The difference is, I think embarrassing Christianity is a good thing. Rather than being quiet about it simply so people don't get offended, I'm one of those people who will not be quiet and I will say what I think when the subject turns to religion. I think religious offense is highly overrated, and I think Christianity has a lot to be embarrassed about.

And remember, you represent a direction and theology that the UCCan is moving away from, so (to heap on another metaphor) watch where you throw those stones. You've been an embarrassment to your colleagues on WC before as well.

Oh? Do I? You would know that how?

And as for being an embarassment to my collegaues, it would be a professional courtesy if I was for them to speak eto me provately. None has. perhaps you are making unwarranted assumptions.

And you are a very angry, mean, bitter person, for whatever reason. I find absolutely no sense of embarassment from any of my collegaues comments; just a respectful disagreement with my position. I have no difficulty with that. You might learn a lesson or three about respectful disagreement from them.

I think most people here believe differently, for many reasons.

Is my disrespect for your religious beliefs the "militant" part that Mike was talking about? How many people were injured because I insulted your beliefs?

In our discussions here, you have placed a mythical afterlife above what we have now, you have sided with terrorists over atheist cartoonists, equating a cartoon with sufficient provocation to justify death threats, and you've been against the UCCan publicly siding with Ontario Catholic high schoolers who wanted to establish Gay-Straight Alliances. I find that you often choose ecumenicism and dogma over people, and though it is hard to pin down the direction of the UCCan, between what I read here and in the Observer, I hope for the sake of the UCCan that these beliefs make you a dinosaur in your own denomination. 

I thought the direction was narrowed down to plummeting into freezing water and waiting a maximum of 20 minutes for a savior to show up.

It's the best idea I've heard so far.

Chansen, I a not sure how you understand the word, 'militant'.  I understand the word to mean passionately and persistently attacking something or someone else.  Militant environmentalists attack  every major project without regard to doing an overall cost/benefit analysis in comparison to other options.  I perceive you as persistently going out of your way to attack Christians even when what they are discussing has next to nothing to do with you.  I don't know what else to call some of your posts if they are not examples of militant atheism.  If you were posting contrary posts supporting atheist points of views on issues instead of attacks on Christian points of view, you would be simply an atheist.

Put "militant" in the context of religion. What image pops in your head when you think of a "militant Christian"? What about a "militant Muslim"? Now, why should atheists have to put up with being called "militant", when we're not the ones actually being violent?

Mike continues to trot this caricature out, it's just wrong, and he can't provide any examples other than the fact that I don't respect his beliefs. Too bad - I don't think his beliefs are worthy of respect. But I still say he has the right to hold them, just as I have the right to criticize them.

First, let me say that I do not see militant in only a negative way and I would not say it is "attacking every project" or willy nilly either.

I believe militant to be fighting or warring, aggressive about a cause. That does not have to be aiming at all and it does not have to be without forethought. It does not have to be without weighing costs...etc.

I think "militant" is often placed in front of something- feminist, atheist, civil rights activist, gay rights activists... etc- in order to imply something negative. It sounds more negative than say reformer or crusader.

I have been called a militant feminist, a militant gay, a militant activist....
 

Confrontation does not have to be violent...
Fighting and warring, waging battle can be peaceful...
Aggression can be determination and energetic pursuit...
Combatting something does not have to be violent... (Ephesians 6:12)
 

Heck, Jesus was considered a militant or there would have been no need to execute him.

As a Christian, I think there are times when we should choose to be holy rather than being nice. I think humans, in the state of the world, should likely be more aggressive, more militant than passive and apathetic.

Could this be why you don't really like the words "Militant Atheist"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

Yeah, comrade. That's why. It's because I'm part of a communist party.

Then the Canadian churches found themselves all together in the same boat. And they decided that maintaining the status quo meant certain death. ...

Wait a minute, haven't I heard a story like this before?

Well we know you're not communist but it does amaze me that you actually think you are not in some kind of "cahoots" with others, to rid the world of religion.

But in the story I remember the guys in the boat were not alone. Their teacher was in the same boat as they were. Of course he was asleep. I guess he didn't understand the urgency of the situation. Maybe he was out of touch with the real world?

How about the Canadian-filled boat?

"Cahoots!!!" Really?!?

I'd like to see religion stripped of its elevated status. I'd like to see a world with far less religious influence. I think one way to do that is to point out how ridiculous it all is. Religion, when it's not depressing or boring, is often funny, and I do have a lot of fun with many of my replies. Just today, I got to quote the bible talking about donkey genitals. I can not make this stuff up. 

