Darryl's Blog
March 2008 Archives
Wish I had read this years ago. Here's step one:
Find five completely random blogs, and read them daily for a month. After thirty days, you will absolutely dread your self-imposed requirement to read all that dreck. Any blog you create will most likely be on par with what you've been reading. Don't put anyone through that.
A great post over at the Thinklings:
If I've seen this once I've seen it a thousand times. It's what I call "I've Identified the Problem and it's You" syndrome, or IITPAIY. Some blogs and comment threads are positively flooded with it.
From Real Live Preacher:
“What need has God for categories? Why sort and catalog a collection when you know and can describe every individual item? What meaning do your base labels have for a higher mind? You have created categories for your own use, fallen in love with sorting them, and made a god of the whole affair. This is an idolatry of the highest order. It is a blasphemy so bold as to cause angels to tremble. ‘The mind of The Almighty,’ you say, ‘is like unto my own mind.’”
“God is on intimate terms with the simple matter of earth, yet you dare label people instead of trying to know them. Your precious divisions of nationality, of Christian and non-Christian, saved and damned, good and evil, slave and free. These convenient memory aids might have served you well when you were biting spiritual ankles and wrestling with your primers. Will you not set them aside even now?”
Real Live Preacher is an amazing writer. I wish I had the talent that he does. And I know what he's driving at here. Labels can be abused.
Still, I think there's a certain fallacy here:
- Categories and labels are wrong and make us judgmental.
- There are two categories of people: those who categorize others and those who don't.
- Therefore, we should join the category of people who don't categorize, and judge those who do.
Huh? No matter how hard you try, it's impossible to not label or categorize. As I quoted Tim Keller the other day: "We can't avoid drawing boundaries. Everyone does it, and if they say you're not doing it, then you're drawing a boundary by saying you're not doing it."
I think labels and categories are here to stay, and that's not all bad. Categories exist. They are not right or wrong. They just are.
By the way, I don't think people really mind categories. For instance, few really mind being categorized by gender. It's practical and helpful. What's wrong is the abuse of any category, such as gender. It's not the category that's wrong, but the misuse of categories - things like stereotypes, caricatures, and a refusal to see differences within categories.
Categories aren't perfect. Categories work as long as we recognize that there are differences within each category. The differences do not negate the category, though. Within biology, for instance, there is something called a species problem. As long as we realize that at some point categories break down, categories are useful and even necessary.
I have another couple of posts brewing on this, which will come pretty soon. But for now, I disagree with RLP: categories are here to stay. The real trick is how to avoid misusing categories.
Dan Kimball is interacting with Why We're Not Emergent. I'm pleased to learn I'm not the only one who feels this book is a better critique than others that have come out:
...out of all the critical books so far written on the emerging or emergent church, this seems to be the more readable and overall balanced. Their tone is somewhat more gentle than others and they didn't just focusing on only one or two people for all of their conclusions. They do say some negative, or maybe a better word is cautionary things about me in it and things I have written.
Kimball also shares some concerns he has with the book. He's been in touch with Kevin DeYoung, one of the authors, and says, "I can't imagine that this type of correspondence to me, isn't what would please Jesus. We have had some very wonderful back and forth dialogue."
Found via Bill Kinnon's link blog.
A number of years ago, I wrote a book on the subject of Christian civility. I was inspired to do so by a delightful line in one of Martin Marty's books. People today who are civil, Marty observed, often don't have very strong convictions. And people who have strong convictions often are not very civil. What we need, he said, is convicted civility. (Richard J. Mouw, "An Open-Handed Gospel" April 2008 Christianity Today)
This short paragraph is in some ways the story of my life.
Like many, I started out in a church that was strong in its beliefs. It was a great church in many ways, but it was also seriously flawed, as all churches are. I still look back and appreciate the great teaching and the emphasis on truth, and the way they supported and loved my family through difficult times. But it was a polemical church, high on the conviction side but not always high on civility.
I guess there's been a reaction against this with many of us. I got an email the other day saying that we should refuse to label or judge others. In fact, we should label those who label others and judge them, because it's wrong to label or judge. That kind of logic never makes sense to me. As Tim Keller said:
We can't avoid drawing boundaries. Everyone does it, and if they say you're not doing it, then you're drawing a boundary by saying you're not doing it. But what matters is how we treat the people on the other side of the boundary. We're going to win the younger leaders if we are the most gracious and the most kind and the least self-righteous in controversy toward people on the other side of the boundary.
