Ramblings of an Obsessive Compulsive City Monk

And I'm Back...

2010-10-20T11:23:00.002-04:00

I re-read some things that I have written here. Some of it is really interesting to me (that kinda makes sense since I found it interesting a year and a half ago...) and some of it seems really strange. Like, does anyone actually care about defining and analyzing humour, let alone Jesse's kind of humour?! Probably not. And, if I want to be real, did anyone miss this blog since May 2009? Again, probably not. Well I did, but that is kinda to be expected.

So, I'm about to start this thing again.

I still like the title: Ramblings of an Obsessive Compulsive City Monk. And I still like the background which has the iceberg and my sarcastic comments on the bottom.

But what I want to change; no, what I want to inaugurate is a more disciplined way by which I write and contribute to this blog, ie. I want to implement some real time management!

Well, I have a bunch of things rattling around in my head that I think this blog, which has an uncanny resemblance to a digital form of a cathartic punching bag, could help me think through. But I will leave it at this: I have started a SECOND blog on WordPress (http://jesseyuny.wordpress.com/) for my work with Youth Unlimited. That one is about YU and the ministry. This one, on the other hand, will not be nearly so professional. As if I could really pull off the 'professional' thing anyways...I guess we'll find out, eh?!

Christianity and the Environment

2009-05-31T20:24:00.003-04:00

I've been taking an online geography course at Tyndale which has been very interesting, especially the constant questions we've had about a Christians' attitude and behaviour in relation to the environment.

Here's something that the teacher brought forward for us to think about and then discuss. I include my comment too.

Dayton and Pretiz write, “We express our relationship to God, and therefore witness to it and make it evident, by all that we are, and not merely by all that we say. So an abusive or indifferent relationship to the Creation sends confused signals if we wish to proclaim Christ the Creator. Often it is our concern for the church that encourages us to cross cultures and undertake the challenges of work in all kinds of places, regardless of the difficulties that we may encounter. We know that Christ died for his church, and so our concern is not a trivial one. But what is the church for which we are concerned, and what is the gospel that we wish to see spread through all the earth? The church is the community of people redeemed from the three broken areas of relationship that we have talked about above. But if we ourselves continue to live that broken-ness, what do we bring with us to the different societies that we enter, and the churches elsewhere that we go to serve?"
What do you think?

(My comment)
"But if we ourselves continue to live that broken-ness, what do we bring with us to the different societies that we enter, and the churches elsewhere that we go to serve?"

This is a handy question, especially when we as a class see it through an environmental-geographical lens. What I think is that to be in this world as Christians requires us to not become assimilated or apart of this world, but to distinguish ourselves through love, just as Christ did and commanded us to do. In that way we must confront our attitudes towards this world and eliminate the disrespectful behaviours we so often indulge, which includes extraordinary materialism (which ultimately contributes so much pollution - like high-consumption vehicles, or enormous wardrobes), wastefulness (which depletes scarce resources like trees, fish, oil, water, and includes the creation of dumps and hazardous waste), hoarding (which deprives those in need), and careless treatment of possessions (which demonstrates in general lack of good stewardship). I think these things are simple examples of "living in that broken-ness" that Dayton and Pretiz discuss. If this is the average of our society, the same society that we are apart of, then we are participating in a rebellion against the cross, and the mandate by God to be stewards and caretakers of all He has made. However, this doesn't mean we become belligerently hard on people we consider to be wasters, materialistic, hoarders, or careless because that shows a lack of mercy and an inability to teach someone Godly values.

In all things there is a balance, but Christians so often decide that we need to talk more than act, react more than think, hesitate more than help and generally give in to the apathetic attitude so many of our North American counterparts do. Every person has a personal responsibility to the world's well-being that is separate from others'. God's glory is revealed in our love for His Creation. So, instead of being hard and legalistic (which is so easy for me to be with believers and non-believers alike), we must be merciful and careful of what we do and say so that we DO bring Christ and the cross into whatever society we enter and serve. One of the first things people will notice is our attitude towards our possessions, among them being this earth.

(End of comment)
Basically, I'm once again striving towards a better understanding of how I'm to live in this world as a Christian. The scope of Christianity is endless. There is truly no end to the way we could interact in this world and either reveal Christ in us or hide him from others' view.

