Glenn's Interview on CBC Edmonton

Yesterday I was interviewed on CBC Edmonton regarding the situation facing Christians in China.  Take a listen if you like.

Be careful what you pray for

Trinitarian Praying

In Eccles. 5:1-2, we read, “Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. To draw near to listen is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they are doing evil. Be not rash with your mouth, nor let your heart be hasty to utter a word before God, for God is in heaven and you are on earth. Therefore let your words be few.”

These words came home to roost for me during my first year of seminary. Sitting in a theology class taught by William Eichorst, the seminary president at the time, he mentioned that one of the school’s Board members had complained to him about how one of seminary’s students had recently preached at his church and had proceeded to thank God the Father for dying on the cross. The concern was then raised that we needed to be sure that we did not simply go on autopilot when we pray but conscious of what we were saying and to Whom we were praying. Keeping the members of the Trinity straight was the very least that we could do.

As I sat there, I was inwardly embarrassed because I knew that I had likely been that student since I had been providing pulpit supply for this church rather regularly as they were looking for a new pastor. It’s been 20 years since that took place and I still remember the lesson that I learned that day. Prayer is first and foremost communication with the Triune God. It behooves us to pray with both our mind and our heart.

I have since learned that I am not the only one who makes this mistake, of course. Like me, I have heard numbers of sincere believers - men and women, leadership and laity, old and young – thank the Father for coming to earth, suffering and dying on the cross for us or praising the Spirit for sending His Son. I have also heard the Father referred to in a way that, from my research, has no biblical and little historical precedent.

It probably began in the 1980’s when the Fatherhood of God or the “Father heart of God” gained prominence in many circles. Recognizing the need that many believers have for a loving father figure, Christians began referring to God the Father as “Father God.” The phrase always struck me as peculiar, but I didn’t give it much thought until it dawned on me one day as to why. Imagine referring to Jesus as “Son God” or the Holy Spirit as “Spirit God.” It just doesn’t sound right, does it? Nowhere in Scripture and rarely in church history is such phraseology used for any member of the Trinity and I think for good reason. As well intentioned as the phrase may be, it suggests that there is a father god, a son god and a spirit god, inadvertently suggesting division in the Trinity. By referring, however, to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, it is more obvious that we are referring to one God in three persons.

Some might say, as my wife did when we were chatting over lunch one Sunday a while back, “I don’t think that anyone who prays ‘Father God’ is even thinking about that.”

Which is my (and the author of Ecclesiastes’) point exactly! We are not supposed to be praying without thinking about what we are saying, even with the very best of intentions. As a final note, it is interesting to observe that the phrase “Father God” is quite popular with some modern day Gnostics like Sylvia Browne who suggest that God is also a Mother.

Of course, even carefully referring to God as God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit can still lead to error. Some Christians come alarmingly close to modalism which probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. Modalism denies the Trinity by stating that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms. Recently I read a doctrinal statement by an Indian church leader whose doctrinal statement said that he believed that the one true God reveals himself in three persons; The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is not biblical Christianity.

I am often reminded of John Stott’s observation in his book Knowing God that we are not free to think of God any way that we like, but only to the extent that He has revealed Himself to be. Only God can reveal God. I would suggest that in our prayer to God, that perhaps it might be wisest to address Him as we find God’s people doing so in His revelation to us, the Bible. We may happily and with confidence refer to our heavenly Father as “Father” knowing that this is exactly what the Son commanded us to do under the inspiration of the Spirit (see Matthew 6:8 and Luke 11:2). And when we do, we are sure to thank Him for sending His Son to die for us and for sending the Spirit to guide us into all truth and to conform us into the image of His Son. Trinitarian prayer is a privilege for the child of God; one that can be emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually transforming as we enter into fellowship with the triune God.

Pray that I can sleep

I have a rather specific prayer request. Please pray that I can sleep. The steroids that I have been taking over the past few weeks have a rather nasty side effect of disrupting sleep patterns. I sometimes have difficulty getting to sleep and once I am asleep, I have a tough time staying asleep. I tend to wake up around 3:00 a.m. and then wake up every 45 minutes or so. Makes for very early mornings often times. As result, I am really rather tired out and in real need of a solid night's sleep. If you could pray to that end, I would sure be grateful.

