Insite - certainly not Insight...

What's next?  Safe sites to go murder people.

Listen, we know that murder is wrong, but you just left the Insite clinic where you shot up on WAY too much heroin (because you knew we would save you if you took too much so you took as much as you could all at once) and now you are not thinking clearly and you want to murder a guy.  We know it isn't really you making this decision, it is the drugs in your body that are causing you to murder this guy.  You can't be held accountable for that!  We are sure that if you weren't hopped up on drugs you would probably want to hug him instead of murder him.  But, now that you are stoned, and you are going to murder this guy, why don't you do it here at our Homisite.  We'll make sure you don't knick yourself with the blade while you stab the guy.  We know you can't really help yourself - so that makes it ok.

John 14:6

I was driving around in Edmonton about 7 years or so ago with a co-worker and he asked me if I would mind if we stopped in at a church where his wedding was going to be taking place in a month or two so he could speak with somebody there to make some sort of arrangement.  It was no problem for me so I agreed.  I can’t remember those details completely anymore since it was so long ago but I think it was a United church or something like that.  I remember waiting for him in his truck in the parking lot, looking around in appreciation at the new facility with the nicely paved parking lot.  Must have cost quite a bit since it was quite a large building and they had done a really nice job making the parking lot pretty with trees and green spaces instead of just throwing out a huge uninterrupted mat of asphalt.

All of a sudden it hit me: These people must really be serious about what they believe in to spend this kind of cash.  I’m a Mennonite Brethren so you wouldn’t catch me attending a United church.  Don’t ask me what all the differences are because I don’t know – all I know is that I agree with things the way they are at the Mennonite Brethren churches and I don’t see a good reason to change what aint broke so I’m staying put.

I kept thinking along the previous path – who are all these people who go to this church?  Well my buddy attends here and I think he’s a good guy; he’s got a pretty good head on his shoulders.  I would imagine that this United church has members from all walks of life, just like my church.  What are they all doing going to this United church?  Have they all been deceived?  They obviously take it pretty seriously to invest their cash in this new facility.

The natural progression of these thoughts led me to consider other religions instead of just other denominations within Christianity.  What about Muslims?  Buddhists?  Hindus?  Taoists?  Just to name a few.  How are these churches all surviving?  Are they only attended by idiots?  Are they just kidding around?  I don’t think so.  The implications are not really all that funny.  So then what are they doing believing in this stuff?  How can something that makes so much sense to me be so incredibly different for other people?  And they are utterly convinced that they are right and I am wrong!

It makes me feel kind of small.  It makes me nervous too.  What if I AM wrong?  How can I truly know that I am right?!?!  I don’t know how to answer this.  I have heard that there are Christians who are so solid in their faith that they don’t struggle with questions like this.  I’m not one of them.  All it takes are a few well shot arrows from the Enemy and I really start pondering things.

A large measure of comfort is provided to me in John 14:6:

“Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.  If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well.  From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH JESUS CHRIST.  NO ONE!!!  AND THERE IS NO OTHER WAY!!!  That is the bottom line right there.  There is no area of life which has a line below that one – it is at the very bottom.

Cell Phones In School

Today I drove to Patuanak.  I love driving to Patuanak because the drive is beautiful and I love driving, but also because I get to listen to John Gormley.  Gormley hosts a Saskatchewan talk show on the radio from 8:30 to 12:30 daily and I usually think he is spot on.  I would listen to Gormley every day if I could – and I have tried, but if I listen to him in my office I find that I just zone out listening and get nothing done.  This is not ok with my boss.

One of Gormley’s topics today was related to kids having cell phones at school.  The story went like this: A lawsuit has been filed in Saskatchewan against the school system because one of the students in school was caught using a cell phone in class (there is a school policy against this) and the teacher confiscated the phone.  The policy then requires that the teacher hand the phone over to the vice-principle.  All of this sounds fine.  Here is where the stuff starts to hit the fan though.  The vice-principle goes into the phone and starts reading through the messages, finds one that is related to a stolen vehicle, and calls the police.  The police arrive, demand that the student (the student is 12 years old by the way) reply to their friend and ask the location of the stolen vehicle.  Once the friend replies, the police take this student and go pick up the car.  Now, the lawsuit alleges that the school violated the student’s privacy and as a result have placed this child in danger of retaliation from his friends.  The guardians of this student (he happens to live with his grandparents) fear for his safety.

