My wife, also named Rachel, is like Jesus. None of these masculine Christianity guys have ever heard of my wife. Maybe they never will. And that is good. God worked through babies, women, crippled, children, outcasts, prostitutes, rich, poor, men, jews, gentiles and anyone else who He chose and who they haven’t heard of either. God chose nobodies and made them into somebodies and then people wrote about them later in the stories that we read in the Bible. Generally when we read stories about the loud mouthed prideful men in the bible it’s because God’s not giving them what they want or they are doing something awfully inhumane and God steps in to put an end to it. Very rarely does God seem to care about what men conclude about him, or when men try to make something of themselves, or when men continually speak about what a leader is supposed to look like or be (the answer to the question is a humble servant, which they never seem to be able to figure out).

My guess is that with all this oppressive talk God has been ignoring them for quite some time now and they just need to get louder to try and get his attention back. But God isn’t there. God is with women like my wife. My wife right now spends her time meeting with other women who have left abusive loud mouthed men. She interviews them and watches the cycle of oppression. Many of them it starts with oppressive words, ignored needs and the belief that a woman belongs to a man, and that it is a man’s world and that they should give their wives a “masculine feel.” My wife also spends her time teaching students how to take care of old people. She also spends her time constantly making gifts for all her friends around her. She also spends her time visiting sick people in hospitals. She also spends her time with children from our community and takes them on dates. She spends time with the people that Jesus spent time with. So if God gave us a masculine Christianity it is so that men can learn to serve everyone else, not so that he can attract more men into his church, what better way to do that then realize that maybe to be the best kind of Christian, is to get more in touch with our femininity?

Women like my wife, teach me what it looks like to be part of the kingdom of God. Loud mouthed celebrity Christians don’t. So I offer this to bring some balance to Piper modelling his statement and conclusion that he made here.

From looking through the scriptures, and seeing that the Holy Spirit is written in feminine language, the church is called the bride of Christ, women are constantly named and given important roles (in a culture where this was unheard of), man literally needed woman to be completely human, wisdom is also spoken of in feminine language, women were the first to see our Saviour ressurected (thank God they weren’t silent about it), there is no male or female in christ jesus, where women were known leaders in the early church, our Saviour was born (without needing man) to a virgin women, women were named in our Saviour’s genealogy and my wife teaches, models and speaks (boldly) out loud in our church service.

From all this, I conclude that God has given Christianity a feminine feel.

So maybe if you take my word and Piper’s word and put them together, we can conclude that God gave Christianity a Jesus feel incorporating the image of God in every human and stop trying to genderize our faith because the Bible doesn’t, God doesn’t, Jesus doesn’t, Paul doesn’t and neither should we.

Related posts:

1. I Feel Insulted
2. Sometimes I Feel Like I’m The Only One That “Gets It”
3. Be Honest and Feel Horrible

I’m wondering that if in the rebellion against consumerism, there is a large majority of us who found an outlet through experience. We still get all the same feelings as those who are addicted to things, but in our world it’s a bit more socially acceptable to be addicted to experiences than it is material goods. The problem with this, even more so than things, experiences come as options to those who are privileged. I can jump on a plane and have the experience of seeing a handmade drum be played and carved by the same person and then handed to me and that gives me the same sort of fulfillment as someone who just purchases the drum for no other reason besides the fact that they needed to buy something here back at home. Then there is the guy who made the drum. He sleeps on cement behind his store. He may never have the option to be addicted to buying things or to flying all over the world.

I’m left with the question, do I really want to use my privilege as an opportunity just to fulfill my desire to consume more experiences? Probably not. So there you have it. There is no way that my life in being anti-consumerism has actually turned up to be more holy or righteous. The selfishness just found another room to inhabit.

Related posts:

1. List of Things That We Can and Should Do Without
2. Doing Things That We Shouldn’t
3. Practically Evolving to All Things In Common

Does the multisite church model work and is it effective in producing the kind of people that are bent towards the kingdom?  Is the idea of a local church really compatible with a multisite, beamed in teaching pastor, universally branded, hierarchical methods of multisite church methods of today?  There are a lot of questions that I have around this model.
In support of the model, I wonder if “teaching” biblical truths is all that important to be local and contextualized to a specific community.  Because if they are universal, then maybe we should just all be listening to Bruxy Cavey or Bill Hybels or whoever beams their face on the big screen.  One of the things that Tim Keller says in his Leadership and Church Size Dynamics article is

In a larger church people will let you pastor them if you are a good preacher, in a smaller church the reverse is true: people will listen to your sermons if you are a good pastor.

I think when I say I support the model, I basically mean is I can see what people would argue as to why this was important.  I don’t actually agree with it at all.  In the quote above, I land pretty heavily on the side of be the good pastor so people will listen to your sermons.  In a multisite model, that doesn’t exist.

Then come the problems I have with it.  The problems are never ending actually.  Whether it be how closely multisite church models seem to resemble corporations or how the teaching pastor is never actually speaking directly to people and only to random topics and ideas or how the entire model seems to be completely void of any local community engagement, I don’t see how a multisite church model effectively models what the kingdom of God is?  If the kingdom of God is awakening people to the reality of a resurrected Lord, how is a multisite church doing that?  By branding churches with a stamp/logo made by a marketing company that was paid $100, 000?  By getting people in multiple cities to believe in your version of Christianity?  By mimicking corporations, growth paradigms and marketing strategies?  By collecting tithes from all the sites just to keep the main site afloat and running effectively?

