説教ﾌﾟﾚﾋﾞｭｰ：どうしょうもないやつ

「『内なる人』としては神の律法を喜んでいますが、わたしの五体にはもう一つの法則があって心の法則と戦い、わたしを、五体の内にある罪の法則のとりこにしているのが分かります。」（ローマの信徒への手紙7:22-23）

堕落した世の中の流れに身を任せれば気楽な生活を送れるが、あえて神の愛に応えようとすると途端に、トラブルが始まる。自己本位の生き方をやめ、隣人を赦し、隣人に仕え、清く正しい生活に励みなさいという主の呼び掛けに応答しようとすればするほど、それができないことを痛切に感じるばかり。み心に対する反抗的な気性が備わっているのである。そこから抜け出せないがゆえに、キリストと共に歩む喜びを味わい楽しむこともできない。上からの助けが与えられない限り．．．

me me me ism

"[The unconstrained freedom of the will], for many of us, is the highest good imaginable. And a society guided by such beliefs must, at least implicitly, embrace and subtly advocate a very particular 'moral metaphysics': that is, the nonexistence of any transcendent standard of the good that has the power (or the right) to order our desires toward a higher end. We are, first and foremost, heroic and insatiable consumers, and we must not allow the specters of transcendent law or personal guilt to render us indecisive."
 --David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions, p. 22

「大勢の人にとって［全く拘束されていない個々人の意志］がこの上ない理想となっている。そしてそういう理想に導かれる社会は、当然、ある特定の「道徳哲学」を暗にでも受け入れ、支持することになっている。すなわち、より崇高な目的のためにわたしたちの欲求の方向付けをする権力（や権利）を持つ、卓越した善悪の基準などは存在しない、ということ。わたしたちは何よりもまず骨の折れる、飽くことを知らない消費者であるから、卓越した法則や個人の罪悪感などという幻でわたしたちの自己決定力が弱められることを許すわけにはいかない。」
 ー デービッド・ベントリー・ハート博士　（『無神論は妄想である』、22ページ）

evidence, proof, and believing

I recently watched the 2005 movie "Proof". In it, Anthony Hopkins plays a brilliant but mentally disturbed mathematician, Gwyneth Paltrow his younger daughter, Catherine, who has cared for him at home for many years. The movie starts the week after the father's death, and jumps between past and present.

It's not a bad film. The elegant Paltrow acts with guarded intensity, so unrelentingly triste that her fleeting moments of happiness are like hot sunlight pouring through a crack in the storm clouds.

The older sister who arrives for the funeral and to settle Dad's affairs is played with utterly convincing annoyingness by Hope Davis (who, you will of course recall, played the French ticketing agent in "Home Alone")

The father's ex-student and Catherine's budding love interest, Hal, is played by Jake Gyllenhaal, who is just, well, annoying. Maybe if he showered and shaved... Twice...

Hopkins. Well, he just IS. Once you're Hannibal, you pretty much can never come back.

The title refers a mathematical proof that is discovered in a journal among Dad's belongings. It's so brilliant that the word "brilliant" is pathetically inadequate. It has to do with a really large prime number, I think, but for someone like me, they might as well be discussing various degrees of karmic enlightenment in tantric Buddhism.

Anyway, it's a really, really, really brainy mathematical proof. Ground-breaking.

Buoyed up by the false sense of intimacy and trust brought about by having sex with Hal during the post-funeral house party, Catherine reveals that she is the real author of the proof.

Now, here's where the second meaning of the title comes in, and what I found most interesting about this movie. Because there's no way to prove that Catherine is telling the truth. Her and her father's handwriting are virtually identical. And, Hal concludes, how could someone--a woman, no less--who dropped out of grad school (to take care of her father, but still) possibly possess the kind of mind necessary to achieve this supernova-level mathematical breakthrough?

Crushed by Hal's doubt, Catherine goes into an even darker spiral. She shuts down emotionally for a week.

During which time, Hal takes the journal to various math scholars to verify its legitimacy. And, in fact, it seems 100% on the up and up. Hal becomes convinced not only of the proof's validity, but also of Catherine's authorship (it apparently uses newer math techniques that Catherine's father wouldn't have mastered--what, is there a different way of writing "x" that I don't know about?)

Hal, convinced and excited, rushes back to find Catherine getting ready to move out of town with her sister. He tells her that he believes her now. She is not impressed. Here's the great scene:

CATHERINE: You think you figured something out? You run over here all pleased with yourself because you changed your mind? Now you're certain? You don't know anything! The book, the math, the dates, the writing...all that stuff, you just decided with your buddies. It's just evidence. It doesn't prove anything.
HAL: Okay, what would?
CATHERINE: Nothing. (Pause) You should've trusted me.
HAL: I know.

Do you see that? Isn't that the age old problem of faith? The Enemy (or a persistent atheist, for that matter) could use similar words to any believer or convert:

You think you figured something out? Here you are, all pleased with yourself because you changed your mind? Now you're certain? You don't know anything! The sacred book, the beauty of creation and its laws, the existence of the Church, the experience of God's love, the example of the saints, the fact of countless lives turned around...all that stuff, you just decided with your Christian buddies. It's just evidence. It doesn't prove anything.

What would prove the existence of God? What would prove the reliability of Scripture? The historicity of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus? The access we have to the Father through the Spirit of Christ even now? The forgiveness of sin? The validity of prayer?

Nothing. There is no proof of any of these things.

There's heaps of evidence. Reason is a friend to Christian belief. There is abundant evidence--but you can always find a way to rule evidence inadmissable. Hearsay! Subjective experience! Empirically unverifiable! Delusion! Coincidence! Fabrication! Wishful thinking!

But God says: You should trust me.

Finally, even after you have weighed all the evidence, faith still requires trust.

We trust in the self-revelation of God, because we accept that God is reliable. Because it is not in God's character to deceive.

We trust that the authors of scripture weren't just making it all up out of thin air.

We trust that the apostles tell it like it was, from slightly divergent standpoints, and were willing to be killed rather than deny what they knew to be true.

We trust that their witness was faithfully compiled and written down. (The evidence is VERY friendly to us at this point.)

And we trust that the Church for 2,000 years has more or less ably preserved this witness to the reality of the Living Christ in our midst, the wellspring of our healing, the source of our joy.

blessable and unblessable

Often, the Enemy tries to push through error by totalizing things which are only partial.

So, for example, since some who call themselves Christian are angry, unthinking Neanderthals, it therefore follows that Christianity is a religion of wrath and reactionary irrationality. Since a glass or two with dinner is a delightful thing, there can be nothing wrong with tossing back seven or eight.

As shoddy as the logic is, you see it all over the place. It often crops up in the attempt to sanction what God has revealed to be sinful. A kind of pernicious end-run.