I'll post soon on the subject of labels, by the way.
It's only recently that it feels like I've found my home. It's among those who have convictions like the church of my youth, but it's a group that's also civil like those who've rightly reacted against the polemics of the church of my youth. My theology professor, Stan Fowler, first modeled this for me. So has Tim Keller. And there are many others, like Jack Miller. Larry Kirk writes about how Miller exemplified this as the dealt with his own rebellious teenager:
What had enabled Jack to forgive his daughter was an honest look at his own heart. Through prayerful self-examination he had come to understand that the way he measured himself was by being a good father and pastor. His reputation had actually become an idol in his life...When one of them turned out bad it tore apart what had become the source of his life and happiness. What he had to say in effect was “Lord, I see now that the reason I am so angry at Barbara is because my reputation as a father has become too important to me. It has become an idol in my life, I give that up, I’m sorry. You are my only true source of life and righteousness.” Only by deeply looking at his heart, renouncing his inward idolatry and reaffirming Christ as the source and center of his life was he set free to truly forgive his daughter from the heart...
Here you see Miller with a clear grasp on truth, but still extending forgiveness and civility to his daughter as he looked at his own heart and realized his own need to lay aside idols. He was truthful without being self-righteous, and the first one to repent.
It's possible to have strong convictions and still be civil, humble, and repentant. Give me someone who has convictions and is not civil and I'll show you a polemicist, a a noisy gong and a clanging cymbal. Give me someone who's civil but has no convictions and I'll show you a wet noodle, a nice person who has little to offer but niceness. Give me someone with convicted civility and I'll show you who I long to be when I grow up. Give me grace and truth. One without the other is never enough.
It's been an interesting week.
I crawled in the attic for 4 hours the other day and spent the next few days recovering. I'm getting old. Then my allergist gave me samples of a drug that's being probed by the FDA for its possible links to suicidal thoughts. Then the furnace guy found a crack in our heat exchanger which he can fix for over four figures.
I'm not really complaining. These are small problems. But I would appreciate your prayers for a friend who's facing bigger challenges.
A neighbor of ours, who is quite isolated, isn't well. I talked to her last night, and Charlene ended up taking her to emergency last night. She had a grand mal seizure in emergency, which is one way to get bumped up the waiting list. Pray for her. We're going over to feed her six (six!) cats right now.
Maybe next week will be boring.
I'm working on an article on blogging, and I'm looking for a Canadian Christian who thinks that blogging is a waste of time. It's unlikely that you are this person if you are reading this blog, but if you have any leads or ideas, drop me a line. I'm open to ideas.
You may have heard of The Shack, a little indie novel that's been getting a lot of attention recently. I first heard about it from my friend Earl, and gave it a short review here. Internet Monk was positive, but Tim Challies had a more negative review.
In any case, the author, William Young, is coming to southern Ontario, and if you're in the area you may want to hear him speak. Here are the details:
Tickets for A Weekend with William Young can be purchased for $15 at Grandview this Sunday, through the Gospel Lighthouse in Waterloo, by emailing Brad Watson at bwatson@grandviewchurch.ca or at the door on the evening of the event.
Weekend Info
Tickets for Weekend: $15
Times: Friday, April 4, 7-9pm & Saturday April 5, 9-11am.
Friday Night
- William Young's story and the story of the Shack - Why How We Think of God Matters
- Roundtable Discussion on Different Perceptions of God (William Young, Ian Campbell, David Barker)
Saturday Morning
- The End of Future Tripping (Living With God in the Present)
- Q & A Session
- Book Signing
Our son, Josiah, was baptized today. I love Easter baptisms, and this one especially.
The resurrection of Jesus offers itself, to the student of history or science no less than the Christian or theologian, not as an odd event within the world as it is but as the utterly characteristic, prototypical, and foundational event within the world as it has begun to be. It is not an absurd event within the old world but the symbol and starting point of the new world. The claim advanced by Christianity is of that magnitude: Jesus of Nazareth ushers in not simply a new religious possibility, not simply a new ethic or a new way of salvation, but a new creation....
