Month: August 2007

  • Who Do You Love?

    In this five part series, I’ll be posting a recent sermon that I delivered entitled “Who Do You Love?”.

    In Him,

    Todd Dow

    Title: Who Do You Love?
    Key Verses: 1 John 4:7-12

    1 John 4:7-12:

    Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who
    loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not
    know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He
    sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is
    love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning
    sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love
    one another. No one has ever seen God, but if we love one another, God lives in
    us and his love is made complete in us.

    Part 1: Introduction

    Most of you know me as the resident student minister. But I lead a double life. During the week, I work full time as part of the team that manages a website called Canada.com. One of the coolest parts of my job is developing the community tools for the Canada.com network. We’ve got a site called communities.canada.com and it is all about building relationships, communicating with people, sharing pictures and generally having a good time. These types of sites are quite popular on the Internet. These community sites are referred to as “social networking sites”, which is a fancy way of saying “community building”. They foster a lot of great discussion and a lot of relationship building. I have a lot of friends that I have never met in person, thanks to the Internet. And, I have also been able to reconnect with a lot of friends that I haven’t talked to in years, thanks to the Internet.

    Speaking of social networking sites, who has heard of Facebook? I have an account on Facebook. Facebook is all the rage with the kids nowadays. Facebook is one of these “social networking sites”. The thing that I find great with Facebook is that it allows so many people to communicate in such a convenient way. Facebook has this thing called a “Friend List” and it keeps track of how many people have granted you permission to have their name on your “Friend List”. It’s absolutely phenomenal how this feature has led to such incredible growth for Facebook, the company. Think about it: people love to collect things, and what better things to collect than friends! It’s brilliant.

    And recently, Facebook has come out with some new features. One of the new features is a thing called “Top Friends”, which allows you to sub-categorize your friends a little further. Now, you’ve got your main friends list, but you can also give special status to some of those friends as “Favourites”. By the way, for those that have already sent me a notification that I’m on your “Top Friends” list, thank you. I really appreciate it. And, not only can I be categorized within my friends lists, but my friends can also give details about how we know one another. Some of my friends have said that we know each other through work, others through school and others from way back in high school and elementary school.

    It’s great. In this one place, I can get a list of all of the people that I’ve connected with online and I can see where I know them from, how long I’ve known them and what they’re up to now. It makes keeping in touch so easy. It’s been great for me, having a 21 month old and a newborn at home. As those of you that are parents can agree, new parents don’t have a lot of free time for socializing. Facebook’s allowed me to keep in touch with my friends and it’s given me the chance to reconnect with old friends.

    One of the great things that I see going on across Facebook is all of the love that is shared. Here’s one exchange that I saw between one of my friends, and one of their friends on Facebook:

    Friend 1: “heyyyyy <insert friend name here>

    i love you toooooo!!! ♥”

    Friend 2: “no im pretty sure that

    I ♥ YOU MOREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    It’s great to see so much love, don’t you think?

     

    I find it fabulous. And seriously… the Internet has given us the opportunity to build such vibrant online communities that we can participate in. It’s made our communities larger, more diverse and easier to keep in touch with. I have seen countless examples of people sharing their love with one another online. And whether we’re online or offline, it’s easy to find examples of many different kinds of love that can be experienced.

     

    How many of you feel love in a given day? I bet you’re wondering, well… I think I feel love, but is what I’m feeling really love? Let’s take a look at some examples…

     

    I love my mom.

    I love hanging out with my friends at school.

    I love playing football with my friends.

    I love the way he looks in a bathing suit.

    I love him as a person, even though nobody else likes him.

    I love Hank even though he is homeless and others don’t want to be around him.

     

    And we can’t forget about this kind of love:

    Friend 1: “heyyyyy <insert friend name here>

    i love you toooooo!!! ♥”

     

    Friend 2: “no im pretty sure that

    I ♥ YOU MOREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    You can’t tell me that these are all the same kinds of love. And you’re right. When we talk about love, there are many different ways of thinking about love. There are many different categories of love, shall we say. Philosophers and theologians have thought long and hard about the different kinds of love and here’s what the best and brightest thinkers could come up with:

    When we look at these kinds of love, we can break them into three basic categories:

    1. Eros = romantic love
    2. Philia = friendship & family love
    3. Agape = divine love

    So, let’s take a look at each one of these in turn.