Winnipeg health officials to admit mistakes and apologize

Having been an active medical patient on a rather regular basis over the past several years, I was amazed to read a recent report that said that Winnipeg health officials, in what is billed as the first of its kind in Canada, have been instructed to acknowledge mistakes openly, tell injured patients they are sorry and have the authority pay for its errors when appropriate.  These apologizes cannot be used in court, but apparently this abandoning of the medical community's age-old tendency to shut up and refuse to admit fault when blunders occur, is a growing trend in both Canada and the US and proving to very successful.  In the States, hospitals that are doing this have actually reporting a decline in malpractice suits.

It just goes to show that if you treat people decently, they tend to reciprocate similarly.  Of course, there are exceptions, but I really think that what makes people angry about the medical profession is the perception that it is growing more and more impersonal and that people need to fight for decent care.  Maybe this is a step in the right direction.

You can read the full article here.

The day without a name

Today is the oddest day off in Ontario and perhaps in Canada. It is day off for almost everyone (though not officially a statutory holiday). The VOMC staff, for instance, is taking today off. But what really surprised when I first moved here from Alberta 11 years ago was how no one in Ontario really knows what to call the day.

Most everywhere in Ontario (including Mississauga), it is given the wonderfully creative name of Civic Holiday (and no, it is not the celebration of the best-selling Honda compact, even though it is a very fine car; I am on my second one). But in Toronto (and a few other communities) it is called Simcoe Day, named after was the first lieutenant governor of Upper Canada, John Graves Simcoe. But that is not the only name this day goes by. It is called Colonel By Day in Ottawa, Joseph Brant Day in Burlington, Founders' Day in Brantford, McLaughlin Day in Oshawa, Alexander Mackenzie Day in Sarnia, James Cockburn Day in Cobourg, and John Galt Day in Guelph.

Whatever it is called, it is a welcome break in the summer.

The Duties of Being a Citizen of Canada

It isn't often that I agree with much that is opined about in the Toronto Star. But in today's paper there an excellent opinion article written by Angelo Persechilli in which he asks if Canadians have neglected the duties of citizenship in our emphasis on our rights and freedoms. He notes:

We have treaties signed with aboriginals that we rarely respect. We have natives living on reserves in conditions worse than those in Third-World countries, despite Ottawa's annual expenditure of more than $12 billion.

We had Canadian Omar Khadr in Afghanistan fighting against principles that Canadian soldiers are now dying for, and we have Canadians permanently living in the Middle East asking us to bail them out in case of problems. We have more than 250,000 Canadian citizens permanently living in Hong Kong, hoping that nothing happens to the former British colony. We also have Canadian citizens in the Italian Parliament in Rome elected by Canadian residents in Canada, and we have Canadians raising money for terrorist organizations that have nothing to do with our country.

All of us enjoy the protection of the Charter whenever we need it and wherever we are and wherever we are....

And then he drops the axe:

but now we also need a new set of rules establishing, for example, a direct relationship between citizenship and permanent residence, or addressing activities of criminal or terrorist nature when Canadian citizenship is clearly used as a cover.

From John A. Macdonald on, our leaders have done a good job defining a geographic area called Canada, but were not very successful with the definition of Canadian citizenship. They were too busy protecting the rights of the "distinct societies" or "celebrating the differences," believing that the geographic boundaries were enough protection for their rights.

For more than a century it was Canada that protected its citizens. Now, with globalization crushing geographic boundaries, it is Canada that is in need of its citizens.

He is absolutely right. This fuzziness did start from the very beginning of this country, as John A. desperately wanted to keep Canada within the British fold. This led to Canada not truly developing its own sense of nationhood until the 1960's and even since then, there remains a confusion as to just how much we can expect from those who call themselves "Canadian" (again a legacy of confederation as the protection of minority language and cultural rights were protected right from the start).

Persichilli's suggestions of starting with a new set of rules establishing a direct relationship between citizenship and permanent residence and addressing activities of criminal or terrorist nature when Canadian citizenship is clearly used as a cover are good places to start.

Over $10 for a coffee?

Anyone who knows me, knows that I am an avid coffee lover. However, the next time I visit Moscow, I may take a rain check or a cup of tea instead. According to a new survey by the London office of U.S. consulting firm Mercer, the average cup of joe in Moscow is now US$10.19!! Mind you this is the same city that boasts having 74 billionaires, the most in the world.

A black eye for the IOC

I don't know about you, but I am entirely disgusted by the very thought of the Beijing Olympics.  The behaviour of China and the International Olympic Committee has been reprehensible from the start and recent days have only revealed just how rotten to the core the whole thing is. I have decided that I am simply not going to watch the Olympics this time around.  The only hope is that these Games will be such a mess that the world will see the real China rather than the one the communist government wants to protray on television; edited, scripted, controlled and censored. This editorial published in the National Post really says it well, I think.

