Christopher Hitchens is my favorite atheist.  He’s brilliant and his sense of humour is wicked (pun intended).  I listen to him regularly on Hugh Hewitt’s podcast and have read his most recent book “God is not Great”.  I think it is important to be familiar with what those opposed to the faith are thinking so that’s why I keep up with Hitchens.  Much of his objections to what he observes in people of faith are valid.  I’ve learned a lot from Hitchens, and I think my faith is stronger for it (much to his chagrin, I’m sure).

In any case, he has an article registering his protest against Obama asking Rick Warren to pray at his inauguration.  Here’s my favorite part:

… one wishes them all the best of luck in their energetic fundraising and their happy-clappy Sunday “Churchianity” mega-feel-good fiestas.”

I wonder if the services I’ve led look like this to outsiders.  Certainly Hitchnes views the world of faith with a jaundiced eye, but if I’m honest I must admit that sometimes our worship looks more like his description than something that proclaims the story of God and draws us more deeply into our roles with His story.

Hey all… sorry I haven’t blogged at you in a while.  Here’s a post I’ve been meaning to make for a while.  I recently read Scot McKnight’s latest release “The Blue Parakeet – Rethinking How You Read the Bible“.  My overall review is a huge thumbs up.  Here are 5 shortcuts that he says many of us take in reading the Bible.

1. Morsels of Law – viewing the Bible only as a compendium of commandments
2. Morsels of Blessing – viewing the Bible as simply 1001 promises from God
3. Mirrors and Inkblots – viewing the Bible as a mirror or a Rorschach ink blot upon which we project whatever we want
4. Puzzling together the Pieces -  With this approach we treat the Bible as a brain-teaser and try to puzzle together the pieces to map God’s mind.
5. Maestro’s – looking at the Bible only through the perspective of one author.  This often happens in evangelical circles when we view the rest of the Bible through Paul rather than a balanced view of the entire Bible.  This shortcut was the hardest for me to wrap my head around.

Scot’s answer is that we read the Bible as a Story.  It is a story made up of stories and we each have our place within the story.  I have found that viewing the Bible as The Story has affected my entire spirituality.  The story of Creation::Fall::Incarnation::Redemption::Re-Creation has changed everything for me.

Anyway, I highly recommend the book as well as Scot’s excellent blog (much better than mine!)

We had our Remembrance Day observance this morning at church.  We had a pilot from the armed forces share about his work flying wounded soldiers home and then he read a poem by Robert Service called “Young Fellow My Lad”.  I’ve linked it here.  It was very moving and makes a great alternative for to John Macrae’s “In Flanders Fields” which we’ve all heard many times.

Pics from “The Gathering 2008″ are now available in the gallery.  Check’em out!

In case you missed it… here’s some video from the gathering that someone posted on YouTube.   We’re doing Mighty to Save… Check it out!  It was an awesome time of worshipping together and praying for the church in Ottawa.  I’ll post more pics soon.

I hope to see you all at The Gathering - Saturday Oct. 25 at Scotiabank Place.  It’s my privilege to lead worship at this year’s event.  All the final preparations are being made and we’re looking forward to a great night of worshipping God and praying for the needs of our region.

I hope to see you there!

I’m reading “Beholding the Glory” by Johnathon Begbie. It is a collection of essays on art and incarnational theology. Here are my thoughts on Trevor Hart’s opening essay:

Hart discusses three philosophical views of art.

• Plato held the view that there existed a realm of perfect, eternal, unchanging forms. Anything that existed in the material world was therefore a corrupted copy of one of these forms. Art, therefore, was a further corruption, being a copy of a copy.
• R.G. Collingwood (1889-1943) viewed art as a medium for communicating a concept from the artistic imagination of the artist to the imagination of the observer of the art. In his view the physical medium of the art itself is almost a nuisance.
• Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) developed a view similar to Collingwoods in that the purpose of the physical medium of the art is to affect the observer’s sensibility. The physical art (sound waves, colors, sculpted clay, etc) are of no value in and of themselves – it is the effect that counts.

All of these views favour the non-material world over the material world. The point of Begbie’s book is that the Incarnation – the “enfleshing” of God in the person of Jesus repudiates any such dualistic view. Both physical and spiritual worlds are inseparably combined and both are “good”

How does a dualistic view of art affect how we worship? I think the view of worship as a hyper-spiritual escape from the physical world results from this error in thinking. Our worship must be incarnational – embracing both the physical and spiritual worlds together – in song, action, word, bread and wine.