    Coming up next: Part 2: EROS – romantic love

  • Is there any difference between pacifism and nonresistance?

    This past week, I received a great question from one of my readers. Thanks Mark for your question. I hope that this response is helpful. Please do drop me an email and let me know what you think.

    Question: In your understanding, is there any difference between pacifism and nonresistance?

    To answer this question, I think it would be best to first define the terms. From there, I’ll answer the question directly.

    Terms:
    Pacifism – “the doctrine that all violence in unjustifiable” (source = Princeton Wordnet)
    Nonresistance – “group refusal to resort to violence even in defense against violence” (source = Princeton Wordnet)
    Nonviolent Resistance – “peaceful resistance to a government by fasting or refusing to cooperate” (source = Princeton Wordnet)

    To me, the terms pacifism and nonresistance are quite similar but I am not sure if I would use them interchangeably. Pacifism is the term typically given to the doctrine or way of life that demands complete nonviolence under any circumstances. Nonresistance, because of the specific word, does have a sense of complete surrender to it. When I hear that term, I hear “no resistance, in any way”. Pacifism, on the other hand, while it does sound like the word “passive”, is not saying the same thing at all. Nonresistance does not necessarily imply the potential for active resistance that is discussed within pacifist situations.

    Nonviolent resistance can derive from either pacifism or nonresistance, but as I mentioned above, nonresistance tends to imply that no resistance is offered, which would negate options such as nonviolent resistance. Examples of nonviolent resistance can include protests, civil disobedience and sabotage.

    Wikipedia provides a great description of nonviolenct resistance:
    “Nonviolent resistance (or nonviolent action) is the practice of applying power to achieve socio-political goals through symbolic protests, civil disobedience, economic or political noncooperation, and other methods, without using violence.” (source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_resistance)

    The Albert Einstein Institution provides a very thorough list of 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action. While some of these will be more favourable to people than others, it does show the wide variety of options available outside of violent response, some of which can be extremely effective.

    So, in a nutshell, I would say that I see a difference between pacifism and nonresistance and the difference is in the nature of passive versus active resistance.

    I’d love to hear other opinions on this one. Please do provide your comments.

    Talk soon,

    Todd

  • What are Christian Pacifists supposed to do?

    Part four in my four part series entitled “What Are We Fighting For?”

    The question then becomes: what are we supposed to do? Do we just continue to turn the other cheek? Definitely. Lead by example. If you claim that you are a disciple of Jesus, then you have to live the part. That means standing up for the principles of Christian living, as they are provided to us in the Bible.

    I think we have to go further though. Others are speaking on our behalf in the public square. Christians are speaking up and saying that war is okay. Christians are speaking up and saying that violence is allowed if it’s in OUR best interests. It is our responsibility to speak up and correct these false assertions about Christianity. Ours is a religion of love and peace, not of war and domination.

    We have so much potential. We live in a land of free speech. We have access to the internet. Blogging is so simple. Writing and publishing books has become a breeze. Organizations like MCC are just waiting to help us channel our energies into positive changes across the world, represented by the healing and loving hand of Jesus.

    We need to embrace our gifts and take advantage of the opportunities available to us to make a difference, to represent our faith in a positive manner and to build a relationship of love and peace throughout the world.

    Let me leave you with this thought as I wrap up:

    Current U.S. expenditures in Iraq (according to Harper’s, Oct 2006):

    • $246 million each day, or more than $10 million an hour
    • direct costs. And those costs continue to grow:
      • $77.3 billion in 2004
      • $87.3 billion in 2005
      • $100.4 billion in fiscal year 2006
    • Estimated that staying in Iraq another four years will cost at least $1 trillion.

    By comparison, Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2007 provided the following numbers required in Afghanistan:

    • Amount raised during a 2006 summit attended by approximately 60 countries with the stated goal of providing economic and military aid to reconstruction efforts: $11 Billion USD
    • Amount required, as per estimated provided by the World Bank and the Afghan government: $28 Billion USD.

    Something is askew when priorities are that far out of whack. Imagine investing those war dollars into the local economies to make them self sufficient? I don’t know about you, but it sure seems like a better use of money than building bombs and bullets that will only further divide all of us.

    Now, it’s important that you don’t just take my word for it. Research the things that we’ve talked about today. Make up your own mind. And if you disagree, I’d love to talk further with you. I have yet to be convinced that the peace position is wrong.

