I recently finished a book recommended to me by R. called The Shack. The book tells the story of one man’s intense tragedy, years of ensuing "great sadness" and his meeting with God one day which leads to some profound changes in his life spiritually and emotionally. It is a story profound compassion, forgiveness and healing that also manages to weave some pretty deep theology into the mix.

 

Eugene Peterson, the translator of The Message paraphrase of the Bible as well as the author of several books on pastoral theology says "This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his. It’s that good!"

 

Like Pilgrim’s Progress, The Shack is heavy on matephorical/allegorical imagery. This is a book I would call an exercise in stretching. Whether you perceive yourself as conservative or liberal, orthodox or unorthodox, modern or post-modern, evangelical or emergent this book will stretch you at some point in your theology. Sometimes stretching can lead to breaking but with The Shack I think the stretching is actually a good and potentially beneficial exercise.

 

At its most helpful The Shack offers a refreshing interpretation of the Trinity and what forgiveness and a healing journey with God might look like. At its most controversial (stretching) it offers some strong words about institutionalized religion/Christianity and a strong affirmation of the orthodox understanding of creation.

 

Scattered with quotes from a variety of people including A.W. Tozer, Dostoevsky, C.S. Lewis and Bruce Cockburn I believe The Shack will become an excellent resource in grief counseling and I highly recommend it – especially for book clubs and/or study groups.

 

More information about the author and book can be found at www.theshackbook.com .

 

A little over 200 years ago there arose a movement in western thinking we now called the Romantic era…not to be confused with cupid and Valentine’s Day this period of time that spans roughly the period between 1780-1850 (give or take a few years). Wikipedia has a nice little descriptor that sums up the movement nicely:

 

Romanticism is an artistic, literary, and intellectual movement that originated around the middle of the 18th century in Western Europe, and gained strength during the Industrial Revolution. It was partly a revolt against aristocratic, social, and political norms of the Enlightenment period and a reaction against the scientific rationalization of nature in art and literature. The movement stressed strong emotion as a source of aesthetic experience, placing new emphasis on such emotions as trepidation, horror, and the awe experienced in confronting the sublimity of untamed nature. It elevated folk art, nature and custom, as well as arguing for an epistemology based on nature, which included human activity conditioned by nature in the form of language, custom and usage. It was influenced by ideas of the Enlightenment and elevated medievalism and elements of art and narrative perceived to be from the medieval period. The name "romantic" itself comes from the term "romance" which is a prose or poetic heroic narrative originating in medieval literature and romantic literature. The ideologies and events of the French Revolution and Industrial Revolution are thought to have influenced the movement. Romanticism elevated the achievements of what it perceived as misunderstood heroic individuals and artists that altered society. It also legitimized the individual imagination as a critical authority which permitted freedom from classical notions of form in art. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism)

 

As an English major I was introduced to a number of periods of art and literature but the one that holds the greatest number of favorites for me is the Romantic era (this is true for the art of the time as well). My favorite books of all time include Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte and Frankenstein by Mary Shelley (a remarkable book written by a remarkable young lady); poetry by William Blake (his art as well), Percy Shelley, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, William Wordsworth, Edgar Allen Poe and Lord Byron.

 

The part that I am most interested in is romanticism as a revolt (or reaction) against the structures of the enlightenment. Today, by all accounts, we seem to be exiting the modernist period (which was birthed by the enlightenment) and are entering into something different. This transitional stage is often unhelpfully referred to as post-modernity. Some of the signs of the end of the age include the rapid deconstruction of long held modernist frameworks/paradigms/structures. Rampant and somewhat indiscriminate iconoclasm is occurring throughout the western world (and the globe inasmuch as it is influenced by these movements).

 

It seems to me that in the same way that romanticism developed in part as a reaction to the enlightenment we are seeing something of an emerging neo-romantic movement in response to the death of modernity. Signs of this neo-romanticism include an increasing awareness of ecology (nature), a call to return to a ‘simpler’ existence or to our ‘roots’. In theological terms this includes the increasing emphasis on the early church as a cleaner, simpler, more Godly model to follow. Certainly there has been an increasing emphasis on the value of emotion and personal experience over systematic, structured presentations of info. Romanticism was inherently anti-structure whereas the enlightenment, through scientific achievement, continued to reveal more and more structure to the world which reinforced new structures within economics, politics and religion (structures which would solidify into modernist edifices). In the same way there seems to be an increasingly anti-structure movement/tendency in this new and emerging age.

