On Performing Introverts

"If you had a simple more personality, you'd get a better tip." - Anon.

That was a message scribed beneath one of my receipts today and, frankly, I think it's a load of bull for a couple of reasons.

1. It's not my job.

As a waiter, my job is to be a chameleon. The only times I should be noticed are when I'm taking orders, delivering food, and managing payment. clearing your table, refilling your drinks, making quick checks that all is okay should be done quickly, efficiently, and discreetly. If you want to chat or otherwise engage with me, that's fine; I can be an excellent conversationalist when needed, but that's not my primary role.

Following suit, I understand that many waiters show a modicum of personality. Some are funny, garrulous, obsequious, or complimentary, but I can guarantee that these displays are not part of the job description - they are the measures we take to try to ensure a good tip. Just like the free bread (another grief for another time), we should not be expected to open up and engage like old friends. We're not. You're my customer and I'm trying to sell you enough food to make a good tip. I am no Saartjie Baartman redux, required to regale you with stories and oddities from my African childhood. Neither am I some Dickensian guttersnipe trying to beg a penny off of you with a sob story of my dreams and aspirations. I am a professional and will not be required to sell myself in such a manner.

2. I am an introvert.

That being said, sometimes I do engage with tables, but not from trying to get a tip. See, I am an introvert. I can be a functional extrovert, but I am still an introvert. Every day, I have a pool of "extrovert hours" at my disposal. such hours have grown, due to necessity, but they can still be depleted.

Working as a waiter depletes these precious hours. In a normal night, I can make it through the entire shift. However, being forced to deal with unpleasant customers, rudeness, impatience, neediness, and the like drains these hours faster than normal. Fortunately, good conversation on matters intelligent, pleasant, and entertaining slow down and, on occasion, slightly refill my pool.

So, don't be offended if I don't stop and talk. In fact, you might want to ask yourself, "Am I presenting an open, welcoming air?" That could be the reason I'm not hanging around.

In short, tip me for what I do or don't do, not for whether I act.

A Missed Detail

So, I know there's a fair bit of chatter about the state of the Church, especially in the Western world, what with the general sense of apathy and decline stemming from a lack of understanding, from both non-Christians and Christians alike, about the nature and role of the Church.

Many tout all the good, humanitarian, and fuzzy aspects, notable a very vague sense of love and "looking after orphans and widows."

Now, looking after orphans and widows is correct; that is an admonishment found in James Ch.1, but that's only part of the admonishment. The full verse says:

"Religion that God, our Father, accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." - James 1:27, NIV

So, yes, we are supposed to be looking after the poor, the hungry, the needy, but there's a second clause, one that is supposed to separate us from just another charity - living apart from the world.

By this, I mean that we, as Christians, are to be engaging the world, but not entranced or sucked in by it. we are not to be indulging in the world's sinful ideals and fantasies, but remaining clean from them.

I like to think of it as a pig farmer. Every day, he dons his coveralls and wades into the muck of the sty to tend and treat his pigs, but at the end of the day, he leaves the sty, removes his coveralls, showers, and eats his own food. He does not live with the pigs, rolling in the filth and eating their slop, but yet he is there every day, tending to them and raising them.

In a similar way, we need to be acting as Christians - going out and tending to the world and its needs, but at the end of the day, not dwelling in and receiving sustenance from the world, but from God, his righteousness and holiness should be what sustains us in our work, what pushes us forward, and what refreshes us at the end of the day.

 

On "Children of the World" and Short-Term Missons

So, those of you who are facebook friends may ave seen me bemoaning the misunderstood nature of charities like the Children of the World choir and the role of youth group missions trips. So, in an attempt to clarify where I stand once and for all, I give you my explanation:

On missions trips, I feel that their main role is to help missionaries to meet a task they would otherwise be unable to, due either to a lack of necessary skills or manpower. Examples of this would be disaster relief, healthcare trips, church building, or surveying. Conversely, what I see happening often, especially with youth trips, is that there is not much of a need that is met. Yes, there is exposure and growth from the team's side as they see and experience the great commission and there is community built between the local church and the sending church, but there is often little true progress or achievement and it can end up draining for the receiving missionaries. 

