Sven Thomas

Denominations as bulkheads

2012-01-09T19:00:00.000-06:00

I had a thought this morning over breakfast that I've been mulling over through the course of the day. As this is the place where I like to flesh out new ideas I thought I'd share it here first.

I've long held the belief that denominations in the Church are a provision from God for her protection. In as much as denominations divide the church, they provide a covering of authority, accountability, a framework for cashflow and a system to ensure faithful stewardship of the Lord's resources. But there has to be more... and it is this desire for a deeper understanding that led me to my “thought” this morning.

I mentioned earlier that denominations “divide” the church. But what if that is <strong>exactly</strong> what they're supposed to do? Let me take you on a detour for a moment and you'll hopefully see what I mean when we come out the other end.

Carrier ships are massive structures with huge cargo hulls. I once, as a child, got to see the engine room of one of the BC Ferries ships; a memory I will always cherish. To get there we had to walk through several large structural walls that partitioned the hull (known as “bulkheads”). It turns out that the hull of a large ship endures massive amounts of pressure and stress from all sides and must remain rigid if it is going to keep the ship afloat. It is these partitions that provide this rigidity along with other features like hull plating (sometimes called a “double hull”) and longitudinal stiffeners (prevent the ship from “bending”). By adding these features the hull is able to withstand not only the weight of its payload but also the stress of rough seas, but the partitions serve another purpose.

In the event of a hull breach modern ships will automatically seal off the affected partitions effectively containing the leak in such a way that the ship will remain afloat long enough to sail to safety. I've even seen demos of ships that can handle as much as half of their hull completely filled with water and still make it home. Earlier versions of this innovation used partitions to slow the rate at which a ship fills with water, allowing more time for passengers to escape in life rafts.

For further reading visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_of_ships

Anyway, you can probably guess where I'm headed with this. In the same way that bulkheads partition and protect a ship from external pressures and complete failure in the event of a hull breach, so denominations in the church serve to protect the church as a whole... to keep the “ship” from “sinking” if you will.

When an issue hits the church hard (anything from issues like gay marriage or Harry Potter to false teaching or emergent church trends) and takes a denomination with it, it is the inherent “division” between that denomination and another that keeps the latter safe. So long as other denominational leaders remain true, stay the course and prepare, they will weather the storm long enough to make it through.

But there is a balance to be had. And in the same way that too many partitions in a ship cause it to be needlessly heavy, expensive to move and slow, too many divisions in the church have a similar effect on her ability to fulfill the Great Commission. The answer lay NOT in the removal of all division. For you see, the opposite is also true. Where there are too few divisions the effect of a catastrophic event might be more difficult to mitigate or even impossible to stop. And, where too few divisions would fail to properly resist the massive pressures exerted by her payload (read: mission), a church with too few denominations lacks the support of her “neighboring” “bulkheads” when localized pressures reach critical highs.

Those of you paying attention will notice I'm making a couple assumptions and even committing denominational leaders to certain things here. First, I'm assuming that denominations have a Church Universal perspective and choose not only to see, but to act within the context of a greater body. This means that a denomination has to have a relatively healthy self-image and takes into consideration her special role in the Body at large.

Secondly I'm assuming that, and committing denominational leaders to, supporting one another. Everything rises and falls on leadership and if our denominations are filling with water due to fighting... well, I'll let you figure that one out. I'll say this: change starts with leaders who themselves commit to changing on the inside first.

Third. I expect obedience to godly leadership on all levels within a denomination. Without influence and followers, there is no denomination.

Anyway, I've gone on long enough and really should head to bed. This is a major thought for me and I'll be thinking about it and testing it for a long time. That said it, to me at least, has all the hallmarks of one of those “ah ha” moments that only perspective from the Holy Spirit can provide. But again, please be gentle in your criticisms as this idea is only less than 24 hours old. :)

.:. Sven .:.

On Humanity

2012-01-01T14:10:00.000-06:00

This Canada Day weekend Andrea and I are continuing our journey through the new Battlestar Galactica series. This evening we finished season two. What's interesting for me as I watch is to observe a common theme that spans other movies and TV shows beyond BG. I'm talking about commentary on the "human condition", about the exploration of what it means to be human.

I enjoy sci-fi a lot. Andrea and I have a running joke about which sci-fi character gets the most "space action" (I think Gias Baltar is winning. Then again Tiel'c from SG1 enjoyed his share of the ladies...). Part of what I enjoy about sci-fi is the exploration from an outside perspective of humanity's condition. What I noticed this evening however is that in most cases that discussion is woefully one-sided. Guess one can't rely on hollywood for an intelligent discussion.

Maybe it is the sex that bothers me; though not so much as an appropriate plot mechanism as it is when used poorly in the discussion. Same goes for violence. It seems to me that most TV shows or movies that explore the issue of what it means to be human present characters that are overly sensual, impulsive, self-centered, immature and lack self-control. These characters are presented to us with commentary like, "perhaps that makes you the most human of us all" after that character committed some morally questionable act. We've all seen it a thousand times.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the world would gravitate toward "sin" and call it human. I'm not denying human sin, I'm saying that the arguments presented to us in the media seem to tell us that to be human is to live for one's self, walk the ethical tightrope and behave however we like when it suits our purpose, or worse, that it's violence, pain or the pleasures of eros that define humanity: a message that flies completely in the face of scripture - of who God says we are. As the only people who are likely to read this will understand what I'm talking about, I'll spare you the discussion. But something else occurred to me this evening...

I wonder if there isn't a bit of faulty logic happening here. Sherlock Homles certainly wasn't without his logical failures ("...the exception disproves the rule.") and it seems to me that the writers and thinkers of TV shows like BG might be making a major logical error.