The Battle of Our Generation

2009-05-02T20:21:00.003-04:00

Only a little while ago did I hear someone say that in the future, no matter what it looks like now, abortion will eventually be illegal.
What a statement!
After some thought and a bit of an explanation I came to agree with that prediction.

Here's the logic behind that idea.

The fastest growing social group (not ethnic group) is the Amish. Their population has increased 84% in the last seventeen years, since 1992. In Virginia there was a 400% increase in population! I guess this is due to the lack of birth control in their areas of influence. And they don't practice, ever, abortion. (Check out these stats: Amish Studies) Yet the US as a whole is barely keeping itself afloat. The replenishing rate is almost exactly even, so as a country it is staying the same in terms of population size. That little bit of increase is, probably, due to the average of five children per household with ten or more children being incredibly common among the Amish! Amish men are real men. Not to mention the womanhood of those women who are giving birth five or more times! I used to want 11 kids within five or 6 years so that I could field a full soccer team. I don't think Jo wants to be Amish though.

The Amish way of life is nothing like what we are used to. To us abortion is one of the most intense issues in the world (North America and Europe - especially Russia) today. In all of these places the population is decreasing. Therefore, abortion which accounts for about 30% of all pregnancies in Canada is steadily killing our ability to reproduce our own population! And eventually this will cause our government to prohibit or exclude a person's right for an abortion. If our nation wants to grow and continually increase in size, affluence, power and influence (because these are intrinsically good things to aim at in the first place...) then we must stop relying on immigration to replace the 100,000 legal abortions each year. That number isn't even including the ones done illegally which could double the ones performed in hospitals and clinics. Since our average family size in 2006 was 3.1 (two parents and one child), the obvious decline is rather profound.

Therefore, if abortion ends up being illegal, the question will be "When your children ask you what you did during the abortion crisis, what will your answer be? Did you fight abortion? Support it? Did you do anything?"

When I heard this I couldn't help but think about Revelation 3:16 where Jesus said to a church, concerning their apathetic attitude, "Because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth." WHOA! It's better for a Christian who doesn't believe in the sanctity of life to advocate for abortion than for a Christian who doesn't care enough either way to take a stand on something. Jesus hates those who straddle the fence rather than declaring their no-holds barred allegiance to one side or the other. Unfortunately the real problem with this is that I too often become apathetic. THAT is the real battle of our generation. Abortion simply acts as the battlefield where our pathetic lameness is most obviously demonstrated.

Go AMISH people!

The Things We Do to Get Money

2009-04-30T07:02:00.003-04:00

I started work on Monday, and I've rediscovered my desire to be a student (a Professional Student - whatever that means) for the rest of my life. The places I've worked before this have always become tedious or eternally frustrating. Who wants to work at Shoppers Drug Mart for the rest of their lives? What about lifeguarding until your wrinkles keep you afloat because of the massively increased surface area of your body? Does anyone wish to build trusses or clean lumber yards until "retirement"?

I want a job that I never have to retire from.
I want a job that demands my presence up until the day I die.
I want a job that keeps my attention even when Facebook or Susan Boyle seek attention online.
I want a job that allows me freedom of sleep. One where I don't need to get up at ungodly hours of the morning all the time. Eight in the morning is fine. Any earlier and that is just awful.
I want a job that makes me keep learning stuff that is cool. I don't really care how much facial cleanser or adult diapers or sunscreen or a Fox40 whistle costs. And I definitely don't care how much a load of lumber costs in Quebec.

Basically, the job I am doing right now (Maintenance at Tyndale) is fun. But it isn't my life's goal. However, it keeps my attention, especially when we spend half an hour figuring out whether a hay pitchfork or a poop pitchfork would be better in battle. And, in what century would this pitchfork be at the top of warfare's technology?
Good question.
We guessed 7th-5th centuries BC.

In the end though, I'm just glad I have a job.

Humour and Sex in Christianity

2009-04-29T12:11:00.011-04:00

First, a few weeks ago there was a wedding shower for a woman who's getting married soon. The fun things they did were pin the wiener on the naked man, slurp their drinks from wang-shaped straws and play various games like "What crazy thing will you do to your husband the first night?" that made several of the girls really awkward, especially the unmarried ones...wait, that was ALL of them. When I heard about this I got really angry, and I haven't been able to figure out what was going through the people's minds who were planning the shower. A question that was asked afterwards by a woman who left the shower early was: if a bunch of guys got together to pin the boobs on a cardboard cut-out of a naked woman, would that be okay? NO! Yet they seemed to think it was just fine for them to do that.