I rarely disagree with John, but today I did and I so badly wanted to call in, but I was out of cell range.  So, I emailed Gormley.  I mean, really, he needs to know my opinion.  My email went as follows:

Hello John,

I usually agree with you.  Probably 95% of the time actually, and that isn't bad.  With the cell phones in school topic from today I just can't.  You and Brent joked about using cell phones in class is like passing a note in class in days gone by.  I agree with that, but only so far.  In days gone by, the teacher would read the note, that is true.  But then would the teacher proceed to rifle through your backpack reading everything in there?  Then move on to your locker and read all of that too?  Nope.  In essence, that is what the teacher is doing if they are at liberty to read through the messages on a student’s cell phone.  I just can't say that is ok UNLESS there is probable cause for suspicion (ie: illegal behaviour). There was no probable cause for suspicion mentioned in the story from today so I am assuming there wasn't any otherwise it would have been mentioned. You also mentioned "in plain sight" today on your show. I agree with you on the legality of reading something that is in plain sight - if the message was visible on the screen of the phone that would be ok. I cannot imagine any 12 year old kid handing over their cell phone to their teacher with a message up on the screen - can you?  I don't see how that can be a factor here either.  So we've got a phone, no probable cause, no message on the screen - that means the vice-principle would have had to go into the phone, find the messages and start reading through them.  You think THAT is ok?  It was mentioned that the school has legal jurisdiction over the kids while they are at school.  Ok, I submit though that even a parent would require probable cause to go reading the messages on their kid’s cell otherwise you're just asking for a fight.  Not that I, as a parent, which I am, would shy away from that fight if I had probable cause, but why would you even go there if you didn't?

The school has a policy?  This is a non-starter.  Confiscate the phone if you want.  If the student won't comply confiscate it for a week.  If they still won't comply suspend them.  This policy does not give permission to read through personal information.

Your callers kept bringing up things that were beside the point:

• "The message had content of an unlawful nature" - no way to know that until after you read the message at which point you are beyond the line and therefore it is outside the parameters of this arguement.
• "you'd feel differently if it had been your car".... What? Where do people come up with stuff like this?
• "don't bring your phone into class if you don't want the messages read" - while this arguement does make sense, it still sidesteps the point here. Understandably, if your phone is not in the class the messages on it cannot be read. This does not automatically mean that if your phone IS in class the messages on it are public domain.
• One of your callers brought up the fact that the kid lived with his Grandparents. Gasp! Call in the strip search team! This kid must be up to no good at all! If he lives with his Grandparents he automatically forfeits all of his rights!

I don't think we should be giving our kids cell phones much less that they should be in classes. As a teacher I would be seriously frustrated by cell phones in class. I'd probably confiscate the phone and throw the student out of class. We can deal with this issue without compromising the students privacy.

I have to side with the Grandparents here. I would have loved to have called in to argue this point with you, but I was out of cell range. We can agree to disagree on this one and I expect that we will still go on living harmoniously in this world together. Keep up the good work John. I really think Saskatchewan needs you. It is one of the reasons our province is so grounded in reality.

Jon

There, now you know my position.  You know, I ran into something like this when I was in school.  My high school had a policy of no caps in class.  One day I wore my cap and refused to take it off, and I was thrown out of the class.  Actually, on the one hand these two situations are similar, but on the other hand - I was not disturbing anyone with my cap in class, but cell phones are a nuisance.  Yeah, that's right, they aren't the same at all.  I was right to fight the system and try to wear my cap!  Ok good, I almost had to admit that I may have been wrong, good thing I was able to see past that one.

Anyway, I think this is an interesting issue which is certainly not going to go away...

Begin In Me

The Leadership Team (basically the name we give our church board) at church has been working from a new perspective this past year called "Begin In Me".  We came up with this idea at our previous retreat where we really wanted to commit ourselves to spearheading initiatives that are going on at church.  This is something I can really get excited about supporting because it is something that makes complete sense to me.

It speaks to a mindset that is not going to wait for someone else to start something.  It is an internal perspective instead of an external one.  Point the finger at yourself.

How can we reach out to our community?  Begin in me...

