Welcome to the online home of Tim Challies, blogger, author, and book reviewer.

Tim Challies

Challies on FacebookChallies on Twitter


August 21, 2005

This is the second part in a series examining The Radical Reformission by Mark Driscoll. The first article, which you can read here, served as an introduction to the book. In the introduction to the book, Driscoll introduced himself in a brief biography and then provided three formulas that explain how different churches react to the competing forces of gospel, culture and church. He showed that Gospel + Culture - Church = Parachurch, Culture + Church - Gospel = Liberalism and Church + Gospel - Culture = Fundamentalism. “This book focuses on issues related to the scriptural content of the gospel and the cultural context of its ministry, and I write out of my sincere love as a pastor for Christians, churches, lost people, and culture” (page 22).” You will recall that Driscoll defines Reformission as follows: “a radical call for Christians and Christian churches to recommit to living and speaking the gospel, and to doing so regardless of the pressures to compromise the truth of the gospel or to conceal its power within the safety of the church” (page 20). The goal of Reformission is “to continually unleash the gospel to do its work of reforming dominant cultures and church subcultures” (ibid).

Today we will look at Part 1 of this book, which is comprised of three chapters. I will provide an overview of the content of each of the chapters and then a little bit of analysis. It should be noted that each chapter follows a pattern. Driscoll begins with remembering the teachings of Scripture; he then repents of values, beliefs and behaviors which are sinful; redeems the future by obeying God; and reflects with God through the study of Scripture, both alone and in community with others.

eat, drink and be a merry missionary

Uppercase titles must be a throwback to modernism, as many books meant to appeal to a postmodern generation eschew them, preferring the lowercase. The Radical Reformission features lowercase chapter headings opposite trendy photographs of beer, cappuccinos and the like.

I’ve written two sentences and I am already off-topic. The first chapter is subtitled “imitating the reformission of Jesus.” It begins with a brief and somewhat irreverent overview of the store of redemption as told in the Bible. Here is a small sample. “[God] starts over with another decent guy named Noah, who nevertheless ends up having a bad day, gets drunk and passes out naked in his tent like some redneck on vacation” (page 28). Or again, “And to top it all off, God comes to earth. He has a mom whom everything thinks is a slut, a dad whom they think has the brilliance of a five-watt bulb for believing the “virgin birth” line, and brothers who likely pummel him frequently, because even God would have to get at least one wedgie from his brothers if he were to be fully human. The God-man goes through puberty and likely goes through that weird vocal transition in which, in the course of one syllable, a young man can go from sounding like Barry White to sounding like Cindy Brady.” (page 29).

He goes on to relate a story of when he was challenged by a homosexual friend to visit a gay bar. He went with his friend and learned “that reformission requires Christians and their churches to move forward on their knees, continually confessing their addictions to morality and the appearance of godliness, which does not penetrate the heart and transform lives” (page 35). In short, God does not seek merely to create a team of good and decent people, but to create a movement of loving, holy missionaries who are comfortable around lost sinners and who look far more like Jesus than many pastors do.

Moving on to share the story of “the woman at the well,” Driscoll says that “Reformission is ultimately about being like Jesus, through his empowering grace” (page 39). We have to know that neither the freedom of Christ nor our freedom in Christ is intended to permit us to dance as close to sin as possible without crossing the line. Instead, they are intended to allow us to dance as close to sinners as possible by crossing the lines that seperate the people God has already found from those he continues to seek. Does this mean that Christians are more likely to sin? No, because the way to avoid sin is not to avoid sinners but to stick close to Jesus.

and now, the news

To begin the second chapter, Driscoll tells the reader about Street Talk, the radio program he co-hosted for six years. The hosts boasted that they would never back down from a difficult question. Eventually the show came under fire from within the church when they addressed the issue of oral sex. What he learned from his experience is that “as the gospel moves into new cultures in our day, and as new cultures emerge, we must struggle to sift out what is cultural and what is scriptural” (page 47). He poses a large list of questions that may have been foreign to previous generations, but which Christians must be prepared to answer. Examples are “can I continue being a professional blackjack player now that I am a Christian?” and “Can I get breast implants as my husband’s Christmas gift?”

Driscoll repents for the nostalgia many Christians are prone to adhere to. “A naive romanticism in each of use desperately wants to believe there was a time after Genesis 2 when the world was a wonderful place to live, when things were better and easier than they are today. This powerful delusion enables to excuse our laziness and failure to be about reformission because of the difficult days we live in” (page 50). The truth is, of course, that there have never been “good old days.” The history of the church is one filled with sin and sinners, but with God’s work prevailing nonetheless. Traditionalism, at its best, is informed by a grasp of the best and worst of what Christians have done and believed in the past. At its worst it fail to distinguish between what is biblical and what is cultural, clinging to what is outdated and ineffectual. The result is a church that has all the right answers to all the wrong questions. The opposite to traditionalism, innovation, is equally dangerous, as churches seek relevance at the expense of the gospel.