The hottest hot example would be, of course, same-sex sexual relationships. The line goes like this: "My relationship with Fred is a grace-filled source of blessing to me and to all who know us. It therefore follows that our sexual relationship cannot be sinful."

Well, yes, actually, it can be sinful. And is, which we know because it has been revealed to be sinful.

It may be true that you and Fred have a bond of friendship which is a vehicle of grace. You may indeed care for one another with true agape love as brothers in Christ. And your friendship and your example of lived charity may indeed be a blessing to those around you.

It does not follow, however, that your misuse of the gift of sexual intimacy can also be somehow considered either capable of being blessed or capable of being an instrument of blessing.

God is quite able to distinguish between obedience and disobedience even within the same human heart. Sex outside the bounds which He has established for our good, i.e. in any context other than a lifelong union of man and woman, is disobedience. And God never uses disobedience to bless His creatures.

In this way, the Enemy tries to totalize partial things in a way that overturns the revelation of God.

God, on the other hand, delights to bless whenever and wherever He can. If even the worst sinner brings even the smallest area of his life into alignment with God's good will, God will rush to deliver grace through the opening thus provided.

God never writes us off. The greedy man who drops a wad of bills into the Salvation Army box: An opening for God's grace. The atheist who finds herself whispering a word of thanks when the baby's fever subsides: An opening for God's grace. The sexually broken man who stops before that final click online, the alcohol abuser who decides "just not today," the abusive husband who agrees to counseling, the glutton who says no to seconds--God waits for these little openings to come in with His blessing, to establish even a small foothold of grace in the human heart.

God always uses even the smallest obedience to bless His creatures.  

Jesus, give my gay friends the grace to bring their friendships and their whole lives fully into line with your good will for them. Give all of us sinners the grace to submit more and more areas of our lives to your lordship.

damage is done

"How dare you take my child away from me! I brought her to you so you could help her. I trusted you!"

So screams the mother whose badly abused child goes from the peds ward into Child Protective Services.

But the fact is, the pain and outrage the mother is feeling in the hospital lobby are pain and outrage that have already been visited on her. The medical staff didn't cause the pain. What caused it was her decision to shack up with a pathetic excuse for a man who has to prove his manliness by hitting women and little children. What caused it was all of his "issues."

So the suffering is not just now erupting. It was already there. It was just dormant, waiting to take concrete form. Which it did when her child finally got rescued from her, from her bad decisions, and from the man she's probably going to keep taking abuse from.

Of course, when the already inflicted suffering of the broken home moves out of its latent state and becomes a vivid, palpable reality, everybody involved feels the agony, acutely. But the cause of the suffering is not new. The suffering has already been caused. Now, we're just forced to experience it. The kid simply couldn't stay in that home.

So, the feverish agony of a failed liver from a lifetime of highballs, the round the clock suffocating panic caused by 50 years of two packs a day, the asshole watching his wife drive off for good with the kids, the clerk getting sacked after countless dips into the petty cash drawer, the burning lesions that flare up every winter--these things are no fun at the time. But they were consequences waiting to take form.

That is what I think is going on with the biblical word "judgment." Judgment is not about God in a huff being capricious and cruel. Judgment is about the consequences of the things we have already been and done finally being allowed to take concrete shape. Reckoning comes, sooner or later. And we may scream and rage all we want, but the damage has already been done. And we will have been the ones responsible for it. Not God.

The amazing thing about the Christian faith is that, while there's no way for us to undo the consequences of our sins, nothing we can do to avoid the reckoning that will come, nothing we can do to "get off easy"--God has done it for us. In Jesus. On the cross.

It is on the cross that the consequences of the damage we have wrought, the poison of all our sin, take hideous, concrete shape. The reckoning that was rightfully to be ours has been visited upon Jesus. He opted for that role.

And the power of Christ's cross is what can break the stranglehold of our not-yet-paid consequences and set us free, now, today. The power of Christ's cross is what can save us from ourselves, and give us a chance to choose differently this time around. A chance to put off the old ways, and live in the peace of God.

If we will accept the chance that is offered.

Not that we still don't have to face the consequences of our sins in this life, at least in part. But in the end, instead of an eternity of screaming and rage, we will be able to fall at the feet of our Savior with gratitude and joy.

everything is on fire

"In religion it is not enough for people to do the best that they can. That can never be enough. Our life is more perilous than that. Everything is on fire. We cannot put out the flames, for we too are engulfed. I pray to Jesus Christ not because he was the teacher who showed us how to do the best we can, but because he is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Miserere mei, Domine."
--Prof. John B. Buescher, about his return from Buddhism to Catholicism, "Everything Is On Fire" Books & Culture (Jan/Feb 2008).

「信仰では、人がベストを尽くせばいいというわけにはいかない。それだけではまだまだ物足りない。命はそれ以上に実に危険な状況にあるから。世の中は火災のごとくすべてが燃えているのである。わたしたちはあまりにもその炎に包まれているから、それを消すことができない。イエス・キリストがベストを尽くす方法を示してくださる導師だったからではなくて、世の罪を除く神の小羊だから、わたしはイエスに祈れるのである。主よ、憐れみたまえ。」
―『すべてが燃えている』　ジョン・ビューシャー（元仏教徒でキリスト教に改宗した比較宗教学博士）

falls the sparrow

My boys rescued a fledgling sparrow on the way home from church. They'd taken a different road from the station and found the thing, about a week old, chirping forlornly on the street. Some menacing looking crows were also in the area (the city had just been destroying crows' nests in the neighborhood).

Fearing for the fledgling's safety, my younger son stood guard while my oldest went and got my wife.

She did the only sensible thing and tried to foist the bird off onto a vet. Our family, collectively, knows absolutely nothing about taking care of birds. No luck, however. Instead of an offer of shelter, what my wife got were care and feeding instructions.

So, reluctantly, we welcomed "Chitchi" into our home. That is, my wife and I were reluctant. The kids were psyched. As in "cancel all my appointments" psyched, which isn't actually very realistic for school-going, soccer-practicing children.

Things didn't look so good for Chitchi at first. (BTW, the name is because Chitchi was found on Father's Day, which is "chi-chi no hi" in Japanese.) He was probably in shock. He refused food, though he shook his wings excitedly whenever we made chirping sounds.

I was pretty sure he wouldn't make it to Monday.

That is, until his chirping pulled me out of sleep at about six a.m. On my day off. On which day, alone, I can at least pretend to sleep until eight, even eight-thirty.

As I sat there trying to feed Chitchi in the half-light, while the rest of the house slept, three kids' worth of pre-dawn feedings and diaper changes and vomit cleaning came back. The things we do for love.