We could cope – the world could cope – with a Jesus who ultimately remains a wonderful idea inside his disciples; minds and heart. The world cannot cope with a Jesus who comes out of the tomb, who inaugurates God’s new creation right in the middle of the old one. (N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope)
Tim Keller's next book is available for pre-order at Amazon.com. He's on a roll.
Recent debates about the meaning of the cross may serve one purpose: they make us take another look at the cross and its meaning.
When talking about the cross, we typically make two mistakes. One is to focus on substitution exclusively; the other mistake is to ignore or reject substitution. Both approaches are wrong.
There is so much in the cross that Scot McKnight can write a book with the name A Community Called Atonement. There's more to the cross than the idea of substitution. In The Cross of Christ, Stott writes, "It would be hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the changes that have taken place as a result of the cross, both in God and in us...a new day has dawned, a new age begun."
Still, the place to begin is substitution, which, according to Stott, is at the heart of the cross. "Substitution is not a 'theory of the atonement.' Nor is it even an additional image to take its place as an option alongside the others. It is rather the essence of each image and the heart of the atonement itself." (p.199)
Substitution leads to the accomplishments of the cross:
- Salvation (chapter 7) - including propitiation (God in Christ dying to appease God's wrath), redemption (the purchase of our freedom at the cost of Jesus' life), justification (the opposite of condemnation), and reconciliation
- Revelation (chapter 8) - the revelation of God's glory, justice, love, wisdom, and power
- Conquest (chapter 9) - the triumph of God over evil
As I read this section, I realized again how easy it is to be reductionistic and to focus on only a part of the meaning of the cross. The big challenge is to understand as much as possible about the cross, to try to avoid some common caricatures, and then to let the cross shape our lives and ministries in profound ways.
I look forward to reading McKnight's book. I should get looking for more resources that cover this area clearly. We need teaching that articulates the meaning of the cross in a way that's accessible, clear and practical. It is, after all, the heart of the Christian faith, and it's too good to leave to the theologians alone.
C.S. Lewis on why it's not feasible or wise "to become exclusively and explicitly religious":
Before I become a Christian I do not think I fully realized that one's life, after conversion, would inevitably consist in doing most of the same things one had been doing before, one hopes in a new spirit, but still the same things...Conversion [does not] obliterate our human life...
All our merely natural activities will be accepted, if they are offered to God, even the humblest, and all of them, even the noblest, will be sinful if they are not. Christianity does not simply replace our natural life and substitute a new one; it is rather a new organization which exploits, to its own supernatural ends, these natural materials. (The Weight of Glory)
Edward Curtis and John Brugaletta comment, "Becoming a believer then does not wall off the secular from the sacred; it does however require that all worldly activities be performed with God in mind and then offered up to God - done for His glory." (Discovering the Way of Wisdom)
If you follow theology, you know that there have been a number of debates going on the past few years about how to understand Jesus' death on the cross and its effect on us. This has become a controversial topic, and the controversy is still raging. But it's not a new debate. Part Two of The Cross of Christ, "The Heart of the Cross," deals with this issue.
The fourth chapter tackles the problem of forgiveness. Why does forgiveness depend on Christ's death? Why can't God simply forgive us? Stott says that to answer this question, we really need to understand the gravity of sin and the majesty of God. He walks us through these and related issues, like human forgiveness and the concept of God's wrath.
The fifth chapter begins to unpack the concept of substitution, one that is tough for many people to accept. God must forgive sinners in a way that is consistent with his character. There are two complementary aspects of his character that must be satisfied: his love and his holiness. At the cross, God demonstrates both his holiness and love together in equally infinite measure in what some have called a holy love.
The sixth chapter is the most challenging so far. The idea of substitution, and how to understand Christ's death as our substitute, is controversial and deserves careful treatment. Stott begins by considering Old Testament sacrifices, which prepare us to understand Christ's sacrificial death. Stott then examines who offered his life as a substitute, arguing that we must understand that it was not Christ alone who died, nor God alone, but God in Christ, "who was truly and fully both God and man and who on that account was uniquely qualified to represent both God and man and to mediate between them." Understanding this helps us avoid some of the caricatures of substitutionary atonement that we sometimes here today.