When the church has removed the stains of traditionalism and innovation, it is ready to contextualize the gospel in a way that is to the content of Scripture and the context of the ministry. Driscoll concludes the chapter by listing several “signposts” that he has found useful in directing people to Jesus. Among them are, “the gospel infuses daily activity with meaning” and “the gospel is about Jesus as the means and end of our salvation” (page 60,61).

shotgun weddings to Jesus

The third chapter discusses evangelism in a reformissional context. What was once considered effective evangelism, methods such as door-to-door and street preaching, are becoming increasingly inappropriate in our cultural context. Driscoll feels that the best approch in our culture is to invite people to see the transformed lives of Christ-followers, for these people are “the greatest argument for, and the greatest explanation of, the gospel” (page 68). He then provides an apologetic for the “belong and believe” mentality popular in emergent churches. Unbelievers are invited to participate in church community and activities and eventually come to faith, perhaps not in a moment, but over time.

Our society seeks experience. We live in an experience economy, where products that are most successful are sold not on the basis of their usefulness, but on the basis of the experience they can provide. But even more than a mere experience, people want to participate in an “immersion experience,” one in which they are not spectators but participants. Thus churches need to allow unbelievers to participate in immersive experiences. For example, “allowing people, while the sermon is being preached, to paint or draw scenes from the sermon text to be displayed after the service, permitting people to come forward for communion when they feel prepared, allowing people in the congregation to call out the songs they would like to sing next, or permitting congregants to interrupt the sermon to ask questions of the preacher” (page 73).

Here, then, are the benefits of reformission evangelism:

  • It blurs the lines between evangelism and discipleship
  • Conversion to Jesus is a conversion of old lifestyles to his mission of reaching the lost.
  • Conversion is more than mental assent to facts, but a conversion of the entire life.
  • Reformission insists that evangelism is more than an activity, but is a lifestyle.

In the “repent” section of this chapter Driscoll repents of self-righteousness and encourages the reader to do the same. He then shows, using various statistics, how people in our society are increasingly desiring community, but at the same time are becoming more and more isolated. “Isn’t it odd,” he asks, “that we are apparently becoming a nation of attractive people who sit at home alone at night with our pets, watching television shows about relationships and taking medication for our depression brought on by our loneliness? Meanwhile, our neighbors, whom we do not know, are spending their evenings in much the same way” (page 82).


There is a lot of content here to consider. Perhaps in the future I should attempt fewer chapters at a time. Regardless, there were a few points of interest I would like to discuss.

First, I am not entirely comfortable with the irreverent summary of Scripture in the first chapter. This seems to me to be an attempt to be cool and engaging more than an effective method of summarizing the history of redemption. Perhaps I am too sensitive about such matters, but I see little benefit in treating biblical truth so flippantly.

Second, Driscoll outlines the pattern he used to begin his church as if it is the Bible’s teaching on church-planting. “When God called me to plant our church, Mars Hill Church, I had worked for nearly two years overseeing a college ministry, but I had never been a pastor or even been an official member of any church. I was unsure of how to begin a church, and so I simply read the Bible and tried to imitate how Jesus gathered the first workers for his ministry. In the opening chapter of John’s gospel, I saw that Jesus began his ministry not with a large crowd, a formal program, or an organized event but rather by informally building friendships with a few men. Once those men trusted him, their friends, family members, and coworkers also became his followers. This simple pattern seemed attainable” (page 66-67). So Driscoll began inviting people into his home and soon gathered what became a growing, thriving congregation.

My concern is that this does not account for the message Jesus brought with him. It would also be difficult to defend this as a normative teaching on the biblical way of beginning a church. Finally, I am not even sure that it is accurate, beyond the statement that Jesus began with a small group of disciples. There seems to be little evidence that Jesus used this “Mary Kay” approach to grow His ministry.

Third, I do not sense a consistent pattern in which Driscoll will address the unanswered question from the first chapter, which is Gospel + Culture + Church = ?. This first section was called “loving your Lord through the gospel” and the second (and final) section is “loving your neighbor in the culture.” I’m wondering if he will adequately explain how reformission provides the solution to the problems presented in the first three formulas.

Fourth, while I understand the emphases on community, mission and relationship that are always present in books of this nature, I am gratified to see there is a real emphasis on theology as well. This is something that has been sorely lacking in many of the other books I have read on this topic. While many giving a passing nod to sound theology, the authors seem to deny this very thing throughout their books. Driscoll clearly seems to appreciate the importance of orthodox theology.

Fifth, I appreciated Driscoll’s comments that the way to avoid sin is not through system of rigid rules and scrupulous conformity to external standards, but through walking closely with Jesus. This is a liberating truth, I am sure. Where I am less sure is that he will give wisdom on “how far is too far.” When does our cultural engagement work against us by denying our profession? Is a visit to a gay bar not a tacit endorsement of the lifestyle and behavior of those present? I foresee a similar concern with the “belong and believe” mentality. At what point do we agree that we cannot allow a person to belong among us? Surely there are times when we need to sever ties with certain people.