Obviously there are exceptions to every rule.  People have been affected, changed and brought closer to the kingdom because of a multisite church.  But really.  Is this the way that Jesus points us to?  Is this the slow and patient way forward that we are told it will be?  I just can’t help but think that multisite churches are just another exasperated attempt by the evangelical church to offer something relevant that meets people needs but doesn’t actually lead anyone to change let alone be empowered to actually live radically and faithfully in the contexts they find themselves in.

Related posts:

1. Invite-Only Conferences, Big Churches, Small Pay Checks and Old Cranky Men
2. Planting Churches/Communities
3. Letter to the Editor About Churches Banding Together

I started this blog about 7 years ago and have had my share of drama on it and put myself in the public eye numerous times.  Whether it be writing letters to the editor for my local paper, writing as an opposition to church related blogs or authors, thinking out loud about controversial topics or saying a swear word that offended someone it always seems to upset people a lot or inspire people a lot.  In almost everything that I have done I have gotten a range of responses.  Never have I written something or been involved in something that has had people all agreed as to whether or not what I said was good or bad.

This for me is fun at times.  I like the tension, I like the dialogue.  I like being wrong sometimes because I find being publicly corrected to be a educational experience for me (though I would generally feel embarrassed at first).  I also like being right and people linking to me to prove a point or because they were inspired or because they wish they would have said what I did.  I like sparking unsettling feelings in people and I love motivating people to continue on in their direction.  I’m not sure how I ended up this way, but I’m completely comfortable in the public sphere.

As of late though, I’m wondering if being public is almost working against what I’m trying to do.  I can honestly say that the reason I go public with things isn’t because I want to be known (it obviously is something I like and I struggle with pride like everyone else, but it isn’t my motivation).  I go public because I believe that being in the public’s eye makes you accountable and honest or it at least forces you to be closer to the truth.  I like being told I’m wrong, and I like to tell someone that they are wrong.  They are both important experiences for me.  I think it’s because I value logic and truth.  I just love it.  I love learning, I love dialogue, I love being confronted, I love confronting and I love people.

I’m having a crisis right now though.  It seems that no matter how much I value truth, and exposing it – it doesn’t become more popular.  Through all my moves of going public, calling out people, critiquing in love or in sarcasm or whatever tactic I use, it doesn’t actually seem to serve the purpose of convincing anyone new (it’s easy to inspire people who already agree with you).  It doesn’t seem to encourage me when someone agrees with me or tells me that it’s good to hear someone else that has their thoughts or when I get the same commenters on my blog encouraging me.   So the only voices that really affect me are the ones that that are silent.  Either that or the ones that seem to be overly hurt by the things that I have said or caused seem to haunt me and I can’t get it out of my head.  It’s not that they disagree with me.  It’s not even that I have offended them.  It’s more that I have somehow caused them to be less closer to what I believe to be the truth than when I first came into contact with them because of something I have said.  Can talking and pointing about the truth actually cause people to be further away from it?  I’m afraid it can.

Dialogue, I am learning, is only a helpful process when the other person is involved.  It’s important to see when dialogue happens, because when dialogue happens, change happens.  When I say things like ‘involved’ and ‘dialogue’, I don’t just mean reading my blog and yelling at me because I am hurting someone’s feelings, or scanning your Google Reader.  I mean participating in seeking truth alongside of me.  Which, turns out, doesn’t generally happen through words on websites, at least not for me and protests on street corners.  Since the beginning, the only real change that I have seen is in myself and those that I actually live in and among.  It’s the people that I’m in daily relationship with every day, carrying each other burdens and celebrating joys that I actually seen any change in our lives.  People that comment on my blog?  People that are pissed off about something I wrote in the paper?  People that followed the Tyndale/Bush fiasco?  I don’t even know.  I doubt change came from these situations to them.

So, it forces me to ask myself the question…What do I love more? People discovering truth or myself knowing more truth and proclaiming it more?  My track record has been all about absorbing as much truth as I can and as soon as I know something new or exciting or to expose something I blurt it out because I can’t hold it in.  But I think my answer to that question is that I would much prefer to see myself and my community changed by the truth that we have come to see together rather than going off by myself and coming to whatever random conclusions I have come to and then trying to get everyone else in the entire world to believe me.

Which brings me to my title.  I’m starting to think that any public, loud, in your face truth seeking or exposing is unnecessary and distracting from what I should really be focusing on.  What if the truth is to actually shut up about the truth and just live it in your community and wait patiently to be changed to be more like the truth you believe.  What if the most honest and good thing I can do is to not even participate in the global arguments of sexuality, politics and religion? Really what is the purpose of my twitter feed, my blog posts and my list of friends on Facebook.  I’m at least coming to grips with the fact that whatever my social activity is online isn’t the source of change in people.

If I oppose Bush coming to Tyndale, and it works, he actually doesn’t come, but then leave a thousand people frustrated and disjointed what is the point? Have I actually helped those thousand people come to see truth more clearly, or have I made it worse?  Sure lots of people loved the protest and even signed it, but those were people that already agreed with the fact that we thought it was wrong for him to come.  I can easily fuel my passion to think what I did was right because of all those people who agreed with me.  I’m wondering though, for all the heart ache and work that was involved.  Did anyone actually get closer to the truth (whatever it may be in this situation), or did the whole situation cause most of us to get low and stand more firm in what we already believe so that we could launch attacks in every other direction?  Maybe the approach needs to be different.  Maybe it isn’t just to win where my voice is the loudest and I can get the most people to agree with me because that seems to be the way of politics, and it doesn’t really seem to work to change people’s minds.  We all know politics doesn’t change people’s minds.  No one really has a choice anyway so we just go with whatever media tells us best lines up with our current convictions (which were probably already formed by the media anyway).  So what does?

