where it is not wise for me to be in. For years, I didn't work as well to guard my mind, but I think that I could have saved myself much trouble if I had developed this sense of discretionary intake of information, in the first place.

I may add more to this posting once I get a chance to re-read it.