I will mostly remember Scott for his voice. He had many qualities worth remembering: He was a talented musician whose fingers would dance effortlessly around his six-string. He had a face that would light up with a disarming smile as he shared told a joke or led a congregation in worship. He had a love and passion for people - his family, his friend or the needy men and women who he would counsel in a school that would train the un- and under-employed in job skills. But when he sang, all of these noble qualities were a passionate platform off of which to launch his voice. His voice would soar over the congregation in an arch ever upward, leading us with him, to give glory to God.
I never saw him as he fought his cancer. It destroyed his body over the years since I moved away from Orlando. I read his email updates and learned more about him through my father. He refused to wallow in his sufferings, and allowed them to be a testimony to the Lord's love, the Lord's strength, that the end that awaits us all is not the end.
Scott is with the Lord, to whom he so passionately sung. The beauty of his voice was never in that he sang for others. When he sang in front of the church, there was only One to whom his passion, his energies and his voice were focused. Today his voice, unhindered by any sin or suffering this fallen world throws as us, is raised to Him. And like his Savior, Scott will rise again and sing His glory with his beautiful voice.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Sunday, July 19, 2009
A Camp for Atheists is a Chance for Engagement
If I had grown up going to the Christian summer camps Lexington describes in this week's Economist column, I think I would start an atheist summer camp too. Atheists, evidently, find comfort that a camp promoting skepticism is joining a market saturated by, among other things, religion.
About the atheist summer camp, Lexington writes: "They are not pushy or preachy, but scepticism flavours nearly everything they do. Lunch comes with a five-minute talk about a famous freethinker. Campers are told that invisible unicorns inhabit the forest, and offered a prize if they can prove that the unicorns do not exist. The older kids learn something about the difficulty of proving a negative. The younger ones grow giggly at the prospect of stepping in invisible unicorn poop."
How should we as Christians react to this? According to Lexington, "the kind of people who send their kids to Bible camp are appalled. Answers in Genesis, a Christian fundamentalist group, berates Camp Quest for drumming a “hopeless” world view into young minds."
I'm not so sure this camp, as Lexington describes it, is any more hopeless than the worldview of their atheist parents, or for that matter, the barrage of media children receive every day. I think, instead, this could help us better approach our atheist friends. Like Christians, and like almost any other subset of people in the U.S., atheists feel alienated. Lexington devotes a good portion of the column to the "lonely 1 in 12," and describes how less likely they would obtain elected office as compared to almost any other unpopular minority. Yet, they do not have networks through churches or other associations that almost any other group would have. Atheists need community, as do all of us. Consider this paragraph, for a moment:
"Many atheists opt to remain in the closet, except perhaps with their closest friends. It is the path of least resistance. Deny the existence of God and you may be challenging your neighbours’ most deeply held beliefs. That could get you ostracised, so why risk it? Yet living in the closet has costs. Christians have their beliefs constantly reinforced by neighbours who proudly and openly share them. Atheists often wrestle with their consciences alone, even though they are perhaps 8% of the population. Christopher Hitchens, the author of an antireligious polemic in 2007, observed that half the people who came to his book-promoting speeches had thought they were the only atheists in town."
Two weeks ago, my pastor preached on hospitality, and that hospitality towards those who provide us with no advantage, including the alienated, is a mark of a mature Christian. Since then, I have wonderd where we are with hospitality. Has Christian hospitality gotten to the point that atheists must wrestle with their consciences alone? Do we really need to ostracize anyone who challenges our most deeply held beliefs? The victims of the so-called culture wars are not necessarily the children who are exposed to pagan or atheistic ideas - that is unavoidable in this world. The victims are those who grow up in an environment where friendship with those of different beliefs is discouraged and conversations between believers and non-believers are squelched. If atheists feel unwelcome in American society, however secular we are becoming, then who can blame them for wanting their own camps and social institutions. We need to see this as a new opportunity for engagement.