There are other aspects of Christ's death to explore, and that comes next. For Stott, though, substitution is at the center. He writes: "Moved by the perfection of his holy love, God in Christ substituted himself for us sinners. This is the heart of the cross of Christ...Underlying [all other images of the atonement] is the truth that God in Christ has borne our sins and died our death to set us free from sin and death" (pp.165-166).
On a related note, Trevin Wax has an excellent post from yesterday called Don’t Replace the "Substitute":
I have been asked to review and comment on several of the newer gospel presentations. So far, I have been disheartened to see many abandoning penal substitution altogether. Yes, the atonement is bigger and broader than the penal substitutionary model. But to excise the doctrine completely is to greatly damage the biblical witness...I hope we don’t trade the inadequate presentations from the past with other inadequate presentations.
His whole post is worth reading.
Tomorrow: The Achievement of the Cross.
One of the best experiences of my D.Min. was the first residency. The first week was completely disorienting as we studied passages and realized how much we didn't know. Once we were humbled, we were ready to learn, and we developed a new appetite for what good Biblical preaching could be.
It sounds strange, but as I look back, that first week was intense and nerve-wracking, but also amazing.
I had a similar experience this week - almost as good in some ways, but a lot cheaper. I attended a Workshop on Biblical Exposition put on by the Charles Simeon Trust. The workshop includes instruction, small group practice, and model expositions (sample sermons that put these into practice).
Worth checking out if you ever get the chance to attend one.
I'm really enjoying Stott's The Cross of Christ. I had a doctor's appointment this morning and had some time to read it. When the appointment was over and it was time to leave, I had a hard time putting the book away. That's not always the case with this type of book.
The book is broken into four sections. The first is called "Approaching the Cross." It offers a survey of Christian history, reflecting on the way that the cross has become the central theme and image of the Christian faith.
In the first chapter, Stott explains why the cross is the central symbol of the Christian faith despite its offensiveness. "Whether their background was Roman or Jewish or both, the early enemies of Christianity lost no opportunity to ridicule the claim that God's anointed and man's Savior ended his life on a cross." The cross was central to Jesus' thinking, emphasized by the apostles, and this emphasis is also reflected in the church's tradition.
The second chapter outlines why Christ died. The cross was deliberate. It was intended by the characters involved: Pilate, the religious leaders, and Judas - who are more like us than we'd like to admit. The cross was also deliberate on the part of God. "Though due to human wickedness, it was also due to the set purpose of God, voluntarily accepted by Christ who gave himself up to death."
The third chapter looks below the surface at why the crucifixion was so important in God's plan, explaining the central importance that Jesus attached to his death, enforcing three truths: our sinfulness, God's love, and salvation as a free gift.
Some quotes:
It is important to keep these two complementary ways of looking at the cross. On the human level, Judas gave him up to the priests, who gave him up to Pilate, who gave him up to the soldiers, who crucified him. But on the divine level, the Father gave him up, and he gave himself up, to die for us. As we face the cross, we can say to ourselves both, "I did it, my sins sent him there," and, "He did it, his love took him there."
...the cross which...is an exposure of human evil, is at the same time a revelation of the divine purpose to overcome the human evil this exposed.(pp. 64-65)
Why did Jesus Christ die? My first answer is that he did not die; he was killed. Now, however, I have to balance this answer with the opposite. He was not killed; he died, giving himself up voluntarily to do his Father's will. (p.65)
Nothing reveals the gravity of sin like the cross...It is impossible for us to face Christ's cross with integrity and not to feel ashamed of ourselves. Apathy, selfishness and complacency blossom everywhere in the world except at the cross. There these noxious weeds shrivel and die. They are seen as the tatty, poisonous things they are. For if there was no way by which the righteous God could righteously forgive our unrighteousness, except that he should bear it himself in Christ, it must be serious indeed. It is only when we see this that, stripped of our self-righteousness and self-satisfaction, we are ready to put our trust in Jesus Christ as the Savior we urgently need. (p.85)
Another recent column at Christian Week:
It's hard sometimes not to be cynical. An example is when I attend Christian pastoral and leadership conferences. Conferences are everywhere, and after a while they all seem the same.
