Sunday, March 14, 2004
For any of you, like me, who are just getting in to reading blogs via newsreaders (and btw, Jordon has a good post on why you might want to do that here), I found a newsreader that I quite like. It is web-based, so I can check it when i am in the city too, called Bloglines. Very easy to use and convenient in oh so many ways. Now to convince everybody that they need to go and add that simple little rss feed....
Friday, March 12, 2004
"We had a hard time in Germany at first," she recalls with a laugh. "I spoke no German and I had to imitate all these different animals in restaurants and meat markets when I wanted something. I even acted like a chicken in a restaurant once just to order an egg."
I've done that.
I've done that.
Out of Eire
One-hundred years after his death, Lafcadio Hearn remains a favorite in his adopted country of Japan. Steve Trautlein goes in search of the writer's Irish connections.
I've heard a lot about him, but now I think I am going to have to read him.
One-hundred years after his death, Lafcadio Hearn remains a favorite in his adopted country of Japan. Steve Trautlein goes in search of the writer's Irish connections.
I've heard a lot about him, but now I think I am going to have to read him.
Coppola's ode to Tokyo
"Lost in Translation" was shot in just over four weeks in October 2002. It was filmed mainly at night due to the Park Hyatt's insistence that guests not be disturbed. The small cast and crew could only film in public areas after midnight and before 6 a.m. At all times, a hotel employee "chaperoned" the cast and crew - at one point, Bill Murray got so exasperated by her strictness that he picked her up and threw her over his shoulder, encouraging her to lighten up...
"Lost in Translation" was shot in just over four weeks in October 2002. It was filmed mainly at night due to the Park Hyatt's insistence that guests not be disturbed. The small cast and crew could only film in public areas after midnight and before 6 a.m. At all times, a hotel employee "chaperoned" the cast and crew - at one point, Bill Murray got so exasperated by her strictness that he picked her up and threw her over his shoulder, encouraging her to lighten up...
Toyota unveils music-playing robots
TOKYO - Toyota Motor Corp on Thursday unveiled two trumpet-playing robots as part of a project to develop humanoid robots to assist humans and ease possible labor shortages in the future.
One of the 120-cm-tall robots played "When You Wish Upon a Star" with a trumpet. It bowed to the audience and waved its arms to respond to applause following the brief performance...
...Toyota plans to have the robots form a band for the first time at the Aichi Expo starting on March 25, 2005.
You guys better come. We are a fifteen minute walk from the Expo site.
TOKYO - Toyota Motor Corp on Thursday unveiled two trumpet-playing robots as part of a project to develop humanoid robots to assist humans and ease possible labor shortages in the future.
One of the 120-cm-tall robots played "When You Wish Upon a Star" with a trumpet. It bowed to the audience and waved its arms to respond to applause following the brief performance...
...Toyota plans to have the robots form a band for the first time at the Aichi Expo starting on March 25, 2005.
You guys better come. We are a fifteen minute walk from the Expo site.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Interesting point. I am not sure but I have had this thought:
Back in the 1920's E. Stanley Jones wrote something to the effect of, Christ did not come to abolish Judaism but to fulfill it. Jones when on to build a case challenging the colonialist missionary movement of his day, arguing that Christ didn't come to destroy Hinduism but to fulfill it, ...to fulfill Islam, ...to fulfill Buddhism, etc.
This has me thinking again about our reading of the Palmers book, "Jesus Sutras", Bjork’s "Unfamiliar Paths", and Oleksa's "Orthodox Alaska".
What if in the name of Christ we sought to preserve and fulfill the beauty of God seen through other religions? While always nudging toward Christ. Like if Saddam Hussein began to follow Christ, should he renounce Islam and become a Methodist. Or could he live Christ in Islam?
and
This may come as a surprise to some who have visited my site before but I think part of the "image of God" may be about gender, or better said may be about difference.
If we hold to the image of God as the "possession" of the individual then certainly the image cannot about difference (gender etc). If however, we understand the self to be intrinsically relational, so much so that we bear the image of God in relationship (See Grenz, van Huyssteen, Shults, and Janzen), then it may be precisely in our difference (including gender) and our choice for oneness that the image of God is manifest.
It may be that in this way we most reflect a God who is plurality and oneness. We have very real differences and yet are one.
I see every interpersonal relationship as "image bearing" (the plurality and oneness). Anytime "self" is served, we witness "the fall" (in varying degree) of relationship; while anytime we see self-emptying, we see God's dream incarnated.
But I don't limit this to marriage, it's just that marriage has been one of the most approachable human examples of this divine reality, (though that may be changing).