There are a couple things to find encouraging about a summer camp for the children of Atheists. First, it is a reminder that everyone is seeking community. God made us for it, and commanded us to love each other. The camp will not last forever, and if we can provide, or at least be part of, community in a way that is genuinely loving and welcoming, there is a good foundation for further, potentially life changing conversation. Second, the seeds of skepticism can be used in our favor. If this camp truly encourages children to "weigh the evidence" and "explore ethical questions," then the foundations can be made for belief. Coming from ministry in Germany, a country where for obvious historical reasons skepticism is held in relatively high regard, I learned that a true skeptic will eventually be skeptical of other skeptics. Moreover, we could almost say that the history of Christianity is rich in skepticism. Jesus taught his followers to be skeptical of the ways of the world, and He ushered in a new Kingdom where the meek were blessed and enemies were loved. They were skeptical of imperialism, revolution and showy religiosity. We protestants can look to Martin Luther, who was skeptical of the structures of the Catholic church. Skepticism cannot be the end-all some may want it to be, but it can be the beginning of changed lives.
We need not always be "appalled," surprised or intimidated by the actions of unbelievers. We need to lovingly engage atheists (and anyone else) at the community level, encourage any honest search for truth, speak the truth ourselves and pray that they will find it.
About the atheist summer camp, Lexington writes: "They are not pushy or preachy, but scepticism flavours nearly everything they do. Lunch comes with a five-minute talk about a famous freethinker. Campers are told that invisible unicorns inhabit the forest, and offered a prize if they can prove that the unicorns do not exist. The older kids learn something about the difficulty of proving a negative. The younger ones grow giggly at the prospect of stepping in invisible unicorn poop."
How should we as Christians react to this? According to Lexington, "the kind of people who send their kids to Bible camp are appalled. Answers in Genesis, a Christian fundamentalist group, berates Camp Quest for drumming a “hopeless” world view into young minds."
I'm not so sure this camp, as Lexington describes it, is any more hopeless than the worldview of their atheist parents, or for that matter, the barrage of media children receive every day. I think, instead, this could help us better approach our atheist friends. Like Christians, and like almost any other subset of people in the U.S., atheists feel alienated. Lexington devotes a good portion of the column to the "lonely 1 in 12," and describes how less likely they would obtain elected office as compared to almost any other unpopular minority. Yet, they do not have networks through churches or other associations that almost any other group would have. Atheists need community, as do all of us. Consider this paragraph, for a moment:
"Many atheists opt to remain in the closet, except perhaps with their closest friends. It is the path of least resistance. Deny the existence of God and you may be challenging your neighbours’ most deeply held beliefs. That could get you ostracised, so why risk it? Yet living in the closet has costs. Christians have their beliefs constantly reinforced by neighbours who proudly and openly share them. Atheists often wrestle with their consciences alone, even though they are perhaps 8% of the population. Christopher Hitchens, the author of an antireligious polemic in 2007, observed that half the people who came to his book-promoting speeches had thought they were the only atheists in town."
Two weeks ago, my pastor preached on hospitality, and that hospitality towards those who provide us with no advantage, including the alienated, is a mark of a mature Christian. Since then, I have wonderd where we are with hospitality. Has Christian hospitality gotten to the point that atheists must wrestle with their consciences alone? Do we really need to ostracize anyone who challenges our most deeply held beliefs? The victims of the so-called culture wars are not necessarily the children who are exposed to pagan or atheistic ideas - that is unavoidable in this world. The victims are those who grow up in an environment where friendship with those of different beliefs is discouraged and conversations between believers and non-believers are squelched. If atheists feel unwelcome in American society, however secular we are becoming, then who can blame them for wanting their own camps and social institutions. We need to see this as a new opportunity for engagement.
There are a couple things to find encouraging about a summer camp for the children of Atheists. First, it is a reminder that everyone is seeking community. God made us for it, and commanded us to love each other. The camp will not last forever, and if we can provide, or at least be part of, community in a way that is genuinely loving and welcoming, there is a good foundation for further, potentially life changing conversation. Second, the seeds of skepticism can be used in our favor. If this camp truly encourages children to "weigh the evidence" and "explore ethical questions," then the foundations can be made for belief. Coming from ministry in Germany, a country where for obvious historical reasons skepticism is held in relatively high regard, I learned that a true skeptic will eventually be skeptical of other skeptics. Moreover, we could almost say that the history of Christianity is rich in skepticism. Jesus taught his followers to be skeptical of the ways of the world, and He ushered in a new Kingdom where the meek were blessed and enemies were loved. They were skeptical of imperialism, revolution and showy religiosity. We protestants can look to Martin Luther, who was skeptical of the structures of the Catholic church. Skepticism cannot be the end-all some may want it to be, but it can be the beginning of changed lives.