But no, my aim is not to rid the world of religion. You rid the world of things by seizing power and removing something by force of law. Anti-theists are, by-and-large, arguing against religion. We argue that it is almost surely not true, it is not all good, it is not unique, and it is not necessary. We are not a bunch of politicians, nor are we military types. What we are is ahead of the curve when it comes to acceptance and inclusion, compared to most religions.

And, some progress is being made. I doubt we can take credit for 10% of the declines in religiosity these past few years, but it's good to see anti-theistic views out there, instead of tucked away to appease the feelings of the religious.

I understand that those who oppose me are valued educators, as I seek the daily transformation and renewal of my mind.  By their strong critical constructions I am pressed to patience in the encounter. 

Patience is the first step along the way of holiness. When patience is made perfect, a next step may be taken. This is the step of perseverence. [to keep it simple, think of the process by which a duffer becomes an under par player.]

I notice a clever athiest push the buttons of seasoned church men and such. Little like coyote walking about catching folk in their own mischief. I can see such folk, under the light of a full moon, with barking dogs and sparking guns, out to get that sly twilight hunter. 

I have always welcomed provocation, specially where adroitly expressed. A good tussle with the other's point of view offers me opportunity to test what I know, to discover its limits and develop strategies to overcome those limits.

My being is not encased in some definiton, either mine, yours or the mega-machine's. It is fluid, dynamic, ever casting off what hinders and taking on what helps. The refining of character by the test of experience.

In conversation with a friend professing atheism just some days past. We talked about stories. I asked what stories he would tell his grandchild when a parent had died. His answer was nicely framed in language expressing the order of nature and the delights and costs of life; including personal mortality.

Our conversation revealed agreement on one important point. The love of the grandparent for the child is the only necessary element of the story told. Too be clear, there is no brand name, no mark of copyright, on love.

My friend prefers to speak language corresponding to the world of weights and measures. I prefer to speak through language of metaphor and parable. What ever the language prefered, if there is no love it is nothing more than prattle.

Surely we can agree that there is more than enough prattle about?

Meh

we have gone too far

forgetting how important it is both to feed our young AND to eat their poop (and, in the spirit of agape, to be willing to eat other youngs' poop)

how far we have all fallen

GeoFee,

Without love....

It can be noisy gongs and clanging cymbals or as annoying as a fly in the bedroom.

I appreciate a challenge of my thoughts, beliefs, feelings... It means I also challenge people to think on their own. Most often, it is not an aggressive, in-your-face, "I demand you to..." approach. It is usually by asking questions.

Sometimes, folks don't like being asked or having questions posed.

I may appreciate challenge of myself, and invite it of others, too much for some folks comfort. Yet, I am aware some people also avoid confrontation at all costs. I can hope for balance where balance is wise.

Some of the best conversations I have had, for my faith journey and my ministry, have been with the unchurched and those who do not believe. They can be respectful, if the people in conversation choose them to be or requires that they be....

Hmmm, Jesus spoke a bunch to those folks too......

There's a difference between respectful dialogue with others and disrepectful intentional provocation.  I have to admit I was utterly shocked by the personal attack on DKS's character to make a point.

As I remember the story, many of those panicking in the boat were fishermen. Competent, knowledgeable, practical people. How long did they try to handle the situation themselves? When did they give up?

Why did they wake their teacher? He knew words, knew them, but they knew the boat, the sea. Did they wake him to ask for help? To protest his sleeping? To share in their deaths? So they wouldn't feel alone? Did he even care?

And the boat holding the Canadian churches? Holding the United Church? 

I think that character attacks can and do happen depending on the people.

Chansen likely took "militant" as a character attack. DKS likely took "embarrassment" or "f'ed up theology" as a character attack. Chansen likely took "angry, mean, bitter" as one.

Is it shocking the point some will go to to make a point or during a disagreement or discussion? Sometimes it is. It is shocking, for me, only when it is out of character for that person or I had not seen a propensity for it.

When it is something I have seen before, I am not so shocked. When it becomes more common, it may tell me that is what happens when they are hurt, upset, challenged, cornered... it may tell me who they are or how they are.

Maya Angelou said, "When people tell you who they are, believe them.... the first time."

When it seems like it is their modus operandi, I almost expect it.

Having been on opposite sides of a discussion or debate and having squared off with both, I have had not my beliefs, but my person, personality, education, character.... hinted at or obviously addressed. I also know that I am not alone.

So, for me, it is what it is.