I struggle with a few things: overly emotive songs, relatively little Biblical content, and an overemphasis on pragmatism. I never used to approach conferences with dread, but years of attending these events have taken their toll, and I find myself a tough attendee these days.
Late in February, I attended the Revive Your Soul conference in Toronto, sponsored by Tyndale University College and Seminary. It's billed as "a personal spiritual and renewal conference for pastors and leaders." The conference lineup looked good. I've heard recordings from past years that were helpful, so I decided to attend.
I'll be reading John Stott's classic book The Cross of Christ this week in preparation for Easter. Every day I'll have quotes from this book as we move through Holy Week.
The cross transforms everything. It gives us a new, worshiping relationship to God, a new and balanced understanding of ourselves, a new incentive to give ourselves in mission, a new love for our enemies, and a new courage to face the perplexities of suffering. (p.17)
I worship you Lord! You did not enter your holy city Jerusalem on the back of a war horse, but humbly and on a donkey. You knew that you were surrounded by murderers, yet you came in peace, and by your sacrifice you would utterly conquer death before the week had passed. You, oh Lord, are blessed and worthy of my praise. You have saved your people. I say, “You are my king!”... I long to live in the city where you sit on the throne! Establish your Kingdom, so that your people can live in peace. Jesus, I bow before you, and I will sing your praises until your Kingdom comes and is established, and forever after. (David Maddalena)
One reason not to get a MacBook Air:
On Sundays in my apartment, the coffee table where the Air sat becomes the final resting place for the bulky New York Times. It is not unusual for other magazines, and newspapers from previous days, to accumulate there as well. My wife, whose clutter tolerance is well below my own, sometimes will swoop in and hastily gather the pulp in a huge stack, going directly to the trash-compactor room just down the hall from our apartment, dumping the pile into a plastic recycling bin. Sometimes the whole mess gets so nasty that I even perform this task myself. Could it be that somewhere in the stack was a Macintosh computer so thin that its manufacturer brags it could fit inside an envelope? I believe so. (For the record, my wife does not subscribe to this theory.)
As humiliating as it sounds, let me repeat: the MacBook Air is so thin that it got tossed out with the newspapers.
Here's another:
Today, something is different. Instead of my bags trundling through the x-ray machine, she stops the belt. Calls over another agent, a palaver. Another agent flocks to the screen. A gabble, a conference, some consternation.
They pull my laptop, my new laptop making its first trip with me, out of the flow of bags. One takes me aside to a partitioned cubicle. Another of the endless supply of TSA agents takes the rest of my bags to a different cubicle. No yellow brick road here, just a pair of yellow painted feet on the floor, and my flight is boarding. I am made to understand that I should stand and wait. My laptop is on the table in front of me, just beyond reach, like I am waiting to collect my personal effects after being paroled.
I'm standing, watching my laptop on the table, listening to security clucking just behind me. "There's no drive," one says. "And no ports on the back. It has a couple of lines where the drive should be," she continues.
A younger agent, joins the crew. I must now be occupying ten, perhaps twenty, percent of the security force..
Behind me, I hear the younger agent, perhaps not realizing that even the TSA must obey TSA rules, repeating himself.
"It's a MacBook Air."
He missed his flight.
I occasionally hear that there's not a lot of good preaching out there. On one hand, I agree. There are only so many brilliant speakers - you fill in the name of yours.
Yet I got thinking about all the sermons I've heard in the past couple of years, in visiting churches - Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian - and in listening to sermon podcasts from all over. I think I have at least five or six going on my iPod at any given time. I can't remember the last time I heard a bad sermon. In thinking about this, I've come to realize that what I'm hearing isn't always polish or perfection. But it's real, it's biblical, and it's contextual. Every person I've listened to has taught me something and made me want to preach better myself.
Actually, one thing that the best preachers I've heard have in common is that they're in their own context. I find that the dynamic changes when I hear a good speaker - even a great one - on the road addressing strangers. Part of the dynamic that I enjoy is the contextual nature of preaching. There's wisdom in what I read on this church website:
The messages shared on Sunday mornings are specific to the Trinity Church community. They reflect our stories in a particular moment in the life of our church. The value and significance of these talks can change as they are dispersed to a wider community; therefore we provide temporary access for those who missed a particular Sunday.
