New Pigfest Starting In Salem Virginia!

New PigFests are springing up. The Salem PigFest will start on November 30th.

If you live in Salem, Virginia and are interesting in coming, please post a comment.

We would love to have some Roanoke College students attend.

Sorry

Sorry.

The Pigfest posting has been slow.

The good news is that we are getting ready to crank it up again.

If you live in or near Roanoke, VA, please post a comment so I can invite you to participate.

Easter Pigfest Northern Virginia

Easter Pigfest 2007

Last Thursday, Truth and Grace Ventures hosted what was, to our knowledge, the first Pigfest held in Northern Virginia during this century. What is a Pigfest, you ask? A Pigfest is a regular gathering of people around one table for sharing of great food and thoughtful, intentional, moderated conversation about important issues of the day. Our conversation, consistent with Pigfest tradition, was guided by our guests. Each attendee came prepared to advance and outline a defense for one truth proposition falling within the area of religion, history, government, economics, philosophy or popular culture. The discussion of each proposition – this was a friendly dialogue, not a knock-down, drag-out debate – was limited to 15 minutes.

Our group was comprised of 15 dedicated followers of Jesus Christ. Our collective purpose was to stretch our understanding and practice of discipleship. Too commonly, we Christians are careless and casual about recognizing how biblical truth is integrated with all of life. While we may strive to lead lives marked by Christian ethics, spirituality and practice, too often we fail to think christianly. If we do manage to think christianly, too often such an approach is applied to an artificially narrow set of subjects or concerns. The goal of our first Pigfest, accordingly, was to gather Christians to explore truth and to practice thinking christianly about a variety of topics.

Most importantly, our table that evening was blessed with a wonderful collection of traditional Lebanese dishes. Thank you, Christine, for feeding us! And thank you, Ryan and Jessica, for opening your home to so many indulgent appetites.

Our first presenter of the evening was our host, Ryan. He argued that no girl should date until the age of 20, and no father should let her. His reasons were many. (1) Men love darkness, and their natural state is one of inclination toward evil. (2) Teenagers typically struggle with the issue of acceptance. Emotions rather than wisdom tend to rule. Romantic intimacy is an addictive source of acceptance. Teens need time and space to develop wisdom and proper values. (3) For some, dating connotes what properly would be considered marriage behaviors. (4) Each person only has so much “mindshare.” Dating tends to crowd out the time and energy needed to develop a proper understanding of more important things, such as family. (5) God calls fathers to protect and raise their children consistent with His ways.

To my delight, Ryan was greeted with not hostility but a spirit of generous hospitality. And this is not because everyone agreed with the proposition – not even close. Some questioned the feasibility of implementing a rule against dating, particularly for a young woman of 18 or 19 who has moved out of the home. Others questioned the wisdom of seeking to prevent young people from learning how to relate in healthy ways with prospective spouses. Yet, all who joined the conversation seemed to agree that no father can effectively and productively implement such a law absent an established relationship of trust and love with his daughter. Absent such a relationship between father and daughter, and a generous measure of mercy available to the daughter, a rule against dating will tend to incite and invite the behavior it seeks to prevent.

Our second presenter, Kate, proposed that the Church should fight for legislation that abolishes government-recognized marriage. The Church would be the sole institution with the authority to grant marriages and to define marriage. The Church could protect the traditional notion of marriage, limiting it to the union of a man and a woman. Governments could continue to grant civil unions, domestic partnerships and the like, and to define them as the people see fit – perhaps extending them beyond one man-one woman arrangements. Governments also could confer tax and other legal benefits, traditionally associated with marriage, to state-recognized unions. As I understand Kate’s point, the hope would be that the debate over marriage and homosexuality would be diffused/disarmed; the Church would refocus on evangelism; the Church would gain a stronger voice in the present culture, as it focuses more on the gospel than leading the charge against the radical homosexual agenda.

