Write one to throw it away

You will anyway.

Fred Brooks wrote this in 1975, and he was talking about large software systems… but perhaps it’s true for general writing as well. Brooks uses the magical phrase, “Software is pure thoughtware,” and if anything is pure thoughtware, it’s a written composition.

What Brooks says is scary in a way, because writing is a lot of work, and he really is saying that you should write everything twice. More than that – he’s suggesting that you *have* to write everything twice, and that you *will*, whether you intend to or not.

Writing is special, and it has a special twice-ness to it, because it’s not immediately apparent *why* you should write something twice.

Let’s say you are creating a physical object, like a chair, or a table. It’s perfectly obvious why you might build two chairs, or two tables, or two houses, or… You want more – you get more.

But thoughtware is not like this… ideas can replicate themselves nearly without cost. Ever since the rise of the printing press, and especially in this digital age, one written word can propagate seemingly endlessly. Links are cheap. You can’t link to a chair… at least, not to the same effect.

The result is that to create a thought product is a creative act in a different sense than of manufacturing something. Every piece is something new; it must be new. If it wasn’t new, you wouldn’t be writing it![plag] As an author, you encounter every composition for the first time.

But newness comes with a cost.

Before you try and write a new thing, you don’t know what it is. You are meeting it for the first time. This is your training – your practice. When you have finished, you have changed yourself more than you have produced something.

You haven’t created the thing, you’ve taught yourself how to create the thing, and the real work of creating the thing can begin.

With physical craftsmanship, the need to replicate is innate. Physical objects need to be crafted separately, and their purely physical restrictions enforce iteration and training. But with thoughtware, every piece is a prototype, a teaching tool – because we are learning a new thing, every single time.

When I work hard in writing a piece, by the time I’m finished, I realize that I have taught it to myself. I know what each section does, why it is there, and how it functions in the work as a whole. I understand the composition. By the time I’ve written it, I at last know what it is and how to write it. The tragedy is that, having written it, I never need to write it again. [dash]

If I had said something to someone, I might have to say it again, and again, and again to others as need arose, but once it is written… it is written.

What Brooks suggests is that the process of learning the new thing is so entwined with the act of writing that the first draft is invariably more of a learning artifact than a proper creation, and that the learning achieved in the process of writing can now be applied to a more serious making.

In other words, if I’ve sweated through the writing, the actual words produced have less value than I think they do. Before I didn’t know how to write that particular piece, but now I do – the primary value lies with me as the author, who has learned the piece, and not with the piece itself.

Moreover, for thoughtware, because there is no innate need to re-draft or re-write subsequent copies, the opportunity to write something as a learned author will only exist if I throw away the original. The discipline is not enforced and it feels artificial.

Usually I don’t have the courage to take that finished piece, read it, extract the true outline and structure from it, and write the real thing from the true outline. It all comes down to courage, and time. Most of the time my “final piece” is at best my first draft with a few cosmetic typo-corrections and grammar fixes.

Hmm. Food for thought.

Footnotes    (↵ returns to text)
  1. It’s called plagiarism.
  2. In contrast, when I dash something off without thought, I don’t really learn much about the piece, because I don’t figure what parts it needs, how they work, or why.
Posted in metablogging | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

We have no idea how much this moment is worth

I was thinking about how much delight our Father takes in his children.

It occurs to me that we have no idea how much joy God takes in our obedience, or even in our very existence.

Job had no idea, as he sat and scraped his boils on a pile of dung and rubble, that the Lord of Heaven was boasting with delight.

“Do you see my servant Job? He delights in good and shuns evil.”

The evil one was seething in frustration as Job sat, and scraped… and refused to curse. He had no idea of the joy he was bringing to God in that moment. There was a moment when the eyes of the cosmos were fixed on a beggar on a rubbish heap (and he was one of many)… and he had no idea.

We simply have no idea. Did anyone on Golgotha fully know what that moment meant? It was the greatest moment.

When Albert McMakin took a friend to a Gospel meeting, did he have any idea what he was doing?

We simply don’t know the joy that God has when we endure in a trial, and we don’t know what a small obedience can be worth. After all, how can we?  To be able to see the worth that is unseen is the gift of the Holy Spirit.

When my sister is patient with her children, when someone chooses to honor their employer and put in a hard day’s work, when someone decides not to mock another human… When a Fort MacMurray family chooses not to curse… Who knows how much this is really worth?

The irony is, we are the ones who choose what to do in our moments. Will we do it alone, or will we listen for that voice to tell us what our moments are really worth?

The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace.

… For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

— Romans 8:6,13

For we live by faith, not by sight. — 2 Cor 5:7

For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Heb 12:3b

1 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.

2 The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him-
the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and of might,
the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord—

3 and he will delight in the fear of the Lord.
He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes,
or decide by what he hears with his ears;

4 but with righteousness he will judge the needy,
with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth.
He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth;
with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked.

5 Righteousness will be his belt
and faithfulness the sash around his waist.

— Isaiah 11:1-5 (NIV)

Posted in theology | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Love is Patient

The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 

— Genesis 6:8 (NIV)

Love is patient, love is kind… It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

— 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (NIV)

When I was about twenty-five years old, something changed that made me appreciate God in a new way: I began to experience God speaking in prayer to me. It wasn’t like a voice – more like a thought or an impression which would appear, but, over a period of time, I came to accept that (a) It really was God speaking, (b) That he was far more loving and gracious than I ever gave him credit for, and (c) That God was not far away, but present and intimately involved with people, all the time.

