Turns out that being in a creative writing class takes up all of the time and writing energy you would otherwise pour into a blog...
Easter weekend is possibly the busiest weekend of the year, and likely will be the busiest for the rest of my working life. I do look forward to next year, when I will not have to juggle writing final papers with planning and playing in Maundy Thursday and Good Friday and Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday services.
Yep, we've got all those services going on. Someone at Jacob's Well, upon hearing all of these liturgical celebrations at our church, asked me what denomination I'm from. When I said, "Baptist," he seemed shocked. We aren't really known for our attention to the church calendar.
Last night was our Maundy Thursday service in Kits. We walked to six different places in Kits that represented brokenness in the neighbourhood, including the alcove where a homeless man died last fall, and the Georgia Straight offices (the last several pages of that newspaper, advertising "massage" and "escort" services which essentially pimp women, make the newspaper $2 million a year). Each place was linked to one of the "shadows" or "tenebrae" of Jesus' journey to the cross: desertion, accusation, crucifixion, etc. We talked about the brokenness, read Scripture, prayed, and sang a short song. We picked up a large stone that had been placed at each spot, and carried them to the final spot, under the Burrard Bridge, which represented the tomb.
This afternoon, we're doing a similar service in Strathcona, which is where my new church will be, as of this week. Though we've invited a lot of guests, and this feels nothing like a "launch", I am conscious that this is our first time worshiping together as a church plant. Jodi wisely pointed out that we couldn't "launch" on Easter without first walking through Good Friday together - you can't skip over the cross. So we will name the brokenness in that neighbourhood as our first act of worship together. We may have a Native drummer join us. Gladys will serve us bannock and deer stew.
Saturday night, we will hold a vigil in Kits, under the Burrard Bridge, where we laid our tombstones. We will sing songs about waiting and longing and disappointment and fear, marking the space in between Good Friday and Easter.
Sunday at sunrise, we will celebrate the resurrection in Strathcona Park. Sunday at 9:30, we will celebrate the resurrection at Kits Church, and that congregation will officially "commission" and send us to Strathcona for the church plant. All of this back-and-forth, overlapping, will hopefully help me to transition between the two communities, though it still feels so sudden and overwhelming. I am excited, and I am anticipating good things, but I also know that church planting is hard and requires much patience.
On top of this, I must finish three papers and one creative writing portfolio. And this seems to be the week for visits from Saskatoon, because Jordan, Evan, Anna, and the Emmanuel youth mission team are all coming to Vancouver in the next few days.
It is a rich time! I am praying for sunshine (though rain is forecast for Easter - which would make it the fourth rainy Easter day I've had in Vancouver). I am praying for energy and imagination, enough to live in the present moment and walk through this weekend faithfully, alongside the disciples.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
How I've stopped sucking at praying.
Hey, only a three-month hiatus since the last time I blogged. Not bad.
The problem for me at this moment is that blogging is not on my to-do list. That makes it a dangerous thing to be doing right now, because I'm not sure I even have enough time this week for everything that's actually on my to-do list (most of which involves a class I'd prefer not to talk about called History of Doctrine. Argh.).
I really do need "to do" a blog, because I have something to say, but also because I need to start writing again. Rather, I need to get into the habit of writing. I am starting a class called "Creative Prose," and I will need to be cranking out the non-fiction in large quantities and high qualities very soon. Time to prime the pump.
So today I was thinking about prayer. I recently realized that I'm not very good at it. I've been praying my whole life, and it's taken me all 25 years to figure out and confess that the majority of what I've labeled "praying" has actually been one of two other things: talking to myself, or talking to other people with my eyes closed.
I am being too harsh with myself? I don't think so. It's not that I don't think God has heard me - I believe He's patient and merciful and listens even when I'm messing it all up. But it's time for change.
The problem is that I get into these praying "modes." When I'm praying by myself, like I do almost every morning (and try to do at other points in the day, though I have far to go on the "pray continuously" front), I slip into this habitual mode of mentally reviewing yesterday and today (along with all the good and bad things I've done and all the problems I can anticipate), mentally scrolling through close friends and family (especially those with problems - ha) and trying to think of anything or anyone else I've promised to pray for or "should" pray for. In a process that's somehow simultaneous with this mental review, I sort of "google translate" all of this into a prayer in the 2nd-person. All this time, my main focus is on analyzing and phrasing my desires and emotions and issues, and phrasing my interpretation of the issues other people have. My head is talking to itself, even as my mouth (or mental mouth? I don't always say my prayers out loud...) is trying to aim it all in God's direction.
And when I'm praying with other people, it's worse. I may have already written a blog about this several years ago, because it's always bugged me. Praying with groups of people is hard! Most of the time I'm trying to listen and pay attention to other people's prayers without my mind drifting off to a thousand other things. This takes a lot of energy. Then when it's my turn, I slip into another "mode." This time the mode is called: "try to sound articulate, reflective, and even a little bit creative as you cover all the bases of this prayer "item;" if you're praying at the beginning of a meeting, show that your focus is in the right place; if you're praying at the end of a meeting, try to cleverly sum everything up; definitely don't say anything heretical, and definitely make it "flow" nicely out of your mouth - don't pause too long in the middle or someone may think you're finished and interrupt you." I know it's not all about how many people go "mmm" in agreement while you're praying, but come on, it feels good, doesn't it? It can become a game. And I'm actually pretty good at the game of praying in public, at talking to people (trying to present myself well to people) even as I'm aiming the words in God's direction.
It's not that I try to slip into these modes. Usually I really intend and want to talk to God. And I'm not even very aware of how often I'm not talking to God.
That's my confession. But here's the good part... I've had somewhat of a revelation recently that is helping me actually talk to God when I pray. Ready for it? Here it is:
Jesus is a person and He is alive right now.
Earth-shattering, isn't it? Praying is about talking... to... a person! Haven't I taught this a million times to cabins of girls at camp and Sunday school classes? So why am I still talking to myself or my peers when I pray? Why is it so hard to talk to Jesus?
Well, I can't see Jesus, and I can't usually hear Him audibly, and this makes talking to Jesus different than talking to any other person. When I'm having coffee with a friend or even talking to my sister on the phone, I don't have to remind myself they're there. But with Jesus, I have to continually remind myself that He is there, seeing and hearing me. I have to get the conversation out of my head, or out of the group I'm in, and put all my focus on someone I can't see or hear. This is incredibly hard! Why don't we talk about how hard this is? Why don't we encourage each other? Why don't we stop in the middle of our group prayers and make sure we're all still talking to Jesus?
Jesus is a person and he's alive right now.
It's helped me to remember that Jesus is alive right now. Too often I just picture him 2000 years ago, in some Middle Eastern setting, instead of picturing a present-day person. It's helped me to remember that Jesus has a human body (a resurrected human body, but human nonetheless). So often I turn him into some spiritual, intangible figure. But Jesus didn't just disappear when He ascended. Check out this quote from a book I've been reading:
"As in the incarnation
we have to think of God the Son becoming man
without ceasing to be transcendent God,
so in his ascension
we have to think of Christ as ascending above all space and time
without ceasing to be man
or without any diminishment of his physical historical existence...
In the incarnation we have the meeting of man and God in man's place,
but in the ascension we have the meeting of man and God in God's place,
but through the Spirit these are not separated from one another." (Thomas Torrance)
As a friend of mine put it, it's not so much about "What Would Jesus Do?" as it is about "What Is Jesus Doing?" Because He's still alive and working and serving as our High Priest and making our humanity present to God - at this very moment! This helps me tremendously. I can picture Him - I can keep Him in my mind's eye. The Spirit makes Him present to me where I am.
So I have a new practice when I pray. I do some "centring prayer," inspired by Tony Campolo, yoga, and the Catholic literature I've been reading lately. I breathe, I quiet my own mind, I repeat Jesus' name to focus myself on Him as a living, breathing, alive-right-now person. I try to listen for Jesus and become aware that He is listening to me (Mother Teresa talked about this). We both listen for a while. I wait until I'm fully aware of my own smallness, my own weakness, my own inability to even pray without His help. I wait until I'm fully aware that Jesus is there with me, that the Spirit has made Him present to me, that my friend and Lord is sitting across from me. Only then do I start speaking, and I speak as I would speak to any person sitting there. It doesn't flow nicely out of my mouth, and I say some silly things, and I forget a lot of things (as I do in most conversations). My main goal is to be constantly aware that He's there, listening. Once that awareness slips away, once I slip into merely talking to myself, I stop and do more centring prayer. It's a slow process, learning to really talk to someone you can't see! But it's good.