Kate’s proposition definitely garnered strong support from those in our group who believe that poverty (and other ills) should rank higher on the Church’s social agenda than homosexuality. There was also strong opposition. As I suggested in my closing remarks, marriage is not a political construct devised by man, but the first of the social institutions created by the living God to advance his goodness in the world. If marriage had been devised by man, it might be wise and good to attempt to improve upon it. If marriage were just a human political institution, it might be wise and good for the Church to abandon its definition and administration to the political sphere. The experience of the last several decades do not provide much hope for society’s ability to improve marriage. With innovations like no-fault divorce, marriage has become more a contract-of-convenience than a lifelong covenant. As the institution of marriage has disintegrated, so has the fabric of our culture.

Kathryn offered the third proposition of the evening: a person cannot continue maturing in his/her walk with Christ absent the discipline of solitude. By solitude, Kathryn was referring to a disciplined effort to “flee, be silent and pray,” “three ways of preventing the world from shaping us in its image” (Henri Nouwen, The Way of the Heart). Seeking solitude was a regular practice of Jesus. What more reason do we need? He began his ministry by spending 40 days in the desert (Luke 4:1). He went to a lonely place and prayed before teaching and casting out demons in Galilee (Mark 1:35). He spent a night on a mountainside in prayer before choosing The Twleve and before the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6:12). He spent the night in the garden at Gethsemane before His crucifixion. As a group, I believe we were of one mind that (1) solitude is an important discipline for creating space in which God may speak to and change us, but (2) we cannot allow this one important discipline to become an excuse for idleness or navel-gazing, both of which promise the fruit of self-deception.

Our fourth proposition, offered by Allison, was all Christians need to be active participants/members in a local church. Relying heavily on the writings of Paul and on her own experience, Allison urged that we cannot be the Body of Christ by ourselves, that the institutional church provides necessary clothing for the Body, and without it we are more vulnerable to the voices of the world. While a great – perhaps nearly unanimous – majority of people around the table agreed with the proposition, we were not left with a stale, unimportant discussion. There was definitely a current in the discussion in favor of the notion that a strong community of believers, living (close) together, seeking the Kingdom of God could obviate the need for association with any local church as commonly understood. Consider, for instance, the purported strength and beauty of house churches in places like China. There also was a sober recognition among many in the group that the local church, and our half-hearted participation in it, can serve as a paltry substitute for real discipleship. We can attend regularly, serve on a committee or two, teach Sunday School, and lull ourselves into believing that this is kingdom-living, that we are achieving all that Christ has in store for us in this age. There is also the concern that the local church can serve to sustain rather than break down barriers between classes or races. Wealthy folks bring donations of money and food; poor folks pick up food and other necessities; both groups leave feeling better off, but is something not lost from their failure to cultivate relationships with one another?

The final proposition of the evening belonged to Jennica. She argued that Christians should buy Fair Trade Certified coffee. Fair Trade principles seek to treat people throughout the supply chain with dignity and to care for the long-term well-being of the earth’s resources. Farmers in developing countries are provided a “minimum wage” that covers their expenses and thus helps to release them from cyclical poverty. The farmers, in turn, must pay their laborers fair wages and comply with labor regulations. Farmers also must comply with environmental regulations and use sustainable farming techniques such as crop rotation. Why should Christians, in particular, support Fair Trade Certified products? Because God commands us to seek justice, care for the poor and to be wise stewards of creation. Only one argument against Fair Trade Coffee gained any real traction with our group. Buying Fair Trade Coffee could act as a balm on the conscience of Christians, leading them to say in all self-righteousness, “I’ve done my part for the poor of the world. I buy Fair Trade Coffee.” So, should we encourage Christians to take this one small, faithful step, or should we encourage them to sacrifice much more of their comfort so that others may eat and live with dignity? The following day, my friend Jeff Clinton answered the question best: “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much” (Luke 16:10). Doing the little things well matters a great deal.

At the end of the evening, we all put our souvenir piggies (see picture above) into a hat for a drawing. At stake was a set of four theater tickets to see the heidi chronicles playing at Washington, DC’s Arena Stage. Congratulations to Bob and Gail! We expect a full report at the next Pigfest in July.