One of the reasons why marriage is such a great Trinitarian example is that the fruit of its love is so tangible. Two unique selves come together forming an "us." The spirit of love is infinitely creative and desires to share its love beyond its perichoretic self and a child is born.
Back in the 1920's E. Stanley Jones wrote something to the effect of, Christ did not come to abolish Judaism but to fulfill it. Jones when on to build a case challenging the colonialist missionary movement of his day, arguing that Christ didn't come to destroy Hinduism but to fulfill it, ...to fulfill Islam, ...to fulfill Buddhism, etc.
This has me thinking again about our reading of the Palmers book, "Jesus Sutras", Bjork’s "Unfamiliar Paths", and Oleksa's "Orthodox Alaska".
What if in the name of Christ we sought to preserve and fulfill the beauty of God seen through other religions? While always nudging toward Christ. Like if Saddam Hussein began to follow Christ, should he renounce Islam and become a Methodist. Or could he live Christ in Islam?
and
This may come as a surprise to some who have visited my site before but I think part of the "image of God" may be about gender, or better said may be about difference.
If we hold to the image of God as the "possession" of the individual then certainly the image cannot about difference (gender etc). If however, we understand the self to be intrinsically relational, so much so that we bear the image of God in relationship (See Grenz, van Huyssteen, Shults, and Janzen), then it may be precisely in our difference (including gender) and our choice for oneness that the image of God is manifest.
It may be that in this way we most reflect a God who is plurality and oneness. We have very real differences and yet are one.
I see every interpersonal relationship as "image bearing" (the plurality and oneness). Anytime "self" is served, we witness "the fall" (in varying degree) of relationship; while anytime we see self-emptying, we see God's dream incarnated.
But I don't limit this to marriage, it's just that marriage has been one of the most approachable human examples of this divine reality, (though that may be changing).
One of the reasons why marriage is such a great Trinitarian example is that the fruit of its love is so tangible. Two unique selves come together forming an "us." The spirit of love is infinitely creative and desires to share its love beyond its perichoretic self and a child is born.
Saturday, March 06, 2004
Derek is reading Ellul. He say:
Here is a quote I found interesting from Ellul - talking about the point at which the church started to become "successful."
"In the fourth and fifth centuries, then, we see a slide away from love and grace to service and "social action." But this completely changes the Christian perspective. And it correlates with the rise of the institution, the break between a clergy of priests and a laypeople, and the nce within the church of the rich and powerful. A break also comes between those who show a concern for others, who tender service, who give expression to charity, and those with whom they are concerned, who are the occasion of charity, to whom they render service. This was the real break in the church. flow, under these conditions, could it maintain a theology or even more so a practice of nonpower? Certainly everywhere in the church there are examples of the rich who give up all things, who become poor for God. They did exist. But in doing this, they either chose the hermit life and withdrew from the life of the church, or they were canonized and held up as miraculous instances of sanctity, that is, they were excluded from the concrete life of the church, set outside the church as "saints" whom, of course, there was no question of ordinary people ever imitating."
Up until the point of the church's worldly success, it was love and grace, brother and sister. But one of the problems of the sudden influx of the masses, was that issues of power entered the church, and instead of adopting Christ's perspective on power (upside-down kingdom) they embraced the world's and this created a rift between the serving and the served. They stepped out of community and into institutions.
I found the "saint" stuff interesting as well. I did not know how far back the concept went - of only certain "super-christians" being called to community with the poor. It seemed like in the kingdom-living of Christ, it was simply part of being the church, and not a special calling for special christians.
Here is a quote I found interesting from Ellul - talking about the point at which the church started to become "successful."
"In the fourth and fifth centuries, then, we see a slide away from love and grace to service and "social action." But this completely changes the Christian perspective. And it correlates with the rise of the institution, the break between a clergy of priests and a laypeople, and the nce within the church of the rich and powerful. A break also comes between those who show a concern for others, who tender service, who give expression to charity, and those with whom they are concerned, who are the occasion of charity, to whom they render service. This was the real break in the church. flow, under these conditions, could it maintain a theology or even more so a practice of nonpower? Certainly everywhere in the church there are examples of the rich who give up all things, who become poor for God. They did exist. But in doing this, they either chose the hermit life and withdrew from the life of the church, or they were canonized and held up as miraculous instances of sanctity, that is, they were excluded from the concrete life of the church, set outside the church as "saints" whom, of course, there was no question of ordinary people ever imitating."
