That may have been the longest article title yet for this blog. But anyhow...
Tonight I just finished reading J. Neil Schulman's book, "Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns". What follows will be a very short review of the book with my perspectives and opinions on what I have read, in general (I don't want to get too specific, since that will just cause the length of this posting to spiral out of control, and I'm sure no one wants that). I read this book alongside another book (totally unrelated) titled "None of These Diseases - The Bible's Health Secrets for the 21st Century" - more on this another time.
With a title like Stopping Power, my initial thought was that the book would talk at great length about defensive gun use, particularly in the type of firearm and ammunition that it would take to incapacitate an attacker. I was sure that at some point, there would be references to ballistic jelly and bullet expansion, wound channels, what calibre or shot size ammo to use, etc. I thought it would discuss some of the legal ramifications of defensive firearm use and provide real-life scenarios to buttress all the points.
I was wrong on all counts, and it stemmed from my faulty understanding of the title of the book and the subsequent assumptions that I made as a result. The book does not discuss the specifics of ballistic stopping power or anything like that; rather, the reference Stopping Power, refers instead to the curbing of government abuse of powers and limiting liberties and natural rights. It was a bit of a bummer, since I had thought that the book was something else. But I digress...
Schulman, a self-proclaimed libertarian anarchist, spent a large portion of the book railing against perceived government interference in infringing the right for an individual to bear arms. He tackles a variety of topics related to this, and if nothing else, it kept the book fairly interesting, since it didn't get bogged down on legal or philosophical arguments (which I can take, but that's not why I bought the book). He does a good job in providing responses to many common arguments for gun control.
The highlight of the book for me was when he listed his correspondence with Gary Kleck, who many pro-gun writers seemingly quote regarding his assertion that there are an estimated 2.5 million instances of defensive gun use per year. Be that as it may, I have always wondered how that estimate was derived - many books quote the number without explaining how Kleck got to that number. To Schulman's credit, that is discussed in length. To date, it's the only book I've seen that has addressed the numbers behind the number. It's also helpful that Schulman pointed out that Kleck is a lifelong Democrat, is a member of many Democratic organizations, and is for gun control, so it's not like he was a puppet for the NRA or something. Kudos to Kleck for having some journalistic integrity by reporting on something as the facts, even if the conclusion flies against his personal view.
I also liked how Schulman had the second amendment broken down word for word and line by line by well known English professors and linguists. That chapter was helpful in shedding light on the wording of the second amendment, wording which has been used by both sides of the debate to try to buttress their own points.
But that is where the positives end, for me anyway. Since the early parts of the book, I simply could not get past the fact that most of the book is simply a collection of his previous writings, all meshed together in such a way that the flow of continuity is not there. You can really tell that he wrote the various articles at various times, since there is just not that singular sense of fluidity in the book. While it was a collection of topics presented, the cut and pasting of various articles and correspondence made for a very choppy read, which is probably why it took me so long to get through the book. I just find it a bit of a turn-off to see that he just cut and paste various writings he did previously (the audience for these were all different). It's like if I cut and paste an email I wrote to someone and put it here - you would have a hard time getting past the fact that while I wrote it, it wasn't expressly written for this purpose (and my blog entries are written different than an email at work to someone, etc.)
I also found that he included cuts and pastes of internet correspondence and in some cases, letters he wrote to others but could not paste their response. To read a set of letters where he is the only one writing is difficult, since you can't really see how his target responded (you an discern somewhat from his response, but it's not the same). I've always had a bit of an issue with quoting anything from the internet, in a "real book". In his case, he was quoting messages from chat sites and bulletin boards. I think I would have preferred seeing him collect up all this information and then disseminate it all at once in a way that is easier to follow.
Schulman, while pro-gun, reveals that he is left-wing on many other issues (ie. he is pro-choice and pro-gay). That is his opinion, but he goes out of his way to emphasize that, as if he considered it a badge of honour.
Overall, I'd give the book a B-. The content is OK, albeit a bit scatterbrained. I agree with most of what he is saying, but I think that the vehicle or delivery method/presentation could have been greatly improved. I bought his other book "Self-Control, Not Gun Control" and hope that it is structured a little bit better than this one.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Mr. and Mrs...
I have, over the years, been increasingly convinced that the reason why today's kids, in most part, tend to be less polite than their counterparts from generations past is because adults have failed to instill and pass on something as simple as a basic standard of greeting from their kids towards other adults. One thing that I value tremendously from the partially Asian culture in which I was raised is the whole aspect of greetings towards adults. To many Asian kids, other adults get addressed as Uncle (insert name) and Auntie (insert name), despite the fact that these folks are not biologically related to them. It is a sign of respect and reverence for those who are older than yourself. When the adult is a non-Asian and don't get the Uncle and Auntie bit, we are to address them formally by Mr. (insert name) or Mrs. (insert name) or Miss (insert name) or Ms. (insert name).
The overall culture has gravitated towards little kids calling adults by their first name. While this may seem minor or trite, I think it is the beginning of the erosion of the child's respect system in their developing years.
There was a lady in our pre-natal class, with whose family we were casual friends. She always struck me as a bit pretentious, why with her "keeping up with the Joneses" attitude and her tremendously liberal philosophy - her sister's a lesbian, so what do you expect. Anyhow, I remember she was telling her kid (3 at the time) to call me "Jeremy". That is my name, but I ain't letting no 3-year-old call me by my first name. I kindly corrected, "It's Mr. (my last name) to you." His mom thought that I was nuts - of course, she teaches her son to use all medical terms to describe his body - I mean, how ridiculous does it sound to have a 3-year-old say, "I need to clean my penis." And this lady is a teacher (your taxpayer dollars at work). I also did that with another one of my wife's daycare kids. As much consternation and eye-rolling as parents will give me upon me correcting them to call me Mr. (my last name), I think I am doing a service to their children in the long run.