Waterfall, this whole thing started over Mike doing his typical "militant atheist" attack, which I responded to by shooting up the place making a joke about cocktail swords. Take a look at my exchange with Mike on 02/19/2013 at 14:24 and 18:14, and tell me which of us is being more personal. Then look at how DKS injects himself in the conversation at 07:10 the next morning.

I am not solely responsible for the direction of the conversation. Once again, just because you wish something to be true, does not make it so.

Edit: Thanks, SG. Yes, the whole thing started over the "militant" line, which I had previously debunked with Mike before, and initially tried to handle with humour this time.

In this case, SG, " pot meet kettle", becomes the catalyst. The irony was obvious to everyone but Chansen who instead chose to take the route of character assassination instead. An obvious tactic used by those faced with a truth to divert the conversation when one is on shaky footing.

Chansen YOU were NEVER called "militant": It was a description of The Economy.

You mis-read the piece — and persisted in misreading it out of some sort of comprehension deficit or deliberate malice. Then made it trivially personal. That's NOT a constructive contribution.

You can go somwhere else now.

--------

Chansen joined this thread with the simple intention of derailing it as effectively as possible. He had NO intention of furthering the discussion about the future of the UCC. It began looking pretty militatnt but he was necer accused of it.

I am concerned that the shift from capitalism to monetarism (a shift that's been widely debated and discussed) has included a dangerous shift towards the active exclusion of spirituality and spiritual values: the shift from "investment" to "speculation" is a symptom of this in my view: it's ahrening of purely materialistic values. And I think the UCC needs to recognise this shift in the way it moves forward. I think it presents a serious threat to "regular" church survival, but also a way forward because it runs so counter to healthy human nature.

Maybe we could get back to the topic?

It's been explained that "militant" can mean many things. I don't believe you live in a bubble or a controlled environment so I find it hard to believe that you are not aware of the current rhetoric put out by young atheists. I just have to go on youtube to read some remarks at the bottom of a page when I access anything to do with religiion. If there's one thing that the newest members of atheism haven't learned, it's how to respect that other people may believe otherwise. I was shocked, quite frankly, how you reverted to the same simplistic tactics.

Is the irony that I'm an embarrassment to Christianity, or atheism? Or is it that you think I'm being militant?

Again, in the context of religious discussion, "militancy" is more often associated with violence or threats of violence. Blackbelt once threatened to strike me, but I never saw any Christians call him "militant". I've argued against atheist cartoons being sufficient provocation for death threats, which by any stretch is a form of militant belief. Against those examples, calling what I do "militant" is contemptable.

Agreed Mike, sorry. It was a good conversation going on.

Mike, again, look at our exchange on 02/19/2013 at 14:24 and 18:14, and tell me which of us is being more personal, with you attacking my "comprehension", and me attacking your....definition of "militant".

You have YET to be called MILITANT: Chansen. Militancy implies some sort of informed commitment. But let me offer self-indulgent, gratituitously insulting, rude, deeply ignorant and socially challenged. You demonstrated your want of comprehension with your first post. The World is not ALL about you, Chansen; nor is Wondercafe… and this thread has NEVER been all about you. Perhaps that was what upset your apparently fragile, even dysfunctional, emotional constitution? There, there… all better now?

Now… could we TRY to get back on topic?????

"Ad hominem" or "tu quoque" ring a bell?

"Militant atheists" is a description of the economy? Do we have a Hitchens-based economy that is reliant on sales of Johnnie Walker and cigarettes?

Here's the quote:

How the hell is this a description of the economy?

I agree it moved off topic and I some present don't really want to discuss it. They may be "who cares" type or they may be "yeah, yeah, heard this" types.

Some hear, "change or die" and think "die". They may be inside or outside. 

I do not think we are speaking of change for change's sake. I think that today, like all days before, we need to allow the Spirit to move us rather than dig our heels in. We need- not just today or in this insance but always- forward thinking, vision, dreams.... If we are in the business of church for those who want church, we can just do what we do. If our purpose, our greater purpose, is creating disciples and living a mission, creating a Kingdom.... we should be doing that. Clearly, we are not. The numbers are clear. So, yes, something must change.

For me, those who are creating disciples and living mission, well, they are not worrying or complaining....

I've dropped the insults. For the record, you haven't. I'm suggesting that what you claim was an attempt to describe the economy, was actually just your routine slagging of atheists. Being surrounded by Christians, I doubt I'm going to get a lot of agreement, but I think the quote above makes my point perfectly clear to anyone reading who hasn't already made me out to be the worst person alive.

P.S. guys: "Militant" is described on Wikipedia thus:

"The English word militant is both an adjective and a noun, and is usually used to mean vigorously active, combative and aggressive, especially in support of a cause, as in 'militant reformers'.

