Merry Christmas!  I admit that as a Canadian in Toronto, those may not be the most popular words at this time (as they are offensive to certain atheist/socialist political correctness police), but I shall say them all the same. It is a time when we celebrate the miracle of the incarnation, when God, the Creator of the Universe, chose to visit his people in the form of a helpless infant that was born to impoverished parents among an oppressed people. Those of us with any connection to the Christian worldview are familiar with the story:

  An unmarried peasant girl suddenly finds herself pregnant (in a time and culture when it was considered a death sentence for unwed pregnancies), and is protected by her fiance, who willingly marries her (which likely resulted in some social ostracism from the neighbors in their community in Nazareth). As a result of rising taxes and a mandatory census, they must travel by foot (with her on a donkey, as she is VERY pregnant by this time) to Bethlehem in Judea. While there, they are unable to find any room anywhere, and so are forced to stay in a simple cave with animals, and the baby's first bed is the feeding trough of some of the animals - hardly a home suitable for one who would be considered King and Messiah (the Hebrew word meaning "anointed one" - the Greek word Christos means the same).

  Meanwhile, shepherds out in the fields (who were not the most socially respectable people either) have a vision of angels, telling them that the Saviour and Messiah has been born, and that through him, glory will be given to God and shalom (which roughly translates to mean "peace", "well-being", "wholeness", "satisfaction", etc.) will exist among mankind, something that the Hebrew prophets have been hoping for through several centuries. These near outcasts make their way to the village of Bethlehem, and see the child, then become the very first evangelists, which seems to present a picture of this Saviour's character - not so "high and mighty" to exist above the common, the despised, the very things that are not.

  I think sometimes we can tend to forget this element of the Kingdom of God - that it is one that those who are usually dismissed by the powerful as being a bunch of nobodies and "excess population" are transformed and made into something glorious by the very God who fashioned us in his own image - giving us the power to create or destroy. This transformation tends to bring to nothing those who once thought of themselves as something great. May the LORD forgive us for continually forgetting this very point.

  But anyway, back to the story.  At the same time that all of this was happening, Zoroastrian Magi (astrologers and priests) in Parthia (the Persian empire of the time, which was a continual rival to the Roman Empire, the imperial power that held control over Judea and Galilee, the place where Jesus was born) notice a strange astronomical sign in the heavens, and depart from Persia toward Judea to welcome the newly born King spoken of in prophecy and pointed toward by the heavenly sign (whatever that sign was, whether a comet or a confluence of planets / stars).

  Upon arrival in Jerusalem after several weeks (or months) of travel, they inquire with the local king, Herod the Great (who was not known for his mercy or his righteousness). Herod requests that they bring news back to him of the child, whom they find in Bethlehem with his mother. It is most likely that he is older than just a newborn by this point, though likely only a few months old. They bring special gifts of gold, frankinscence and myrre, which were all expensive, kingly gifts.  They do not report to Herod, but leave by another route, and Joseph (Jesus' adopted father) takes his family to Egypt as refugees, as Herod - true to his reputation - orders the slaughter of all children under the age of two, as he sees this child of promise to be a threat to his power.  Of course, he is not the last to feel threatened by Jesus or what he represents - Jesus was condemned because his message and his ministry was seen as a threat to those who had the power.

  But what does this have to do with today? Has the story really changed all that much? In many ways, it is the "nobodies" of today who embrace this narrative as one that gives hope, and those who think they are something sneer at the ridiculousness of it. The God of the Universe, born in the form of a human child, all to reconcile his creation to himself. A helpless child, born in abject poverty, in a position that could be interpreted as the lowest of the low. Yet this child represents an idea - one that we are often not keen on hearing, especially with the implications that come with such an idea: the incarnation of a loving but holy deity, the very existence of which should hold us to a higher account than that presented by the often-times broken and bloodied human history. A helpless child, in contrast with the kings of the earth, who enforce their power and might in often brutal ways. God chose to come as one who is lowly in order to disprove the theories that we must strive to be at the top in order to be worthy. The world forgets the miracles around us, and places the rights of the individual ahead of the responsibilities that this individual has to those around them. We choose selfishness. By emptying himself, God chose love.

In my previous entry, I mentioned that my vision is to bring the biblical, theological, and historical training that I have received at Tyndale Seminary (an interdenominational seminary in Toronto, Canada) into parts of the world where the access to such training is limited, but the need is significant. This would be point B, the goal, to have a Bible Training institute that can be training the potential leaders in the Bible, so that they could be better equipped to train others, as well as stand more effectively against false teaching (which also tends to pop up where there is a lot of enthusiasm for the Gospel, but little training). 

  I also mentioned where I am currently sitting, 31, in debt, with a Master's degree, but no network of credibility, so to speak, and with experience more in the customer service sphere than in either the ministry or academic spheres. I have already taken a few steps toward this path.  My Master's degree definitely helps in my understanding of the topics I want to teach and in scaffolding my faith. I also have gained some experience in classroom teaching, both through my experience in Korea and through my experiences as a Teaching Assistant and Bible teacher at my church. I am also potentially going to get more experience and contacts through my new job (starting this next week) as a phone / internet English teacher through Carrot English.  In addition, I have also joined the TIM Centre in working as a T.A. for their diploma program for new immigrants, which is ideally what I want to be doing, so it's been a great learning experience so far.