My son, 6, is continually instructed to call people Mr. and Mrs. (insert last name name). And his father (me) models this for him, in that I call his teacher Mrs. (her surname) when I address her directly in conversation, and I call his principal (who has changed a few times) his her surname, prefaced by the appropriate Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms. Now, that being said, don't get me wrong, I don't call everyone I know who is older than me by Mr. and Mrs. I think part of it is discretionary for adults, but I think for kids, calling adults by their first name is out of bounds. I believe that students, no matter what age, should call their teachers Mr./Mrs./Ms./Miss (surname), no different than congregation people should call their minister Pastor (first name or last name). I do this with all my pastors at my church, despite the fact that a number of them have said that I can just call them by their name. I can do that but I will preface it with "Pastor". It just is a sign of respect, in my view. No different if you address an officer, you say "sir" or "Officer (surname" or "Constable (surname)" or "Detective (surname)". All of this sounds rather gay at first, but when you get used to it, it will be second nature. For parents with kids, I think it's important to model respect for authority figures and even adults in general.
This past Sunday, we went to our friends' place, and their last name was hard to pronounce for my son. They were Japanese and so it was not unusual for our friend to suggest to my son, "Why don't you just call me Uncle Doug." Makes sense to me.
I know some parents who have changed their kids' addressing of us when our son addresses them as Mr. or Mrs. Again, it seems counter-intuitive, but there is something about offering respect when respect is due that really gives a child a sense of order and a yielding to those who are either in authority, or have more life experience than us. I am 36, and I still call my parents' friends Uncle (first name) or Auntie (first name), even though I'm not related to them. It's not awkward in the least and it confers the elder-respect that is so often missing in today's me-first culture.
The overall culture has gravitated towards little kids calling adults by their first name. While this may seem minor or trite, I think it is the beginning of the erosion of the child's respect system in their developing years.
There was a lady in our pre-natal class, with whose family we were casual friends. She always struck me as a bit pretentious, why with her "keeping up with the Joneses" attitude and her tremendously liberal philosophy - her sister's a lesbian, so what do you expect. Anyhow, I remember she was telling her kid (3 at the time) to call me "Jeremy". That is my name, but I ain't letting no 3-year-old call me by my first name. I kindly corrected, "It's Mr. (my last name) to you." His mom thought that I was nuts - of course, she teaches her son to use all medical terms to describe his body - I mean, how ridiculous does it sound to have a 3-year-old say, "I need to clean my penis." And this lady is a teacher (your taxpayer dollars at work). I also did that with another one of my wife's daycare kids. As much consternation and eye-rolling as parents will give me upon me correcting them to call me Mr. (my last name), I think I am doing a service to their children in the long run.
My son, 6, is continually instructed to call people Mr. and Mrs. (insert last name name). And his father (me) models this for him, in that I call his teacher Mrs. (her surname) when I address her directly in conversation, and I call his principal (who has changed a few times) his her surname, prefaced by the appropriate Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms. Now, that being said, don't get me wrong, I don't call everyone I know who is older than me by Mr. and Mrs. I think part of it is discretionary for adults, but I think for kids, calling adults by their first name is out of bounds. I believe that students, no matter what age, should call their teachers Mr./Mrs./Ms./Miss (surname), no different than congregation people should call their minister Pastor (first name or last name). I do this with all my pastors at my church, despite the fact that a number of them have said that I can just call them by their name. I can do that but I will preface it with "Pastor". It just is a sign of respect, in my view. No different if you address an officer, you say "sir" or "Officer (surname" or "Constable (surname)" or "Detective (surname)". All of this sounds rather gay at first, but when you get used to it, it will be second nature. For parents with kids, I think it's important to model respect for authority figures and even adults in general.
This past Sunday, we went to our friends' place, and their last name was hard to pronounce for my son. They were Japanese and so it was not unusual for our friend to suggest to my son, "Why don't you just call me Uncle Doug." Makes sense to me.
I know some parents who have changed their kids' addressing of us when our son addresses them as Mr. or Mrs. Again, it seems counter-intuitive, but there is something about offering respect when respect is due that really gives a child a sense of order and a yielding to those who are either in authority, or have more life experience than us. I am 36, and I still call my parents' friends Uncle (first name) or Auntie (first name), even though I'm not related to them. It's not awkward in the least and it confers the elder-respect that is so often missing in today's me-first culture.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Changing Commenting Policies Here
While I continue to maintain my policy of no moderation of comments, I have changed, after 2+ years of this blog being in existence, my policy of who is allowed to comment. It has become apparent to me why so many websites require you to register before commenting. While most anonymous comments have been civil and even if you disagree with me, you can say so, I have found that the anonymity of the internet allows anyone to abuse the commenting feature, to turn what would be a normal sensible comment either for or against my position, to one of unrelated ad-hominem attacks on me. I don't really care about this last part as long as you make a concerted effort to address the topic in the blog, irregardless if you agree with it or not. As long as you provide a sensible response, despite the position, I have no issue. What I have an issue with is people abusing the comments privilege and using it to just launch unrelated personal attacks without any type of objective support. If you disagree with something that I am saying, by all means engage the topic and put in your two cents and your supporting and buttressing thoughts. I won't delete you comment, as you can see by the many comments posted that have disagreed with me in one way or another. But I won't have cowards hiding behind anonymous accounts trolling around here looking to just post their non-sensical dribble. If you want to post a comment, have the stones to create an account and engage the topic at hand. The best way to persuade someone towards your position is to do it with facts and supporting evidence, not with childish name-calling and personal attacks. Thus, I am restricting commenting privileges to not allow anonymous comments. I suspect that this will cut down on the number of comments I receive, but I figure for the people who really have something worthwhile to say, they will make the effort to create accounts. At the same time, I will continue my policy of no moderation, which means that even existing unrelated anonymous comments will be kept, if for no other reason, to show why I have made this change in policy.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Eldership...Revisted?