I realize I'm not listening to a random group of people. I'm listening to friends and people I've come to admire. But I think there's a lot more good preaching out there than we sometimes think. Preaching isn't everything, but these days it's under attack for both good and bad reasons. But it still matters, even when the person preaching isn't the most gifted speaker around. There are a lot more good preachers around than we think. Or at least, if that's not true, I've had really good luck in picking people to listen to.
A recent column at Christian Week:
A couple of years ago I became disappointed with books critiquing the emerging church. The emerging church has been an easy target for some time, but most of the critiques seemed to be focused on one or two writers, simplistic, and sometimes even mean.
The emerging church's influence has grown, and it may have even gone mainstream. Even grandmothers are watching Rob Bell's Nooma videos and reading Blue Like Jazz or A New Kind of Christian. This year I've started to read predictions that the emerging church is beginning to recede. Yet I've never found a critique that fit. A good critique would need to be provocative yet respectful, conversational and funny, thoughtful and yet accessible. I've never found one like this - until now.
March Break is coming to an end. Today we went to see Horton Hears a Who.
Good movie. I think Charlene and I enjoyed it more than the kids.
One of the reasons I run Boot Camp on my Mac is to use Logos Bible Software. Now, finally, the Alpha version of Logos for Mac is out. It's an alpha version but I'll take it. One step closer to the release version.
Tim Keller's article A New Kind of Urban Christian got my attention when it was published a couple of years ago. We need more Christians living long-term in cities, the article says, living as a dynamic counterculture, radically committed to the good of the city as a whole, and integrating faith with work. I love the vision of Redeemer Presbyterian, where Keller pastors: "To build a great city for all people through a gospel movement that brings personal conversion, community formation, social justice, and cultural renewal in New York City and, through it, the world."
Last year, Richard Florida got me thinking about the strategic importance of Toronto. He's got me thinking about it again with his new book Who's Your City?
According to Florida, Toronto is part of a mega-region, one of forty in the world. Florida says of Toronto:
Toronto is a significant economic center with superb universities, leading arts, entertainment, design, and culture industries; it also has what is arguably the most diverse population in the world. Like London, but unlike most major U.S. cities, Toronto offers schools that work, low crime, and safe streets. Unlike London, New York, Los Angeles, or San Francisco, it also remains reasonably affordable, which allows it to retain a wide mix of social and economic classes.
Is it time for a gospel movement in Toronto as well? One in which churches seek the common good, influence culture, and bring personal conversion, community formation, social justice, and cultural renewal? I keep hoping so. There are a couple of good developments that I'm hearing about, but we're still not at the movement stage - but I keep hoping.
Today we went skating at the Ricoh Coliseum, home of the Marlies.
Guess who showed up?
Man, I thought he had a groin injury from last night. Anyway, Josiah got a picture with him.
Too good to be true. It's a Mats Sundin look-alike Looked pretty good though.
Scott Williams has an interesting post on preaching:
roll the tape forward to 2008. my eldest son is in preaching class at the local bible college and is getting killed because he does not use the expository/exegetical model...he is frustrated and does not understand that there is only one safe way to speak now within the christian world - never mind that pretty much all the greatest speakers in history did not speak this way...
he is confused because Jesus spoke narratively and topically. he has grown up in a secular world of sound bytes and mtv. he finds sermons like those from saddleback and others nauseatingly boring and irrelevant.
the funny this is, though, when he speaks to his culture the audience, if you can call it that, is enthralled. they get what he is talking WITH them about. they respond. for some reason they do not want a 40+ minute expose on the finer points of scripture. they are hungry for truth but not bound by tradition.
how do i tell nate he is wrong?
Scott's always interesting and provocative.
There are two topics intertwined here:
Content - Should the content of a sermon be Scriptural or non-Scriptural? I think we know the answer. I don't care what form your preaching takes. If you aren't standing out of the way, allowing Scripture to speak, you're not a preacher. Your sermon carries the same weight as the words of Dr. Phil.
Form - Is there a right sermon form? Here's where Scott is exactly right. There is no such thing as a right sermon form. Haddon Robinson says, "Instead of thinking about form, think about taking a biblical truth and communicating it to people so they can use it...I’ll do anything that I think helps get the truth across." Scott is right to challenge monolithic preaching.