This was something I had always professed but not experienced. Or perhaps I’d experienced, but simply ignored. Or, perhaps more simply still, I had on some level chosen not to believe.[ignore]

For most of history, those who have believed in the God of the Jews (and the Christians) have believed in a God who was actively and intimately involved within the world. [en] Particularly, the Hebrews had a sense of creation that was continual. For them, not only did God create the world, but, in any given moment, he was upholding it, maintaining its existence – keeping it created. Without his active involvement, it would fall into destruction, just as a person, when their breath is removed, falls into dust.[pict]

This sense comes through in Jewish and Christian Scriptures:

…in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

— Hebrews 1:2-3

The claim made in the New Testament book of Hebrews is that not only did Jesus create all things, but that he is also continually sustaining all created things by his powerful word. This is not a small claim! It’s also not an isolated claim.

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

— Colossians 1:15-17

 …he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.

— Ephesians 1:9-10

We are made by Jesus Christ, exclusively for Jesus Christ, under Jesus Christ (and ultimately, to be united with Jesus Christ) and we exist only by his will and delight to sustain us.[claim]

Jesus is intimately involved in all things. Our whole purpose is in and for him. Why else does he say, “Abide in me?” We can only accept this or reject it; we can’t change it. We don’t get to choose to be in relationship with him, any more than we get to choose our birth family or the fact that we were born as people and not as platypuses. We are created in relation to him.

Accepting this, however, forces me to accept something else. It forces me to accept that Jesus himself is constantly sustaining things which cause him anguish. He is constantly in relationship with all things, good and bad.

The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 

— Genesis 6:8 (NIV)

Greater intimacy leads to greater love and delight, but also to greater wounding and sorrow in broken relationship. How great the pain and regret of God! Can I really accept that a primary aspect of God’s character is enduring pain?

But… I can’t avoid this about God. When God, the Almighty Creator of all things, chose to appear within his creation, what form did he take? How did he choose to introduce himself to the world?

He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised,
and we held him in low esteem.
Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.

— Isaiah 53:3-4

God chose to introduce himself as one who suffered. One who healed, delivered, proclaimed joy and salvation,  who suffered and who overcame.

You see, when I am brought face to face with Jesus and his total lack of avoidance, I don’t understand him.

God did not make us as toys. He doesn’t want toys. God made us real and, more than that, he gave us the ability to cause him pain on a level we ourselves cannot imagine.[imagine] God does not play with action figures; he lives and loves with living people. Right from the moment of creation, “it got real”. Actually, it never ‘got’ real. It always was real.

I cannot understand this because I avoid. I don’t understand this non-avoiding God. When I ask, “If you are good, why is there so much evil?” I am confessing that I can’t conceive of a God who can bear that much – because I can’t bear that much.[me] To me, God has to be distant, or absent, because my reaction is to distance or remove myself.  He has to be unfeeling, because my reaction is to harden my heart to avoid discomfort. He has to turn away… doesn’t he?

If I accept that he loves that much, I also accept that he avoids nothing. If I accept that he avoids nothing, I condemn myself in everything that I myself avoid. Lord, have mercy!

How do I describe this? How do I name this characteristic of God, to lovingly uphold something which causes distress? I can name it in two ways.

The first is by example, by remembering my sister, whose young son is being potty trained and is running around the house without diapers. She quietly cleans up his accidents on the living-room carpet, trying not to say anything, because words alone won’t make him something other than a toddler. It’s not pleasant, but she loves him, and it’s worth it to her. In fact, the discomfort of the accident can’t even be measured alongside her love for him, although the discomfort is keenly felt.

The second is in the simple phrase,

“Love is patient.”

The more I think on this phrase, I believe it encompasses all I’ve tried to write out, and much more besides. Patience is the ability to endure discomfort out of love. I believe when Paul writes this (teaching that without love nothing else matters) he has in mind the great wonder of a God who is protecting, faithful, and hopeful in all things… and who endures all things.

“Love is patient.”

I’m not patient, but God is. I avoid, but God doesn’t. At a cosmic level, I struggle to understand him, because he is very unlike me. But there is a consequence to this.

Every morning, I wake up and I know that he loves me. Every morning, I wake up and I am still here. I don’t deserve to be. I don’t understand why I am. Every morning, I wake up, and God is patient, and God is kind, and he chose for me to be here because he loves me and he wants me here. All I can do is say, “Thank you.”

Thanks be to God.

Footnotes    (↵ returns to text)
  1. One of the mysteries of life is that even when I know this, it’s still possible for me to ignore/disregard it. This doesn’t make sense to me, but it’s true.
  2. In North America, this sense has been largely destroyed through generations of history, in particular, through a dry, naturalistic perception of the rich world God made.
  3. This is a very different picture from a “watchmaker” God, who merely winds up a watch and then leaves it alone to run…
  4. This claim is so big that I’m not sure I can grasp it intellectually. The consequence is that there is no moment, no thought, no activity in my day today that I can reserve for myself, outside of my relationship with God. They all belong to him, in an absolute sense. Everything I try and reserve for myself is poorer, more miserable and sadder, because it is pretending to be a blasphemous copy of what it really is.
  5. We spend most of our lives avoiding pain, so we don’t want to imagine this. Even if we didn’t avoid it, we couldn’t feel it in its depth. We’re too limited.
  6. For me, it always is just about me.
Posted in theology | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Does God Feel?