Alabama Pigfest April 2007

All worldviews, political slants, and nationalities are welcomed to our PigFest. They are more than just welcomed we seek them out to come and join us.

With 29 attending here are the topics we discussed this past week:

“The Don Imus debacle will serve as a watershed event to help re-establish the line between respectable news and journalism versus comedy and base entertainment.”

The overriding conclusion was that there has been a breakdown between what is considered legitimate news verses sensationalism for the sake of entertainment. For example, name one news agency that can seriously say that after the first day of coverage that the Anna Nicole story was still legitimate news. In an effort to have each story “top” the one before there are no restrictions as to what one might say about another person. Often times a considerable percent of a commentary is used to attack the character of the individual in opposition rather than focus on the issue at hand. Ann Coulter and Bill Maher could be described as some who use personal attacks to “win” an argument. In her article, “That’s Not Nice”, published in the Wall Street Journal on March 10, 2007, Peggy Noonan wrote, “Our country now puts less of an emphasis on public decorum, courtliness, self-discipline, decency. America no longer says, "That's not nice." It doesn't want to make value judgments on "good" and "bad." We have come to rely on censorship to maintain decorum. We are very good at letting people know that if they say something we don't like, we'll shame them and shun them, even ruin them.” I think she’s right and Don Imus is another recent example. We should demand more of people and rather than just rely on censorship let’s raise the bar for common decency and respect for the individual. Let’s encourage news organizations to have integrity when it comes to calling a story newsworthy and when it is commentary call it such. Let each argument, for or against, stand on its own merit, for truth has a way of making itself obvious to all.

“In light of the devastating massacre at Virginia Tech, we’re faced with the sad truth that evil exists at a profound level in our world. That being the case, God can’t possibly be both all loving and all powerful. He is either loving but not powerful enough to stop evil or powerful but not loving enough to stop evil.”

No one shied away from this one. There was a deep sense of sadness that everyone felt. (One person at our table asked that we stop for a moment of silence to remember the students and their families before the dinner began.) It was discussed as to whether or not people are more evil today than at any time in the past. The conclusion was, no. It was argued that human beings have a definite propensity to do evil and that time with improvements in education and technology haven’t lowered the propensity to do evil but rather just gives one the tools to be more efficient in carrying out the act. There was no conclusion as to whether God can be all loving and all powerful or if one attribute must negate the other. Just as there are things we do that an animal can’t comprehend (i.e. reading a newspaper or book.) there are things that involve God that we can’t understand because it is not in our scope of knowledge. One area of agreement was in the midst of evil, we can always find acts of love. One example remembered was the forgiveness and love shown by the Amish community towards those involved in the tragic murder of the Amish girls.

Other propositional truths debated included:

“We (the U.S.) have Military bases all over the world. Since the cold war is over, I believe we need to close the bases and send our troops either to Afghanistan or home.”

Both sides had equal representation.

“It is up to the wealthiest people of a society to insure that those who are disadvantaged are taken care of.”

Some argued that we do take care of the less fortunate through the taxes we pay to the government. Others argued that each person is directly responsible for helping the disadvantage. It was emphasized that those who are Christians are called to do so by Christ Himself.

Each one of these was discussed with the same persistence to uncover truth.

With cigar in hand, our last propositional truth offered; Second Hand Smoke (E.T.S. Environmental Tobacco Smoke):

It has been claimed that from 37,000 to 40,000 people die from smoking related disease caused by other people's smoke each year. Sounds terrible, doesn't it? Problem is ... It's Not True! Doesn't make sense, does it? Why would the government, knowing there is no association between lung cancer and ETS exposure, continue to scare the public into believing there is? The answer is simple: Money. If you knew the truth about ETS exposure, you would not voluntarily contribute your money to the government to continue funding their bogus studies. So, why do the government and the insurance industry make such a big deal about ETS when the research doesn't even support their claims? At the risk of repeating myself...it's because of money, control, and jurisdiction.

While no one really bought this argument neither did anyone put down his cigar.

While we take the evening’s topics seriously we also thoroughly enjoy the company of one another which makes each time we come together a memorable occasion.