I haven't tried it too much with group prayer yet - that's the next step. I'm pretty sure I won't sound quite as polished as I have in the past. But I'm very excited! I think this is going to deepen my relationship with God. How about you? Any thoughts on prayer?
The problem for me at this moment is that blogging is not on my to-do list. That makes it a dangerous thing to be doing right now, because I'm not sure I even have enough time this week for everything that's actually on my to-do list (most of which involves a class I'd prefer not to talk about called History of Doctrine. Argh.).
I really do need "to do" a blog, because I have something to say, but also because I need to start writing again. Rather, I need to get into the habit of writing. I am starting a class called "Creative Prose," and I will need to be cranking out the non-fiction in large quantities and high qualities very soon. Time to prime the pump.
So today I was thinking about prayer. I recently realized that I'm not very good at it. I've been praying my whole life, and it's taken me all 25 years to figure out and confess that the majority of what I've labeled "praying" has actually been one of two other things: talking to myself, or talking to other people with my eyes closed.
I am being too harsh with myself? I don't think so. It's not that I don't think God has heard me - I believe He's patient and merciful and listens even when I'm messing it all up. But it's time for change.
The problem is that I get into these praying "modes." When I'm praying by myself, like I do almost every morning (and try to do at other points in the day, though I have far to go on the "pray continuously" front), I slip into this habitual mode of mentally reviewing yesterday and today (along with all the good and bad things I've done and all the problems I can anticipate), mentally scrolling through close friends and family (especially those with problems - ha) and trying to think of anything or anyone else I've promised to pray for or "should" pray for. In a process that's somehow simultaneous with this mental review, I sort of "google translate" all of this into a prayer in the 2nd-person. All this time, my main focus is on analyzing and phrasing my desires and emotions and issues, and phrasing my interpretation of the issues other people have. My head is talking to itself, even as my mouth (or mental mouth? I don't always say my prayers out loud...) is trying to aim it all in God's direction.
And when I'm praying with other people, it's worse. I may have already written a blog about this several years ago, because it's always bugged me. Praying with groups of people is hard! Most of the time I'm trying to listen and pay attention to other people's prayers without my mind drifting off to a thousand other things. This takes a lot of energy. Then when it's my turn, I slip into another "mode." This time the mode is called: "try to sound articulate, reflective, and even a little bit creative as you cover all the bases of this prayer "item;" if you're praying at the beginning of a meeting, show that your focus is in the right place; if you're praying at the end of a meeting, try to cleverly sum everything up; definitely don't say anything heretical, and definitely make it "flow" nicely out of your mouth - don't pause too long in the middle or someone may think you're finished and interrupt you." I know it's not all about how many people go "mmm" in agreement while you're praying, but come on, it feels good, doesn't it? It can become a game. And I'm actually pretty good at the game of praying in public, at talking to people (trying to present myself well to people) even as I'm aiming the words in God's direction.
It's not that I try to slip into these modes. Usually I really intend and want to talk to God. And I'm not even very aware of how often I'm not talking to God.
That's my confession. But here's the good part... I've had somewhat of a revelation recently that is helping me actually talk to God when I pray. Ready for it? Here it is:
Jesus is a person and He is alive right now.
Earth-shattering, isn't it? Praying is about talking... to... a person! Haven't I taught this a million times to cabins of girls at camp and Sunday school classes? So why am I still talking to myself or my peers when I pray? Why is it so hard to talk to Jesus?
Well, I can't see Jesus, and I can't usually hear Him audibly, and this makes talking to Jesus different than talking to any other person. When I'm having coffee with a friend or even talking to my sister on the phone, I don't have to remind myself they're there. But with Jesus, I have to continually remind myself that He is there, seeing and hearing me. I have to get the conversation out of my head, or out of the group I'm in, and put all my focus on someone I can't see or hear. This is incredibly hard! Why don't we talk about how hard this is? Why don't we encourage each other? Why don't we stop in the middle of our group prayers and make sure we're all still talking to Jesus?
Jesus is a person and he's alive right now.
It's helped me to remember that Jesus is alive right now. Too often I just picture him 2000 years ago, in some Middle Eastern setting, instead of picturing a present-day person. It's helped me to remember that Jesus has a human body (a resurrected human body, but human nonetheless). So often I turn him into some spiritual, intangible figure. But Jesus didn't just disappear when He ascended. Check out this quote from a book I've been reading:
"As in the incarnation
we have to think of God the Son becoming man
without ceasing to be transcendent God,
so in his ascension
we have to think of Christ as ascending above all space and time
without ceasing to be man
or without any diminishment of his physical historical existence...
In the incarnation we have the meeting of man and God in man's place,
but in the ascension we have the meeting of man and God in God's place,
but through the Spirit these are not separated from one another." (Thomas Torrance)
As a friend of mine put it, it's not so much about "What Would Jesus Do?" as it is about "What Is Jesus Doing?" Because He's still alive and working and serving as our High Priest and making our humanity present to God - at this very moment! This helps me tremendously. I can picture Him - I can keep Him in my mind's eye. The Spirit makes Him present to me where I am.
So I have a new practice when I pray. I do some "centring prayer," inspired by Tony Campolo, yoga, and the Catholic literature I've been reading lately. I breathe, I quiet my own mind, I repeat Jesus' name to focus myself on Him as a living, breathing, alive-right-now person. I try to listen for Jesus and become aware that He is listening to me (Mother Teresa talked about this). We both listen for a while. I wait until I'm fully aware of my own smallness, my own weakness, my own inability to even pray without His help. I wait until I'm fully aware that Jesus is there with me, that the Spirit has made Him present to me, that my friend and Lord is sitting across from me. Only then do I start speaking, and I speak as I would speak to any person sitting there. It doesn't flow nicely out of my mouth, and I say some silly things, and I forget a lot of things (as I do in most conversations). My main goal is to be constantly aware that He's there, listening. Once that awareness slips away, once I slip into merely talking to myself, I stop and do more centring prayer. It's a slow process, learning to really talk to someone you can't see! But it's good.
I haven't tried it too much with group prayer yet - that's the next step. I'm pretty sure I won't sound quite as polished as I have in the past. But I'm very excited! I think this is going to deepen my relationship with God. How about you? Any thoughts on prayer?
Sunday, November 16, 2008
The universe, according to Beth (rather, Denis Lamoureux). Ha.
Anyone still reading my blog? I have neglected it yet again.
If you've ever wanted to know about the way I currently make sense of Creation and Evolution, as a biologist-turned-seminarian, I would like to lay that out for you in this blog entry. (Warning... this is going to be long.)
To do so, I will be summarizing a fantastic lecture I heard last week called "Evolutionary Creation," by Denis Lamoureux. Denis is a professor of "science and religion" (the first tenured Canadian prof in this field) at St. Joseph's College at the University of Alberta, and he has three doctoral degrees: dentistry, theology, and biology. This guy knows his stuff! And he delivered a killer lecture, explaining things in a way that made both the "science" and "theology" sides of me go "Yes!". For a fuller description of his view, you should read his book, called "Evolutionary Creation," even though I haven't yet (I'm waiting for it to go on sale!). The best part is that Denis used to be a staunch young-earth creationist, and set out early in his education to study how he could disprove evolution... so he knows all sides of this issue.
So here we go, a description of Evolutionary Creation (which is also sometimes known as Theistic Evolution - but like Lamoureux, I think the emphasis should go on "Creation").
In summary: "The Father, Son and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an ordained, sustained and design-reflecting evolutionary process."
Ready?
1. Evolutionary creationists assume these things as true:
- God is the Creator of the universe.
- The beautiful, intricate design of the universe points to its Creator.
- God is a personal God who has always been and still is intimately involved in creation.
- The universe was planned, and has a purpose (ie. It is teleological).
- The Bible is the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit.
- There is overwhelming support for the theory of evolution. It has never been falsified (though it easily could be). It has great explanatory power (It makes sense of the world!)
- It is possible for creation and evolution to come together, for God to create using an evolutionary process.
2. How do we interpret information about the universe in the Bible? The core assumption of most young-earth creationists (whether they recognize it or not) is that of "Scientific Concordism": that God revealed scientific facts in the Bible thousands of years before their discovery by modern science. (For example, they believe that the Bible suggests that the earth is about 6000 years old, and think that this should be confirmed by our present-day geological studies.)