 

I use the term emerging intentionally here because there are many characteristics of romanticism to be found in the western Christian movement called by some the emerging church. Once again Wikipedia can provide a little clarity in terms of helping us understand what this emerging church thing is:

 

The emerging church (also known as the emerging church movement) is a controversial 21st-century Protestant Christian movement whose participants seek to engage postmodern people, especially the unchurched and post-churched. To accomplish this, "emerging Christians" (also known as "emergents") deconstruct and reconstruct Christian beliefs, standards, and methods. This accommodation is found largely in this movement’s embrace of postmodernism’s post foundational epistemology, and pluralistic approach to religion and spirituality. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Church)

Take this definition with a huge block of salt because the emerging church is something of a moving target. Being inherently anti-structure and somewhat of a response to evangelicalism/modernity it is still in the very early stages of formation (if it is forming into anything). Like post-modernism the emerging church is likely more of a transitional movement from something (traditional modernist evangelicalism/Protestantism) to something else (???).

 

Like every other structure in the western world the church is undergoing dramatic and seismic shifts as modernity dies. The question is what will emerge from its ashes? This is why I am so interested in the 18th/19th century movement called romanticism. If we are seeing a similar movement arise in the form of neo-romanticism perhaps we can learn/discern something for ourselves now by studying this period.

 

Ultimately the enlightenment entrenched itself firmly (particularly in economics and politics) and romanticism left its mark primarily in literature, art and music. For my purposes as a pastor I have to wonder if I can learn something from romanticism in terms of its impact on Christianity and only one significant religious movement comes to mind during this period – the Holiness Movement. Wikipedia is decidedly less helpful in defining the Holiness Movement, it should suffice to say that this movement in protestant Christianity spanned primarily England and North America and led to the founding of the Wesleyan, Methodist, Christian & Missionary Alliance and Pentecostal denominations. The movement had a strong emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. The movement was also somewhat rooted in a theological reaction against the structures/thinking of Anglicanism/Presbyterianism (possibly other state sanctioned churches as well like Lutheranism although I don’t know).

 

Anyhow – that’s a bit of a brain dump. As inaccessible, long and rambling as it is I should say it is still a VERY simplistic overview…the reality and interconnectedness of these different historical movements is far more complex. This is where my mind has been swimming lately and my thoughts revolving around questions like:

 

–       Are we in for a neo-romantic period?

–       Is a new Holiness Movement coming?

–       Will modernity reassert itself in something like a compromise with neo-romanticism or will it come back twice as hard in some Ultra-modernist form?

–       What does this mean for the church?

–       What can we learn from the romantic era to prepare us for the future?

 

For further reading check out the book Nineteenth-century Religion and Literature: An Introduction edited by Dr. Emma Mason and Mark Knight. I have not read it (yet) but I’ve added it to my wish list. 😉

 

Check out this story:

 

 

NEW YORK (AP) — Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema have reached agreement to make J.R.R. Tolkien’s "The Hobbit," a planned prequel to the blockbuster trilogy "The Lord of the Rings."

Relations between Jackson and New Line had soured after "Rings," despite a collective worldwide box office gross of nearly $3 billion — an enormous success. The two sides nevertheless were able to reconcile, with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios (MGM) splitting "The Hobbit" 50/50, spokemen for both studios said Tuesday.

"I’m very pleased that we’ve been able to put our differences behind us, so that we may begin a new chapter with our old friends at New Line," Jackson said in a statement. "We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle Earth."

Two "Hobbit" films are scheduled to be shot simultaneously, similar to how the three "Lord of the Rings" films were made. Production is set to begin in 2009 with a released planned for 2010, with the sequel scheduled for a 2011 release.

New Line Cinema is owned by Time Warner. (Time Warner is the parent company of CNN.) Sony and Comcast are among the owners of MGM.