My family and I have been attending our new church for 4 1/2 months now, and we are loving it! It's so encouraging to be attending an authentic Bible believing church, which not only teaches sound doctrine, has exceptional expository preaching, and interweaves the Bible into everything from the children's program to upcoming mid-week doctrine and church history classes. It has been more than a decade since I heard a sermon about Hell, man's sinfulness, integrity and moral living, and Biblical study excellence. My wife and I, after a couple of months, quickly realized that this is where God wants us to be and we are being spiritually fed more than any other time in our lives, it was a no-brainer for us to take membership classes and become official members last month. We couldn't be happier - we have entered into some very meaningful friendships with folks in our new community, some of them very deep friendships. We count it joy to entertain, feed, and be hospitable towards our new church family. Our kids have integrated very well - my son just finished an enjoyable fourth day of vacation Bible school / day camp, and for the first time, he is memorizing Bible verses. My walk with the Lord has improved dramatically in that I am spending more and more time in Bible study daily, something that was missing for years (and I have to bear a lot of responsibility for that, in part). My wife's and my marriage is stronger, our kids are getting solid Bible teaching at church and making Christian friends, and through the sheer grace of God, we have discovered fellow church members who are parents in my son's class, fellow parents we have known for years now, yet had no clue that we had a common faith. What really is the icing on the cake are our neighbours and very good friends, whom we met on the first day we attended our new church. It's strange - these neighbours live less than 100 feet away from us, but for the past six years, they didn't know us and we didn't know them and like most people in the bigger city, we all just sort of kept to ourselves. Now, either they are over here daily or we are over there. They just had dinner at our place on Monday, we ate at their place on Tuesday and they were over last night. We watch their kids and they watch ours. They are a solid, solid Christian family and we are just so blessed to have met them and have formed a very, very deep friendship with them even though we've really only known them for 4 1/2 months, but it feels like years. We are vacationing with them in August and are really looking forward to it.
Aside from that, our family has also semi-joined a small fellowship group, where we were made to feel both welcome and accepted. It is so refreshing to not have to deal with drama, pretense, and put on masks. We are part of a community of believers who not only struggle and have good and bad days, but collectively, strive towards understanding the Bible more and practically living out Biblical truths. Now, you may suggest that all churches should be doing this, but that is not the case. Many churches nowadays have become a glorified quasi-spiritual social club, where anything goes. Gossip is not only tolerated, but encouraged, and dependence on God through faith is replaced by self-reliance and pragmatism based on cultural and societal trends. I've been to a number of churches in the past 5 years, either visited or attended, which have personnified the churchy trend to focus on growth and be "contemporary and relevant". It's interesting to read about that behemothic, though misdirected Willow Creek church in the U.S. One of the first mega churches, it prided itself on being bigger, faster, and supposedly better than any other church. Only recently has it published a book detailing what a mistake it was to go in that direction and they are slowly moving back towards a more Biblically-sound model.
Our new church is a considerably more conservative church than any previous church I've attended, and I'm glad for that, since we need back-to-basics teaching. For the first time int he 18 years I've been a Christian, I will be switching Bible versions. Our new church uses the ESV (more conservative, literal version, along the lines of RSV, but not as badly translated as the KJV). When we became members, the church presented my wife and I EACH with a brand spanking new higher-end study Bible (they don't give pew Bibles there, since they want the Bible gift to stand out and as a reminder to the new owner that it was given on a special occasion). I'm OK with moving to ESV, and my Scofield ESV is on its way from amazon.ca (I don't want to use the gift Bible, since I'd rather keep it for home use so that I don't lose it).
I am grateful that I did not attend our new church 5 years ago, as it was embroiled in the same kind of seeker-friendly wishy-washy, lovey-dovey no-meat-on-the-bones "teaching". Doctrine was unwelcome and considered too divisive, but thankfully the denomination sensed the problem, installed a very solid, mature preacher from the outside into the church, and as a result, 400 people left and formed their own liberal-theologically based "church" about 15 mintues away, which cater to "contemporary" thinking by incorporating Nietzsche (sp.), John Lennon, etc. along with Jesus, and considers its worship services "entertainment" (it says that right on their website. Sad, sad, sad. Anyway, our new church is awesome and while we could have moved churches years ago (trust me, we were thinking of it, even back in 2006), I'm glad we didn't - God's timing for us was just right.
Why am I writing all this? In a way, this blog serves in part as a venting point, but at other times, I write here as a means to formulate thoughts and correlate feelings and such, very much like a diary, even though I never kept one growing up (it was always such a girlie thing to do, and in a sense, still is). This is one of the times when I am doing the diary thing.
I outlined the above experiences in a way to really demonstrate to me that not only are there good churches out there, there are excellent churches out there. There is no doubt in my mind that I eventually would have liked to get my feet wet again in serving in the church, but that was the farthest thing on my mind when I received a phone call at work today from the church. I saw it was the church calling on my call display at work, and instantly I thought, "oh man, what happened to my son?", since he was attending a Vacation Bible School or day camp there. Why else would they be calling?