"…the current meaning of militant does not usually refer to a registered soldier: it can be anyone who subscribes to the idea of using vigorous, sometimes extreme, activity to achieve an objective, usually political. For example, a "militant [political] activist" would be expected to be more confrontational and aggressive than an activist not described as militant."

That's pretty close to what I was hoping to convey about The Economy.

Excuse me, chansen, but I really don't appreciate being quoted out of context. In that particular thread I disagreed with a statement DKS had made, as I'm sure he has disagreed with me at times in the past. I don't think that either of us would take any disagreements we may have had and suggest that either of us are "embarrassed" by the other. Nor do I think that anything you have ever said on Wonder Cafe gives you any right to speak on behalf of the clergy who are here. You certainly have no right to put words into my mouth that I've never used (ie, "embarrassed") and I resent you doing it. It is a dishonest way of making your argument, and if you must use dishonesty to make your argument, then I suggest that your argument is faulty.

You, on the other hand, have repeatedly expressed contempt and disdain for a variety of people, not being able to restrict yourself to mere disagreement. In so doing, in my opinion, you embarrass yourself repeatedly and you don't provide a very effective defence of what you personally believe or don't believe.

You've also repeatedly expressed an unwillingness to accept the standard definition of various words when the standard definition doesn't fit your preconceived notions of what you believe.

I remember a discussion a while back on the word science, when you simply refused to accept the dictionary definition of the word, instead insisting that it be narrowly applied, because only your dishonestly narrow definition suited your argument. Now you're doing the same thing with the word "militant."

You want to define the word only by way of those who commit violent actions. This is not the only accepted definition of the word "militant" by any English language dictionary. For example, from Merriam-Webster: "aggressively active (as in a cause)." I would suggest, for example, just right off (because they get mentioned repeatedly on here) that both Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens qualify as "aggressively active" on behalf of atheism or anti-theism. I would suggest that you do so as well.

The fact that you don't like the completely proper use of certain words doesn't mean that others aren't allowed to use them properly. You can't just set the rules according to what suits you the best and ignore reality - which you repeatedly choose to do on matters such as this.

Re: your last post… just read on. Read the whole piece. You'll discover the argument I was making. Or not.

You're right. I shouldn't have used that as an example of why Mike is an embarrassment. Sorry for dragging your quote into this.

I think it's important to put people's beliefs in context. Sometimes, I go too far.

I've acknowledged the meanings of "militant", but I dispute its use here because calling what atheists do "militant", compared to the popular image of "militant religion", is just false. There has to be a better way of differentiating atheists who at most attack with words, from militant theists who attack with weapons. Mike isn't interested in making that distinction.

I've read it. If there is a point about the economy in there, you hid it well. I would quote it all, but what follows is 561 words long, according to the text editor I pasted it to.

I still think you're just slagging atheists, and then playing the shocked card when called on it.

Do you really think the problem with the church is external?

As RAN says, What about waking up the teacher in the boat?

Go to the Moderator's blog and edit-find on this page Jesus.

20 minutes in freezing water may be what it takes to get some people to call on his name.

Honestly, SnP, I don't think a lack of attention to Jesus is the problem. Yes, that name may not be seen much in what comes out of the national church. However, when I go to United Churches around here (there's two I go to on a semi-regular basis), I hear that name aplenty in both worship and congregational life. Admittedly, their understanding of Jesus and what it means to follow him likely doesn't concur with yours and there a few UCCan churches and leaders that have gone a less theistic route (Gretta Vosper being the most famous example), but he is by no means absent in the worship and practice of the UCCan churches I've had experience with. They do, indeed, call on his name.

Mendalla

Hi Sau/Paull:

Freezing water has always worked for me!

I don't think the church's problems are external. We each have to take resposnibility for who we are. But I do think that any failure to read the context would be a serioius mistake.

The church isn't god: it's a human organisation that strives to witness "god" — it can not simply exist for its members: it is an interface. That interface role is inescapapable.

I think it's fairly clear that there are problems with the interface, and waiting for society at large to discover what "church" offers would be  negligent. "Church" is a term that embodies extreme diversity and  when what we call and experience as "faith" is uniquely personal, it's not easy to tell society at large what it's all about… language is a massive liability, even when you're fully integrated into the social mainstream. Transcendence almost knocks it out of the court.

Witness is, in my view, necessarily  calls for experiential activism: for action not talk. How declared adherents of "church" live is inevitably a big part of that. But so, too, is what people experience when they look in and look around.

