Wisdom and Folly, Life and Death

I know two young men, one travels the road of wisdom and life, the other travels the road of folly and death. Both are Christians, both are chosen by God and called according to his purpose, but they walk very different paths. What is it that makes a man to trust or to distrust his God? How is it that any, having encountered the River of Life time and time again can refuse to drink from it? In the one there is growth, prosperity, peace, and wholeness even in the midst of many adversities. In the other there is only desolation even though he is surrounded by many good things and many opportunities. I am struck by the profound parable of these two men. On one side of me is the lush tree planted by the river that gives its fruit in season and on the other side of me is a barren wasteland where there is only chaff blowing in the wind and the earth is parched for lack of water.

The one who chose wisdom and life trusts in his God. He did not always trust, but he has learned trust and so he grows in the Lord every day. The Lord has honored his faith and has provided for him and given him more tasks and responsibilities. It is just as Jesus spoke concerning the parable of the talents. He was found faithful with few things so the Lord has honored him and given him much more. He used to come to me with so many questions about faith and God and his problems, and I would answer him as best as I could, feeding on the Lord to help me help him. But now he goes to the Lord directly and he is teaching me and has become an example of faith to me! I am so proud of him, that he has grown to maturity and is now doing for others what I did for him and now the two of us are equal. He is at peace even though he has many reasons to worry and he succeeds even though he has many difficulties that cause him to stumble. Praise be to the Lord in whom he has put his faith in! The Lord is faithful to those who put their trust in Him!

The one who chose folly and death speaks of trusting God and knows the Scriptures, but he does not understand it or put it into practice when he does. He used to trust, but he has either forgotten or chosen not to draw upon the Lord. As a result he has dried up and is unable to do anything. He does not drink from the Lord and so he has dried up. His motivation for life and school is utterly spent. He understands his classes and the Word of God, but he does not enjoy them or practice them. He is angry, tired, rebellious, and can not even think straight any more. Instead of sleeping he stays up all night searching for distraction. Instead of doing his homework he seeks solace in entertainment. When confronted with the source of life, the river from which we all drink, he is ashamed, not glad. If only he would have trusted in the Lord and drank of this river then he too would surely have prospered and succeeded! I am sad and afraid for him. He does not trust the Lord and will not draw upon him. He chooses thirst and so he is thirsty, he chooses quarreling over peace and so he is quarrelsome. It is as Jesus said, that He is the vine and we are the branches, apart from him we can do nothing. Also, according to the parable of the Talents, the one who is unfaithful with the little he has, although he thinks he has nothing at all, even that will be taken from him and given instead to those who have proven themselves faithful. Truly the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Fear the Lord and seek him while he may be found. If he would turn and but draw upon the Lord he would be healed and restored, but if he does not then even the ability to want to turn may grow weaker and fade.

Such is the blessing that comes from a living trust and faith in Jesus and such is the desolation that comes from knowing the truth but refusing to live in it.

Hellenistic Christianity or Christianized Hellenism?

One topic that has come up a fair bit in my research as well as my Barth reading group is the interaction between Hellenism (ancient Greek religion / philosophy) and Christianity. Western Christianity has a distinctly Platonic taste to it. We perceive God as a spirit, a non-physical entity not effected by time. We ascribe to God perfection of the highest orders: kindness but as true Kindness, love but as true Love, just but as true Justice. We naturally comprehend God as a self sufficient timeless perfect spiritual being and have a hard time understanding him as actually Three in One.

There are reasons for this. During the dawn of Christianity the Roman Empire had become 'Hellenized.' The teachings of the ancient Greek philosophers dominated the understanding of the world, time, and the divine. After Jesus' death, Resurrection, and ascension waves of believers took the Gospel message all over the Roman Empire (and beyond) and what do you think was the first real opposition they ran into? Hellenism. Some scholars of religion believe that early Christianity was heavily influenced by Hellenism and that the true understanding of Jesus and his followers is now forever lost under layers of Hellenistic Christian tradition. However, I've a read a few other scholars who believe it was the other way around, that Hellenism was effected by Christianity, not the other way around.

I am by no means well read on this topic, I am just trying to work out my personal thoughts for the time being. The first great theologians after Paul were indeed of a Hellenistic background. Origen, Augustine, Tertullian, Irenaeus, indeed all of the leading theologians of the early Church were Hellenistic to start with and were trying to become Christian. They began by holding up both Hellenism and their new found faith in Jesus and the Revelation of God in Jesus and tried to connected the two by building bridges. The meticulous and logical Greek philosophers spoke concerning the divine in a way that everyone (even many people today) believed in. The very idea of God consisting of three persons was impossible according to Hellenism, but this was the conclusion that they all came to, and the definitive break with Hellenism. God had revealed himself to be more than the perfect mono-being unaffected by temporality, he showed himself to both transcend time and able to (and willing to) enter into it with us as a fellow man! He showed himself to not consist alone but in community with himself. And so the early Church grappled with this reality and broke with Socrates. All sorts of heresies took root where Hellenism was still embraced; Arianism, Gnosticism, Nestorianism, and all of them were rejected.



That was a long time ago, but even today we have natural Hellenistic tendencies. We speak of God as a unitarian God, as if God were just 'God' a perfect holy being somewhere 'up there' who may or may not exist and not as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who has revealed himself and comes down to live with us. We assume that true goodness is goodness of the spirit or heart and we do not immediately recognize that the physical creation is a part of God's very being through the incarnate Son and the covenant of Grace, the plan to redeem all of creation even the physical creation!

This is an interesting topic, and I wish I knew more. Perhaps I will study it for fun when I have time.

Greg Out

Rethinking the Apostles' Creed

The Apostles' Creed is an ancient Christian document born out of a time of theological confusion and conflict within the early church. I wanted to use it as a guide for my internship but alas, I perceived it incorrectly. The following are my reflections put into writing. But first, the Creed itself.

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, our Lord.

Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended to the grave:
The third day he rose again from the dead:
He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
I believe in the Holy Ghost:
I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:
The forgiveness of sins:
The resurrection of the body:
And the life everlasting. Amen.

I had wanted to use the Creed as a guide or outline as to what Christianity is. I had perceived the Creed as a type of ancient litmus test created for the purpose of boiling down Christianity to the basics and stopping heresy. Then I met with my instructor and he told me to go back and reconsider the purpose of the Creed.

After some research (primarily with Robert Jensen) and reflection I believe that I was right in many respects but also mistaken in my original direction. The Creed was indeed born out of theological conflict. The instability of Origen's theological system of bridging Hellenism to Christianity was the backdrop of the theological rift manifested by the conflict Arius / Eusibius and Alexander / Athanasius. The center of the rift was the question of the identity of the Jesus, the Son of the Father. According to Arius the Son would have to be a created being, a lesser God and not the same as the Father since Hellenistic reasoning could not comprehend any division in the true divine. Arius and his teachings were branded as false teaching and he was excommunicated from the Church. Many bishops were sympathetic to Arius though and things began to get a little ugly as an epic power struggle began to unfold. The new Christian Emperor decided to call a meeting and bridge the rift before the empire had a chance to unravel itself due to theological disagreement. And so the council of Nicaea met together and decided against Arius, that the Son was homoousias (of the same essence as) the Father.

So there we go, the Creed was indeed formed out of the purpose of combating heresy but not as a guide or outline of Christianity but as a clarification of which God Christianity was all about. It turns out that the God who has revealed himself in Jesus, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is not the same God as the God of Hellenism with Christian clothes on.

The Creed went through a few more changes and clarifications until we had the Constantinople Creed, aka The Apostles' Creed as it is above, but it is not any outline of Christian doctrine, it is an outline of the Christian God.

This has immense consequences for my project. If I want to be true to the Creed then my project needs to be about Who the Christian God is and not about what Christians believe about him. I need to introduce people to the Christian God, not go on about Christian doctrines like the text that originally inspired this project (ironic).

Greg Out.

On Mormonism

Mormons are generally good folk (historical realities put aside). They have high personal standards, good morals, and an excellent sense of community and family. Outwardly they are the idealized middle class hard working and honest group of citizens that most of us aspire to be like. They are also not Christians even though they often try to claim denomination status within Christianity. In the event that Mitt Romney does become president of the United States I suspect Mormonism will become more widely talked about in a positive light. The Billy Graham Association has already removed Mormonism from its Cult-Watch List, which may be for any number of reasons. I, however, want to preemptively write, not against Mormonism per se, but about the differences between Christianity and Mormonism. I want to establish where the line is before it becomes 'the big issue.'