 

Check out this intriguing article by Vancouver writer Terry O’Neill:

 

 

 

Just a note to let you know about a great new, very informal, cafe/coffee house in Winkler called Ten Twenty-Seven which is happily located at 1027 Mountain Ave. (hence the name). Great, simple menu and food. Good homemade soup, excellent baking (pies, bread etc). Gelati, coffee, a lot of great art on the walls (for sale), and a microphone/speaker in the corner. All in all a cool artsy coffee house with an awesome atmosphere and cheap prices.

 

In no particular order:

 

– Beowulf

– The Waterhorse

– Jumper

– Youth Without Youth

– Sweeney Todd

– Persepolis

– No Country for Old Men

– The Mist

– Rambo (yeah I know, I find it hard to believe too…)

– Man in the Chair

– The Band’s Visit

 

 

I know of your love for me

like razors in warm wind

it comes fast without pretense

washing me

cleansing me

                  and

stripping the flesh from my bones

till I stand open

naked and unashamed

because you know it all

 

freedom can be an empty glass

waiting in anticipation

for

drop

and

drop

and

drop

 

but my love

is mist at twilight

and

red sails in the morn

inconstant and dangerous

my love is a complicated thing

 

so thanks to you for yours

may your simplicity

unwind this gordian heart.

While driving the kids to school this morning and I noticed the fervent ant-like activity of the elementary school children busily building snowforts around the play yard. As I was watching this I began to ponder this building urge that small humans seem to have. I recall as a child needing to build shelters pretty much where ever I went. In the livingroom I would build massive dwellings of blankets and furniture (the more ornate and passageway-ridden the better). In the winter I would build snowforts and in the summer tree houses. There was really no period of the year exempt from this effort.

What is it that drives us to create shelter? Mazlo would have an idea but we’ll leave him out of this. I would like to think this is another example of our God-wiring that has us innately aware at a young age for shelter as a primary survival requirement.

Still one is led to the age-old chicken and egg question of which came first – the wiring for shelter or the socialization?

 

N.T. Wright

Published 2005

Harper San Francisco

146 pages

====================================================================

 

The title of this new work by N.T. Wright alone is audacious enough. There are mutliple layers of meaning to it ranging from a suggestion that this very book is the last word on the authority of scripture to the more obvious reference to canonical scripture being the last written word received by God.

 

The premise of the book is simple enough – Wright, a well known Anglican bishop and theologian proposes the following – "the authority of scripture is really a short-hand for the authority of God exercised through scripture; and God’s authority is not merely His right to control and order the church, but His sovereign power, exercised in and through Jesus and the Spirit, to bring all things in heaven and on earth into subjection to His judging and healing rule."

 

Though only 146 pages long Wright manages to cram as much insight about scripture and the church’s historical interaction with it as possible. The point of the history lesson which starts with Israel and leads us through to our post modern context is simply to show how the church has by and large drifted rather far from a healthy understanding of the authority of scripture and thus to a reasonably unhealthy place today. The book is not meant to be bleak and certainly doesn’t come across that way. Rather it is meant as a corrective or a realignment for the church in terms of how we should relate to and honour scripture.

 

There is a brilliant overview of the period of history from the enlightenment to the end of modernity which history will most likely mark as Sept. 11, 2001. Wright provides compelling evidence that this 200 year enlightenment period has dramatically undermined the role and understanding of scripture both inside and out of the church. He also offers thoughts on how this new iconoclastic post modern age we’re in is rapidly tearing down a lot of modernity/enlightenment assumptions which suggests on opportunity to reshape (or reform) our thinking regarding scripture and it’s primacy in the life of the church and her members. While Wright points out some of the positive impact of post modernity he also warns against blindly embracing it in replacement of modernity.

 

Wright offers an intriguing hermeneutic model for the reader’s use in approaching and understanding scripture – that of the five-act play. Wright says "the Bible itself offers a model for its own reading, which involves knowing where we are within the drama and what is appropriate within each act."

 

The acts are:

 

1. Creation

2. the Fall

3. Israel

4. Jesus

5. The Church

 

We find ourselves in the fifth act and as Wright says "we must act in the appropriate manner for this moment in the story; this will be in direct continuity with the previous acts (we are not free to suddenly jump to another narrative, a different play altogether), but such continuity implies discontinuity, a moment where genuinely new things can and do happen."