I do not believe in scientific concordism. Instead, I believe that when the Bible was written, the Holy Spirit explained things in a way that made sense to the people at the time. For example, most Ancient Near Eastern peoples understood the universe as consisting of three "tiers." Tier 1: the waters above the earth. Tier 2: the firmament (the hard dome of the sky, on which the sun, moon and stars are fixed). Tier 3: the waters under the earth, that come up as oceans and seas. Here's a picture.
It's easy to see how they would have thought this - you look up and you see blue, and rain falls from up there, so why not assume there is a whole sea above the sky, that drips down when God opens up "the floodgates of heaven"? But I don't think there's anyone who believes this today - no one is trying to prove that there's a vast body of water above the sky, or that the stars are fixed points on a dome. Today, we accept the findings of science about the water cycle, and the earth moving around the sun. YET the Bible does not! It speaks in terms of the ancient, three-tiered universe! Look at Genesis 1:6 - "And God said, 'Let there be an expanse between the waters, to separate water from water.'" God also fixes the sun, moon and stars in this "firmament". He doesn't seem to fret that this is not a scientifically accurate picture of creation - he doesn't try to explain the water cycle or the turning of the earth. (Also see Gen. 7, Ps. 19, Ps. 104, Job 37, Mal. 3...). God does not fret about communicating the exact mechanism of creation... It very well could have happened by evolution.
3. Does this make the Bible untrue, or make God a liar? No, it makes God a good communicator, who accommodates to the limited knowledge of his hearers, just like any parent explaining to a toddler where babies come from! God is not trying to communicate science - the message here is theological - the fact that the universe was created by a sovereign God who made it "good," that humans were made in God's image, they sinned, and faced judgment. Lamoureux calls this the "message/incident principle of hermeneutics." The "important stuff" (the inerrant, infallible message) is packaged in the ancient "creation narrative" format of the day, which is poetic in form (I've learned a lot about the literary genre of Genesis 1-11, and how this story resembles and differs from Babylon and Egypt's creation narratives. Ask me for more info if you want it.) This "story-packaging" assumes ancient science and literary features. So although creation appears complete and quick (6 days) in the Bible, the Holy Spirit may be accommodating to ancient science (like the 3-tiered universe), or this may be a literary device, to condense the story into a week. The "packaging" isn't scientifically accurate, but this doesn't contradict the inerrancy of the Bible, because the Holy Spirit didn't accidentally slip up or make mistakes... this was His intended vessel for His message. At any rate, the presence of ancient science in the Bible as the "vessel" or "packaging" for the theological message should not limit or "disprove" our science today, as we try to figure out more about how our universe works.
4. So what does this mean for the question of human origins? If Genesis 1-11 is a poetic story written to explain a theological message about life and origins, what about humans, and what about Adam and Eve? The genre suggests that Adam and Eve are characters in the story, representative of humanity, not literal human beings who existed. It's easy to see why the Hebrew people would use two "original humans" in the story - in their perception, humans certainly seem to come from humans, who come from humans, so there must have been two original humans that started everything off - the story should be about them. The evolutionary data shows a different picture of human "creation"... between 5-8 million years ago, an ancestral species diverged into "hominids" (human-like species) and the species that produced the great apes. Gradually, starting about 250 000 years ago, Homo sapiens emerged as a distinct species from the other hominids.
This has been the hardest part of "evolutionary creation" for me to figure out and accept. I have trouble letting go of the idea of a literal Adam and Eve. Why? I suppose there are two main ideas for which Adam and Eve seem crucial: the image of God, and original sin. These are two things that definitely distinguish us from chimps (even though we are 99% genetically similar to them). But if humans developed gradually, instead of being suddenly formed from clay, when did we "get" the image of God? Was it 250 000 years ago, when we diverged as Homo sapiens? Or 50 000 years ago, when we started getting a lot better at using tools? And when did original sin enter the picture?
Some evolutionary creationists respond by essentially trying to keep Adam and Eve: humans evolved gradually, but at some point, God bestowed His image on two hominids, and they were the ones who first chose to sin. Others believe there were many Adams and Eves upon which God bestowed His image, and they all sinned. These two views are called "punctiliar monogenism" and "punctiliar polygenism." Lamoureux says that holding these views is similar to accepting modern-day astronomy for the most part, but tacking on the idea of a "firmament" with "waters above" from the 3-tiered universe. It's illogical.
Instead, Lamoureux suggests a "gradual polygenism." In other words, the image of God and original sin were not suddenly bestowed, but gradually and mysteriously manifested themselves as humans developed. This may sound like a cop-out, but Lamoureux points out that "mystery" is a valid biblical category. We don't pretend to understand the mysteries of the Trinity or the Incarnation... why should we expect to figure out exactly how the image of God or original sin played out in ancient human history?
Lamoureux used an analogy that was VERY helpful for me, to show me that this could very well be gradual and mysterious: the analogy embryonic development. When you developed in your mother's womb, at what point were the image of God or original sin "imparted" to you? Was it at the moment of fertilization? Did you get half the image of God from your dad's sperm and half from your mom's egg, and half original sin from each, too? (Keep in mind that over half of fertilized eggs don't survive the first week of pregnancy.) Maybe it was bestowed on you at the 2-cell stage? Or when you started to move? Or when brain activity appeared? A punctiliar (single point in time) understanding seems arbitrary here, especially since our physical embryonic development is so gradual. God doesn't jump in and tack on a fully-developed arm; we develop gradually as part of an ordained and sustained process, one that is mysterious in many ways, especially in terms of image of God / original sin (morality). Yet we have trouble accepting that this could parallel overall human development through history...
5. What about the belief that death entered the world through sin? If we were to take Genesis as reporting scientific or historical fact, we would agree that suffering and death are the consequences of Adam and Eve's first sin. The fossil record raises a problem with this belief. It seems that many, many creatures died (and suffered) before humans ever appeared on earth. It seems that God ordained that death (possibly even suffering) would be part of his "good" (note he did not say "perfect") creation. Animals did not suddenly switch from vegetarians to carnivores after humans sinned! (This has also been something difficult for me to accept, and I'm still wrestling through the implications.)
So what do we do with the fact that Paul seems to accept that Adam & Eve were historical humans, and their sin brought physical death into the world (a "cosmic fall")? 1 Cor. 15:20, Rom. 5:12, and Rom. 8:20-22 seem to suggest this, and many people use Paul to disprove everything we've been talking about. Lamoureux calls this the "Conferment argument": If Paul believed Adam was historical, he was. If Paul believed one man and one woman sinned, bringing about a cosmic fall, then this had to have happened.
The problem is, as Lamoureux points out, there's something else Paul seems to believe, and that's our good old friend, the 3-tiered universe. See, for example, Philippians 2:10-11, where "every knee will bow... in heaven, on earth, and under the earth" - this is summing up the three tiers, in order to say "in the whole cosmos". Paul was operating with an ancient geology and astronomy. But we don't seem as eager to use the "conferment argument" here... we don't say "If Paul believed in a 3-tier universe, then it's true." So why can't we also say that Paul was operating with an ancient idea of biology, origins, and the origin of death (which logically, for Paul, can only come after the original creation of life in Adam and Eve.) This is another "vessel" / "message" passage. We can accept Paul's "message" that sin entered the world, all humans sin, God will judge sin, Jesus died for sinful humans, rose physically, and offers the hope of eternal life... but this doesn't mean we have to also unquestioningly swallow the "vessel" of a literal Adam and Eve, or that their sin caused a cosmic fall and the origin of physical death.
Ok, that's about it. I hope I explained this well. Overall, I actually think it's crediting God with a lot more power, wisdom, and intelligence to say that He crafted an evolutionary system that would eventually produce all of these beautiful and diverse creatures, including humans, without further supernatural creative intervention (though he remains intimately and providentially involved in this creation), instead of saying that he had to repeatedly intervene with further spontaneous creative acts after "getting the whole thing going."
I'm not pretending this is a perfect system of integration. I know full well that it challenges the way we usually read the Bible (the "message" and "vessel" system could get you into trouble depending on how far you push it.) I'm just saying this is what makes the most sense of everything I know of Biology and Theology, and enables me to integrate these two sides of myself. Along with Lamoureux, I think that it's shameful that an exclusively literal reading and teaching of the Bible, especially Genesis, has led so many educated Christians to abandon their faith, and has presented an insurmountable obstacle to faith for other educated people, who want to explore the God thing, but don't want to check their brains (or their understanding of science) at the door.
So, for those of you who have actually finished reading this... What do YOU think? What challenges YOU most? Is any of this helpful?
If you've ever wanted to know about the way I currently make sense of Creation and Evolution, as a biologist-turned-seminarian, I would like to lay that out for you in this blog entry. (Warning... this is going to be long.)