    My hope is that we will be able to work together to raise awareness of the radical reformation that the global Christian church requires sooner rather than later.

    Thank you and God bless each and every one of you.

    Todd Dow

     

  • The Modern Crusader ethic

    Part three in my four part series entitled “What Are We Fighting For?”

    2001 CE: Modern Day “Crusades”

    Here’s a quote taken from late 2001, after the attacks of 9/11:

    “On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that “this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile.” He and other US officials have said that renegade Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden is the most likely suspect in the attacks.”

    (http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html)

    Did I hear that right? Did George Bush use the term “crusade”? Yup. I’ve confirmed this with various sources. He did use the term “crusade.” It seems that we’re right back where we were in 1095 with Pope Urban II and his Holy War. Advanced civilizations? I beg to differ when I see quotes like this one. It’s like we’ve learned nothing from history.

    The problem with the Just War position is that it means different things to different people. One person may justify war in order to defend themselves, but that war is likely to harm other innocent people that were not the target of that justified response. And, both sides in a conflict believe that they are justified in what they are doing. Surely both sides can’t be the “Just” side in the confrontation, can they?

    And, we need look no further than recent history to see the problem of “Just War”: remember the weapons of mass destruction? Well… so much for that justification.

    So the question then becomes: Which justification is the right justification? The US claims to have the moral justification in current world conflicts. But, non-Western people don’t view it that way. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? How do we judge? And, in what ways should we judge? War is so permanent, irreversible, and cripplingly painful to experience. The damage caused by mistakes in judgment are extremely expensive and can rarely be reversed.

    To put it into perspective for you, here’s something to consider:

    A few days ago, I stumbled across a heartrending picture (see my blog post of this event) of an 18 month old Iraqi boy who had been killed after being fired upon by US forces during a street battle in Baghdad’s Sadr City neighborhood in June 2004. The boy, lovingly dressed in his best clothes: a pair of red shorts, a colourful buttoned up short sleeve polo shirt and a pair of sandals, looked like he was dressed to go to church, a family picnic or maybe even to school. In any other setting, he would have been a bright image of sunshine on an otherwise dreary day in Iraq’s war-torn land. But instead, his family was preparing to lay him to rest. I can’t even begin to imagine the pain and frustration that family must have experienced that day, and for many days before and after. I’m sure it’s something that you could never recover from.

    This picture really hit home for me, as I have a young boy myself. It really put into perspective for me how I would feel if one of my loved ones was hurt or killed in such a manner. The picture has repeatedly left me numb, unable to move. I keep thinking of the grief that has been experienced by that family and countless others from the violence that exists in the world today, much of it senseless.

    Perhaps most of all, this picture provides a very real jolt to those that feel removed or disconnected from a conflict occurring far away from our comforts of home.

    While I would like to think that I would have the moral strength to turn the other cheek and to try for a peaceful resolution with those that I felt were responsible, I know that my initial response would be one of anger and seeking revenge. It’s tough not to feel that way with something as permanent as death, especially of the young and innocent among us.

    Can anyone justify any action when it results in loss of life in this way? Does it matter when irreversible damage is being done? Loss of life, loss of hope, loss of civility and respect are all at play here. There is no easy answer.

    Is violent response an appropriate way to honour God? Is violent response an appropriate witness as a Christian? I want to go back to an item that I mentioned at the beginning of this sermon: the image of the baptized soldier, heading off to war in Iraq. What does that image say to you? There are a few tings that I see in that image:

    1. First, the image says to the American soldier: your actions are okay according to God;
    2. Second, it says to the American’s family, watching helplessly at home: your son or daughter will be watched over by God and his or her soul will rest with God should things end badly for them in Iraq;
    3. Third, it says to the rest of the Western World: God is with us on the battlefield. We have God’s backing. Our troops are walking with God in this war;
    4. And Fourth, it says to the enemy: These soldiers are Christian soldiers, marching off to war.

    For a secular society, the United States certainly did frame the “War on Terror” as a religiously supported crusade. Very dangerous indeed.

    And don’t kid yourself. This reflects upon all Christians. Time magazine is a very popular magazine. It is read by a huge cross-section of people every day. Do you feel at all mis-represented by the media in this way? Do you feel that the mainstream media misses the mark when it comes to capturing the spirit of Jesus and his message of peace?

    Coming up next: Part 4: What are we supposed to do?