Skip to main content


I just finished my first week of classes for the winter term. Slammed is how I usually feel after the first class where we hear everything that will be required of us over the next few months. Multiply that times 3. The prof tonight suggested that we read a 700 page historical account of the reformation over the weekend. Okay then, I'll get right on that. In addition to having to accommodate the sick suggestions of my scholarly mentors who think that reading is something I can do in my sleep, I also have two presentations to prepare for next week and a 10-page paper to compose by mid-month for a conference. It is a good thing that I have been through this first-week shell shock before and am now able to restrain myself from pulling out my hair in clumps while eating a jumbo bag of potato chips.

While in Manitoba over Christmas, I heard an interview with Van Morrison. I like the guy's music and after hearing what he had to say, I really admired the man as well. He does not want to be famous. He said that he plays music and this enables him to put food on the table. He refuses to talk in terms of his greatest hits and has made it a point to isolate himself from the insanity that is celebrity. He is the anti-star. All the standard questions that you ask someone who is enamoured with how enamoured you are with them fell flat. He said what he wanted, without thought for how crass or inaccessible he might appear, and most times he didn't answer what was asked. His refreshing dissection of questions often heard on entertainment shows stripped the shiny, happy veneer from the self-indulgent ritual of celebrity interviews.

Here was a man that I would like to sit down and talk with. He was genuine, he was real, and he was not using the interview as a tool to further his career. He said it annoyed him when fans think that knowing a few details about a person's life or a few of their songs makes them think that they know you. As the interview continued, I became increasingly aware of the strange language and attitudes that accompany the celebrity culture we are accustomed to seeing and hearing all around us. Just pick up any magazine or watch one of the numerous talent shows populating the channels and you will be inundated by it. And here was one man who wasn't buying into it, who pointed out that the questions and assumptions the interviewer brought were somewhat ridiculous and pointless.

Tonight in my reformation class, the professor warned us against thinking that we know something about a historical figure because we have heard certain things about them or know some of their followers. Calvin and Luther would probably turn over in their graves if they knew that people called themselves Calvinists or Lutherans. These men never wanted celebrity nor a movement named after them. They wanted truth, they wanted faith, and they wanted Jesus to be real and accessible to everyone. They took inspiration from teachings that had come before them, studied tirelessly, and did what they thought was right and necessary. These were complex and authentic men, great and small at the same time. They were not ecclesiastic mavericks nor one-trick theologians. What is it about us humans that makes us want to nail someone to a pedestal or inflate a caricature of one tiny part of their life?

What ever happened to just plain getting to know someone? I suppose it is too time-consuming and perhaps a bit disappointing, because we inevitably find out that they are very much like us. We would rather have the wow-factor than some authenticity. I suppose Jesus knew exactly what that particular appetite looked like. He saw a lot of it.

I guess that is one of the reasons I am in university - to get past the peripheral stuff that I think I know and to really take the time to KNOW, or at least, begin to know. Goodbye, celebrity Jesus and his mighty followers. Hello, great big stack of reading.
This is my friend's cat with Buddy Christ, made famous by the movie, Dogma.


Popular posts from this blog

what does the cross mean?

Words which we use a lot can sometimes become divested of their depth of meaning. In the Christian tradition, we talk about the cross a lot. We see visual representations of the cross in prominent places in our gathering spaces, we wear crosses around our necks, some get crosses tattooed on their bodies. The cross is a ubiquitous symbol in Christianity, so lately I have been asking myself, what exactly does the cross mean? For the most part, the cross as portrayed in contemporary Christianity is a beautiful thing, festooned with flowers and sunsets and radiant beams of light (just google cross or cross coloring page). But in the first century, the cross was a symbol of disgrace. To the Roman empire, this ignoble instrument of death was for those who were traitors and enemies of the state. We are many centuries removed from this view of the cross as the locus of torture and death and shame. The fact that Christianity has made the cross a symbol of hope and beauty is a good thing, but p…

stained and broken

Recently, I was asked to speak at another church, and the passage of Scripture which was assigned to me was John 1:6-8. "There came a man commissioned and sent from God, whose name was John. This man came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe [in Christ, the Light] through him. John was not the Light, but came to testify about the Light." (John 1:6-8, Amplified Bible)

The first question I usually ask when reading something in the Bible is this: What does this tell me about God? Two things are immediately obvious - God is a sending God and God wants to communicate - but there is a third which merits a bit more attention. Though God could communicate directly with humanity, sending truth and love to every individual via some divine mind-and-heart-meld, God chooses to send messengers. Not only that, instead of introducing Jesus directly to the world as the main event, an opening, warm-up act appears as a precursor. What is the point of incorporati…

the songs we sing

NOTE: I am going to make some pretty strong statements below, but understand that it is my way of taking an honest, hard look at my own worship experience and practice. My desire is not to be overly critical, but to open up dialogue by questioning things I have assumed were totally fine and appropriate. In other words, I am preaching to myself. Feel free to listen in.


When I am in a church meeting during the singing time, I sometimes find myself silent, unable to get the words past my lips. At times I just need a moment of stillness, time to listen, but other times, the words make me pause because I don't know that I can sing them honestly or with integrity. This is a good thing. We should never mindlessly or heartlessly sing songs just because everyone else is. We should care deeply about what we say in our sung, communal worship.

At their best, songs sung by the gathered body of Christ call to life what is already in us: the hope, the truth, the longing, t…