It’s the slow and steady patience that doesn’t depend on results to feel like you are doing the right thing.  Parker Palmer tells this story of this Quaker named John Woolman who felt that the Lord told him that slavery was wrong and evil and the Quakers needed to free their slaves.  The Quakers took this information and brought it to their group and wrestled with it for a long time and they could not come to a consensus.  Quakers don’t vote, because they don’t think that 51% should be able to control the 49% and they see that as an act of violence.  So they said to Woolman, that while they can’t see this light themselves, they were certain that he could see this very clearly.  So they told him that they would support his family while he would travel around delivering his message for as long as it takes for some kind of outcome to happen.   So he did this, traveled the East Coast for almost twenty years proclaiming this message to his friends and other Quakers.  He became famous for wearing clothing that wasn’t made by slaves, or if he knew a meal was prepared by slaves, he would fast that meal.   He had this slow and patient way of confronting that which was wrong without being so in your face about it that he wasn’t welcome.  Twenty years!

After twenty years, the Quakers eventually reached a consensus and freed their slaves.  The Quakers were the first religious community to free their slaves in the United States, and they did so eighty years before the civil war.  Parker Palmer says that this story helps us see that sometimes slow actually means faster because we are getting to the root system as opposed to just putting wallpaper over what we think.  This wasn’t just taking a vote and then moving on, but this was a patient waiting game allowing people to change and shift while slowly nudging them along.  I find this story encouraging.  Because it tells me that all the individual moments of protest and dialogue I will have probably won’t change people, and if it does, it’s shallow and meaningless over time.  But that’s the game that everyone plays.  Everything has to happen now, you preach a sermon and you expect your community to agree and then shift their entire lives to match that sermon in a week.  The media moves from story to story giving us snipets of reality and truth, and we think that’s the way our lives should be as well.

Long term, slowing down and patience is the only way forward.  It’s the only way that change comes to me or anyone else.  The game is fast and you need answers right away and you need to win.  So just leave the game, stop playing it.  Grow a garden, take your sabbath, be a mentor, read more books, put your feet up more, relax – be truthful in how you live, not just what you say.  The world is in a frenzy all around you and one more person in the chaos screaming about what is right and true doesn’t help anyone.  The people who quietly exit the chaos and live beautiful lives are the ones who are the game changers.

No related posts.

My name is Nathan Colquhoun and I live and own a home with my wife on Devine St, directly beside the Inn of the Good Shepherd food bank.   I just wanted to take a moment and address the council specifically because they are making the decision today but I also because I think that my words will be important for those that live near the shelter as I believe that I live in similar circumstances to them and may have some insight.Every day I interact with, observe or am affected by the Inn of the Good Shepherd.  With over 500 people using their services a month, my front lawn is a revolving door for the kinds of people that are generally stereotyped by society and even my own neighbours as a drain and unsafe and many of them give an “unsettling” feeling that I read so much about in the report.  Many of the people that use both the homeless shelters in Sarnia also utilize the services of the Inn’s food bank on Devine St.  Depending on the kind of person I want to be, and the kind of home that I want to have, will certainly dictate the kind of reaction that I should have to such events that transpire in front of my home day in and day out.  I assure you, that I want a safe community.  I want a community where my kids can play in the front yard and I want a neighbourhood where I don’t feel like my home is a prison.  I understand the opposition.  I want the same things.Coupled with that desire though is also the desire to make the world a better place.  It’s a desire to not see anyone anywhere have to live in an unsafe neighbourhood.  It’s a desire to see everyone have a home and a neighbourhood that they can call there own.  In trying to balance these two hopes, I’m left with no other choice by to support rejection the staff’s reccomendationl and encourage the counsellors to create permanent allowance and zoning for the homeless shelter at River City Vineyard.

This is not the first community to try and reject a homeless shelter in their backyards and it won’t be the last.  The opposition’s arguments are expected and are documented and are all textbook opposition to these kinds of issues as I have read through studies of similar circumstances.  I understand the views and I sympathize with them.  However I believe that if the suggestion is acted on it will be worse for this community, and other communities in Sarnia.  I believe that by rejecting the charitable attempts by our citizens in attempt to keep ourselves safe we do more harm than good in a community.

I know the argument is that we have a homeless shelter all ready that isn’t at capacity, but obviously by the sole fact that there is still people living at the Vineyard shelter proves that it is needed.  If it wasn’t needed it wouldn’t be there.  Who are we to tell the people using there facilities that what they want isn’t needed anymore?  There seems to be a demand for it.  If there wasn’t then we wouldn’t be here supporting its continuance.  It doesn’t sit right with me that the people saying that it needs to be shut down are not the same people that are using its services.

There is a list of arguments that I find substantial to support the Vineyard Homeless Shelter.  For instance, Canadian government studies by the National Homelessness Initiative show us that the development of shelters improves the quality of life for the neighbourhood for a number of different reasons such as removing slum landlord rooming houses, supervised living, more transparency and community support.  The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 25(1):  Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond one’s control (emphasis added).  It is also important to note that discrimination of people through the use of zoning is referred to as “people zoning” and was made illegal by the Supreme Court of Canada (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2001).

“Homelessness has both human and economic costs to homeless individuals themselves as well as to the broader community. The longer people are homeless, the more expensive it becomes to support them (e.g. emergency hospitalization, correctional facilities, etc.) and the greater the cost to their self-esteem and ability to help themselves. Studies have shown that the
provision of safe and secure shelter can lead to a reduction in homelessness, improve stability, as well as provide individuals with mental illness, addiction, and chronic illnesses with a higher quality of life. These are more cost effective solutions that require less government funding or subsidization than traditional forms of interventions, such as hospitalization, crisis care,  incarceration or institutionalization (Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (NHP), 2000).”