It falls under the category of another foolish saying, "you are what you eat." (sorry, but scripture disagrees. It would say, "you eat what you are" - for out of the heart the mouth speaks...) in that it seems as though the writers decide that because sensuality, violence, [insert bad quality here] characterize a large portion of the human experience that that is what the human experience is about. It's like saying, "apples are almost always red when they're not green, therefore red or green is the essence of what makes apple apple." (that is, Steve Jobs jokes aside). It's the fallacy of taking a characteristic of something and using it to define that something. Normal people call it "generalizing" or "painting with broad strokes". It's the equivalent of me saying, "Humans sin. Therefore, sin is human." when in fact [from a scriptural perspective at least], nothing could be further from the truth.

Anyway, I'm over explaining things again. Maybe I'm just reacting to the implication that my desire to be holy, upright, honorable, full of wisdom and integrity, self-controlled, etc. is contrary to the core of what makes me human. That seeking after these things and denying myself is to deny that which makes me human, when in fact scripture paints the portrait that we are never so human as we are when we follow Christ and live holy lives.

.:. Sven .:.

Lessons from Exodus

2011-11-18T20:03:00.000-06:00

I'm following one of those Bible reading plans this year and I'm nearing the end of Exodus. I had an interesting thought I thought might be worth while sharing. It's rather undeveloped, so be kind in your criticism. :)

In Exodus 36 (vv.2-7) the people of Isreal donate their silver and gold to the Lord in having the Ark, Tabernacle and other requirements for worship constructed. According to the text there was so much they had to stop; they were actually "restrained from giving for the material they had was sufficient to do all the work, and more." But... where does an impoverished 400 year old slave nation get that kind of wealth?

Before leaving Egypt the people of Israel were instructed to ask their Egyptian neighbours for gold and silver jewelry (Exodus 11:2, 12:36). The response was unbelievable and as a slave nation this influx of valuables likely constituted the vast majority of their wealth post-Exodus. As their trip from Egypt to Sinai likely did not make them wealthy in its own right, it's logical to conclude that the vast majority of the gold and silver used in the construction of the Ark, Tabernacle, gold plated utensils, etc. came from Egypt.

The themes resident in this realization are somewhat striking; that the Lord's victory over Egypt isn't that he left her in ruins, but that he broke her to the core and used her treasures to build his kingdom, for his glory: his house. It's his final proclamation of victory, that out of Egypt's heart he pulled a prized people (Egypt's labour force) and embarrassed her by taking her best and making it into his dwelling. It's the ultimate endgame insult to Pharaoh (who, having drowned in the Red Sea, is now dead; making this more than just a victory over a dead guy but an insult to his memory).

It's a powerful message, that out of the world's worst injustice he pulled everything he needed to establish his covenant with Earth. What's interesting is that in doing so he left Egypt gutted, without an heir (governmentally directionless), robbed of her workforce, spiritually disillusioned, famished, defenseless (all of her best military having drowned in the Red Sea) and plundered. This reinforces the truth that all wealth and blessing come from the Lord and that his withdrawal (or outright opposition) leaves a nation destitute, plundered and alone.

It also means that for those believers suffering in Christ, not only is the Lord victorious over all that, but that it is out of the suffering conditions itself that the Lord can pull everything he needs to accomplish his ends.

Anyway, I could go on but I think you get my point.

.:. Sven .:.

Front-ways back-sided

2011-10-27T20:00:00.000-05:00

You know, when I started this blog I thought I'd be writing about tech stuff. Guess I just can't escape the reality of what really matters to me. Maybe I should change the title...

Anyway, those of you who know me well know I'm a classic firstborn with all the birth-order stuff that comes along with it. It's no wonder then that I find myself to be highly driven; especially since that day the Lord called me all those years ago. It wasn't until today though that I realized exactly how much my drivenness can actually hinder me from moving forward in Christ.

I stood in front of my office window near the end of my day today wondering why the Lord seemed distant after I had made a conscious effort to draw near to him. I pursued the Lord relentlessly today, praising him, thanking him, asking him to bless my work, for favour, for those around me, my colleagues, wife, family and so on. But at the end of the day I felt exhausted and was left wondering why the Lord remained distant.

As I stood in front of the window I observed an interesting phenomenon with how the snow landed in the parking lot. It seems that when the wind hits the building just right, it wraps around and meets in front of my office window creating a negative pressure "bubble" where the resultant updraft holds the snowflakes in suspended animation several meters above the ground. It's really eerie. Then, as if someone where handling them with utmost care, they drift delicately to the ground where they are mercilessly crushed by the next car driving by... LOL

Anyway... it was mesmerizing, beautiful and seemed somehow backwards that the flakes wouldn't just land like the ones just a few meters to the left and right. At that point I heard the Lord loud and clear, "It's backwards Sven... the first must be last, to live you must die." He was referring to my drivenness.

You see, I spent my day driving hard after the Lord. I pursued him as if he had to be caught for me to abide with him today. The truth is... it isn't in drivenness that we meet with the Lord, but in stillness. In the same way the flakes became still in the air before landing just right before my window, so we who seek after the Lord must be still if we're to enter into that place of abiding that will carry us throughout the day.

It's not a new teaching for me. Gosh, I've been a Christian for over 25 years! But this is the first time where I realized that while it is God who has blessed me with a driven personality, it is that same quality that causes me to push to a point where I push right past! I'm pushing too hard when the whole point of abiding is to be at peace! Sheesh. Sometimes, I'm amazed at how badly I miss obvious things.

After dinner we went to a baptism service at Springs (BEST BAPTISM EVER!) and heard Leon reinforce exactly what the Spirit had said to me earlier. All in all... a good day.

.:. Sven .:.