To do so, I will be summarizing a fantastic lecture I heard last week called "Evolutionary Creation," by Denis Lamoureux. Denis is a professor of "science and religion" (the first tenured Canadian prof in this field) at St. Joseph's College at the University of Alberta, and he has three doctoral degrees: dentistry, theology, and biology. This guy knows his stuff! And he delivered a killer lecture, explaining things in a way that made both the "science" and "theology" sides of me go "Yes!". For a fuller description of his view, you should read his book, called "Evolutionary Creation," even though I haven't yet (I'm waiting for it to go on sale!). The best part is that Denis used to be a staunch young-earth creationist, and set out early in his education to study how he could disprove evolution... so he knows all sides of this issue.
So here we go, a description of Evolutionary Creation (which is also sometimes known as Theistic Evolution - but like Lamoureux, I think the emphasis should go on "Creation").
In summary: "The Father, Son and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an ordained, sustained and design-reflecting evolutionary process."
Ready?
1. Evolutionary creationists assume these things as true:
- God is the Creator of the universe.
- The beautiful, intricate design of the universe points to its Creator.
- God is a personal God who has always been and still is intimately involved in creation.
- The universe was planned, and has a purpose (ie. It is teleological).
- The Bible is the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit.
- There is overwhelming support for the theory of evolution. It has never been falsified (though it easily could be). It has great explanatory power (It makes sense of the world!)
- It is possible for creation and evolution to come together, for God to create using an evolutionary process.
2. How do we interpret information about the universe in the Bible? The core assumption of most young-earth creationists (whether they recognize it or not) is that of "Scientific Concordism": that God revealed scientific facts in the Bible thousands of years before their discovery by modern science. (For example, they believe that the Bible suggests that the earth is about 6000 years old, and think that this should be confirmed by our present-day geological studies.)
I do not believe in scientific concordism. Instead, I believe that when the Bible was written, the Holy Spirit explained things in a way that made sense to the people at the time. For example, most Ancient Near Eastern peoples understood the universe as consisting of three "tiers." Tier 1: the waters above the earth. Tier 2: the firmament (the hard dome of the sky, on which the sun, moon and stars are fixed). Tier 3: the waters under the earth, that come up as oceans and seas. Here's a picture.
It's easy to see how they would have thought this - you look up and you see blue, and rain falls from up there, so why not assume there is a whole sea above the sky, that drips down when God opens up "the floodgates of heaven"? But I don't think there's anyone who believes this today - no one is trying to prove that there's a vast body of water above the sky, or that the stars are fixed points on a dome. Today, we accept the findings of science about the water cycle, and the earth moving around the sun. YET the Bible does not! It speaks in terms of the ancient, three-tiered universe! Look at Genesis 1:6 - "And God said, 'Let there be an expanse between the waters, to separate water from water.'" God also fixes the sun, moon and stars in this "firmament". He doesn't seem to fret that this is not a scientifically accurate picture of creation - he doesn't try to explain the water cycle or the turning of the earth. (Also see Gen. 7, Ps. 19, Ps. 104, Job 37, Mal. 3...). God does not fret about communicating the exact mechanism of creation... It very well could have happened by evolution.
3. Does this make the Bible untrue, or make God a liar? No, it makes God a good communicator, who accommodates to the limited knowledge of his hearers, just like any parent explaining to a toddler where babies come from! God is not trying to communicate science - the message here is theological - the fact that the universe was created by a sovereign God who made it "good," that humans were made in God's image, they sinned, and faced judgment. Lamoureux calls this the "message/incident principle of hermeneutics." The "important stuff" (the inerrant, infallible message) is packaged in the ancient "creation narrative" format of the day, which is poetic in form (I've learned a lot about the literary genre of Genesis 1-11, and how this story resembles and differs from Babylon and Egypt's creation narratives. Ask me for more info if you want it.) This "story-packaging" assumes ancient science and literary features. So although creation appears complete and quick (6 days) in the Bible, the Holy Spirit may be accommodating to ancient science (like the 3-tiered universe), or this may be a literary device, to condense the story into a week. The "packaging" isn't scientifically accurate, but this doesn't contradict the inerrancy of the Bible, because the Holy Spirit didn't accidentally slip up or make mistakes... this was His intended vessel for His message. At any rate, the presence of ancient science in the Bible as the "vessel" or "packaging" for the theological message should not limit or "disprove" our science today, as we try to figure out more about how our universe works.
4. So what does this mean for the question of human origins? If Genesis 1-11 is a poetic story written to explain a theological message about life and origins, what about humans, and what about Adam and Eve? The genre suggests that Adam and Eve are characters in the story, representative of humanity, not literal human beings who existed. It's easy to see why the Hebrew people would use two "original humans" in the story - in their perception, humans certainly seem to come from humans, who come from humans, so there must have been two original humans that started everything off - the story should be about them. The evolutionary data shows a different picture of human "creation"... between 5-8 million years ago, an ancestral species diverged into "hominids" (human-like species) and the species that produced the great apes. Gradually, starting about 250 000 years ago, Homo sapiens emerged as a distinct species from the other hominids.
This has been the hardest part of "evolutionary creation" for me to figure out and accept. I have trouble letting go of the idea of a literal Adam and Eve. Why? I suppose there are two main ideas for which Adam and Eve seem crucial: the image of God, and original sin. These are two things that definitely distinguish us from chimps (even though we are 99% genetically similar to them). But if humans developed gradually, instead of being suddenly formed from clay, when did we "get" the image of God? Was it 250 000 years ago, when we diverged as Homo sapiens? Or 50 000 years ago, when we started getting a lot better at using tools? And when did original sin enter the picture?
Some evolutionary creationists respond by essentially trying to keep Adam and Eve: humans evolved gradually, but at some point, God bestowed His image on two hominids, and they were the ones who first chose to sin. Others believe there were many Adams and Eves upon which God bestowed His image, and they all sinned. These two views are called "punctiliar monogenism" and "punctiliar polygenism." Lamoureux says that holding these views is similar to accepting modern-day astronomy for the most part, but tacking on the idea of a "firmament" with "waters above" from the 3-tiered universe. It's illogical.
Instead, Lamoureux suggests a "gradual polygenism." In other words, the image of God and original sin were not suddenly bestowed, but gradually and mysteriously manifested themselves as humans developed. This may sound like a cop-out, but Lamoureux points out that "mystery" is a valid biblical category. We don't pretend to understand the mysteries of the Trinity or the Incarnation... why should we expect to figure out exactly how the image of God or original sin played out in ancient human history?
Lamoureux used an analogy that was VERY helpful for me, to show me that this could very well be gradual and mysterious: the analogy embryonic development. When you developed in your mother's womb, at what point were the image of God or original sin "imparted" to you? Was it at the moment of fertilization? Did you get half the image of God from your dad's sperm and half from your mom's egg, and half original sin from each, too? (Keep in mind that over half of fertilized eggs don't survive the first week of pregnancy.) Maybe it was bestowed on you at the 2-cell stage? Or when you started to move? Or when brain activity appeared? A punctiliar (single point in time) understanding seems arbitrary here, especially since our physical embryonic development is so gradual. God doesn't jump in and tack on a fully-developed arm; we develop gradually as part of an ordained and sustained process, one that is mysterious in many ways, especially in terms of image of God / original sin (morality). Yet we have trouble accepting that this could parallel overall human development through history...
5. What about the belief that death entered the world through sin? If we were to take Genesis as reporting scientific or historical fact, we would agree that suffering and death are the consequences of Adam and Eve's first sin. The fossil record raises a problem with this belief. It seems that many, many creatures died (and suffered) before humans ever appeared on earth. It seems that God ordained that death (possibly even suffering) would be part of his "good" (note he did not say "perfect") creation. Animals did not suddenly switch from vegetarians to carnivores after humans sinned! (This has also been something difficult for me to accept, and I'm still wrestling through the implications.)
So what do we do with the fact that Paul seems to accept that Adam & Eve were historical humans, and their sin brought physical death into the world (a "cosmic fall")? 1 Cor. 15:20, Rom. 5:12, and Rom. 8:20-22 seem to suggest this, and many people use Paul to disprove everything we've been talking about. Lamoureux calls this the "Conferment argument": If Paul believed Adam was historical, he was. If Paul believed one man and one woman sinned, bringing about a cosmic fall, then this had to have happened.