A good example of a large team of students being put to good work is from about 6 years ago, when a professor from Southeastern, took some students to do evangelism work. As part of the trip, they did some surveying, some work with local churches, and they cleared a field. This field, you see, belonged to a school some of my parents' colleagues were trying to start a program with. Normally, it would have taken a month or more to clear the rocks from it and make it usable, but these students did it in a day. As a result, the school allowed the missionaries to run their after school program. 

So, as far as youth trips and other trips go, they have good use and purpose, but they need to be done well and not foster a poor first world - third world perception, which is my second point.

My beef with the Children of the World choir (and other projects like it) is that is exploits the third world and presents a false representation of these nations and cultures. Every time I see them perform, I am reminded of a song by Johnny Clegg, titled "Third World Child," in which the chorus goes:

"Learn to speak a little bit of English | Don't be scared of the suit and tie | Learn to walk in the dreams of the foreigners | I am a third world child."

I know that many of these charity projects do good work. CotW provides good education and quality of life for these kids and brings awareness of people in other countries. The negative is the way that awareness is presented and processed. To me, it looks like the image presented is that they've taken these kids from a poor environment, clothed them, taught them, and are now showing them off. There's no celebration of the individual cultures; it's all homogenised into the American Church experience. The image portrayed, then, is that we, the first world, need to go into the "dark," "lost" third world and give them what they need to be like us, that we need to intervene. What is needed isn't intervention, but investment. We need to send skilled, trained individuals from the first world to train those in the third world in necessary, marketable skills: digging well, building houses, farming, pastoring, etc. In doing so, we encourage self-reliance and foster growth of the local GDP, enabling it to develop, while not forcing an American perspective or ideal overtop the ideals, flavors and actual needs of the particular culture. 

A classic example is Haiti - when the disaster struck, we responded correctly, providing needs. However, we've stayed way too long. It's been a number of years since the earthquake and we're still going and giving supplies. Why? Well, we see that everyone's still poor and needy, but the issue is that they're still poor and needy because there's no incentive to change. After all, the US is always sending people with stuff they need.

So, in a nutshell, my biggest grievance is the objectification of the third world and the reaction thereunto. Second is the manner in which youth missions trips, while beneficial to the team members, often do not benefit long-term either the missionaries or locals.

Gaming for Jesus

So, as Christians, we've all heard the encouragement to "do everything as unto the Lord." Usually it's in some context of "always give your best." Well, I'm beginning to come to the realization that it means something a bit more. While the motivational encouragement to go above and beyond the call of duty is well and good, I've begun to see that the emphasis might not necessarily be on the "as unto," but on the "everything."

Where did this realization come from?

Well, I'm a gamer (big shock to those who know me) I play everything from card games to board games and video games to tabletop games. Yes, I play D&D, Munchkin, Pathfinder, Catan, Poker, Risk, Chess, Neverwinter, DDO, Fable, Uno, and the list goes on. The only exception, really, is Monopoly. Never again will I play such a tedious, soul-sucking game, but I digress.

Usually the idea of gaming for Jesus revolves around being polite, not swearing, or not making lewd jokes while in game chat; playing as only good characters (or, if you're a bit more of a Fundamentalist, only Lawful Good); or being part of a Christian guild in which, I would guess and stereotype, the general stream of conversation would include prayer requests (good), smiting evil in the name of the Lord (really?), and the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch (I wish). I think we can all agree that these are all good things to do, but they're all a bit stunted. Heck, I used to fall into that camp. I usually only play good characters (or at least abide by the in-game law) and I've acted as guild chat mediator/policeman on many occasions.

Where do all these ideas stem from? Well, there's a popular tenet in Western Christian culture spoken by a long-dead man from a little place called Assisi.

Now, there's nothing wrong with this quote. It's a very good quote, but as I've said before (perhaps not on this site) what's the difference, outwardly, between a Christian and a really good, moral person?

See, we live in a society of very good, moral people who believe that they just need to be good enough and God or the "great, mysterious, benevolent power/s that be" will let them pass into paradise. Christianity has been maligned and rubbed into the dirt through tabloid-esque fallings-out between pastors and churches, or pastors and their wives. Christianity is misportrayed as hypocritical or an impossibly high standard upon which everyone involved is then condemned for following it or failing in their attempt to do so.