The major difference between Christianity and today's modern Mormonism is an issue of authority. Christianity has always rooted its teachings in the Scriptures and the traditions laid down by Jesus and his Apostles. Christianity is the expression of faith in God and what He has been doing since the beginning of time as understood by His self revelation through Scripture, AKA, the Holy Bible. For Christianity, the Bible is the authority for understanding God because it is the Word of God. For Christianity as a world religion the canon of Scripture was closed at the end of the book of Revelation and no further additions can be made to it. The Mormons on the other hand did add to the Bible, they added the Book of Mormon, a collection of writings given by Joseph Smith who they hail to be a prophet. Why is this a big deal you ask? Let me explain further.

The Bible is actually a series of books written by different people at different times in history. Each book is different and addresses a different time and culture. Some books are poetry, others historical chronicles, others letters, and still others as analogy. Despite the many differences in all of these books they are united together and speak together as one entity. Each author that wrote was supported by, and wrote in accordance with, everything that came before him. The Law given by Moses was not a new invention, it was based on and supported by the pre-historic workings of God in Genesis. The Prophets and the Wisdom writers also did not create a new religion but preached and wrote in accordance with what was already laid down in Genesis and The Law. In fact, God commanded that any prophet who spoke contrary to what was already written was a false prophet, because he was not speaking in accordance with what God has commanded. Jesus also did not start a new thing, he was the fulfillment to the Law and the Prophets, the act of God to which the entire body of Scriptures at that point was pointing towards. The Apostles, Jesus' followers, likewise did not go off to create their own religion, they wrote and preached in complete accordance with the Word of God that had been laid down before them, from Genesis to the Book of Revelation. At every step of the way, the Word of God supported what came before it and was supported by what came before it. The Word of God stands together as a unity, each 'piece' interlocking with the rest of Scripture.

(I include 'The Epistles' with 'Acts of the Apostles')

This is the measure by which we discern true teaching and true understanding of God. Any true teaching or understanding of Scripture must build upon this foundation, just as every other author did. Numberless theologians, pastors, teachers, and prophets have done precisely that. (and even so they agreed that their works were not to be added to Scripture)

Mormonism does not have this understanding of Scripture though. They do not understand that the Scriptures speak as a unity and have instead put their faith, not in the collective Word of God, but on the teachings of Joseph Smith, which they believe added the final book to Scripture. Unlike the other authors of Scripture (and the countless persons who teach, preach, and prophesy in accordance with the Word of God) he took his followers in a different direction, one that was not supported by the Body of Scripture. The teachings of Joseph Smith sometimes sound like or make reference to different parts of Scripture, but viewed from the collective voice of all of Scripture it is a foreign element, precariously tied on by loose grammar and exegetical fallacies. Where Christianity draws its wisdom and its understanding from all of Scripture, Mormonism attempts to interpret all of Scripture through the teaching of Joseph Smith. In practice, Joseph Smith is more authoritative than the Word of God already established, and not even Jesus, the very Incarnate Son of God, foisted himself upon all of Scripture, but even He became submissive to it, not nullifying what came before, but continuing in the same direction.

The attitude of Mormonism is that God actually abandoned the Church, that He was not faithful in preserving his message and that only now, with the true teachings of Joseph Smith, can the Church finally be corrected from thousands of years of apostasy. Mormonism is its own religion, it is not the same as Christianity, although there are similarities on the surface, it has a different foundation and goes in a different direction. Christianity is the embodiment of faith in the God revealed through Jesus in accordance with the Scriptures and Mormonism is the embodiment of faith in the the God revealed through Joseph Smith in accordance with Joseph Smith.

Why We Start with Revelation

Free Writing

I have had my fair sure of reading books and taking courses about Christianity and a large percentage of them have a spot near the beginning where it discusses the importance of Revelation. Well, now that I am creating an 'Introduction to Christianity' video series for my internship I understand why so many start at with that topic.

Revelation is the key to the Christian faith. We literally can not start teaching what Christianity is without first discussing Revelation. Why is that you ask? I would be happy to explain!

To confess the first line of the Apostle's Creed, "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth," is to essentially identify yourself with the God of Jesus, ie: the God of the Bible revealed in Jesus. This means abandoning your own ideas about what God is and submitting yourself to the Scriptures and collective witness of the entire community of Faith. It is to accept the revelation, the self revealing, of God through his Word. His Word is the written Word (Scripture) the incarnate Word (Jesus), and the communal Word (the Church). To confess the first line of the Creed is to recognize and submit to God's Revelation.

The alternative is to either reject or not recognize God's Word as truth. Any time we attempt to add Christian ideas about God into our existing understanding we are already missing the mark. God's Revelation is not something that can just be 'added,' to our understanding, it must be given precedence to reshape our understanding and become the heart and measure of our spiritual knowledge. We can not just pick and choose which parts of different religions we like and then weld them all together to create some sort of personal spirituality.

The Canon of Scripture must be understood to be divinely inspired. It is not enough to think that Moses, Paul, and John all had good ideas or valuable insights about God, as if each of them had a unique personal point of view. No, they all point to the same God because God has given himself to be known and has inspired them to write. There is no difference between the God of Paul or the God of Moses or the God of Jesus or the God of John, or the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, they are the exact same God. It is true that each one would have understood him differently, Abraham did not know the specifics of God's plan of Redemption, only that he trusted Him, Paul had been given specific knowledge concerning God's plans in Christ, and Jesus is that same God incarnate.

We must furthermore understand that all of God's Revelation is in line with what he has already revealed. The Bible, the community of the Church, and the personal witness of the Holy Spirit all speak as a unity and they must be understood together in unity. It is not enough to just grab this or that verse as support for whatever doctrine or idea you are trying to validate. All of Scripture must be understood as a unity.

Once we understand revelation as the authority by which we can say this or that about God, then and only then can we begin to speak further.

Christian Moral Indignation

Wednesday, October 3 In the year of our Lord 2012
Briercrest Distance Education Office, Caronport SK
Writing down thoughts before they Vanish, 10:50 AM
Weather = Overcast, Windy, and Cold


I got to listen to an old sermon that was part of our Distance Education archives. The sermon was from 1989 which may as well have been from a hundred years ago. So many things have changed since that time. Part of the sermon was on the degrading moral standard of our culture and the example he used was how women, of all people, were leading the charge for legal abortions. The moral indignation and woeful tone in the speaker's voice told me that what is now commonplace and 'normal' was at one time something so backwards and unthinkable that it was indeed the clear example that all Hell had broken loose and the end of the world as at hand! Now that wasn't the point of the sermon, far from it, but it does serve as an illustration of what I want to write about right now.

Often times people rely on cultural and moral indignation as validation for our stances and opinions. We assume that everyone should know that some things are just simply wrong and that to question those things is a sign that you are either deranged or evil. The problem though is that moral indignation is not a reason in and of itself and often times we treat it as if it is. I try to stay far away from conversations where people get all up in a huff about the latest antics of a celebrity or reality TV show and I stay extra far away from 'the world is going to Hell in a hand basket' griefing. Continual griping about situations and people as a means of self justification or moral superiority is just... ugh.

The reality is that in the West, we are Post-Christian. Our sensibilities that were once firmly grounded in Christianity are drifting. The moral standards once firmly grounded in Christianity are degrading. The social landscape that was once dominated by Christendom is changed and will not change back.

The result is that if we feel that something is not right, then we need to be able to explain (in love) why that is wrong and resist the temptation to be morally outraged when other people are genuinely clueless or even dead set against us. Given our media saturation, Capitalist culture, and the emphasis on individual rights and freedoms, nothing should surprise us. It should not surprise us when porn developers demand a spot on prime-time television or when a motion is made to remove God from the national anthem. Such things tend to make Christians morally indignant and we wish for the good ol' days. But even back in the 'good 'ol days' when everything was supposedly so much better and everyone supposedly knew right from wrong, moral indignation was a more potent force but it was no more a valid reason then than it is today.

The solution is not to come up with new supposedly 'breakable standards' as a sign of how far society has fallen and then be aghast every time society attempts to topple even those. Yes, Christians are supposed to be different from the rest of the world, set apart for God, but moral indignation can lead to three traps that we need to stay away from.

1) To be overwhelmed by it which leads to depression and ineffectiveness. We, like the Apostle Peter, behold the violent waves and storm around us and find ourselves sinking and despair. It is easy to become negative and cynical or even broken by how society has changed and continues to change. Holding on to old battles (abortion or the definition of marriage perhaps) at the expense of actually living in today, in Christ, is allowing yourself to be distracted by the wind and waves, taking your vision away from Christ.

2) To be elated by it which leads to gossip and self righteousness. Some people love nothing better than to talk about how horrible everything is. Some people love the thrill of being miserable and on the point of disaster. Some people shine like polished gold as they describe all of the hardships they have had to endure and all the defeats they have had while 'fighting the good fight.' This is idolatry of the self and of moral standard which blocks out Christ and stops you from actually living in today, in Christ.