Still, although alive and chirping energetically, Chitchi still wouldn't eat. Outlook negative. I told my middle one not to get his hopes up too much, of course making him go off to the kitchen and cry. Nice parenting skills, Dad.

Luckily (?) my daughter had a low-grade fever, so the two of us stayed home with Chitchi. And then, mid-morning, the bird started eating! He opened his mouth wide and let me shoot bird-food paste into his gullet. He stood there looking confused for a bit, and then he opened his mouth again, shaking his wings with excitement.

From that point on, Chitchi started eating regularly. We let him out of his Baskin-Robbins ice cream cake box, and he spent the day walking around under the balcony screen door, peeping continuously and from time to time pooping on the floor, which wasn't actually all that disgusting. Better than vomit.

Chitchi tried jumping up onto boxes, testing his wings. He sat contentedly on my hand and knee, perched on my finger. After lunch, some other sparrows came round and were clearly upset that one of their young was being held captive by Evil Humans. (As I know now, it very well could have been Chitchi's mom and dad, who hadn't actually abandoned him.)

Chitchi continued to do well. So well, in fact, that my daughter and I went down to the pet store and got a nice little cage to replace the cake box. Chitchi didn't seem to mind the cage too much, although he clearly preferred being out of it. He would jump onto my hand as soon as I opened the door and made a chirping sound. Very cute.

All in all, we had a great day together. My wife and oldest son got to experience the thrill of feeding Chitchi, too, a variation on the pound the gopher game. Depress the plunger while the mouth is still open, reload, try again.

I started thinking ahead. When Chitchi starts flying around the house, we've got to be careful not to leave windows open. What food comes after this green paste? Who will look after him when we go to the States in August? Will he be able to fend for himself when we release him?

That night, with a very full stomach, the frequency of chirps slowing down considerably, Chitchi's eyes began to grow heavy. He rested his head on one of his wings and drifted off to sleep.

And then, this morning, he was dead.

I don't know if he just died, or we killed him by something we did or didn't do. Statistically, wild birds in captivity make it to adulthood only about half the time.

In fact, I come to find out that it was a bad idea to pick Chitchi up in the first place, and it was stupid to think we could've eventually released him. He was already starting to "imprint" on us--that is, think of us as his parents, the creatures from whom to learn life skills. That's why he started accepting food and hopping up onto our hands. But birds that imprint on humans can't make it in the wild.

Anyway, my wife and younger son discovered Chitchi dead when they checked on him. Of course, the two younger kids cried and my oldest just kept asking "why"? The bitter taste of death at dawn's first light.

They seemed more or less okay at breakfast, though.

He was just so damn cute. And, although we shouldn't have tried to "rescue" him, he was beginning to find a home--a strange and unlooked-for home, to be sure, but still a place to belong and be safe and be loved, in a world full of crows and cats and motor scooters.

I wish we had been smarter about what to do with Chitchi. But I am glad to have known him, if only for a day.

We'll bury Chitchi this evening, when everybody gets home. Lord, have mercy on us all.

次男の誕生日パーティー

今年妹の「プリンセス・テーマ」で舞台（？）装置にちょっとやり過ぎたパパをいつものように注意深く観察していた次男は、英語をしゃべりたくないからママ経由で「ぼくのパーティー、パパはどうしてくれるの」的な要求を表明する。

「どうしたい」と本人に聞くと、サッカーということになった。最初はノーアイディアだった。

結局バースデーボイとの共同作業で、画用紙を切ってもようを塗り、大きなサッカーボールを作って天井からぶら下げることにした。蹴った勢いを表わすために、赤と青のビニルテープを付けてそれも天井からつるす。

そして、長男から数枚のほこりをかぶっているサッカー選手ポスターを無断で貸し出させていただき部屋中に張り、完成。

おまけで「罰ゲーム」も用意した。５人のプレイヤーが中身が見えない５つのぶら下がっている紙コップの真下に立ち、いっせいのせ！ とひもを引っぱって中身が頭の上に落ちるわけ。

テレビ番組のようにたらしや熱湯にしたかったけど、ほかの親から虐待のクレームを恐れてやめた。結局、いくつかのスーパーボール、ビーズネックレス、プラスチックコインにした。

パーティーの最後の最後にやってわりとヒット。半分興奮して半分怖がっている表情に満足。

Wiiに負けたけど。

大宣教命令――あなたもそれに関与しているよ

（マタイ28:16-20）

三位一体主日・聖霊降臨後第１主日（A年）

おめでとう！もう半年、頑張って来られましたね。教会の一年は、キリストの到来を待ち望む降臨節で始まりました。そして、わたしたちの間に生まれた救い主、神のみ子の誕生日をクリスマスでお祝いしました。それからキリストとその弟子たちと共に、キリストがヨルダン川で洗礼を受けられたときから、ずっとその癒しと演説の働きを見てきました。そしてついに、罪深い人類のもとで、罪深い人類のために、エルサレムでイエスが殺されたというご受難を覚えました。そしてイースターで、そのキリストが死者の中から復活させられたことに一緒に喜びました。

長い喜びの季節の末、キリストが父なる神のもとに戻られたことを覚え、そして新しい形で、すなわち聖霊が注がれることによって、キリストが近寄ってくださるペンテコステの日をもお祝いしました。

そうすると、だいたい今現在に辿り付くのですね。と言うのは、わたしたちと、先ほど読まれた福音書の中で、「あなたがたは行って、すべての民をわたしの弟子にしなさい」と言われた弟子たちとは、基本的に立場は一緒なのです。

このイエスの言葉はよく「大宣教命令」と呼ばれます。この言葉をもって、イエスは、地球の史上最大、最長のプロジェクトを開始されたのです。すなわち、イエスに従って出て行き、ありとあらゆる人間を主イエス・キリストを知り、キリストに従う喜びへと導く、というプロジェクト。

この言葉は非常に大切だと思いますので、今日はいつもとちょっと違って、皆さんと一緒に福音書を一節ずつ見たいと思います。一節ずつごく短い一言を共有したいのです。少し早く進みたいと思いますので、週報に載せた福音書を参考しながら聞いてくださるとありがたいです。

l         16さて、十一人の弟子たちはガリラヤに行き、イエスが指示しておかれた山に登った。

まず注意していただきたいのは、「十一人」になっていること。マタイの福音書では十一人の弟子しか集まっていません。十二は完全な数字、イエスが選ばれた使徒の数、イスラエルの十二部族の数。でもイスカリオテのユダは、イエスを裏切り、そして自分の命を絶ったので、十一人になってしまいました。一人足りない。不完全です。

にも拘らず、イエスが派遣なさるのは、この十一人なのです。イエスは十一人っぽい教会（＝不完全で、欠点のある、弱い教会）を世の中に遣わし、そのミッションを行ってもらう、ということです。