The problem is, as Lamoureux points out, there's something else Paul seems to believe, and that's our good old friend, the 3-tiered universe. See, for example, Philippians 2:10-11, where "every knee will bow... in heaven, on earth, and under the earth" - this is summing up the three tiers, in order to say "in the whole cosmos". Paul was operating with an ancient geology and astronomy. But we don't seem as eager to use the "conferment argument" here... we don't say "If Paul believed in a 3-tier universe, then it's true." So why can't we also say that Paul was operating with an ancient idea of biology, origins, and the origin of death (which logically, for Paul, can only come after the original creation of life in Adam and Eve.) This is another "vessel" / "message" passage. We can accept Paul's "message" that sin entered the world, all humans sin, God will judge sin, Jesus died for sinful humans, rose physically, and offers the hope of eternal life... but this doesn't mean we have to also unquestioningly swallow the "vessel" of a literal Adam and Eve, or that their sin caused a cosmic fall and the origin of physical death.
Ok, that's about it. I hope I explained this well. Overall, I actually think it's crediting God with a lot more power, wisdom, and intelligence to say that He crafted an evolutionary system that would eventually produce all of these beautiful and diverse creatures, including humans, without further supernatural creative intervention (though he remains intimately and providentially involved in this creation), instead of saying that he had to repeatedly intervene with further spontaneous creative acts after "getting the whole thing going."
I'm not pretending this is a perfect system of integration. I know full well that it challenges the way we usually read the Bible (the "message" and "vessel" system could get you into trouble depending on how far you push it.) I'm just saying this is what makes the most sense of everything I know of Biology and Theology, and enables me to integrate these two sides of myself. Along with Lamoureux, I think that it's shameful that an exclusively literal reading and teaching of the Bible, especially Genesis, has led so many educated Christians to abandon their faith, and has presented an insurmountable obstacle to faith for other educated people, who want to explore the God thing, but don't want to check their brains (or their understanding of science) at the door.
So, for those of you who have actually finished reading this... What do YOU think? What challenges YOU most? Is any of this helpful?
Friday, September 05, 2008
Worth checking out!
Hi! I know, it's been a while, and once again, much has happened, including an excellent visit from my whole family a couple of weeks ago. But instead of back-tracking, I want to jump into where I'm at right now, and right now I'd like to make a recommendation.
Sexuality and gender identity have been hot topics lately, especially in the Christian circles in which I participate - at school, at church, at work. Though most Christ followers are well-intentioned (I hope), I've seen a fair amount of violence and insensitivity in ways many of us choose to talk about homosexuality (or same-gender-attractedness (SGA) - a term that I'm really warming up to), and more disturbingly, in the ways we behave (or don't behave) toward same-gender-attracted folks.
If this is on your heart and mind, as it is on mine, or even if it's not(!), I'd like to point you toward a wonderful Canadian ministry I've just discovered called New Direction. Danice told me about them after one of their directors met with her church staff. Their mission: "Creating a safe place for same-gender-attracted people to journey towards wholeness in Christ." Their vision: "That every gay and lesbian person in Canada encounter Christ through friendship with a Christ-follower; and every Christian struggling with same-gender attraction access redemptive ministry in their own region."
Even the language they use in those two sentences is SO encouraging! I find their approach really refreshing. As one person put it on their blog: "discipleship, welcoming and transforming - not rejecting and condemning, or welcoming and affirming...[this is] the harder, more paradoxical road, but one that brings more possibilities for true, deep, and lasting impact through the dynamic tensions of listening, learning, and loving ... without compromising truth."
The key is that New Direction recognizes that transformation is God's business, and love is our business. They recognize that the goal is to introduce people to Christ, not to convert people to heterosexuality. Please, please check them out - at least check out their new blog. I have been challenged and blessed by it.
Sexuality and gender identity have been hot topics lately, especially in the Christian circles in which I participate - at school, at church, at work. Though most Christ followers are well-intentioned (I hope), I've seen a fair amount of violence and insensitivity in ways many of us choose to talk about homosexuality (or same-gender-attractedness (SGA) - a term that I'm really warming up to), and more disturbingly, in the ways we behave (or don't behave) toward same-gender-attracted folks.
If this is on your heart and mind, as it is on mine, or even if it's not(!), I'd like to point you toward a wonderful Canadian ministry I've just discovered called New Direction. Danice told me about them after one of their directors met with her church staff. Their mission: "Creating a safe place for same-gender-attracted people to journey towards wholeness in Christ." Their vision: "That every gay and lesbian person in Canada encounter Christ through friendship with a Christ-follower; and every Christian struggling with same-gender attraction access redemptive ministry in their own region."
Even the language they use in those two sentences is SO encouraging! I find their approach really refreshing. As one person put it on their blog: "discipleship, welcoming and transforming - not rejecting and condemning, or welcoming and affirming...[this is] the harder, more paradoxical road, but one that brings more possibilities for true, deep, and lasting impact through the dynamic tensions of listening, learning, and loving ... without compromising truth."
The key is that New Direction recognizes that transformation is God's business, and love is our business. They recognize that the goal is to introduce people to Christ, not to convert people to heterosexuality. Please, please check them out - at least check out their new blog. I have been challenged and blessed by it.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Mmmmmmm
Right now, I am sitting at my table, alone. Danice is on a mission trip with her youth in France, and then in Germany, for two weeks. I miss her terribly. Lindsey is filming a month-long traditional Native canoe trek. Lynn is probably still at work, or practicing with her band. I am the lone roommate tonight.I am trying to console myself with food. Don't worry, it's not comfort food. I'm not sitting here eating a litre of Haagen Dazs (though that does sound delicious now that I type it). I'm eating good food, food that is very good for me.
In fact, that's what I wanted to write about. My life has revolved around food as of late. I may have mentioned that I work at Jacob's Well, and I may have mentioned that we have a couple of urban gardens, nestled between a tofu factory and a sausage factory. I don't know if I mentioned that because we're not doing so well financially (ie. not receiving full paychecks), Jacob's Well has decided to give the staff a share of the gardens as part of our payment. So every week I take home a bag full of fresh green things from our Downtown Eastside gardens.
This has become a delight and a challenge. Often I find myself asking, "What is this green leaf? What is the stalk it is attached to? How should I eat it?" As we speak, there is a soup simmering on my stove. I started with my mom's "Peasant Bean Soup" recipe, and then I added a lot of things from the garden that I didn't know how else to eat. I threw in the Swiss chard. I chopped up the scapes and sauteed them and threw them in. If you don't know what a scape is, join the club. I just found out. They're these curly stems that grow out the top of garlic bulbs, and they taste like garlic, only milder. Gardeners cut them off so that the garlic will grow bigger. If you want pictures of garlic scapes and a recipe, check out my friend Emily's blog. She's good at eating well, and always makes sure to take excellent pictures of her food before consuming it.
As I sit here and eat raspberries (from the garden of course) mixed with yogurt, I will tell you more about why I've been thinking about food. A couple of weeks ago, I went on a trip, a trip called "The Gleaning Trip". Gleaning. Think Old Testament - the Israelite vineyard workers were commanded to leave some grapes on the vine for poor people to glean, and farmers were to leave the grain they dropped the first time around. I've heard interesting ideas about how we can allow for a similar gleaning practice today - like saving your coin change to give away, or setting out your bottles for bottle-collectors. But there's a group in the Okanagan that is taking gleaning very literally. They're called the Okanagan Gleaners. And every year, Jacob's Well sends a team to go serve with them for a week.
Here's what they do... they take the vegetables that orchard owners can't sell (they're small, they're weirdly shaped, they're spotted, they're rotten in one spot, etc.), and they chop them up, and they dry them in a huge dehydrator, and then they mix them all together in bags and send them overseas with YWAM and WorldVision as soup mix for orphanages and soup kitchens. They produce 5 million servings of soup a year. Isn't that incredible? Perfectly edible vegetables that would have otherwise ended up on the garbage heap are instead "gleaned" for the hungriest people on earth. I love it.
So we spent three hours every morning cutting the seeds, stems, and bad spots out of peppers, standing across from each other, talking, enjoying the fresh air... you know, your everyday feeding the hungry stuff. Every evening after supper, someone would share a reflection about the day. One day, Sheryl said she loved the way food brought us together - both around the peppers, and around the dinner table. She realized that the peppers we were holding in our hands would actually become part of other people. Seriously. I've never thought about that before - people across the world will eat the peppers in the soup mix, and their bodies will break down the food and incorporate the amino acids into their cells. Isn't that crazy? We really are what we eat.