Why the crap did Christian girls plan and participate in this kind of thing?! What were they thinking?

Second, both Jo and I have been noticing how Christians seem to mask crude jokes with laughter. And this is really my point. We take something crude that - if said in a plain, conversation-style voice it wouldn't be acceptable - when said with a humourous tone or funny nuances it is suddenly made appealing and acceptable to people. It was CS Lewis who said, "Laughter covers a multitude of sins". He's right.

The crappy thing is that I think M*A*S*H is hilarious, and it isn't exactly clean all the time. I think How I Met Your Mother is quite funny. The movie Juno is brilliant, but is it good? I consider jokes about handicapped people, war-amputees, racism, and your mom to be some of the most clever and wittiest out there. But should I actually laugh? Should I repeat them?
Probably not.
There are some obvious jokes that should never be repeated like the one about the old man and...well, I won't go there.

At the moment I'm trying to figure out what this all means and what I'm to do about it. Suffice it to say, I'll most likely continue watching M*A*S*H. And we only have one more disc of How I Met Your Mother to go. But I certainly won't be pinning any breasts on a cardboard cut-out.

Knowledge: Are we certain?

2009-04-23T12:48:00.005-04:00

After my last post a faithful reader (of which there are three...YEAH!...uh,well, that includes Jo. So, really it's like two people who read by choice) asked me - rather, it was more of a challenge - whether or not we can really know anything that is totally right. Truly right. She said,

"do you think anyONE (as in a person) is ever 100% right or wrong? Through interacting with people who each have a partial truth due to their own perceptions maybe we can come to a closer understanding... but really I think only the Lord knows 100%..."

Well, that's a good point. And it's something I believe too. However, I'd like to modify it a bit because I think she's onto something but doesn't have it ALL right ;)--> I'm going to attempt to add something to her point which, due to it being a short message, was incapable of being as thorough or exhaustive as she would be if she were to say it in person.

How can anyone be fully right? We can't be fully right about a great many things. But I think that people can be fully wrong. And we are more often wrong than we are right. That must be recognized. For some things are part truth and part untruth. There are however some things that we can be fully right about, like "water makes human life possible", "we are made in God's image", "Jesus is full-blooded, unembellished, totally qualified Truth", and "I am Jesse James, in whom God is pleased". Somehow those things bypass the combination of mixed truth and untruth. And I am convinced that we can know things that are fully wrong, but I don't really need to say what those are because they are more easily known.

Here's something else I've been thinking about. Christians do not have total control over the market of "rightness". There is truth in a lot of other places, because God is omnipresent and many people can reach to Him though they don't know His name. Read Romans 1:21-22, Acts 17, and all of Hebrews. This brings me to another part of what will become a very lengthy post...

Another question and comment was this: "...Can you blame people who are in darkness for darkened thinking?"
Well, no, not really. But do I think that "darkened thinking" is always dark? No.

The Buddhists believe there are millions of ways to "enlightenment". Some would say this is darkened thinking, especially people at my school. However, to be the advocatus diaboli ("Devil's Advocate") I would say that there are a million ways to Jesus too, who, for my purposes will take the place of the word 'enlightenment'. What?? For real, I think there are a million ways to Jesus. I said the same thing when 100 Huntley Street interviewed me a couple weeks ago when they were randomly asking people at Tyndale about heaven and hell. I think that darkened thinking, like a flower, tends towards seeking out the light to grow by. We do the same thing. Darkened thinking is only darkened because it is never 100% light. Even as Christians we cannot think like God can and know a truth 100% accurately. Neither can we know God on any kind of measuring stick for we are going to learn new things of Him for Eternity...talk about something that blows my mind!

After that though, there remain those things that we CAN know are made of pure rightness. And there remain those things which are pure darkness (murder, stealing, idolatry, fornication and Arby's). So what can we do? Darkened thinking is only fully dark when there is no more reaching for the light, no attempt at knowing truth - when the plant is content to sit in darkness. To understand this better, read Proverbs 26:4-5 (this makes the whole thing A LOT more clear...).