3) To be overcome by it which leads to sin, guilt, and numbness. Ultimately our conduct must still reflect the connection we have in Christ. We are to be characterized by the Spirit, not the flesh. Being overcome is to sacrifice what you know to be right in Christ for what society has deemed acceptable. Many of us have already been overcome in our minds because we attempt to play society's game with society's rules and forget that our real mooring is in the Word of God. To join in ungodly acts and turn our back to Christ is sin, which leads to guilt. God will work with us to bring us back, be that through his Word or the community of believers but if it is not repented from it will eventually leave our consciences numb.


What we need to do is commit our concerns to Christ and continue to live into the fullness of life that he continually provides. By all means, take action, hold conferences, talk about it, get involved, but don't forget that your mooring is in the Word of God, and that God will take care of it. We must not become disheartened or self-righteous, we must commit it to Christ and follow him in obedience, the living God who is faithful and good.

Knowing about God and Knowing God

One of the risks of living in an academic environment is that you begin to view the entire world academically. Relationships, for example, can get a little bit complicated when you start analyzing behaviors and patterns in terms of psychological theories and start spouting off academic gibberish when all your girlfriend really wants is a hug.

A Christian’s relationship to God can fall prey to the same sort of over analyzing. Now before you get the wrong idea, I am NOT saying that we should not think critically about what we believe. The hard honest questions need to be asked of our faith lest it be an immature and unrealistic wishful thinking. What I AM saying is that we can forget about the personal aspect of our Faith, not because you or I am a person, but because God is a person.

When we address God in an academic setting we are really just talking about him, not to him. When we ask questions we are really asking about him and not asking him personally. This often yields interesting, amazing, maybe even fruitful knowledge about God and how he works, but we tend to forget that God is a person, a person who introduces himself.

I will never forget my Theology of God and Creation class when the professor asked us to try and describe God. As a theology major I was eager to accept the challenge and rifled through my mental notes to find every descriptor of God I knew was Biblical. God is good, he is loving, he is all powerful, he is omnipresent, he is the creator, sustainer, redeemer, on and on it went. As we shared our descriptors the prof said, “Yes, you’re right. But that’s not how the Bible speaks of Him,” and he directed us to the Psalms in particular.

What we found were descriptions like ‘God is the God who saved me, who sees me, who cares for my soul, who gives me victory, and prepares a table for me.’ These people described God by what he was doing in their midst, like he was a real person and not just an abstract concept. Our language as academics values the abstract but the Biblical authors knew God as imminent, involved, almost tangible. Even the subtle difference between God as Eternal (a philosophical word that is not in Scripture) and God as Everlasting (a biblical word that is much more earthy) is telling of this reality.

What we tend to forget is that God is already at work and that there is a dynamic conversation between us and God that is already going on that we are invited to participate in. What do I mean by dynamic conversation? I mean that God has already reached out to us in the person of Jesus and has given us the ability to commune with him, to live life in his power and in his will, and this opportunity is always present with us through the Holy Spirit interacting with our souls. We tap into this conversation by, believe it or not, speaking to God as though he were here right now (which he is of course) and sincerely asking him to make you a part of what he is doing. This is commonly called prayer.

In communing with God he will speak into your heart a great many things. What do I mean when I say ‘speak into your heart’? I mean that you will inherently know when God has spoken to you. For the scientifically fixated reader out there I mean that God will manipulate the atomic and subatomic matrix of your brain to communicate to you ideas, emotions, and concepts for no other reason than he loves you and made a promise long ago that whoever seeks him will find him and will not be put to shame. It’s a novel concept, you talk to God and he talks back.

But because I am writing this to address academics, we know that it’s also deeper than that. To become part of the dynamic conversation between God and all of creation it’s not just about you or you and God, it involves everything. Now obviously ‘everything’ is too big to fit into any human mind, so God doesn’t just dump the entire conversation into your head. What I mean when I say that it includes everything is that it involves what God is doing, not just in you or in your particular spheres but in everything around you. You are, in a sense, plugging yourself into the will of God and allowing it to shape how you think and act. What is the will of God you ask? It is the redemption of all creation in all spheres, it is love in the perfect sense, but not just as an abstract concept, but as a dynamic, living, and (from our perspective) messy interplay between God’s actions and the world around us. God actually has ‘projects’ (if I can use such a word) that are taking place around us that we can participate in, often without even realizing it, and by ‘plugging ourselves into God’s will and power’ we become his agents. This is for what is commonly called ‘The Kingdom of God.’

Why has God allowed this to happen and by what means has he allowed this to happen? Because the blood of Jesus is both our righteousness before God as well as our channel to God for he is our eternal sacrifice and our eternal mediator. Participating with God, through God, and in God in this manner falls under what is commonly referred to as ‘Faith.’

Let us never forget that God has acted first, that the conversation is alive, dynamic, current, and the most applicable thing to whatever question we may be asking or problem we may be facing. Let us never forget that the Word of God is self-communicating and makes himself knowable to the one who seeks after him. What do I mean when I say the Word of God? I mean that God speaks. God speaks throughout all time. This speech is uninterrupted, consistent, and timeless. The Reformers of the Church, as well as the ancient Church Fathers identified three modes of the Word of God. There is the written word. Yes, God literally speaks to you today about today when you read The Bible even though it was written thousands of years ago. There is the spoken word of God, when God speaks through the mouth of a pastor or prophet. Yes, God is literally speaking to you today about today when a pastor gives a sermon because he has plugged himself into this dynamic conversation and God speaks through him into your heart. Finally, there is the Word of God spoken by Christ, the physical manifestation of God as the human being Jesus of Nazareth. Because Jesus is the mediator between God and man all forms of the Word of God are spoken by Jesus. It is actually not the Bible that speaks to you, but Jesus through the Bible. It is not actually the pastor who speaks the Word of God, but Jesus through the words and message of the pastor, into your heart. It is not actually the stars, the sunrise, or anything in nature that speaks to you about God, any speech of God is spoken by Jesus.

Let us never forget that God speaks, that God reveals himself, that God is active, and that we are called to participate in his speech, revelation, and activity. Our focus as academics needs to be on Christ, not about Christ. Let us know God, not just know about him.

The New Sherlock as Commentary on Society

Tuesday April 17, In the year of our Lord 2012
My House, Caronport Saskatchewan
Posting pre-written post, 4:26 PM
Weather = Cool and Dreary


A few nights ago I was introduced to the ‘Modern Sherlock Holmes’ mini-series. For those unfamiliar with the series, basically take Sir Arthur Conan Doye’s Sherlock Holmes from 221B Baker Street and teleport him and his peers to the 21st Century world of today. Instead of horse drawn carriages they ride in modern cars, instead of telegraph they use Skype, and so on. To be clear, I’m not talking about the recent movies with Robert Downey Jr.

I am a huge fan of the 1984 series with Jeremy Brett but this new Sherlock played by Benedict Cumberbatch seems to encapsulate the spirit of the detective quite fine.

I watched the episode where Holmes encounters Irene Adler, who he forever refers to as ‘The Woman.’ Her original character was one of mystery and political intrigue with only a very mild sexual hinting that she may have been a ‘courtesan.’ She was one of the few persons who Sherlock respected as a mental challenge, perhaps even as an equal in some respects. The new adaptation keeps the mystery and political intrigue and then takes the mild sexual hinting to become the ‘dominant’ part of her character. Her preferred title is dominatrix, she gets paid by political bigwigs to put on leather sex gear, tie them up, and whip them for their sexual pleasure. Power play and sex becomes the focal point of her entire personality as well as how all the other characters relate to her.

Despite the change in her character, Sherlock’s response to her is the same and their relationship is ambiguous at best, which captures the spirit of the original work I think. I find it interesting that Irene Adler was cast in this way though. Times have changed a lot since the late 1800’s. Western society, (specifically England and America) which used to be ‘dominated’ by Puritan values is now ‘dominated’ by freedom of expression. Sex, being one of the strongest of human forces, is now free to express. The Puritans would be horrified if they could have seen today, they may have called this freedom of expression a ‘societal license for debauchery’ or a ‘communal covenant of corruption.’ At the worst, they viewed sex as sinful and at best they viewed it as holy, in either case it was not something to express freely and unashamedly lest they be ashamed before almighty God or cause the onlooker stumble into sinful lust.

And in walks Mistress Adler, clad in nothing but a smile, telling Sherlock that she will have him on a leash. In walks Watson to behold a nude dominatrix standing over the detective with a look of sexual aggression and engorged lust upon her face. Apparently blatant sexual overtones are the new racy and subtle hints about women maybe being courtesans don’t do the trick anymore.