I’m still thinking about love and avoidance. The truth is, I’ve been thinking about this for years but never writing it out. One of the challenges is when I think about things on my own, I can never know if they’re true or even sane.

One such thought that occurred to me is that if God feels, because he sees everything and avoids nothing, he must feel everything, all the time. All the joy, all the pain. All the anger, all the sadness, all the delight, all the love, all the peace… I’m no stranger to a jumble of feelings and to emotional confusion, but how does God deal with all of that, all at once, all the time, at every single moment in history?

If God loves at a depth that I can’t imagine, does that mean that he also feels at a depth that I can’t imagine? If he knows me intimately, better than I know myself, does he also feel me intimately?

The language of Scripture is soaked with emotion…

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

— 1 John 4:8 (NIV)

The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 

— Genesis 6:8 (NIV)

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.

— Matthew 23:37 (NIV)

At some level, it doesn’t feel right to say that God feels things. It doesn’t seem… respectful.

After all, He is God and we are not. When I talk about feeling, I am talking about a human thing, and it surely can’t be right to impose a human thing upon God himself. And yet… Scripture does so, repeatedly.

We are made in God’s image – in his likeness. But what is the nature of a likeness? A painting, for instance, is like a person, but a painting is not a person. It can be a true likeness, but it only represents the living truth, and even then is strictly limited in what it can possibly represent. It has no flesh, no wit, no life, no spark, no third dimension… The difference between having the painting in the room and the person in the room is incalculable. You can’t kiss a painting. Well, you can… but it’s not the same.

Human emotions, made real in flesh and chemistry and limitation, are what we know and feel… they are real and they are genuine, but they are limited. For instance, we feel them mostly one at a time. If we are furious, we are not much else; if we are destitute, or enraptured, we are exclusively so. If we feel something too intensely, for too long, we will fall into exhaustion and physically be unable to feel much at all, except emptiness. In short, human emotions are human.

Now… we reflect God. Our character and nature represents his, in some elusive way. We are because He first is, and was, and will be.

For instance, we are relational beings because God is relational – three persons in the Trinity. But our relationship is derivative of his; it is reduced from the eternal relationship that was before. Is it the same for our emotions? If our emotions are reduced from his, what is changed (or lost) in the reduction?

The living God never slumbers nor sleeps; he does not tire. He never looks away from the lost or lonely or abused. He is never ignorant of the wicked and he never fails to reward the faithful. If he does feel, he must surely feel all things at once. All the pain, all the anger, all the joy, all the wrath, all the love, all the sorrow… in its fullness, without ceasing.

I think it is the unique characteristic of God that he simultaneously loves all creation, delights in all beauty, weeps over all sorrow, and burns against all wickedness, remaining in perfect peace while doing so. I can worship Him, but I’m not sure I can understand this about Him.

Our joy is something like what he has; our sorrow is something like his own grieving. Our anger is perhaps a stick-man drawing (but in reality, far cruder) of the real anger of God. We have, in our image-bearing selves, a true and genuine representation that honestly conveys the nature and character of God, but it does so within our limitations of flesh and sin and death. We can feel only what our bodies allow; but how could this be true of God, who is Spirit?

Part of the marvel (and joy!) of the Incarnation is that God came to earth, taking on limitation, and allowed himself to feel in the human way. He bridged the gap between his own Real Thing That Is Like Our Emotion and the human facsimile of it. Jesus Christ knows how to feel as a human and he also knows the Real Thing That is Like Feeling. He has walked in both.

God has felt in the human way. We can’t go to him, but he has come to us.

Posted in thehumancondition, theology | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

On Love and Avoidance

This is just a brain dump of my busy mind. Maybe someone else’s mind is busy in the same way.

It seems the better I acknowledge God to be, the worse I confess myself to be.

When I say that God is righteous, or that God is loving, I am saying that in his relationship with us, he always does the thing which is best – the most loving, most righteous and perfect thing there is to do.

There are consequences to this.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

— 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (NIV)

What does it mean that the very best way of treating us, the kindest, most patient and most selfless way of treating us, involves:

  • flooding and destroying the whole earth
  • drowning an Egyptian army
  • wiping out Canaanite nations
  • suffering and dying on our behalf?

“Love does not delight in evil but it rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” What am I saying when I acknowledge that the most protecting, trusting, hoping and persevering option left open to God was to remove the bulk of humanity from the earth? I wouldn’t really fault someone for calling this a blatant contradiction.

Well… except for one thing. There is one way I can make sense of this not being a contradiction.

Humanity is so wicked that at one point, the most loving action imaginable, the most tender and gracious thing to do, was to flood and destroy the whole earth. There seems to a be a terrible conclusion lurking in these Bible stories: mankind does not deserve to live on this earth. We are allowed to exist here purely because of the grace and love of God.

The thing is, I’ve been taught this from my childhood. But have I ever faced it or actually believed it?

I’ve been thinking on avoidance recently. Mostly, this is because avoidance has been a cornerstone of my personal life. I also suspect, however, that there is an existential truth so awful – so horrible – that great swathes of human life and culture are precisely directed at avoiding it. When I look at myself, this feels like me.

In his first letter, John writes of God that, “In him is no darkness whatsoever,” using the strongest negation that Greek has to offer. As a fearful human, I am terrified by this absolute, precisely because it is absolute. It leaves no wiggle room to make myself look better by pretending that perhaps God was just a little bit unloving in some of the things he has done.