These arguments and laws, though I think are valid are not the real reason as to why I think the Vineyard shelter should be allowed to stay.  Laws don’t motivate my desires.  My desire is to see Sarnia become the kind of place where we aren’t inspired by laws to govern the way that we live and how we accept people where they are at.  When laws become used to prevent people from doing what they think is helping the world, I fear that the purpose of laws have been overlooked.

Vineyard exemplifies the kind of hospitality that I think our communities should be displaying.  We need to be the kinds of communities that journey along side of people when they are at their weakest not remove them from our midst so we don’t have to deal with them any longer.  Healthy communities keep the most troubled folks the closest to them and learn to live alongside of those that are the most broken.  It’s these kinds of communities that are the safest because it will produce kinds of people with the hearts bent in the right direction and a safe place for people on both sides of the economic spectrum.  I don’t want to live in a community that cares about themselves while ridding all that brings fear.  I want to be part of community that faces into fear and seeks to transform their fear into love and goodness. Good transforms the bad, if we want it to.  We need to be the kinds of communities that are seeking to transform our communities into places we are proud of for everyone that is in them, not rid them of everything and everyone that makes us uncomfortable.

City council, you have a hard decision to make.  In many ways you are deciding between an moral dilemma for citizens of wanting to keep there families safe and comfortable and on the other hand wanting to live in a healthy community that helps the weak and vulnerable.  I know this isn’t easy, and I know that no matter what you decide will upset someone.  However, my encouragement is to look at the long term affects of such a decision and see these kinds of shelters as crucial to health of a community and their overall safety as studies have proven and my experience has proven as well.  Communities need to rally behind places like these, volunteer at them, support them and by doing so they will create it into a safe place that they trust (such as the Inn of the Good Shepherd next to my home which is trusted by thousands in the city now).  Once a community can take ownership over a project they will see how this project actually is better for everyone around them, especially those that don’t need the services of the shelter.  The long term benefits of having places of service and help in a community are longer lasting than the fleeting feeling of safety because we’ve kept scary and uncomfortable people away.

So I support the Vineyard Homeless Shelter and wish that it get the proper zoning to create a permanent place of help for those that are in need.  The evidence leans greatly on the side of this decision and if we actually want to be a healthy and safe community then having places like this nearby to jolt us out of naivety and to serve those in need will be good for us.  I believe it will negatively affect the quality of our lives if we do not allow the Vineyard’s Shelter to stay.  As Sarnia starts to include important initiatives such as Circles into the plan of the city, it would be a large oversight to not see multiple shelters wherever they are being used as a crucial part of the overall plan.  Thank-you.

Related posts:

1. An Open Letter/Review to the Sarnia Revival
2. Reply to Letter in the Sarnia Observer (on Homosexuality)
3. Sarnia Police Can Stop Being Rude Now – A Letter to the Editor

When you don’t know someone, it’s not very easy to be patient, kind, non-envious, non-boastful, humble, honourable, selfless and not easily angered towards them.  I would suggest rather that when you don’t know someone that all you can do is love or hate the way that person makes you feel.  If the person makes you feel safe, then when that person is attacked, you feel attacked.  If the person makes you feel important, then when that person is ridiculed, you feel a little bit smaller and insignificant.  How does one really love someone if they don’t know them?  How can one really defend someone they don’t know?

As we move forward with political elections, I’ll never cease to be amazed at the personal attacks and love letters that I read from both sides of the spectrum of people sure that there leader is amazing, perfect and without flaws and all the others are immoral, wretched people out to intentionally ruin our country.  Everyone thinks they love their leader.  Everyone hates the opposition.  May I suggest that it’s probably the way your leader makes you feel that you love, or the fact that your leader tows the political line you lean towards.  You don’t love them.

As we move forward in understanding our relationship to our faith.  It’s probably good to also realize that many of us love Jesus because of the way he makes us feel, or what he does for us.  Or maybe we think that Jesus just agrees with whatever we think.  No wonder we love him.  Most people don’t love Jesus, they love the way Jesus makes them feel.

Let’s not just assume that the feelings of comradery that we have with people, especially those we don’t know, are those of love or hate.  They are probably just selfish longings that we don’t want to admit that we project on these people that we don’t know.  Just a few random thoughts.

Related posts:

1. Shopping for Love
2. Iceland Teaser

My biggest disappointment through all this has been Tyndale’s lack of communication to the public. I recognize that they have spend a lot of time with their current students/faculty trying to work through these issues. However a decision like they made and the accusations and assumptions that were floating around on the Internet, especially international media, in my opinion made it mandatory that Tyndale have public statements to clarify, put falsities in their place and stand firm on decisions that they have made.

I’ll take it as my duty to post now what I was told from them as to shed some light on the conversation for everyone.

So here is some definitive statements that Dr. Nelson made just to clear the air and since I’m not sure if they will ever make these statements themselves.

1. Tyndale never made a penny from the event directly with Bush, in fact they probably lost some.
2. It was not just wealthy people that were invited to the event.
3. It was a combination of things that caused the cancellation of the event, it was not them “caving in” to a petition or protest.
4. He admits they were caught off guard and didn’t know how to communicate well in a social media/viral world.
5. Arthur Boers was not censored. He was not asked to remove the paragraph from his article. He was asked to clarify it or leave a disclaimer that gave more information about what actually happened but Boers decided just to remove it instead.
6. Dr. Nelson did not call Boers a liar or a slanderer, in fact he was clear in his meeting that Boers was not a slanderer. He was not angry either. He did say though that because of Boers article it is causing slander to happen.
7. In no way was he intentionally manipulating students. It was all very bad timing and chose to be silent after rather than engage the criticisms or make more statements.
8. In hindsight, having the event as a public forum with a controversial figure such as Bush would have been a wiser move rather than a private invite-only event that was seemingly secretive (but not intentionally).

