What I said in December 2007 rings true: I love my dad, and my dad is a windbag. That's why I'm like my dad. That and we both miss one another, especially when holidays roll around. His Hallmark Christmas sounds beautiful, but not because it's without me. It's because it's just the type of Christmas to make my dad almost love Christmas. He has snow, while I'm having a delightfully green and dry (for the Maritimes, anyway) Christmas. He has tons of family around, visits from his in-laws and female children, while it's just the four of us here. He sits on his laptop wondering if I'll respond to his infamous annual missive and, as usual, I'll take the bait.
Three reasons I'll take the bait:
1) Our Christmas letter is still saved on this very machine, safely awaiting me to print more than one copy and to send them out. See, I'm not just like my dad; I'm also my mom. If you walked into her dining room today, I guarantee you there's a card for you somewhere, just waiting to be sent. She's extremely thoughtful. She just has a quirk of writing out cards and letters without sending all of them. Me, too. One of these years, Natasha will tell me she's taking over the Christmas letter. Until then, you're unlikely to receive ours on time. (Ours was finished before Natasha's birthday, by the way. It's really that I simply need to remember to send them.)
2) I almost always take my dad's bait. It's one of the things he likes about me, I'm sure. :) Reality is that my dad is a lot of fun, if a mostly-honest writer. He's extremely, uniquely smart - something I think I'm glad to see manifesting itself in our older daughter. She's an Erskine through and through, so much so that I regularly ask Natasha, "Do you think we're up for parenting this child?" He's had every experience in the book, from professional musicianship, to teaching university students, to consulting with state and federal governments on Internet business, to running an Internet business, to singing, to conducting, to writing, to publishing, to crafting stand-up comedy routines, to completing more degrees than I am aware of, to parenting six children, to preaching, to motorcycling, to do more things than I can even remember off the top of my head. Somehow in the mix of all that, he had the time and thoughtfulness to share his heart and mind with us. He's probably the way I think, laugh, and dream like I do, though I think my sense of humor comes from my mom. He's the reason I believe that anyone can do anything. He's the reason that I love Christmas, ironically enough. He's also the reason I like to tell stories, even if I offer a different perspective than his. (Maybe it's that I like to find stories worth telling on their own, independent of my creative license.) :D He's the example I had for loving my family, and I hope with everything in me to adopt most of what he offered us. He's also the reason I question things and wonder how much around us is "as good as it gets," or whether things can be different. He's the reason I'm an idealist, too. Our talk is different (his can be snarky, mine too often pie-in-the-sky), but in the end, we both want the same things for people and the world. We both want to see people free to realize their fullest potential, a world in which we can all embrace and live in liberty. He's the reason I am so convinced about Jesus, despite how frequently Christians try to make Jesus look bad. He's also the reason I have about two dozen "Dear Dad" letters like his written in my mind. Since the motorcycle ride in November 1998 when he told me his time was limited, I've mourned and remourned the loss that hasn't happened almost every day. His is a life worth celebrating, and that is why I stand my ground and call him "Big Fish." That movie was 100% about my dad, though the creative minds behind it didn't know it at the time. (Interestingly, the main character in "Big Fish" looked a lot like my grandfather Erskine, from whom my dad inherited all these fishy traits.) I will always celebrate my dad's life, today and on the day I'll write my final "Dear Dad," the time I'll actually have to mean it. I wouldn't change my dad being a windbag, overly-talented, too-smart-for-his-own-good, too-charming-for-everyone-else's-own-good, self-proclaimed-curmudgeon-who's-secretly-an-idealist, Christmas-loving, Big Fish for anything. Neither will I stop calling it how I see it. That's what I was raised to do. (Oh, and Dad, since I know you read this now, appealing to my spiritual side will only make me more likely to be honest about how I see it, so better luck next year.)
3) My dad's phone seems to be off or possessed. I've tried calling him (and, therefore, the family) for Christmas a couple of times with no luck other than a strange buzzing sound. Dad, either turn on your phone or get out the anointing oil. You might have a Hallmark Christmas without me, but that won't happen here without you.
LE
25 December 2009
10 November 2009
How Shall We Worship - How Do We Worship God?
Chapter three in Dawn's "How Shall We Worship?" gets to another important question that, like chapter two, takes greater precedence over chapter one's "What Kind of Music Should We Use?" Granted, Dawn moves through this book asking questions as they appear in Psalm 96, so no claims are made about a relationship between the importance of a question and where the question appears in a book. This question of how we can worship God, the One whom chapter two rightly told us is the object of worship, sets the tone for people who worship daily. It should also set the tone for our Sunday gatherings, seemingly Dawn's primary focus so far.
Dawn has one simple response to the question, "How Do We Worship God?" She asserts that to worship God is to bless God's name (25). This response comes directly from Psalm 96:2, so it gets no biblical argument from me. Furthermore, it reiterates the concept that God is the object of worship, which I also like. The importance Dawn places on God's name is insightful because it helps shape our worship choices. It helps us choose prayers, music, drama, art forms, lessons, etc., based on God's name. The explanation she gives is also helpful: to bless God's name is to honor God's character, God's nature, God's being, all of which are captured in God's name. Those of us who have done much Bible reading know that God has several names throughout the Scriptures, all based on some attribute or characteristic of God. There are a great many ways to bless God's name, as we "bow down before the mystery and wonder of the incarnation" (26).
We can likely all assent to blessing God's name as part of worship, but I am stricken by Dawn's perspective that our worship is useless, in a sense (27). Understand here that Dawn does not think worship has no point; rather, she states that God doesn't actually need our blessing. After all, God is the one who blesses us. God is self-sufficient. God made everything, owns everything, and is over everything. Therefore, our blessing doesn't give something to God that God does not already have. Instead, "the verb calling us to bless God's name is an imperative urging us to kneel, to adore the Lord with bended knee...because God deserves our gratitude" (27). Again, "It is actually unproductive to bless God - God doesn't need it, and it won't change God's opinion about us one whit. Moreover, if we are selfless enough truly to sing to or of [God], it might not even make us feel any better. But we will be changed by it if we respond earnestly and wholeheartedly to all that God is" (27).
It is easy to see, then, that God, our object of worship, is the one who should receive blessing in worship. We ought to choose worship activities that seek to bless God, not to bless us. Our blessing may come from God, but worship is not about us or our blessing. Dawn nails several churches that have nice worship times, called "nice" because of what we feel when we're there. God is gracious enough to welcome us into what God feels sometimes, but she rightly calls our attention away from ourselves and back onto God.
That being said, I have two critiques of this chapter that I'd like to address. First, Dawn seems often to respond unfavorably to churches who take people into consideration in planning their worship services. She seemingly has little time for people who want to "attract" people to their churches with worship (27). That makes sense in that worship is about God and not about people. Trying to attract people who don't believe with a spectacle of our blessing God is foolhardy. On the other hand, I certainly hope that Dawn takes time later in the book to talk about worship tools and modes of communication. I belong to a movement that highly respects worship being done in the language of the people. While that movement originally wanted people to be able to speak in their native tongues, I am convinced that we face a similar decision today in terms of worship approaches. While I agree all musical forms should be used and never dictated by an effort to attract people, I strongly feel that music is a mode of communication. I am convinced that communicating through irrelevant music presents worshipers with a choice between music and worship. Relevant music (of which there are many styles - not just the common pop music with Jesus themes that churches like ours use so frequently) enables worship. When worship is done well with relevance to its people and their community, then music is less likely to overshadow worship. Music fades into the background, allowing worshipers to connect to lyrics, to emotions, to thoughts, and to other ways to bless God. A psalm, hymn, or spiritual song done well in a way that communicates in the "language" of the people present helps keep God in God's proper place. So, if we reject music simply because it seems attractive or is more appealing to unchurched people, then we run the risk of not communicating to some people. Let's not attempt to attract people with church music and worship, nor let us maintain dull, mediocre music so we can say we're not trying to attract others. (Note: any music style done poorly will be a distraction, so assume nothing about music. Hymns can be quite relevant, as can psalms and spiritual songs, if they are communicated well and with relevance. Is the trick for your worship ministry to get rid of the hymns? To abolish new spiritual songs? To step beyond the psalter to more contemporary thoughts? If so, then beware imminent irrelevance.)
I hesitate briefly to offer my second critique, which regards the church calendar. I am a big believer in using the church calendar for worship. It was designed in such a way that we trace the life of Christ throughout the year and are more likely to worship God more thoroughly when we look at all the stages of Christ's life and ministry. Furthermore, I couldn't agree more with Dawn, who indicates that using the church calendar for worship also helps us offer ourselves more fully to God. Much of the church year deals with topics and emotions that we don't often offer to God in our Sunday gatherings. Lent is likely the best example because it helps us to identify with Christ's time in the wilderness and helps us bring our emotions of sadness, disappointment, exhaustion, and apprehension to God. We are able to worship a more complete picture of God, and we're able to offer more of ourselves. Our services cannot always look the same if we're worshiping God for all God is with all that we are (30). Where I struggle with Dawn, then, is not with the concept that the church calendar is a valuable tool. Rather, the way she put this into her chapter reinforces my perception that this book is not entirely exegetical. Putting the church calendar in this chapter seemed sudden, as if Dawn had an agenda running parallel to her BIble study. She's completely biblical about worshipers blessing God's name, but can we honestly say that the Bible wants us to worship through the church calendar? Surely, this tool makes it easier to see more of God's attributes and character, and it requires more thought and feeling from worshipers, but is it really necessary for adequate worship? Can people not bless God's name without something like the church calendar? I suspect Dawn would assent that we can bless God without the church calendar, but I feel bothered that this agenda was put on the same level as exegesis. It seems Dawn saw an opportunity to include her own opinion in the Bible study and she took it. Fortunately, it's a helpful opinion, but reader, beware that we don't assume that the church calendar has anything to do with Psalm 96.
LE
Dawn has one simple response to the question, "How Do We Worship God?" She asserts that to worship God is to bless God's name (25). This response comes directly from Psalm 96:2, so it gets no biblical argument from me. Furthermore, it reiterates the concept that God is the object of worship, which I also like. The importance Dawn places on God's name is insightful because it helps shape our worship choices. It helps us choose prayers, music, drama, art forms, lessons, etc., based on God's name. The explanation she gives is also helpful: to bless God's name is to honor God's character, God's nature, God's being, all of which are captured in God's name. Those of us who have done much Bible reading know that God has several names throughout the Scriptures, all based on some attribute or characteristic of God. There are a great many ways to bless God's name, as we "bow down before the mystery and wonder of the incarnation" (26).
We can likely all assent to blessing God's name as part of worship, but I am stricken by Dawn's perspective that our worship is useless, in a sense (27). Understand here that Dawn does not think worship has no point; rather, she states that God doesn't actually need our blessing. After all, God is the one who blesses us. God is self-sufficient. God made everything, owns everything, and is over everything. Therefore, our blessing doesn't give something to God that God does not already have. Instead, "the verb calling us to bless God's name is an imperative urging us to kneel, to adore the Lord with bended knee...because God deserves our gratitude" (27). Again, "It is actually unproductive to bless God - God doesn't need it, and it won't change God's opinion about us one whit. Moreover, if we are selfless enough truly to sing to or of [God], it might not even make us feel any better. But we will be changed by it if we respond earnestly and wholeheartedly to all that God is" (27).
It is easy to see, then, that God, our object of worship, is the one who should receive blessing in worship. We ought to choose worship activities that seek to bless God, not to bless us. Our blessing may come from God, but worship is not about us or our blessing. Dawn nails several churches that have nice worship times, called "nice" because of what we feel when we're there. God is gracious enough to welcome us into what God feels sometimes, but she rightly calls our attention away from ourselves and back onto God.
