Vancouver: We Are All Canucks

On June 14, 1994 I was heading with a friend to Vancouver from Surrey on the SkyTrain. The Vancouver Canucks had just lost Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Playoffs to the New York Rangers, and I'd heard there would be a party in town, so we decided to go. On our way there, we met with people who were coming back urging us to turn around. I can't actually remember if we went to Vancouver that night, but I do know that we didn't see any of the riots that changed the city's psyche. I also know that I've told people for the past 17 years, "I was there... well, not at the riots, but I was in Vancouver".

Three days ago, the same thing happened again. The Canucks lost Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Playoffs, this time to the Boston Bruins, and there was a riot in Vancouver. This time, however, I was with my family and friends Randy and Allana Lemke and their family. But I saw on TV what many others saw. And since that night, much has been said about those who participated in the riots. Much has been said, which I want to respond to.

I find it odd and troubling that so much of the time, many of us (myself included) can sit back shaking our heads at the actions of others condemning them as immoral, evil, depraved, loose, angry, malicious, dissentious, etc and never for a second look at our own potential for sin. "Religion" is what happens when in self-righteousness, I look down on those who are less righteous than I am and puff myself up by saying "I would never do that, act that way, etc". This is what I have heard plenty of these past days. People calling down other people, as if they're any better themselves. I posted this on my facebook today:
'Our outrage and disgust against those who participated in the riot, or just stuck around watching, is thinly veiled arrogance. "I would never do anything like that" when really, we're all capable of that level of idiocy.'
One of my friends responded with 'Capable does not mean we would act upon it. Some people have much better morals than others.' I would agree... but as the old saying goes, put one person directly in another person's shoes, give them the same circumstances, the same upbringing, the same challenges and achievements in life, and see if they don't respond in a similar way. There's the old argument of nature vs. nurture - maybe some people are born with a more conscientious and empathetic attitude, but still who are we then to judge? Did I choose to have parents who had the will and understanding to instill moral character in me? Did I choose the situations to respond to through growing up, in school, in work situations, in life? Would I have chosen the same thing these "thugs" did if I were in their shoes?

The other thing I was struck with was how so many people calling into the radio stations, and many of the talk show hosts themselves, were decrying those who were not actively participating in the riot but wanted to stick around and see what happens. "How could they stay there, what kind of person would want to see what goes on in a riot!" Yet these are the same people who sat glued to their own Televisions until 11:00 to see how the riot turned out. These are the same people who will shake their heads for years to come and remind people, "yes, the riots of 2011 - I saw the whole thing unfold". It's hypocrisy at best, a lack of empathy at worst. The people watching the riots on TV are no better than those who stuck around downtown to see what would happen. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with either, but how can we curse others for doing the same thing we defend ourselves doing?

Now, does this mean I think the rioters should not be charged, should be let go because they were brought up differently, had different experiences which just happened to change the way they responded to situations? Not at all! We are all responsible for our behaviors and actions. If we let these go uncharged, we would be letting an injustice go unpunished. Yet, we can have empathy. In fact, I say we NEED to have empathy. To give them the punishment that they truly deserve to fit the crime, we need empathy. To show them that their behavior is unacceptable, we need empathy. I heard one of our politicians say that we need to root out these few rioters, so that going forward we can have peaceful events in our city. That's not what we need, because once those few (hundred? thousand?) rioters are rooted out we'll find that the problem is not "them", it's "us". If we understand that, then we can deal with the problem appropriately - with empathy.

Nearsightedness is what we call the condition where we can only see up close, but not far away. Farsightedness is when we can see further away but not up close. We are all nearsighted in terms of beauty, and farsighted in terms of sin. We are a beautiful people, made in the image of God, capable of good things. Thursday and Friday showed that, as people from all around Vancouver swarmed to help the cleanup after the riot. It's a beautiful display. And we have been rightly proud of that beauty displayed. But we can't grow so nearsighted that we think "we're" beautiful while "they're" sinful. We need to realize that WE ARE ALL sinful, WE ARE ALL beautiful, and in this polar confusion we need to depend on a grace greater than us all to make us ACCEPTABLE.