But… to deny the love of God is blasphemous. Will I really say or perform the worst blasphemies in order to avoid calling myself wicked? Apparently, yes. Apparently, regularly. Apparently, it requires herculean effort for me to avoid blaspheming, by virtue of the fact that I do it every single day. Maybe I don’t deserve to live on God’s earth, after all.

The claim is that the reason we claim a contradiction between God’s actions and his love is that we are fleeing from an existential horror.  To avoid the horror requires saying that he’s not really good or loving.

I have huge difficulties with this thought, mostly having to do with the fact that existential horrors make me feel bad.[diff] One difficulty is that I can’t really refute the reality or scale of the horror. The Bible does seem to present a story of humanity so wicked that, were God not intimately, actively and lovingly involved in the world, we would create hell on earth. Throughout human history, God constantly saves us from ourselves by establishing law, order and culture. He judges wicked nations and establishes a righteous people and kingdom in the midst of human ugliness.[depressed]

If I try and understand culture as being substantially based on avoiding this existential horror, it does make a certain grim sense. This is the only framework I have to explain Western cultural features such as our complacency with being the wealthy 1%, our perverse relationship to sex and entertainment, and our insistence on secular science beyond God.

John paints a picture of absolute light that is stark and polarizing, where there is no darkness whatsoever, where all ugliness and horror is plainly revealed. And yet, the light is full of love. It is so bright and intense that it burns away all evil… and yet it bathes, caresses, washes, cleanses and makes pure. It is patient, kind, gentle, tender and forgiving.

I can’t dare look at my own culture or my own self outside the presence of Jesus Christ. I have no light of my own with which to face it. I don’t have the strength to face it and not go insane. I must be bathed in the perfect love which casts out fear in order to even name the truth. Has anyone ever confessed to any truth about themselves, outside of His love and grace?

Over several years I have struggled with that little book, “The Practice of the Presence of God.” It’s a book often read but rarely realised. (Perhaps like another book we know) But Why? It is a book that claims absolute things.  It also is a book devoid of avoidance. It has the same quality of refusal to avoid that I see in the life of Jesus.

“That we should surrender ourselves in things temporal and in things spiritual, entirely and with complete abandonment to God and take our happiness in doing as He wills whether he leads us by suffering or by consolation, for they are all the same to the soul truly resigned to His will.”[abs]

“That he was not shocked at the misery and sin he heard about every day but on the contrary, considering the malice of which the sinner is capable, he was surprised there was not more of it. He prayed for the sinner but knowing God could right the matter whenever he wished, he did not allow himself to be too upset.”

“That he was always governed by love, with no other interest, and without concerning himself as to whether he would be damned or saved. But having resolved to make the love of God the end of all his actions, he found this decision most satisfactory.”

“That when he had stumbled, he simply acknowledged his fault and said to God: ‘I shall never do otherwise if you leave me to myself; it is up to you to keep me from falling and to correct what is wrong.’ “

“He told me that he had no scruples for ‘when I know I have failed, I acknowledge it and say, “that is what I usually do when I left to myself;” if I have not failed, I give thanks to God, and acknowledge it is his doing.’ ” 

What Brother Lawrence seems to be suggesting is that while our existential horror is true, it is not particularly important. It is not important because of the love and beauty of Jesus Christ, because of the intimacy and closeness of his Presence. His loving light saves us from horror even as his blood redeems us out of it. As we focus our minds on Jesus who is risen in glory, the truth of horror does not disappear, but the truth that he loves us floods over it and overwhelms it completely.

It is this focus on the good, the dwelling in the presence of God, the fixing of our hope in his resurrection and glory which allows us to live in the world and not avoid it. To read the Apostle Paul, the degree to which we acknowledge goodness is the degree to which we can face the world as it is. Brother Lawrence claims the dedication of our will to serving the love of God underpins our peace; Paul exhorts us to practice all goodness, to rejoice in God, as our defence.

4 Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! 5 Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. 6 Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. 7 And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

8 Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. 9 Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.

— Philippians 4:4-9 (NIV)

We cannot avoid confessing that we are that bad; in order to do so, we must step into his loving light and know in our souls that he is that good. But… if we do not do it, we will not know it.

On a day when I feel anxious, when I fight to find the motivation to step out my front door, dwelling on the horror makes me hide in my room. But… on a day when I manage to surrender, Jesus takes me by the hand saying, “Come, follow me.” and he leads me outside.  Jesus doesn’t avoid anything, because he’s overcome it all. I can’t follow him when I’m avoiding. But I don’t need to avoid when I’m with him.

Footnotes    (↵ returns to text)
  1. Feeling bad is a huge difficulty for me. I don’t like it.
  2. Maybe I’m just depressed. Maybe… but I’m afraid that it’s not only this.
  3.  Where we have truly surrendered, we surrender to the bad and the good alike. Otherwise, it is the worst nonsense (pure contradiction, really) to say that suffering and consolation are the same. It is a claim that the absolute nature of our happiness is tied to the absolute nature of our surrender. Scary stuff.
Posted in personalinthepubliceye, thehumancondition, theology | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Thoughts on Peace

Peace that is based on avoidance is not peace. So long as a troubling thing exists, we may choose not to look at it and so be calm, but our peace will always remain under threat, and that nagging voice beneath our calm will never quite shut up.

Jesus’ life was not free of suffering or anguish, but it was entirely free of avoidance. A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, he entered into those very things which we are afraid of, which we assume will destroy peace in our own lives. And yet… he was the Prince of Peace.