It was the senior pastor's executive assistant. Now, I have gotten to know her fairly well and she is such a friendly lady and has a good sense of humour. I had thought that maybe there was something that got mixed up in a recent tithing cheque, or that perhaps I had left something at the church, for which I had to retrieve from the church office. Maybe she wanted to call and see how I was enjoying membership. Perhaps she wanted to invite our family over for a meet and greet or for a meal.
Little did I expect that I would be hearing these words...I am paraphrasing a bit here as to not use names or identifying information.
"On behalf of the Senior Pastor, I'd like to inform you that he has chosen to nominate you for the office of elder at our church."
First thing I did was grip the phone tighter. Did I just hear what I thought I heard? I asked her to repeat what she just said. She said it again - the Pastor is putting my name in as a candidate to be an elder, and would like to see if I am interested.
Second thing I did was take a breath. And then I reflexively responded, "wow, that's really nice that he is considering me, but I just became a member last month and I've only been coming here for 4 1/2 months..." She paused and said that the Senior Pastor put my name forth.
Now, I should provide some context here. The Senior Pastor is well aware that I was previously an elder at my old church. I don't think I ever shared with him about my experience. But I also did some leadership responsibilities at the church previous to that, running a missions committee and leading a college/career group. Both times I experienced ministry burnout. I think she could sense some trepidation in my voice. I honestly told her that well, I am really honoured that I am even considered, and really, this is totally unexpected, so I'm going to have to pray about it, look to the Scriptures to get some sense of God's direction, and seek Godly counsel from trusted mature Christians.
As I am sitting here typing all this out, I am still hashing these questions in my mind. The first thing I did today was call my wife and told to sit down while I told her about the call. To my surprise, she seemed fairly ecstatic and encouraged me to go for it, and really encouraging me that way - she's really good at that. The next thing I did was email my parents - I know my Mom's a believer, not so sure about my Dad, but I thought I'd include him). They shared some thoughts with me. I then emailed my old boss, and a dear friend and Christian brother who knows the Bible as good as anyone I know - he also shared some thoughts with me. I think that the next order of business is to meet up with another elder at the church (I already know with whom I am going to discuss this) and get his perspective as well as get some insight as to what goes on behind the scenes. And finally, I'm going to arrange a meeting with the Senior Pastor to find out the process that ended with my name being suggested, either by him or someone else.
This is so interesting, because I have a preaching series on eldership that I was planning on starting soon, since I listen to preaching on the way to work every morning.
I am finally, and most importantly, going to spend some time alone with God to seek his voice - I have a really nice place at a local conservation area that I go to to just sit in stillness...it's kind of weird, but really clears out distractions and I can get a better sense of God's direction if I sit quietly. I'll do that next week. And I'll be reading the 1 Timothy and Titus passages on eldership again.
My last foray into the eldership thing left a really bad taste in my mouth. To be quite frank, I had doubts as to my ability to be an effective last time. But I sensed God's calling and proceeded. It was an interesting experience for sure, but what really soured me was two years ago when I led a nominations team and we rejected the name of a prospective candidate. Apparently, it was only the second time in 20+ years that a candidate was rejected, and I was heading the committee that rejected the candidate. In looking back, the right decision was made - the candidate was totally unqualified and showed very little spiritual maturity and fruit. I thought it was a done deal until a couple of other elders and some other meddlers decided to try to reverse the decision and then talk with the people on my committee. Not only was this contrary to our mandate, but it totally undermined our committee. But moreover, it showed the lack of spiritual maturity in these other elders, and while I am not going to start comparing Christian credentials, if an elder is not willing to yield to Biblical standards and qualifications for prospective elders, they probably shouldn't be one in the first place. I saw enough during that process to know that I no longer wanted to be on that board, but since I made a commitment, I tried my best to serve out the rest of the term. Since then, I've seen other things occur at our old church and amongst some of the people there, to unequivocally conclude that there is a serious lack of spiritual maturity at our old church - of course, I am not including everyone in that, since there were some very solid Christians at our old church, but I'd say in retrospect that they were in the minority.
So when I got the call today asking if I'd be willing to stand as a candidate for elder for a church of 820+ people, I hesitated a bit. Did I really want to go through this again? But then again, I know enough about how our new church operates by its fruit that I know that behind the scenes, there are good leaders there. I've actually tested this theory in an unconspicuous way with a couple of elders, asking them some casual Bible questions. I don't expect any elder to be able to answer all Bible questions, but at the very least, you should be able to consider them someone you can ask, knowing that their interest is there. Thankfully, the elders I've talked with showed a very keen interest and understanding of God's Word. You can tell these men take Bible study seriously.
Several people who have provided initial counsel for me so far have commonly re-iterated the obvious point that our new church is a far different church than our old church. In fact, with our old church, it took my wife and I literally years to integrate ourselves into the life of the church: four years to become a member, eight years to actually start forming meaningful friendships, and all in between, we considered trying out another church. With our new church, we became a member in 3 1/2 months, we get to church early every week, have already formed meaningful relationships and are both being fed regularly. I know churches are different, and our new and old church are night and day, but that bad eldership experience really grinds at me to this day. I saw that decisions were oftentimes arrived at discussion only and without really serious prayer - one time, during a congregational meeting, a former elder stood up and suggested that they vote to leave their denomination then and there, that night, due to some denominational authority squabbles. I remember thinking, if a former elder would make a snap decision like that by thinking with his emotions in the heat of the moment rather than logically and objectively, that is not a good sign. I am sure things are done a lot differently at our new church, but to a small degree, I am afraid, since that previous bad experience caused me to leave our old church. I don't want this to happen again.
Then again, I recognize that God is in control and He will place us where He wants us. And that I really shouldn't be thinking of how I feel, but rather whether this is God's will. I also have to keep in mind that just because I'm nominated doesn't mean I'll pass what I am sure will be a much more rigorous selection and interview process. Remember, our new church has about 9 elders for 820+ people (I would potentially be number 10).