Up until the point of the church's worldly success, it was love and grace, brother and sister. But one of the problems of the sudden influx of the masses, was that issues of power entered the church, and instead of adopting Christ's perspective on power (upside-down kingdom) they embraced the world's and this created a rift between the serving and the served. They stepped out of community and into institutions.
I found the "saint" stuff interesting as well. I did not know how far back the concept went - of only certain "super-christians" being called to community with the poor. It seemed like in the kingdom-living of Christ, it was simply part of being the church, and not a special calling for special christians.
Friday, March 05, 2004
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Check out this "biblical views on marriage" piece. The guy fairly conveniently leaves out Christ's words on marriage, but at the very least it shows what a bad idea - almost hilariously bad - it is to form doctrine from the Old Testament.
Monday, March 01, 2004
Friday evening was the annual Hope Dinner at the Hilton put on by our friend Lowell. Lowell does an awesome Robin Hood-style job of getting a bunch a rich folk together in a fancy hotel for a big feed, so that hopefully they will dig into their heaps of cash to help Hope build some wells and schools in Cambodia, Ethiopia, and a whole host of other places. The thought that struck me as I was sitting there is just how odd it is, the collision between the two worlds; up on the screen kids who can't find food so they eat leaves, and there in the Hilton banquet hall, us rich westerners who need to get dressed to the nines and wined and dined in order to be convinced that we should share a little.
Lowell and the folks at Hope are motivated by the heart of Christ. When listening to them talk, I think I can pick up a sense of their bottom line: it is that 1. we have been given much, 2. there is great need, so 3. we can't wait around any longer, we have to do something. "To whom much is given, much is required", and these folks are doing what they can, in creative ways.
So afterward, when Diana and I were driving home, our discussion turned to the fact that there are so many people in Japan (and of course at home too) who, despite having huge amounts of money, do nothing of any real value with it. And here's the catch: these people aren't the least bit evil; well, at least not any more so than us. In fact, they are pretty nice, and kind. We were talking in particular about a student of Diana's who has money for fancy cars and Louis Vuitton bags and designer clothing, and really is not at all stingy with her money, but there is a kind of stopthink that kicks in when it comes to helping people in another place. It is just not considered an option. So why? We were thinking that it is not so much a question of good/evil as it is of perspective and awareness. This student is the kind of person that would never allow a friend to starve or go without, and would very likely gladly help, but when it comes to the global situation, the problem is just too big, and too "out there" to seriously considering involving your life and money in it.
So of course, in thinking about solutions, our thoughts came back to the idea of community, and all the dreams of globally inter-connected communities of faith that we have been having for a while now, and why we have to continue plodding (ever so slowly) toward that dream. Because there would seem to be incredible value and potential for change when there is an exchange of people between communities, with friendships formed, and lives intertwined together. I guess I should explain more clearly what we mean. We lived for a while in a rough part of Winnipeg and made some good friendships with some people in that area who were in rough circumstances. Now we are living in Japan, trying to find and build some more friendships. There's a good chance, if all goes well, that Joey will take off to India in a few years and start building that orphanage. And we have some good friends in Eastern Europe who dream the same dreams (some of whom may be moving to Japan for a while). Now, it is not happening much yet, but I get excited about the redemptive potential of joining those communities together, with human traffic going back and forth. Because friendship closes the distance. It is one thing to feel blah about giving to the kid on the tv screen with flies on her face, but it is a whole other thing when that kid is your friend's niece, or something of that sort. We live in a time where our global mobility is at a high point, and it is exactly that kind of mobility that could narrow the huge gaps that we find ourselves just getting used to.
I am thinking particularly that it is vital that this kind of exchange be a two-directional - or multi-directional - thing. For example, and just indulge me some dreaming here, people from the Winnipeg community come live in the Japan community. Some of the kids from the orphanage here go back to Winnipeg to study, or maybe off to India to work with the people there. Some of the kids or friends made in India come to Japan or Winnipeg or Eastern Europe, etc etc. And with those communities interwoven by the friendships that would result, the feeling that those are "foreign places", places far off that I don't have to think about, would lose its destructive power. Wasn't this at least part of what Paul was up to in his missionaries journeys? He would go from one community to another saying, "hey, your family over there in Jerusalem is poor and starving so let's get together and share so that this equality that God so desires can come about." Well, maybe not in exactly those words.