I suspect that "Church" went "wrong" trying to be "cool" when being "cool" was being done much better by everyone else and was in fact a fairly capital intensive industry.

What "church" can/could offer is an alternative: a bit of quiet in a world of noise, a bit of beauty in a world of ugliness, a bit of simplicity in a world of complexity, engagement in a world of superficiality, meaningfulness in a word of image and superficialities, spirituial wealth in a world of material wealth… thaese are all "gifts of the spirit" as I understand the term.

And that brings us to the issue of spirituality… and, from the word I get from ministers and others here, in the UCC that's a difficult area: people seem not to spend a lot of time in listening prayer, are uncomfortable with spiritual reflection and meditation and a bit casual with liturgy… the symbols don't seem to communicate as effectively as they used to…

Personally, I would rate spirituality way above doctrine as the need of these times.

And that raises new arrays of issues for many people. 

Yes, if being "religious" is being doctrinaire, and being "spiritual" is experiencing spirituality, and acting from the depth of that experience, then spirituality trumps doctrine—by far.

I think the majority of people today are far more interested in experiential spirituality than religious doctrine. The language of doctrine appears strange, weird or absurd to the secular majority, even if they realize that it is largely metaphorical. The secular majority has become estranged from doctrine, but is very interested in spiritual experience. That's why the Church would do well to de-emphasize doctrine and emphasize spiritual experience, which, after all, is the experience of Truth, Beauty, and Grace. Everyone wants that!

On a green pillow,

She carried the wish of paradise,

Both roots and branches

As one thing, called the Grail,

The overwhelming earthly wish.

-Wolfram von Eschenbach

So how did that story continue?

After they woke the teacher they agreed to throw him overboard. Was he running away from God? Then the boat and passengers continued safely on their way. But then the people in the boat fade out of the story and the story follows the teacher instead. A giant fish  ... ?

Surely that can't be right? I'm pretty sure that was a prophet, not the teacher.

Still, it might be an option for the Canadians in the boat. Worth considering?

Meanwhile. let me think. Maybe I can remember the right ending to the story.

If we go wayyyy back. Jesus sent out his disciples with nothing, no money - just the clothes on their backs - with nothing but a message.

It didn't have to do with hating Harper, it had nothing to do with Palistine or rainbows or pipelines, or the economy. They were not even feeding the poor (well they were, but not the kind of food that enters through your mouth)

That is the foundation the church is built on. Some will accept and some will reject.

That is not the foundation of ther church I see when I watch even that service that was posted earlier on this thread. Jesus/God are just a backdrop. Wallpaper.

Saul: I think you're getting a strangely off-centre view of the UCC. I think the public perception of the UCC is often askew, simply because it isn't afraid to express Jesus' teachings fairly directly in the public domain and stands up for the poor, the oppressed, the imprisoned, the marginalised. I don't think many UCC members I know would feel their faith is getting anyone anywhere if they simply say how great god is and how much they really, really like Jesus. It's a different emphasis, on action more than adoration.

Okay. I checked the story, so this is how I read it.

‘Peace! Be still!’ With those words the teacher calmed wind and sea. That was it. The end of the storm.

'Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?’ The "teacher's" words for those in the boat.

And those in the boat? Afraid. Terrified. In awe. "Who is this?" Of their own "teacher".

In their lack of faith they called out to Jesus. But what did the "teacher" expect them to do differently? What response would have shown their faith? The story doesn't say. At least, this part of the larger story doesn't say.

What response would show the faith of the Canadians in their boat? Are we afraid? Have we still no faith? In the one who said: Peace; be still.

Or in the one who said: Be still and know that I am God.

Be still and know that I am God.

Be still and know that I am.

Be still and know.

Be still.

Be.

It seems clear that some kind of change is required if the United Church of Canada is to thrive.

Personally, I would like to see the denomination move to be more conservative and evangelical in nature. I believe that is wise. I believe it is the path to blessing.

Currently the fastest-growing form of Christianity is the charismatic kind. Perhaps the rest of us all have lessons to learn from them.

Peace in Christ. 

You make the assumption that growth = success. I'm not convinced that's a gospel value. Wide Road/Narrow Road for example. Most people choose the wide road; ie, where most people go is in the wrong direction. Thus, growth is not necessarily a measure of either success or faithfulness.

You make a good point here Rev Steven.

Still, growth is a kind of success. I mean the United Church, for example, does like to talk about the fact that's the largest protestant denomination in Canada.

I've always been one in real life to hold that growth does not always necessarily equal success. Still, it is probably better than dieing off.

Peace in Christ.