I also think about my hang-ups - I have a lot of them. I have some personality quirks and sometimes can be impatient or even a bear. I am very opinionated, as you can tell by my postings here, and sometimes have difficulty in coming across diplomatically. But my wife, who knows me best and has seen me at my worse, is encouraging me to let my name stand, or at least that's the way she's leaning...
You may say, what's the big deal? This is a volunteer position, so don't take it too seriously. Well, I do take it seriously since I think the church's leaders will more often than not influence how the church moves forward. I also see this as also a tremendous potential opportunity to serve God in a capacity that I though I could not handle. I take it seriously because the Bible takes it seriously (see 1 Timothy and Titus).
I really do have to pray about this and dig into God's Word to get some direction.
Aside from that, our family has also semi-joined a small fellowship group, where we were made to feel both welcome and accepted. It is so refreshing to not have to deal with drama, pretense, and put on masks. We are part of a community of believers who not only struggle and have good and bad days, but collectively, strive towards understanding the Bible more and practically living out Biblical truths. Now, you may suggest that all churches should be doing this, but that is not the case. Many churches nowadays have become a glorified quasi-spiritual social club, where anything goes. Gossip is not only tolerated, but encouraged, and dependence on God through faith is replaced by self-reliance and pragmatism based on cultural and societal trends. I've been to a number of churches in the past 5 years, either visited or attended, which have personnified the churchy trend to focus on growth and be "contemporary and relevant". It's interesting to read about that behemothic, though misdirected Willow Creek church in the U.S. One of the first mega churches, it prided itself on being bigger, faster, and supposedly better than any other church. Only recently has it published a book detailing what a mistake it was to go in that direction and they are slowly moving back towards a more Biblically-sound model.
Our new church is a considerably more conservative church than any previous church I've attended, and I'm glad for that, since we need back-to-basics teaching. For the first time int he 18 years I've been a Christian, I will be switching Bible versions. Our new church uses the ESV (more conservative, literal version, along the lines of RSV, but not as badly translated as the KJV). When we became members, the church presented my wife and I EACH with a brand spanking new higher-end study Bible (they don't give pew Bibles there, since they want the Bible gift to stand out and as a reminder to the new owner that it was given on a special occasion). I'm OK with moving to ESV, and my Scofield ESV is on its way from amazon.ca (I don't want to use the gift Bible, since I'd rather keep it for home use so that I don't lose it).
I am grateful that I did not attend our new church 5 years ago, as it was embroiled in the same kind of seeker-friendly wishy-washy, lovey-dovey no-meat-on-the-bones "teaching". Doctrine was unwelcome and considered too divisive, but thankfully the denomination sensed the problem, installed a very solid, mature preacher from the outside into the church, and as a result, 400 people left and formed their own liberal-theologically based "church" about 15 mintues away, which cater to "contemporary" thinking by incorporating Nietzsche (sp.), John Lennon, etc. along with Jesus, and considers its worship services "entertainment" (it says that right on their website. Sad, sad, sad. Anyway, our new church is awesome and while we could have moved churches years ago (trust me, we were thinking of it, even back in 2006), I'm glad we didn't - God's timing for us was just right.
Why am I writing all this? In a way, this blog serves in part as a venting point, but at other times, I write here as a means to formulate thoughts and correlate feelings and such, very much like a diary, even though I never kept one growing up (it was always such a girlie thing to do, and in a sense, still is). This is one of the times when I am doing the diary thing.
I outlined the above experiences in a way to really demonstrate to me that not only are there good churches out there, there are excellent churches out there. There is no doubt in my mind that I eventually would have liked to get my feet wet again in serving in the church, but that was the farthest thing on my mind when I received a phone call at work today from the church. I saw it was the church calling on my call display at work, and instantly I thought, "oh man, what happened to my son?", since he was attending a Vacation Bible School or day camp there. Why else would they be calling?
It was the senior pastor's executive assistant. Now, I have gotten to know her fairly well and she is such a friendly lady and has a good sense of humour. I had thought that maybe there was something that got mixed up in a recent tithing cheque, or that perhaps I had left something at the church, for which I had to retrieve from the church office. Maybe she wanted to call and see how I was enjoying membership. Perhaps she wanted to invite our family over for a meet and greet or for a meal.
Little did I expect that I would be hearing these words...I am paraphrasing a bit here as to not use names or identifying information.
"On behalf of the Senior Pastor, I'd like to inform you that he has chosen to nominate you for the office of elder at our church."
First thing I did was grip the phone tighter. Did I just hear what I thought I heard? I asked her to repeat what she just said. She said it again - the Pastor is putting my name in as a candidate to be an elder, and would like to see if I am interested.
Second thing I did was take a breath. And then I reflexively responded, "wow, that's really nice that he is considering me, but I just became a member last month and I've only been coming here for 4 1/2 months..." She paused and said that the Senior Pastor put my name forth.
Now, I should provide some context here. The Senior Pastor is well aware that I was previously an elder at my old church. I don't think I ever shared with him about my experience. But I also did some leadership responsibilities at the church previous to that, running a missions committee and leading a college/career group. Both times I experienced ministry burnout. I think she could sense some trepidation in my voice. I honestly told her that well, I am really honoured that I am even considered, and really, this is totally unexpected, so I'm going to have to pray about it, look to the Scriptures to get some sense of God's direction, and seek Godly counsel from trusted mature Christians.