Understandably, many Christians have fallen silent, rather than speak up and show the difference, but that's the whole point of this quote. Back to my first question, what is the outward difference between a Christian and a good, moral person? 

Well, nothing.

The difference is inward. It's in the quality of difference, the consistency of difference. Te reason for the difference is, of course, that the BIG POINT of Christianity is that we're all screwed up, but are being changed from the inside. A moral person may or may not believe that man is screwed up, but the changes applied are external, because we, being screwed up, are incapable of changing ourselves. We need the work of an ultimately perfect God to perform the change. For St. Francis' quote to have any truth or merit, then,. one must already be walking around as a known Christian.

So, what prompted this change in perception about doing everything as unto God? Well, it was a simple conversation in whisperchat (in-game direct person-to-person chat instead of the common guild chat) in which one player who'd deemed me trustworthy began talking to me about life and struggles. The struggles just happened to be something that I couldn't explain the solution without God. I'd tried and the point didn't seem to be conveyed, so I broke my typical undercover Christian guise, outed myself and said the "G" word. It was then that I realised that it was possible to have a "redemptive purpose" for every different like and dislike. I can talk shop with my fellow scientists, musos, gamers, and guildies. I can build important relationships and model good, Christian living, but I can also use those relationships as vehicles for the Gospel. I can stand openly in my fields of interest as a Christian. I can share the Gospel without being cheesy. I can be attentive and listen to my fellows for what they need and, tactfully, tastefully, show them how God meets that need.

That, friends, is the merit of St. Francis' quote.

When a Good Movie Misses an Opportunity

So, a couple of days ago, I had the opportunity to watch Blended for the first time - excellent movie. I thoroughly enjoyed the humour, the story and how it went about handling the issue of blending two families.

You see, it focuses around two families who've lost a parent - one through divorce and one through cancer - and, frankly, it does a very good job showing some of the struggles of the parents and kids adjusting to the difficulties that come with both. It doesn't make light of any of the situations, but handles them with respect, showing and treating them fairly, while maintaining a casual, funny atmosphere. There was just one thing that was mishandled, though.

One issue brought up in the movie is that Drew Barrymore's character's older son (~13 y.o.) has been discovered to be viewing porn and has apparently been deep into it long enough to be superimposing crushes onto the magazines he's reading. When she first discovers it, she freaks, tearing up the centrefold, but later we see her apologetically looking through the magazine section of a drug store for a replacement. Throughout the movie the other characters' issues are shown and resolved, but for this character, his issue with what manhood means is addressed, but never the porn. Throughout the movie it's played off with sideways jokes, nudges, and winks. It's treated as just a normal part of a boy's life, with Sandler's character even admitting to having a couple copies himself and commenting to Barrymore on her son's "old school" tastes.

Yes, we see some of the effects of porn played out in the kid's role, chiefly a stunted ability to interact with women beyond simply as vessels for lust,but never do we see an admonishment from Sandler's character in a fatherly role towards pornography or its effects. Now, I know it's not a religious movie, but you don't have to be religious to see some of the exploitative work and trafficking that is enabled by the porn industry.

It's good to see such an issue brought out into the open on the silver screen. I just wish the producers had done a better job addressing it.

For Our Sons

I'm only a young man. I haven't seen much in my meagre 23 years. I haven't experienced or done much, either, but this is something that I'm beginning to understand the gravity and magnitude of that I think needs to be better understood by men at large.

Previously, I've clumsily typed my way around the red-herring modesty debate (I'm not going to link it, but it's somewhere here on this site), thinking that was a good approach to take, to chip in my two cents that men need to be proactive and work to prevent what many merely tell women to react to, that is, lust. Equally clumsily, I've spoken with friends who are feminists, trying to ascertain their positions (didn't quite get it, but hey, I was trying, right? [wrong attitude]).

I finally got around to looking at the #YesAllWomen making its rounds. It took me a while, because I'd dismissed it as "just another feminist outrage," but what caught my eye was that men I know whom I have never seen post anything feminist were sharing it, posting it. So, I gave it a look. To me, it was nothing flooring, but it piqued my interest. I did a bit of searching for articles about the movement, read a few of the latest twitter feed posts and realized something crucial - I don't understand.