I don’t see this as some sort of ‘new level of depravity’ but I do see it as the logical conclusion of such freedom of expression and media saturation. Sex is a powerful desire; freedom to express it in the media will look like any number of things. Does this freedom of expression respect the sanctity of the sexual relationship between husband and wife or the purity of an innocent mind? No, such things have become secondary to the now mighty sanctity of freedom of choice. All sacred things must now be thrust out into the street for all to see and make judgment on. Those who protest are told to simply not look. We are flooded with expressions of sex, religion, politics, consumerism, philosophy, anything and everything every day of our lives now. So it doesn’t surprise me in the least that Irene Adler took a sexual overtone, it’s the modern language of ‘mystery’ and ‘intrigue’ and nothing less would hold a modern audience’s attention. Oddly enough, I think it actually worked, maybe even well!

Sexuality used to be shunned in the time of the original Sherlock Holmes so the characters’ sexuality was only mentioned in passing. Society has since pushed what was once sexual repression into sexual saturation so a modern adaptation has the characters’ sexuality explicit and emphasized.

How interesting.

I have to wonder if we’ve developed thick filters or just become completely desensitized because I watched the video with my fiancé and I didn’t really find dominatrix overtones awkward until thinking about it afterwards.

When I discussed this with her she pointed out another interesting piece of character change that I had overlooked. What is Sherlock's most identifiable trademark? A gaunt figure, his funny hat, and a pipe. The original Sherlock was constantly smoking, going to opium dens, and injecting himself with drugs to stave off mental stagnation. The new Sherlock still has drugs, but they are rarely ever seen and you know that he is very not well when he lights up.

What happened? The same thing that made Ms. Adler a dominatrix has made Sherlock's recreational use of drugs nearly vanish from the screen! It used to be common practice and acceptable to smoke but today such an act is almost abhorrent. Today's film makers have health concerned lobby groups breathing down their neck and ready to sue the tobacco juice out of them if these sorts of things are filmed favourably. So once again, modern adaptation of a character is a commentary on today's society...






But yes, the new Sherlock Series is good (if you can get over the freedom of expression bit). Too bad no new episodes can be made until 2013.

Abortion Protesters

Monday March 26, In the year of our Lord 2012
My House, Caronport Saskatchewan
Waiting for Supper to cook, 5:40 PM
Weather = Cool


I had the pleasure of taking my beautiful fiance out on a date today. It was only to the doctor's office, but I consider it a date. Any time I get to go somewhere with someone so beautiful that I love so much should be considered a date!

As we drove to the clinic we saw a small group of protesters with signs. "Abortion harms Women" and "Pray to End Abortion" were their two flavors. I dropped my love off at the clinic and then found a place to park a block away. I decided to talk to one of the protesters on my way back to the clinic to maybe learning something and this is how it went.

I walked up to one of the women on the street corner and wished her a pleasant day.

She did the same.

I told her that I had noticed their signs (she was holding a 'Pray to End Abortion' sign).

She said something in thick Christianese that I can't quite remember.

I asked her if it was the women or the unborn life that they were trying to protect.

She said both.

I said that her signs were confusing then, because they only represented half of the issue and that I had originally thought they were trying to ban women from making a choice to hurt themselves.

She said that they needed to stop abortion because there was life at cell division and that she wrote a real good, real technical like letter explaining this to the MLA and it was going to change the law.

I was confused because this had nothing to do with making a law to ban women from hurting themselves. I asked how abortion harms women.

She said that it was terrible! She had a friend who had an abortion at 9 months and they took pieces of the baby out of her and just wrapped them up in a garbage bag and that was it! She then went on to explain how this was murder and criminals are protected better than law abiding citizens which went into a story about how another friend has called the cops on their neighbors for partying but they can't do anything because they have their rights. And she concluded that the old law (about women and abortion) was better but never bothered to tell me what the law was.

Needless to say I was confused and beginning to feel a bit awkward. She had not answered a single question and had not explained what exactly she was protesting about even though I gave her every opportunity. I wished her a good afternoon and crossed the street to the clinic.

Maybe I was lucky and picked the one person in that group who had no communication skills. I sincerely hope that abortion protests aren't all so vague. It kind of bothers me that this person was so passionate and yet so confused and disorganized. Why should anyone take a protest seriously if the people protesting can't define what they are protesting or why they are protesting it?

I'm actually authentically disappointed. I am partial to the 'stop abortion' cause and my experience here takes them down a peg.

Thoughts on Thomas Watson

Saturday March 24, In the year our Lord 2012
My House, Caronport Saskatchewan
Waiting for supper to cook, 6:29 PM
Weather = Cool


The final project for my Theology of Forgiveness and Reconciliation course is to do a research paper on a man named Thomas Watson and his understanding of repentance. There were a number of options, but I choose the historical research paper and I chose Thomas Watson to do it on. This blog post will be my 'thinking out loud in preparation for writing my paper.'

Thomas Watson was a 17th century Puritan who lived and died in England (1620-1686). He received his theological training at Cambridge, witnessed (and publicity protested) the execution of Charles I, became a well known and well loved preacher at St. Stephen's church in London, was jailed for taking part in a plot to bring Charles II to England, got reinstated, was ejected for being a Nonconformist, was reinstated again (this time at Crosby Hall), wrote an incredible amount of books and sermons, and died suddenly while in private prayer. He was a man of incredible learning and rigorous study and, concerning his doctrine of repentance, very developed theology.

I say 'developed' theology because one can not simply pick up any piece of his theology without every other piece coming with it. After reading him all week I've found that all of his ideas tie into one another very tightly. So to talk about Repentance without also talking about forgiveness, mercy, grace, Jesus, the Old and New covenants, sorrow, joy, and authenticity is just impossible to do. In one sense this makes my job easy, because I have lots to write about. I was unable to detect any alteration in his thinking from his early works to his later ones, it seems that he was always advocating for a thoroughly 'Puritan' understanding of... well... everything.

So in very short form I will talk about repentance. Repentance is necessary for salvation, but it is not meritoriousness. Repentance means turning away from sin and turning towards Christ. It is not enough to simply turn from sin, one must in the same movement turn TOWARDS Christ. One must turn from ALL sin, not just one or two. True repentance is motivated by sorrow, sorrow at how we have wounded God, sorrow at our own falleness, sorrow at how Christ has died for our very sins. Sorrow is good, it is a briny sea that washes us clean and purges us to repentance. Repentance is to hate sin, ALL sin, not just our own sin, but the sin others as well! The sorrow that we feel is a mercy of God and the enabling of our repentance is only by the grace of God, not anything we could do ourselves. Repentance is the only appropriate reaction to what God has done for us, which means that repentance is also a form of worship. True repentance will bring joy because God forgives us, although sorrow must come first and linger afterwards. Repentance must be done as soon as we have the whit to know we need to repent, for to wait is extremely perilous. True repentance is a repentance that comes from the heart, not a mere outer display.

There, I think I've condensed and stripped away everything. Now it is a hyper condensed ball of knowledge that may still need more knowledge squished into it somehow.

Time to mold it into the shape of my paper.

Greg Out.

Should a Christian Play DnD?

Tuesday March 6, In the year of our Lord 2012
CDE Office, Caronport Saskatchewan
Posting Pre-Written Post, 3:51 PM
Weather = Melting


I was rummaging around in my email and found this post that I had written earlier. I figure I should put it up.

                The following paper is a reflection on the dangers associated with Dungeons and Dragons along with other roleplaying games (RPGs). As a devout Christian who studies theology at the Master's level and an avid gamer who has studied Dungeons and Dragons as well as other RPGs I intend to speak plainly on this issue; but first my qualifications for speaking. I have studied the game at a distance as well as up close. I have read notable critiques as well as defenses. I have read all of the core rule books and many of the supplement books for the 3.5 and 4.0 DnD systems. I have studied the history of DnD and have played the game myself many times as both a player and as a game leader (Dungeon Master). I have written about this topic several times. My conclusion in all of this is that DnD, along with most other RPGs, have been demonized and presumed guilty of sins that they have never actually committed. However, there are still dangers and guidelines that every player should consider before playing.

                I will write first about the perceived dangers of DnD, trying to illustrate both sides of the debate so that the reader will understand each position as it is actually presented abroad. I will then give my take on the validity of each side. You, the reader, are invited to do more research on any of these issues if you feel that my information is incorrect or if you disagree with my conclusions.

                There are two large criticisms that I will talk about, but first a section on what DnD actually is. (If you are familiar with the game, feel free to skip ahead.)

What is Dungeons and Dragons?