Finally, I enjoyed Driscoll’s comments on traditionalism and innovation. I agree that they are equally dangerous and we are prone to adhere to one or the other. He writes about churches that have all the right answers to all the wrong questions. That is a damning indictment of many churches I have seen, as they have the answers only to the questions unbelievers were asking forty or fifty (or one hundred and fifty) years ago. He is equally hard on innovative churches that become so relevant that they are unable to call lost people from or to anything because they have lost what is supposed to make them distinctive.

On the whole I am enjoying the book, but I’m not entirely sure at this point where it is going. I will check in again when I have completed another couple of chapters.

August 21, 2005

As early as this week.

Movabletype 3.2 may be released as early as this week. Six Apart was hoping to release it last week, but opted instead to go with one final beta release (Beta 5) which is available right now. They warn that the beta should not be used on a live site. I am looking forward to the new software as it provides some new tools which will be most helpful. Primarily I am looking forward to the new Spam protection which will allow me to moderate trackbacks, which in turn will allow the trackback feature to return to the sidebar. I am a tad nervous that it will tamper with some of the plugins I use, and most notably the forum integration plugin.

August 21, 2005

“Move over, politics. Americans are looking for personal, ecstatic experiences of God, and, according to our poll, they don’t much care what the neighbors are doing.” So says Newsweek in the first line of the feature article in the latest issue of the magazine. I think it would be safe to say that many professed Christians are seeking the same. “ ‘Young people got tired of hearing that once upon a time people experienced God directly,’ says historian Martin E. Marty of the University of Chicago. ‘They want it to happen for themselves. They don’t want to hear that Joan of Arc had a vision. They want to have a vision.’” Many forms of religion are only too happy to provide that type of experience. The article goes on to point to Catholicism, Buddhism, Islam, Kabbalah, Wicca and Pentecostalism. Each of these is able to provide the type of ecstasy that Americans are seeking after.

On one hand it is exciting that Americans are seeking after a personal experience with the Divine. That is an experience that Christianity can and does provide. Christianity is the first faith that offered a personal experience with God - to know Him in a deep, intimate personal way, and at the same time to be known by Him. It may not be exactly what people expect, but as long-time believers we are prone to forget just how powerful an experience it is to be indwelt by the Spirit of God.

What Christianity cannot truly provide is the type of ecstatic experiences many people desire. Christianity is a religion where we are never encouraged or expected to take leave of our senses. The ecstasy that is found in the techniques of Eastern meditation or in the wild dancing and yelling of pagan religions is completely foreign to the Bible. And yet many Christians try to blend religious experiences. The article mentions Ron Cox, a New Yorker who left his Southern Baptist Church and tried and rejected Hinduism and Buddhism before experiencing a Pentecostal worship service. “he was trans—fixed by the sight of worshipers so moved by the Holy Spirit that they were jumping, shouting and falling to the floor in a faint. Soon he, too, was experiencing the ecstasy of the Holy Spirit. Once, it seemed to lift him right out of his body: ‘I felt the Spirit come upon me, and it was an overwhelming presence. It was bliss. I thought only 10 or 15 minutes had passed, but three hours had gone by. And I remember just shouting, ‘Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah!’ ‘” This type of experience may be produced in the name of God and with fleeting reference to the Bible, but this is not what God desires of us.

In our day it is increasingly important that we know what God expects and allows in worship. He has not kept silent when it comes to his expectations of our worship. The Bible is filled with godly wisdom that instructs us how we can worship Him in spirit and truth. Let’s not lose sight of this as our culture becomes increasingly desirous of experience that we cannot provide if we are to remain faithful to our Guide.

The article concludes with the type of line we have come to expect in a postmodern society. “So let us say together: Hallelujah! Praise the Lord! Sh’ma Yisrael. Allahu Akbar. Om. And store up the light against the darkness.” After all, Americans agree that all (or most) roads ultimately lead to the same destination. And they are right: most do. Thankfully, God has seen fit to show us the one road, the narrow road, that runs straight to Him.

You can read Newsweek’s article here.

August 18, 2005

In what is destined to be a failed marketing tactic, the Toronto Sun, a Toronto newspaper (remember newspapers - those odd book-like objects we used to read before we had high-speed Internet access) has been dropping their Sunday edition on my doorstep. This is one of those tabloid-esque newspapers that culminates on the final page with a nearly-naked woman (The Sunshine Girl). The final interior page is always a picture of a bikini-clad woman along with a little bio to try to convince the reader that there is more to her than an airbrushed body. Based on childhood memories (when bikini-clad pictures in newsprint held far more allure than they do today) the average bio reads, “Sparky is a capricorn who enjoys hot coffee, cold ice cream and long walks along the beach. She is currently a bartender but hopes to someday be a marine biologist. She would never, ever, ever date someone like you, so don’t even bother.” Somewhere in the paper there is also a Sunshine Boy - perhaps stuck among the fifteen or twenty pages of “adult only” advertisements. He always looks like he was clipped from a WalMart catalog and is there only to ward off charges of sexism. At any rate, this paper is an absolute rag.