I don't understand why my sister had to wait until she was older and still take a dog with her to go running, whereas I could've gone on my own whenever.
I don't understand the pressures of the media on women to look beautiful; after all, men's health puts the same standard on us men, right?
I don't understand why women don't feel comfortable walking to the shop after dark for a few quick necessities.
I don't understand why women have to say they have a boyfriend/fiance/spouse for their "no" to be heard.
Just to name a few.

Let me flip this scenario on its head:
Men, you are now the physically weaker sex. Society has relegated your role (traditionally) to cooking, cleaning, and minding the home. Some concessions have been made, however, and you can find work, though you might not be paid equally and you might be discriminated against. In fact, you might be hit on, harassed, or sexually assaulted by someone of the opposite sex who, being stronger than you physically and in the unwritten perception of society, is able to take their way with you, leave you, and still, no-one will fully believe you, stating that you were "asking for it" because of how you were dressed, had led the person on, hadn't said "no," etc.. You face pressure from part of society to change the way you act and dress because you're "making them lust." Conversely, you face pressure from the media and the market to fit an ideal of beauty because, let's face it, regardless of how smart or strong you are, everybody's only truly going to regard you based on how pretty you are; the applicable attributes only begin applying secondarily.

Swap shoes for a moment. Can you truly say "I don't understand" any longer? How about if I told you that the originator of #YesAllWomen is being bullied and pressured by the internet community, or that #YesAllWomenJokes has been made and is making its rounds. Can you not see the discrimination riding on the unwritten undercurrents of Western society?

I send my appreciation to the authors of #AllMenCan and #EachEveryWoman as they seek to keep this discussion on the table.

I'm only a young man. I haven't seen much in my meagre 23 years. I haven't experienced or done much either, but as I grow and (hopefully) become a father, I will teach my sons this message. Will you teach yours?

A Systematic Exposition of Salvation

It has occurred to me that while I may speak of or reference different aspects of salvation, I have not actually put to writing a systematic discourse on my beliefs and reasonings relating to salvation. Therefore, this post has been written. Take from it what you will. If you are here to deride, scorn or belittle, I bid you good day. If you are here out of curiosity or a search for understanding, welcome!

At the beginning is God, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, who, merely with his speech, brought forth into existence time and space, giving everything form and functon for the express purpose of displaying His attributes, an action which, in any other being would be blasphemous and arrogant, but, as God is the supreme being, there is none higher for Him to give service to, making it, therefore, reasonable for God to act towards his glory, spurring the creation of time, space, the details, and man, the pinnacle of His creation, who was imbued with the ability to glorify God in the freest, fullest of manners: by free will, a gift which, at the moment of testing, was used to choose disobedience over obedience, marring the perfection of God's creation, separating mankind from God, because God, being infinitely perfect, righteous, and holy, cannot, by His nature, bear the presence of our then newfound imperfection, but instead, acting out of time, ended the scourge of disobedience at a set point in time foreknown to give Him the most glory, while, acting out of mercy, love, and grace for His creation, inside the flow of time, providing a temporary means of expiation of this disobedience, this imperfection, this sin, through the lifeblood sacrifice of a pure, unblemished animal, setting the stage for the future, permanent atonement for the fallenness of His creation, which occurred through the sending of Jesus, the son of God, who, being fully God, yet fully man was able to identify with and understand the burdens and cares of man, yet was able to live a life pure and without sin, providing a lifeblood sacrifice in accordance with the law set in time previously, the difference being that Jesus, being fully God, is not temporal, is not finite, but, rather, is infinite, able to atone for the sins of humanity past, present, and future and, after his death, was buried, but, three days later, He was returned to life, thereby breaking the necessary consequence of sin, that is, death, as the final part of His sacrifice such that whosoever accepts this sacrifice has his or her sins paid for by the sacrifice of Jesus such that under the eyes of God, it is as if he/she has never sinned, allowing him/her to be rejoined in communion and relationship with God.

Thus ends my expounding of the justifying action of salvation in one sentence.