I have no reason not to believe him on any of this. I have no clue why in the world they wouldn’t make these statements publicly, but here they are for everyone to read. I think the way this unfolded is unfortunate but I think it was inevitable considering what was at stake and the poor system that was in place to deal with this kind of controversy.  Though if it wasn’t for this site and being a way to discourse, there may have been bigger protests that happened.

I think what I have realized through this process is that Tyndale is on a steady path towards becoming a full fledged university. Not just a small time Bible College, but they want to grow into something a lot bigger. This means that they care an awfully lot about reputation, donors, cash flow and appeasing as many people as possible. Whether we like it or not, or we think this is the Christian path or not, this is the direction that Tyndale wants to go. Unfortunately for them, they still have the Christian label attached to what they are doing and with that label comes all sorts of convictions of exactly what that means. For some it means that there is no possible way that George W Bush should be even remotely associated with what the school is doing. For others it means that he is the perfect candidate to speak to us about higher Christian Education. If the system is not in place to deal with that kind of controversy than my assumption is that there is no place for Tyndale in that realm of business. The fact that I can start a website while sitting in my underwear and “expose” anything at all tells me there is something wrong with the level of transparency and communication that Tyndale has with its people. Or at the very least there is no system setup to allow for opposition, or dialogue that people feel safe to express themselves.

A lot of accusations were thrown around on this site. A lot of them true and a lot of them not true. Tyndale’s inability to deal with the issue only made it worse. The commenter’s onslaught of insults and immaturity didn’t help much either. We posted everything that was said, or was sent to us and Tyndale could have set the record straight numerous times but it seemed like they were too paralyzed to say anything. In the end, besides Bush speaking, I think this was the real failure. The fact that I have to write this post clearing the air of all eight of my points, proves that.

The second thing that bothers me about this still is that everything became personal very quick. Whether that was because Dan Oudshoorn’s article about manipulation or the fact that Dr. Nelson cried when dealing with this issue I don’t know where it started. All I know is that this was never personal for me and I know it wasn’t for Dan either, as his article on what love is on this site suggests. I come across as strong towards institutions and systems because I think that’s the only way to expose them. Dr. Nelson in this case was nothing more than a representation of a system that we discerned as being dishonest and possibly oppressive. In being the kind of school that Tyndale wants to be, their president has to grow thicker skin and be able to lead his institution through rough waters without taking offense when someone opposes him. This I don’t think was ever fully understood by the students defending him and and he reassured us he was a good person and wanted the same things that we wanted. This was never about him as a person.  The fact that we met with him and tried to meet him from the beginning should tell you that.  We do want the same things. Accusations, whether true or false, bring out a lot in a person. If the accusations were false then so be it. Impressions are everything with a spokesperson and the impression that some got was negative. This is the life in the public eye and is a choice of the person there. He did take responsibility for this. I also take responsibility for running a site that hurtful things were said on, and accusations were made on both sides of the debate. We both think what we did was necessary and so we will both leave it at that.

All that said, I don’t think this “fiasco” needs to end with failure. I think there was a lot of lessons to be learned for everyone. For starters, we all know that media distorts and pulls out stories where there are none. They don’t care about context, they just care about getting people excited and then they leave. The hits that this site generated proved that. If I was to do this again, I probably wouldn’t have spoken to any media at all. They didn’t represent any of the moderation, grace or love that I had thought I expressed and only focused on the controversy. Dr. Nelson had a similar experience. There was other lessons we learned. Like how quick people blame the messenger. Or that the messenger could have opinions that are just wrong and offend people by their accusations. Or how fast people degrade to insults and refuse to engage the arguments. Or how quickly people take something personal and internalize it. Or how little people actually want free speech if it goes against their own convictions. All of these realities from this past ten days shows us that we all have a lot to do to grow in character and as a body of believers, inside and outside of the school. I’m grateful that I had the opportunity to do my part in this and I’m even more grateful at the grace that was shown to me by Dr. Nelson and Tyndale while I moved forward in what I thought was the right thing to do.

Related posts:

1. Is Tyndale Censoring Professors?
2. On Tyndale.co, Loving Opposition and The Pursuit of Peace
3. Postmodern Thoughts (Pt. 1)

Today that article was taken down. Why? We aren’t sure. We of course in our computer savvy ways were able to recover the original article from our browser cache. So for anyone that wants it we have now published it on this site for anyone to read. ChristianWeek.org after a few hours re-posted the article, but with a revision. Like we learned in Old Testament class at Tyndale, when you see something repeated, always look for what is missing in the repetition. More than likely the missing information reveals what is going on beneath everything else. So below is the text that was was ommitted from the revision when it was reposted.

Third, steeped in Mennonite convictions, I believe Christians can differ and disagree, even vigorously, and at the same time grow in love for one another.

The day after the faculty was informed of the impending presidential breakfast, a colleague and I proposed a forum for interested faculty and students. The event would consider Christian interpretation of the legacy of George W. Bush, inviting four diverse viewpoints that spanned the political and theological spectrum. We would structure a civil conversation and give room for other faculty and students to respond and interact.

Our proposal was in the spirit of dialogue, academic freedom, and freedom of speech. A key administrator explained that our offer was not accepted because of – quoting here – “concern that we not make too much of this.” (In spite of our administration’s caution, a maelstrom of controversy ensued once the press exposed Tyndale’s plans.)