When I returned home from the cottage on the weekend, I found newspapers all over my front step. I had asked me neighbour to collect the mail, which he did, but for some reason he must have thought that our verbal contract did not include the collection of newspapers. Perhaps he is unionized. I took all the newspapers and tossed them into the recycling pile without giving them as much as a second glance. This morning I was taking out some really horrible-smelling trash (did you know that cucumbers can liquify if left in the fridge long enough?) a headline on the cover of the Sun caught my eye. The front page had a picture of two straight men with the caption “Straight to the Altar.” Below the picture it said, “Best pals Bryan Pinn, left, and Bill Dalryimple are definitely not gay, but they’re planning on getting married to take advantage of the tax benefits.”

Wow. I have to admit that when the Canadian government dismantled marriage I did not see it falling so far, so quickly. The story begins:

What’s love got to do with it?

Bill Dalrymple, 56, and best friend Bryan Pinn, 65, have decided to take the plunge and try out the new same-sex marriage legislation with a twist — they’re straight men.

“I think it’s a hoot,” Pinn said.

The proposal came last Monday on the patio of a Toronto bar amid shock and laughter from their friends. But the two — both of whom were previously married and both of whom are still looking for a good woman to love — insist that after the humour subsided, a real issue lies at the heart of it all.

“There are significant tax implications that we don’t think the government has thought through,” Pinn said.

Dalrymple has been to see a lawyer already and there are no laws in marriage that define sexual preference.

The great irony in this story is that Toronto lawyer Bruce Walker, a gay and lesbian rights activist, has issued a warning in defense of marriage. “Generally speaking,” he says, “marriage should be for love. People who don’t marry for love will find themselves in trouble.” The irony is palpable.

As a lawyer and activist Walker worked tirelessly to dismantle the God-given plan for marriage and replace it with a fraudulent shadow of what it ought to be. God, as Creator, defined marriage as the union between one man and one woman. End of story. We have no right to tamper with this God-given ordinance.

The term “homosexual marriage” is an oxymoron, and a tragic one at that. A heterosexual marriage of fiscal convenience is no better. In Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, Al Mohler writes, “The fact that homosexual marriage is even an issue for public debate demonstrates that we are a civilization in crisis, because a great many barriers must be breached in order to put this question on the cultural agenda. Firewalls, traditions, habits, and convictional practices must fall before marriage can be redefined and utterly transformed by the inclusion of same-sex relationships” (page 105). Mohler correctly states that at the very heart of this debate is an attitude of moral rebellion that seeks to bring confusion to the God-given order of nature and that seeks to redesign human sexuality.

And now that we have tampered with God’s design for marriage, confusion reigns. Marriage has been taken from a sacred institution and been made into a mockery.

Bruce Walker, always the postmodernist, concludes with that hallmark of postmodern thought - feigned tolerance. “Walker isn’t personally insulted by the planned Pinn-Dalrymple union because he believes in personal freedoms and rights.” But don’t forget his warning that marriage should be about love. Katie who blogs at Outside the Beltway writes, “Having convinced a majority of Canadian MP’s that the ‘ability to procreate’ isn’t a defining characteristic of ‘marriage’, tell me - -what’s so damned special about ‘love’?”

Postscript - Rumor has it that after the story was printed the men decided to call off their union. I do not know if they merely wanted their fifteen minutes of fame or if they truly were planning to get married. Perhaps they still are. Regardless, this story highlights what can and no doubt will happen now that we have redefined marriage.

August 17, 2005

Canada may be unique as a nation that has two official national anthems. I was too lazy to do the legwork to find if there are any other nations with two, but I suspect there are not. To add to the strangeness, both of Canada’s anthems are entitled “O Canada.” Many people erroneously spell “O” as “Oh.” In reality the “O” is used as a vocative to apostrophize Canada and rather than as an exclamation. But most people prefer it as an exclamation.

O Canada was proclaimed to be Canada’s official anthem on July 1, 1980 (July 1 being Canada Day). Yet it was first sung almost exactly 100 years earlier. The music was composed by Calixa Lavallée who at that time was a well-known composer. But, as we know, popularity is fleeting and I’d guess you do not have any of his albums in your collection. The lyrics were written in French. Though it was well received on the occasion it was first performed, it had little immediate impact beyond that evening. Here is the song as it was first composed. For those who do not speak French, I’ve included a rough English translation:

Ô Canada ! Terre de nos aïeux,
Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux !
Car ton bras sait porter l’épée,
Il sait porter la croix;
Ton histoire est une épopée
Des plus brillants exploits.
Et ta valeur de foi trempée
Protégera nos foyers et nos droits;
Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.

O Canada! Home of our ancestors,
Your brow is wreathed with glorious garlands!
Just as your arm knows how to wield the sword,
It also knows how to bear the cross;
Your history is an epic
Of the most brilliant feats.
And your valour steeped in faith
Will protect our homes and our rights;
Will protect our homes and our rights.