Which means that when I help grow food in the Downtown Eastside and then eat it, I'm making the Downtown Eastside a part of my very body. That's so weird to think about. It makes me feel closer to the neighborhood. It makes me happy that we're growing good food for our friends there. It makes me excited to eat this soup.
My only problem now is dishes. They're piled up. I don't want to do them. Anyone want to come over and do my dishes? I'll give you some Garden Soup!
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Summer in the Couv!
Hello, friends!
It's been a week and a half... let me catch you up, using pictures and words.
Last Sunday, Danice and I got to go boating with the Bain family. It was my first time boating on the ocean (that is probably a lie, now that I think about it... I was probably on a boat in Costa Rica or Florida once.) It was my first time boating on the ocean in the Vancouver area. I would like to do much more of this! We had a great day. It was so hot that I didn't protest when the spray hit my face. We zoomed up the Burrard Inlet and Indian Arm, and anchored by some little islands, where we swam and ate supper. Swimming in the ocean is different than lakes, you know. For one thing, in the ocean, you have to watch you don't cut your feet on super-sharp barnacles. Also, you feel really sticky when you get out. And Danice said there would be jellyfish, but I didn't see any. Still, it was a most excellent day.
The boat!
Cold, having swam. Swum?
Danice, Cara, and Cara's Dad Russ in the dinghy.
Cara and her mom and the beautiful scenery!
Friday was my birthday! I'm now a quarter of a century old. Jodi gave me a quarter to mark the occasion. Actually, the occasion was quite marked - we had a ginormous party at our new place! It was a combined birthday/housewarming/independence day party, and there were probably 50 people that came through our house that night. The best part was that we had our very own party planner - the magnificent Lindsey Fox - so we didn't have to do a thing! All 8 of Danice's nieces and nephews came, and everyone participated as Jodi and Michelle prayed a blessing over different rooms of our house. It was great to have our house filled up with people. Soon I believe we'll be the number one hang-out spot on the East side. Thanks to all who came and brought food and warmed the house and blessed ME!
Jackson, our sometimes cat, warms the porch before the guests arrive.
Dance party in the living room!
Hanging out on the porch.
Hanging out on a more different porch.
Waking up the next morning having slept on the porch! (This house is all about the porches!)
The next day, Lindsey Fox joined my roommates and I for what I believe will become a routine Saturday morning outing to the Farmer's Market, 8 blocks south of our house.
Lindsey Fox likes chocolate.
Lindsey Willie likes hummus.
Lynn likes bread.
We all love crepes!
Trout Lake, where the Market is held.
And in an hour, I'm leaving for the Okanagan - my first trip there. It's a working vacation, with my co-workers and volunteers from Jacob's Well. We're going to do some gleaning (I'll explain next time), and have a lot of fun. I hear the weather is a lot like Saskatchewan in the summer - dry and hot. I'll let you know if this is true.
I'm really excited about this new house and the next year I'll spend in it, and the roommates I'll spend it with (in case you haven't noticed!) I can't wait for my family to come see it in August! The rest of you are welcome, too, you know...
It's been a week and a half... let me catch you up, using pictures and words.
Last Sunday, Danice and I got to go boating with the Bain family. It was my first time boating on the ocean (that is probably a lie, now that I think about it... I was probably on a boat in Costa Rica or Florida once.) It was my first time boating on the ocean in the Vancouver area. I would like to do much more of this! We had a great day. It was so hot that I didn't protest when the spray hit my face. We zoomed up the Burrard Inlet and Indian Arm, and anchored by some little islands, where we swam and ate supper. Swimming in the ocean is different than lakes, you know. For one thing, in the ocean, you have to watch you don't cut your feet on super-sharp barnacles. Also, you feel really sticky when you get out. And Danice said there would be jellyfish, but I didn't see any. Still, it was a most excellent day.
The boat!
Cold, having swam. Swum?
Danice, Cara, and Cara's Dad Russ in the dinghy.
Cara and her mom and the beautiful scenery!
Friday was my birthday! I'm now a quarter of a century old. Jodi gave me a quarter to mark the occasion. Actually, the occasion was quite marked - we had a ginormous party at our new place! It was a combined birthday/housewarming/independence day party, and there were probably 50 people that came through our house that night. The best part was that we had our very own party planner - the magnificent Lindsey Fox - so we didn't have to do a thing! All 8 of Danice's nieces and nephews came, and everyone participated as Jodi and Michelle prayed a blessing over different rooms of our house. It was great to have our house filled up with people. Soon I believe we'll be the number one hang-out spot on the East side. Thanks to all who came and brought food and warmed the house and blessed ME!Jackson, our sometimes cat, warms the porch before the guests arrive.
Dance party in the living room!
Hanging out on the porch.
Hanging out on a more different porch.
Waking up the next morning having slept on the porch! (This house is all about the porches!)
The next day, Lindsey Fox joined my roommates and I for what I believe will become a routine Saturday morning outing to the Farmer's Market, 8 blocks south of our house.
Lindsey Fox likes chocolate.
Lindsey Willie likes hummus.
Lynn likes bread.
We all love crepes!
Trout Lake, where the Market is held.
And in an hour, I'm leaving for the Okanagan - my first trip there. It's a working vacation, with my co-workers and volunteers from Jacob's Well. We're going to do some gleaning (I'll explain next time), and have a lot of fun. I hear the weather is a lot like Saskatchewan in the summer - dry and hot. I'll let you know if this is true.
I'm really excited about this new house and the next year I'll spend in it, and the roommates I'll spend it with (in case you haven't noticed!) I can't wait for my family to come see it in August! The rest of you are welcome, too, you know...
Friday, June 27, 2008
A little post-grieving is ok, too, I suppose.
I was just editing a few leftover photos from Jericho Beach, where we used to live, and I got a bit nostalgic. So I'm posting them as part of an out-of-character post-grieving process. Enjoy!
Sunday, June 22, 2008
It's a new home!
Well, the move went about as smoothly as possible. We had lots of help, especially from Danice's family, who were awesome. Her brothers pulled our couch up over the balcony with a rope! Her mom and dad completely unpacked our kitchen the same day we moved... and that was a real blessing, because I was not in the mood to do that! I inherited a bed from Alberto for free, and he also fixed my bike. What a guy. Jodi, Lindsey, James and Veej also chipped in... everyone was very helpful. I'm grateful, because I felt like I spent most of the time kind of numb, walking from room to room, staring at boxes.
Some things I like about our new place:
-Our bathroom has a red door.
-We have a gas stove! It gets hot and cools down really quickly!
-I get to ride the Skytrain. It makes me feel like a working woman.
-When the sun shines through the leaves outside our bedroom window, it makes a beautiful moving pattern on the floor.
-We have a lot of pots. And a lot of mugs. And a lot of forks.
-There is a cat who used to live here. His name is Jackson. He now lives two doors down, but he still wanders in, hoping to be fed, whenever we leave the door open.
-Everyone on Commercial Drive is a soccer maniac. All restaurants, pubs and coffee shops are tuned into the European Finals.
-Gelato.
-There is a Farmer's Market five blocks away, every Saturday morning.
-The passion flowers I bought at the Farmer's Market yesterday. Owning plants (especially the coolest flowers ever, which I deduced after taking my plant taxonomy class) makes me feel like a real adult.
-Meeting neighbors! I've met four already. At my other place, I didn't meet any. Admittedly, I'm trying harder now.
-One of my neighbors, Len, enjoys working on motorcycles, on his front lawn. You can hear him revving the engines a lot. When he's not playing the flute...
-Being able to leave doors open without worrying about animals (or insects!) coming in. Except Jackson.
-The balconies! Especially the front one. Oh man. It is the bomb. We've already put a string of lights on it. It's the best hang-out spot. I'm going to sleep on it one night this week, I think.
-I shaved 25 minutes off my commute to work. I can even bike to work now that my bike is fixed!
-Roommates who aren't insane! Well, maybe a little bit.
-Having a kitchen table.
The day after we moved in, it was Car Free day on Commercial Drive. It was like the whole neighborhood got together to celebrate our arrival! It reminded me of the Fringe Festival, but 10 times bigger and weirder. Lots of street vendors, crazy acts, live music, people in costumes, and drumming circles. It was a blast. I especially loved watching one band. They're called the Carnival Band, and they rock. They are a ragtag collection of brass and percussion players with varied backgrounds and abilities (no auditions!), and they have more fun than any band I've seen. They dress up in crazy clothes and march around and play each other's drums and walk right up to members of the audience and they have nothing in common with each other except that they play for the joy of it. I found a video of them playing on the Skytrain... in case you want to see them (or the Skytrain!).