さらに、イエスは「弟子たち」に向かって話しておられます。ここでは使徒と呼ばれません。主教でも、司祭でも、専門家の伝道師でもありません。単なる弟子です。洗礼を受けた人のことです。皆さんです。

そして、弟子たちは「ガリラヤに行く」。つまり、発祥地に立ち返るわけです。わたしたちも、イエスに従う者としてそのミッションに参加するというのは、すでに置かれている状況の中で始まるのです。家で。職場で。近所で。いつも行っているスターバックスで。保護者会のミーティングの中で。

そしてもう一つ気づいて欲しいのは、このやり取りは「山」の上で行われる、ということです。これは意味深いことです。山は、神がご自身を現す場所です。山の上で、神はモーセに十戒など律法を授けてくださいました。山の上で、イエスはその「山上の説教」という有名な説教を演じられました。「心の貧しい人々は、幸いである。天の国はその人たちのものである」（マタイ5:3）

そしてまた、山の上で、イエスはその弟子たちに命じられています。「行って．．．わたしがあなたたちに命じておいたことをすべて守るように教えなさい」（マタイ28:20）。この「命じておいたことすべて」は、何よりも山上の説教の内容を意味していると思われます。イエスがこの世を治める治め方は、山上の説教の教えを実行しようとする人たちの心を通してです。

l         17そして、イエスに会い、ひれ伏した。しかし、疑う者もいた。

この言葉が大好きです。トマスの「イエスの手の傷を見なきゃ信じるもんか」と同じように、この言葉はわたしたちの疑いをちゃんと認めているのです。

確かに、わたしたちは毎週イエスを主として、救い主として、神のみ子として拝んでいます。でも同時にいろいろな疑いを抱いていると思います。果たして神がおられるのか。イエスは自称していらっしゃる通りに考えて良いのか。本当に死者の中からよみがえらせられたのか。このわたしと本当に関わりがあるのか。聖餐式のうちに本当に臨んでくださるのか。

でもご覧ください。イエスは、ご自分を拝みつつ疑いを抱いている人たちを相手にしておられるのです。全く批判したりはされないのです。むしろ、「イエスは、［彼らに］近寄って来た」のです。

イエスがミッションに派遣するのは、礼拝しつつ疑問を持ちつつある弟子たちなのです。

しかも、わたしたちがイエスに従って行けば行くほど、もっと知るようになります。アフリカの宣教医師だったアルベルト・シュバイツァーの言葉を借りれば：「イエスについて行けば、イエスを知ってくる。」これは頭の知識を越えたものだと思います。

わたしたちはイエスに従って行くと、いろんな疑問は自然に解消されていきます。きっと新しい疑問も沸いてきます。でも知っておくべきことは、全く疑わない状態に至らなくてもそれなりにイエスを礼拝することも、イエスに従うこともできる、ということです。イエスは、わたしたちのように、ご自身を信頼しつつ疑いを抱きつつある人を用いてくださいます。最初からそうなのです。

l         18イエスは、近寄って来て言われた。「わたしは天と地の一切の権能を授かっている。」

イエスは宇宙の知事です。すべての命の主人です。「み手の中で、すべてが変わる感謝に」と聖歌にあるとおりです。

だからイエスにとって、特別立入り禁止の領域はないはず。国家のすう勢も。わたしたちが住んでいるコミュニティの共同生活も。このチャペルのあり方も。皆さん一人一人も、イエスの管轄下にあります。

ところが、独裁者と違って、イエスは武力や恐怖を悪用してご自分の意思を押し付けることは一切ありません。むしろ、静かに、絶え間なく、機会があればせっせと働き掛ける方です。そしてわたしたちの応答を忍耐強く待っていておられます。

殆どのクリスチャンは、人生の一部に関してイエスが主であることを認めて、他は全部自分で決めることにしておいてます。恋愛関係とか。選挙で誰に投票するか。お金をどう使うか。人を赦すか赦さないか。お酒の程度などなど。でも実は人生全体がイエスの管轄です。

l         19 「だから、あなたがたは行って、すべての民をわたしの弟子にしなさい。」

イエスはすべてを見守ってくださっているから、わたしたちはあえて出掛けて、「すべての民をイエスの弟子にする」勇気が出ます。イエスはわたしたちに先立って、道を整えてくださるのです。

神は一人一人の人間を造り、一人一人にみ心を留めてくださっています。なので、すべての人がみ子によって神に近寄れるのが、神の望みなのです。

これはアブラハムへの約束でもありました。「地上の氏族はすべてあなたによって祝福に入る」（創世記12:3）。イエスは、この約束が教会において実現されることを期待しておられるわけです。

教会は、こうやって人をキリストにつなげるのに、しばしば不手際をやってきたのは確かです。宣教師は時々イエスに従わせるよりも、宣教師の文化や仕来りに従わせることを教え込むときもありました。また伝道と言って、政治的な影響力を拡大させたり、財産をため込んだりするときもあったと思います。

それでも、すべての民を！というふうに確かに命じられています。そのことを見失ったり、それを恥ずかしく思ったりする教会は、もはや使徒たちによって成立した教会とは言えません。

「わたしの弟子にしなさい」

かなり地味な言葉ですね。人を弟子にするというのは、突如、衝動的なことではありません。リバイバルを開き、大勢の人の感情的な反応を引き起こすような感じではなくて、一人一人の人とじっくり時間をかけて、一緒に暮らしながらイエスのことを教える、というイメージです。見習わせる感じです。

何よりも、イエスとともに生きるとはどういうことか、自分自身の生活、また教会の共同生活をもって見せることだと思います。信頼関係の中で起こることです。

そして人を弟子にする目的は、イエスに密接につなげることです。相手をいい人にするとか、長年のクリスチャンであるわたしたちに似たものにするではなくて、イエスに出会い、そしてイエスを主として受け入れられるように手伝うことだけです。イエスはその人の応答を可能にしてくださいます。心を新たにするのもイエスで、わたしたちの仕事ではない。わたしたちはイエスのことを教える、見せるだけ。

人を弟子にするというのは、おもに二つの側面があります：

l         「彼らに父と子と聖霊の名によって洗礼を授ける」こと

l         「わたしたちに命じておいたことをすべて守るように教える」こと。

三位一体の神――つまり深い愛の関わりそのものである神――の名によって人に洗礼を授けるというのは、その人を実質的に神の愛につなげることです。洗礼を受けることは大きな影響を及ぼす行為です。

そして山上の説教の内容を始め、イエスが命じられたことを守るように教えるのです。というよりも、一緒に学びます。神に喜ばれる赦し、愛、奉仕、純粋さと謙虚さに満ちた、イエスの道を歩むということはどういうことか、それを一緒に学んでいくのです。