  I also realize that if I am going to be doing this, that it will most likely be a support-based work (as it is not really a financially luctative field to be getting into), which would make it ethically questionable to enter into this carrying the burden of student debt. As such, that is the primary goal over the next several months.  Beyond that, that is where the adventure truly begins.

  Before I met with my advisor / life coach, I imagined my destination requiring one of four distinct paths. I could continue with my education and get a Ph.D (most likely in Missiology, as that was my major in seminary), then find work as a professor (if possible - it seems very difficult to get into from where I am sitting), then get enough credibility through publishers and the academic world (as a professor and a writer), then convince the school I am serving with to open an international branch that is more geographically accessible for these international students. Alternatively, I could enter the ranks of the pastoral field, and then network with other pastors in the immediate area (as well as denominational contacts) and open a local Bible Training Institute, in hopes that the college age students who are training for ministry could get a chance to become involved in local ministry and get experience and accreditation without having to travel across the country, like I did, and then end up graduating without the sufficient experience to find employment. Or I could go the missionary route, as there are already several mission agencies that are invested in theological education globally. I have already taught a course in Ukraine through SEND International, which is one of these agencies. There were also a few agencies in Korea who used the English medium to train Koreans for cross-cultural ministry, just for a few examples. Finally, I could go the route of the entrepreneur and start something of my own, possibly through a church that I can become involved in, though not as a pastoral leader.

  When I told my advisor about these options and asked which I should take, he told me that I should instead take a path that connects these paths together, as I have interest in each of them, and all of them will help me to get to where I need to go.  The main thing that he told me I need to focus on, though, is on building networks (and each of those paths will need networks of people anyway). Specifically, I need to network with others who are already doing what I want to be doing, and who can help me to get to point B. As such, the ideal candidates for networking would be with mission organizations that do leadership development and theological education, denominational heads, publishers, and academic institutions that offer the kind of degree that I want to invest in.  As I am looking at it right now, the schools offering such degrees are Fuller in California, Oxford in England, Asbury in Kentucky, or Concordia in Indiana. I would have to apply as an international student to all of them, as for some reason, no schools in Canada offer such a degree yet (which is curious for Toronto, as it is the most multicultural city in the world, and other Canadian cities are becoming increasingly multicultural).  Meanwhile, further experience in teaching through mission schools and talking to different organizations could only serve to help gain experience and first-hand knowledge for the theoretical / academic studies that I hope to engage in.  And while I am not a pastor persay, I could still network with denominational leaders and churches who would be interested in such an investment.

  So there we go.  In a nutshell, that is a bit clearer with the path ahead of me. Time to begin stepping out and taking more steps forward.  Until next time, dear reader.

Recently, my wife and I have noticed that our favorite Korean restaurant in town has begun supplying us with free drinks along with our meal, perhaps as a sign that they appreciate our loyalty as customers. In case you are curious, the restaurant is named Joons, and is located just north of Yonge and Sheppard in Toronto. They serve amazing ddockgalbi and also very good kimchi jigae (in my opinion, anyway).

   We decided on Friday to try a different restaurant, one we don't usually go to.  We decided to revisit Eastside Mario's, a restaurant that we had visited only once before, during our first Christmas together.  For those unfamiliar, Eastside Mario's is an Italian pasta/pizza restaurant that also offers all you can eat bread (amazing), as well as all you can eat soup or salad along with your meal. There was a special on, where you could order all of this, a small pizza (or dish of pasta), bottomless soft-drink and a chocolate mousse cake for $15, which we both ordered.

   Now, as you can imagine, when ESM had a branch closer to Tyndale, this was a favorite place to eat, and students would often turn the meal into two meals, where they would fill themselves up with the soup or salad, and then pack up the pasta/pizza to eat later on.  Anyway, when we arrived at the restaurant (this one was a different branch than last time - Friday, we went to the one on Dufferin and Steeles, while last time, we went to one somewhere in Scarborough), we were immedietely seated at one of the central tables of the restaurant section. And it was a packed house.  Eventually, others from the section left, and once that table was cleared, the manager came up to us and asked us if it was possible for us to switch to the newly cleared table, as ours was needed for a larger party somewhere else in the restaurant.  Naturally, we complied, and moved to the other table (which did cause some momentary confusion for our server, admittedly).

  A few minutes later, once we had started into our main course (Lish ordered some pizza, me some spicy pasta), the manager came back and was bubbling over with gratitude.  He thanked us for being willing to move and not making a big fuss over it, and offered us some free dessert (which, ironically, was already included in our meal).  We accepted, then he left for a few minutes and came back a bit later and asked if we would like some icecream with our mousse cakes.  Again, we accepted.  Methinks I ate a bit too much, though, as I was not able to finish the icecream... and usually I make it a point to finish everything placed in front of me.  So after paying the bill, we got up to leave and the manager waved us down and told us not to go anywhere. He came back with a coupon for a free appetizer for our next visit, with a value up to $8, which is usable up until the end of December.

  This gets me to thinking... During my time in the customer service industry, I can understand from that the need to placate an irate customer, for the sake of keeping some form of peace within the business, and that if a mistake is made, then naturally, some kind of recompense could be expected.  But if there was no mistake noticable, and you are simply asked to help, or to move one table over, in my mind, this should not be such a big deal. Judging from the manager's treatment of us (which I am not faulting him for in any way), what does that say about his previous experiences with other customers who may have been in similar situations? Have we become so self-obsessed and impatient as a culture that external rewards are required for someone to help another person, or to make a momentary sacrifice for the betterment of others?