How do we encourage our churches to get into the Word?  Begin in me...

How can we improve the perception unbelievers have of Christians?  Begin in me...

How do we get people to renew their commitment and dedication to God?  Begin in me...

How can we be Christians without making it personal?  It discourages me when I look at the church and see our young adults not attending congregational meetings, not tithing, not involved in ministry.  Is this your religion or your parents'?  You want to make it real?  Begin in me.  It discourages me when I see our "half-time" Children's Minster (who works at least 40 hours a week) struggling to find volunteers.  You want a children's program for your kids when you are at church?  Begin in me.  One thing which is extremely encouraging at our church is that our finances have been strong for at least the past 10 years.  Wow, that is a real indication of our church members putting their money where their beliefs are.  Many of the church leaders I have heard from though are not in the same ballpark (not even playing in the same league) as our church so it begs the question - why aren't you financially supporting your church?  Begin in me.

**Aside: Many of you are wondering - did Jon just use a sports metaphor?  Does Jon even know what a ballpark and a league are?  Yes, I have heard people talk about sports before you know!**

As a LIFE group we are reading Crazy Love by Francis Chan.  Now this book really stresses a Begin In Me attitude.  I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to make their faith personal.  Part of Francis' message is that we can't do this thing part way.  God calls us to be wholly devoted to Him.  Guess how that starts.  With you/me.  Sunday morning is not enough.  Francis' message goes as far as to say an hour a day is not enough.  5 hours a day is not enough.  Well sheesh!  That sounds impossible!  All day is just barely enough.  Just barely.  If you can give more than all day you should.  All day is the bare minimum.  23.5 hours a day is not enough.  How on earth can we do that?  We ask Christ to Begin In Me.

Sounds like I've got it all figured out hey?  I have a post called "I'm not that bright...don't tell anyone..."  Give that a read and it should clear up any misconceptions you have.  What I do know is this: there is no telling what God could do through us if we were completely dedicated to Him.  Spend 5 minutes on this thought: What could an omnipotent, omniscient God do through a man or woman who was totally dedicated to Him?  I mean fully committed, tapped into the Spirit, not distracted by the world.  Remember, don't put limits on God when you think about this (He has no limits, remember?).  When I think of that I come up with a bunch of words to describe my thoughts:

• inspired - it is kind of exciting to think of what God could do through me
• reluctant - what things am I currently spending my time on that I would need to give up to get to this place?
• awe

It begins with you and me.  Don't wait for someone else to do it.  We can't sustain this type of thing on our own.  Ask God to Begin In You.  I'll do the same.

I Then Shall Live

This song was inspired by Francis Schaeffer's book How Should We Then Live.

"I Then Shall Live" by the Gaither Vocal Band with Signature Sound:

I then shall live as one who's been forgiven,
I'll walk with joy to know my debts are paid,
I know my name is clear before my father,
I am His child and I am not afraid.
So greatly pardoned I'll forgive my brother,
The law of love I gladly will obey.

I then shall live as one who's learned compassion,
I've been so loved that I'll risk loving too,
I know how fear builds walls instead of bridges,
I'll dare to see another's point of view.
And when relationships demand commitment,
Then I'll be there to care and follow through.
Your kingdom come around and through and in me,
Your power and glory, let them shine through me.
Your Hallowed name, O may I bear with honour,
And may Your living Kingdom come in me.
The bread of life, O may I share with honour,
And may You feed a hungry world through me.
Amen.

Next Monday...is that the Monday in 3 days or...

Someone got me started at lunch today.

The Transportation group at work (of which I am a part) went out for lunch together today to an excellent Vietnamese place in the north end.  We all had the daily noodle bowl special which was fantastic.  As we’re waiting for the food my boss mentions that we’re going to have a meeting next Monday for the whole group.

My immediate question was, “Next Monday…is that the Monday in 3 days or…”

Which has become a completely valid question!

I would love to meet the guy who decided to start the whole thing where next no longer means the next, but the one after the next.  But you know what?  People only think this is ok when dealing with days of the week.

You don’t hear anyone saying, “take the next right” when giving directions and actually meaning they are supposed to turn at the second road they come to.  No, this means that you turn right onto the first road you come to on the right side.