In my estimation there are millions of ways to Jesus. I say this because people who are thinking in darkness also can see light if they only open their eyes. And sometimes the light is so bright that it penetrates even through our eyelids. Still, by those who claim to see more light than darkness these people are considered darkened. I don't think so. Just like the other comment about knowing 100% truth, this is kinda the same thing but instead it's about seeing 100% light. I guess, I have more respect for people attempt to think than those who claim to but sit contentedly in their lame, lightless box. There are some things that we can tell are pure light, and others that are pure darkness.

In the end, though there are a million ways to Jesus, there is ultimately only one way to the Father and that's through Jesus who is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life". So, despite the millions of pathways, they all lead to one gate. Even after we have passed under that beautiful arch we still are shrouded by our inability to know most things 100% truthfully.

What a pickle.

"Dog eat dog world"

2009-04-22T18:57:00.007-04:00

I was asked if I knew about the expression "dog eat dog world" because I wrote as the description for this blog the phrase "it's a dog eat God world out there". Well, Kyla, I did know. But I love the fact that you read it and said something about it!

Basically, when it comes to the expressions I hear, I tend to redigest them in my head by adding theology and philosophy to them. I don't know why I do this, but it has helped me seem smart in the past so I figured I'd just keep on doing it here.

In the end though I thought that my version is a more appropriate expression. Most of the people I read about, most books that I have read and altogether too many people I talk to seem to throw God to the dogs. There isn't much respect out there any more for who God is and what He stands for. Actually, to hell with respect, there isn't much KNOWLEDGE about who God is and what He stands for. And you can't really respect something you don't know much about. Not really.

I guess I can respect the power of a nuclear explosion when I don't really understand how it happens. But God is different than a powerful reaction to physicists splitting atoms. When someone disrespects God, they usually do it out of ignorance. Putting it bluntly most people are usually uneducated, mistaken, incoherent and wrong when they begin to think about God. Moreover, how can someone think properly about God unless they knew HIM!

I can understand the power of an atomic bomb by the information I have extracted from my research into Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That kind of research is in the realm of empirical knowledge. When most people think about God, they relegate Him to the realm of philosophy or worse, theology (eek!), and place Him under the "abstract thought" heading while categorizing their puny thoughts in their mind. Without realizing it most people who give any thought to God make giant assumptions and become embroiled in the popular rhetoric without spending any time doing research or attempting in even small ways to understand who God is, what He is capable of or what He stands for. Heck, His works are more evident than the destruction of every building and 300,000 people in two Japanese cities. The problem is that when we talk about God the most common default response is to say that God is a philosophy discussion and that they want to remain "grounded" or away from old and stale thought patterns. I totally disagree. That's why I'm at a faith-based university. Here people take God seriously and obey the first part of our purpose for life: "to KNOW God and to enjoy Him" (from the Anglican catechism).

So, I believe that to most people God is as valuable as dog food because talk of Him is just as insubstantial and unimportant to our individualistic, liberal daily life. Thus, it is a dog eat God world out there because He means little more than tasteless animal feed.

Whoa. That came out in a whirl of emotion.
Didn't realize that that theologically re-interpreted expression meant so much to me.

Power and Super Powers

2009-04-22T17:42:00.007-04:00

I wonder how much I will actually write on this blog. Maybe a lot, maybe little. I was just told today that good writers (successful journalists) write something almost every day. But either way I think the integrity of this whole blog thing is found not in the frequency of entries but in their quality. So it shouldn't matter how often I contribute to this blog (more often might still be better) but whether or not the blog is worthwhile to read - for you -, and of great value to me - the blogger.

Now that's tricky. When someone writes something, it ought to be of value to SOMEONE. When someone does anything at all, it ought to be of value otherwise, why do it? That parallels the Philippians 4 passage: "whatever is right, whatever is noble, whatever is pure...whatever is excellent or praiseworthy, think about [and write about] such things". Does that not disqualify most things we read these days? Especially the 'right' part. How often do we read an article or book that just plainly isn't right about its facts or about it logic or about its perspective? And how often do we read stuff that is not so plainly wrong? I fear I lack discernment sometimes...