As I am sitting here typing all this out, I am still hashing these questions in my mind. The first thing I did today was call my wife and told to sit down while I told her about the call. To my surprise, she seemed fairly ecstatic and encouraged me to go for it, and really encouraging me that way - she's really good at that. The next thing I did was email my parents - I know my Mom's a believer, not so sure about my Dad, but I thought I'd include him). They shared some thoughts with me. I then emailed my old boss, and a dear friend and Christian brother who knows the Bible as good as anyone I know - he also shared some thoughts with me. I think that the next order of business is to meet up with another elder at the church (I already know with whom I am going to discuss this) and get his perspective as well as get some insight as to what goes on behind the scenes. And finally, I'm going to arrange a meeting with the Senior Pastor to find out the process that ended with my name being suggested, either by him or someone else.
This is so interesting, because I have a preaching series on eldership that I was planning on starting soon, since I listen to preaching on the way to work every morning.
I am finally, and most importantly, going to spend some time alone with God to seek his voice - I have a really nice place at a local conservation area that I go to to just sit in stillness...it's kind of weird, but really clears out distractions and I can get a better sense of God's direction if I sit quietly. I'll do that next week. And I'll be reading the 1 Timothy and Titus passages on eldership again.
My last foray into the eldership thing left a really bad taste in my mouth. To be quite frank, I had doubts as to my ability to be an effective last time. But I sensed God's calling and proceeded. It was an interesting experience for sure, but what really soured me was two years ago when I led a nominations team and we rejected the name of a prospective candidate. Apparently, it was only the second time in 20+ years that a candidate was rejected, and I was heading the committee that rejected the candidate. In looking back, the right decision was made - the candidate was totally unqualified and showed very little spiritual maturity and fruit. I thought it was a done deal until a couple of other elders and some other meddlers decided to try to reverse the decision and then talk with the people on my committee. Not only was this contrary to our mandate, but it totally undermined our committee. But moreover, it showed the lack of spiritual maturity in these other elders, and while I am not going to start comparing Christian credentials, if an elder is not willing to yield to Biblical standards and qualifications for prospective elders, they probably shouldn't be one in the first place. I saw enough during that process to know that I no longer wanted to be on that board, but since I made a commitment, I tried my best to serve out the rest of the term. Since then, I've seen other things occur at our old church and amongst some of the people there, to unequivocally conclude that there is a serious lack of spiritual maturity at our old church - of course, I am not including everyone in that, since there were some very solid Christians at our old church, but I'd say in retrospect that they were in the minority.
So when I got the call today asking if I'd be willing to stand as a candidate for elder for a church of 820+ people, I hesitated a bit. Did I really want to go through this again? But then again, I know enough about how our new church operates by its fruit that I know that behind the scenes, there are good leaders there. I've actually tested this theory in an unconspicuous way with a couple of elders, asking them some casual Bible questions. I don't expect any elder to be able to answer all Bible questions, but at the very least, you should be able to consider them someone you can ask, knowing that their interest is there. Thankfully, the elders I've talked with showed a very keen interest and understanding of God's Word. You can tell these men take Bible study seriously.
Several people who have provided initial counsel for me so far have commonly re-iterated the obvious point that our new church is a far different church than our old church. In fact, with our old church, it took my wife and I literally years to integrate ourselves into the life of the church: four years to become a member, eight years to actually start forming meaningful friendships, and all in between, we considered trying out another church. With our new church, we became a member in 3 1/2 months, we get to church early every week, have already formed meaningful relationships and are both being fed regularly. I know churches are different, and our new and old church are night and day, but that bad eldership experience really grinds at me to this day. I saw that decisions were oftentimes arrived at discussion only and without really serious prayer - one time, during a congregational meeting, a former elder stood up and suggested that they vote to leave their denomination then and there, that night, due to some denominational authority squabbles. I remember thinking, if a former elder would make a snap decision like that by thinking with his emotions in the heat of the moment rather than logically and objectively, that is not a good sign. I am sure things are done a lot differently at our new church, but to a small degree, I am afraid, since that previous bad experience caused me to leave our old church. I don't want this to happen again.
Then again, I recognize that God is in control and He will place us where He wants us. And that I really shouldn't be thinking of how I feel, but rather whether this is God's will. I also have to keep in mind that just because I'm nominated doesn't mean I'll pass what I am sure will be a much more rigorous selection and interview process. Remember, our new church has about 9 elders for 820+ people (I would potentially be number 10).
I also think about my hang-ups - I have a lot of them. I have some personality quirks and sometimes can be impatient or even a bear. I am very opinionated, as you can tell by my postings here, and sometimes have difficulty in coming across diplomatically. But my wife, who knows me best and has seen me at my worse, is encouraging me to let my name stand, or at least that's the way she's leaning...
You may say, what's the big deal? This is a volunteer position, so don't take it too seriously. Well, I do take it seriously since I think the church's leaders will more often than not influence how the church moves forward. I also see this as also a tremendous potential opportunity to serve God in a capacity that I though I could not handle. I take it seriously because the Bible takes it seriously (see 1 Timothy and Titus).
I really do have to pray about this and dig into God's Word to get some direction.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Michael Jackson is Dead. Move On.
Being a guy who doesn't give a rat's ass about what goes on in Hollywood and celebrity gossip in general, you can imagine that the constant media focus on the death of Michael Jackson has grated on me. You see, when I turn on the news, I am hoping to hear about various items, whether they be news, business, sports, etc. But the incessant coverage of everything Michael Jackson since his death, has been excessive at best.
Now, you have to realize that growing up, I listened to a lot of Michael Jackson music. But you see, unlike the majority of people, I can differentiate between a product and the producer. I would go out and buy a new camping tent, but I really don't care about the day-to-day goings-on with the tent's inventor or the person who holds the patent for the tent. I view music and movies the same way - it's an end product of an artist and the end product can be appreciated. Perhaps even the artist who produced it. But the simply god-like treatment of a celebrity is something which I have never understood.
It culminated in today's Michael Jackon memorial. My wife watched it and was glued to the set. I refused to watch it. And why would I? Michael Jackson was a talented singer, nothing more. Somehow the media seems to think he is the returning messiah, the way they treated him like some sort of deity. I guess this is what happens when one lives in today's media-saturated world, where the goings on of celebrities seems to pique people's interest (why, I don't know - maybe their own lives are so dull that they have nothing else better to do). I was meeting with one of my customers today and ended up chatting with him about car auctions for a good hour. It was great, and I was thinking, while most people sat in front of their TVs, watching a glorified memorial of a celebrity they have likely never met or do not know personally, I was interacting with a real live person.
It seems to be lost on people that Jackson wasn't exactly a shiny example of an upstanding citizen. His numerous child molestation challenges will likely forever haunt his memory, if you are looking at his biographical sketch objectively. It was telling that the performers at the memorial all had very public affairs, divorces, etc. Kind of fitting, considering the type of person Jackson was.
Also, while I didn't watch any of the coverage, it's kind of hard to ignore it if you are reading the newspaper or going on any news website today. There are pictures everywhere. You ever notice that almost all of the performers were black? For all the media seem to suggest about Jackson breaking down racial barriers, you really don't see that at all, based on the demographics of the performing artists. Further, ever notice that on the day Jackson died, all of the coverage of the "mourners" were undoubtedly almost all black, whether they were in California, Harlem, or elsewhere. It would seem to me that Jackson did not make as big of strides as people thought.
One other thing to mention - and I suppose this is typical of today's pluralistic mindset. Even in curiously persuing some photos of the coverage, it seems that in numerous parts of the ceremony, they were flashing different religious symbols on the screen, as if to suggest all religions were the same or that there is no different in faiths. This is the ultimate moral relativism, which perhaps contributes to why Jackson is so popular - he believed in the age-old "I'm OK, you're OK" type of approach, the "all faiths lead to the same place" type of mentality, in an effort to not offend anyone. What a fallacy this is. No wonder so many people conveniently gloss over the fact that he wasn't exactly someone you'd be comfortable leaving you children with. But that is the world we live in, where character flaws don't seem to matter.
For me, Jackson's death is no different than any other. I grieve for his family, who have lost a dear family member, and I'm sure it's tough for his parents, but you know, all that plastic surgery, drugs that he took and the lifestyle that he chose - well, I can't say that I'm surprised he died at the age he did. But let's be objective here. He's a singer, an artist, an entertainer. Let's not lose sight of that.
Now, you have to realize that growing up, I listened to a lot of Michael Jackson music. But you see, unlike the majority of people, I can differentiate between a product and the producer. I would go out and buy a new camping tent, but I really don't care about the day-to-day goings-on with the tent's inventor or the person who holds the patent for the tent. I view music and movies the same way - it's an end product of an artist and the end product can be appreciated. Perhaps even the artist who produced it. But the simply god-like treatment of a celebrity is something which I have never understood.
It culminated in today's Michael Jackon memorial. My wife watched it and was glued to the set. I refused to watch it. And why would I? Michael Jackson was a talented singer, nothing more. Somehow the media seems to think he is the returning messiah, the way they treated him like some sort of deity. I guess this is what happens when one lives in today's media-saturated world, where the goings on of celebrities seems to pique people's interest (why, I don't know - maybe their own lives are so dull that they have nothing else better to do). I was meeting with one of my customers today and ended up chatting with him about car auctions for a good hour. It was great, and I was thinking, while most people sat in front of their TVs, watching a glorified memorial of a celebrity they have likely never met or do not know personally, I was interacting with a real live person.
It seems to be lost on people that Jackson wasn't exactly a shiny example of an upstanding citizen. His numerous child molestation challenges will likely forever haunt his memory, if you are looking at his biographical sketch objectively. It was telling that the performers at the memorial all had very public affairs, divorces, etc. Kind of fitting, considering the type of person Jackson was.
Also, while I didn't watch any of the coverage, it's kind of hard to ignore it if you are reading the newspaper or going on any news website today. There are pictures everywhere. You ever notice that almost all of the performers were black? For all the media seem to suggest about Jackson breaking down racial barriers, you really don't see that at all, based on the demographics of the performing artists. Further, ever notice that on the day Jackson died, all of the coverage of the "mourners" were undoubtedly almost all black, whether they were in California, Harlem, or elsewhere. It would seem to me that Jackson did not make as big of strides as people thought.
One other thing to mention - and I suppose this is typical of today's pluralistic mindset. Even in curiously persuing some photos of the coverage, it seems that in numerous parts of the ceremony, they were flashing different religious symbols on the screen, as if to suggest all religions were the same or that there is no different in faiths. This is the ultimate moral relativism, which perhaps contributes to why Jackson is so popular - he believed in the age-old "I'm OK, you're OK" type of approach, the "all faiths lead to the same place" type of mentality, in an effort to not offend anyone. What a fallacy this is. No wonder so many people conveniently gloss over the fact that he wasn't exactly someone you'd be comfortable leaving you children with. But that is the world we live in, where character flaws don't seem to matter.