The problem is that people often conflate these two issues. They think scriptural = traditional and boring, and unstructured/narrative = unscriptural.
Bill Kinnon has more thoughts on this.
I didn't make it to Philadelphia as I had hoped this week: my sister-in-law's baby hasn't arrived yet. Here's a report of a Tim Keller event I'd hoped to attend. In case you missed it, Keller also spoke at Google last week, and there's a report here.
Today we went for a swim. No pictures, though.
Later we went for a walk.
The walk deteriorated into a snowball fight.
There are four of us in the family, and only one not implicated in this picture.
Not to worry, everyone is fine.
Today we visited the Hockey Hall of Fame. People sometimes make the mistake of thinking Toronto is the center of the universe. It's a common mistake. Actually, the Hockey Hall of Fame is the true center of the universe.
We even got to visit with Stanley. Not the best picture but it was a cool moment. Besides the photographer we were all alone with the Cup.
We also got to meet Ron Ellis, who won the Cup with the Leafs in 1967. The Leafs haven't won since. As we often say, there's always next year.
From the Bronte Creek website:
Enjoy a guided tour of the Maple Lane, where 1890s costumed interpreters demonstrate how to tap maple trees, make maple syrup and maple sugar. Visitors can sit back a watch a movie in the logging theatre, view artifacts in the maple museum or tour the 100-year-old Spruce Lane Farmhouse.
This picture describes a good chunk of Saturday and Sunday. We have had 191 cm of snow this winter so far, just shy of the record (207 cm). I can't remember having this much snow for March Break since my early childhood, and we all know that was a long time ago.
The last March Break I really had with the family was back in 2003 before I began my D.Min. So I'm enjoying this one. Since I won't really have time to blog much this week, I'm going to post a picture a day, sort of like a photo diary. Here's Saturday: the tail end of a birthday party, a sleepover with 6 kids age 9 and younger (hardly any sleep involved), a hockey game, shoveling, and the loss of an hour's sleep.
Are you tired yet? Because I am just thinking about it.
This photo is a blast from our past, from the summer of 1999. Love Christina's expression.
We all need to be careful, because if you're not paying attention - if you blink - you'll turn around and realize that your baby boy is 9 years old.
Happy birthday to my best and favorite son.
From Gordon MacDonald's book Who Stole My Church?:
Our experience leads me to say that if you want to be part of a church that is radically different than anything you've ever known, then plant one - start one. You can create new programs, new rules, and new structures. And you'll have about a one-in-five chance that it will survive. And if that's your call, go for it. There's a lot of nobility in planting churches. It's happening all over the countryside.
But if you are willing to be patient in one of those old churches (like ours) that is pretty high up the S-curve, then put your head down and go to work. Be patient, be prayerful, seek allies, build alliances with other generations. You'll probably have to convince a lot of people, and they'll come dragging their feet...But as time passes, somehow the Spirit of God will grab at hearts, and you just may see a miracle - a hundred year-old church that acts with the spirit of an enthusiastic teenager.
Who Stole My Church? is a book that's both the same as, and different from, other books on transitioning churches.
That's not particularly helpful, so let me explain. It's the same as other books because it covers some of the same ground: changes in culture, life cycles of organizations, the history of musical innovation within the church, and the bell curve that divides people into innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. This is helpful information, but it's ubiquitous. But that's not the unique contribution of this book.
Who Stole My Church? is different from any other book I've read on transitioning churches because it's a story, or parable, of real people who resist change in dialogue with an older pastor who leads them in processing what's happening. I said that they're real people, but I need to make it clear that this is a fictional book. But they're real in the sense that I've met every single one of them. In fact, sometimes I had to put this book down and shake my head. Was MacDonald spying on the church I pastor a few years ago? MacDonald writes as someone who knows how people struggle with change within a church. He's been there. I wish this book had been written ten years ago. As a work of fiction, it's very true to life.
A couple of weeks ago I had a chance to talk to Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck, authors of the upcoming book Why We're Not Emergent. You can read my review of this book here.
I decided to turn this interview into a podcast, which you can download below as an MP3: