Admin2 - You did good. This is a great  new forum. I will be monitoring it closely. Thank you.

First a word from Jeremiah, as rendered for our consideration by Eugene Peterson:

To Worship the Big Lie

God told Jeremiah, "Up on your feet! Go to the potter's house. When you get there, I'll tell you what I have to say." So I went to the potter's house, and sure enough, the potter was there, working away at his wheel.

Whenever the pot the potter was working on turned out badly, as sometimes happens when you are working with clay, the potter would simply start over and use the same clay to make another pot. Then God's Message came to me: "Can't I do just as this potter does, people of Israel?" God's Decree! "Watch this potter. In the same way that this potter works his clay, I work on you, people of Israel.

At any moment I may decide to pull up a people or a country by the roots and get rid of them. But if they repent of their wicked lives, I will think twice and start over with them. At another time I might decide to plant a people or country, but if they don't cooperate and won't listen to me, I will think again and give up on the plans I had for them.

 "So, tell the people of Judah and citizens of Jerusalem my Message: 'Danger! I'm shaping doom against you, laying plans against you. Turn back from your doomed way of life. Straighten out your lives.'

 "But they'll just say, 'Why should we? What's the point? We'll live just the way we've always lived, doom or no doom.'"

Is is possible that we will convene our General Council by reference to a text taken from its context to serve as a seemingly biblical warrant? Will the text be taken as it was given - an exhortation to repentance? Will the matter of repentance reach the floor of the meeting? Will theology find a place in the discourse of the meeting?

And... after all our talk of Empire, will the meeting be governed by the rubrics of British Parlimentary process?

GeoFee wrote: "And... after all our talk of Empire, will the meeting be governed by the rubrics of British Parlimentary process?"

EZ Answer: Or the English language used in your post?

We'll never overthrow the Church's addiction to Empire so long as we use the English language, literally or metaphorically.

I live in Kelowna... party at my house!!!

"We'll never overthrow the Church's addiction to Empire so long as we use the English language, literally or metaphorically." EZed

Do you suppose? Seems to me, in light of common lections, that where the Spirit is present any language will do. The converse follows: Where the Spirit is absent, no language will do.

Got half an hour? Try "Spirit Stories" at:

http://www.nashwaaksisunited.ca/sermon.htm

GeoFee - you seem to be assuming that the Spirit is absent in the rubrics of British Parliamentary process.

I'd argue that any system can be used to discern God's will for us - including Bourinot's rules for parlimentary process - as long as the people who have agreed to use that format in their discussions are agreed that they are attempting to understand God's will, not simply our own.

Christ's peace - r

Aye!  THere's the rub.

well...or show how good they are at the process...let alone the topic which is being handled addressed with the assistance of the process.

"...you seem to be assuming that the Spirit is absent in the rubrics of British Parliamentary process." RichardBott

I am assuming a distinction between the realm/jurisdiction of law and the realm/jurisdiction of spirit. Saying this I maintain parliamentary process, polity as well, as representing a species of law. As such it is, as it has ever been, inadequate to the hour's need. Those who place their trust in process and polity will be disappointed.

I say such things with Jeremiah's text in mind. What will it mean to be refashioned by the hand of God? Are we anticipating a change in arrangements only? May we not anticipate the appearing of a new possibility? A surprising creative word?

GeoFee wrote:  "Seems to me, in light of common lections, that where the Spirit is present any language will do."

EZ Answer: I valued your sermon and the revitalized embers' warmth.

Now to language.  The Old French and the Latin have sewn together our inherited word Empire. Deep in the word is set the meaning of 'pare'.  The meaning cuts two ways: to trim and prepare; also, to slowly cut something (or someone) down.

The former: The Divine Gardener instructing Jeremiah's stripping of the vineyard's branches.  The latter: Empire's diminishing unto domination of the other.

Is the facile diminishing of easy targets like General Council's parliamentary participants a manifestation of the former or the latter?  Which spirit blows through which language choice?

The pottery's base needs thickening to increase its stability.

"Is the facile diminishing of easy targets like General Council's parliamentary participants a manifestation of the former or the latter?  Which spirit blows through which language choice?" EZed

First, thank you for your generous investment in this emerging conversation.

Mother was a whizz with the paring knife. She employed it to do any number of necessary tasks in our family home. Never was it directed in such a way as to cause harm. Always to repair and prepare. Being my mother's son, this disposition is at work in all of my initiatives and overtures. I hope this indicates an answer to the second of your questions quoted above.

The meaning of the first question is not clear in my mind. Are you using "facile" in its negative or positive connotation? It opens both ways. I am also uncertain as to the implications of "diminishing of easy targets". Can you spin the thought out a little?

The common lectionary offers us three helpful insights as we walk through this conversation. First (Isaiah 6: 1-8) a chosen person is authorized to speak a word intended to "pare" the beloved vine in the expectation of increased fruitfulness. Then (Romans 8: 12-17) a chosen person sets before us two realms of meaning and action, with a clear bias for one and against the other. Finally (John 3: 1-17) we find Jesus in conversation with a religious insider who has no access to an insight essential to faithful public witness. That conversation makes it plain that the word of God comes to liberate and not to condemn (vs. 17).

"I am assuming a distinction between the realm/jurisdiction of law and the realm/jurisdiction of spirit. Saying this I maintain parliamentary process, polity as well, as representing a species of law."

But, George, such holds true for any and all human forms of decision making, except, perhaps, total reliance on random/Divine moved indicators. Say... the flipping of a coin or the pulling of a straw. As soon as we include human interpretation in the process, it becomes part of a human social construct. There are many processes with less structural rigidty (law?) than parliamentary process... but all of them are law.

To anticipate the appearance of a new possibility is to include that possibility within our structure - within our law, is it not? As soon as this word is shared past one person it enters the realm of human relationship and social construct. Even within those two people, that word will be filtered by the rules they use for communication. When it moves past those two people, the complexities for exploration of that word become as complex.

I submit that whatever practice we use for exploration of that word - free-flowing conversation with individuals taking it how they wish, some form of concensus, parlimentary debate - whatever - can be an appropriate way of discernment - if those participating are committed to discerning God's movement in their midst.

Whatever system of exploration we use, it can be manipulated by the leadership or by the participants. Those of us who understand the 'rules' can use them to get our own way, or to shut down the voice of another. That can happen as much in a concensus model as it can in a parlimentary debate model. (Or any other model, for that matter.) The only thing that will keep us from using the rules to get our own way is a commitment to trusting that the community will discern God's way in this process.

Christ's peace - rb

GeoFee wrote: "The meaning of the first question is not clear in my mind. Are you using "facile" in its negative or positive connotation? It opens both ways. I am also uncertain as to the implications of "diminishing of easy targets". Can you spin the thought out a little?"

EZ Answer: An excellent parry built on motherhood and apple de terre pie.

Now to your question.  Truthfully, I intended "facile" in both senses, as commentary on the ease with which we can set up the other as the strawman.  The "diminishing of easy targets" is what I point to as the work of Empire.  I hold myself out as one who enacts Empire as verb; but I was uncertain if you saw any empiring in your initial thrust at commissioners playing with Bourinot.

Perhaps the common lections open further space for my concern.  Isaiah reinforces the call for prophetic voice; Paul's instruction to Rome's communion fleshes out the two inheritances before us; and the shadowed conversation with the Pharisaic conqueror of the people removes the prophet-middleman.

But when we today presume to wear the mantle of prophet and reinsert ourselves as middleman, how do we discern when our empiring is cloaked?

"Seems to me, in light of common lections, that where the Spirit is present any language will do. The converse follows: Where the Spirit is absent, no language will do." GeoFee

With the above quote in mind I will suggest that we are not far apart in our understanding. I, though I fail to state the matter clearly, am concerned with the eclipse of spirit following a preoccupation with process and polity. That is, we have misplaced our trust, from my point of view in the gathered company.

"To anticipate the appearance of a new possibility is to include that possibility within our structure - within our law, is it not?" RichardBott

This opens to some room for play. It seems to me that desire to include the new precludes it being new. I know very well that this desire is alive and well in the lived experience of the Church in all its generations.

How many creative candidates have been pressed to conformity, true or feigned, to obtain credentials for  ministry. Saying conformity I do not refer to essential agreement. My experience in the seminary makes it plain that an ordinand may believe or not believe just about any heresy of the historic Church. This said, there is no ordination without full conformity (all paper work delivered to all levels of jurisdiction) to the Manual's stipulations; the trust in process/polity.

I am truly seeking the appearing of God's new thing. I dare not constrain its appearing by the application of my criteria for measurement. Pentecost marks the appearing of an influence wild and free, the breaking down of any and all legalities by the costly liberty of God. The received text shows us liberated persons in solidarity before the process/polity/law of the day. The main point of resistance; their transgression, so to speak? No institutionally legitimated ordination to the proclamation of God's word.

Where the Spirit is there is life.

"I was uncertain if you saw any empiring in your initial thrust at commissioners playing with Bourinot." EZed

"Perhaps the common lections open further space for my concern." EZed

"But when we today presume to wear the mantle of prophet and reinsert ourselves as middleman, how do we discern when our empiring is cloaked?" EZed

GeoFee wrote: "Once again, with my apology for any appearance of density, I am uncertain as to the meaning of "when our empiring is cloaked". If you offer some clarification, I will do what I am able to give cogent reply."

EZ Answer: No need for apology when seeking mutual understanding, but your graciousness shines through.

Now back to friendly play.  I yield to your point of personal privilege, and most likely others share the need for clarification, making it a general question of privilege.  Bourinot's ghost would suggest a clear preamble as remedy.  A more linear use of language, over against our thick usage, as hospitality for any and all seeking participative understanding.

I've taken Empire as a verb.  Much the same as others call for love or God as a verb.  These are forces active in the hands of the unwitting.  Thus, empiring.  At the root of the verb is 'pare' which, as you noted, cuts both ways.  Depending on the one wielding the axe.  I offer that 'pare' signifies either 'trimming for fuller growth' or 'cutting down slowly and repeatedly towards domination.'

My question before the court of our conversation: Did your comment about General Counsel commissioners' use of Bourinot reveal the former or the latter signification.  I held forth the possibility that, most unawares (and cloaked even unto self), your attempt to reveal Empire held all the ingredients of empiring.

Your photograph suggests a guitar at hand (less likely a banjo or mandolin based on the strap showing), revealing your identity as a guitarist.  You know, then, how to strike a chord in the hearts of others.  When art unbinds the cords of empiring's dominations.  Similarly, your rhetorical style suggests a prophetic hand.  Like debate, guitaring, and wordsmithing, some rules are at play.  Even the prophetic hand has a techné.

"Now back to friendly play." EZed

I appreciate the sleuth at work in you, detecting by small clues my unseen guitar. It is a thirty year old Yamaha that gets lots of exercise with children, in the local senior homes and at open mike cafes around town.

GeoFee wrote: "It is a thirty year old Yamaha that gets lots of exercise with children, in the local senior homes and at open mike cafes around town."

EZ Answer: And with mouth organ, no doubt she wispers wisdom in the streets and at the commons and gates.

"Where the Spirit is there is life." - GeoFee

George, would you agree that the inverse is also true? "Where there is life, there is the Spirit." From my perspective, that is the only way that 'church' can be larger than one's individual relationship with the Divine. Unless we believe that humankind has the ability to totally block the Spirit from participation (something I have not experienced), then the Spirit is present and active in all things - all places - all times... including the various councils/courts of The United Church of Canada.

"How many creative candidates have been pressed to conformity, true or feigned, to obtain credentials for  ministry." - GeoFee

I don't know, George. Perhaps as many as those who have found their creativity in expression of faith both challenged and supported by the path towards ordered ministry that they agreed to use by being part of this part of the body of Christ. From my perspective, that's an important fact. Every person who is part of The United Church of Canada, knowingly or not, has agreed to the patterns our faithful living together has put into the document we call The Manual. Like the early Christians agreed to be part of a community following the structure of the Didacahe. Like the codification of the community being faithful in the book of Acts.

To be in ministry in The United Church of Canada is to put oneself on display - not only individually to God (through prayer), but communally to God (through Discernment, E&S, Interview Board). We believe that the Spirit speaks in both of these places. I've found myself in a situation of needing to say to an E&S committee I sat on, "While we have the ability to tell someone, 'We do not believe you are called to ordered ministry in The United Church of Canada,' we do not have the ability to say, 'We do not believe God has called you to ministry."

There are individuals who look at the institutional legitimization The United Church of Canada calls "ordination", or the legitimization called "commissioning", or the legitimzation called "recognition" and say, "Why the heck do I need that to live out God's call?"

Of course they don't need it to live out God's call. They can go and do and live and be ministry, based on their understanding of God's call to them.

But, with the community called The United Church of Canada, they do, however, need to agree to the way in which we have decided to live our life together. (Noting that there are a varity of ways for us to effect change to that structure. Noting that there are a varity of ways for God to effect change to that structure, as well.)

I, too, am seeking God's new thing. I recognize that that new thing may come from places that are outside the structures. Often, God's new things are. But they also come from within the structures. Unless we've found a way to completely keep the Spirit out.

Christ's peace - r

First, I still feel that there is no large difference between us. The bulk of your observations in the post just above are to the point and present no barrier in my understanding. Still...?

RichardBott wrote: "George, would you agree that the inverse is also true? "Where there is life, there is the Spirit.""

May I narrow this down a little? If we take the fifth chapter of Galatians as relevant, which not all will do, we are able to notice that the presence of the spirit produces love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Accepting this we may surely say, as you suggest, that where there is love, joy, peace & etc. there the spirit is present.

With this in view, I remain reluctant to simply admit the inversion (spirit > life = life > spirit). It may take me some time to articulate the reluctance. I will keep your question in the background and hope to have some thoughts on topic by the time you get to Article VIII in your consideration of our stated Doctrine, elsewhere in this forum.