結局は、イエスの道は自由と豊かな命への道なのです。朝の礼拝の「平安のため」から：「永遠の命は主を知ること、完全な自由は主に仕えることにあります。」それを一緒に心得ていくのです。

l         20b 「わたしは世の終わりまで、いつもあなたがたと共にいる。」

ここにこそ、わたしたちがこの大宣教命令をあえて引き受けることができる理由：イエスがともにいてくださるからです。わたしたちに先立って行き、わたしたちに同行してくださるのです。

イエスは、２０００年にわたりその教会とともに歩んで来られました。不完全で、疑いを抱きつつ礼拝する十一人の弟子という小さな群れから、世界中最も強大な共同体へと導かれました。すべての国や文化の中で活躍する、すべての言語で主イエス・キリストを礼拝する共同体に至るまで導かれました。

イエスはわたしたちにも同行してくださいます。もしわたしたちも「行って、［暮らしている範囲だけでも］すべての民をイエスの弟子にする」のであれば。

わたしたちはこのイエスの命令に従っていく中で、より親しくイエスを知ることもできて、周りの人により大きな恵みの器になっていくこともできることは、確かだと思います。

「フィンランドなどアジア諸国のため」？！？

って言わないようね。フィンランドはアジアに属していないから。

同じように、「エキュメニカル・サンデーを覚えて、他教派、他宗教の共同体のために祈りましょう」と言うのもおかしい。

他宗教の人々のために祈ることはいいことだと思うけど（ことに主イエス・キリストにあって神の慈愛なる救いに巡り会えることを！）、それはエキュメニカルのことと全く無関係。

エキュメニカルは、ギリシャ語のoikoumene＝家・家庭を由来して、「父なる神の家に属しているすべての者」を意味する言葉である。確かにすべての人は神に造られ、神に愛されていることは間違いない。でも父なる神の家に属するということは、イエス・キリストを抜きにしてあり得ないことだ。

「わたしは道であり、真理であり、命である。わたしを通らなければ、だれも父のもとに行くことができない。」（ヨハネ 14:6）
「あなたがたは、人を奴隷として再び恐れに陥れる霊ではなく、神の子とする霊を受けたのです。この霊によってわたしたちは、『アッバ、父よ』と呼ぶのです。」（ローマ8:15）

つまり、家出して父親を勘当した罪人であるわたしたち人間は、イエスを信じてイエスと結び付くという「帰り道」を通らないで、それでもその人が父なる神の家に属している者だというのは、ナンセンスだし、クリスチャンでない人たちの自由意志と尊厳を尊重していないことだと思う。

わたしたちは、キリストにあって兄弟姉妹となっている人たちのためにも、まだ主イエス・キリストを知らないでいる、結ばれていないでいる人たちのためにも祈るべきだと思う。

ただ、強引に両方を「エキュメニカル」という言葉でまとめようとするのは、イエス・キリストの受肉と死と復活を無効にするのみならず、ただ単に言葉の乱用だと思う。

for Finland and other Asian countries?!?

We wouldn't say that. Because Finland isn't part of Asia.

In the same way, to say "On this Ecumenical Sunday, let us pray for those of other denominations and those of other faiths" is wrongheaded. We should indeed pray for those of other faiths (especially that they would come to know the saving love of God in the Lord Jesus Christ!), but that has nothing to do with ecumenism.

The word "ecumenical," from the Greek oikoumene which means house/household, means "all who belong to the household of the Father." To be sure, all people were created and are loved by God. But the notion of belonging to the household of the Father without reference to Jesus Christ is a nonstarter:

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)
"The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, 'Abba, Father.'” (Romans 8:15)

In other words, for us sinful human beings, who ran away from home and cut off all ties with the Father, NOT to travel the "road home" of believing in Jesus and being bound to him, and still to say that person belongs to the household of God is not only nonsense, but an affront to the free will and dignity of non-Christians.

We should pray for our brothers and sisters in Christ, and we should pray for those who do not know Christ and are not united to Him.

But to try and force the two into the word "ecumenical" not only renders null and void the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but is a simple abuse of language.

why bother with church history?

The most important function of Christian history is to remind us not only of how we came to be modern men and women, or of how Western civilization was shaped, but also of something of incalculable wonder and inexpressible beauty, the knowledge of which can still haunt, delight, torment, and transfigure us.
--David Bentley Hart ("Atheist Delusions")

教会史の最も重要な役割は、わたしたちを思い起こさせることである。現代人の経緯だけでも、西洋文明がどうやって形付けられたことだけでもなく、それに加えて、わたしたちを付きまとったり、大喜びさせたり、悩ませたり、変貌させたりすることのできる、計り知れない驚異と言葉で表せない美しさを思い起こさせることでもある。
ー デービッド・ベントリー・ハート博士　（『無神論は妄想である』）

邦訳の難しさ

最近楽しく読み始めた、デービッド・ベントリー・ハート著『Atheist Delusions』のタイトルは、日本語にどう直したら良いだろうか。

Googleで検索すると、５月末すで次のようなニュースがありました。

2011年度のマイケル・ラムゼイ賞はデービッド・ベントリー・ハート著『無神論者の誤解』に

無神論者の誤解。まあ、内容で言えばあっているだろう。

だけど、近年派手に中傷され続けている教会史の真相を回復しようとしているハート博士は、意図的に有力な無神論者であるリチャード・ドーキンズのベストセラー『The God Delusion』をもじっているに違いないと思う。

ドーキンズの著作はすでに『神は妄想である』、と挑発的に邦訳されている。本の本質にピッタリ。それに対して、『無神論者の誤解』は意気地がなさ過ぎるのではないかと思う。



こんな感じかな



ちなみに、Atheist Delusionsを紀伊國屋書店BookWebで検索すると英表記の上に紀伊國屋書店のHP編集者は正しく直してくれていると思う：

無神論は妄想である

そうこなくっちゃ！その書名で一刻も早く邦訳されるといいなと思う。



all out of bubblegum

My favorite line ever from a film is from an odd, low-budget (seeming) 1988 SF/horror flick directed by John Carpenter called They Live.

(Incidentally, They Live also has the longest fight scene of any movie I've ever seen).

The hero is a drifter who stumbles upon some high-tech sunglasses that allow him to see aliens that have infiltrated human society. Kind of like X-ray vision. You can't see the aliens without the sunglasses.

Anyway, the line. The hero walks into a bank wearing the sunglasses and holding a shotgun. He declares: "I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum."

He then proceeds to blow away all the aliens. It's awesome. Check it out for yourself.

(I've always had the nagging feeling that the guy is actually just experiencing a psychotic break and there aren't really any aliens. But it's a great line anyway.)