In 1908, Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson, a Toronto doctor, completed a translation into English. A quick look at the lyrics will show why we no longer use this particular version.

O Canada! Our fathers’ land of old
Thy brow is crown’d with leaves of red and gold.
Beneath the shade of the Holy Cross
Thy children own their birth
No stains thy glorious annals gloss
Since valour shield thy hearth.
Almighty God! On thee we call
Defend our rights, forfend this nation’s thrall,
Defend our rights, forfend this nation’s thrall.

“Forfend this nation’s thrall?” I’m sure God is eager and willing to do that, but I can’t recall the last time I used either “forfend” or “thrall”, which incidentally mean “ward off” and “slavery” or “bondage.”

That same year Robert Stanley Weir, a lawyer living in Montreal, penned another adaptation that eventually formed the basis for the song as we know it today.

O Canada! Our home and native land!
True patriot love thou dost in us command.
We see thee rising fair, dear land,
The True North, strong and free;
And stand on guard, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee.
O Canada! O Canada!
O Canada! We stand on guard for thee.
O Canada! We stand on guard for thee.

The version that was official adopted in 1980 is quite similar.

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

Thus we have two official national anthems, one written in French and one in English. It must be noted that the lyrics of these songs, even when translated to the same language, bear little resemblance to each other. Beyond the first two words there is little correlation in language or underlying themes.

It is also interesting to note that while the songs are written in different languages, they were also written by men of different theological backgrounds. The English version is Protestant and emphasizes hard work and duty. The French version, written by a Roman Catholic, emphasizes history and national glory.

Today it is common for performances of the anthem to mix the French and English versions of the song. This leads to a rather interesting mixture of thoughts that actually makes the song seem quite militaristic.

O Canada! Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
Just as your arm knows how to wield the sword,
It also knows how to bear the cross;
Your history is an epic
Of the most brilliant feats.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

In recent years the song has come under attack from various parties who claim that the anthem is either sexist or too religious. Some have suggested removing the words “in all the sons command” to “in all of us command.” Others have suggested ways of removing the references to God. So far these suggestions have met with resistance, but it is likely only a matter of time before the changes are made. After all, this is the nation that has legalized homosexual marriage and has decriminalized marijuana. We’re on the forefront of political correctness.

In How To Be A Canadian, Will and Ian Ferguson suggest that a defining characteristic of Canadians is that they do not know their own anthem. Certainly they do not loudly sing it with pride as do our American neighbours. “First lesson as a newcomer to Canada: Whatever you do, do not learn the words to ‘O Canada’! Nothing will mark you as an outsider more quickly. Canadians don’t know the words to their national anthem, and neither should you.”

So there you have it. Canada has two official national anthems. It’s a fact, eh?

August 17, 2005

“It’s A Fact, Eh?” is a new occasional series I am beginning today. In this series I will introduce various interesting and factual aspects of Canadian life and culture (and yes, both exist in this nation).

“And the Gileadites captured the fords of the Jordan against the Ephraimites. And when any of the fugitives of Ephraim said, “Let me go over,” the men of Gilead said to him, “Are you an Ephraimite?” When he said, “No,” they said to him, “Then say Shibboleth,” and he said, “Sibboleth,” for he could not pronounce it right. Then they seized him and slaughtered him at the fords of the Jordan. At that time 42,000 of the Ephraimites fell” (Judges 12:5-6).

Perhaps the most distinctive mark of a Canadian is his use of the word eh. While the word itself is not distinctly Canadian, its usage is. The right usage of eh is a Canadian Shibboleth - a way of immediately identifying a person as a Canadian or as a fraud. In their book How To Be A Canadian, Ian and Will Ferguson write, “Eh? is what seperates Canadians from the unwashed, envious hordes outside their national boundaries. (You know who you are.) Eh? is the secret password, the cross-Canada countersign, a two-letter, single-syllable symphony that takes years of diligent study to master. It must flow naturally into the sentence. It must never stand out, never call attention to itself - and yet must remain inextricably linked to the harmonial whole. It should trip melodiously off the tongue.”

Many people erroneously assume that the Canadian eh? is equivalent to the American huh?, but this is simply not the case. Many Americans feel that they know all about eh simply because they have watched a few clips of Bob and Doug McKenzie. Again, this is not true. Proper usage of the word can only be gained through complete absorption in Canadian culture.

Wikipedia defines eh as “a spoken interjection.” That does not do it justice. According to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary the only usage of eh that is peculiar to Canada is for “ascertaining the comprehension, continued interest, agreement, etc., of the person or persons addressed” as in, “It’s four kilometres away, eh?, so I have to go by bike.” Similarly, “It’s nine-o’clock, eh?” means “You do know that it’s nine o’clock? You are aware that it’s nine-o’clock?”.

In that case, eh is used to confirm the attention of the listener and to invite a supportive noise such as “Mm” or “Oh” or “Okay”. It essentially is an interjection meaning, “I’m checking to see you’re listening so I can continue.”