We are all Canucks, as the slogan has told us over and over. We need to own ourselves, warts and sin and riotousness and all. We need to take responsibility for ourselves, and not leave some out while we celebrate our diversity. We need to recognize ourselves, and finally, we need to recognize that we are all great sinners in need of a great Savior.

LOST, Pelagius, and Jacob Arminius

LOST and the history of the Church

Many epic tales over the years have dealt with an essential question that we all in one form or another grapple with – is man basically good, but capable of making bad decisions, or is man basically evil? The first that comes to mind is the highschool English class staple, The Lord of the Flies. In that story, the author William Golding makes the argument that man is basically evil and that society restrains his base inclinations. Another recent portrayal of this argument is found in M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village, in which a group of people, frightened of the evil in the world, keep themselves huddled away from the world in a community where only their kind are allowed. They find eventually however, that the evil they feared from the outside has been inside the village as well.

The argument between these two sides isn’t a modern argument. In the 4^th century, a British theologian named Pelagius and a bishop from North Africa named Augustine had the same argument. Pelagius claimed that mankind, having been created in God’s image and likeness, is in essence good (though capable of making bad decisions). Augustine argued vehemently against that idea, referencing what has been termed “original sin” which has tainted mankind since is was committed by our first parents. Augustine sees Jesus then as the Saviour that we need because of our sins and shortfalls, while Pelagius sees Jesus as a good example of what we could be when, by mortal will, we choose good over evil. In church history, Augustine was vindicated and Pelagius was banished from Rome. However, that was far from the end of the debate. Pelagianism and its belief in the free will of man to choose good or evil has its roots deeper than the fourth century, and its influence is seen today, both inside and outside of the Church.

One of the more prominent progeny of Pelagianism is what we call Arminianism, which is the belief in the free will of man to choose or to deny Christ. Arminianists believe in the salvific work of God in Christ, they believe in original sin, but they also believe that man has the ability to decide to follow Christ, making his depravity, or sinfulness, less than complete. Orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, taught that because of “original sin”, mankind is incapable of making such a good moral choice as to follow Jesus, and that this is made only by the influence of Divine grace. Upon his confession of Jesus as God and Lord, Jesus told Peter “flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 16:17), and so it is with any person who confesses Christ. In response to Arminianism, the followers of John Calvin named this doctrine “The Total Depravity of Man” – the idea that man cannot choose to make Jesus their God and Lord.

Now, let’s get back to LOST. Lost is a cultural phenomenon, in which much more is going on behind the scenes than what we see and experience. We know that there’s much more to Jack, Kate, Sawyer, Hurley, John, and the others and from the first season we catch glimpses of their lives before they crashed on the island. But as the series moves on season after season, we find that there’s more to the Island itself. And it was revealed most clearly in last week’s episode (season 6 episode 9) that the struggle they are experiencing on the island has to do with the experiment between two men, one named Jacob and the other who is not named, but who is depicted by certain people, most notably John Locke. It was revealed that the unnamed man (in black) believes that man is corrupt by nature, and Jacob disagrees, believing that man has in him the ability to choose good over evil. To make his point, Jacob brings people to the Island, giving them a fresh start – in essence, wiping away their sordid past, allowing them to choose good or evil for themselves. For each person who chooses Jacob over the man in black, Jacob deposits to the other man one white rock.

I am interested to see where this will go. There’s already so much symbolism to be unpacked here. For instance, Jacob’s name. Arminianists, the believers in the free will of man to choose or deny Christ’s salvation, take their name from a Dutch theologian named Jacob. Then there’s John Locke’s name. John Locke is most recently seen to be the “man in black”. Locke has always believed that he was destined for the Island. His last name depicts his character and position – he’s “locked” into his destiny. His first name is perhaps a homage to John Calvin. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.