                Dungeons and Dragons is a table top role playing game (first published in 1974 by Tactical Studies Rules Inc.) in which the players create imaginary characters to play in a medieval fantasy world. Players determine character statistics (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma) by rolling dice or using a mathematical chart. The game leader (Dungeon Master or DM) tells the story and controls the world that players are playing in and the players interact with what the DM is saying by moving their characters on the board and rolling dice when success may not be automatic. Typical game sessions usually last between 2 and 5 hours and almost all of them are adventure based (saving villages from monsters, finding treasure, saving the princess, killing the evil wizard, etc).

                The options available to players during the game are limited only by their imagination. Players are free to attempt any solution they can think of to solve the scenario that the DM has created for them. Success or failure is determined by rolling dice and applying whatever character statistic is required and then comparing the result against a certain number the DM feels is appropriate. If the player rolls higher than that number then his character succeeds, if lower then the character fails.

Example: Thurg the Barbarian wishes to push a large rock off a mountain so that it will crush the monsters below. The DM says that the rock is quite heavy and estimates that a role of 18 would be necessary. The player roles the dice and gets a 17 and then adds Thurg’s strength bonus (+4) to get 21. Thurg is able to push the rock off the mountain and the DM rolls dice to see how many monsters the rock hits and the story goes on.

                Players are encouraged to ‘role play’ their character. This could mean speaking as though you were your character, acting on information that your character has (even though you the player will know more than your character will), and in some lively instances even demonstrating what your character is doing through physically reenacting the action yourself.

                Game material includes rule books, some form of grid as a playing board, character sheets, character tokens, pencils, dice, and a lot of imagination.

DnD encourages Satanism and causes demonic activity

                The first important criticism leveled against DnD is that the game encourages its players to become Satanists by introducing them to occult material. Playing DnD (especially when playing a spell casting character) causes demonic activity in the lives of the players as well as the area being played in. (for those readers who balk at this criticism from the outset I want to remind you that this has actually been a strong criticism of DnD in the past and deserves an evaluation.)

History

                This criticism was introduced by Mrs. Patricia Pulling after the death of her son in 1982. She became a licensed ‘cult crime’ investigator and wrote books, gave lectures, traveled, and spoke on TV and radio in an effort to combat what she perceived to be rampant Satanism that had infected America. She founded a political lobbying group ‘Bothered about Dungeons and Dragons,’ (BADD) and accused the DnD game for the death of her son. Irving had shot himself hours after playing DnD with friends at school because of a supposed curse put on him during gameplay. She spoke loudly and openly about how DnD was a cover for Satanism, how its participants drank blood, cast magic spells, and murdered people (among many other obscene and detestable things). Her accusations were investigated and then systematically thrown out of courts for lack of any evidence. She is remembered as an aggressive conspiracy theorist who was unreliable at best.

For more information I encourage you to read the official Stackpole ‘Pulling Report’
http://www.rpgstudies.net/stackpole/pulling_report.html


Argument in Favor of this Criticism

                DnD is a game where players take on a character who lives in a world where magic and morality are things to be experimented with.  The game encourages players to seek out magical artifacts and potent spells that may be granted by worshipping one or several of the gods or by finding secret knowledge (occult) or practicing dangerous rituals. The players will either play as or run into contact with wizards, sorcerers, spell thieves, witches, warlocks, demons, devils, and clerics of evil deities. The company who publishes DnD books (Wizards of the Coast) has also published supplementary books like The Necrominicon, Demons and Demi-gods, and The Book of Vile Darkness, which instruct players on how to perform Satanic rituals.

                The actions of the players while playing DnD can cause demonic activity. Let me explain. There is no right or wrong way to play DnD. The players are free to come up with any solution to accomplish the goals of the game and are often encouraged to ‘role play’ (speak and act as their character instead of as themselves). Suppose one of the players had a character that practiced black magic and decided to ‘role play’ his character by actually doing authentic Satanic or Wiccan rituals for summoning a demon. The content of the game (magic, occult, murder) mixed with the role-playing element is more than just a game, it is an introduction to Satanism.


Argument Against this Criticism

                DnD is a game where players ‘make believe’ what their characters are doing and then roll dice and consult a chart to see if they succeed. Magic is a dice roll with statistics, similar to the Table Top War Game genre (think Axis and Allies) that it originally grew out of. There are no instructions, hints, or anything at all resembling authentic Satanic or Wiccan rituals in any of the books. The Necominicon, Demons and Demi-gods, and all other supplement books are filled with monster statistics such has Hit Points, Attack Damage, and Optional Feats for characters, nothing even remotely related to Satanism or Wicca.

                The players playing DnD determine what is and is not allowed. Since the players determine everything that happens in the game, a Christian group of gamers can play without magic or polytheism. Role playing is optional and has to do with talking ‘in character’ and not actually swinging swords or casting spells. DnD is a harmless game where a group of friends sit around a table and tell stories while doing math.


My Personal Conclusions About this Criticism

                In many respects I think that both sides are right on some of their points and wrong in others. First of all it is true that this entire criticism, along with the bad reputation of this game, was founded on Mrs. Pulling’s outrageous and unfounded claims. All of her links between DnD and Satanism, murder, and suicide are false. I have read all of the so called ‘Satanic Manuals’ in DnD and they are actually just statistics for monsters. I have talked with actual Wiccan gamers and they laugh at the idea that someone could learn real magic from DnD. My personal reading of the DnD books has revealed the same results. This is not a cover up for Satanism or an instruction manual for the occult, it’s just a game.

                It is true that magic and relative morality are inherent to playing DnD (I’ll cover relative morality in a the next criticism). I do not buy the argument that a Christian group can play DnD without magic; it would be a very boring DnD group or a different game entirely. It is true that players will play as and run into various spell casters but I don’t see any problem with this. Human beings don’t just become Satanists by being exposed to an imaginary world where magic exists. By this logic everyone who reads C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia, Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, or watches a standard Disney film are at risk!

                Magic spells in DnD are tactical abilities for a grid style combat system similar to Risk or Axis and Allies (albeit more complex). I have listed below two spells straight out of DnD 3.5 to illustrate my point; Fireball, which is one of the most popular and most used spells, and Animate Dead, which is a darker spell to which this criticism is more directed against.


********Fireball*****************************************
                Evocation [Fire]
                Level:    Sor/Wiz 3
                Components:    V, S, M
                Casting Time:     1 standard action
                Range:  Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
                Area:     20-ft.-radius spread
                Duration: Instantaneous
                Saving Throw:    Reflex half
                Spell Resistance: Yes

                A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of     fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.

                You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to   burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead    through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.

                The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.

                Material Component: A tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur.

******* Animate Dead*****************************************
                Necromancy [Evil]
                Level:    Clr 3, Death 3, Sor/Wiz 4
                Components:  V, S, M
                Casting time: 1 standard action
                Range:  Touch
                Targets: One or more corpses touched
                Duration: Instantaneous
                Saving Throw: None
                Spell Resistance: No

                This spell turns the bones or bodies of dead creatures into undead skeletons or zombies that    follow your spoken commands.

                The undead can follow you, or they can remain in an area and attack any creature (or just a specific kind of creature) entering the place. They remain animated until they are destroyed. (A destroyed skeleton or zombie can’t be animated again.)

                Regardless of the type of undead you create with this spell, you can’t create more HD of undead than twice your caster level with a single casting of animate dead. (The desecrate spell doubles this limit)

                The undead you create remain under your control indefinitely. No matter how many times you use this spell, however, you can control only 4 HD worth of undead creatures per caster level. If you exceed this number, all the newly created creatures fall under your control, and any excess undead from previous castings become uncontrolled. (You choose which creatures are released.) If you are a cleric, any undead you might command by virtue of your power to command or rebuke undead do not count toward the limit.

                Skeletons: A skeleton can be created only from a mostly intact corpse or skeleton. The corpse   must have bones. If a skeleton is made from a corpse, the flesh falls off the bones.

                Zombies: A zombie can be created only from a mostly intact corpse. The corpse must be that of a creature with a true anatomy.

                Material Component: You must place a black onyx gem worth at least 25 gp per Hit Die of the undead into the mouth or eye socket of each corpse you intend to animate. The magic of the spell turns these gems into worthless, burned-out shells.

                ***********************************************


As you can see, neither of these spells have anything to do with actual magic and both are intended to be used to play a board game. The fireball is similar to an artillery shell that does damage to multiple foes in within a certain radius (measured in ‘squares’ or ‘hexes’ on a grid map). The Raise Dead spell is used to turn defeated enemy pieces on the board into allied pieces. There is no reference to how one might actually conjure up a real fireball out of nothing or raise a real zombie from a real corpse. The ‘Components’ section of each spell can be Verbal (V), Somatic (S), and Material (M). This only means that the character casting this spell must be able to speak (for verbal), move freely (somatic) and have access to specific material components (M) or the spell will fail. This is purely tactical information. Sometimes characters will find themselves unable to move or speak, (being submerged under water, or in a very tight crawl space) which limits what sort of spells they can cast. The ‘Material Component’ part of each spell is considered ‘flavor text’ which is often ignored. There is no relation to actual occult ritual or spells.