I also checked out the free stage at the Vancouver jazz festival on Saturday... oh man. I love the Saskatoon jazz festival, I think it's awesome, but the free stage in Vancouver is something else. I would have paid to see most of those bands. Especially the 11-piece Cuban salsa band in the evening... the whole crowd was dancing! Including me. At least I was trying. I've decided that I'd like to marry a Cuban.
To sum it all up... I'm loving summer in Vancouver, summer in my NEW HOUSE!
P.S. The sermon I preached last Sunday on the conversion of Saul (and Ananias!) went well, I think, despite the craziness of the weekend. If you have 25 minutes and you want to listen, you can find a recording here.
Some things I like about our new place:
-Our bathroom has a red door.
-We have a gas stove! It gets hot and cools down really quickly!
-I get to ride the Skytrain. It makes me feel like a working woman.
-When the sun shines through the leaves outside our bedroom window, it makes a beautiful moving pattern on the floor.
-We have a lot of pots. And a lot of mugs. And a lot of forks.
-There is a cat who used to live here. His name is Jackson. He now lives two doors down, but he still wanders in, hoping to be fed, whenever we leave the door open.
-Everyone on Commercial Drive is a soccer maniac. All restaurants, pubs and coffee shops are tuned into the European Finals.
-Gelato.
-There is a Farmer's Market five blocks away, every Saturday morning.
-The passion flowers I bought at the Farmer's Market yesterday. Owning plants (especially the coolest flowers ever, which I deduced after taking my plant taxonomy class) makes me feel like a real adult.
-Meeting neighbors! I've met four already. At my other place, I didn't meet any. Admittedly, I'm trying harder now.
-One of my neighbors, Len, enjoys working on motorcycles, on his front lawn. You can hear him revving the engines a lot. When he's not playing the flute...
-Being able to leave doors open without worrying about animals (or insects!) coming in. Except Jackson.
-The balconies! Especially the front one. Oh man. It is the bomb. We've already put a string of lights on it. It's the best hang-out spot. I'm going to sleep on it one night this week, I think.
-I shaved 25 minutes off my commute to work. I can even bike to work now that my bike is fixed!
-Roommates who aren't insane! Well, maybe a little bit.
-Having a kitchen table.
The day after we moved in, it was Car Free day on Commercial Drive. It was like the whole neighborhood got together to celebrate our arrival! It reminded me of the Fringe Festival, but 10 times bigger and weirder. Lots of street vendors, crazy acts, live music, people in costumes, and drumming circles. It was a blast. I especially loved watching one band. They're called the Carnival Band, and they rock. They are a ragtag collection of brass and percussion players with varied backgrounds and abilities (no auditions!), and they have more fun than any band I've seen. They dress up in crazy clothes and march around and play each other's drums and walk right up to members of the audience and they have nothing in common with each other except that they play for the joy of it. I found a video of them playing on the Skytrain... in case you want to see them (or the Skytrain!).
I also checked out the free stage at the Vancouver jazz festival on Saturday... oh man. I love the Saskatoon jazz festival, I think it's awesome, but the free stage in Vancouver is something else. I would have paid to see most of those bands. Especially the 11-piece Cuban salsa band in the evening... the whole crowd was dancing! Including me. At least I was trying. I've decided that I'd like to marry a Cuban.
To sum it all up... I'm loving summer in Vancouver, summer in my NEW HOUSE!
P.S. The sermon I preached last Sunday on the conversion of Saul (and Ananias!) went well, I think, despite the craziness of the weekend. If you have 25 minutes and you want to listen, you can find a recording here.
Monday, June 09, 2008
On Pre-grieving and Inscapes
I should be writing my sermon for Sunday, but I figured I'd start with a blog entry this morning, to get the writing juices flowing, and to empty my head of some other thoughts that are crowding out the sermon thoughts!
We're moving to Commercial Drive in three days, and I find myself growing nostalgic already about the place we're leaving behind. I've always been annoyed by this quirk of mine... I tend to get reflective, sad, and even homesick BEFORE leaving a place or person. Soon after I leave, these feelings pass, and I adjust to the change quite quickly. When I shared this with Jodi last week, she called it "pre-grieving", and she said that some people are "pre-grievers" and some are "post-grievers". This has been a real revelation for me. Now I'm trying to embrace the pre-grieving process, instead of being angry at myself for "ruining" the last few days I have here by being overly melancholy.
So, a little pre-grieving, blog-style. People who know me well know that what I will miss most about this place is my Rock. Only a couple of days after arriving in Vancouver in Sept. 2005, I discovered the Rock and started visiting it every morning (here's the first blog entry I wrote about it). I'm a morning person, and I've always liked starting the day with God, and I've always liked doing it outdoors, if possible. There are a lot of places that have become meeting places. At our old house in Saskatoon, it was up in the treehouse in the backyard. When I lived at our family's current house in Saskatoon, it was the hill in the park. At camp, it was the secret patch of moss in the woods. But the Rock, my Vancouver spot, became the pinnacle of the meeting places. It's a semi-private place on the beach where God can spread out a whole variety of creatures for me to enjoy with Him. I can sing out loud and usually no one will hear but Him. I have a view of the ocean, the mountains, the city, and the sunrise, and it's only three minutes from my house.
Just recently God gave me a gift that helped in my pre-grieving of the Rock. It's linked to the blog entry I wrote recently about seeing new sides of trees and plants. When I got back from Saskatoon a couple weeks ago, I went down to my Rock as usual, but saw something new. There were bunches of yellow flowers hanging down, like a halo around my Rock. The sun was shining on them, and they were brilliant. I looked around, but there weren't any yellow flowers anywhere else on the beach. I climbed up and sat in my usual spot, and they seemed to surround me, enclosing my spot with beauty. I realized that I'd always noticed the dried-up pods on that hanging bush, but I'd never imagined what the flowers that produced them would look like. I spent much of that morning just looking at them and enjoying them, and watching the lazy bees they attracted.
One of my favorite poets, Gerard Manley Hopkins, talked about the idea of "inscape". He used the word to refer to the deep personality and character of things, often inanimate created things. He would try to use his poetry to "selve" things, to reveal what he saw to be unique in the way a certain tree or a certain rock was created. For me, it felt like the halo of flowers revealed the "inscape" of my Rock. It was as if the created things around that spot always knew it was a sacred place to meet with God, and they were letting me in on their secret, a secret I always knew but could never see physically. I praised God for revealing this hidden reality, and thanked Him for the time He gave me to delight in the fact that we'd really been together, through these three years, in a distinct way, even though I hadn't always realized it.
This morning, at the Rock, I read Psalm 84 - "How lovely is your dwelling place, O LORD Almighty... better is one day in Your courts than thousands elsewhere." I know the Psalmist was talking about the Temple. I also know (from the theology class I'm currently taking) that the Holy Spirit's presence in me makes God's dwelling place much more universal and less "localized" than it was for the Old Testament people, who lived before Christ sent His Spirit. (I am glad for this, because it means that I don't leave God when I move to Commercial!) But I still understand the Psalmist's longing to meet God in a certain place, a place that becomes holy and sacred ground, a place where the skin between this world and the unseen reality all around it becomes a lot more thin and penetrable. I'm already praying God will show me one of these places, a new place to meet near Commercial. And I'll probably keep coming back to the Rock every once in a while, by bus, or by imagination...
We're moving to Commercial Drive in three days, and I find myself growing nostalgic already about the place we're leaving behind. I've always been annoyed by this quirk of mine... I tend to get reflective, sad, and even homesick BEFORE leaving a place or person. Soon after I leave, these feelings pass, and I adjust to the change quite quickly. When I shared this with Jodi last week, she called it "pre-grieving", and she said that some people are "pre-grievers" and some are "post-grievers". This has been a real revelation for me. Now I'm trying to embrace the pre-grieving process, instead of being angry at myself for "ruining" the last few days I have here by being overly melancholy.
So, a little pre-grieving, blog-style. People who know me well know that what I will miss most about this place is my Rock. Only a couple of days after arriving in Vancouver in Sept. 2005, I discovered the Rock and started visiting it every morning (here's the first blog entry I wrote about it). I'm a morning person, and I've always liked starting the day with God, and I've always liked doing it outdoors, if possible. There are a lot of places that have become meeting places. At our old house in Saskatoon, it was up in the treehouse in the backyard. When I lived at our family's current house in Saskatoon, it was the hill in the park. At camp, it was the secret patch of moss in the woods. But the Rock, my Vancouver spot, became the pinnacle of the meeting places. It's a semi-private place on the beach where God can spread out a whole variety of creatures for me to enjoy with Him. I can sing out loud and usually no one will hear but Him. I have a view of the ocean, the mountains, the city, and the sunrise, and it's only three minutes from my house.