I love the English language.  It is far more beautiful than all of continental Europe will allow it credit and for some odd reason the continent has been allowed to reign supreme on the negative judgment of English.  Bizarre, but there you have the utter insecurity that rests at the heart of all English and English speakers. 

And as the language has been degraded by language purists on the continent and in North America,  Hemmingway's dyslectic interpretations have been forcibly invited to overpower love for poemic vocabulary.   Thus, we have the failure of English in the 21st centurty to do anything but pick up porn awards in Hollywood.  Ho hum.

My initial post (above) began with a quotation from Jeremiah, the theme text for the 40th General Council with some of its context. I wondered if the text would be given space on the floor of the meeting. I wonder still and would like to hear from you on this. What does the text offer you in the way of insight for action in the present milieu?

We discussed the passage at our pre GC meeting recently. It was pointed out that there is a danger in taking a passage out of context. Jeremiah 18:2 by itself sounds fine. Let me shape you into something good sort of thing. However if taken in its full context it is more like Turn away from your wrong doing, or suffer the consequences. The message is all about judgement. But that is me taking it literally. Someone who is metephorical please tell me how you read it.

Hi herewego,

It isn't meant to be one or the other.  Sometimes it can be both.

So, how does one find hope in a warning of future judgment?

Well the warning itself is a sign of hope.  It is not that "this must happen and there is no way to avoid it" so much as it is "this will happen if you do not change what you are doing."

The only time that would be a hopeless message would be if people could not or would not change what they are doing.

Also tied up in the message, which I find hopeful, is the whole idea of what it means to be the people of God and that God plays a part in that defining.  God fashions us into the people of God we do not tell God what is good enough for God.  So, the whole time we work at things we have access to discern the Spirit of God and move in the direction that the Spirit blows.  When that discernment fails God has some options.  Either God can stop blowing so that we can go nowhere unless it be of our own power and design or, the wind can blow in such a way so that we are powerless to go anyway but the way in which we are blown.

One last bit of hopefulness.  Jeremiah watches the potter work wet clay which is full of infinite promise and potential.  When things go wrong you start over.  The real tragedy is what happens when the clay is fired in the kiln where imperfections can lead it to explode and become useless.

My hope is that God would rework me while I am still wet enough to be pliable rather than toss my imperfect self in the kiln and take a chance on my being able to take that kind of heat.

Only those who can't bend (read as change) or won't bend (again as change) need to fear what might come if they don't bend (read as change).

I trust God more than I trust myself to know what the people of God must look like.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Can you imagine mastery in any art or craft without the continuing work of correction and adjustment? Does the Olympian not seek out coaches and trainers to identify shortcomings of technique and attitude, to identify and strengthen natural ability and affinity?

With great appreciation for the word of correction as well as the word of encouragement.

Not as one fighting with shadows... rather; running to obtain.

Hi GeoFee,

Well, that would be perfection wouldn't it?

Are we there yet?

I was thinking perfection would look a lot different than what I see in myself and others.

Grace and peace to you.

John

My God.  This is why I don't go to church!

And why have I not been invited to go to GC40?  

MadMonk, I would attend GC with you...I think you would make it quite interesting.

heh, will you accept tweets to the mountain over gc?

I will!

We never send the right people to these things.  We just elect the most popular people at Presbytery!

Not that I ran for it, and not that I'm popular lol

heh, revjohn & i are going....that makes me feel sad....that we aren't the right people

I sincerely doubt that I am the most popular person at Presbytery. What would be the right kind of person?

Just seems to me that the usual people get to go to GC - but I'm happy for the two of you! 

lol, wait, wait, wait.

i just figured out something, i shouldn't be sad..i should be happy...i'm popular.

oh, wait...dang, i wasn't chosen by presbytery, i was a late nominee..dang-nab-it...there goes that moment of thinking i was chosen via popularity..

MadMonk said: "This"

What is "this" referring to?

Hi MadMonk,

LOL!

I'd like to see your dictionary definition of popular.

For the record.  I was not elected to the Chair of Erie Presbytery, I was acclaimed.  That means that I am better than nothing but nobody voted to agree on that.

Likewise myself and 18 other paid accountable ministry types were acclaimed as Commissioners to GC 40.  Again, we are apparently better than nothing but nobody wanted to test that with a vote.

My first official duty as Chair of Erie?  Help us decommission our worship space and disband as a congregation.  I should only go up from here eh?

Grace and peace to you.

John

"this" refers to the bickering about parliamentary procedure and scripture quoting.

The church hasn't stopped speaking.  In fact, it hasn't shut up long enough with its internal debates to listen to what the younger generation/missing people has/have to say. 

Also, I think the more we read about emergent church and watch closely and put into practice what the Johnny Baker types are doing, the more we will engage.