                The criticism is not without a kernel of truth though. I take what the gamers do in game very seriously. There is a difference between ‘playing make belief’ (casting a spell by rolling some dice and looking at a chart to see what happens) and actually participating in an occultic ritual. Player activity can cause demonic activity, but this is well beyond the content of DnD and unless the player has prior knowledge of authentic occult rituals, this will not be an issue. In the end it won’t be DnD that leads to demonic activity so much as foreign elements being incorporated into DnD (which are not found or encouraged anywhere in the game) that cause the problems. In one respect this issue is very serious in that the consequences can be dire. In another respect this issue is completely laughable since there is absolutely nothing within the content of the game that would point players in this direction. It would be as if someone decided to enact blood pacts or sacrifices during a game of Monopoly or Frozen Tag; you can tell that what they are doing is not part of the game.

DnD encourages Anti-Christian Thinking and Behavior

Argument in Favor of this Criticism

                The actions and characters of DnD are hardly good role models for Christians. Players can choose to be battle hardened warriors, thieves, magic users, or priests to foreign gods. Important skills such as the ability to kill, lie, steal, and murder are often necessary to fulfill the goals of the game. Why would a Christian play a game like this? We are to imitate Christ in our life and our mind, taking every thought captive and submitting it to Christ, not imagining and then acting out deceit, greed, and violence. A Christian group could in theory create only ‘lawful good’ characters but the game is to its very core all about violent conflict for the sake of treasure (greed). It only takes so long for this sort of thinking to go from ‘just playing a game’ to sticking in the mind of the player and then seeping out into everyday life. We are to fill our minds with whatever is good, noble, honest, and true but DnD turns good Christian youth into thinking about violence, theft, greed, and deceit.

                One might try to make the argument that it isn’t the player ‘doing the action’ but the player’s character; but this is folly! The player is always in complete control of their character and the player always determines the actions and motivations of their character. It is the players who conspire, attack, steal, lie, and murder, never just their characters. This is a subversive form of the ‘character’ infiltrating the player’s mind. This is emphasized in the act of ‘role playing’ where players speak and act as though they were their character. They do not say “my character kicks that man in the face,” they say “I kick that man in the face.” Once again, this ‘playing a game’ quickly infects the mind and results in Anti-Christian thoughts and actions.

A much more thorough argument has been made by William Schnoebelen entitled: Straight Talk on Dungeons and Dragons, available at the following website.

http://www.chick.com/articles/frpg.asp

Argument against this Criticism

                Dungeons and Dragons is just a game, similar to a book or movie where you identify with the main character, except that you the player get to decide what the main character does. Players never actually use violence or theft in their gaming sessions; they roll dice and calculate the results through mathematical equations! There is always a barrier between who you are as a real person and who your character is in the fantasy world that he is playing in. People don’t just become violent because they played a bored game where they played as a warrior and neither do they become thieves because they played a thief! What human being doesn’t imagine violent thoughts after watching something like CSI or an Action movie? Who does not have thoughts of intrigue and conspiracy after watching a Spy movie? DnD is like a movie or a novel or a video game where the actions you see, read about, or do are different than who you actually are.



My Personal Conclusions About this Criticism

                I think this criticism is far more relevant than the first one. Both arguments touch upon different truths. It is important to separate who you are from your character, but at the same time your character will always be an aspect of yourself (because you can never role-play beyond who you are). I am convinced that some people should not play DnD or other RPGs for this reason, that they do not have a healthy separation between who they are and who their character is. This takes a certain level of mental maturity. I will explain further.

                Schnoebelen is correct to say that it is always the player who makes the character do the action. He is also right in saying that DnD encourages characters to be violent, and deceptive to achieve their goals. A party of smiling do-gooders who solved their problems by being friendly and speaking through the world’s problems isn’t near as much fun as a party who punches corrupt lawyers in the face and tosses monsters off of cliffs. Where I think he misses the mark is where he assumes that the player cannot separate game from reality. I say this with caution though, because DnD is more than just a movie, book, or video game. The player does actively choose and is completely responsible for the actions of his or her character. This is an issue that I had to think long and hard about. My conclusion is that I disagree with Schnoebelen’s premise in that there is no one to one relationship between how a character is played and how that affects the thoughts and actions of the player outside of game. My specific thoughts are presented below.


About Magic, Monsters, Gods, and other Fantasy Elements

                I’m going to talk about the inherent world of DnD first. DnD is a game where the players are mythical heroes on an adventure. Good adventure myths often deal with epic struggles like good versus evil, light versus darkness, nation verses nation, and so on. Conflict is inherent in the game, and rightly so since all good adventure myths involve conflict. This conflict is between the players and monsters, political powers, the world, even the gods. Conflict can’t be avoided and even if it could be I don’t think it should. Yes, DnD has plenty of violence (killing monsters) and maybe even greed (claiming treasure) but what would an adventure be without monsters and treasures? Stories like the Iliad, Lord of the Rings, and even the images in the Book of Revelation give voice to the deepest of human questions and struggles of the world. The magic, the gods, the monsters, they are all elements of good story telling and adventuring. I think the danger comes in when the player starts to lose a grip on reality (rare), starts taking the game too seriously (less rare), or is just immature in their faith.

Maturity is a base Requirement

                There are those among us who are really struggling in understanding who they are and what direction they will go in life. There have been a few times where the people I play with would not allow someone to join because they knew that the game would consume them (see ‘taking the game too seriously below) and would therefore be detrimental to his or her faith.

Taking the Game too Seriously

                From my own experience of playing DnD you can usually tell when someone is having trouble separating the game from real life. Obsessing over the game, or their characters, neglecting homework or social life, or harboring bitter feelings towards other players for something that happened in game can be indicators that that person is taking the game too seriously. There is more of a risk with this in DnD than other forms of entertainment because role-playing games are far more immersive and interactive. Players don’t just passively watch a screen, they actively imagine, engage, and make choose. Players are not restricted in two or three options; they are limited only by their imagination. Players don’t play this game alone; it is always with friends making it a social experience. It stimulates the imagination to be creative and innovative to explore real fantasy. There are books upon books of information for players to read if they so desire, new ideas for character creation, lore and legend, novels, art, and tools for building entire campaigns and worlds. The game is large in scope with a robust community of creative like-minded (as well as diverse) people which makes it easier to get sucked into. The game can quickly become a hobby and the hobby can become far more interesting than everyday life.

                Some people are just not able to separate themselves from the actions of their characters and so when their character is angry they themselves as the players are angry or when their character fulfills his life goal they are loving life even though they are neglecting it. In the groups that I play in we are all mature Christians who make sure to talk with players who we think might be taking things a bit too seriously. Sometimes this means telling players that they need to reevaluate how important the game actually is or even to say that they can’t play anymore. This is the exception though; once again, this is a maturity issue.

                Another thing that can sometimes happen is that a player's personal garbage can slip into their character. This can be both good and bad. It can be good in that the person has found an avenue to deal with their personal issues. It can be bad in that this can become unhealthy to the player as well as everyone else around the table. A friend of mine has violent thoughts, and those thoughts were beginning to play out in his character. It became more than just ‘I attack the monster (roll dice),’ it became “I put my boot over her throat and tear her wings off with my bare hands, slowly crushing her air pipe!” One of the other players called him on it and as a group we decided to tone down the violence level. There have only been a few times where I've had to talk to certain players about what their characters were doing.

Good things that can Happen

                On the flip side of things, playing DnD can (and has) alerted players to pieces of themselves that they did not know existed. A friend of mine realized that he tends towards extremes in real life after seeing how his character moved from one extreme to the other. I personally realized that I had greed issues when I caught myself plotting against the party as to how my character could get the most treasure. Both issues were dealt with and provided an opportunity for growth that would not have been available had it just remained covered up.

                DnD also gives players the chance to see the world from a different perspective. When a player role-plays a character he tries to play true to that character. For instance, playing a rogue who’s backstory involves being sent to an orphanage, often wrongly accused, and beaten by staff and soldiers you would realize that your character would not trust authority and may even be bitter at the world. You begin to wonder what your character would think when he saw that the local magistrate accidentally left a large purse of gold behind him, would he give it back or would he take it as reparation for part of a life that that magistrate had made miserable. Then you begin to wonder if that is the sort of reasoning that other people have who are not as privileged as you (the player) and you begin to understand how other people view the world. This can lead to great discussions with the group you play with and (assuming that they are all mature Christians) can be an excellent time to explore what it means to be the Body of Christ in light of how other people view the world. This can occur with a high level of maturity.