That line popped into my head as I was reading the book by David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies.

The book came to my attention when it received this year's Michael Ramsey prize in Theology.

Hart is writing in part to unmask the popular historical fallacies used by people trying to tear down the Christian faith and replace it with the Grand Narrative of "modernism." He seems to have been goaded to the task by certain strains of atheism:

I can honestly say that there are many forms of atheism that I find far more admirable than many forms of Christianity or of religion in general. But atheism that consists entirely in vacuous arguments afloat on oceans of historical ignorance, made turbulent by storms of strident self-righteousness, is as contemptible as any other form of dreary fundamentalism. And it is sometimes difficult, frankly, to be perfectly generous in one’s response to the sort of invective currently fashionable among the devoutly undevout, or to the sort of historical misrepresentations it typically involves.

But, as evidenced in the quote above, it is Hart's rapier-sharp writing style as much as his thoughtful historical reflections that get me whooping with delight.

For example, Hart contrasts the erroneous assumptions and lack of rigorous engagement of the foaming-at-the-mouth "New Atheists" with their far more worthy predecessors in the early days: "genuinely imaginative and civilized critics, such as Celsus and Porphyry, who held the amiable belief that they should make some effort to acquaint themselves with the object of their critique."

He turns to Sam Harris's The End of Faith:

[This] is also a book that, in itself, should not detain anyone for very long. It is little more than a concatenation of shrill, petulant assertions, a few of which are true, but none of which betrays any great degree of philosophical or historical sophistication."

Ouch. That's gotta leave a mark.

Sometimes it's the driveby turns of phrase that pack the hardest punch:

• Rather than court absurdity, however...
• All of this, however, is slightly beside the point. Judged solely as a scientific proposal, Dennett's book [Breaking the Spell] is utterly inconsequential--in fact, it is something of an embarassment--but its methodological deficiencies are not my real concern here.
• In short, The End of Faith is not a serious--merely a self-important--book, and merits only cursory comment.
• If Harris's argument holds any real interest here, it is as an epitome--verging on unintentional parody--of contemporary antireligious rhetoric at its most impassioned and sanctimonious.
• This is one reason why the historical insight and intellectual honesty of Nietzsche were such precious things, and why their absence from so much contemporary antireligious polemic renders it so depressingly vapid.

Let's just say, there's a lot more where that came from. This is intellectual Mortal Kombat at its best.

Chesterton would be proud.

Anyway, I am enjoying this book, perhaps a little more than charity would allow.

Let me just say, I'm glad I'm not the one staring down Hart's barrel.

worried about tomorrow?

Do not fear what may happen to you tomorrow.  The same Father who cares for you today, will care for you tomorrow and every other day.  Either he will shield you from suffering or he will give you unfailing strength to bear it.  Be at peace, then, and put aside all anxious thoughts and imaginings.
--St. Francis de Sales: 

明日、あなたに何が起こるか、恐れてはならない。今日、あなたを見守ってくださっている父は、明日も、その他のどんなときも、あなたを見守ってくださるのである。あなたを苦しみから守ってくださるか、その苦しみに耐え得る、尽きることのない力を与えてくださるか、どちらかである。だから安心して、あらゆる不安の考えや妄想を捨てなさい。
ーー聖フランシスコ・サレジオ

quote of the day

"Religion is more like response to a friend than it is like obedience to an expert."
「キリスト教は、専門家の言うことに従うというよりも、友達に応えることに似ている。」
--Austin Farrer

More like, yes, perhaps, but maybe both at the same time? Or, religion is more like a response to a friend who also happens to be the Great King of your country and also an expert in the very problem against which you just now happen to be butting your head in frustration.

As an Oxford don, Fr. Farrer would have a sense of "friend" that is far greater and more noble than an American "buddy."

寄り添う、という癒しのわざ

（「下町聖公会ニュース」２０１１年６月５日号の教役者リレーエッセイ）

誰が翻訳したか分からないが、聖歌集の５２７番（「傷ついた人の祈りに応えて」）が大好き。特にその日本語のセンスの良さが。言葉数の多い元の英語の歌詞を、こんなに簡潔で優雅な日本語に直せるなんて．．．和英を行き来する者として、尊敬する。

音楽も好きだが、何よりも内容に感激。信仰生活の現実を把握している気がする。特に２番：「見えない明日への　恐れに苦しむ／愛は変わらずに　弱さに向き合い／心の痛みに　いつでも寄り添う」。

病院のチャプレンとして、大抵の場合、できることは弱さに向き合い、痛みに寄り添うことだけである。無力感を覚えつつ。１歳半の子を亡くして涙止まらぬ母。先日まで元気だった伴侶とついにお別れをせざるを得ない夫。自分の体に裏切られた年配の方。

でもチャプレンが専念する「牧会」には、一人一人のクリスチャンもそれぞれの現場で関わるように召されている。イエスのいやしの働きに加わって。その際、人の苦しみに出合うとき、言葉も出ず、手伝うこともなくても、向き合う、祈りの中だけでも寄り添うことができるのだと思う。

イエスが先立って寄り添っておられるから、わたしたちも寄り添える。そういう業から、いやしが生まれるのだと信じている。

Mr. Kato

Mr. Kato (not his real name) is a man who comes to see me from time to time.

From what I can gather, he's on welfare and has anxiety problems, and his CPU revolves a bit slower than most people's. He was brought in once for overdosing, but I don't think he has a suicidal ideation usually.

He comes to see me because he needs somebody to think with. Sitting alone in his room, he gets to thinking about things, and then all sorts of questions start boiling up, and he tries to think through to the answers but he can never quite get there and meanwhile this whole other set of questions and doubts and rebuttals are clamoring for attention--and before he knows it, his head is a whirlwind of slightly out of focus thoughts and reminders to self and half-formed resolves and question marks.

Mr. Kato gets duped a lot. He was married for a little while to a woman who came from China and immediately started using his flat as a dressing room between shifts at a cabaret. He had a "friend" who would buy him a cup of coffee and then badger Mr. Kato into paying for dinner and several rounds.

I like him because he asks questions that trip me up. With no sarcasm, he'll say: "So, I should just not think about anything and try to live a shallow life?"

Um, well...

He went to "Mass" at a Filippino Jehovah's Witness gathering, which was okay, he guessed, but they don't believe in blood transfusions or fighting sports, so how could he join their church?

What is the thing that makes you feel most relaxed? I ask. "Sleeping," he says without hesitation.

"How should I live the rest of my life?" he asks, and I struggle to come up with any sort of response. He shrugs: "I guess, play it by ear."

And he goes home.

come again?

Had my "Crawling Through Luke" class this morning. It's not called that, but we've spent three years meeting twice a month and have only gotten to chapter 17. We're having way too much fun.