That being said, I have two critiques of this chapter that I'd like to address. First, Dawn seems often to respond unfavorably to churches who take people into consideration in planning their worship services. She seemingly has little time for people who want to "attract" people to their churches with worship (27). That makes sense in that worship is about God and not about people. Trying to attract people who don't believe with a spectacle of our blessing God is foolhardy. On the other hand, I certainly hope that Dawn takes time later in the book to talk about worship tools and modes of communication. I belong to a movement that highly respects worship being done in the language of the people. While that movement originally wanted people to be able to speak in their native tongues, I am convinced that we face a similar decision today in terms of worship approaches. While I agree all musical forms should be used and never dictated by an effort to attract people, I strongly feel that music is a mode of communication. I am convinced that communicating through irrelevant music presents worshipers with a choice between music and worship. Relevant music (of which there are many styles - not just the common pop music with Jesus themes that churches like ours use so frequently) enables worship. When worship is done well with relevance to its people and their community, then music is less likely to overshadow worship. Music fades into the background, allowing worshipers to connect to lyrics, to emotions, to thoughts, and to other ways to bless God. A psalm, hymn, or spiritual song done well in a way that communicates in the "language" of the people present helps keep God in God's proper place. So, if we reject music simply because it seems attractive or is more appealing to unchurched people, then we run the risk of not communicating to some people. Let's not attempt to attract people with church music and worship, nor let us maintain dull, mediocre music so we can say we're not trying to attract others. (Note: any music style done poorly will be a distraction, so assume nothing about music. Hymns can be quite relevant, as can psalms and spiritual songs, if they are communicated well and with relevance. Is the trick for your worship ministry to get rid of the hymns? To abolish new spiritual songs? To step beyond the psalter to more contemporary thoughts? If so, then beware imminent irrelevance.)
I hesitate briefly to offer my second critique, which regards the church calendar. I am a big believer in using the church calendar for worship. It was designed in such a way that we trace the life of Christ throughout the year and are more likely to worship God more thoroughly when we look at all the stages of Christ's life and ministry. Furthermore, I couldn't agree more with Dawn, who indicates that using the church calendar for worship also helps us offer ourselves more fully to God. Much of the church year deals with topics and emotions that we don't often offer to God in our Sunday gatherings. Lent is likely the best example because it helps us to identify with Christ's time in the wilderness and helps us bring our emotions of sadness, disappointment, exhaustion, and apprehension to God. We are able to worship a more complete picture of God, and we're able to offer more of ourselves. Our services cannot always look the same if we're worshiping God for all God is with all that we are (30). Where I struggle with Dawn, then, is not with the concept that the church calendar is a valuable tool. Rather, the way she put this into her chapter reinforces my perception that this book is not entirely exegetical. Putting the church calendar in this chapter seemed sudden, as if Dawn had an agenda running parallel to her BIble study. She's completely biblical about worshipers blessing God's name, but can we honestly say that the Bible wants us to worship through the church calendar? Surely, this tool makes it easier to see more of God's attributes and character, and it requires more thought and feeling from worshipers, but is it really necessary for adequate worship? Can people not bless God's name without something like the church calendar? I suspect Dawn would assent that we can bless God without the church calendar, but I feel bothered that this agenda was put on the same level as exegesis. It seems Dawn saw an opportunity to include her own opinion in the Bible study and she took it. Fortunately, it's a helpful opinion, but reader, beware that we don't assume that the church calendar has anything to do with Psalm 96.
LE
05 November 2009
How Shall We Worship - Who Is Being Worshiped?
In this second chapter, Dawn hits on a much more vital question than she did in chapter one. Don't get me wrong; knowing what kind of music is appropriate is important. It's just that most of us who actually worship when we go to church already know that music is immaterial. That's why Dawn's opening statement to chapter two is so poignant: "The greatest danger of choosing where or at which type of service we worship according to our musical taste is that we forget that worship is for God" (19).
The rest of this very short chapter offers much of the same sentiment. Worship is for God. I like that a great deal because of how often our daily worship and our weekly worship gatherings miss that point. We're good at making worship about God or from God (as in a mandate), but we don't direct our worship activities in God's direction as often as we might. Dawn's helpful analysis shows how inevitable it is for worship to be directed away from God if we ignore our cultural (even church cultural) narcissism (20) and deny our capitalist approach to church, in which we do what we can to secure our fair share of the "market" (22). Clearly, planning, choosing, and evaluating worship with ourselves at the center is folly. (That's so much easier to say than actively to avoid!) It is equally true, though, that we need not to concern ourselves with recruitment and retention in church membership when we worship God. Worship is not about getting people to sit in our pews, nor is it about making sure people don't leave. Worship is our responsibility; it is something that we do. If someone chooses not to worship and to make church about themselves or their tastes, then they have missed the boat. That is no reason for us to become musical caterers instead of worship leaders.
That being said, I see two cautions in my mind's eye after these few pages:
1) Dawn applauds Willow Creek Church for their evangelistic Sunday events and midweek worship events, while wrapping the knuckles of churches who try to emulate that. She's smart for calling out the rest of us churches who are trying more to duplicate Willow than to engage our God. Her stress that worship is not the same thing as evangelism, though correct, can lead many of us not even to consider visitors or people who do not believe when we plan our group worship events. Not to consider unbelieving people and/or visitors simply will not work. God should never be replaced as the object of our worshipful affection, but ignoring visitors and/or unbelieving people only sets church bodies apart as elitist, erudite bodies who are unconcerned with identifying with people around them. Such insular thinking is why many, many people want nothing to do with churches and Christians. Planning worship events with visitors in mind, never apologizing for why we gather, but, rather, lifting Christ even higher in our praise is perfectly appropriate. (Note: planning with visitors in mind, though wise, must be done cautiously. Planning with visitors in mind is great until those visitors become regular attenders who now assume that everything will always be done according to their tastes. Fine line, isn't it?)
2) I think it's wise to remind one another consistently that worship is for God. We must tell each other regularly, "It's not about you." I feel a little scared that Dawn's once-and-for-all, matter-of-fact chapter states a plain truth and assumes we get it. Trust me, after 12 years in regular music ministry/worship leadership, we need this reminder at least once per week. Even when we get it, we still battle evaluating group worship events (Sundays, particularly) through the filters of our preferences and tastes. We may never be able to rid ourselves of personal biases, but we can become open-hearted and open-minded. And we should. It is a great idea to take Dawn's clear, brief chapter and assess ourselves regularly about who our worship is really for.
LE
The rest of this very short chapter offers much of the same sentiment. Worship is for God. I like that a great deal because of how often our daily worship and our weekly worship gatherings miss that point. We're good at making worship about God or from God (as in a mandate), but we don't direct our worship activities in God's direction as often as we might. Dawn's helpful analysis shows how inevitable it is for worship to be directed away from God if we ignore our cultural (even church cultural) narcissism (20) and deny our capitalist approach to church, in which we do what we can to secure our fair share of the "market" (22). Clearly, planning, choosing, and evaluating worship with ourselves at the center is folly. (That's so much easier to say than actively to avoid!) It is equally true, though, that we need not to concern ourselves with recruitment and retention in church membership when we worship God. Worship is not about getting people to sit in our pews, nor is it about making sure people don't leave. Worship is our responsibility; it is something that we do. If someone chooses not to worship and to make church about themselves or their tastes, then they have missed the boat. That is no reason for us to become musical caterers instead of worship leaders.
That being said, I see two cautions in my mind's eye after these few pages:
1) Dawn applauds Willow Creek Church for their evangelistic Sunday events and midweek worship events, while wrapping the knuckles of churches who try to emulate that. She's smart for calling out the rest of us churches who are trying more to duplicate Willow than to engage our God. Her stress that worship is not the same thing as evangelism, though correct, can lead many of us not even to consider visitors or people who do not believe when we plan our group worship events. Not to consider unbelieving people and/or visitors simply will not work. God should never be replaced as the object of our worshipful affection, but ignoring visitors and/or unbelieving people only sets church bodies apart as elitist, erudite bodies who are unconcerned with identifying with people around them. Such insular thinking is why many, many people want nothing to do with churches and Christians. Planning worship events with visitors in mind, never apologizing for why we gather, but, rather, lifting Christ even higher in our praise is perfectly appropriate. (Note: planning with visitors in mind, though wise, must be done cautiously. Planning with visitors in mind is great until those visitors become regular attenders who now assume that everything will always be done according to their tastes. Fine line, isn't it?)
2) I think it's wise to remind one another consistently that worship is for God. We must tell each other regularly, "It's not about you." I feel a little scared that Dawn's once-and-for-all, matter-of-fact chapter states a plain truth and assumes we get it. Trust me, after 12 years in regular music ministry/worship leadership, we need this reminder at least once per week. Even when we get it, we still battle evaluating group worship events (Sundays, particularly) through the filters of our preferences and tastes. We may never be able to rid ourselves of personal biases, but we can become open-hearted and open-minded. And we should. It is a great idea to take Dawn's clear, brief chapter and assess ourselves regularly about who our worship is really for.
LE
16 October 2009
How Shall We Worship - What Kinds of Music Should We Use?
Welcome back to my musings on Marva J. Dawn's How Shall We Worship?! Please remember that these are just my thoughts literally as they "spill" out of my head. Nothing is well thought through or cemented in my thinking yet. :)
Just as Dawn indicated she would do in her introduction, she begins her offering of "better" questions for believers in Jesus at the beginning of Psalm 96. Psalm 96:1a states, "Sing to the Lord a new song," bringing the reader to Dawn's first question (and, hence, first chapter): What Kinds of Music Should We Use?
This question is a big one among many churches. Many of us unfortunately argue over this, my present context included (and possibly leading the fray, in some camps). While many believers look beyond music for worship, the question of what music is appropriate remains at the top of the list. Lest I become too harsh on the handful of voices who seem to argue in our church - and yours, if you're honest - understand that I think arguments over music are inevitable. Almost every church does music, and it is one of few ministries that is always up front every Sunday. As such, it is one of few ministries that is under constant scrutiny during our "hour on Sunday" (Nancy Beach). What we do when we perform on Sundays is so similar to performances elsewhere that we cannot help but critique what we see and hear, as we always do. Furthermore, because the music is part of worship, we worship musicians can expect spiritual opposition. It is good, then, that Psalm 96 and Dawn's insights begin with the question of appropriate music in church.
Dawn offers several helpful thoughts in this first chapter, beginning with her admission that we churches fight too much about music. She asserts that when churches fight over musical styles, we lose focus on (and even reject) our Christian heritage, global music, and new things God is doing (1). The accuracy of this observation almost goes without saying. When was the last time you heard someone debating musical style who actually alluded to the first century believers, the saints whose relationships with Christ brought about our theology, the lessons we've learned through history, the way God is moving among people not in our town or faith camp, or the way God is still doing new and great things every day? (I tried this once; it gets nowhere with someone who simply wants what they want.)
The reticence to accept new things and embrace new songs has unsupportable roots, but there is good reason not to sell oneself solely to new (or contemporary) music. Dawn wisely suggests first that Psalm 96:1 does not call God's people only to do new songs (2). Such an approach is unbiblical and ignores the concept of the great cloud of witnesses of which we are a small part. I've heard a cliché that warns us who cannot learn from our past: we will repeat it. Was it God's plan for each successive generation to become acquainted with God anew and to relearn our doctrine from scratch? Absolutely not! (Don't take my word for it: the Scriptures indicate at least 79 times that God's promises are for all people and our future generations. Look particularly at the psalms, since they're possibly most apropos to this discussion.) If this was not God's plan, then whence did this concept of "out with the old, in with the new" invade our worship music?
