Raccoon goes to shore

This past weekend, I had the best time with my church's youth group.  We went to Ocean City, NJ, which has become the habit for the Loft the last couple of years, and its easy to see why.  Not that Ocean City is the most happening town this time of year, 'cause its not.  It's because we are basically alone at the beach... it's off-season and the weather is still good.

I hadn't had the opportunity to go on a youth retreat for awhile, since I started working with the k-5 y.o.'s.  I missed it, but I love working where I am now, that I don't know that I would go back if given the opportunity.  

And I love the beach.

Love it.

I was asked to lead worship through the weekend for the youth, and heartily agreed.  It was a great experience, and I definitely felt God throughout the whole weekend, because I knew I could not do it on my own.  

On Sunday morning we went down to the beach for some ocean time, and a time of worship with a lesson led by Pastor Todd.  As I trudged past the dunes, guitar in tow, I noticed that there was a strange set of footprints amongst those of the kids who had run before me.  A raccoon had been on the beach. Probably looking for clams and trash washed ashore over the night's high tide.  

At that moment I had a small flash... we are not the only ones on this beach. God did not create all the world for us; this sun-rising, foggy beach was not prepared for me to stand on a couple of days a year.  I prayed that our worship that morning would not be outdone by the ocean, the million grains of sand, or even by the raccoons, which all can see so plainly, perhaps, what we have to scavenge to perceive.  

Wash your hands, if I'm around, at least

While at school the other day, I walked into the bathroom with a fellow student, who we will call 'Bill".  "Bill" and I were talking, and then we did our thing, and then I washed my hands.  Just me.  He stood there talking, and I'm washing my hands.  There were two sinks and I allowed ample room next to me so that we could both fit... but he talked and I lathered, rinsed and dried.  We both left, and I though to myself that I will never shake "Bill" 's hand again.  Or share a cookie.  And he will never touch my Mac, for sure.

Please, wash your hands if there are others around.  Do not lead us to believe anything other than the hope that you do, in fact, wash your hands.

Thanks.

Finally, proof we had a good time in Disney

Well, its taken a while, but after sorting through all the pictures (around 2,500 of them) I have chosen the ones that will grace our picasa album online.  So, please take a gander:

Disney Trip 2008

A history of short tempers

I took my Nana out to breakfast this morning to learn and map out some of my family history for a class project.  This is what I learned:  The Fullers have short-tempers, and they will shoot you quicker than use their own hands.  There are cemeteries full of Fullers, unfortunately mostly because of other Fullers.  

So where will I fit into this history of violence?

evolution is alive and well

"The perfect surrender and humiliation was undergone by Christ: perfect because He was God, surrender and humiliation because He was man.  Now the Christian belief is that if we somehow share the humility and suffering of Christ we shall also share in His conquest of death and find a new life after we have died and in it become perfect, and perfectly happy, creatures.  This means something much more than our trying to follow His teaching.  People often ask when the next step in evolution - the step to something beyond man - will happen.  Well, on the Christian view, it has happened already.  In Christ, a new kind of man appeared: and the new kind of life which began in Him is to be put into us."

~C.S. Lewis

The Case for Christianity, p.51

The Shack, being Left Behind, and ...?

Yes, I read the Shack.  At the behest and someone else's dime I read it in about a day. Did I lose my salvation? No.

Though I do not, do not, agree with everything the author presents, I found some great imagery at best, an OK storyline at its worst.  I was intrigued as to how this little story would play out.  And then I read all the critiques.  And then I talked to some people.  And then I talked to other people.  And then I went to the Shack website... and now, well now I'm confused.  

I'm well aware of all the theological woes it gives someone.  It gave them to me, too.  Some were not as weighty as others, but they were still there.  And yet, and yet I cannot deny the personal testimonies of others who say they are getting so much out of this book.