 

Wright’s approach is intriguing in that it suggests that with the proper understanding of scripture and the authority God exercises through it we can become aware that God is continuing to do a new thing with His creation. That it is possible that we will come to new understandings and insights even now, 2000 years since Christ, and that we can do this while maintaining a high and orthodox view of scripture.

 

The book is brilliant. I would highly recommend it as an introductory companion to the Bible. It reads at a university level but this should not frighten anyone away. In his discussion of common misreadings of scripture Wright is even handed in observing the failings of both the traditional "right" and "left" while at the same time openly dismissing the right/left cut-and-paste dichotomy (Bible Wars) as simplistic, rooted in enlightenment/modernist tendancies and overall of great waste of time and energy which dishonours scripture and God.

 

I should say that Wright ends the book with a short encouragement to the highest levels of church leadership to re-establish the reading of scripture in our churches, not merely as an afterthought or a short introduction to the sermon but rather as "an act of worship, celebrating God’s story, power and wisdom and, above all, God’s son. This is the kind of worship through which the church is renewed in God’s image, and so transformed and directed in its mission."

 

The call by Wright is clear – church leaders need to take scripture seriously and centre themselves and their denominations on scripture. "All too often," says Wright, "the official leaders of the various denominations are so swamped with bureaucratic and administrative tasks (which Wright is quick to say is important), that, although they still preach sermons and perhaps even give lectures, they do not give the church the benefit of fresh, careful and prayerful study of the text, but rather simply draw on their studies of many years ago and the inspiration of the urgent moment."

 

Within an hour of finishing the book I read a pastoral letter from the president of our denomination, Dr. Franklin Pyles. In one of those strange God-coincidences that happen periodically Dr. Pyles’ letter was a brilliant post-script to Wright’s book. Among other things Dr. Pyles challenges us on the reading of scripture in our churches –

 

It is Decembe 4th and I absolutely HATE shovelling the driveway. Perhaps hate is too light a word, abhor maybe, I’m not sure they have invented a strong enough word but I think you get the point. These days the snow has been plentiful but very light and I have actually entertained the idea of using a leaf blower but so far have decided against this (too crazy looking).

This morning I once again had the increasingly regular decision to make – whether I even bother to go out and shovel or wait till the end of the day. When it is snowing like it is today (the all day kind of snowing) shovelling in the morning makes me feel like Sisyphus because by the time I am done shovelling it needs to start all over again like some sort of never-ending torture.

To top it off I managed to get the car stuck in a parking lot (it can happen trust me) this morning because I wasn’t paying attention to where I was going and had to push the thing out of the nearly invisible mound. I must have looked seriously pathetic because a couple of other guys came over to help. Meanwhile I am resisting the very real man-urge to tell the other guys that I don’t need any help and despite how things look I have everything under control and that I’m lying on my face in the snow for better leverage all the while cursing snowplow drivers that mound up parking lot piles in completely random places.

I fully understand that if all I have to worry and gripe about is shovelling my driveway and pushing my van out of tough spots then by global standards I’ve got it pretty good. I understand this – but understanding doesn’t help in the least – I still hate shovelling the driveway. Nevertheless I shovelled this morning. My driveway (on days like today) is ridiculously huge, sloped and cracked. This means I can build up a good deal of momentum but always run the risk of being spectacularly groined by the shovel. Not fun.

The thing with shovelling, despite how much I hate it, is that once I begin something stupidly obssesive takes over (it may be this way with others, I don’t know). I must strive to scrape off every flake of snow. I must see the concrete. It is not enough to simply shovel a narrow path the car can go down. The whole driveway from edge to edge must be shovelled clean.

There is something lamely satisfying about standing in front of my house after relentless shovelling and being able to survey a clear, clean neatly shovelled driveway leading up to my domain. All the edges have been met. All the lines are straight. Plus if I am feeling even more compulsive I will shovel out into the road a bit to avoid have the plow scraping a nice impassable mound into the end of my driveway.

Well – the shovelling is done for now but if you are looking for me this evening you know where to find me…I will be out in the driveway shovelling with near military precision.