It is important to note that eh is always, always spoken as a question. There are no declarative eh’s - they are all questioning. Also, usage of the word must be completely naturally. If you have to think about it, you’re probably using it improperly.

Eh can also be added to the end of a declarative sentence to turn it into a question. For example: “The weather is nice.” becomes “The weather is nice, eh?” I believe that this usage points to an ingrained Canadian insecurity and tendency to duck any question. “The weather is nice, right? Because if you don’t think so, that’s okay too.” It is also a good way of encouraging conversation, as if to say, “The weather is nice, right? Don’t you agree? Wouldn’t you like to discuss this while we wait for the bus?”

Depending on the speaker’s tone or the dialectal standard, eh can also be perceived as rude or impolite, as “Repeat that!”, and not a request. If I were to say, “The weather is nice, eh?” and were to receive no response, I might then say, “The weather is nice, EH?” to try to force the person into replying. Eh? implies that I am looking for some type of response.

Further examples of Canadian usage include: “I know, eh?” This expresses agreement. “The Leafs look like they are going to win the Cup this year, eh?” “I know, eh?” I could also say, “Yeah, eh?” to express my agreement.

The Ferguson brothers believe that the quintessential Canadian question is “Why not, eh? “ ‘Why not, eh?’ is a phrase at once plaintive and cajoling, and Canada is a nation of cajolers, the Land of the Hedged Bet. All that talk about the “national genius for compromise” is just a bunch of hooey. Canadians don’t negotiate - they cajole. What was Confederation itself, if not the Cajoling of a nation? No burning slogans. No guillotines. No oppressed masses yearing to be rich. Nope, the fathers of our nation sweet-talked their way into a union.” Why not, eh?

So there you have it. While many nations use some variation of eh, the Canadian usage is unique and deeply-ingrained in Canadian consciousness. It is such a part of Canadian identity that rumors abound that Canada Customs and Immigration use it as an identifying clue when interviewing people at our borders.

It’s a fact, eh?

August 16, 2005

As a way of supporting the growing costs of this site, I am now offering web hosting through an affiliate program with the company that hosts my sites. Prices for a feature-laden hosting package begin as low as $6.95 per month! But to make the deal all that much sweeter, I am offering a $20 Amazon gift certificate to anyone who signs up through my site. And as an added bonus, I’ll even install your choice of WordPress or Movabletype to this site (if you intend to use the site for blogging).

Here are just a few of the features included in the package:

  • 3 GB (3000 MB) of storage space (increased from 2 GB)
  • Free domain name
  • 50 GB monthly transfer limit
  • 500 Email accounts
  • Full CGI-BIN access
  • PHP
  • MYSQL Database
  • Full Web statistics package

If you would like to see the complete list of features and find out more information, click here.

August 16, 2005

I have just begun reading The Radical Reformission by Mark Driscoll. Mark is known as being on the Conservative fringe of the Emerging Church. He must at least somewhat orthodox because he invited John Piper to deliver several messages at the 2004 “Radical Reformission Conference.” Don Elbourne listened to the audio and wrote, “John Piper, the key note speaker, delivered three sessions saturated with Christ-centered, God exalting, relevant, practical theology. I admit being already partial to Piper as a recent enthusiastic convert to Christian Hedonism, but I must say I don’t think I’ve ever heard Piper more radically poignant. He tackled current issues such as Greg Boyd’s Open Theology, N. T. Write’s New Perspective on Paul, popular misconceptions about Calvinism and Evangelism, communicating the truth of the gospel in a postmodern culture, and more. He titled his three messages, ‘The Whole Glory of God: Governing and Knowing All that Will Come to Pass,’ ‘The Whole Glory of Christ: Imputation and Impartation of His Righteousness,’ and ‘The Whole Glory of the Gospel of God: From Him, Through Him, and to Him.’ Well worth the listen.”

I thought it might be interesting to examine this book in some detail. I may not provide a synopsis for each chapter, but I would like to do more than simply write a review when I have finished reading it.

Today I’ll introduce the introduction (so to speak). It begins with a short biography of sorts. Driscolls tells a little bit about his childhood and his conversion during college. After graduating he worked in Christian radio for six years before beginning Mars Hill Church in urban Seattle. He later co-founded the Acts 29 Church Planting Network which has started over 100 churches in eight countries during a five-year period.

After introducing himself, he begins to introduce his Reformission. Driscoll defines Reformission as “a radical call for Christians and Christian churches to recommit to living and speaking the gospel, and to doing so regardless of the pressures to compromise the truth of the gospel or to conceal its power within the safety of the church” (page 20). The goal of Reformission is “to continually unleash the gospel to do its work of reforming dominant cultures and church subcultures” (ibid).

These three forces, gospel, church and culture, form a triangular relationship. Reformission begins with a return to Jesus who saves us by His grace and sends us to be missionaries to our world. Jesus has called us to “(1) the gospel (loving our Lord), (2) the culture (loving our neighbour), and (3) the church (loving our brother)” (ibid). Tragically, Driscoll asserts, one of the main causes of the failure to fulfill our mission has come by being faithful to only one or two of these counts.