I’ve really done my best to not judge through this whole process.  This is making it almost too easy.  Why was this taken down?  Your guess is as good as mine.   But I’ll guess anyway.   My guess is that Tyndale didn’t like this whole paragraph all that much.  It revealed too much.  It showed that they screwed up and made bad decisions.  It shows that not only did this event have absolutely nothing to do with free speech (like Dr. Craig Carter, Dr. Gary Nelson and Dr. Scott Masson publicly stated and pointed fingers at us for).   But it reveals that even attempts to exercise this freedom that folks at Tyndale seem to prize so much, were shut down because a key administrator (I wonder who that would be) said that they didn’t want to “make too much of this.”  So Tyndale probably strongly suggested that Arthur take down his post or change it.  So he changed it.  Of course, that is all speculation.  It’s unfortunate that anything had to be changed, especially since he was just exercising his right in free speech.  But I’d wager a bet that is pretty close to what happened.  I can’t imagine Arthur re-reading his post a few days later and thinking “ah, you know what, that’s not necessary, why don’t we take that out.”

Tyndale is really trying to cover it’s tracks here.  Their public statements are empty of meaning.  Dr. Gary Nelson admits that they need clearer guidelines and policies so that views can be respected in a hospitable place.  Let me make a suggestion Tyndale.  Trying to undo something on the Internet won’t work.  Trying to censor professors that are speaking respectfully and making the school a hospitable place won’t work.  Silence from the very people that shouldn’t be silent from the higher ranks of Tyndale won’t work.   Your options are dwindling and you seem to be making a lot of bad decisions before you land on some right ones.   You need to be honest.  Stop worrying about your reputation.  Stop trying to cover your tracks.  Make decisions and defend your decisions with grace and humility to those that disagree with you.  Most importantly, please start communicating (honestly), you are leaving us all to wonder and guess and assume.

So again, like I stated before, we are still waiting for an official statement about this mess.  Now I’d like to request a statement about why it seems as if you are censoring some professors from speaking and allowing others to blabber on.

Related posts:

1. Concluding Thoughts on Tyndale and Tyndale.co
2. On Tyndale.co, Loving Opposition and The Pursuit of Peace

A decision was made at 8:46am on Wednesday the 13th to “stop it from happening;” in reference to the event planned between George W Bush and Tyndale. The last few days have turned into something I was not prepared for.   As stated before in my letter, I think any kind of professional relationship with George W Bush and all he represents is a complete lack of Christian character. It promotes hate and oppression to all those who have been affected by him both in North America and on an international scale.  To attempt to pass his presence as merely promoting free speech is a cop-out.  The thought of using such a man for the stated sake of “raising the school’s profile” at an invite only, elitist breakfast made me sick.  I would have no problem having Bush speak or engaging in constructive dialogue about a variety of issues, but this isn’t about free speech.  The issue here is having him publicly associate himself with a school that should be primarily associated with kingdom values. It’s with bringing in a high profile speaker to in turn raise the profile of Tyndale and ultimately gain financially from this association.  If Bush wants to address Christian higher education, this website, or other public policy matters I’d encourage everyone to hear what he says and discern how they see fit.

Before acting, I sought counsel from friends whom I respect and who Gary Nelson respects before I moved forward in anything.  I did not take this lightly.  I wasn’t trying to stroke my ego.  I was simply trying to prevent my school from associating itself with this event and hopefully create a level of transparency which, from my experience, has never really existed at Tyndale.  I sought counsel from a number of people, especially people that I assumed would have told me to back off and remain silent if it was needed.  From many sides I was told this was a good plan.  I was advised (again, from people both sides would respect), that protest is good.  I was advised that  “Gary Nelson would welcome a storm of protest …especially if it was from former students, which then reflects well on the seminary…”  Another person responded to me, a university faculty member in the Toronto area who is well-respected in the Christian community, and told me that there “needs to be a significant response to this.”  So these responses, coupled with the encouragement from others, set the move in motion to expose the mess.  There was never intention to harm or create distrust or to disturb peace, but it was meant to disrupt the conscience of Tyndale as a body, and especially of those at the top of the chain who have the power to make the decisions.

I love Tyndale.  I loved a lot about my experience there.  I loved my professors and some of my closest friends are still heavily involved with the daily ongoings there.  I would not have worked so hard at this if I didn’t have some kind of investment in the result and in the school.  In a lot of ways Tyndale still represents me as a person and what I do in ministry contexts.

So I did what I do best, I started a website. I started it as a way to document the process, gain support and speak loudly against what I saw as a non-kingdom like decision.  The website/petition snowballed so fast that by the next day there was obviously enough of an uproar to cause the apparent cancellation of the entire event.  This was the best news I could have heard.  This meant that I wasn’t just spouting off stupid ideas and annoying everyone but there was actually enough resistance to cause a cancellation.  It wasn’t until it was cancelled, however, that the media really started getting involved.  We started getting e-mails from across the country congratulating us on our victory and people trying to replicate the same kind of results in other places in the world.  International media picked up the story and now the world saw that a group of Christians stood up for kingdom values even if it did tarnish their “high profile.” I saw this not only as a great accomplishment on our part but also on the part of the Tyndale administration who acted bravely in listening to their students and alumni and cancelling the event.  Myself and others saw the cancellation as having something positive attached to Tyndale as students rallied together to oppose what they thought was a bad move.

Of course, with anything good comes opposition (which is what was said about the Bush event in the first place).  I have been in this place before of exposing shady deals or calling out harmful practices in the public sphere and I should have been prepared for what was to come next.  Everyone came under the gun.  Accusations started flying in every direction.  To the people who started the site (me), to Gary Nelson, to Dan Oudshoorn and the list went on.  The goal of the site was to be honest and post everything in regards to this fiasco in hopes of getting a sufficient response that would eventually create no need for this site.  I approved every letter and every comment that came my way, even if they were straight up insulting me.  I thought this was the fair thing to do.  I knew there would be controversy, but I did, and I still do, uphold that this kind of dialogue is the kind of thing that an institution, especially a Christian one, should accept with open arms.  I weighed my words carefully and I believe that I upheld integrity in my responses in both what I wrote or said to the media or on the site.  I submitted to correction numerous times and did my best to do this in a way that was honourable.  Really though, this isn’t about me.  This is about Tyndale.  Tyndale, through all of this, has had glimpses of hope, but for the most part has completely let its student body/alumni down.  Besides actually cancelling the event, which still is questionable as to how/why/what happened, they have been completely silent and difficult to work with or understand.

This is why the website is still up and is still running.  I believe that people who are affected by the decisions Tyndale makes, need a place to challenge Tyndale in the public eye.  I also think that there needs to be a place to defend Tyndale.  Because of their silence over an obviously controversial event, it showed me that there was a hole in the transparency of the Tyndale administration and its leadership.  When people feel as if something is being held from them, which they most certainly do now, they need a place to express that and to be heard.  Or when people feel that wrong is being committed and they aren’t given the appropriate outlet to express this, they need a place where they can gather support and challenge decisions.  I know that even this view is controversial.  Why should private institutions be publicly accountable to the masses, international media and loud mouthed alumni?  The people of God are constantly on display, and it is our duty to be honest about who we are, the mistakes we make and the things we believe.

A site like this is only ever criticized by two kinds of people.  The first are those that have something to hide or are afraid of confrontation. Because this site forcefully confronts both those people, it doesn’t make a lot of friends. The second group of people who don’t like this site is really why I wrote this post.  These are the advocates of peace and love.  They are good people who are beautifully empathetic with any hurt that they see has been caused.  They want a world of peace (and God knows so do I ) where all sides can love one another. Reconciliation is at the forefront of their minds; not just confronting that which is evil, but striving after that which is good (even if it means ignoring that which is evil).  These are the people whom I want my conscience as a Christ follower to be formed by.  Those that place compassion ahead of confrontation.  I am not built that way, but I long to be formed into that kind of person.  The amount of hurt that has been expressed through this ordeal is too much for one person to take, I can only imagine how Gary Nelson feels.  I am constantly thrown back and forth as to what my response should be.  Should I take down the site completely?  Should I continue to stand up for what I think is right and confront what I think is wrong even if it’s causing strife?  What is the appropriate balance between justice, love and peace?  What is my role in any of them?  The questions haunt me.  I realize that my actions carry a lot of weight, especially since I can flick a switch and end the site right now.

I’m not even sure what peace is anymore.  Is peace just everyone getting along, oblivious to the fact that there is something to be up in arms about?  Is peace ignorance?  Is peace just a weapon to use to stop people from opposing evil?  These are what I feel are some people’s suggestions, that they just want to go on with their life, forget anything happened and ignore the reality of what took place and what could easily happen again.  I don’t think this is a peace that we are to seek as Christians.  Rather, the kind of peace that Christians should seek is one that embodies an honest portrayal of who we are, both the good and the ugly, and leads us to be formed into a kind of people that can face into reality (not our ideological hopes for peace) humbly and with Christ at the core.  Unfortunately, I don’t think this process comes across as very peaceful.  It carries with it the baggage of hurt egos, true and false accusations, confessions and blatant opposition.

I never intended this website to turn into a ‘bash Tyndale’ or ‘bash Gary Nelson’ site.  Every time someone calls for Nelson’s resignation, my heart aches.  In no way do I think a resignation solves anything or answers anything.  I don’t want Gary Nelson to resign.  I would start a website to oppose that suggestion as well.  I recognize that this site has caused insurmountable grief, especially amongst some of the current staff and students at Tyndale, and for that I’m truly saddened.  My hope is that this site has proven to be an honest take from a range of people about Tyndale’s transparency, the Bush event and the appropriate response.  So, from this point on I’m not going to post anything new.  I’m only going to approve comments that add something new to the conversation and if their full name is stated, but for the most part this site is going to be frozen/paused.  I’m also going to take down the petition for people to sign.  120 people signed it, 85 confirmed their signature and 10 people or so have asked to be taken off of it.  The petition served its purpose to prevent the event from happening.  No one needs to feel associated to the opinions on this site just because they signed to cancel the Bush event.  The petition did it’s job and now it is simply a reminder that it helped bring the end to a harmful relationship.

I am planning on coming up to Tyndale on Monday and Tuesday to try and mend anything that I can that has been broken.  I would love to meet with anyone who is interested, especially Gary Nelson.  E-mail me if you are interested.  I’m open to whatever kind of reconciliation steps are necessary and I hope that whatever people feel has been broken can be fixed.  I’m willing to take responsibility for what I have done, and I hope Tyndale is willing as well.

My hope still is that Tyndale responds.  I can’t imagine them not responding at this point.  If they do respond, we will post it on the site as well.  This site can serve as a historical database of our successful opposition to Bush representing Tyndale and hopefully the successful reconciliation of all the divisiveness that has occurred.  I’d even be willing to hand over the domain to Tyndale if they would agree to having this information posted elsewhere on their site, or if I could post it elsewhere as a reminder of what happened.

So I hope this explanation is sufficient and that it is obvious that my intentions are not to harm or to cause strife:  they are for peace, they are for reconciliation.

Peace, love and grace

Related posts:

1. Concluding Thoughts on Tyndale and Tyndale.co
2. Is Tyndale Censoring Professors?
3. Loving the Unloving

I write this letter as a former student of Tyndale University College and Seminary, one who completed two full years at your institution, started the the student magazine on campus and has been sponsored by Tyndale multiple times to run events and bring in keynote speakers from around the world.  I had heard a rumour a week or so ago that Tyndale was bringing George W. Bush in to promote Tyndale and I thought it was a joke.  However, the rumour was proven true today by a few Toronto Star articles and a letter from Gary Nelson.  Not only was it proven true, it was announced only a week before the proposed date of the actual event that is happening on Sept 20, 2011.  I can’t help but view this as intentionally secretive as nothing was mentioned anywhere by Tyndale until we started bombarding Facebook walls with questions and links to what we were finding out.

I’ve been running events now for a number of years and if there is one temptation that keeps coming back over and over again it is to invite speakers based on ticket sales and revenue rather than content or character.  It’s a tough balancing act.  Unfortunately for Tyndale, they have failed at bringing any balance to this through the decision to bring in one of the most controversial so-called evangelical leaders of the century.  As David Fitch puts it in The End of Evagelicalism, “I suspect that many American Christians under the age of thirty-five refuse to be called evangelical because of the presidency of George W. Bush.”  Gary Nelson seems to think that “Tyndale represents a more thinking kind of evangelicalism.”  Gary Nelson obviously has no clue what Tyndale represents or he is set out to completely destroy the reputation that Tyndale has now.  Gary Nelson has also cemented the fact that he does not represent the growing amount of those under the age of thirty five who want nothing to do with the “Christian” rhetoric of a man like George Bush.

I’ve now been deleted four different times across two different Facebook pages with the post of “anybody talking about george bush coming to promote Tyndale at a breakfast on sept 20? is there a reason why it’s been so silent among the students? if anyone is interested in speaking more about this and possibly working with us to voice our disgust with such a publicity stunt/money grab, shoot me an e-mail. (nathancolquhoun@gmail.com).”  Gary Nelson states that they “are a university that tries to present all sides and be open to different opinions,” and “as a university, it’s {Bush} someone we need to listen to just like other points of view.”  Meanwhile his staff are deleting opposing comments from Tyndale’s Facebook walls and rather posting announcement letters that are written by him.  I’ve also been contacted by others who have had their comments deleted because of their questioning or opposing stance against Bush while leaving immature comments for everyone to see like this one by a man named Brian that says “Hey don’t go then, you immature know it alls!! You are so wise you would have voted for Obama!”  Since when was being open to all sides picking and choosing what Facebook comments you feel like the rest of the world needs to read?

This is a shameful money grab and publicity stunt for Tyndale.  Whether or not they came up with the idea or funded it themselves they are most certainly excited about “elevating the school’s profile” and benefiting from the event as much as possible.  There is no reason to give George W Bush any sort of voice when it comes to Christian Higher Education.  If this was really about addressing Christian Higher Education, James KA Smith just wrote an excellent book that addresses Christian Higher Education beautifully, ask him to speak.  But we all know it’s not about that.  This is about two things.  1.  Raising Money.  2. Raising the School’s Profile (whatever that means).  Using Bush (or anyone else for that matter) to do either is wrong.  A Christian school that cares more about “elevating their profile” than about forming Christians is a school I can do without, as that flies completely in the face of the Christian values that I have come to understand should characterize the church.

I don’t need to dig too deep to expose the kind of policies the Bush is affiliated with.  He’s been accused of  plenty of war crimes, he has been threatened to be arrested if he shows up into certain countries, he thought that God told him to invade Iraq and he approved and gave orders for torture.  He doesn’t have a great track record.  Bush seems to represent and promote systemic dysfunction at its finest.  This is not the kind of man that should be promoting a school that is supposed to be identified with peace, love, grace, forgiveness, suffering for good and loving the poor.

As a response to our disappointment and disgust with Tyndale’s decision to partner with such a man to help Tyndale become more successful in our world, we have started a website to oppose this event.

WWW.TYNDALE.CO

On the website you will find my letter along with others like mine, articles posted, and a petition full of names of those who oppose this decision. You will also find announcements about the protests that we plan on staging along with updates on where to meet and what we will be doing.   We hope that you will change your mind and pull back on this event entirely and refuse to allow Tyndale to stoop to a level of marketing (because that is all that this is) that is abhorring.  We hope for an apology from Gary Nelson and an admission that he and the Board made a mistake by moving the school in this direction.

The quote below from Stanley Hauerwas will help explain exactly what I think is going on here.  Tyndale is doing nothing more than trying to be seen as a high profile learning centre for Christian studies and they don’t care what they have to give up in the process.

“It is clear that those who support Christian universities would be quite upset if the qualifier came to mean that the education students received might put them at a disadvantage for being a success in America.”
- Stanley Hauerwas

I write this letter from the position of not caring if Tyndale has a raised profile, creates successful students who get jobs or can attract a leader of international popularity.  None of this matters.  The kind of education that Tyndale should be providing for their students is one that would form students who are disciplined in the ways of Christ and his church, and refuse to allow fame and wealth to seep into their decisions.

There is still time Tyndale.  Please cancel the event.  Walk away.  You don’t have to do this.  It’s really not worth it.

Related posts:

1. Grace to Change My Mind
2. Open Source, Mac Culture and Change-Agents
3. An Open Letter/Review to the Sarnia Revival