But this is the confusing part.  The Shack website.  Especially the forum.  On the one hand, this book is presented as a theological groundstone, adding nothing new except this experience of the Trinity.  According to the authors and the forum writers, this little book is consistent in every way to well-established orthodoxy (And you read the authors responses and you can better understand their point of view and their confusion as to why they are not being understood and being called heretics).  But, on the other hand, you keep getting thrown at you from all sides the emphasis that this is a novel, a fictional account, a parable, and a metaphor.   This fictional account helps to point out truth, but should not be mistaken for truth itself. But this is just the confusion we do not need.  What type of writing is it?  I would not want to equate it with the Da Vinci code, because it is not, but while Dan Brown points out the fact that this is a fiction book, he will not say that it is not based on fact.

So, what should be done with this book?  

I have no doubt that there are many who have already decided what to do with this book.  I'm the last to read these books, and feel like I got into the conversation late.  But I would not equate this book to Pilgrim's Progress.  As much as the authors and others would like to do this, I dunno that it can be done well.  The Shack just doesn't fit into that genre.  A great modern example of a "fit" would be CS Lewis' The Pilgrim's Regress.  These books do not make their allegories sound anything that could be possible.  They are clearly allegory, and all allusions are drawn from insight and the parallels purposefully given.

If The Shack were to be put on level with another book, I would put it at best on the level with The Left Behind Series.  All of these presentations are great as far as giving you an idea as to what God wants, who he is, what he's doing in the world.  But they make so much of a stance that I would never give them to a non or new Christian without following up with discussion, disclaimers, the Bible, and other books that I think could better explain facets of the faith.  

So, the Shack sits on my bookshelf, next to Ian McEwan's books, which I would recommend you read.  McEwan, as far as I know, is not a Christian, and he ends up saying the same thing about human nature and sin as the most well versed Christians.  But I can explain his stance on God, he's not a Christian and I can only expect him to say so in his writing.  I expect it.

Worship this morning

A child's voice cried out this morning at the most inopportune time: during prayer.  This voice was like a knife and a firework in my heart.  "Dada" he cried, and my heart was to the quick cut and I felt it in my throat, "Dada!"  I long to join in, to release this pent up feeling of longing, of the expectant but not yet.  "Dada", to the present heart, and the heart that is broken, and being destroyed.  

My eyes were shut, but I saw the kingdom in that moment.  My salvation, so long in walking was flying!  

Read old books!

A clever admonition from CS Lewis to some students was to make sure you read old books and not to discard them for the clever new ones.  I dunno that Lewis would ever have considered his books "old" to a future generation, but here they are.  

I pulled down "God in the Dock" and started reading at a random spot ("Is Progress Possible?)  when I came across a bit of his political theory, also found in the masterpiece The Abolition of Man:

"... classical political theory, with its Stoical, Christian, and juristic key-conceptions (natural law, the value of the individual, and the rights fo man), has died.  The modern State exists not to protect our rights but to do good or make us good - anyway, to do something to us or make us something.  ... Let us not be deceived by phrases about 'Man taking charge of his own destiny'.  All that can really happen is that some men will take charge of the destiny of others.  They will be simply men; none perfect; some greedy, cruel and dishonest.  The more completely we are planned the more powerful they will be.  Have we discovered some new reason why, this time, power should not corrupt as it has done before?"

As both candidates look to harness the voters by calling out for change, to what end is their mind going?  Is it going to what Lewis calls for as the "freeborn mind", or is it more control and reliance on specialists, who control us not outright, but by the rights of the educated mind?  Our education system has become a den of specialists who are trying to make the right decisions for our kids instead of really allowing them to make that decision for themselves. Is the education system as it is a microcosm for the larger political scheme?  Which political party is really in control of the education system? 

The larger questions of change are great, I do think there needs to be a lot done about many thins, but what is their vision for the end result?  Are we talking about creating a society that is self-sufficient and able to make well thought out decisions, whose decisions actually matter and have worth, or is the goal a society whose major decisions have really been decided for them and now they just have to keep the system going?

They both want change, but to whose end?