Driscoll provides three formulas to show what happens when one of these areas is neglected:

    Gospel + Culture - Church = Parachurch

Many Christians become frustrated with the church and abandon it in favor of outside organizations. While these organizations can do a lot of good, they allow people to remain disconnected from the local church. People are connected to unbelievers, but outside of a context where they can introduce these people to the wider church body. This in turns leads to theological immaturity (and I would assert it also leads to a greater possibility of theological error). Further, parachurch organizations are often organized around only one type of person (the poor, youth, etc) so they do not display the diversity of the body of Christ.

    Culture + Church - Gospel = Liberalism

Some churches are so concerned with being culturally relevant that they neglect the gospel. These people convert others to the church but not to Jesus. Driscoll says that “This is classic liberal Christianity, and it exists largely in the dying mainline churches” (page 21). Many conservative Christians would also suggest that much of the Emergent church fits into this category, having forsaken the gospel in favor of culture and community. These people run the risk of loving their neighbour at the expense of loving God.

    Church + Gospel - Culture = Fundamentalism

Some churches care more for the church, its traditions, buildings and politics than the spread of the gospel. While they know the theology of the gospel they rarely take it to the people. We can wonder whether these people love the lost as much as they love their buildings and traditions.

Driscoll claims that Reformission gathers the best aspects of each of these types of Christianity: “living in the tension of being Christian and churches who are culturally liberal yet theologically conservative and who are driven by the gospel of grace to love their Lord, brothers, and neighbours. This book focuses on issues related to the scriptural content of the gospel and the cultural context of its ministry, and I write out of my sincere love as a pastor for Christians, churches, lost people, and culture” (page 22).


In reading this chapter I was struck primarily by Driscoll’s affirmation of the centrality of the gospel. This seems to differ significantly from some other leaders within the Emergent church who seem to fit squarely in Driscoll’s category of Liberalism. I take this as a positive sign. I also appreciated the three forumlas he presented as they seem to make good sense. I was immediately able to think of individuals and churches that fit into each of the three categories. I will reserve further comment until I have read more of the book.

August 15, 2005

Most people know that when they set foot in a grocery store they are being manipulated. Grocery store merchandising has become something of a science. The stores know exactly what you need and how to convince you that what you came to purchase is not enough. They know how to encourage you to leave a few more of your hard-earned dollars in their tills.

One way we know that stores do this is that the general layout for most big grocery stores is remarkably similar. In fact, the four stores I frequent in Oakville are nearly identical in layout. Produce is closest to the entrance and extends along one side of the store. The bakery is in the corner. Milk, eggs and meat are along the back, and one of them is always in the far corner, directly opposite the produce. The aisles contain an eclectic, seemingly-irrational collection of products - dog food is on the same aisle as storage solutions, soup is with the ketchup, and so on.

Stores are laid out both deliberately and predictably to ensure that the customer has to walk from one end to the other to purchase even a few basic items. The vast majority of shoppers will first walk the perimeter of the store, picking up the standard items, before beginning to walk up-and-down the aisles to purchase those items that are less common. A simple shopping list of potatoes, apples, bread, beef, eggs, milk and ice cream would take the person to the four corners of the store. Add crackers, cookies, chips and soft drinks and the customer will also have walked along most of the aisles.

It is important to have the customer walk this distance for one simple and obvious reason. The more items he walks past, the more likely he is to put one or two of them into his cart. We all know how easy it is to walk out of a store with far more items than we expected.

The people responsible for marketing within grocery stores know that consumers operate in predictable patterns. Because of this, we are exceedingly easy to manipulate. Most stores have several items which they consider “loss leaders” - items that are discounted to the point that the stores make no money from them or perhaps even lose a little bit. But these items are guaranteed to draw consumers to the store and not only that, but to draw them to a certain part of the store. Near these loss-leaders may be other products that are on sale - products which boast high profit margins. You see, stores do more than simply ensure that the customer is walking from end-to-end. They place items that are about to expire on the ends of aisles to encourage the consumer to help keep their shelves stocked with fresh food. Sometimes they offer these at a discount, while other times they simply make the customer believe that they are offering them at a discount. I have seen items marked as being on sale when they were actually cheaper the week before. High-priced brand name items are placed at eye level, while the cheaper generic ones are placed closer to the floor where they are less likely to be seen.

You get the idea. This is simple, entry-level marketing. More advanced marketing would include pricing, colors, advanced layouts and so on. And of course grocery stores are only one example of this type of marketing. Almost any store, and especially the chains, employ similar tactics. When I worked for Starbucks (many years ago) we had specific patterns we were to follow when placing the bags of prepackaged coffee on the shelves. The same was true of the travel mugs, chocolate-covered coffee beans, and nearly everything else. Members of the marketing team were known to randomly check stores to ensure employees were following these rules.

The fact is that when we walk into stores we are being manipulated. We know this, but usually are apathetic towards it. While we may spend a few dollars more than we had hoped to, it is simply one price we pay to live in a consumeristic society.