Dawn points to the coming of age of the Boomers as the unfortunate switch for worshipers. She asserts that rebellion against institutions and individuals of authority led the Boomers to establish self identity through music. She inadvertently blames capitalism, too, stating that marketers realized they could make more money by segregating music styles and capitalizing on niche marketing (targeting one particular market as opposed to aiming at everyone). This, Dawn claims, invaded the church and began the first rounds of music style debates that have yet to stop (10-12). I wasn't there in the 60s, so I will trust Dawn on her history. It certainly makes sense and seems helpful. Where I part from her is the concept that rebellion and niche marketing are still primarily to blame. (I'm also not big on blaming the Boomers for everything, though it certainly seems they've done a number to our world.... So have we.) Though the independence, self-sufficiency, and self-indulgence of a generation (in general) led to great rebellions and money opportunities, that cannot be the lasting factor in our churches. As the son of a used-to-be hippie, I've personally watched a generation before me learn a great deal about "the real world" and turn from extreme rebellion to attempting to make a difference in the world. We're all grateful that a generation of people finally questioned some very questionable things from several generations ago. Few of the so-called rebels are still trying to rebel against "the establishment." In fact, several people of that era have entered the establishment to bring much needed reform from the inside. In some cases, we're much further ahead because of these rebellious, money-giving Boomers. It is much more likely that rebellion and self-indulgence in people in general is the culprit to our fighting. As Dawn rightly observes, neither the emerging Boomers nor the former generations responded well when the Boomers began forming an identity. The Boomers rebelled, and the older people counter-rebelled. Everyone wanted it their way. Everyone still wants it their way. Add to this the unforgiven, unhealed rifts among people who have lived through fights like these, and we are left with people in our churches with selfishness and baggage. It is the human condition (apart from God's grace) that began this problem and that allows is to continue today. (Let's all pray we can respond to God's grace - to worship - in order to get ourselves out of these musical fights!)
So, if Dawn purports that new music should not be king for our churches, should old music take the lead? She later states, "...God is never to be contained by the music we already know" (5). This is an excellent point because God is bigger than all music, new and old. New worship songs are written so frequently because human experience and knowledge have yet to exhaust the mystery of our eternal Friend and Lord. "No single type of music can respond to all that God is. No instrument can sing all God's attributes. No era of the Church has displayed the fullness of God's glory" (13). While it is important, then, to embrace the old songs, one can never stop there if we want to worship God fully.
Believe it or not, Dawn talks about me in her book. No, it's true. She writes, "Many of the younger-than-boomer generations are asking what might be learned from the past, from the roots of the Church, as they search for mystery, symbolism, heritage, and depth - all for the sake of worship God genuinely in 'spirit and truth'" (12-13). When I read this, I realized this is exactly where I am on this debate. I have no interest in either old or new music. I hate the labels "contemporary" and "traditional." Did you read that? Hate. HATE. I think those labels are a stench in God's nostrils because they mean nothing to God. In my experience (and as I've studied the Scriptures and church history), the only people who use these labels are people who want things their way or who want to please people more than they want to worship. I now have Dawn to thank for backing me up. (And since she has a title in front of her name and degrees after it, a few people in my context who won't ever read this blog might actually listen to me now.) Dawn wants to get rid of the self-serving labels "contemporary" and "traditional" because neither is well defined (2-3). They are confusing terms. "Contemporary" can refer to many, many things, like new songs, new tunes to old texts, new texts to old tunes, new arrangements of old songs, new instruments with new songs, new instruments with old songs, old instruments with new songs, and so one. And "traditional?" Whose tradition? What tradition? Are we talking from ancient times? Or, like in my context, are we talking not about traditions at all but about old songs? These terms are confusing and, Dawn indicates, are destined to reinforce conflict rather than to solve it.
Some of us who don't like conflict are probably thinking of the words "blended" and "convergent" right now. (I certainly was when I first read this.) Bluntly, I hate these words, too, because they simply are not what they claim to be. If you believe Robert Webber (which I do), blended worship is actually about blending traditions together across time and space to worship God as fully as humanity can do. We blend worship traditions like singing, prayer, teaching, confession, and so on, all to honor God. When we say, "blended worship," though, we tend to think about trying to develop a formula like "opening hymn, two gospel songs, three choruses, and a closing hymn." Convergent is similar. This also comes from Webber, thinking worship converges across time and space whenever we worship. It even indicates that everything ancient and everything that is yet to be in worshiping God converges when- and wherever we worship ourselves. Of course, when we say "convergent," we tend to think that we're trying to converge hymns and new songs as if they'd ever been separated in God's eyes.
Dawn doesn't like the words "blended" and "convergent" for worship either. She seems not to take as much stock in Webber's work as I do, but, like me, she sees great value in the concepts of blended and convergent worship (as Webber expresses them, not as we do). On the other hand, she sees these positive concepts going wrong in practice (13-14). It is not enough simply to try and blend tastes or to converge what we all like, which is what inevitably happens. If you get the chance, read her critiques. For now it is sufficient to state that Dawn is dissatisfied with an approach that still has not healed the breach between worshipers. She states early on that dividing churches is biblically inappropriate (6). To divide along blurry lines like "contemporary" and "traditional" is completely wrong. To pretend to bridge the gap by blending tastes or converging people's preferences still places too much emphasis on the preferences themselves. The separation still exists.
I agree with Dawn wholeheartedly in this matter. She helpfully shows that the divide between musical preferences may also reflect a divide between people whose brains are more involved in worship and whose hearts are more involved - the proverbial "thinker-feeler" divide (7). Dawn shows how older songs (before the 19th century, anyway) were considerably better thought out, while more modern songs focus on feelings. Modern people who prefer older songs often engage cognitively, while those who prefer newer songs often like to "feel" the truth of the songs deep down. I personally think this can be taken to an extreme, so if you're reading my thoughts (scary!), try to avoid that. Dawn's point is well taken, though. These divides sometimes run deeper than music, but we must learn to worship through the necessary tension of thought and feeling - of truth and spirit (John 4:23). Both are necessary in worship, so music that reflects both are necessary in worship.
To answer the question of what kinds of music should be used, one must ask oneself what music allows us to worship in spirit and in truth. That can honestly be anything. I've done quite a bit of study on Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, so I felt flattered that Dawn used them in her chapter (4-5). If my study is accurate, then Dawn's study is quite sound. (If not, we still agree and are both quacks.) She shows how these Scriptures, reflecting the whole of Scripture (including other specific ones she mentions), show no sign of God's preferred style of music. If we can trust the Bible at all, then we can tell that God has no musical preference. The inclusive language in the music passage shows that any music is okay, provided that God is being worshiped. The point of music is not simply to have music, nor is it meant primarily to please people. Though music touches us deeply, in worship it is simply a tool. As Dawn writes, a good worship service can easily include tons of styles, instruments, singers, and origins when it actually displays the texts and themes of the worship experience (17). She seems to indicate that unless a service deliberately chooses many styles, we are selling God and God's worship short. I tend to agree. Now if only I would plan better than way....
In closing I have three disjunct thoughts:
1) You probably think I agreed with Dawn in every word, sentence, and punctuation mark in this chapter. You're pretty close to correct. However, I must take issue with how interchangeably she uses the words "worship" and "music" here. It's difficult not to do that, but considering the topic at hand, clearer delineation would be helpful. I'm presently on a kick to reverse a kick I had a few years ago. I'm considering how I can be more honest in worship when it comes to music. I went on a kick of removing all kinds of music and performance terms because it just wasn't godly. Then I realized that my approach confuses people and only reinforces the grave mistake that music is worship. Paul Westermeyer really helped me with this when he remarked, "Let our music be broken to God." That is the correct approach, if there is one. To be honest that we are doing music, we're performing, and so on, is healthy in church, provided it is part of being a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1-2). So, I'm on a kick of calling music "music" again and using performance terms because it's what they are. And I'm praying a great deal that these are all sacrificed to God.
2) I LOVE the title Dawn gives to the Prodigal Son parable: the Waiting Father (16). It's so much more accurate to the story! (For more on the Waiting Father story, I HIGHLY recommend Tim Keller's work.
3) I closed with a great quote last time. I've got another one. "Perhaps we can simply summarize our goal by declaring that our worship could make use of 'the Music of the "one holy, catholic, apostolic Church" (as the Nicene Creed calls it) for the Sake of the Whole World'" (15).
LE
Just as Dawn indicated she would do in her introduction, she begins her offering of "better" questions for believers in Jesus at the beginning of Psalm 96. Psalm 96:1a states, "Sing to the Lord a new song," bringing the reader to Dawn's first question (and, hence, first chapter): What Kinds of Music Should We Use?
This question is a big one among many churches. Many of us unfortunately argue over this, my present context included (and possibly leading the fray, in some camps). While many believers look beyond music for worship, the question of what music is appropriate remains at the top of the list. Lest I become too harsh on the handful of voices who seem to argue in our church - and yours, if you're honest - understand that I think arguments over music are inevitable. Almost every church does music, and it is one of few ministries that is always up front every Sunday. As such, it is one of few ministries that is under constant scrutiny during our "hour on Sunday" (Nancy Beach). What we do when we perform on Sundays is so similar to performances elsewhere that we cannot help but critique what we see and hear, as we always do. Furthermore, because the music is part of worship, we worship musicians can expect spiritual opposition. It is good, then, that Psalm 96 and Dawn's insights begin with the question of appropriate music in church.
Dawn offers several helpful thoughts in this first chapter, beginning with her admission that we churches fight too much about music. She asserts that when churches fight over musical styles, we lose focus on (and even reject) our Christian heritage, global music, and new things God is doing (1). The accuracy of this observation almost goes without saying. When was the last time you heard someone debating musical style who actually alluded to the first century believers, the saints whose relationships with Christ brought about our theology, the lessons we've learned through history, the way God is moving among people not in our town or faith camp, or the way God is still doing new and great things every day? (I tried this once; it gets nowhere with someone who simply wants what they want.)
The reticence to accept new things and embrace new songs has unsupportable roots, but there is good reason not to sell oneself solely to new (or contemporary) music. Dawn wisely suggests first that Psalm 96:1 does not call God's people only to do new songs (2). Such an approach is unbiblical and ignores the concept of the great cloud of witnesses of which we are a small part. I've heard a cliché that warns us who cannot learn from our past: we will repeat it. Was it God's plan for each successive generation to become acquainted with God anew and to relearn our doctrine from scratch? Absolutely not! (Don't take my word for it: the Scriptures indicate at least 79 times that God's promises are for all people and our future generations. Look particularly at the psalms, since they're possibly most apropos to this discussion.) If this was not God's plan, then whence did this concept of "out with the old, in with the new" invade our worship music?
Dawn points to the coming of age of the Boomers as the unfortunate switch for worshipers. She asserts that rebellion against institutions and individuals of authority led the Boomers to establish self identity through music. She inadvertently blames capitalism, too, stating that marketers realized they could make more money by segregating music styles and capitalizing on niche marketing (targeting one particular market as opposed to aiming at everyone). This, Dawn claims, invaded the church and began the first rounds of music style debates that have yet to stop (10-12). I wasn't there in the 60s, so I will trust Dawn on her history. It certainly makes sense and seems helpful. Where I part from her is the concept that rebellion and niche marketing are still primarily to blame. (I'm also not big on blaming the Boomers for everything, though it certainly seems they've done a number to our world.... So have we.) Though the independence, self-sufficiency, and self-indulgence of a generation (in general) led to great rebellions and money opportunities, that cannot be the lasting factor in our churches. As the son of a used-to-be hippie, I've personally watched a generation before me learn a great deal about "the real world" and turn from extreme rebellion to attempting to make a difference in the world. We're all grateful that a generation of people finally questioned some very questionable things from several generations ago. Few of the so-called rebels are still trying to rebel against "the establishment." In fact, several people of that era have entered the establishment to bring much needed reform from the inside. In some cases, we're much further ahead because of these rebellious, money-giving Boomers. It is much more likely that rebellion and self-indulgence in people in general is the culprit to our fighting. As Dawn rightly observes, neither the emerging Boomers nor the former generations responded well when the Boomers began forming an identity. The Boomers rebelled, and the older people counter-rebelled. Everyone wanted it their way. Everyone still wants it their way. Add to this the unforgiven, unhealed rifts among people who have lived through fights like these, and we are left with people in our churches with selfishness and baggage. It is the human condition (apart from God's grace) that began this problem and that allows is to continue today. (Let's all pray we can respond to God's grace - to worship - in order to get ourselves out of these musical fights!)