I think we are looking for an end to the missionary mindset that says we "together" westerners will head off to some poor place to help and heal them. That ignores our own areas of poverty. It is like when Dave used to talk about the difference between giving and sharing ("giving" being the one we want to start with, and "sharing" the place we want to get to). He would say that giving tends to throw money over the fence. Sharing tears down the fence. The point that the missionary mindset forgets quickly is that we need fixing too. It's no different in a missions context than it is with the poor. We don't seek out the poor only because we have something to give, that is truly only half the reason. We also go because we have something to get, something to learn, something important that God has placed in the realm of poverty that we can find only there.
Lowell and the folks at Hope are motivated by the heart of Christ. When listening to them talk, I think I can pick up a sense of their bottom line: it is that 1. we have been given much, 2. there is great need, so 3. we can't wait around any longer, we have to do something. "To whom much is given, much is required", and these folks are doing what they can, in creative ways.
So afterward, when Diana and I were driving home, our discussion turned to the fact that there are so many people in Japan (and of course at home too) who, despite having huge amounts of money, do nothing of any real value with it. And here's the catch: these people aren't the least bit evil; well, at least not any more so than us. In fact, they are pretty nice, and kind. We were talking in particular about a student of Diana's who has money for fancy cars and Louis Vuitton bags and designer clothing, and really is not at all stingy with her money, but there is a kind of stopthink that kicks in when it comes to helping people in another place. It is just not considered an option. So why? We were thinking that it is not so much a question of good/evil as it is of perspective and awareness. This student is the kind of person that would never allow a friend to starve or go without, and would very likely gladly help, but when it comes to the global situation, the problem is just too big, and too "out there" to seriously considering involving your life and money in it.
So of course, in thinking about solutions, our thoughts came back to the idea of community, and all the dreams of globally inter-connected communities of faith that we have been having for a while now, and why we have to continue plodding (ever so slowly) toward that dream. Because there would seem to be incredible value and potential for change when there is an exchange of people between communities, with friendships formed, and lives intertwined together. I guess I should explain more clearly what we mean. We lived for a while in a rough part of Winnipeg and made some good friendships with some people in that area who were in rough circumstances. Now we are living in Japan, trying to find and build some more friendships. There's a good chance, if all goes well, that Joey will take off to India in a few years and start building that orphanage. And we have some good friends in Eastern Europe who dream the same dreams (some of whom may be moving to Japan for a while). Now, it is not happening much yet, but I get excited about the redemptive potential of joining those communities together, with human traffic going back and forth. Because friendship closes the distance. It is one thing to feel blah about giving to the kid on the tv screen with flies on her face, but it is a whole other thing when that kid is your friend's niece, or something of that sort. We live in a time where our global mobility is at a high point, and it is exactly that kind of mobility that could narrow the huge gaps that we find ourselves just getting used to.
I am thinking particularly that it is vital that this kind of exchange be a two-directional - or multi-directional - thing. For example, and just indulge me some dreaming here, people from the Winnipeg community come live in the Japan community. Some of the kids from the orphanage here go back to Winnipeg to study, or maybe off to India to work with the people there. Some of the kids or friends made in India come to Japan or Winnipeg or Eastern Europe, etc etc. And with those communities interwoven by the friendships that would result, the feeling that those are "foreign places", places far off that I don't have to think about, would lose its destructive power. Wasn't this at least part of what Paul was up to in his missionaries journeys? He would go from one community to another saying, "hey, your family over there in Jerusalem is poor and starving so let's get together and share so that this equality that God so desires can come about." Well, maybe not in exactly those words.
I think we are looking for an end to the missionary mindset that says we "together" westerners will head off to some poor place to help and heal them. That ignores our own areas of poverty. It is like when Dave used to talk about the difference between giving and sharing ("giving" being the one we want to start with, and "sharing" the place we want to get to). He would say that giving tends to throw money over the fence. Sharing tears down the fence. The point that the missionary mindset forgets quickly is that we need fixing too. It's no different in a missions context than it is with the poor. We don't seek out the poor only because we have something to give, that is truly only half the reason. We also go because we have something to get, something to learn, something important that God has placed in the realm of poverty that we can find only there.
The company I work for asked me to give some thought to moving to Kobe. I was there last weekend and it is a nice place, but you know, I think the only place I would consider moving to if asked would be Tokyo. But that would be a challenge seeing as Andrea says she will never live there. Of course, two years ago she was saying the same thing about Japan, so who knows. But generally I just like Nagoya too much to think about living somewhere else. Lots of Japanese people think it is kind of a hick-town good-for-nothing place, but people say the same thing about Winnipeg (and we might add Nazareth!!) and I like it there too. Ten years ago I loved the idea of going someplace new every year or so, but now the thought of leaving roots and connections is not really a welcome one. Expanding them is one thing, but starting over is another thing entirely...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)