Friday, February 23, 2007

I'm finally getting a chance to catch up on all the 24 I've missed over the past few weeks. It's about time is all I can say. Yes, great pun, I know. Get it? It's about time, as in the show is called "24" and is based on time, and yet the same phrase implies that it's been a long time since I last watched it. Ooh, I'm so clever.

Anyway. All the usual things are still happening in the most dysfunctional office in America (and now you can add the most dysfunctional government administration in history). Resignation letters flying left and right, a new plot to bring down the president, and a patriotic speech about the importance of the rule of law. Oh, and then there's Chloe's boyfriend (whose last name is also O'Brian--how does that work? I thought they were just an item, not a husband-wife team, although I could be forgetting some major point of plotline here--someone should clear this up for me in the comments, thank you) programming a trigger for a nuclear device, complete with an amazing torture scene the likes of which I've never seen. Hey, we all knew it was going to be Morris in one way or another, right? Good car chases, too. And who can forget the farmer from Babe killing Piglet McBluetooth in cold blood. Gotta say, I saw that one coming, although I was surprised when they turned James Cromwell's character bad. Doesn't suit him, for some reason. I think I'll just always see him in his Babe role.

I'm only halfway through last week's two-part episode, with the second half and this past Monday's episode to watch. Eventually I'll get caught up, and then I'll bring back the witty and incisive commentary on the episodes.

Moving on. Here's the story I was going to comment on yesterday. I'll recap for those too lazy to click the link. A mother in Calgary left her six-year-old son and one-year-old daughter in the car when she went inside the building she worked in to drop off some files. Through a truly bizzare series of events (read the story--it's the strangest tale I've heard in some time, and all the more tragic because it's true), the daughter managed to get herself caught in the power window by the neck while her brother (who unstrapped her from her car seat) slept beside her. In another tragic series of events, the girl's mom came back and had no idea what had happened until it was too late. The girl died a day short of her second birthday.

So terribly sad. I can't even find words to say how sad the story is. It serves as an excellent reminder of why we always bring our kids with us instead of leaving them in the car, no matter how minor the errand we're running is. Never mind the inherent danger in leaving two kids confined in a car with all the sick people out there who would steal a car full of kids for fun, there's a reason why kids need to be supervised--they can't perceive danger.

What makes this story worse is that I know I've come close to doing the same thing myself. There have been several times when I've had Theo in the car with me and had to run an errand, and I've thought to myself, "I'm only going to be a minute; I can just leave him in his car seat--he'll be fine." Yes, he probably will be fine. But what if?

It's just not worth saving the extra few minutes. What have we come to as a society when the extra time it takes to unstrap our kids and strap them back in again has become an annoyance, a hinderance to getting things accomplished? Is it all worth it, really? No. This story reminds me that I need to take time to slow down and enjoy my son, even when he seems like "baggage." It sounds terrible to say that, but all of you who are parents know the feeling I'm describing.

My heart goes out to this mother and the family of the child, as well as the passersby who tried to help. I hope you'll join me in praying for them--I think they could use it right about now.

What a sad, macabre way to end the posting and the week. I can't end on that note, so without appropriate segue...

...Things finally get back to normal at school tomorrow. Missions conference is over (Floyd again this morning, saying something I agreed with a little bit more, but not all the way), the booths are gone--everyone's up in Edmonton for Missions Fest--and classes resume tomorrow. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm glad to get back to it. It's probably just because I'm so close to finishing that I just want to get it done, already. Every day I'm not in class makes me anxious to get back in class and finish. But patience is a virtue (that I rarely exhibit). I just checked the schedule--turns out I'm already almost halfway through the semester. Doesn't feel like it, that's for sure. I'll bet it's going to end so abruptly it'll feel like hitting a brick wall at some velocity, but that's what happens.

Managed to finish the first draft of an essay that's due in just over a week, so I'm happy about that. I've got a midterm exam next Wednesday, which is really strange, considering I haven't written a single exam the whole time I've been here. I don't even remember how to study for them (not that I was ever much good at studying for or taking exams). But that's okay--the prof gave us a crib sheet of what will be on the test. Unfortunately I can't take it in with me.

I'm listening to an interesting lecture on my walks to and from school that will tie into my in-class presentation in my Issues in Contemporary Theology class (the one I studied feminist theology in). Interesting stuff about the conservative/postconservative evangelical divide. I find myself agreeing with much the speaker says, and I hope I can condense a bit of it here, if you'll have it.

The article I'm presenting and critiquing is a definition of evangelicalism, and also a defense of the traditional definition in light of the postconservative movement. Many in the conservative camp feel that postconservatives are too liberal for their liking, because they entertain ideas like open theism (the belief that God doesn't necessarily know exactly how the future is going to turn out). But postconservatives would respond that conservative evangelicalism is too quick to draw lines in the sand and exclude people from its fellowship because they disagree. The speaker brought up a good point about postconservative evangelicalism being a generous orthodoxy, one that allows differing viewpoints to coexist. Even though two opposing viewpoints cannot possibly be right (despite what postmodernism would have us beleive), both are welcome because both can be intelligently reasoned. Conservative evangelicalism would say that one is correct, and in order to be a part of this movement, one has to agree with the party line.

I think that kind of thinking is what bugs me about a lot of the silly quibbles we have within our denominations regarding peripheral things. To me, there are a few deal-breakers in faith: the Trinity; the Bible as the authoritative and infallible Word of God; the virgin birth; the sinlessness of Christ; the dual nature of Christ; the substitutionary atoning death of Christ; the present work of the Holy Spirit; the bodily return of Jesus; there may be a couple others, but you get the point. To me, things like what role women have in ministry are just not worth arguing about. Strong cases can be made from Scripture for both sides of the debate, and I'm sure all of Christendom will never agree on this side of eternity.

But isn't there enough room for everyone? The MB Herald, a publication I receive as a member of an MB church, took this debate on a while back. The letters they got were horrendous. People all over the conference hurling accusations of heresy at each other, and general bad feelings all around. In the Fellowship, there was once (and there may still be) a movement afoot to have all churches who would dare call a woman a pastor kicked out of the denomination. Why? Can't we agree to disagree and still live in Christian unity with each other? Isn't the kingdom of heaven big enough for all of us?

And that's just the problem with conservative evangelicalism as it now exists--it is not willing to bend or waver from its inherited tradition, no matter what happens. And you know what? When the world looks at this stuff, they don't gain any respect for the church. Please don't misunderstand: I'm not advocating that we conform church to the world's standards. But is it too much to ask to not be so archaic about our standpoints on things that are grey areas of Scripture? I think it's not.

Right. That's a bit of a nicer way to end--I hope you stayed with me through all of it. And so ends another week here in Three Hills, at least for you blog-consumers. Remember, no posting tomorrow night, but I'll have one up here Sunday night for your reading pleasure first thing Monday morning. Have a wonderful weekend, and I'll see you back here Monday.