So, if Dawn purports that new music should not be king for our churches, should old music take the lead? She later states, "...God is never to be contained by the music we already know" (5). This is an excellent point because God is bigger than all music, new and old. New worship songs are written so frequently because human experience and knowledge have yet to exhaust the mystery of our eternal Friend and Lord. "No single type of music can respond to all that God is. No instrument can sing all God's attributes. No era of the Church has displayed the fullness of God's glory" (13). While it is important, then, to embrace the old songs, one can never stop there if we want to worship God fully.
Believe it or not, Dawn talks about me in her book. No, it's true. She writes, "Many of the younger-than-boomer generations are asking what might be learned from the past, from the roots of the Church, as they search for mystery, symbolism, heritage, and depth - all for the sake of worship God genuinely in 'spirit and truth'" (12-13). When I read this, I realized this is exactly where I am on this debate. I have no interest in either old or new music. I hate the labels "contemporary" and "traditional." Did you read that? Hate. HATE. I think those labels are a stench in God's nostrils because they mean nothing to God. In my experience (and as I've studied the Scriptures and church history), the only people who use these labels are people who want things their way or who want to please people more than they want to worship. I now have Dawn to thank for backing me up. (And since she has a title in front of her name and degrees after it, a few people in my context who won't ever read this blog might actually listen to me now.) Dawn wants to get rid of the self-serving labels "contemporary" and "traditional" because neither is well defined (2-3). They are confusing terms. "Contemporary" can refer to many, many things, like new songs, new tunes to old texts, new texts to old tunes, new arrangements of old songs, new instruments with new songs, new instruments with old songs, old instruments with new songs, and so one. And "traditional?" Whose tradition? What tradition? Are we talking from ancient times? Or, like in my context, are we talking not about traditions at all but about old songs? These terms are confusing and, Dawn indicates, are destined to reinforce conflict rather than to solve it.
Some of us who don't like conflict are probably thinking of the words "blended" and "convergent" right now. (I certainly was when I first read this.) Bluntly, I hate these words, too, because they simply are not what they claim to be. If you believe Robert Webber (which I do), blended worship is actually about blending traditions together across time and space to worship God as fully as humanity can do. We blend worship traditions like singing, prayer, teaching, confession, and so on, all to honor God. When we say, "blended worship," though, we tend to think about trying to develop a formula like "opening hymn, two gospel songs, three choruses, and a closing hymn."
Dawn doesn't like the words "blended" and "convergent" for worship either. She seems not to take as much stock in Webber's work as I do, but, like me, she sees great value in the concepts of blended and convergent worship (as Webber expresses them, not as we do). On the other hand, she sees these positive concepts going wrong in practice (13-14). It is not enough simply to try and blend tastes or to converge what we all like, which is what inevitably happens. If you get the chance, read her critiques. For now it is sufficient to state that Dawn is dissatisfied with an approach that still has not healed the breach between worshipers. She states early on that dividing churches is biblically inappropriate (6). To divide along blurry lines like "contemporary" and "traditional" is completely wrong. To pretend to bridge the gap by blending tastes or converging people's preferences still places too much emphasis on the preferences themselves. The separation still exists.
I agree with Dawn wholeheartedly in this matter. She helpfully shows that the divide between musical preferences may also reflect a divide between people whose brains are more involved in worship and whose hearts are more involved - the proverbial "thinker-feeler" divide (7). Dawn shows how older songs (before the 19th century, anyway) were considerably better thought out, while more modern songs focus on feelings. Modern people who prefer older songs often engage cognitively, while those who prefer newer songs often like to "feel" the truth of the songs deep down. I personally think this can be taken to an extreme, so if you're reading my thoughts (scary!), try to avoid that. Dawn's point is well taken, though. These divides sometimes run deeper than music, but we must learn to worship through the necessary tension of thought and feeling - of truth and spirit (John 4:23). Both are necessary in worship, so music that reflects both are necessary in worship.
To answer the question of what kinds of music should be used, one must ask oneself what music allows us to worship in spirit and in truth. That can honestly be anything. I've done quite a bit of study on Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, so I felt flattered that Dawn used them in her chapter (4-5). If my study is accurate, then Dawn's study is quite sound. (If not, we still agree and are both quacks.) She shows how these Scriptures, reflecting the whole of Scripture (including other specific ones she mentions), show no sign of God's preferred style of music. If we can trust the Bible at all, then we can tell that God has no musical preference. The inclusive language in the music passage shows that any music is okay, provided that God is being worshiped. The point of music is not simply to have music, nor is it meant primarily to please people. Though music touches us deeply, in worship it is simply a tool. As Dawn writes, a good worship service can easily include tons of styles, instruments, singers, and origins when it actually displays the texts and themes of the worship experience (17). She seems to indicate that unless a service deliberately chooses many styles, we are selling God and God's worship short. I tend to agree. Now if only I would plan better than way....
In closing I have three disjunct thoughts:
1) You probably think I agreed with Dawn in every word, sentence, and punctuation mark in this chapter. You're pretty close to correct. However, I must take issue with how interchangeably she uses the words "worship" and "music" here. It's difficult not to do that, but considering the topic at hand, clearer delineation would be helpful. I'm presently on a kick to reverse a kick I had a few years ago. I'm considering how I can be more honest in worship when it comes to music. I went on a kick of removing all kinds of music and performance terms because it just wasn't godly. Then I realized that my approach confuses people and only reinforces the grave mistake that music is worship. Paul Westermeyer really helped me with this when he remarked, "Let our music be broken to God." That is the correct approach, if there is one. To be honest that we are doing music, we're performing, and so on, is healthy in church, provided it is part of being a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1-2). So, I'm on a kick of calling music "music" again and using performance terms because it's what they are. And I'm praying a great deal that these are all sacrificed to God.
2) I LOVE the title Dawn gives to the Prodigal Son parable: the Waiting Father (16). It's so much more accurate to the story! (For more on the Waiting Father story, I HIGHLY recommend Tim Keller's work.
3) I closed with a great quote last time. I've got another one. "Perhaps we can simply summarize our goal by declaring that our worship could make use of 'the Music of the "one holy, catholic, apostolic Church" (as the Nicene Creed calls it) for the Sake of the Whole World'" (15).
LE
14 October 2009
How Shall We Worship - Intro
These are fascinating times for our church. A recent decision to experiment with how to maximize the space available for people we may invite to worship with us has led to several interesting discussions about worship. It also led one wise gentleman in our church to give Dr. Marva J. Dawn's How Shall We Worship? ((c) 2003, Tyndale House Publishers) to the church office. The intent is that our staff, leadership team, deacons ministry, worship artists, and interested people will read the book and consider its content as we discuss worship in our church.
I must confess that receiving the book threatened to set me on edge. In my line of work, when someone hands you a book or recommends a resource, it is almost always an invitation to join one's way of thinking without having a face-to-face conversation. Getting a book from someone, more often than not, is tantamount to receiving a lecture or slap on the hand. Were it not for how much I trust the person who gave this book, I likely would have handed it back or set it on my shelf to collect dust. However, this is a pressing issue, particularly at present, and the gentleman who donated the book to our discussion is generally wise and focused on the "right" things.
This post and those that follow come from my desire to get thoughts out of my brain - nothing more. I'm an out-loud processor, and as I began reading this short book, I realized my brain had so many thoughts that I wanted to organize them before I formalize my response to the gentleman who gave me the book. Furthermore, I have an opportunity I do not deserve to lead a workshop at Acadia next spring during the Simpson Lectures, at which Dawn is the guest lecturer. Having my thoughts organized before I venture to lead a workshop on Dawn's watch is likely a good idea. (I'm sure it will also help me understand the bias of those people who requested Dawn's expertise.) So, without further ado, here are my thoughts, literally as they pour out of my head.
First, let me say that this is not my first exposure to the illustrious Dr. Marva J. Dawn. Dawn's material greatly influenced Natasha and me when we worked on our respective undergraduate degrees. Her perspective on worship is largely biblical and thought out critically. She is discontent to follow Christian cultural trends, though she does not like to rail against them either. Her faith and personal worship flow through everything she does. It is that, rather than page 189, to which I was immediately directed by handwritten note from the gentleman mentioned above, that makes me trust Dawn's perspective. Page 189 details Dawn's knowledge, which cannot be denied. However, in my books, someone with lots of knowledge about something one has not personally experienced is simply puffed up (1 Cor 8:1). Worship is about Spirit and truth (John 4:23-24), not knowledge or argument. Dawn is an expert on worship, then, because of her high regard for Jesus and her practice of worship in Spirit and in truth.
My impression of Dawn has not changed, though I'm only writing about the introduction in this post. This introduction reflects a positive, nostalgic worship experience that began in Dawn's childhood and lasted into her adult life. Worship brings nostalgia, but it obviously stuck with her. Her high regard for worship experiences, though, seemingly do not cloud her thinking. Though optimistic about what worship may be, Dawn is very honest about what has taken place in churches lately. She seemingly wants to hold the Church accountable to worship in Spirit and in truth.
To do so, Dawn gives us the reader a hint that she will ask more helpful questions about worship than those asked among most worshiping bodies. Her list of questions are quite insightful (xiii-xiv) and should lead to productive dialogue, if anyone at our church besides me reads this book.
Whether she meant it or not, Dawn did not only leave the reader with a list of helpful questions. In describing what worship really is, she mentions both private and public worship (xi). She mentions that the human response to God's grace - or, worship - begins in private lives with acts of personal devotion and also includes our public worship, when we join with other people to respond to God's grace. First, I confess that in my experience, we Christians regularly forget that our "devotions" and "church going" is actually about responding to God's grace, at least in most places in North America. We are so safe and well insulated that we may or may not talk about God's grace in worship evaluation, but we will almost always talk about whether we agreed with the sermon, liked the music, or found someone's offering of a spiritual gift appropriate. If Dawn hopes to keep the Church accountable, she does here. We ought to remember that worship is a response, not something we choose whether or not to join. If we've seen God's grace, we will respond, whether we realize it or not. We will either receive it or reject it and respond accordingly. Furthermore, as we respond to God's grace, the place for our personal preferences is likely in times of personal devotion. Dawn doesn't say it, but I cannot help but think about the battles that happen over worship inside our church doors and wonder why we want our personal preference to reign in public settings. That never happens in any other public gathering. There is no place in which we may go and say, "This is how we do it in our home," or, "This is how I prefer it to be done," and expect the masses to follow. It's mad - and maddening - to assume that any one of us could do that in church. This is easy for me to say because I've been trained not to look at attending church that way, and our gatherings so rarely reflect my preferences that I just don't bother getting vexed about it anymore. I think we would be well served to keep our personal preferences in our personal worship and think with a more open mind when it comes to our public gatherings. Dawn's tree analogy (xv) is perfect for this: let our public gatherings be rooted in the Scriptures, and let the branches (us) in Christ the Vine bear great fruit when we come together!