Just recently God gave me a gift that helped in my pre-grieving of the Rock. It's linked to the blog entry I wrote recently about seeing new sides of trees and plants. When I got back from Saskatoon a couple weeks ago, I went down to my Rock as usual, but saw something new. There were bunches of yellow flowers hanging down, like a halo around my Rock. The sun was shining on them, and they were brilliant. I looked around, but there weren't any yellow flowers anywhere else on the beach. I climbed up and sat in my usual spot, and they seemed to surround me, enclosing my spot with beauty. I realized that I'd always noticed the dried-up pods on that hanging bush, but I'd never imagined what the flowers that produced them would look like. I spent much of that morning just looking at them and enjoying them, and watching the lazy bees they attracted.
One of my favorite poets, Gerard Manley Hopkins, talked about the idea of "inscape". He used the word to refer to the deep personality and character of things, often inanimate created things. He would try to use his poetry to "selve" things, to reveal what he saw to be unique in the way a certain tree or a certain rock was created. For me, it felt like the halo of flowers revealed the "inscape" of my Rock. It was as if the created things around that spot always knew it was a sacred place to meet with God, and they were letting me in on their secret, a secret I always knew but could never see physically. I praised God for revealing this hidden reality, and thanked Him for the time He gave me to delight in the fact that we'd really been together, through these three years, in a distinct way, even though I hadn't always realized it.
This morning, at the Rock, I read Psalm 84 - "How lovely is your dwelling place, O LORD Almighty... better is one day in Your courts than thousands elsewhere." I know the Psalmist was talking about the Temple. I also know (from the theology class I'm currently taking) that the Holy Spirit's presence in me makes God's dwelling place much more universal and less "localized" than it was for the Old Testament people, who lived before Christ sent His Spirit. (I am glad for this, because it means that I don't leave God when I move to Commercial!) But I still understand the Psalmist's longing to meet God in a certain place, a place that becomes holy and sacred ground, a place where the skin between this world and the unseen reality all around it becomes a lot more thin and penetrable. I'm already praying God will show me one of these places, a new place to meet near Commercial. And I'll probably keep coming back to the Rock every once in a while, by bus, or by imagination...
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Commercial Drive, here we come!
Great news! After two and a half months of searching, Danice and I (and our friends Lindsey and Lynn) have finally found a house to move into! The house is on Commercial Drive, which is much further east than we are now. This means we'll be closer to downtown, where we work, and further from Regent. But it's on Commercial and 7th, which is two blocks away from Broadway, where the skytrain and express buses stop, so we're within reach of a lot of places.
The suite is a second floor and a loft in a large house. There are only three bedrooms, so two of us will be sharing a bedroom. There are three balconies (!) which I'm stoked about. The living room has a fireplace, and there's an actual kitchen! (We have a very, very small kitchen in our basement suite!)
Two of the best things about this house are the landlords and the neighbourhood. We've had such excellent landlords at our current house, and as we searched for a new house, we encountered a lot of landlords who seemed much less friendly. But the young couple who are renting out our new place are very friendly. They live on the main floor of the house, and they're excited about gardening with us in the backyard, and getting to know us better. Really, who wouldn't want to get to know us? :)
And the neighbourhood... what can I say about Commercial Drive? I guess for my Saskatoon friends, the closest description would be Broadway to the power of a thousand. Although "the Drive" started out as Vancouver's Little Italy, it's now a very racially diverse community - most of Vancouver's best ethnic restaurants are there. Within a couple of blocks, you can get Belgian fries, Italian gelato, Ethiopian, and Jamaican food. There are tons of independently-owned coffee shops. (Danice is very excited about this). There are dogs everywhere. (Danice is also very excited about this.) Ever since I did a project on a church on Commercial Drive in my first year here, I've always felt like I "fit in" there. I don't know what that means, because the stereotypical Drive resident would be a bike-riding, dog-owning, granola-eating, dreadlocked (or at least matted, greasy haired), baggy-clothes-made of-hemp-wearing, pot-smoking, Birkenstock-sandaled, green-party-supporting, chickens-in-the-backyard, belly-dancing, gender-not-always-crystal-clear person. But really, no one fits that stereotype. Everyone is eclectic. Case in point... as I sat in the Belgian fry place once, I saw a very tall Scandinavian man with a shaved head wearing a baby blue sweater with the name "Dusty" stitched in near his shoulder, walking hand in hand with a MUCH older Asian woman.
Really, even though people argue that it's getting more "trendy" and yuppies are starting to move there to be cooler, it still feels like a place where people are proudly "themselves." Perhaps obnoxiously themselves. They wear less make-up than people in Kitsilano. They don't care as much when their kids cry in public. They freely talk to people who are weird in different ways than they are weird. I think that's what I'm drawn to - it's a place where I want to be myself, too, even if I don't smoke pot. I will be a proud non-pot-smoker. And I'm looking forward to a fresh chance to actually get to know people in my neighborhood, to support a few local shopowners to the point that they know my name, and to be generally more 'present' in my community, which is something I think I haven't done well here in Kitsilano.
And I'm stoked about learning to be more hospitable, taking more ownership of a place, cooking in a normal-sized kitchen and enjoying it, and inviting people over to eat and sit on the balcony!
You can pray for me in the next couple of weeks though... we have to pack and move, and I also need to write a sermon, because I'm preaching on the 15th at Kits Church for the first time, a day after we move! Lots to do, and very little time. But it's an exciting time. God is providing for me, answering prayers right and left.
The suite is a second floor and a loft in a large house. There are only three bedrooms, so two of us will be sharing a bedroom. There are three balconies (!) which I'm stoked about. The living room has a fireplace, and there's an actual kitchen! (We have a very, very small kitchen in our basement suite!)
Two of the best things about this house are the landlords and the neighbourhood. We've had such excellent landlords at our current house, and as we searched for a new house, we encountered a lot of landlords who seemed much less friendly. But the young couple who are renting out our new place are very friendly. They live on the main floor of the house, and they're excited about gardening with us in the backyard, and getting to know us better. Really, who wouldn't want to get to know us? :)
And the neighbourhood... what can I say about Commercial Drive? I guess for my Saskatoon friends, the closest description would be Broadway to the power of a thousand. Although "the Drive" started out as Vancouver's Little Italy, it's now a very racially diverse community - most of Vancouver's best ethnic restaurants are there. Within a couple of blocks, you can get Belgian fries, Italian gelato, Ethiopian, and Jamaican food. There are tons of independently-owned coffee shops. (Danice is very excited about this). There are dogs everywhere. (Danice is also very excited about this.) Ever since I did a project on a church on Commercial Drive in my first year here, I've always felt like I "fit in" there. I don't know what that means, because the stereotypical Drive resident would be a bike-riding, dog-owning, granola-eating, dreadlocked (or at least matted, greasy haired), baggy-clothes-made of-hemp-wearing, pot-smoking, Birkenstock-sandaled, green-party-supporting, chickens-in-the-backyard, belly-dancing, gender-not-always-crystal-clear person. But really, no one fits that stereotype. Everyone is eclectic. Case in point... as I sat in the Belgian fry place once, I saw a very tall Scandinavian man with a shaved head wearing a baby blue sweater with the name "Dusty" stitched in near his shoulder, walking hand in hand with a MUCH older Asian woman.
Really, even though people argue that it's getting more "trendy" and yuppies are starting to move there to be cooler, it still feels like a place where people are proudly "themselves." Perhaps obnoxiously themselves. They wear less make-up than people in Kitsilano. They don't care as much when their kids cry in public. They freely talk to people who are weird in different ways than they are weird. I think that's what I'm drawn to - it's a place where I want to be myself, too, even if I don't smoke pot. I will be a proud non-pot-smoker. And I'm looking forward to a fresh chance to actually get to know people in my neighborhood, to support a few local shopowners to the point that they know my name, and to be generally more 'present' in my community, which is something I think I haven't done well here in Kitsilano.
And I'm stoked about learning to be more hospitable, taking more ownership of a place, cooking in a normal-sized kitchen and enjoying it, and inviting people over to eat and sit on the balcony!
You can pray for me in the next couple of weeks though... we have to pack and move, and I also need to write a sermon, because I'm preaching on the 15th at Kits Church for the first time, a day after we move! Lots to do, and very little time. But it's an exciting time. God is providing for me, answering prayers right and left.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)