Oh, Come On!

We couldn't possibly this unaware as Christians, could we? Are we that cloistered away in our nebulous little world that we don't know about such prominent evils as 'human trafficking'?

Sillifying the Pope

So France is re-thinking its staunch secularism. Okay, that's all good and stuff, but something strikes me as a little odd about this article, and others of its sort. In short, why, when the pope is involved in something, do reporters almost invariably quote ambiguous, seemingly out-of-context, and two-dimensional remarks from the Catholic Church's top-dog?

For example, France has had a long train of secular leaders and made a tradition out of keeping church and politics separate. The pope comes along and says that the church won't claim the state's place -- damn! there go the aspirations to resurrect the Carolingian and Avignon jurisdictions -- which is a significant admission, overall. However, reporting on the historic event of the pope's soirée in France, Ms. Gold was only able to cut-and-paste the following wisps of the pope's speech during an open-air mass for her conclusion:

"The Pope urged the pilgrims not to lose hope in the face of challenges.

'The power of love is stronger than the evil which threatens us,' he said, later adding, 'Do not allow yourselves to be discouraged by difficulties.'”

Umm... what difficulties are those, Ms. Gold? Would you mind furnishing us with some of the rest of the pope's speech? 'Cause right now, I'm a-thinkin' that il papa is pulling rabbits out of his pointy hat. Is it just that making the transition from a secular to a secular-sacred state would ruffle some feathers? And is that really what M. Sarkozy's meeting with the pope was really about? You know, converting France's political structure to accept the immanence of religious perspectives in the design, implementation, and administration of legislations? Or was it just that Sarkozy, being a lapsed Catholic himself, felt the need to be a little more cordial than previous presidents?

In any case, Benedict XVI was kind enough to give us all a throw back to the 80's with his Huey Lewis quote, "the power of love". The Cardinal-cum-Papa has a little hipster in him afterall, hey? Good on him!

The Colour Purple, or, The Rainbow Connection

There's a church nearby that bothers me. On the surface, it's seemingly simply aesthetic reasons, but the particular aesthetics are symbols of deeper problems--and while the aesthetics are certainly not aesthetically pleasing, the realities that they symbolise are somewhat more unpalatable. But really, it's the combination of meaning and the symbol used to represent that meaning, that bothers me most of all.

My problem with this church is with its garish purple doors. Now, normally, I have no problem with purple. I mean, I prefer certain colours to others, and I prefer not to wear certain colours, but every colour can be beautiful in the proper setting. Aesthetically, purple doors are not a good combination on a 100-odd year old brown-brick, black roofed church. As I said above, it's rather garish. I doubt anyone but the severely colour-blind (or the utterly blind), could find this combination pleasing. As soon as the paint job was applied, it offended my artistic sensibilities.

Obviously, the purple paint was not for simple aesthetics. This is further illustrated by the rainbow flag flying right beside the white flag with the blue square in the upper left corner, with a red cross in it. It was to make a statement. And, this being the Centenary United Church, that statement is that Homosexuality is Okay. This United Church not only is "welcoming" to those who struggle with same-sex attraction (as all churches should be), it openly proclaims that same-sex attraction is not sinful, but a perfectly natural sexual orientation. In order to proclaim this, they must reinterpret the Bible and ignore 2000 years of Christian tradition, giving into the zeitgeist which itself makes anyone who appeals to the Bible, Christian tradition, or even Natural Law and common sense, narrow-minded bigots in league with "pastor" Fred Phelps.

Now, it's bad enough that a church can reject its mission to call sin, sin, and people to repentance (even if that sin happens to be a rather popular one these days). But it seems to me that if one sin is now okay, then mustn't all sins become so labeled? After all, if homosexual acts are fine, then on what grounds can we decry theft, adultery, or even murder? If one serious sin is no longer serious, nor even sinful, then on what standard does this church call anything good or anything sinful?

Now, as much as all that bothers me, as it sends something of a mixed message to the world about what true Christianity is--and could be said to fulfil those Scriptures warning that in the latter days, perilous times will come when people will not listen to sound doctrine, but with itching ears will heap up teachers unto themselves (cf. 2 Timothy 4:3-4)--what bothers me even more seems to be the "Gay Agenda"'s very choice of symbolism to define themselves: Namely purple and rainbows (because it's not bad enough that they choose one colour to define themselves, they have to actually take them all!). My problem with their appropriation of these symbols are the Christian meaning of these symbols. It could be argued that the vast non-Christian homosexual community was unaware of the Christian meaning behind their new icons, but for a church to brandish them in such a fashion truly indicates to me a defiance to historical Christianity and a definite separation--though still claiming to be Christian (again, as 2 Timothy warns [3:4-5], "they will be treacherous and reckless and demented by pride, preferring their own pleasure to God. They will keep up the outward appearance of religion but will have rejected the inner power of it").

Why do I say this regarding their choice of symbols?
First, Purple has been used in the Church for ages as a liturgical colour denoting Repentance. It is the seasonal colour of both Advent and Lent, the first preparing our souls for the Coming of Christ, and the second to prepare us to participate in His Passion and Resurrection. Purple as a colour is a reminder to turn from our sins to the Life of Christ. But now it is being used to define a particular sin, and to say repentance and change is not necessary. What should serve to remind us to repent of sin now serves to celebrate it.

Second, the Rainbow has meant, from times even more ancient than the Church, the sign of God's Covenant Love. After He punished the earth with the Flood, he showed Noah the Rainbow as His promise to never destroy the earth again in like manner. Thus, the rainbow symbolises God's mercy and His faithfulness--though also His justice. But for Centenary United Church and the Homosexual Community as a whole, the rainbow celebrates their "diversity" and the "beauty" inherent in their lifestyle. The church, in particular, seems to want to celebrate God's Love while denying His holy Justice.

Thus, a group of people will, on the one hand, demand tolerance and acceptance from the "narrow-minded, bigoted" Church, on the other hand slaps that same Church, and the God she serves, in the face.

"Keep away from people like that" (2 Tim 3:5) indeed!

This

This was translated from the original Koine Greek, and reads more like this.

But Do Stop Thinking

In an effort to help Christians gain a better awareness of consumer impact on the environment, authors Claire Foster and David Shreeve have published a 176 page book.

That's right: some corporate cheese-head somewhere down in South America has just been justified a little more in his efforts to rape the land of its trees, underpay his workers, and sell his yield at a questionable premium to the international market. Ships will cross oceans, leaking bits of nasty fuels and particulate matter; trucks will suck up petrol and burn exhaust into the air, wear their tires thin and contribute a little more to the slow degradation of the hiways; factories will process the newly arrived trees and belch a little more filth into the sky and waterways as they cut, grind, pound, bleach, and dye the pretty little papers that will eventually form a book on environmental awareness. Then the printing runs will begin, the mass distribution and all the fuels that uses, the receipts from purchasing of the book, shipping overseas...

And all for Christians, nonetheless. As if we needed a separate venue for awareness. But I suppose that's beside the point, isn't it? Or is it?

So, after all that imprinting on the environment, Christian congregations can have a little ditty that corales them into a year-long effort at reducing their carbon footprint.

“A new guide from the Church of England offers church leaders a template for a year-long programme of practical action to reduce their congregations’ carbon footprints, as energy prices head upwards.”

Good. So after a year, then what? Return to your normally scheduled, anti-Kyoto, neglectful, disillusioned, disaffected, and otherwise irresponsible consumer life? Or just change the date and repeat as necessary? Why target a year? As if a plastic-ware package of time and a trendy charge into a church-wide back-patting session can really compete with a philosophic responsibility to life as a whole!

Is there any reason why this contrary effort couldn't have been more responsible itself? Say, by e-publishing? Or would that require a separate paperback publication to bolster Christian awareness of the internet?

Signs of the Times

I remember, growing up, when my family would drive to church, or otherwise take trips from Waterdown, ON, to Burlington, ON, we'd pass a Christian Reform church on the way into town, at the top of Highway 5. Didn't know much about the CRC or anything. All I really knew about that church was that it was perhaps the first church to have a sign out front on which it would post the now clichéed quotes and quips that are seen ubiquitously out front of churches. What now seems to be all the rage, they've been doing for some 15 years or more. And, honestly, they still seem to do it best. It's rather rare that I'll drive by, even these days, and have to groan (too loudly) at some lame pun or horribly theologically-incorrect statement. Good on them.

Other churches' signs that I've seen--not so much.

"It wasn't the Apple, it was the Pair"
"Patience is a virtue with a lot of wait"

I'll stop, I promise. But I could go on. I've got about 365 of 'em. (Someone 'thoughtfully' bought me a desktop day calendar featuring a glib little quote for every day of the year. Awww....)

Usually these signs are not much more than annoying groaners such as I'm used to hearing from several of my friends anyway (I even jokingly wrote a paper in my Pastoral Theology class arguing that such "punning" was a sure sign of the Pastor-Teacher gift in Ephesians 4:11). But every so often, I see a sign that really bothers me--because the sign says something illogical, and sometimes even contrary to the Christian faith.

Such was the case of the sign out front of the Baptist church around the corner from my house. To their credit, they try to change the sign once a week (though summer got a little slow), and more, they try to find a quote that fits with the sermon subject for the following Sunday. On the left half of the sign, they have worship time details, and the Sermon Title. On the right half of the sign, they have a quote that perhaps acts as a summation of the sermon--though in this particular case, I hope not--or else an announcement of some special event.

Well, this past week, this church has announced that the pastor will be giving a sermon entitled "Shine." Accompanying this one-word title is the quote that's got me all buggered up, and wondering just what they're teaching at this Baptist church:

"In order for the light to shine, the darkness must be present."

There's so much to take issue with in this dualistic statement that it made my head spin (and actually kept me up at night!), but fear not, true believer. I'll try to address it all.

Now, at first glance, I assume that the pastor is going to be addressing his congregation regarding being light to the world, and letting our light so shine before men that they would see our good works and glorify God in Heaven. He perhaps is encouraging his congregation to live the good life even as the darkness around us seems to deepen, and so he is trying to inspire them with the notion that their bright lights will shine even more noticeably because the darkness is so dark. And those are good thoughts, to be sure. However, the statement, as it stands, takes those thoughts a step or two further.

First of all, it declares that darkness is, in fact, something. It claims that darkness has an objective reality of its own, that is in conflict with the light, and yet, not entirely in conflict, but, like Yin and Yang, it is symbiotic with the light--each causing the other to exist. After all, what else can a statement mean that says "In order for the light to shine the darkness must be present"?

So our first problem seems to be with our definition of darkness, and the description of it as present, and as necessary. Darkness, both scientifically and philosophically, is not a "thing" possessing its own substance or essence. Rather, it is only something which is not. Darkness is the absence of light. It is the quality of lightlessness. It is not a substance, but the privation of a substance. That is our first problem, and, understanding it, I hope that all our other problems are made clear.

The second problem, then, flowing directly from the first, is apparently an equally unsatisfactory definition of Light. To say that the light can only shine if it is dark is self-contradictory. If darkness is the privation of light, then if there is darkness, it means, quite literally, that the light isn't as bright as it could be! Thus, the statement on this church sign seems to want us to believe that light, which, by definition, shines, can only do what it must do by its very essence, if it is not doing what it does to its fullest capacity. Or, put another way, light only shines when it's not really shining all that well.

Light is substance. It can be measured and calculated. Apparently, science tells us, it is composed of subatomic particles, called photons, that travel at a determined speed in a vacuum (186,000 miles per second, if my high school science hasn't failed me), but that these photons can be slowed down, or change their course, when they are interfered with by various atmospheres and objects. On the other hand, there is no "speed of darkness". Darkness is nothing. It is simply the state of things when there aren't any photons whizzing around.

Thus, on a purely physical, scientific, academic level, we find that the statement on this church's sign makes utterly no sense. That, in my mind, is bad enough. But when the statement is applied to theology, as one might expect it to be in a sermon, suddenly things go from bad to worse--from illogical nightlights to manichean dualism. That is, biblically, Light is synonymous with Good. And more, it is often used as a descriptor of God Himself. "All that is good, all that is perfect, is given us from above; it comes down from the Father of all light..." (James 1:17). Thus, if light can only shine when the darkness is present, as X Baptist Church would have you believe, then God, it seems, cannot be God unless there is darkness present. I suppose that leaves one of two conclusions: Either darkness is fundamental to God's make-up--that is, privation--imperfection--belongs to God as something proper to Himself; or this privation is itself actually a tangible essence in symbiotic competition with God: a dark god, an evil god, co-existing with the God of Light. Those seem to be the two options according to the Sign.

As to the first option, that darkness is itself part of who God is, the passage I quoted from James continues: "...the Father of all light; with Him there is no such thing as an alteration, no shadow caused by change." Or, to be even more explicitly clear, St. John writes in his first Epistle, "God is light, and there is no darkness in Him at all" (1 John 1:5). So we see quite clearly that there is no darkness in God. Indeed, for the One who is Perfect, there can be no privation.

So what of the second option, that the darkness exists as a separate, necessary corollary to God? We must reason, after all, that if God is light, and that light needs darkness in order to shine--and light that doesn't shine is not light--then God needs darkness in order to be God. But how can God need anything? Once again, that would indicate some privation in God. Furthermore, it again indicates that darkness is more than simply a privation, but a substance or essence unto itself--and one that is co-eternal to God, and which God needs in some way. An infintite being with a need, must therefore have an infinite need, and so the darkness must be as infinite as God. Therefore, we would have to postulate that some dark god is necessary for God, as is often believed in many pagan religions, most notably, as I said above, in the Manichean religion of the 4th and 5th centuries AD.

However, as St. Thomas point out in his Summa, there can only be one infinite being, since the infinity of its being would necessarily end where the other infinite being's began, thus making neither one infinite, since each has an end and a beginning. Moreover, Scripture affirms that "The Lord your God is One God" (Deut. 6:5), and, as we said, darkness is not something, but nothing. Sure wish that more people would read Aquinas, and stop recycling old errors.

God does not need anything in order to be God, and light does not need darkness in order to shine. Ultimately, the Light will eradicate the darkness once and for all. On that day, we will not cease to exist in some sort of nihilistic nirvana, but will forever shine like the Son, realising fully who we were meant to be as partakers of His glory!

Cynical?

I'm not sure where to start. There's been so much that's gone on in my life it's a wonder I'm even here. My parents thought I'd end up in jail, or dead. I guess in some metaphorical ways I did. I'm sure we could agree that never being allowed to express your emotions is like living in a prison – you're always tethered to your fears of rejection, incarcerated by the knowledge that who you are is not welcome beyond your appearance. When you live that way long enough, you start to wonder if you ever have any impact on anyone around you, if they even know you have value.

Is that like being dead? Feels that way. At least to me.

I don't wish that on anyone. I mean, in some ways it's helped me to be a more insightful person I can spot an underdog as if he's a celebrity; others' emotions appear as text in their eyes, or in the way they carry themselves. It's heightened my sense of empathy. From that perspective, a guy like me can avoid the cliché, “a cynic knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.” Instead, I can empathize. I can look about and understand that there's not much value in being cynical; the price is too high. You've got to be willing to be an intellectual sloth to maintain a cynical attitude, especially when you can do better than what you were handed in life.

Take me, for example: I admitted already that things were pretty dark growing up. And if they weren't dark then I was just invisible. Maybe that makes things easier to understand. I don't know. In any case, by whatever turn of fortune, I was able to see, able to grasp that I don't have to give people the treatment (or lack thereof) that was given me. I don't have to refuse them passage into how I'm feeling. I don't have to treat them in some disaffected way such that their best efforts to relate to me – on whatever level – are met with empty stares, or off-handed remarks. I can greet every person I meet with a confident smile, a sturdy handshake, and a heartfelt desire to ensure their value, affirm their worth. I guess you could say that it's possible, if you pay attention, to come out of the dark and into the light; to be visible if for no other reason than because you're valuable. Inherently.

But knowing that isn't a fool-proof combination, unfortunately. Knowing something doesn't elevate you beyond the common platform of humanity, or 'being human'. There are all sorts of things that can interrupt, even break your confidence, make you question your worth all over again. Falling in love and having your heart broken; that's a pretty common experience for people. And it's certainly something that rocks your world to its foundations when it happens.

I remember when it happened to me. There was so much health, so much security and joy when I found myself breathing affection, and pulsating her name. It's just not true that 'all that glitters is not gold' when you're in love. I mean, love is the gold and all it can do is glitter, right?

No. Like everything else, it can tarnish, too. That's what happened to me. Time, exposure, misunderstandings, shortcomings, words spoken in haste... It all adds up. It's a slow but desperate accretion of pain and helplessness. Your feelings tumble our of control, and all the energy you once had flowing out of you to that other special someone now stabs inward like an unstoppable spear of hate. That darkness, so familiar to your life, robs you of the light again, envelops you and turns you invisible once more.

But you know what? Enough of that. I don't need to re-hash how I – or anyone else, for that matter – can get out of that darkness. Let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that there is such a thing as hope. You know, a real, substantial, palpable, better way of being that can make a difference in the way you relate to the world; or sometimes even the way the world relates to you.

That's something to be grateful for, right? That despite all the dross that can grow out of the human condition, there's still enough dignity in each one of us that we can softly, gently, ever so quietly and humbly hope our way into a continuous love for others.

I think it's pretty basic, really. Think about it: if you relate to anything I've just said, you probably understand that, at your core, you just want to be loved and accepted. It's that same need for love and acceptance that I'm getting at here. We all need it. We all crave it on some level. So it would seem the best way to get it is to give it, right? I mean, when it stops being passed around, when it stops being given, that's when nobody's getting it.

So keeping hope alive, keeping the darkness back, keeping things light, visible, dignified and valuable sometimes means giving our love, and rejoicing in 'the other', even when it's easier to just be cynical. Isn't that what being alive should be about?