As helpful as I suspect this book will be, two concerns come to my mind. First, Dawn asks whether our worship is true to the Christian faith (xii), leaving me to wonder if the inverse is possible. If worship is a faith response to God's grace, how can it be untrue to faith? Responding to God's grace is faith. Responding to God's grace in Christ is the Christian faith. Though we may not all respond similarly, I have many doubts that any faith response can be untrue to faith. I wonder where Dawn will go with this line of thinking?
My other concern has to do with Dawn preparing to use Psalm 96 as the foundation for this book (xv). Don't get me wrong: I like the Bible and think it is useful for this discussion. I also think a psalm is likely the most appropriate model for worship that there is. She is smart to go this route, but I hope her exegesis of Psalm 96 will include the whole of Scripture. Worship is a huge issue, talked about in many, many passages. Though reading through the psalm gets me excited for what she will offer, can we really build a theology on one passage alone, when there are so many others to include in the discussion? How well rounded will this be? My hope is that Dawn's page 189 knowledge base has equipped her for adequate exegesis.
I close these reflections by quoting what I found to be the best question in this chapter: "Do these descriptions and understandings [of worship as we define it in the ranks of our own churches] enable churches to be all that they could be for the sake of the world around them?" (xiv).
LE
I must confess that receiving the book threatened to set me on edge. In my line of work, when someone hands you a book or recommends a resource, it is almost always an invitation to join one's way of thinking without having a face-to-face conversation. Getting a book from someone, more often than not, is tantamount to receiving a lecture or slap on the hand. Were it not for how much I trust the person who gave this book, I likely would have handed it back or set it on my shelf to collect dust. However, this is a pressing issue, particularly at present, and the gentleman who donated the book to our discussion is generally wise and focused on the "right" things.
This post and those that follow come from my desire to get thoughts out of my brain - nothing more. I'm an out-loud processor, and as I began reading this short book, I realized my brain had so many thoughts that I wanted to organize them before I formalize my response to the gentleman who gave me the book. Furthermore, I have an opportunity I do not deserve to lead a workshop at Acadia next spring during the Simpson Lectures, at which Dawn is the guest lecturer. Having my thoughts organized before I venture to lead a workshop on Dawn's watch is likely a good idea. (I'm sure it will also help me understand the bias of those people who requested Dawn's expertise.) So, without further ado, here are my thoughts, literally as they pour out of my head.
First, let me say that this is not my first exposure to the illustrious Dr. Marva J. Dawn. Dawn's material greatly influenced Natasha and me when we worked on our respective undergraduate degrees. Her perspective on worship is largely biblical and thought out critically. She is discontent to follow Christian cultural trends, though she does not like to rail against them either. Her faith and personal worship flow through everything she does. It is that, rather than page 189, to which I was immediately directed by handwritten note from the gentleman mentioned above, that makes me trust Dawn's perspective. Page 189 details Dawn's knowledge, which cannot be denied. However, in my books, someone with lots of knowledge about something one has not personally experienced is simply puffed up (1 Cor 8:1). Worship is about Spirit and truth (John 4:23-24), not knowledge or argument. Dawn is an expert on worship, then, because of her high regard for Jesus and her practice of worship in Spirit and in truth.
My impression of Dawn has not changed, though I'm only writing about the introduction in this post. This introduction reflects a positive, nostalgic worship experience that began in Dawn's childhood and lasted into her adult life. Worship brings nostalgia, but it obviously stuck with her. Her high regard for worship experiences, though, seemingly do not cloud her thinking. Though optimistic about what worship may be, Dawn is very honest about what has taken place in churches lately. She seemingly wants to hold the Church accountable to worship in Spirit and in truth.
To do so, Dawn gives us the reader a hint that she will ask more helpful questions about worship than those asked among most worshiping bodies. Her list of questions are quite insightful (xiii-xiv) and should lead to productive dialogue, if anyone at our church besides me reads this book.
Whether she meant it or not, Dawn did not only leave the reader with a list of helpful questions. In describing what worship really is, she mentions both private and public worship (xi). She mentions that the human response to God's grace - or, worship - begins in private lives with acts of personal devotion and also includes our public worship, when we join with other people to respond to God's grace. First, I confess that in my experience, we Christians regularly forget that our "devotions" and "church going" is actually about responding to God's grace, at least in most places in North America. We are so safe and well insulated that we may or may not talk about God's grace in worship evaluation, but we will almost always talk about whether we agreed with the sermon, liked the music, or found someone's offering of a spiritual gift appropriate. If Dawn hopes to keep the Church accountable, she does here. We ought to remember that worship is a response, not something we choose whether or not to join. If we've seen God's grace, we will respond, whether we realize it or not. We will either receive it or reject it and respond accordingly. Furthermore, as we respond to God's grace, the place for our personal preferences is likely in times of personal devotion. Dawn doesn't say it, but I cannot help but think about the battles that happen over worship inside our church doors and wonder why we want our personal preference to reign in public settings. That never happens in any other public gathering. There is no place in which we may go and say, "This is how we do it in our home," or, "This is how I prefer it to be done," and expect the masses to follow. It's mad - and maddening - to assume that any one of us could do that in church. This is easy for me to say because I've been trained not to look at attending church that way, and our gatherings so rarely reflect my preferences that I just don't bother getting vexed about it anymore. I think we would be well served to keep our personal preferences in our personal worship and think with a more open mind when it comes to our public gatherings. Dawn's tree analogy (xv) is perfect for this: let our public gatherings be rooted in the Scriptures, and let the branches (us) in Christ the Vine bear great fruit when we come together!
As helpful as I suspect this book will be, two concerns come to my mind. First, Dawn asks whether our worship is true to the Christian faith (xii), leaving me to wonder if the inverse is possible. If worship is a faith response to God's grace, how can it be untrue to faith? Responding to God's grace is faith. Responding to God's grace in Christ is the Christian faith. Though we may not all respond similarly, I have many doubts that any faith response can be untrue to faith. I wonder where Dawn will go with this line of thinking?
My other concern has to do with Dawn preparing to use Psalm 96 as the foundation for this book (xv). Don't get me wrong: I like the Bible and think it is useful for this discussion. I also think a psalm is likely the most appropriate model for worship that there is. She is smart to go this route, but I hope her exegesis of Psalm 96 will include the whole of Scripture. Worship is a huge issue, talked about in many, many passages. Though reading through the psalm gets me excited for what she will offer, can we really build a theology on one passage alone, when there are so many others to include in the discussion? How well rounded will this be? My hope is that Dawn's page 189 knowledge base has equipped her for adequate exegesis.
I close these reflections by quoting what I found to be the best question in this chapter: "Do these descriptions and understandings [of worship as we define it in the ranks of our own churches] enable churches to be all that they could be for the sake of the world around them?" (xiv).
LE
12 August 2009
Health Care
To say this is a provoked post would be a half-truth. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm opinionated. Unfortunately, I am often even opinionated when I have little legitimate research and fact behind my opinion. For example, I am opinionated about health care and health care reform, but I have a small foundation for the facts and a lot of experience behind my opinion.
That is the perfect type of person to react to the amount of press President Obama is getting here in eastern Canada about his proposed health care reform. I've been meaning to add my two cents, in fact. I couldn't resist, though, when I was reminded by one of my favorite people of all time how well I miscommunicate. One of the best friends I've had recently commented on the post about our accident back in June. As always, he communicated how he supports and loves us. And I know that he probably always will.
Unfortunately for me, I just couldn't resist responding to the concept that we were in the Moncton ER for four hours because of some socialist agenda to oppress people through the health system. While I know my friend well enough to know he isn't purporting that, let me clarify a few things about the Moncton ER and go on about my health care reform opinion in case anyone reads my friend's comment (or this post) without my friend's level head.
True, we were in the Moncton ER for four hours, waiting to be seen by a doctor. True, it was frustrating. True, I would have thought that a pregnant woman having been in an accident would be top priority, even if she seemed fine. HOWEVER, it is also true that we were in the ER because we chose to go to the ER seven hours after the accident, just in case we needed to prove to our insurance company that everything was fine. It is true, too, that we told the triage nurse that we had no symptoms whatsoever. Even pregnant Natasha felt nothing abnormal: no spotting, no bruising, and our unborn daughter was certainly very active in the womb! Furthermore, when the triage nurse checked us out, she mentioned we seemed fine, though she highly recommended we wait. When we eventually left, she told us that she understood why we would want to leave and instructed us further.
While we were in the ER, a gentleman came in who seemed to have a second knee in his right leg. He got in immediately. A girl came in, having just had ACL surgery a month before, whose knee gave out less than ten seconds before her championship basketball game (which she won). She waited, but she got in. Another three families with young children waited, but the flushed, spacy child was rushed in. Another man who seemed fine was rushed in ahead of many other people. When he came out almost an hour later, the gratitude on his face and in his talk let me know his life had just been saved. There were about half a dozen people there who easily could have paid for private care, but there were ten others who seemed as though they would have been forgotten, had they been in a position to pay for their trip that night.
As an American living in Canada, I am proud of many things my country does, including engaging this debate. What I see right now in the President's eastern US tour makes me proud to be American. Finally, one of the politicians who's talked about this issue in a campaign is going to try to do something about it! How many more Presidents could we go through without seeing some action? People are finally seeing a leader lead on this issue, and we're all reacting. No matter your particular leaning politically or on this issue, I don't think anyone can say we've seen this type of initiative in health care in the US in my life time (almost 30 years).
As for this issue, I stand in strong support of President Obama's reforms, not just because I'm a Democrat. I support these reforms because it is an initiative that is for the people. I'm tired of listening to political banter over health care that seeks so greatly to benefit the government or businesses that people are left in the dust. I'm also tired of fear: fear that we might be forgotten, that we might not get the care we deserve, that we might find ourselves subject to a system that is one step away from Communism.
First, we should know by now that Communism is not the biggest threat for democracy. Actually, the two biggest threats I see to democracy are apathy and blindly following leadership simply because they have titles. Democracy is about a government for the people, by the people. In democratic nations we should all stand up for ourselves, for what we believe, for who we are, for how we think the people at large are best served. To claim dissatisfaction with our nations without taking action is undemocratic and, in my mind, foolish. If we ever lost democracy, ever lost our right to stand up and make a difference, we'd likely long for it. Yet, so few of us take a stand, and when we do, it's often the stand we think we should take because a party leader, religious official, or close relation with the strongest opinions and loudest voice tells us that's what we should think. To say that President Obama is trying to bring on Communism by reforming health care so that people at large can access it without remaining bound by their socio-economic class is a fear-ridden, right-wing agenda that is more concerned with returning to power than to serving the people who give a presidential office its power. (As for people who claim not to care, I dare them to go to a country with another system for a year and see if they miss what we have - to see if they really care about American democracy. We're in such a privileged situation that we actually think we can dismiss everyone who's gone before us to give us this life, pretending that the best way to avoid a flawed system is to ignore it and pretend it doesn't matter.)