I've been reading a lot of things lately, like commentaries on Acts and monographs on the history of India, and theories on the history of history. And one of the things I have learned along the way is that people wield unfathomable power when they write, no matter what it is. Is everyone right though? There are people who say that Lord Acton was not really an historian, but then there are others who say that he was one of the greatest historians of the 19th century (his was the saying: "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"). Some people say that Jesus wasn't God's Son while people like me proclaim otherwise. Some people think Obama is a good president, and there are others who are either very cautious about praising him (like me) or outright against him. Obviously people disagree with each other when they are writing about history or God's word or politics or whatever. But what if someone is wrong? What if both parties are wrong? What if I've spent $30 on a textbook (that I may not ever read again) that is just plain wrong? Why then did the author write it? Do they know they are wrong? I wonder if they figured they were writing the 'right' stuff, the accurate and worthwhile stuff, when in fact they were wrong all along.

I don't know.

I DO know that it'd suck to be the person who wrote the wrong stuff...

So I continue to think about the difference between right and wrong. Now, I told Ben Bartosik today that I would be answering his question about what superpower I would choose if were ever given such a wonderful opportunity. Well, it would probably be the sick power of "Always Being Right". However I figure that if somehow I were to get that super power then I would plead for the chance to pick a second super power. Imagine if I really did get the "Always Being Right" power, I bet you I would make a lot of people mad, and possibly make a few of those people want to do some sort of hurtful thing to me. I wouldn't like that. So my second super power choice would probably be "Super Speed" like the little kid on the Incredibles, or that girl on Heroes. If I were always right, then I'd be able to dart away from the people who wanted to split my guts, and on my speedy way past them I'd yell "You can't catch me!!", and I'd be right.

Although super powers are cool I think too that they're freaking dangerous. Just look at the US. They are, at the moment, the most powerful nation on earth. What a crazy thing to be able to say! And they can do almost anything they want to. At this point I realize that I could get into another whole thought thing about power, which would extend this one blog entry for another six years or so. That would be a ridiculously long time. Therefore I won't subject you to that. Nonetheless, my next blog WILL be about the UN and the US because I just cannot believe that I won't use this blog to vent my thoughts about American and world politics, especially since I have come to realize that they aren't always right and that they aren't always good, and that they aren't always noble or praiseworthy.

May this blog be a totem to truth!

The First of Many: Humour - Why bother?

2009-04-20T13:22:00.005-04:00

Is anyone, besides my wife, ever going to read this?

Probably not.

Well, now that I got that off my chest the next thing to do is start blogging for my one devoted fan. It's important that I keep her updated on all the things I am thinking. Heck, this could even substitute for actual communication! If it weren't for this blog then I'm sure we'd probably never know what is going on inside our heads. Thank goodness for the internet! It definitely helps us keep in contact better, easing the lines of communication and strengthening our bonds as interdependent people. What would we do without blogspot. Probably sit down together and talk. And everyone knows that is SO nineties and before (and "before" is a loose term since we all know that whatever happened before the nineties and the massive use of the internet was simply insignificant and altogether too much talking).

So, I guess I'm going to try and synthesize my thoughts concerning whatever it is that I hear and listen to. And since my interests are ridiculously wide and varied, this blog could become quite interesting...if not for you, then for me alone. For I believe that blogs and humour, although humour is a very communal thing, cannot be properly evaluated by others because blogging is meant for the blogger, not the bloggee just as humour is only really funny if the person who is attempting the humour finds himself funny when no one else does. If no one else laughs, but you do, then you can rest assured that your humour is at least good to one person.

However, what if someone says that blogs and humour are meant to be evaluated by others? What then? What if humour is not actually meant to be funny to just the joke-giver? What if humour is strictly a community experience? Is it then subject to everyone else's evaluation? And, how does someone evaluate another person's humour?

I just tell Jo (my wife, for all the people reading this who don't know...how many is that? 1? 2?) that her sense of humour is very attractive. And I, personally, believe that my own humour is quite marvelous too. Lots of people don't agree. So, what am I supposed to do then? I just shrug and try to keep my humour clean (to satisfy that communal element: not to insult someone, but offending - if clean - is often just fine) and to keep it pointed at myself rather than possibly embarrassing someone else.

Anyways, I have no idea why I just wrote about my ideas of humour and this weird-o blogging experience.

Chew on it. Enjoy it. And maybe something I have said will make sense and enrich your life.