Does God have peace? Certainly God suffers anguish in the face of evil. Surely he wept over the world in Noah’s time, as Jesus wept over Jerusalem, as a husband weeps over an unfaithful bride. God is not threatened by evil, but he is grieved by it, and fiercely angry against it. There is no emotional vacuum here.

When we face trauma, we repress it. We dissociate from it. In the face of suffering that we are certain will destroy us, we flee. Yet God is not a God of repression or dissociation. He sees all, acknowledges all, enters into all, bears all, and overcomes all.

Jesus Christ is the one who is strong enough to look full in the face of evil and suffering and yet never turn his gaze away. He’s the one who is strong enough to take all suffering into his own body and bear it. He rationalizes nothing, acknowledges the fullness of our guilt and he has undergone the full wrath of God.

He does not, will not, deny the truth. In him there is no darkness at all. He brings all things into the light – into the truth. There are no dark corners in his life. To God, the night is as bright as the day! In him is life, and that life is the light of men.

We have a problem – our sad human lives are based on avoidance. Our very sanity depends on denying our sin, on justifying it, and on ignoring the truth of ourselves and our world. There are things on this earth, within ourselves, so horrible that were we to acknowledge them we might go insane from the grief, helplessness, and guilt.

We cannot read all that is in the news, or if we can, it is because the papers themselves cannot not bring themselves to name or print the fullness of the evil truth. Dogs are prominently saved from housefires while children die invisibly.

Jesus comes with the agenda of bringing all things into his light. We cannot see everything at once, as God does, (nor does he ask us to) but we can no longer pretend to ignore or avoid any troubling thing and still expect full peace. Jesus Christ has overcome it; he is its victor.

Jesus asks us to trust him and believe in his victory. He bore this trouble, and he is still alive. His explicit promise to us is that even if it kills us also, we will still live.

Our peace is bound to our confession. Where we deny the truth, we deny our own peace. Anything not in the light is a stronghold of darkness, a foothold for avoidance. Jesus had full peace; Jesus was also a man who confessed all and surrendered all. He was a man of no pretension whatsoever.

Jesus life was his Father’s. He surrendered it, and he would not be anxious over it. His emotions were not disconnected, as in one who represses or disassociates from trauma… Jesus suffered anguish, but anguish is not anxiety.

Jesus counsels us that if we do not fall into the earth and die, as a seed does, we will remain alone. But if we die, we will bear much fruit. Servants are found at their master’s side.

Our lives of partial confession, partial submission and partial obedience are riddled with anxiety and fear. How can it be otherwise? Where we are chained, we are not free. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. The mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace in Christ Jesus.

This is a frightening thing! Can I honestly say there’s a day in my life when I don’t fight with pride? Day after day I keep discovering new levels to my own ugliness and wickedness, depths I would rather avoid. Every morning, I wake up to a fight, and usually by the afternoon I feel like I’m losing. Can such a man expect peace?

Where I refuse to confess to and repent of my sin, once I see it and know it, the answer is, “No”, and rightfully not! How can I claim an expectation of peace in conscious wrongdoing? Where rebellion thrives there is no peace, by definition. There is only a war zone. God actively opposes the proud.

God opposes the proud, but he gives grace to the humble. The Apostle Paul, in writing his letters, greets the churches with the words, “Grace and Peace to you.” The grace and peace that is ours in Christ Jesus is not peace alone, but also grace. God often gives a peace that we do not deserve.

Are there not times when, purely by His grace, God gives us peace that our confession does not warrant, that our submission does not warrant, and that our obedience does not warrant?

Confession, submission and obedience do not bring peace by themselves. Rather, they are the doorway to the promise that, like the dying seed, we will not remain alone. Jesus Christ, the master of the universe, the one who has overcome all suffering, comes to indwell us by His Holy Spirit. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. It is his indwelling that brings us peace.

We will not have peace because we are good confess-ers, or submit-ers or obey-ers. We will have peace if God chooses to fill us with his Spirit. We will have peace when we are no longer alone, when we are rooted and grounded in love. How can we have peace, except by God choosing to love us and to be with us?

We do not have to pretend that we will not feel overwhelmed. We do not have to pretend that our minds are greater than they actually are, that we understand suffering… We do not have to pretend that our emotions will not leave us exhausted, worn out, running on empty… this is the truth of our selves, and it is part of our confession.

Though true, our weakness is not all that important in comparison to the overwhelming victory of Jesus Christ. Certainly it feels important. It feels urgent! Sometimes it feels as though we will die. And we may. Across the world, in this moment, some may be dying because of their confession and submission to God. It can happen, it does happen, and it is happening.

The most relevant truth is that we are not alone. Sometimes, by God’s grace, He allows us to feel this truth tangibly through a physical manifestation of His presence. Sometimes, again by His grace, he doesn’t. The truth is the truth, regardless of how we feel about it.

Because we don’t always feel this, because God is invisible and we can’t see him, a step of faith is involved in refusing to avoid. When we confess, we take a step of faith, claiming that we are not alone. There is one with us who has overcome that troubling thing, even if that troubling thing is as severe as our own death.

Our troubling thing may feel perfectly horrible. It may be an experience of evil as dark and vicious, or even more so, than we could ever imagine. There is a reason we are called to fix our minds on and to dwell in the overwhelming glory of the risen and resurrected Christ.  Evil is real, it is just less important than Jesus Christ.

The exercise of faith is the destruction of avoidance. If we do not do it, we will not have it. Yet if Christ has truly overcome, there is literally no reason for us not to do it.