But how do we feel when we realize that many churches operate in a similar fashion?

As I stated earlier, the foundation of most marketing is that humans operate in predictable patterns. Marketers study these patterns and learn how they can use them to their advantage to convince us to buy their product. Essentially, they are trying to convince us to make an exchange with them - our money for their product or service.

The same patterns that drive marketing in grocery stores can be applied by churches. We see this most clearly in the Church Growth Movement (CGM). Church marketers have studied us and decided how they can convince us to become part of a church. They know that most people approach churches in a similar way to a grocery store - they are seeking a fair exchange. If the church can convince people that it offers enough, and that it will meet their needs, they will make an exchange of their time, talent and perhaps even their money. It would seem that this has been very successful, as many CGM-based churches have experienced incredible growth.

But there is something troublesome about this. There is something troublesome about manipulating people to become part of a church. Does this not discount the role of the Spirit? If humans are so predictable that they can be convinced of just about anything, what need to we have for the Holy Spirit? Are these people filling the pews of the mega-churches truly saved? Or have they been manipulated into feeling they are Christians when in reality they are simply consumers?

Christianity is not a faith based on exchange. We do not exchange anything with God in order to be saved. It is only the empty hand of faith to which God will extend His grace. I fear that when we allow exchange to become a foundation for our churches we are allowing a consumer mindset to creep in that will create churches filled not with true believers, but with customers, and pulpits that will be filled not by preachers, but by marketers.

August 12, 2005

Earlier this week I posted an article about Christians and movie-watching. The article garnered a fair amount of attention and there were plenty of comments and trackbacks. I was surprised to see that most people who commented actually agreed with me. A few took the other side. One called me a neo-puritan. I kind of like that, so feel free to call me that whenever you like. I’ve been called far worse!

Yesterday I was finishing up Sex, Romance, and the Glory of God by C.J. Mahaney. While the book is written primarily for and about men, the final chapter is written by the author’s wife, Carolyn, and is targetted at women. Carolyn wrote a section called “Make No Provision for the Flesh” which seemed appropriate to this topic. I will provide a few paragraphs for your reading enjoyment:

“But now your family is finally asleep, and you want to escape from all the unpleasantness of your day. So you flip on the TV ‘just to see what’s on.’ A show piques your interest, and you pause with your finger on the remote. Although you know this program can be vulgar at times, it’s the only amusing thing on, and you think you deserve a little leisure time. You promptly dismiss your conscience and settle down to enjoy yourself.

“This scenario I’ve just described may or may not be a familiar temptation to you. Regardless, Scripture teaches that we all have areas where we are susceptible. In Romans 13:14 we read: ‘Put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.’ In response to this verse, each of us needs to ask: When, where, and with whom are we most tempted to accomodate our flesh and gratify its desires?

“Now I am not insinuating that rest or leisure activities are sinful. God’s Word actually requires us to rest, and there are many God-honoring activities that provide us with refreshment!

“However, I am insisting from God’s Word that we never indulge our sinful desires in our recreational pursuits. For example, we should not read anything, view anything, or listen to anything that arouses impure thoughts or compromises our biblical convictions. That would be sinful!

“Observe David’s commitment in Psalm 101:2-3 (NIV): ‘I will walk in my house with blameless heart. I will set before my eyes no vile thing.’ The psalmists resolve was sweeping - no vile thing. Notice also that David determined to walk with a blameless heart at home. As Charles Spurgeon once said: ‘What we are at home, that we are indeed.’

“So can we say like David, ‘I will walk in my house with blameless heart’? Have we purposed not to see, read, or hear any vile thing? Or are we taking liberties where we shouldn’t? Do we watch any unwholesome movies or television programs? Do we read worthless materials - such as romance novels or magazines - that tempt us to sinful fantasies? Do we listen to ungodly music that stirs up impure thoughts? If we answered yes to any one of these three questions, we must expunge these practices from our lifestyle” (pages 113-114).

I think Carolyn speaks with great wisdom. Perhaps she is a fellow neo-Puritan. When we watch movies or participate in other recreational activities, no matter what they be, do we do so from a desire to heed God’s requirement that we rest, or do we do so from impure motives? Do we do so to indulge our sinful desires? Just a couple of days ago I wrote an article which examined the depth of my own depravity and my own propensity towards evil. Evil always seems to draw me to itself. When I watch movies, do I watch them to indulge these sinful desires which are always lurking just under the surface of my life? Am I drawn to movies by my old man, or by the new man?

Can I say with David that I have a blameless heart and that I have set before my eyes no vile thing? Or do I purposely, recklessly set before my eyes all manner of vile things and perhaps even do so in the name of growth and godliness? Is it possible for me to put on the Lord Jesus and to make no provision for the flesh, while at the same time I seek to indulge my flesh? What I am at home, that is what I am indeed. What I am in the darkness of a movie theatre is what I am indeed. What I am when no one is looking is a clear indication of my character and the extent of my pursuit of godliness. What do these moments say about me?