A black eye for the IOC

National Post  Published: Friday, August 01, 2008

Kevan Gosper, an Olympic si lver medallist with Australia's 4x400 track relay team in the 1956 Summer Games, was forced to whack the panic button yesterday. Mr. Gosper is the top press liaison for the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and is the man who had assured the international media for months that the Chinese government had agreed not to impose censorship on foreign reporters covering the Beijing Olympics. Naturally, it was pretty awkward for Mr. Gosper when China announced earlier this week that it would do exactly that.

Just two weeks ago, IOC president Jacques Rogge had repeated assurances that "there will be no censorship of the Internet" in sections of Olympics venues used by foreign reporters. The issue had been considered an important one, not because foreign reporters will have any trouble evading the so-called "Great Firewall of China," but because it was China's chance to demonstrate to the world that it understands Western free speech norms, recognizes them to some degree as an ideal and is capable of letting foreigners report on its country without the restrictions that it still chooses to impose on its own media.

Mr. Gosper had to admit to the world press that China was not stabbing the IOC in the back by changing tack on censorship with just over a week to go before the opening ceremonies. In fact, unidentified IOC members had reached a behind-the-scenes accord permitting censorship several months ago, yet allowed Mr. Gosper and his boss, Mr. Rogge, to go on making asses of themselves. (Hein Verbruggen, the head of a "co-ordination commission" to whom Mr. Gosper reports, has attracted suspicion by virtue of both his position and his reaction to the news; he calmly told an Olympic house newspaper that no promises of "full access" had ever been made by China, suggesting that he saw no reason for fuss.)

"I regret," a visibly angry Mr. Gosper was forced to acknowledge in a press conference, "that it now appears [the Beijing organizing committee] has announced that there will be limitations on Web site access during Games time … I also now understand that some IOC officials negotiated with the Chinese that some sensitive sites would be blocked on the basis they were not considered Games-related." The "sensitive sites" turned out to include some belonging to the BBC and Deutsche Welle, as well as Wikipedia, which has quietly become a staple resource for journalists over the years.

The black eye is one of the greatest ever for the IOC, which has, to put it mildly, not always covered itself in glory in the past. It appears that the organization was content to let lies be spread by its representatives in order to attract the world press to China under false pretenses. The IOC's business depends on our continued appetite for the myth of the Olympics as a place for fair play and the pursuit of excellence. In the long run, if it pays no attention to these norms as an institution, it cannot dream of being respected as a peddler of them.

Increasingly, the Beijing Games appear to be a trainwreck in the making; the censorship controversy has been compounded by fears that efforts to guarantee outdoor competitors a breathable atmosphere will fail; by a last-minute algae invasion of an aquatic venue; and by accusations that Chinese selectors may have violated age limits for gymnasts. At this moment, one would surely have trouble finding an Olympics viewer, an athlete or a national official who does not consider the awarding of the Games to Beijing to be a mistake.

The good news, if any is to be found, is that a series of humiliations may do more to create real pressure for openness in China than a squeaky-clean, smooth-running Games ever could. It is possible that the Leninist maxim "The worse, the better" applies. China has invested enormous national prestige in the Olympics -- there must be those in officialdom whose lives are (literally) at stake -- but has apparently decided to proceed using the Communist tools of central planning, deception and state-imposed "harmony" of thought and action.

Very well: Let's see whether a Western commercial spectacle can be successfully staged under such circumstances. Like the old division of West and East Berlin, it has become a rare laboratory experiment in comparing ways of life. And, as with Berlin, the existing Chinese government may not be fully prepared for the implications of the result.

Latest Email Update from Denita

Here is the latest email update from Denita (that's my wife, for those who don't know. My hero...)

Well...we found out today that Credit Valley won't be able to accomodate Glenn, so we'll be going back to Princess Maragret. Glenn has an appointment on Aug. 11, so hopefully we'll be able to give you a more detailed update then. On Wednesday we went to Toronto General to get Glenn started on the blood thinner shots. He is giving himself 2 shots each day and will have to continue that for six months. We are thankful that we have extended health insurance. Without it, we would have to pay over $1500 each month. As it is, it is costing us a bundle. Oh well...that's life.

By the way, Glenn has set up a blog sight to record his thoughts on this journey he is on. If any of you are interested in reading his blogs, you can find them at www.glennpenner.blogspot.com

More to come in a couple of weeks....

Love,
Denita