Just imagine you’re standing in line at the bank.  You wait until everyone in front of you is taken care of and you are now standing at the front of the line.  The next teller to be available will call you up.  What does that mean?  Does that mean that first teller to become available will have to wait with no customer so that the second teller who becomes available will serve you?  No.  What if someone cuts in front of you right at the last minute?  You indignantly exclaim, “Hey!  I was next in line.”  Does that mean that the person who cut in line was actually entitled to do that seeing as how you were only next in line which means there should have been someone in front of you?  No.

But, many people out there (carefully not mentioning any names…) think that if I say the meeting is next Monday that means it will be held in 10 days, not 3.  “Oh, no, you don’t understand, if I had meant the meeting was in 3 days I would have said this Monday not next Monday.  Didn’t you get the memo?  We changed the meaning of next while you were gone - but only in certain situations like when referring to days of the week.”  /said in a drippingly condescending voice

No.  You don’t get to change the meaning of a word arbitrarily like that.  What I find most disturbing about this is that the word next has now become vague.  It requires an additional question.  For clarity sake the second question needs to be asked.  Who are you talking to - someone who uses next properly (meaning next) or someone who uses the ridiculous improper form of next (meaning the one after the next)?  You can’t not ask the second question.  You might show up at the wrong time.  If it is for something important (the flight leaves next Monday, the funeral is next Saturday, you will be killed by lethal injection next Wednesday) you can’t just leave it up to chance.

So, back to our lunchtime conversation.  My boss immediately knew where I was going with my question and answered quite good naturedly that it was the Monday in 3 days.  He took it in stride.  He may have been familiar with the whole confusion inherent in the question…

Our decline into apathy

I was reading some more of The Tangible Kingdom the other night and I came across an interesting viewpoint.  The author suggested that we are overcoming a difficulty we've been struggling with for 1700 years!  The culprit: Constantine!  (I always knew that guy was no good!)  If our goal is to become an incarnational community like we see described in Acts, one of the biggest hurdles for us to overcome is the acceptance of our faith into the core of the culture.  .....what??  That doesn't make a whole lot of sense until we see where the author is taking it.

The early church was not accepted by the culture.  They were on the fringe.  They were struggling for acceptance.  They didn't have buildings or paid leaders.  They were martyred and persecuted which caused them to scatter. 

Then, 300 AD, along comes Constantine who converts to Christianity.  All of a sudden, the state is sponsoring the construction of meeting places, there are paid leaders for the church (Constantine appointed the first pope), the Edict of Milan comes down and nobody is getting killed for their faith anymore (officially anyway).

Result: The desperation disappears.  On one hand we've got a bunch of people living on the edge.  They are trying to survive.  Their faith is real for them because it could mean their lives - that is nothing you really want to fool around with.  People could look at these Christians and see folk who really lived what they preached.  They were looking after the widows, the orphans, and each other.  This was a community where, once you belonged, you had a purpose.  These guys were meeting regularly to discuss the apostles teaching, fellowshipping with each other, eating together and praying together.  This was attractive.

On the other hand you have a bunch of people joining up to the cause because it is the official religion of the state.  Well, the emperor is a Christian, I want to kiss his ass so, yeah, I'm a Christian too.  Are the pews comfy?  Then yeah, I could come sit there for a while on Sunday morning.  No big deal.  Easy to join, easy to not-join.  This was apathy.

The other hand is how the world sees us today.

With the acceptance of Christianity it is far too easy to be a part time Christian.  You don’t need to be making radical decisions.  You don’t need to be relying on God daily to keep your family safe.  You don’t need to support widows or orphans – the state has programs for that stuff – you don’t even need to think about them at all really - in fact, we recommend that you don't, it'll just bring you down.  Now all of a sudden you've got a chasm between the paid staff in the church and the lay people.  Back in the early church it was your neighbour the plumber that was the church leader, and he was only the leader because last week the officials caught the previous leader and knocked him off!  Next week you might be the leader!

So, what do you think?  Can we blame Constantine for all of this?  Should we get a posse together and round him up, ask him a few questions, rough him up a bit maybe?  Or should we applaud his efforts in giving Christianity legitimacy?  After all, how could he possibly have foreseen that a by-product of legitimizing Christianity would be increased apathy?  It is a good question and an interesting perspective…