Next, wondering whether socialized health care will give us the care we deserve is understandable. It's even understandable that people are afraid of it. The word "socialism" will scare any American who has gone through much social studies; American history is written to scare Americans away from the movement. It's also understandable to be afraid because President Obama's critics like to stress the exceptions rather than the rules. The rule in socialized health care is that we all have access to our doctors, to emergency care, to aid, and so on. Are there times in which we have to wait? Sure. Is health care worth waiting for? Certainly. We waited in Moncton because we were fine. A system that allows people barely in need of care to take a doctor's time when there are three others in great pain or near death still waiting outside is unjust. A first-come-first-serve system benefits people with immediate access to anything, including doctors. Money talks, and right now, Americans with money have great health care. The other Americans, the majority of them, make decisions not even to go to the doctor because they couldn't afford it anyway, and they wouldn't likely receive the same treatment as those living in "Rich White Suburbia." A system in which all people have equal access to health care irrespective of their income or their own perceived superiority (or at least, misconception of what they deserve before others) is simply immoral. Having now experienced two pregnancies, a wife with several health concerns, and several trips to the doctor myself (mostly for routine things) makes me feel relieved that I'm in a country with a system that allows me ready access to medical care. We have good doctors, wonderful access to health care, and my money can actually go toward debt reduction, our mortgage, our children, and our future instead of the medical system. Sure, we pay taxes for it, but that's the beauty of it: we all pay into a system that we all benefit from. Sure, we wait for health care, but let's get a reality check. The longest I've ever had to wait is four hours, and that's because we didn't really need to be there, we didn't go by ambulance, and we didn't push back as we would have if we would have been in direr circumstances. (Actually "socialized medicine" didn't do it to us. "Socialized medicine" is a non-entity, firstly, and secondly, we're not a victim if we can drive right in and check in with a nurse.) There are women and men in many countries who have to walk for hours, even days, for health care and end up waiting many more days for adequate care and attention. There are other countries in which many people don't even bother trying to find medical assistance; it's moot. Here in North America where we have it so good, socialized health care will actually be a welcome change for the good of everyone.
Finally, we cannot think that we'll be forgotten in the masses just because health care is socialized/government-run now. None of us can know precisely how our relationships with our doctors, insurance companies, and health care providers would change in a move from privatized health care to socialized health care. Neither can we allow the unknown to reinforce a picture we've conjured in our minds of our families sitting at home suffering with no one to help. As an American who started in that health plan who has lived in Canada for ten years in this health plan, I see little difference in my personal interactions with health care personnel. I have always received personal attention, helpful tips and prescriptions, adequate insurance coverage, and I've never had to sit at home hoping my sickness will improve on its own because my decision is light bill vs. medical bill this month. The fears I hear and see publicized among some Americans right now sells the wrong people short. Some of us Americans rail against President Obama, but our statements assume that in a new system, our doctors will stop caring, hospitals will stop admitting, emergency officials will stop treating, and insurance companies will stop paying. Would we say any of that to the people behind those titles? No. We wouldn't because we know those people, and we know they won't stop caring for us.
Health care reform is about a system that cannot continue, not people who, we know, care for us very well. Is socialized health care perfect? By no means! Canada, for example, has been trying to work out the kinks in this system since it was implemented. Every year it gets better, though. Every year the exceptions to the rule become less frequent, and there is light at the end of this tunnel. Since I suspect there will be many people who are exceptions to the health care rule that may respond to this post, let me give an example of why socialized health care is a good thing.
Early this afternoon, while applying a coat of paint to the walls in our kitchen, I listened to a broadcast on the CBC. A health expert based at Dalhousie University mentioned that the government had ordered 68,000,000 doses of a vaccine for H1N1, enough for Canadians to have two doses each, if necessary. Since I live in the province in which the latest outbreak occurred (only a two hours' drive from my house), also the province with the most reported cases, and since fall is coming, it feels good to know that my decision whether or not to be inoculated is about the vaccine, not about money. It's about what's in this vaccine, not about our system. Though our budget is very tight and we're climbing very slowly towards financial health, we can afford this vaccine, should we choose to have it, as much as anyone else who reads this blog - or even Steve Jobs, whose company designed this computer. It's a level playing field, and I like it.
LE
That is the perfect type of person to react to the amount of press President Obama is getting here in eastern Canada about his proposed health care reform. I've been meaning to add my two cents, in fact. I couldn't resist, though, when I was reminded by one of my favorite people of all time how well I miscommunicate. One of the best friends I've had recently commented on the post about our accident back in June. As always, he communicated how he supports and loves us. And I know that he probably always will.
Unfortunately for me, I just couldn't resist responding to the concept that we were in the Moncton ER for four hours because of some socialist agenda to oppress people through the health system. While I know my friend well enough to know he isn't purporting that, let me clarify a few things about the Moncton ER and go on about my health care reform opinion in case anyone reads my friend's comment (or this post) without my friend's level head.
True, we were in the Moncton ER for four hours, waiting to be seen by a doctor. True, it was frustrating. True, I would have thought that a pregnant woman having been in an accident would be top priority, even if she seemed fine. HOWEVER, it is also true that we were in the ER because we chose to go to the ER seven hours after the accident, just in case we needed to prove to our insurance company that everything was fine. It is true, too, that we told the triage nurse that we had no symptoms whatsoever. Even pregnant Natasha felt nothing abnormal: no spotting, no bruising, and our unborn daughter was certainly very active in the womb! Furthermore, when the triage nurse checked us out, she mentioned we seemed fine, though she highly recommended we wait. When we eventually left, she told us that she understood why we would want to leave and instructed us further.
While we were in the ER, a gentleman came in who seemed to have a second knee in his right leg. He got in immediately. A girl came in, having just had ACL surgery a month before, whose knee gave out less than ten seconds before her championship basketball game (which she won). She waited, but she got in. Another three families with young children waited, but the flushed, spacy child was rushed in. Another man who seemed fine was rushed in ahead of many other people. When he came out almost an hour later, the gratitude on his face and in his talk let me know his life had just been saved. There were about half a dozen people there who easily could have paid for private care, but there were ten others who seemed as though they would have been forgotten, had they been in a position to pay for their trip that night.
As an American living in Canada, I am proud of many things my country does, including engaging this debate. What I see right now in the President's eastern US tour makes me proud to be American. Finally, one of the politicians who's talked about this issue in a campaign is going to try to do something about it! How many more Presidents could we go through without seeing some action? People are finally seeing a leader lead on this issue, and we're all reacting. No matter your particular leaning politically or on this issue, I don't think anyone can say we've seen this type of initiative in health care in the US in my life time (almost 30 years).
As for this issue, I stand in strong support of President Obama's reforms, not just because I'm a Democrat. I support these reforms because it is an initiative that is for the people. I'm tired of listening to political banter over health care that seeks so greatly to benefit the government or businesses that people are left in the dust. I'm also tired of fear: fear that we might be forgotten, that we might not get the care we deserve, that we might find ourselves subject to a system that is one step away from Communism.
First, we should know by now that Communism is not the biggest threat for democracy. Actually, the two biggest threats I see to democracy are apathy and blindly following leadership simply because they have titles. Democracy is about a government for the people, by the people. In democratic nations we should all stand up for ourselves, for what we believe, for who we are, for how we think the people at large are best served. To claim dissatisfaction with our nations without taking action is undemocratic and, in my mind, foolish. If we ever lost democracy, ever lost our right to stand up and make a difference, we'd likely long for it. Yet, so few of us take a stand, and when we do, it's often the stand we think we should take because a party leader, religious official, or close relation with the strongest opinions and loudest voice tells us that's what we should think. To say that President Obama is trying to bring on Communism by reforming health care so that people at large can access it without remaining bound by their socio-economic class is a fear-ridden, right-wing agenda that is more concerned with returning to power than to serving the people who give a presidential office its power. (As for people who claim not to care, I dare them to go to a country with another system for a year and see if they miss what we have - to see if they really care about American democracy. We're in such a privileged situation that we actually think we can dismiss everyone who's gone before us to give us this life, pretending that the best way to avoid a flawed system is to ignore it and pretend it doesn't matter.)
Next, wondering whether socialized health care will give us the care we deserve is understandable. It's even understandable that people are afraid of it. The word "socialism" will scare any American who has gone through much social studies; American history is written to scare Americans away from the movement. It's also understandable to be afraid because President Obama's critics like to stress the exceptions rather than the rules. The rule in socialized health care is that we all have access to our doctors, to emergency care, to aid, and so on. Are there times in which we have to wait? Sure. Is health care worth waiting for? Certainly. We waited in Moncton because we were fine. A system that allows people barely in need of care to take a doctor's time when there are three others in great pain or near death still waiting outside is unjust. A first-come-first-serve system benefits people with immediate access to anything, including doctors. Money talks, and right now, Americans with money have great health care. The other Americans, the majority of them, make decisions not even to go to the doctor because they couldn't afford it anyway, and they wouldn't likely receive the same treatment as those living in "Rich White Suburbia." A system in which all people have equal access to health care irrespective of their income or their own perceived superiority (or at least, misconception of what they deserve before others) is simply immoral. Having now experienced two pregnancies, a wife with several health concerns, and several trips to the doctor myself (mostly for routine things) makes me feel relieved that I'm in a country with a system that allows me ready access to medical care. We have good doctors, wonderful access to health care, and my money can actually go toward debt reduction, our mortgage, our children, and our future instead of the medical system. Sure, we pay taxes for it, but that's the beauty of it: we all pay into a system that we all benefit from. Sure, we wait for health care, but let's get a reality check. The longest I've ever had to wait is four hours, and that's because we didn't really need to be there, we didn't go by ambulance, and we didn't push back as we would have if we would have been in direr circumstances. (Actually "socialized medicine" didn't do it to us. "Socialized medicine" is a non-entity, firstly, and secondly, we're not a victim if we can drive right in and check in with a nurse.) There are women and men in many countries who have to walk for hours, even days, for health care and end up waiting many more days for adequate care and attention. There are other countries in which many people don't even bother trying to find medical assistance; it's moot. Here in North America where we have it so good, socialized health care will actually be a welcome change for the good of everyone.
Finally, we cannot think that we'll be forgotten in the masses just because health care is socialized/government-run now. None of us can know precisely how our relationships with our doctors, insurance companies, and health care providers would change in a move from privatized health care to socialized health care. Neither can we allow the unknown to reinforce a picture we've conjured in our minds of our families sitting at home suffering with no one to help. As an American who started in that health plan who has lived in Canada for ten years in this health plan, I see little difference in my personal interactions with health care personnel. I have always received personal attention, helpful tips and prescriptions, adequate insurance coverage, and I've never had to sit at home hoping my sickness will improve on its own because my decision is light bill vs. medical bill this month. The fears I hear and see publicized among some Americans right now sells the wrong people short. Some of us Americans rail against President Obama, but our statements assume that in a new system, our doctors will stop caring, hospitals will stop admitting, emergency officials will stop treating, and insurance companies will stop paying. Would we say any of that to the people behind those titles? No. We wouldn't because we know those people, and we know they won't stop caring for us.
Health care reform is about a system that cannot continue, not people who, we know, care for us very well. Is socialized health care perfect? By no means! Canada, for example, has been trying to work out the kinks in this system since it was implemented. Every year it gets better, though. Every year the exceptions to the rule become less frequent, and there is light at the end of this tunnel. Since I suspect there will be many people who are exceptions to the health care rule that may respond to this post, let me give an example of why socialized health care is a good thing.
Early this afternoon, while applying a coat of paint to the walls in our kitchen, I listened to a broadcast on the CBC. A health expert based at Dalhousie University mentioned that the government had ordered 68,000,000 doses of a vaccine for H1N1, enough for Canadians to have two doses each, if necessary. Since I live in the province in which the latest outbreak occurred (only a two hours' drive from my house), also the province with the most reported cases, and since fall is coming, it feels good to know that my decision whether or not to be inoculated is about the vaccine, not about money. It's about what's in this vaccine, not about our system. Though our budget is very tight and we're climbing very slowly towards financial health, we can afford this vaccine, should we choose to have it, as much as anyone else who reads this blog - or even Steve Jobs, whose company designed this computer. It's a level playing field, and I like it.
