Testing Faith

I was just bombarded this weekend with lessons about faith... and this is what struck me:

Everyone uses the analogy of a chair when they're talking about faith. We have faith in chairs that they will not collapse when we sit on them, yada, yada, yada...

But here's what I'm thinking: We can say we have faith in the chair all we want, but until we sit in the chair, we have no way of knowing for sure if it will hold us up.

So if the chair analogy holds true, then we need to test our faith in God every once in a while to convince ourselves that it's really true. That way, we'll eventually get to the point we're at with most chairs... where we can just sit down without giving it a second thought. The more we trust in God, the more it'll become second nature for us, and the more we'll put our faith in God 100% without asking questions.

So what am I waiting for? Well, I guess maybe I don't trust God as much as I think I do...

What Goes Around, Comes Around

Learned something today. I was observing a Canadian History class and my cooperating teacher was talking about the 1885 rebellion in Saskatchewan. They talked all about Louis Riel and whether he was a hero or a murderer, they explored the tensions between Quebec and Ontario over the subject, etc.

But then they talked about someone else.

Gabriel Dumont.

Now, Dumont was one of Riel's top guns. The guy could hit anything within range while galloping full steam ahead on his horse. A very skilled shooter. Also wanted by the Canadian government for treason against the country.

Unlike Riel, however, Dumont escaped to the United States before any Canadian army could capture him. While he was down there, he actually joined the "Wild West Show" that toured all over the former 13 colonies giving them a taste of the "Wild West." (He, of course, played the part of an Aboriginal who, of course, lost all the time. But then he dazzled everyone with his marksmanship).

But back to the story.

Eventually, the Canadian government granted Dumont a pardon. He was now free to return to his home in Saskatchewan without the fear of getting arrested.

So he did.

But he couldn't stay home. He had grown up as a Metis usually did at that time: he was a hunter and roamed all over the prairie all the time. As it turned out, the trail he used ran right by the home of a Mr. Diefenbaker, who had a son named John. Mr. Diefenbaker would welcome Dumont into his home for a night here and there and would share meals with the hunter. In return for his kindness, Dumont taught young John how to shoot with accuracy. In the meantime, John Diefenbaker got the chance to hear stories of Louis Riel and the injustices done to the Metis in the 1880s.

Dumont dies when Diefenbaker was 11 years old.

As you may know, Diefenbaker grew up to be a lawyer who offered his services for free to native and metis people who needed legal help. Oh, and he also became Prime Minister.

He became the Prime Minister who passed the Bill of Rights, recognising the rights of Natives and Metis people to vote in Canadian elections (1960s). It was only then that Natives were allowed off the reserves without a pass (like a hall pass or something). He was the Prime Minister who convinced the UN to stop trading with South Africa until apartheid was stopped (interestingly enough, apartheid in SA was modelled after the reserve system in Canada... think about that for a bit).

So, Mr. Dumont, what goes around, comes around.

Congratulations.

So what can we learn from Gabriel Dumont? Simply this: when something happens to you that you consider an injustice, don't hate the people who did it to you. Do good to those who harm you and thus pour hot coals on their heads. Eventually, maybe someone will agree with you and take up your cause... and even if not, you know that all things work out to the good of those who love the Lord.

Dumont never lived to see the day that his time invested in the childhood of a white boy from Ontario came to benefit people around the world, but we can look back and say, "Well done, Gabriel. May history smile on you."

On Being Like Jesus

I can't take any credit for this post. Just about everything I've got here comes from a video I saw at Treasured Foundation. But it has hit me in a couple of ways. I'll explain...

First of all, think about Peter. Remember him? He's the guy who jumped out of a boat in the middle of a storm because he thought the ghost on the water was Jesus. Yeah, him. Stupid, right? I mean who, in their right mind, would jump out of a boat in the middle of the lake in the middle of a storm? So why does he do it?

Take a look waaaay back.

The Jewish tradition was for all children to go to school at age six. For the next three years, they spent their time memorizing the scriptures. That's Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deutoronomy, Numbers... memorized in three years. That's all they did. I'm sure in the process they learned stuff like reading and writing, and maybe Numbers has some arithmetic, but in general they memorized.

Then, after three years, they would get broken into groups (what we call streaming today). Those who were good at school got to move on the the next step. Those who weren't so good at school went into the family business. Thanks for coming out, you know the scriptures now, so go be a really good farmer (nothing against farmers).