Again, when we talk about what we have or do not have, we remember that we serve a gracious God who gives us things we do not deserve. He can give us peace far beyond what our faith deserves, and who can challenge him for being merciful?

God’s peace does not depend on the absence of evil or suffering. There is a final, future resolution that is absolute. God is not threatened. All things will be judged, and all things will be united in Christ. Sorrow may last for the night, but joy comes with the morning! If God grieves now, it will not be so forever, and he asks us to faithfully believe the same and hope in his Son.

If God is righteous in allowing the wholeness – the shalom – the peace of the world to be marred for a time, if he is right to patiently endure, and even enter into suffering, can I deny the same?

If the peace of the world is shattered yet the peace of God is intact, might the peace of my flesh be shattered and yet the peace of Christ within me remain whole?

Jesus says, “Behold, I make all things new.”

If God’s peace is not disturbed over the corruption of the world, because he knows Jesus Christ will make all things new, how should I relate to the corruption of my own body, the turmoil of my own emotions?  If God’s peace over the world is founded on the future restoration by, for, and in Christ, shouldn’t my peace over my own troubles be built on the same?

Jesus is, at this very moment, whole and sound, complete and restored. What does that mean to me?

Posted in thehumancondition, theology | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Joy Before Him

Oh, there is joy beyond.
Jesus saw it, knew it, fixed his eyes upon it
He kept his jaw clenched, his face flint and his mind locked on the above…

His flesh was bound but his eye was free
And through the blur of pain it strained to see
His Father’s gift – that there was joy beyond.

See how he stands, easy at his father’s side
Confident, radiant, free in soul and body
The LORD eternal, clothed in glory
Laughing with the King and Spirit
Bathed in joy, beyond.

Posted in poetry, theology | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

The days are evil

Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil.

Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is. Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery.

Instead, be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

— Ephesians 5:15-20

A friend of mine started exercising recently. I told her, “Good for you!”[you]

She said, “It’s strange. I’ve been trying to carve out daily time to pray and read my Bible for a long time now, and it’s been hard to do. But I managed to find 30 minutes each day to exercise.”

I know exactly what she’s talking about. How can we exercise for 30 minutes a day but not pray? It’s bizarre… but it’s the truth.[wicked]

Still, how does it make any sense that the one which should be easy is hard, and that the “hard” one is easy?

One the face of it, it should just be a scheduling question, right? Can we free a half hour in our day? If we free the time, it shouldn’t matter what we put in it, should it?

Of course, we all know that things don’t work that way – even ordinary life things. Consider Terry Crews[terry]advice on going to the gym


Yes. It has to feel good. I tell people this a lot – go to the gym, and just sit there, and read a magazine, and then go home. And do this every day.

Go to the gym, don’t even work out. Just GO. Because the habit of going to the gym is more important than the work out. Because it doesn’t matter what you do. You can have fun – but as long as you’re having fun, you continue to do it.

But what happens is you get a trainer, your whole body is sore, you can’t feel your legs, and you’re not coming back the next day – you might not come back for a year!”

[Let’s pause for a moment and enjoy this advice. This advice is so good. Every time I reread this, I am blown away… “Of course! Build the *habit*…” Why don’t I do this??? God bless Terry Crews! Ok, back to the article…]

We treat different places differently. There are places we like to be and places we don’t like to be. Terry says that if we build up a happy space at our gym, we will enjoy going there, and will build a habit. Times and places have emotional qualities to them.

One of the pieces of study advice that professor John Stackhouse gives is to have a separate desk for work, where you do no goofing off at all. When you go to the library, he says, have one seat where you goof off, and have another that is pure work. Keep the spaces separate.  It’s a question of habit, of conditioning yourself, and the space develops a quality to it for you that puts you into work mode.

John Cleese, talking on creativity,[excellent] describes how he carves out a protected space and time that is free from interruption. This protection of time and space enables a mode of play where we can be free and creative.

Time and space have a quality. This quality is physical, emotional and spiritual (which is why Christian discussion about the presence of God has real meaning). All the earth is the LORD’s… but different times and places can have different qualities depending on what fills them.[qual]

I was recently talking with a missionary from Argentina. She had come from a place of blazing revival where prayer would go on nightly for hours on end. “I find it very hard to pray here,” she said, “it’s very difficult and I struggle to find the motivation.” My city of Vancouver is a beautiful city, but my missionary friend is not the first person to remark on spiritual dryness, darkness or desolation here.

Modern western evangelicals tend to disregard this quality of time and space. Part of the reason is because we are evangelicals with an evangelical history. To talk about holy places or holy things feels disturbingly catholic. It makes us think about statues of saints and of the worship of pictures – graven images of the worst sort, surely.

The greater reason though, is because we are modern western people. We don’t have the language to talk about the spiritual qualities of space-time. We have intentionally and systematically focused so exclusively, for so long, on the physical nature of space-time (electrons and other spinny things) that we struggle to understand things any other way.

At the school I attend, Regent College, lots of people are attracted to older forms of Christianity, such as Celtic Christianity. Those Celts had prayers for every common thing – for cooking breakfast in the morning, for going out, for turning into a deer so your enemies wouldn’t kill you[deer]

I might describe this fascination with Celtic Christianity as a bizarre flirtation[flirt], except that it’s not really bizarre. It makes sense. The Celtic Christians, bless them, were not moderns – they were converted from a pagan world! They believed in thin places and spiritual powers and they really believed there was a difference if you prayed over your breakfast and if you didn’t.