LE
04 August 2009
Long Days
What is it about summer anyway? We so look forward to it, and it comes. We pack our days full of so much, and we love it! The days are long...not just outside, but inside, too. Why do we run around so much in the summer and find it refreshing, when doing half the running around in the winter is exhausting? Is there a scientific explanation for this? There should be. Someone smarter than me, what is it?
(Oh, and try my new find.)
LE
(Oh, and try my new find.)
LE
13 July 2009
30 June 2009
Vaca Day One
It felt wonderful to wake up yesterday morning to a clean house and no schedule! We had planned to visit family during this week "off," so we set our ducks in a row, packed up, made sure the house was in shape for the people looking after it, and set out almost exactly according to our itinerary. It felt great!
Honestly, I had a major attitude problem by the time we got to Oxford. I was on edge, as if something about the day just wasn't right. On the other hand, everything was going perfectly, so there were no complaints in my books. Still, my attitude was just waiting to be set off.
The stage was set for my Tim's encounter with several women whose old age would have nothing to do with the story, unless one chooses to think they were age-impaired instead of downright rude. Sorry, let me fill you in.
Natasha needed a snack and I needed a "potty break," so we stopped in Oxford. I got cash at the Irving, walked over to the Tim's, and lined up behind about five people after my break. After several minutes I was next in line. I felt nervous because these two women who appeared to have been retired for at least fifteen years were slowly edging my direction, as if they had been in line the whole time. The gentleman in front of me ordered and stood to the side. Woman #1 stepped in front of me, approached the counter, and began to order. Of course her order was long and complicated, but I reminded myself that I had been the long, complicated order before. I took a breath, told myself it was fine for Natasha and the baby to sit in the car, that our vacation would not be hindered just because I had already been in line 20 minutes.
About that time Woman #2 stepped in front of me hastily, adding her order to Woman #1's order. The girl at the cash added the new order, adjusting the total, and obtaining the people's food. Honestly, I wasn't the most mature person in the world because I said, "I promise you that I'm standing here, even if you can't see me." The guy behind me laughed, but I knew it should have stayed in. Fortunately, these women were as deaf as they were blind, so the comment dropped to the ground unheard.
Woman #1 came back to the girl with a change to her order, which got a "You've got to be kidding me!" from me. At least this was under my breath. Again, our vacation is fine. Just fine.
As the two women stepped aside, allowing me to approach the counter, a woman two people behind me said, "Oh, can you add to your order? I'll pay you back!" Then another, "Oh, me too. Add this." The two women stepped back, added things to their order again, and I began to see that there was no hope for me ever to reach the counter. I was caught in a rude, deaf, blind old lady club that was determined never to allow me to order a yogurt and bagel. Or at least that's what I told myself as I muttered, "Frig this!" and stormed out.
We chose to go through the drive-thru, which was, thankfully, efficient. I learned a moral, though. Confucius say, "Man who drink Just Us! Guatemala blend with wife at home should not make Tim's coffee the next thing to cross man's lips." Whoa.
Anyway, let me just say at this point that EVERYTHING IS FINE. As far as we can tell, EVERYONE IS FINE. Repeat it with me: "Everything is fine. Everyone is fine." Great.
Now, the rain picked up once we left Oxford. Going through the Tantramar Marsh was insane! We were going between 70 and 80 (km/hr, for my American friends) with traffic the entire way. The rain let up, so we sped up. Then it picked up again, so we slowed back down. It was dangerous driving, but we felt like we were in a protective bubble or something strange. That's a good thing because near Memramcook we hydroplaned, lost control, struck a 5-ton truck, and lost the front end of our car.
Oddly enough, we did not feel much an impact at all. Everything in the car felt slow, calm, and okay. In fact, we had no idea what happened to the outside because there was no damage to the inside of the car that we could see. The baby woke up, but she didn't cry, she showed no signs of pain, but she stared at us with sleepy eyes, as if to say, "Did something happen?" Natasha felt no jarring, no pain (other than what she already felt from being five months pregnant with fibro symptoms), no anything. By a miracle, I'm sure, we got control of the car, pointed it straight, and parked it on the left shoulder of the Trans-Canada. We just sat there, 1000 things going through my mind. I double-checked that we were all fine, and I got out in the pouring rain to go meet the driver of the truck who was on the other side of the road, far ahead.
A Sears repair man happened to be going by and happened to let me use his cell, so I called my in-laws so they could come get us. An ambulance happened to be three vehicles back and saw everything unfold, so he pulled over with the Sears repair man and asked about our conditions. The truck driver was walking around, saying he felt little more than a sore leg that he told the paramedic did not need immediate care. I felt nothing at all, and the paramedic seemed unconcerned when he asked Natasha questions about her, Roya, and the baby. The RCMP happened to come quickly, took our information, and waited with us for the tow truck they called. Another tow truck happened to drive by, asking if we wanted a tow. Since this wasn't whom the RCMP called, we sent him along. Apparently he was just concerned because he saw all the parts everywhere on the road.
Natasha hadn't seen the outside of the vehicle yet. She apparently thought it was strange that so much fuss was made because, again, everything seemed fine inside the car. The tow truck came, told us to clean out the car because he doesn't think we'll see our Corolla again ( I LOVE MY COROLLA!!!!), and sent us on our way with my in-laws. The whole thing was very surreal.
Props to Wawanesa because we had a rental in less than four hours from our hydroplaning incident. The woman working on our claim has been wonderful so far, and we are grateful for the individuals and company we're working with.
Props, too, to a triage nurse in the emergency room at Moncton Hospital. We didn't feel anything, and Natasha showed no signs of injury, but we thought it was best to have her checked out, mostly because of the baby. We saw the triage nurse, registered, and waited - for FOUR HOURS!!!!!! And...WE NEVER GOT IN!!!!!!!!!!!! We spoke with the triage nurse again after four hours, and she told us it was no better for the baby for Natasha to pull an all-nighter waiting to see a doctor than for her to see if there was any latent pain this morning and come back if necessary. It was a terribly long four hours, but I finished another book, and the nurse reassured us that Natasha is most likely fine, that the baby is almost definitely fine, especially because she keeps feeling it kick and move around.
So, day one is down. Natasha's major comment of the day: Why are we Erskines? Why can't anything normal ever happen to us? Good question. Let's just hope that if I write about day two it will be boring and short.
Honestly, I had a major attitude problem by the time we got to Oxford. I was on edge, as if something about the day just wasn't right. On the other hand, everything was going perfectly, so there were no complaints in my books. Still, my attitude was just waiting to be set off.
The stage was set for my Tim's encounter with several women whose old age would have nothing to do with the story, unless one chooses to think they were age-impaired instead of downright rude. Sorry, let me fill you in.
Natasha needed a snack and I needed a "potty break," so we stopped in Oxford. I got cash at the Irving, walked over to the Tim's, and lined up behind about five people after my break. After several minutes I was next in line. I felt nervous because these two women who appeared to have been retired for at least fifteen years were slowly edging my direction, as if they had been in line the whole time. The gentleman in front of me ordered and stood to the side. Woman #1 stepped in front of me, approached the counter, and began to order. Of course her order was long and complicated, but I reminded myself that I had been the long, complicated order before. I took a breath, told myself it was fine for Natasha and the baby to sit in the car, that our vacation would not be hindered just because I had already been in line 20 minutes.
About that time Woman #2 stepped in front of me hastily, adding her order to Woman #1's order. The girl at the cash added the new order, adjusting the total, and obtaining the people's food. Honestly, I wasn't the most mature person in the world because I said, "I promise you that I'm standing here, even if you can't see me." The guy behind me laughed, but I knew it should have stayed in. Fortunately, these women were as deaf as they were blind, so the comment dropped to the ground unheard.
Woman #1 came back to the girl with a change to her order, which got a "You've got to be kidding me!" from me. At least this was under my breath. Again, our vacation is fine. Just fine.
As the two women stepped aside, allowing me to approach the counter, a woman two people behind me said, "Oh, can you add
We chose to go through the drive-thru, which was, thankfully, efficient. I learned a moral, though. Confucius say, "Man who drink Just Us! Guatemala blend with wife at home should not make Tim's coffee the next thing to cross man's lips." Whoa.
Anyway, let me just say at this point that EVERYTHING IS FINE. As far as we can tell, EVERYONE IS FINE. Repeat it with me: "Everything is fine. Everyone is fine." Great.
Now, the rain picked up once we left Oxford. Going through the Tantramar Marsh was insane! We were going between 70 and 80 (km/hr, for my American friends) with traffic the entire way. The rain let up, so we sped up. Then it picked up again, so we slowed back down. It was dangerous driving, but we felt like we were in a protective bubble or something strange. That's a good thing because near Memramcook we hydroplaned, lost control, struck a 5-ton truck, and lost the front end of our car.
Oddly enough, we did not feel much an impact at all. Everything in the car felt slow, calm, and okay. In fact, we had no idea what happened to the outside because there was no damage to the inside of the car that we could see. The baby woke up, but she didn't cry, she showed no signs of pain, but she stared at us with sleepy eyes, as if to say, "Did something happen?" Natasha felt no jarring, no pain (other than what she already felt from being five months pregnant with fibro symptoms), no anything. By a miracle, I'm sure, we got control of the car, pointed it straight, and parked it on the left shoulder of the Trans-Canada. We just sat there, 1000 things going through my mind. I double-checked that we were all fine, and I got out in the pouring rain to go meet the driver of the truck who was on the other side of the road, far ahead.
A Sears repair man happened to be going by and happened to let me use his cell, so I called my in-laws so they could come get us. An ambulance happened to be three vehicles back and saw everything unfold, so he pulled over with the Sears repair man and asked about our conditions. The truck driver was walking around, saying he felt little more than a sore leg that he told the paramedic did not need immediate care. I felt nothing at all, and the paramedic seemed unconcerned when he asked Natasha questions about her, Roya, and the baby. The RCMP happened to come quickly, took our information, and waited with us for the tow truck they called. Another tow truck happened to drive by, asking if we wanted a tow. Since this wasn't whom the RCMP called, we sent him along. Apparently he was just concerned because he saw all the parts everywhere on the road.
Natasha hadn't seen the outside of the vehicle yet. She apparently thought it was strange that so much fuss was made because, again, everything seemed fine inside the car. The tow truck came, told us to clean out the car because he doesn't think we'll see our Corolla again (
Props to Wawanesa because we had a rental in less than four hours from our hydroplaning incident. The woman working on our claim has been wonderful so far, and we are grateful for the individuals and company we're working with.
Props, too, to a triage nurse in the emergency room at Moncton Hospital. We didn't feel anything, and Natasha showed no signs of injury, but we thought it was best to have her checked out, mostly because of the baby. We saw the triage nurse, registered, and waited - for FOUR HOURS!!!!!! And...WE NEVER GOT IN!!!!!!!!!!!! We spoke with the triage nurse again after four hours, and she told us it was no better for the baby for Natasha to pull an all-nighter waiting to see a doctor than for her to see if there was any latent pain this morning and come back if necessary. It was a terribly long four hours, but I finished another book, and the nurse reassured us that Natasha is most likely fine, that the baby is almost definitely fine, especially because she keeps feeling it kick and move around.
So, day one is down. Natasha's major comment of the day: Why are we Erskines? Why can't anything normal ever happen to us? Good question. Let's just hope that if I write about day two it will be boring and short.