Those who were deemed good enough moved into the next step where they spent their next three years memorizing other parts of the modern Old Testament (prophets and stuff, like Isaiah, for example). So by the time they were twelve, these kids had most of our Old Testament memorized.

Now it's streaming time again. Those who were really, really good stood the chance of getting picked by a Rabbi for some personal instruction. The rest went into their family business.

The ones who got picked for the further instruction then spent their time following their Rabbi around learning his ways and trying to become like him. Once the Rabbi decided they had done so satisfactorily, they finally graduated and became a Rabbi themselves.

The first thing they did as a new Rabbi was to go around to the schools and pick out the best twelve-year-olds they could find. The only ones they picked were the ones they thought were good enough to become like them.

Jesus was a Rabbi.

So you can picture him as a kid going to school for three years memorizing scripture (I don't suppose that was much of a challenge for him). Then at twelve we're told of his trip where he confounds the teachers of the law. I'd like to see the competition these guys had to make Jesus one of their followers. And yet, he went back home with his parents and became a carpenter.

Somewhere around 30 years old, some Rabbi who recognised the spiritual geneous that was Jesus must have conferred some kind of honorary Rabbiship on him because later on, Jesus is called a Rabbi.

So now Jesus is a Rabbi. His job now is to go around and find followers.

Now here's what I think. I don't think Jesus would've had to go very far to find potential followers. It's my guess that he would've had these recent graduates of the second phase of schooling trying their hardest to impress him and show off their stuff to him in the hopes that they would be chosen by this new Rabbi.

So they're following Jesus around and showing their stuff and he seemingly randomly walks up to some fishermen and says, "Come, follow me."

That was the line. Someone was being chosen! Who was it? WHAT!!!? A fisherman? But the simple fact that this person was a fisherman meant he was in the family business. He was one of the ones who didn't make it. You can't choose him!

But Jesus did.

Jesus chose Peter because he thought Peter had enough to become like him. Peter had enough to become like Jesus. Peter could do the things that Jesus did.

So Peter drops everything and follows Jesus. Now, this might be seen as a great commitment on Peter's part, but consider this: Jewish children dreamt of being chosen by a Rabbi. It meant that they were the best of the best. It's as if Wayne Gretzky came up to any Canadian boy and said, "Hey, I'd like to name you to Canada's 2006 Olympic Hockey team. Come start training." What do you think the response would be?

Back to the boat, now, and Peter sees this guy, this thing, out walking on the water. It might be a ghost and it might be Jesus. But Peter knows that if it's Jesus, then he could do what Jesus was doing. That's why Jesus called him in the first place. So Peter asks Jesus if he should also be walking on the water and Jesus says you betcha. So Peter takes a further step as an understudy of his Rabbi and jumps out of the boat.

Eventually, even though Peter failed over and over again, it get to the point where Jesus tells him to "feed my sheep." A Rabbi was seen as a shepherd over his flock of followers. Jesus was effectively turning the mission over to Peter, saying that he had effectively become like Jesus. He was naming Peter a Rabbi (although by this point they'd kind of been disowned by the Jewish traditionalists and I'm sure no one officially recognised that).

But here's something to think about:

Jesus has chosen you.

Why I don't like Napolean Dynamite

People keep asking me: Don't you think Napolean Dynamite is the funniest movie?

No, it's not the funniest movie. In fact, as funny movies go, this one's about as funny as... oh, let's say... those educational movies you watched in Jr. High.

And that's only because it seems to be stuck in the 70s.

Now, that's not to say there aren't any funny parts in it, but the people who made the movie (who are undoubtedly laughing their way to the bank right now) couldn't make up their minds.

Either make the movie about nothing at all and fill it with useless humour (which most of the movie is and I can appreciate that) or give it some sort of story line and fill it with applicable jokes (which happens from time to time).

Napolean Dynamite, however, goes abolutely nowhere for much of the movie, and then suddenly breaks from the humour to rush the storyline along to try to reach a certain point. Make up your mind and go with it.

I think the movie would've even been better if they just ended it with Napolean's dance number and left the audience going "what? that's the end of the movie?" That would've been funny. But trying to resolve everything right at the end just to give it the resemblence of having a storyline is idiotic. I'm sorry.

And for those of you who don't agree with me (and apparently there are lots of you), I'm right and you're wrong.

I have no qualms about saying that.