God is not a man.

Once when I was in my teen aged years my father (who was the pastor of all the churches I ever grew up in) was doing a summer sermon series called "You asked for it." The people of the congregation submitted topics/scriptures that they would like to learn more about.

In a fit of genius I anonymously suggested the topic of "the femininity of God." I assumed that when my father came home from work after reading the suggested topics of that Sunday he would mention it around the supper table, I'd confess my silliness, and we'd all have a good laugh. However, several weeks into summer, when my father was starting his sermon for that Sunday all of a sudden I realized that he was reading my suggestion... he was actually going to preach on... the femininity of God!

Of course, what followed was a sermon on how God is the creator of gender and is not subject to it Himself. Both genders equally reflect aspects of His nature as both genders were created in his image.

Despite the fact that this is somewhat common knowledge within Christian circles there has been quite the controversy surrounding the various portrayals of God in William P. Young's book, The Shack.

In Young's book God the Father is portrayed as both a man and (primarily) as a woman... a lot of people say they think of Aunt Jemima based on his description of her

... mmmm, pancakes...

Anyway, I've sometimes wondered if God had chosen to reveal Himself (yes, I still use the traditional masculine language) through a matriarchal society rather than a patriarchal society of the Ancient Near East if He would have revealed Himself as primarily feminine.

Acknowledging that this is completely speculative, what do you think?

At this point in my theological life I am fairly confident that God's self revelation to humanity as primarily male has everything to do with the cultures to which He was revealing Himself and little to do with gender itself... like I already said, God created both genders in His image. God is hyper-gender.

There is a theological concept called Accommodation. It is the idea that God uses certain means to make connections with people for specific purposes. The means He uses doesn't box God in to be limited to those means...

For example (and remember that we're talking about "God the Father" here:

God is not a burning bush... He just revealed Himself to Moses as one in order to evoke a certain reaction.

God is not pillar of fire.

God is not a pillar of cloud.

God is not a still small voice.

God is not a man... or a woman.

God is not a lot of things.

What other images of God does the Bible provide us that "God is not ..."?

The fact is that in order to grasp the concept of GOD we need something to hold on to. We can't grasp the Godliness of God and so God accommodates Himself to us by revealing Himself to us in varying ways.

Does that make sense to you?

Christ, our Diamond Willow

Throughout the wild and rough places of the Canadian prairies can be found, from time to time, willow trees and shrubs that can be called "diamond willow." Diamond willows have distinctive and beautiful knots. Every knot has a unique "diamond" shape to it. At least six different varieties of willow display this unusual diamond knotting. You can see two examples of diamond willow below:

According to the ever reliable Wikipedia "...Diamond willow is willow distinctively shaped as the result of attack by fungus (Valsa sordida, and possibly others), which has resulted in a diamonding effect occurring in the wood of the shrub or tree as the tree forms cankers, or diamonds (elongated ovals with pointed ends), in response to the infection..."

This is another profound example for us from nature that "what doesn't kill you only makes you..." well, in this case, better looking. I kind of doubt that these diamond knots make the tree any stronger, but you get the point.

Just like the pearl, the beautiful stone that is born out of pain and adversity (for the clam), the diamond willow takes the fungus that life throws at it and turns it into something rare and beautiful.

Some people say, “when life gives you lemons, make lemonade.”

I say, “when life gives you fungus, make diamonds.”

Can you think of other examples of this principle that God has given us?

In the book, “The Shack” author William P. Young makes note of the fact that in Revelation 21:21 we see that the gates for New Jerusalem are made out of single pearls. He then connects that to Jesus through whom is the only way into the Kingdom of God.

Christ, through his suffering, made something rare and beautiful possible, hence the pearls as the way into God's New Creation. I think the gates of the New Jerusalem should be made out of Diamond Willow... not that I'm complaining or anything.

What do you think about this connection?
What did you think about The Shack?

How was that for you dad? Do you have any more leading questions?

Teaching Luxury

By now I'm sure you all know that I'm a giant nerd so I suppose I have nothing to hide.

Lately I've been watching Ray Mears' documentary series, "World of Survival." In this series he travels around the world and spends time with people groups that still live off the land and he learns about their survival skills. He covers a lot of ground; from the Inuit in northern Labrador to tribes in the Amazon, head-hunters in Indonesia, and the Aborigines in the Australian Outback. I think it's pretty sweet.

Anyway, I was recently watching an episode on a tribe of nomadic people in Siberia. You can watch the pertinent clip here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yicexqTSKi4 . As a parent I was intrigued by the section from about 0:20-1:30.
Ray's comment about the children only rarely crying really struck me. According to the prominent Western worldview you'd think that if anyone had something to cry about those kids would have it.

Just think about it... these kids live in SIBERIA. And then on top of that they have no toys, no 'home' (just a big canvas tent), nothing but the most basic of foods, and get tossed around on the back of a reindeer for hours/days at a time.

Yet they seem completely content.

That got me thinking. They have no sense of luxury and thus make no demands for it.

How often do I ask Kaleb, "What do you want?" By doing this am I giving him the opportunity for discontent?

To what extent should I, as a parent, say "this is what you can have" rather than "is this what you would like?"

Juanita and I have had a number of discussions around this topic even before we had Kaleb, but I'd like your take on it.

Do we teach/instill the concept of luxury on our children?
...on ourselves?


And here are a few pictures of my progress making Diamond Willow walking sticks. Below is a big staff parially stripped of its bark.
On the left is a completed Walking Stick that my dad gave me a few years back. In the middle is one of mine that has been completely stripped and partially sanded. On the right is the big staff stripped of all its bark except for the 'diamond' knots.

I'd rather be Hunting

Unfortunately I don't have any amazing insights for you this week. I'm out at Bethany taking a modular class, "Science and Faith." After spending all day in the same class I have no more brains left to share with you so instead you get this:

Last Saturday morning a few friends and I went out goose hunting in the Glenbush area about two hours north-west of Saskatoon. It was our first time out and we had a great time!
For newbies we did pretty good; I've got a freezer full of goose breast to prove it! So if you have any good recipes for goose or duck let me know:)

Pizza Sangre

Here's a video by Marc Craste that's more than a little artsy and kinda surreal. In an interview he basically said the idea for these shorts was the question, "what if TVs lived according to what is shown on them?"

**Warning: the following contains gratuitous violence**



What do you think?
Interesting? Ironic?
Pointless?
Purposely Pointless (like TV)?

The Mystery of Faith

In what little spare time I've had recently I've been reading through G.K. Chesterton's oft-overlooked classic, "Orthodoxy." Published in 1908, Orthodoxy is Chesterton's view of apologetics (along with "Heretics" which I haven't read).


What I've been struck by as I've read this book is how countercultural Chesterton's views were. He was writing in the midst of the height of modernity. The "Myth of Progress" was in full swing and yet Chesterton says, "I freely confess all the idiotic ambitions of the end of the nineteenth century. I did, like all other solemn little boys, try to be in advance of the age. Like them I tried to be some ten minutes in advance of the truth. And I found that I was eighteen hundred years behind it..." (Chesterton 4). What modern Englishman would ever call the enlightenment ambitions "idiotic"?



He almost sounds like a postmodernist!



While he doesn't reject reason and logic outright he says that they need to be balanced by mysticism. “Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity” (Chesterton 23).


Orthodoxy is Chesterton's call for Christians to regain the mystery and adventure of Christianity. Stories say that Chesterton, a big fat jolly man, walked everywhere with a sword-cane (a walking stick with a sword hidden in the handle) just in case he ran into an adventure!



Do we as Christians need to regain our sense of adventure?
... of mystery?
What might that look like?