18 June 2009
Position I Heard About
This is a strange post coming from me, but I know several people who are trained specifically for Christian school education. If that's you and you're looking for a next step, I just came across this posting:
The Cape Breton Christian School is seeking to hire several full time teachers for positions starting in the fall 2009. Ideal candidates are committed Christians (Protestant or Catholic) with a passion for teaching and appropriate experience. This new private school launch will use a multi grade format and an engaging, Christian curriculum (visit: www.capebretonchristianschool.org to find out more). Applicants should send a cover letter, resume and reference list by July 1st to the CBCS Teacher Search Committee at graceyouth@ns.aliantzinc.ca or 22 MacDonald Cr., Sydney Mines, NS B1V 3L9
The Cape Breton Christian School is seeking to hire several full time teachers for positions starting in the fall 2009. Ideal candidates are committed Christians (Protestant or Catholic) with a passion for teaching and appropriate experience. This new private school launch will use a multi grade format and an engaging, Christian curriculum (visit: www.capebretonchristianschool.org to find out more). Applicants should send a cover letter, resume and reference list by July 1st to the CBCS Teacher Search Committee at graceyouth@ns.aliantzinc.ca or 22 MacDonald Cr., Sydney Mines, NS B1V 3L9
02 June 2009
Yvette
Yesterday was a day I will not soon forget. The morning was bright and hopeful, the office-time was productive, we had good family time, and I got over 80% of our lawn mowed on one tank of gas. (The only downside was the way I kept thinking about our carbon footprint as I mowed down the would-be hay field that now looks like our backyard again.) It was one of those days that just felt right.
Though not near as thoughtful as my Larry King musings from last Thursday, I knew I would blog about Yvette in the middle of our conversation - part of what contributed to an overall fantastic day. Yvette is a woman I met at Suckling and Chase. It is rumored that Suckling and Chase is the oldest florist in North America still in their original location. If everyone gets treated the way Yvette treats us, I can see why that is.
Yesterday Natasha had one of those days when she just needed cheering up. Flowers can help, but it was one of those days when a quick trip to Superstore's flower section just wouldn't cut it. Yesterday required class, attention to detail, and something extra-special. I asked for Yvette as soon as someone answered at Suckling and Chase because she has served us so well before. She came on the phone, I asked her what cheery flowers they had in stock, and she told me. What struck me was that, despite being almost a year since I last bought flowers from Suckling and Chase and despite that I gave no name, she saw no face, etc., Yvette said, "Actually, I think your wife really likes those yellow roses with the red-orange tips, doesn't she?" How did she remember that? How did she remember Natasha so well? How did she know it was us? Because she knew exactly what would make my wife's day, I ordered the flowers on the spot.
Honestly, I can count the good services experiences I've had in Truro on one hand. It says something about a person and a company when three of those experiences have now been with Yvette from Suckling and Chase on Prince St. Cheers to Yvette!
Though not near as thoughtful as my Larry King musings from last Thursday, I knew I would blog about Yvette in the middle of our conversation - part of what contributed to an overall fantastic day. Yvette is a woman I met at Suckling and Chase. It is rumored that Suckling and Chase is the oldest florist in North America still in their original location. If everyone gets treated the way Yvette treats us, I can see why that is.
Yesterday Natasha had one of those days when she just needed cheering up. Flowers can help, but it was one of those days when a quick trip to Superstore's flower section just wouldn't cut it. Yesterday required class, attention to detail, and something extra-special. I asked for Yvette as soon as someone answered at Suckling and Chase because she has served us so well before. She came on the phone, I asked her what cheery flowers they had in stock, and she told me. What struck me was that, despite being almost a year since I last bought flowers from Suckling and Chase and despite that I gave no name, she saw no face, etc., Yvette said, "Actually, I think your wife really likes those yellow roses with the red-orange tips, doesn't she?" How did she remember that? How did she remember Natasha so well? How did she know it was us? Because she knew exactly what would make my wife's day, I ordered the flowers on the spot.
Honestly, I can count the good services experiences I've had in Truro on one hand. It says something about a person and a company when three of those experiences have now been with Yvette from Suckling and Chase on Prince St. Cheers to Yvette!
26 May 2009
Disappointed in Larry King
It does not bother me when people have questions for God. God is big enough to be able to handle that. I am often disappointed, though, when otherwise intelligent people think poorly about God. I have enjoyed Larry King for many reasons throughout my life. (Most of my conservative Christian friends, relatives, and colleagues just disowned me.) I like that he is a radio pioneer, that he brought democracy into political conversation through national call-ins, and that he doesn't accept things without thinking them through. Larry King and I often disagree, but even disagreement doesn't disappoint me.
I've known for a long time that Larry King claims to be agnostic: he claims no belief in God. I feel disappointed because today on (my favorite) Q with (another favorite) Jian Ghomeshi, Larry King was questioned about his claim to agnosticism. Jian was surprised about it, which I was not. Larry surprised me because he mentioned that he had never found satisfactory answers from people of faith and deduced, as a result, that there must be no God. He continued to cite several examples of people who gave him dissatisfactory answers, including evangelicalism's hero Billy Graham. He said that no person of faith, including Billy Graham, had been able to answer satisfactorily about atrocities like the Holocaust and the 9/11 attacks, so he assumed his conclusion was correct.
I will not write much on Billy Graham's answer, since Larry only paraphrased it (though if the paraphrase accurately represented Billy, then I was disappointed). However, let me say that someone as intelligent as Larry King should be able to make a couple of intelligent distincitions. First, there is a difference between God and people. It is illogical to hold God responsible for problems that humans create. Problems like the Holocaust and the 9/11 attacks were not begun by God. They were begun by people. Fighting that takes place between churches and faiths did not begin with God; it began with people. Even interpretations of the Bible that seem so short-sighted and one-sided did not begin with God. Most of what we hear about the Bible is still human interpretation, hence the examples we can point to of spiritual abuse in the name of the Bible or God (like excusing slavery in the 1800s).
That paragraph barely addresses the real issue there, but what I find least logical in Larry's questioning of God is that he doesn't believe in God. If one does not believe in God, why does one suddenly bring God into conversations about the Holocaust and 9/11? If Larry is really an agnostic, why is he holding God hostage for human atrocities? If he doesn't believe God exists, why does he blame God so much? Why does he tell God, "My disbelief is Your own fault!" Who is he talking to with questions like that? Someone who doesn't exist?
C'mon, Larry, you're much smarter than that.
I've known for a long time that Larry King claims to be agnostic: he claims no belief in God. I feel disappointed because today on (my favorite) Q with (another favorite) Jian Ghomeshi, Larry King was questioned about his claim to agnosticism. Jian was surprised about it, which I was not. Larry surprised me because he mentioned that he had never found satisfactory answers from people of faith and deduced, as a result, that there must be no God. He continued to cite several examples of people who gave him dissatisfactory answers, including evangelicalism's hero Billy Graham. He said that no person of faith, including Billy Graham, had been able to answer satisfactorily about atrocities like the Holocaust and the 9/11 attacks, so he assumed his conclusion was correct.
I will not write much on Billy Graham's answer, since Larry only paraphrased it (though if the paraphrase accurately represented Billy, then I was disappointed). However, let me say that someone as intelligent as Larry King should be able to make a couple of intelligent distincitions. First, there is a difference between God and people. It is illogical to hold God responsible for problems that humans create. Problems like the Holocaust and the 9/11 attacks were not begun by God. They were begun by people. Fighting that takes place between churches and faiths did not begin with God; it began with people. Even interpretations of the Bible that seem so short-sighted and one-sided did not begin with God. Most of what we hear about the Bible is still human interpretation, hence the examples we can point to of spiritual abuse in the name of the Bible or God (like excusing slavery in the 1800s).
That paragraph barely addresses the real issue there, but what I find least logical in Larry's questioning of God is that he doesn't believe in God. If one does not believe in God, why does one suddenly bring God into conversations about the Holocaust and 9/11? If Larry is really an agnostic, why is he holding God hostage for human atrocities? If he doesn't believe God exists, why does he blame God so much? Why does he tell God, "My disbelief is Your own fault!" Who is he talking to with questions like that? Someone who doesn't exist?
C'mon, Larry, you're much smarter than that.
04 March 2009
Multi-Tasker
Men are not natural multi-taskers, so I hear. I began to agree with that statement until recently. I've often called myself a multi-tasker, but I've always assumed that my capacity to do that had more to do with my upbringing. I enjoyed my childhood, but there is no question that organization, obedience, and achieving tasks were all big deals in our home. I like being active, so being active and fulfilling my requirements at home required multi-tasking. I continued multi-tasking through college. Since then I've gradually decreased my tasks and, therefore, became less a multi-tasker. Now, with eight weeks until my semester ends, I find myself almost constantly multi-tasking. I don't think it's really a great thing, either. Even when I don't have to, I find myself doing many things at once. Sometimes I've even found myself thinking about three or more things at a time, even in my "down" time or personal time. Am I becoming a chronic multi-tasker?
LE
LE
26 January 2009
20 January 2009
Nothing Original for Today
There is nothing original in a post mentioning President Obama today. I can't help but post anyway because I can't shake the thoughts and inner pondering I'm sorting through. It seems to me that, for better or for worse, we're all learning a significant lesson today. Will we, the Church in North America, see it? Will we be so concerned that he is unlike us that we'll dismiss this God moment, or will we ponder the significance of what is unfolding before our eyes? Will the southeast US (and some Canadians I know who would do well there) be able to support this leader and see how God might use this man, or will their own agendas cloud their perspective? What about my agenda? Do I really get it? I'm not sure, but I am excited. What a unique day!
LE
LE
13 January 2009
Survival Mode
I am rarely intimidated. Even when I feel intimidated I am not easily bent out of shape. Today feels a little bit different to me, though. Today I am intimidated.
When I look at my life in the next fifteen weeks I see Intimidation personified in my mind. It stands before me in my mind's eye wearing a black suit, a white shirt, and a black tie. Its shoes are shiny and reflective. Of course I notice the shoes because I can't look Intimidation in the eye. If I did, I would be horrified. Eyes, a window to the soul, would simply be dark spaces an the otherwise expressionless face of soul-less intimidation. So, there I stand, staring at the shoes, watching my reflection stare back at me. I've tried looking up, but Intimidation blocks the way, so I can't see past it very well. So, I look back in the shoes.
Funny, though, how the picture changes as I stare. The longer I stare into the shiny shoes, the clearer things become. I am almost resigned to entering survival mode when I notice something bright behind me. It is the reminder of Hope. I am not alone in facing Intimidation. Natasha is there. Roya is there. My close friends are there. So is my church family. There are even a few people there that I'm surprised to see. It doesn't matter how big Intimidation looks, I can't shake this feeling that Hope is here. I'm surrounded by people - and by Hope. No matter how scary Intimidation can be, I remember that the One who is in me is much greater than Intimidation. "Greater is He who is in me than he who is in the world."
Take that, Intimidation. Take that, survival mode.
LE
When I look at my life in the next fifteen weeks I see Intimidation personified in my mind. It stands before me in my mind's eye wearing a black suit, a white shirt, and a black tie. Its shoes are shiny and reflective. Of course I notice the shoes because I can't look Intimidation in the eye. If I did, I would be horrified. Eyes, a window to the soul, would simply be dark spaces an the otherwise expressionless face of soul-less intimidation. So, there I stand, staring at the shoes, watching my reflection stare back at me. I've tried looking up, but Intimidation blocks the way, so I can't see past it very well. So, I look back in the shoes.
Funny, though, how the picture changes as I stare. The longer I stare into the shiny shoes, the clearer things become. I am almost resigned to entering survival mode when I notice something bright behind me. It is the reminder of Hope. I am not alone in facing Intimidation. Natasha is there. Roya is there. My close friends are there. So is my church family. There are even a few people there that I'm surprised to see. It doesn't matter how big Intimidation looks, I can't shake this feeling that Hope is here. I'm surrounded by people - and by Hope. No matter how scary Intimidation can be, I remember that the One who is in me is much greater than Intimidation. "Greater is He who is in me than he who is in the world."
Take that, Intimidation. Take that, survival mode.
LE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)