Sure, Lego robotics can play the blues, but can it feel the blues?

Hey, IWS (where I’m currently finishing up my Master’s degree) got some props from Worship Leader magazine:

ROBERT E. WEBBER INSTITUTE FOR WORSHIP STUDIES CHOSEN AS “BEST OF THE BEST”

Theological graduate school makes magazine’s 2008 Editor’s Pick in worship education

ORANGE PARK, Fla- In the October 2008 issue of Worship Leader Magazine, The Robert E. Webber Institute for Worship Studies (IWS) was featured as one of the top educational programs that influenced Christian worship in the past calendar year.  The designation was awarded by the Worship Leader editorial team and listed in the “Buyer’s Guide: Best of the Best” issue.

IWS was the only degree granting institution to be honored by the publication, which cited its equipping of “pastors and music leaders alike with unique graduate level programs in worship studies.”

IWS President James R. Hart commented, “IWS is honored to receive the Worship Leader Magazine 2008 Editor’s Pick designation.  This award honors the hard work and dedication of the students, alumni, faculty, board and staff of IWS, as well as Bob Webber’s rich legacy in worship education.”

Based in Orange Park, Florida, The Robert E. Webber Institute for Worship Studies is the only graduate school in North America to focus exclusively on worship education. It offers the Doctor of Worship Studies and the Masters of Worship Studies degree programs, using a unique mix of in-class instruction on its Florida campus and distance learning. Since its founding in 1998, over 200 students from more than 40 denominations in the U.S., Canada and eight other countries have graduated from the Institute for Worship Studies.

For more information about the Robert E. Webber Institute for Worship Studies, log on to www.iwsfla.org

Spoiler Alert!  If you haven’t read The Shack and don’t want things spoiled then read no further!

OK, I’ve finally read The Shack.  I certainly understand why this book has had such a huge impact on so many people.  But that doesn’t mean I liked it.  I didn’t.  The first thing that struck me in reading it was the heavily larded prose.  It just isn’t that well written.  It is riven with cliches as well.  Who edited this thing?  I realize it was published independently so perhaps there wasn’t a professional editor involved.

I think the most positive thing about the book is the way that it expands the view of God’s love for us.  For many readers it must be revolutionary to see how God’s love is portrayed.

I confess that I read the book quickly so here are my thoughts:

• How audacious of the author to put words in God’s mouth.  I much prefer C.S. Lewis’ approach in Narnia of constructing a complete fantasy world and working through the allegory of Aslan.  However instead we have the three persons of the Trinity bantering back and forth in dialogue that is very ordinary.  A whole lot of saying how much they love each other and people and then laughing.  Ummmm I kind of expected that they’re dialogue would be a little more compelling, what with being God and all.
• The book is very anti-authority.   We learn that all authority and hierarchy are results of the fall and that there will be no hierarchy in heaven.  Ummmm… Is that really true? I guess so, since God said it.
• The book is pretty weak on the importance of Scripture.  Scripture makes only a few appearances in the book and is never quoted by Papa, Jesus or Sarayu (unless I missed something, if so, please correct me).   In fact Mack’s only encounter with scripture has him falling asleep after reading a few verses.

The most maddening thing for me is the weaselly equivocating that Young does.  For instance:  On page 182 “Jesus” says “Those who love me come from every system that exists.  They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions… I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my beloved.”

AHA!  This is a smoking gun!  Willian P. Young is a universalist!  Right?  Not so fast.  In the next line Mack asks “Does that mean that all roads will lead to you?”  Jesus replies “Not at all. Most roads don’t lead anywhere.  What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you.”

OK… so Young isn’t universalist.  Or is he?  You just can’t tell.  It is so ambiguous that you can read anything you want into it, except perhaps traditional orthodoxy.  I mean, what are we supposed to think about Jesus not wanting to make people Christians?  Or that some people who love Jesus used to be Baptist?  Does that mean you can’t be Baptist any more if you start loving Jesus? Passages like the one I’ve described are a blank screen upon which you can project anything.  This is one example of the “blank screening” (or deconstructing) that Young does. Scripture, the Church and morality receive similar treatments.  It is maddening because you cannot agree or disagree and you can only guess what the author really thinks.  It is intellectually having your cake and eating it too.

Anyway, sorry to be such a buzzkill for everyone out there who loved the book.  I think it’s great strenght is showing power and dept of God’s love in the midst of tragedy.  Unfortunately when it strays from that it misses the mark badly.  I think if the book is harmless and possibly helpful to some if it is read as a fable and not taken too seriously.