We need not always be "appalled," surprised or intimidated by the actions of unbelievers. We need to lovingly engage atheists (and anyone else) at the community level, encourage any honest search for truth, speak the truth ourselves and pray that they will find it.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Food Blogger
Justin has a new blog about food - always one of my favorite subjects. He even has the occasional guest writer...
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Want to Work in Politics? Put on Your Uniform!
In Federalist 10, James Madison wrote, "the latent causes of faction are thus sewn into the nature of man," and he went on to argue for the creation of a Republic to render all factions "subservient to the public good." Living on the Capitol's back porch, I get to witness competing factions of all sorts.
What Madison could not have foreseen is the advent of 24-hour news, the Internet and social media to make politics so entertaining. Indeed, political theater has become like sporting events. With so much exposure, it may be difficult for the average fan to turn on C-span, CNN or YouTube to figure out who is who. I therefore propose a new regulations for our factions. Taking a cue from our friends in the sports world, I say that all political players should wear uniforms.
Most DC politicos wear drab, conservative suits. Under the new rules, Republicans (politicians and their staffers) would wear bright red suits and Democrats would wear bright blue suits (red and blue being the media's colors for the respective parties). The Green Party would, of course, wear green, and independents purple. Smaller parties would have to choose their own colors, (provided they choose ones who are not already taken) perhaps with the help of public relations agencies.
This would not stop with political parties, however. Special interests would have to wear their own uniforms. The pharmaceutical lobby, and for that matter any special interest group related to health care, would wear long, white doctor's coats and stethoscopes around their necks. Likewise, patients advocates would don hospital gowns. Lobbyists for the defense industry should dawn second-hand army uniforms and camouflage face paint. Auto industry workers should wear mechanics jump suits with the name of the car company they represent embroidered on the upper right-hand side. Tech lobbyists would dress like my friends in the tech community - trendy jeans, clever t-shirts and flip flops. The farm lobby, of course, would dress like the couple in the American Gothic.
You get the idea. Foreign diplomats would wear the traditional clothes of their native countries. Religious advocates would don the appropriate vestments. Peace advocates would dress like hippies (as some already do). All in all, these uniforms would enhance the entertainment value for the viewing public, as they watch the factions compete for their share of the public good.
What Madison could not have foreseen is the advent of 24-hour news, the Internet and social media to make politics so entertaining. Indeed, political theater has become like sporting events. With so much exposure, it may be difficult for the average fan to turn on C-span, CNN or YouTube to figure out who is who. I therefore propose a new regulations for our factions. Taking a cue from our friends in the sports world, I say that all political players should wear uniforms.
Most DC politicos wear drab, conservative suits. Under the new rules, Republicans (politicians and their staffers) would wear bright red suits and Democrats would wear bright blue suits (red and blue being the media's colors for the respective parties). The Green Party would, of course, wear green, and independents purple. Smaller parties would have to choose their own colors, (provided they choose ones who are not already taken) perhaps with the help of public relations agencies.
This would not stop with political parties, however. Special interests would have to wear their own uniforms. The pharmaceutical lobby, and for that matter any special interest group related to health care, would wear long, white doctor's coats and stethoscopes around their necks. Likewise, patients advocates would don hospital gowns. Lobbyists for the defense industry should dawn second-hand army uniforms and camouflage face paint. Auto industry workers should wear mechanics jump suits with the name of the car company they represent embroidered on the upper right-hand side. Tech lobbyists would dress like my friends in the tech community - trendy jeans, clever t-shirts and flip flops. The farm lobby, of course, would dress like the couple in the American Gothic.
You get the idea. Foreign diplomats would wear the traditional clothes of their native countries. Religious advocates would don the appropriate vestments. Peace advocates would dress like hippies (as some already do). All in all, these uniforms would enhance the entertainment value for the viewing public, as they watch the factions compete for their share of the public good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