For me, Jackson's death is no different than any other. I grieve for his family, who have lost a dear family member, and I'm sure it's tough for his parents, but you know, all that plastic surgery, drugs that he took and the lifestyle that he chose - well, I can't say that I'm surprised he died at the age he did. But let's be objective here. He's a singer, an artist, an entertainer. Let's not lose sight of that.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
The Gun Is the Great Equalizer
I am a bit of an anomaly when it comes to my family. It is not a secret, if you have read any part of this blog long enough, that I am a staunch proponent of firearms ownership. My wife, while passably tolerating my gun hobby, leans more towards the very common, yet erronenous notion that "guns are bad". Of course, if you get your information from the mass media, that's the impression you'll get, though you'll have a tough time defending it.
However, out of respect for my wife, I choose to keep my gun interests to myself. My kids, both under 7, don't know I don't own any guns. Of course, if they ever ask me, I won't lie about it, but I won't go out of my way to volunteer this information either (by the way, that's generally a good mindset to have, since you don't want to advertise that you have guns in your house anyway, just in case the wrong people get a hold of this information).
Over the past weekend, our family went camping with some Jewish friends of ours, who, while they are very nice and thoughtful people, are thoroughly indoctrinated in anything that smacks of today's liberal and left-wing mindset. They don't spank their kinds and frown when I say that both my kids get spanked. This weekend was evidence of what happens when you have a lassez-faire, "let the kids run your life" type of parenting style. But anyway, one interesting interchange between my son and one of our friends was when she was taking a photo of my son with her kids and my son decided to use both hands to make guns and point it to the side - you know the posture, the "here's lookin' at you kid" type of gesture. She said, "oh, you shouldn't be doing that - guns are not nice." I quickly remarked to my son, though I was indirectly talking with her, "guns can be used for good or bad", and I knew she shot me a look, but I wasn't really paying attention to her response.
It seems very typical that those who oppose gun ownership are the ones who probably can benefit from it the most. Whether you are a woman, a visible minority, a senior citizen, or someone who is physically in stature, guns are, for all intents and purposes, the great equalizer. I mean, think about it - if you are a woman and are attacked, chances are that your aggressor will be physically stronger than you (as a general rule, based on on the physical attributes of men and woman on a whole). If you are a visible minority, especially if you are black, you would benefit greatly from a firearm for self-defence, since blacks tend to be victims of crimes. It's no different if you're a smaller person like me. In whatever case, a gun evens the odds between potential victim and aggressor. The fact of the matter is, there will always be bigger, badder people out there. There is no shame in utilizing extra tools at your disposal in our own self-defence.
I am a bit surprised at our friend's response. Being Jewish, you would think she would have experienced racism or ethnic jokes at one point in her life or another (but then again, she is from a fairly multicultural country - a real multicultural country, so she may have been fortunate in avoiding all the racial tension those other of us who are minorities would have had to live through. Israel as a country, perhaps only second to Switzerland, has a very high per capita of gun ownership. Yet their crime rates in the cities are infinitely smaller than their North American counterparts. If you look in Canada and the U.S., are the areas where there tends to be more crime tend to be higher and denser-populated metropolitan cities like Toronto, New York, L.A., Chicago, etc. All these areas are high gun-control areas, yet crime remains rampant. Those who live in the poorest of these areas could greatly benefit from owning a firearm as these people are the most likely to have a crime committed on them.
However, out of respect for my wife, I choose to keep my gun interests to myself. My kids, both under 7, don't know I don't own any guns. Of course, if they ever ask me, I won't lie about it, but I won't go out of my way to volunteer this information either (by the way, that's generally a good mindset to have, since you don't want to advertise that you have guns in your house anyway, just in case the wrong people get a hold of this information).
Over the past weekend, our family went camping with some Jewish friends of ours, who, while they are very nice and thoughtful people, are thoroughly indoctrinated in anything that smacks of today's liberal and left-wing mindset. They don't spank their kinds and frown when I say that both my kids get spanked. This weekend was evidence of what happens when you have a lassez-faire, "let the kids run your life" type of parenting style. But anyway, one interesting interchange between my son and one of our friends was when she was taking a photo of my son with her kids and my son decided to use both hands to make guns and point it to the side - you know the posture, the "here's lookin' at you kid" type of gesture. She said, "oh, you shouldn't be doing that - guns are not nice." I quickly remarked to my son, though I was indirectly talking with her, "guns can be used for good or bad", and I knew she shot me a look, but I wasn't really paying attention to her response.
It seems very typical that those who oppose gun ownership are the ones who probably can benefit from it the most. Whether you are a woman, a visible minority, a senior citizen, or someone who is physically in stature, guns are, for all intents and purposes, the great equalizer. I mean, think about it - if you are a woman and are attacked, chances are that your aggressor will be physically stronger than you (as a general rule, based on on the physical attributes of men and woman on a whole). If you are a visible minority, especially if you are black, you would benefit greatly from a firearm for self-defence, since blacks tend to be victims of crimes. It's no different if you're a smaller person like me. In whatever case, a gun evens the odds between potential victim and aggressor. The fact of the matter is, there will always be bigger, badder people out there. There is no shame in utilizing extra tools at your disposal in our own self-defence.
I am a bit surprised at our friend's response. Being Jewish, you would think she would have experienced racism or ethnic jokes at one point in her life or another (but then again, she is from a fairly multicultural country - a real multicultural country, so she may have been fortunate in avoiding all the racial tension those other of us who are minorities would have had to live through. Israel as a country, perhaps only second to Switzerland, has a very high per capita of gun ownership. Yet their crime rates in the cities are infinitely smaller than their North American counterparts. If you look in Canada and the U.S., are the areas where there tends to be more crime tend to be higher and denser-populated metropolitan cities like Toronto, New York, L.A., Chicago, etc. All these areas are high gun-control areas, yet crime remains rampant. Those who live in the poorest of these areas could greatly benefit from owning a firearm as these people are the most likely to have a crime committed on them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)