Who you play with is Important

                Who you play with is important. Playing with other Christians is ideal, but they should be mature Christians. (just because you are a Christian doesn’t mean you are mature or wise). I am always wary of playing with Non-Christians since there is a fundamental difference in worldview and what content is taboo. The groups that I do play with steer clear of sexualizing the game or playing obsessively violent / obscene. Personal character and maturity are key to a good game group. Mature non-Christians are really good about keeping the game clean and friendly. It is the responsibility of the player (and if the player is young, then also the parent) to be wise and discerning about who to play with.

Should Christians Play DnD?

                At the end of the day I think that DnD is a gray issue. Some people are perfectly fine with playing and it does not affect them in any negative way. They have tons of fun, stretch their imaginations, hang out with friends, and build memories. Other people shouldn’t play DnD, either because it will consume them or because it will become an unhealthy outlet for internal problems that need to be worked out first. Sometimes players that would be fine to play should avoid playing if the DM or other players are immature or giving voice to their personal issues through the game thus negatively affecting everyone. Players, skeptics, and parents should look at the content of the game, who is playing, and how they play more than the name ‘Dungeons and Dragons,’ or the general themes of magic, monsters, and adventure.

                If there ever was a person who simply could not handle make belief and actually did try to emulate what their character did in game, then DnD would NOT be a good idea for that person. Thankfully most human beings are born with natural mental filters and can discern and distinguish between reality and fantasy.

                I for one have absolutely loved playing this game with my friends. It has been a wonderful time of bonding, creativity, and fun. If you would like to talk more about what I have written please feel free to email me at gwollf85@hotmail.com. 

Jesus Honored Caesar

Saturday February 11, In the year of our Lord 2012
My House, Caronport Saskatchewan
Morning Devotions, 11:32 AM
Weather = warmish for winter... still cold.


I had a thought last night that has not left my head. Jesus honored Caesar. When the Pharisees tried to catch Jesus in a political controversy by asking if it was right for Jews to pay taxes to Caesar Jesus asked them to bring him the coin used to pay the tax. When they brought him a denarius he asked them who's face was on the coin. They said Caesar's. He responded saying "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's."

Now obviously Jesus did not 'worship' Caesar or attempt to further his imperial rule, but I think that there's something interesting here. Jesus did not oppose the rule of Caesar. Jesus also did not oppose the standing of the Pharisees! Even though he had incredible disagreement and sharp words of rebuke he told those following him to respect the Pharisees and to do what they command, just do not do what they do.

Jesus honored authority, even the very authorities that opposed him and would one day kill him. Jesus also broke some rules (like working on the Sabbath) because he was compelled to to his Father's work. This theme is picked up by Paul who continually tells the Christians to live at peace with all, respect the authorities, pray for your leaders, obey your masters.

I don't have time to develop this thought further, but I thought it was worth noting.

Understanding Athanasius... Part 1 ?

Saturday January 14, In the year of our Lord 2012
My House, Caronport Saskatchewan
Attempting to digest reading, 12:44 AM
Weather = Cold and White and Windy


Where do I begin?

I am working through the post course work for my Theology of God and Creation mod. I am doing a research paper on why Athanasius insisted that the non-biblical word 'homoousios' was so crucial to the Church's understanding of the Trinity.

Well... I have just finished slogging through some of the toughest reading that I have ever done. I have been reading about one of the most difficult doctrines of Christian faith which was originally created using words and concepts that we don't have any more, translated into English and written about by the biggest theological heavy weights of our time (the likes of Karl Barth and T.F. Torrance). Before you start to be impressed by this accomplishment please keep in mind that it took me about 4 hours to get through 18 pages.

Here is my attempt to reformulate what I have learned to better understand it.

There are two angles that I could tackle this paper from. On the one hand I could focus on how the word 'homoousios' acted as an equivalent word that describes what all of Scripture is saying or on the other hand I could focus on how Athanasius use of 'homoousios' was a safeguard against the false ideas and heresies of his day. I will need to address both and maybe the focus should be spread between them, like a two part paper or something.

Anyway, I guess I should begin my discourse.


Homoousios means 'the same essence' or 'of one essence.' His understanding of the Trinity was that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are 'made up' of the same 'stuff,' as in they are the same being. To speak of The Father is to also speak of The Son and The Holy Spirit. The three divine persons co-inhabit each other.

The problem with 'homoousios' was that it was an unbiblical word. The word is never once mentioned in all of Scripture and Athanasius was asking the council to make it nominative for all Christianity! It was using a term that was never part of God's written or spoken revelation to describe not just a doctrine, but the very essence and being of God Himself!

But why did he think that this was so important?


To answer the question most simply Athanasius insisted that 'homoousios' was crucial to the understanding of the Trinity because he felt that it best described the self-revelation of God. He uses the writings of St. John to show his point where Jesus says "I and the Father are one" or that everything that The Father has he gives to The Son. I have a pile of Bible verses to draw on but I'm not going to look for them and pull them out at this hour.

Suffice it to say, his point is that this 'homoousios' is illustrated throughout Scripture and that it is a more accurate and faithful understanding of God than the other ideas. What other ideas? Well, the Arians believed that Jesus was a created being because they misinterpreted the Scriptures in light of Platonic thought. This is a flat out denial of everything Christianity stands for. Faith in the Christ, faith in God, the God who gives himself as the gift. If Jesus is a created being then we should not worship him but we are called to worship him and Jesus himself did not condemn his disciples when they worshiped him.

To prove this point Athanasius illustrates how The Son is in The Father and how everything that The Father has he gives to The Son and that everything that is said about The Son is also said of The Father. This is the bedrock of the doctrine of the Trinity right here. Read it again if you need to, I had to read it some 20 odd times in different places before I finally understood what it meant. The Son is 'homoousios' (of the same essence) as The Father!

Arianism was a direct and obvious error, but 'homoousios' also combated against more subtle heresies that were thriving in early Christianity. First of all it rejected Platonism which stated that 'an effect is never greater than its cause.' It is understood within the economy of the Trinity that the Father is the source of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Father begets the Son and sends the Spirit. It is easy to make the logical distinction that since the Father is the source of the Son and the Spirit that the Father is the original 'God' and that the Son and the Spirit are lesser emanations, still divine 'God(s)' but lesser than the Father. 'Homoousios' rejects this idea and says that all three divine persons are completely equal.

Another thing it does is center the Godhead on the triune interrelationship of the three divine persons where previously the Godhead was thought to exist solely in the Father (Arius, Origen). Since the Father is in the Son and the Holy Spirit the source of deity is in them too. This was an especially difficult pill to swallow for the Eastern church which sought to preserve the monarchy of the Father.

The term also had cosmological consequences as well. In stating that all three divine persons are of the same essence required the rejection of Origen's theory of an eternal creation. It drew a thick line that divided Creator and creation with no intermediary phases in between. This is the norm for all Christian theology now.

In the end the council of Nicea agreed with Athanasius, although the flavor of 'homoousios' and how it should be used has created its own disagreements and issues over church history.

So that's my brief regurgitation on my studying of Athanasius.

Greg Out

A Theology of Gender Identity

Friday January 6, In the year of our Lord 2012

My House, Caronport Sasktachewan

Posting Pre-Written post, 6:31 PM

Weather = Pleasant for January

A Theology of Gender Identity

Part of my studies have been addressing an issue that is very popular and sometimes hotly debated these days. Gender Identity. It is impossible not to at least touch on this this topic given that Feminism has risen to be a strong voice both in society as well as in theology. I don’t think I will be able to articulate the truly Christian understanding of gender identities nearly as well as my professor Dr. David Guretzki or the esteemed Dr. Miroslav Volf who could very well be the Christian voice of our day on this very issue. But after taking Theology of God and Creation and reading Volf’s Exclusion and Embrace I am compelled to right about Gender Identity to make sure that I understand it for myself. I do not consider myself an expert and I willingly admit that I have not read any of the strong feminist authors.

First a very brief overview of Feminist thought. Historically societies have been patriarchal in nature. The head of the house hold, clan, tribe, nation, are generally males. The rich and powerful are also usually males. Females by contrast have been viewed as inferior, weaker, less holy, and are generally oppressed by the patriarchal systems inherent in culture. These oppressive undertones (or overtones) need to be rejected and a new egalitarian system of understanding is required to place females on equal footing with males thus liberating them from oppression. This push is very apparent in Canada as government, businesses, schools, and churches are attempting to overhaul patriarchal assumptions and systems. A perfect example is the class law suit of female RCMP officers against the force for years of sexual harassment, bullying, and being overlooked for promotions by their male officers. Ten years ago these sorts of things weren’t considered ‘injustices’ they were just the way things were, but feminist thought is changing all of that.