You see, if you ask a modern western Christian what the difference is if we bless our morning meal and if we don’t, we will defend to the death that there is a difference, but bless us if we can understand or describe it! We know that nourishment comes from calories and protein and vitamin content, and we’re pretty sure that those don’t change, regardless of the prayer. The food is just as nourishing either way, unless we’re asking God to change the physical nature of the world, which is crazy, because we’re confident he doesn’t usually do that. So… we just give thanks.

Because we don’t understand how a blessing could do something…

we struggle to believe that it does do anything…

and as a consequence… we hardly bless anything at all.

But… the Bible says Christians are a holy priesthood! Are priests supposed to bless stuff?[bless]

What is the Ephesians passage quoted at the start of this post really saying? In part, how we read it depends on what our worldview allows it to say.

“Instead, be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Is it an exhortation to good moral behaviour, a call to encourage one another?

Is it a charge to change the quality of the time and space around us? Is it instructing us to  fill places with worship from God’s own Holy Spirit, and to manifest the quality of heaven in the physical earthly places we live? Are we charged to do this because the days are evil and we are to bring holiness into an evil world?

Is it sane to suggest that the most practical step to having our devotions is to sing worship songs and to bless the place where we want to read and pray? Could that be the most practical scheduling activity we could take?

Here’s the truth. If I went on youtube and hunted up a TED talk on productivity that talked about psychological patterns and why creating good spaces for being productive was important, I would believe it. (I probably wouldn’t do it, but I would believe it.) If a young, intelligent person with the right haircut stood up and told me that we were complex chemical and emotional beings and could alter our psychology by altering our spaces, I would believe it. It would give me joy, hope that I could be more productive. So why am I so reluctant to believe about the spiritual what I would believe in an instant about the psychological?

When I try and consider what Ephesians talks about, it’s harder for me to understand, and it’s harder for me to accept. I can’t think of days being evil because I don’t understand how days can be evil. What is our prerogative as Spirit-filled priests of God living in evil days? It’s tough to say, because the theological language of the western evangelical church tends to be bad at this kind of stuff. We’re not exactly sure where our prerogative begins and ends which, all too often, keeps us from doing our job.

Is it strange that it’s harder to pray than to exercise? Well, it depends. If I see myself, (as the Apostle Paul certainly did) as being in a battle with spiritual rulers and authorities of physical places (in which I dwell), then it’s not at all strange that different activities should find different resistances.

But if this is the case, and if our days are as evil as those of the Ephesians, then perhaps the most important thing we can do is to do our job and change the world around us.

Bless you all.

Footnotes    (↵ returns to text)
  1. I don’t exercise.
  2. It also can lead very quickly to evangelical angst and self loathing. We are all wicked and so we don’t want to pray. Why am I not better? Why don’t I love Jesus more? How am I so wicked?
  3. Terry Crews is an amazing guy. Portrait artist, NFL player, actor… plus he can flex his pecs independently. Amazing.
  4. This talk is excellent and you should listen to all of it.
  5. Some sharp or skeptical readers may note that perhaps we develop a quality within ourselves which makes us react one way to one place and another way to another place. This is what Crews and Cleese are talking about. We certainly do experience a quality to time and space, but what makes us so certain this quality is only internal to ourselves?
  6. It’s not a prayer for this, per se. But legend has it that when St. Patrick’s enemies tried to kill him on the road, all they saw was a herd of deer.
  7. I say ‘flirtation’ because intellectually, we wouldn’t touch this worldview with a 10-foot pole. The Celts died from smallpox and didn’t have clean water and believed in ghosts – we don’t want to go back in our thinking. Their view of the world feels horribly crude and pagan –  naive, misguided and simplistic. Spiritually, however, we are so dry from the secularization of our thought that we’re looking to drink from any source that offers itself.
  8. Again, this sounds awfully catholic. Is it awfully Biblical?
Posted in thehumancondition, theology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Cecil the Lion

In case you haven’t heard, Cecil got shot.

Let’s have a moment of silence for Cecil…

Okay, now that the moment’s over, I’d like to know: are you in the “Why are we still talking about this?” camp or the “We always knew dentists were evil[evil]…” camp?

I’ve been struck by the reaction to the Cecil story. Protesters picketing the guilty hunter’s (closed) office, airlines refusing to ship trophy animals… On the face of it, it seems disproportional. But the more I think about it, the more I think there are reasons for the drama.

The bottom line is that Cecil was innocent, and it is wrong to slay the innocent.[cat]

We’re fed up. We’re sick of a world full of violence. We can’t take any more mindless cruelty, bombings, beheadings, burnings, bigotry… all of the garbage that fills the front page day after day after day. And it never stops. It just. doesn’t. stop.

We can’t solve these problems. They’re complicated. They’re political. They’re social. They’re environmental. They’re a web of conflicting global forces and interests that we can’t untangle and we can’t solve. These problems are complicated; these problems have a certain greyness, an ugliness to them.

If we feel sorry for those who get beheaded, or those who don’t have enough to eat, all of a sudden, we’re taking sides. We’ve become political as well, and we find ourselves sucked right in, waist deep right in the middle of the garbage. How can we say who’s wrong without pointing fingers in a political debate? And isn’t pointing fingers the problem? But now we’re the problem, and how do we handle that?

Cecil wasn’t political. He was a beautiful big cat that I can imagine stretching out on my living room sofa.[eat] Cecil wasn’t a part of any of it. He was a beautiful, innocent cat, a bystander who got killed by the garbage and the twisted world. Isn’t it right to get angry about the death of the innocent?

The thing is, we can flip through our digital newspapers and see ugly grey story after ugly grey story, but when we run into Cecil’s story, it’s black and white. It’s a simple case of right and wrong, and we long for that. Everyone can be on Cecil’s side, because he was innocent, and it’s wrong to slay the innocent.

Cecil is the one innocent we can actually stand up for without feeling morally grey and unclean ourselves. This is a rare thing! It’s such a relief and such a restful thing that to not do it is unthinkable and makes us the wrong kind of people.

It’s a mistake to trivialise the debate. Those who plea that, “There are more important things to be thinking about,” wind up politicising Cecil and using him to flog their own agenda of what is important. Isn’t this is the worst kind of behaviour, the sort that made the world that killed Cecil to begin with? Why make those who are simply feeling compassion for a beautiful innocent cat feel guilty about simple compassion? Why be so negative? I think I understand the anger.

What am I really trying to say about Cecil here? It was wrong and senseless that Cecil got shot, and I understand the uproar. But the uproar shines a disturbing light upon ourselves. It demonstrates that we live in a world of ambiguity and relativism, and we are starving for simple right and wrong. We can’t go two Facebook posts on the internet without finding someone who radically disagrees with us, in a way that we can’t bridge or solve. We are thoroughly convinced that we are right, yet we are bound to uphold the sacred principle that they are also equally right for their own selves. How are we supposed to live in a world this divided?

When Cecil was alive, he posed for photos and probably bossed about other lions and ate other animals and had six kids that are now going to get eaten themselves… Cecil was a lion. Maybe he was a nice lion. Maybe he was a jerk. I don’t know. But once Cecil got shot, he stopped being a lion. Cecil became a symbol of innocence – a post-modern martyr – who has a chance to bring a shred of unity into a divided world. Symbols are worth protecting, and so the outrage makes perfect sense.

Is it worth condemning a visceral reaction against evil? Well, yes and no. One of the moral principles that Jesus teaches, and that I believe in (as a Christian) is that we have a choice in how we react to evil. A visceral reaction, however visceral it is, can either be a good reaction or a bad reaction.

I’m encouraged by the compassion shown and the lengths people will go to defend what’s right, but I’m troubled by the internet hatred (and how easy it is to hate on the internet) . I’m worried by the shallowness of tolerance once people are convinced they are right. I’m concerned that people feel more affinity towards Cecil than towards our dentist friend, because it highlights just how dehumanising our media and our secular philosophies are.

Most of all, I’m sad that the world is a big bloody mess, and that Cecil, fuzzy though he may be, is not a sufficiently powerful symbol to clean up this mess.

We need to look elsewhere. Cecil had the misfortune to die because of the world’s sins, but he never died for them. I guess I’m in both camps, sort of. We really don’t need to be talking about Cecil, but it would be wrong to brush him away, because if he is a symbol, he needs to be understood and not ignored. And I’m sorry he’s dead.

Footnotes    (↵ returns to text)
  1. Or that Americans were evil. Or that hunters were evil. Or that rich people were evil. Or that Rich American Hunter Dentists whose teeth are unnaturally white and who seem privileged are evil.
  2. Some of you may have a moral stance that animals are incapable of right or wrong and so they can’t be innocent, by definition. Maybe you are right. But in the eyes of the general public, people are animals too, and so Cecil is innocent.
  3. In my imagination, big cats don’t ever eat me. That’s why it’s my imagination.
Posted in inthenews | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Kids in school

Living a Christian Life is a big job; in Canada, where I live, I think most people would look at you strangely (and perhaps with a little bit of pity) for trying. Jesus isn’t really popular here; he’s sort of like the kid it’s popular to hate on in school. Nobody really knows much about him because it’s not cool to be seen around him. People who know him well don’t really talk about him all that much when they’re with their other friends.

Everyone knows that Secularism is the kid who has all the connections and will get you to the right parties. And that’s great, because Secularism is a lot of fun to be around, especially when there’s plenty of money to make everything seem okay. Things are great just as long as no-one stops to ask the question whether things are the way they should be.

Everybody knows that there’s a way things should be and that they aren’t that way. The terrible quiet secret that everybody is running from is that we’re all lost; nobody knows how to get to the way things should be..

Secularism is a rich kid, though, and every week he’s promising to bring a solution to school, some great technical gizmo he ordered online, or some big master plan that he’s working on over the weekend. It’s going to solve all the problems.

But the solutions don’t come through. There’s always another epic party that weekend, or a ‘must-see’ film that manages to distract him, and somehow at school on Monday the solutions never seem to appear – or they do, but they’re that cheap plastic that kinda sorta does what it claims, but not really.

Jesus is a funny kid; not funny ‘ha-ha’ but funny in that other way. If you ever make eye contact with him you either have to turn away very quickly or you wind up looking at him for a very long time. And he doesn’t look away, either. He’s happy to look and smile at you for as long as you are willing to stare at him. If you stare too long, though, he’ll come up to you and start up a conversation.

I was sitting at lunch once when I caught Jesus’ eye and he came over to my table. But as I saw him coming I started to get nervous. When he came close, I looked around quick and muttered, “Sorry, I gotta go, I’m late.” and I left, leaving him standing there with his tray. I felt bad, after. Now that I know him a little better I understand that it was not only rude but a really stupid thing to do.

Posted in curios | Tagged | 2 Comments