The second half of Chapter 17 was a bit of a slog, though. Not the Ten Lepers, that was fine. But the part about "the day the Son of Man is revealed."

When you take the Bible seriously,  most of the time it's a wild adventure, life-altering, mind-expanding, challenging, humbling, courage-bringing, bracing, nourishing, healing.

But sometimes it frustrates. Like trying to build a Lego spaceship blindfolded.

I'm compelled to try to make sense of it because it's the Word of God revealed, even the parts that seem like rough edges. But sometimes I end up doing more head-scratching than sense-making.

The last part of Chapter 17 was a little like that. Lightning bolts flashing across the sky. A couple in bed, one taken, one left. Two women grinding grain together; one taken, one left. What is Jesus talking about?

I mean, I think I understand the apocalyptic genre, at least a little. Using jarring, dramatic imagery and heavy allusion to try to convey unseen spiritual realities, the "really real" behind the screen of the visible world, gripping the hearer and forcing a shift in perspective. Babylon=Rome. Beast=Imperial army. Things look bleak now, but God's justice and mercy really do win out in the end.

I get it. I love it.

So, I'm quite willing to pooh-pooh the Left Behind crowd who read Revelation like the Weekend Section and couldn't tell a metaphor from a hole in the ground.

But that's Revelation. I mean, John was "in the Spirit on the Lord's day," having the mother of all day-trips.

I get confused, however, when Jesus talks like that. He heals ten lepers and harangues us for always coming to God with "what's in it for me" attitudes and hearts filled with ingratitude. And then He turns around and talks about floods and burning sulphur and people vanishing.

I understand the words. What am I supposed to do with them?

Still, I did enjoy watching my students' heads spin when I talked about a- and post- and premillenialism, and even preterism. I can now confidently declare myself to be a partial-preteristic amillenialist, if anyone ever asks.

And I was surprised to learn the Catholic church teaches a kind of tribulation: "Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers." (CCC 675)

The Vatican and Tim La Haye on the same page?

children break your heart

I am grieving over the sudden death of a young woman in our chapel community.

She had been struggling for a long time with a great sadness. As a Christian community, we didn't do well in reaching out to her. She was able to get to the chapel only rarely. I'm afraid we left her parents to shoulder the burden of care almost entirely. We tried to support them, to be sure. But we obviously didn't reach the daughter with the healing power of God's love or the hope that is in Christ.

I am sorry for their loss, and sorry I did so little to prevent it.

Her death is also making me think of the many ways I have broken my own parents' hearts over the years.

I think particularly of my own wildly immoral past, which of course affected many, many people around me, sometimes in life-defining ways.

I think of my own wrestling with periods of bleak despair, when I refused all help until it was almost too late.

I think of the low value I placed on my own life at times, taking needless risks and laughing a little too manic-ly all the while.

I am also thinking about how my journey to Japan, now at the 20-year mark, has inflicted another kind of wound on my parents. I have become a man, a husband, a father, a priest--all on the opposite side of the planet from them. My own children love their American grandparents, but it is a love necessarily tinged with a certain amount of reserve, born of unfamiliarity.

Of course, my folks support the work I do here. They support our family. They want us to be in the center of God's will for our lives. That's what parents do--as a parent, I know that.

But I reckon being supportive doesn't preclude also being heartbroken. I reckon our Heavenly Father knows a thing or two about that as well.

Anyway, I'm just...sorry. Sorry to the parents who are shattered by the loss of their little girl. Sorry to be the cause of so much heartbreak to my own parents.

interfaith anxiety

I got the chance to play tourguide for the first time in ages this weekend.

A delegation from my alma mater, Virginia Theological Seminary, stopped by in Tokyo on their way home from a week or so in Hong Kong and China. I took them to meet the VP of St. Paul's University, helped them navigate around town, found a nice Japanese restaurant for dinner, showed them the hospital and the Ginza shopping district, etc.

It was fun to show off my city and my hospital. And I really enjoyed spending time with my old New Testament professor, Dr. John Yieh. He's a Taiwanese Presbyterian minister and scholar. Brilliant, humble, orthodox, irenic, sweet all the way around.

His classroom was one of the few places at VTS where I felt like I even recognized the theological landscape. Same gospel. Same sense of humility and reverence in front of the Scriptures. Same organic connection with the previous 2,000 years of Christian history. Same delight in the Word made Flesh and dwelling among us--a delight which yearns to be shared, is rightfully shared, is an act of profound love to share.

There were also two new VTS graduates along, a husband and wife, both newly ordained. I enjoyed meeting them and spending time with them. But I also realized, or reconfirmed, that we are not co-religionists. The faith that these two young Episcopalians are eager to go out and proclaim is, as far as I can see, not the faith once received.

It's certainly not the faith that turned my life around. It seems to be an amalgam of feminist liberation and a Democratic Party agenda, clever scepticism, hip-ness, and generous heaps of affirmation. God doesn't make garbage.

Well, interfaith relationships are important in our shrinking global village. So I guess I can hang out with Episcopalians from time to time.

Just don't bring up the subject of religion!

エステバンを見送って

（２０１１年６月、逝去者記念式、聖ルカ礼拝堂にて）

エステバンという、Ａさんの教名・洗礼名は「信仰と聖霊に満ちている人」ステファノ（使徒6:5）にちなんで選ばれました。ステファノはスペイン語でエステバンになります。

ステファノは初期教会の最初の７人の執事の一人。使徒たちが祈りとみ言葉の働きに専念するため、執事たちが弱い人に仕える責任を担いました（給食活動などの福祉）。

しかし、ステファノは執事であったことよりも、その死に方で有名になっています。最初の殉教者でした（イエスに次いで）。

Ａさん、ご病気がかなり進んだところで、洗礼を受けられました。どういう最期を迎えたいか、きっと考えていたと思います。

Ａさんは、人間であったがゆえに、決して完璧な人生を送って来られたわけではありません。むしろ、いろいろな失敗をしたり、愛する人に傷つけたり、さまざまな後悔することもありました。

でも、これらのことに対して大変申し訳ない気持ちも確かにありました。自分にできることなら、取り消しをしたいことも。

残念ながら、それは無理なことです。過去は過去。

でも、これからは、せめて神とつながっていたいという思いはありました。たとえ残りの時間が少なくても、生まれ変わって、神の恵みにできるだけのお返しをしたい。おもに自分のために生きて来られたとしても、これからは、祈る心の中だけでも、人のために生きて行きたいという決心ができたのです。

神は、これ以上のことはわたしたちに求められません。イエス・キリストの福音・良い知らせは、まさにそこにあります。赦しに値するのではなくて、赦していただきたい、という思いさえあれば、神は赦してくださり、受け入れてくださるのです。

それに反して、人間はなかなか赦し気にはなりません。自分が（周りの人たちに、神に）いかに赦しもらっているか、気づいていないからです。

でも、神の憐れみはいかに広いことか。わたしたちがまだ、遠く離れている段階でわたしたちを赦してくださり、変わらない愛をもって祝福してくださるのです。

殉教者のステファノは、逮捕されて取り調べを受け、力強い証をしているとき、突然幻を見ました：
「ステファノは聖霊に満たされ、天を見つめ、神の栄光と神の右に立っておられるイエスとを見た。」（使徒言行録7:55）

このイエスさまのビジョンを見て、ステファノは勇気をもらいました。最後の最後までイエスに倣って生きるための勇気。リンチを行おうとする群衆のために赦しを祈り、そして希望をしっかり握って死を迎えるための勇気。

Ａさんは、最期までしっかり祈り続けて、感謝の気持ちをもって死を迎えたと思います。

確かに粗削りの部分はあったと思いますが、（わたしと上田先生にいつもいい顔をみせてくださったが）神の恵みを頼りにし、そしてできる限り、祈りの業に励んで来られたと思います。

そういう意味でわたしたちの模範でもあると思います。

この礼拝堂が大好きだったＡさんですが、この場所で今日、皆さんと一緒に見送りができることは、きっとご本人が喜んでくれることかと思います。

Ａさんの人生を通して示された神の恵みに感謝し、兄弟の魂の安息をお祈りしたいと思います。

not enough millstones

About once a month, sometimes more often, a case comes in to the pediatrics ward that really knocks the wind out of me.

I mean, we're a leader in the field of pediatric oncology in Japan, so we get a lot of hard cases. When standard chemo and/or radiation therapies don't work.

I'm pretty used to hanging out with bald kids who get tired sometimes, who swell up like balloons and get cranky when they're taking steroids, who somehow manage to do their math problems anyway. And I'm used to parents who try hard to keep it together but are basically holding their breath for months on end while they live in the peds ward and go home to shower and cry and sleep.

I've said goodbye to more than a few of the kids now. With some, I've stood with their mothers and fathers watching their way too little caskets go into the oven.

I can never get completely out from under the "why" question. But a while back I decided--and at the time, it felt like I could go either way--that I really do believe God is love. And I can't begin to explain to myself much less anybody else why these beautiful kids get sick, but I know in my gut that it's not because God wants them to suffer.

So the "why" is always there, hovering, like a mourning veil over the sun. I think, of all the options out there, Christianity offers by far the least dissatisfying response to that question. But I also think it's not all that useful a question when you're trying to love people who are in the thick of it.

But from time to time, a case comes in that just seems too much. Sometimes the odds are just too stacked against the child. But the worst cases aren't cancer, they're when a child has been abused or neglected.

In such cases, the evil of the disease or injury itself pales in comparison to the suffering that the child has been through, and will go through. The body will heal--although sometimes the damage is permanent--but the heart may never heal. Where there should have been affection and innocence and wonder, there has been rage and violence and indifference. A home that should have been a safe haven from all the perils and uncertainties of the world, is instead the source of danger, and nothing at all is ever certain.

I am grieving and angry today. I'm glad I am not God, because I think I would create new hells just for the people who hurt their children.

still not sure

One of the things that kept me from starting a blog is a sneaking suspicion that blogs are evil.

Mind you, not serious, Level 5, grab your crucifix and holy water kind of evil. But a little bit evil, in that blogs contribute to the massive erosion of physical, interpersonal contact that is engulfing our world.

Get on a subway in Tokyo, nearly everyone is texting or watching TV on their cell phones. If not, they're zoned out plugged into an IPod. A smattering of old-school nonconformists are reading manga or old-fashioned paperbacks.

The sidewalks aren't much better. People careen around, heads down, monads with their brains suctioned on to some sort of electronic device. There's always a moment of shock when they look up just before plowing into a person or stationery object.

Even friends, colleagues, couples sitting in a restaurant, at the slightest pause in the conversation whip out their cell phones to check for messages or whatever they do. Often there's no conversation at all, just two people texting next to each other.

This trend of virtualizing all human interactions is evil. Blogs are part of that.

I'm not saying that blog interactions aren't meaningful. I'm stimulated and encouraged and challenged by the blogs that I read. I feel a real connection with the people who write them. I pray for them when they're sick or pregnant. I'm sad when they experience a loss.

But there's a problem when we go to the blogosphere to engage in interactions instead of dealing with the warm, breathing human beings who are right next to us.

God places us in communities to stimulate and encourage us, yes, but also to frustrate and infuriate and confuse us. Dealing with people and all their warts, not just the parts they choose to publish, is part of how we grow in charity. Letting people deal with us and all our warts is part of how we grow in humility and grace.

But at the end of the day, it's not just about my stimulation or encouragement, or even my personal growth. God uses local communities of ill-equipped, stumbling and plodding men and women to bring transformation and healing and grace to whole districts and cities and nations.

So if a blog is a source of inspiration or encouragement or comfort or challenge, that is a good and godly thing. But if the blogosphere is the only place where you really engage with other human beings, I think that's a problem.

Note to self: Look up. Log off. Get out of the house. Get out into real life.

プリンセスの誕生日パーティー

昨日娘の誕生日パーティーだった。「テーマはプリンセス」というご依頼があったので、お城の入り口、光の柱や飾りリボンで天井を大舞踏室風に変えてみた。

家族の幸せから、自分の幸せが生まれる。

the most amazing thing

A little while ago, a Malawian mechanical engineering student visting from Scotland (okay, it's complicated) came to Sunday Mass at the chapel. I approached him after the service to say welcome (I admired him for having sat through the whole service in Japanese).

We got to talking, and he said this:

"They told me when I was a child in Africa that Japan was very amazing, with great tall buildings, and highly advanced technology.

"But I came here, and I've been here a while and looked around and studied. And I still think that the most amazing thing that ever happened to me was Jesus Christ. Was knowing the love of God in Jesus."

the title of this blog

I am a fan of songwriter singer Sara Groves. And it was something she wrote that made me finally decide to take the minute and a half it takes to create a blog. She talks about seeing a movie (The Mission) which made her "feel the long distance to heaven."

There are times when I feel that, too.

But although for me, the acute awareness of that distance can be piercing, even crushing sometimes, I also know a God for whom it's not a problem.

From my favorite parable:
"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him." (Luke 15:20)

my first blog

Certain I have almost nothing new or worthwhile to add to the blogiverse, I have put off creating a blog. But stories don't have to be wholly original to be worth telling. And maybe an interesting thought or two will stray through my brain from time to time.