Now turning to feminist thought in theology. Christianity is often charged with being patriarchal. We meet in churches governed by male priests, pastors, bishops, board members, what-have-you. We worship a male God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). And we bar females from positions of authority relegating female leaders to ‘children’s ministry’ or ‘worship pastor,’ or ‘women’s leader.’ Some feminist theologians have suggested that we first of all allow women to be church leaders but that we also worship a Goddess (Mother, Daughter, Holy Spirit) or at least a gender neutral God (Parent, Child, Holy Spirit).

Now that there is a context for me to speak into, I will begin my explanation of a Christian theology of gender identity.

I will begin at the beginning in Genesis.

“So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.”

Human beings are created as a polarity of gender they are either male or female. The maleness of the male and the femaleness of the female is intrinsically part of who they are. They are different. Every human being is born with a ‘sexed’ body, either male or female. The difference is not just physical though, males think and feel differently than females and vice versa. Occasionally a child is born who’s physical gender is miscellaneous, but doctors can tell what gender he or she is by looking at the chromosomes in the DNA. Now, a man can be ‘feminine’ and a female can be ‘masculine’ but even so it is different than female femininity and male masculinity. So to start things off, a truly Christian understanding of gender identities is that gender is a polarity, an either or, not a scale with Masculine on one side and Feminine on the other with everyone sliding in between the two (which is a popular idea in secular gender theories).

The other thing we learn from this passage is that both male and female are created in the image of God. The male is just as much ‘the image of God’ as the female and the female is just as much ‘the image of God’ as the male. This means that the female and the male are radically equal despite being different. Paul’s command for husbands to love their wives as they love their own bodies builds on radical equality but also speaks of the fact that both sexes need each other. Relationally the male would not be male if there was no female and the female would not be female if there was no male. There is a tension that is necessary where male and female have their identities both in and of themselves but also in the other gender. (Volf) Men need women to be female for them to continue to be male and women need men to be male to continue to be female. If this balance were disturbed by say radical feminism where women tried to become like men and men tried to not be so male then both men and women would suffer identity crisis because 1) they are trying to be what they are not and 2) cannot be what they are because the other gender is not what it should be. But the question still remains, what then IS maleness or femaleness?

We could say that maleness is ‘being a father’ or femaleness is ‘being a mother’ and all that that entails but that wouldn’t be helpful. Historically the different views of gender roles can be placed on a scale with Complimentarian on the one side and Egalitarian on the other. The Complimentarian position states that the female is created to ‘compliment’ the male as a helper. The male is the leader the female is the follower. The Egalitarian view is that men and women share equal roles (women can be leaders just as men can). Both views can be legitimately supported by Scripture. Travel too far in either direction though and you traverse dangerous terrain. Emphasizing female submissiveness too strongly results in destroying gender equality (if not abusive lifestyles). Emphasizing gender equality too far destroys gender differences (the polarity between male and female) leading to a philosophy that is far more Leftist than it is Christian. I know that at this point I cannot articulate what ‘maleness’ or ‘femaleness’ fully means (if such things can truly be identified by human beings) and am comfortable with saying “I don’t know.” What I do know is that for a male to be male is to live out God’s will in his life and for a female to be female is to live out God’s will in her life because it is part of being the image of God.

Now about the so-called ‘male god’ of Christianity. The feminist reasoning is that the orthodox understanding of God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is a male understanding of God. What they want to do is create a female understanding of God (Mother, Daughter, Holy Spirit) so that females may also have a field of spiritual perfection to strive towards. However, according to a truly Christian understanding of God this is wrong headed on several levels.

First of all the idea of projecting an image onto God (maleness or femaleness) is not Christian. We do not project images onto God, God speaks and we are faithful to his revealing of himself and he has revealed himself to be neither male nor female.

Why then do we call him Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, why do we say ‘he’ instead of ‘it’?

The answer to this question can be found in the problem of language. God is a person so we must use personal language when we speak to him. Unfortunately the only other persons we have to speak to are human beings who are either male or female which means that our language will be either masculine or feminine. English at least doesn’t have a gender neutral way of addressing persons. It would be correct to refer to God as ‘it’ but also incorrect because ‘it’ is a term reserved for inanimate objects which is disrespectful and creates theological confusion about God’s personhood (as opposed to God being like ‘The Force,’ an impersonal entity.)

What then is wrong with referring to God in the feminine? After all, God has male qualities just as much as he has female qualities.

There have been several attempts within orthodox Christianity to call God Mother instead of Father and the ‘femininity’ of God has also been explored many times. The problem though is twofold. First of all the revelation of God in the Scriptures is that Jesus called God ‘Father,’ not ‘Mother,’ and not ‘Parent.’ This has nothing to do with God’s gender so much as it does with the relationship God has with The Son. Within the Holy Trinity God The Father is father of The Son and The Son is the son of The Father. The Father would not be The Father if he never begot The Son and The Son would not be The Son if he were not begotten by The Father. Since God is not gendered the term ‘Father’ is to be understood relationally and this is important to consider. For instance If Jesus had called God ‘Mother’ then the assumption would have immediately been that The Mother gave birth to The Son, which is NOT what Christian doctrine teaches. All persons of the Holy Trinity are equal and have existed together as one essence for all eternity, The Son was not created or birthed but begotten in eternity past. We also cannot call The Son ‘Daughter’ because the incarnation of The Son was Jesus who was male.

The second reason why referring to God as ‘Mother’ has generally not occurred in Christian orthodoxy is because it creates theological confusion with the relationship between God and creation. If we speak of God in the feminine, then we are quickly moving towards a pagan understanding of the goddess birthing creation, as though creation were in some way a part of Goddess or Goddess a part of creation the same way as a mother and her children. In this sense we are all children of the goddess and creation being birthed from the divine goddess is itself divine and therefore ought to be worshipped. This is Panentheism, a heresy that says that God is a part of creation or that creation is a part of God. A truly Christian understanding is that God is Creator and that creation is creation. God is NOT in the creation and the creation is NOT in God, God is distinct from and separate from (but still intimately involved with) the creation and referring to God in the feminine confuses this point.

The issue then isn’t gender equality or gender accuracy but theological accuracy.

The Christian God is the god of males just as much as he is the god of females for he created both genders in his very image and gives himself up for all humanity, male and female.

Now going back to Paul:

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

This does not mean that Christians are nationless, statusless, or somehow genderless, but that all religious, political, social and cultural barriers are removed in Christ. In Christ men and women are equal despite what is going on in society. If this is not true in the community of faith then Peter warns us that judgment begins with The House of God.

Now some people will point out that Paul also spoke as a typical patriarchal religious leader of his time:

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.”

This statement, which is often cited in conservative churches and by liberal critics, needs to be understood within the context of the rest of Paul’s writings as well as all of Scripture. We have already citied Paul’s declaration that in Christ there is neither male nor female in that they are both equal. This means that he has either changed his mind on this or that we do not understand how the two statements properly relate to each other. I do not think that Paul has suddenly changed his mind here, when he speaks about the spiritual gifts he does not discriminate between gender as if women could not have some gifts (teaching included) while men were somehow more privileged.

“Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.”

As a general rule of hermeneutics a doctrine should not be a doctrine if it can only be supported by one or two questionable verses. The literal interpretation of the verse in question IS questionable because of its context. Paul was writing to the church leader in Ephesus (Timothy) encouraging him and instructing him in his leadership. Ephesus at that time in history was home of the Temple of Artemis which had a notorious cult that worshipped ‘Femaleness.’ Paul was instructing Timothy in a way that would make a clear distinction between those who followed the way of faith in Jesus and those who worshiped in Artemis’ temple. It was thought that women were the superior gender because it is women who give birth to men but Paul seeks to confront them with the truth that it was God who created both men and women as equal, not woman who primordially birthed humanity and is therefore superior.

This verse needs to be read in its historical context and in context with the rest of Scripture, not blindly applied literally to all Christians at all times.

In Pauline societies women do teach and are equal. His understanding was that The Holy Spirit grants gifts and works through human beings regardless of their heritage, political / socioeconomic standing, or gender. Who are any of us to question God? If he gives someone the gift of teaching or authority than who are any of us to say “you cannot do that because you are a woman.”? And if you firmly believe that I am heretical right now then rest assured that God gives Spiritual Gifts as he pleases and that he can ably discern who should get what gift and how it should be used as well as how to communicate all these things to the community. Your response as well as mine is to continue to listen to The Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth and faithfully submit to God’s will.

To any Christian reading this we should beware, lest we harden our hearts against God saying “it must be this way,” if He has said “no, it is different than what you think.”

Often it is culture and tradition that erects these boundaries, never God. In Christ male and female are both different and equal. In Christ the male can be male without oppression and the female can be female without oppression.

As far as I can tell, that is a thoroughly Christian understanding of gender identities.