Most if not all of my conservative evangelical friends vote for the national Conservative party, because it is the major party which most closely aligns with conservative evangelical social views. It is seen as the party which is most against abortion, euthenasia, and same-sex marriage, for example.

I would guess that support for the national Conservative party leads into support for provincial Progressive Conservative parties. My friends are planning to vote PC in the upcoming Ontario election. I will stand alone in marking my ballot with a green pen.

Hope that helps.

Harper and, in the US the Republicans, quite openly court the evangelical vote. It gives them a sure thing. And all you have to do is pass a big, crime bill to appeal to their self-righteousness.

The Christianization of politics is a fairly new phenomenon in Canada. Up until about twenty years ago most Christians kept their faith separate from their politics, generally voting locally and regionally with a fairly evenly distributed support of leaders who promised continuation of the good life as experienced in their homes and neighbourhoods.

This is now radically changed. The Conservative agenda is funded and promoted with increasing vigour in the leadership and congregations of the Evangelical right.

Stockwell Day, considered a champion of righteousness by many in the movement, is working to inform and instruct curious and dedicated Christian communities specific to the political opportunity now opening.

Here is an indication of the message that is being presented as a prophetic mobilization of Christian persons and congregations:

There is lots more along such lines. An interesting read on topic is "The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism" by Marci McDonald.

okay...

first question... considering that harper has said numerous times that he will not do anything to stop abortion, and that john baird is openly gay and therefore the conservative party is not going to stop same sex marriage at all, why do you still consider this to be a valid reason??  

second question... the conservative platform does nothing to address poverty in canada, and actively works towards ending medicare.  considering that jesus commanded us to help the poor, the sick, and to take care of each other, HOW can you suggest that a party which pretty much does the OPPOSITE of what jesus asked of us is somehow a christian choice?

I didn't hear anything about John Baird being gay. It doesn't seem to me to be too widely publicized if that's the case.  I'm not a conservative myself, and I don't care whether or not a politician is gay. I care about whether they're looking out for the best interests of the whole country...including, and especially, people in poverty, people with disabilities, people who are sick and elderly. Edited for clarification.

John Baird has never come out as gay. Others have said that he's gay, and he's been photographed at Ottawa Pride events and things like that, but he's never actually said that he's gay. Or straight for that matter. He's never discussed his sexuality publicly, unless you have information that I'm not aware of.

To the subject at hand,  Christianity began its march to being a prop for conservative ideology the moment the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as its official religion, which gave the church great power and status which it could only hold onto by supporting the status quo, which, of course, led ultimately to Karl Marx's famous (and basically quite correct in his context and still today in some respects) statement that "religion is the opiate of the masses." By choosing very deliberately to associate itself with the "respectable" of society the church allowed itself to become a pawn for the wealthy as opposed to being an advocate for the poor (substitute any "respectable" and "marginalized" groups.) As the church latched onto the wealthy, so did the wealthy latch onto the church. Thus began a relationship of convenience in which the church was transformed from the radical counter-cultural movement epitomized by Jesus into an organization tamed by the culture; thus began the transformation of Jesus from middle eastern Jew to white bread European. The church became an agent of the dominant culture - and so willingly participated in things like residential schools, forcing native children to give up their language, culture and heritage. To be Christian was to be European, and in that paradigm Christ Himself naturally stood (so it was thought and is still thought by many) with the primary representatives of that dominant culture - the powerful and the wealthy. This is, of course, a perversion of the gospel, but ...

... before we condemn those who equate Christianity with conservatism, we should look at ourselves and the various ways that even our most wonderfully liberal and progressive of churches are knee deep in supporting the status quo, if only because we are so dependent on the state for support. How many of our congregations would close if they had to pay property taxes? Or if the church didn't have charitable status and couldn't issue tax receipts?

Let me correct my statement  RevSteven. I have never read or heard anything about his sexual orientation. Franky, it doesn't matter to me anyway.

The Conservatives have managed to con the Evangelical/Conservative branch of Christianity in Canada into thinking that "real" Christians vote Conservative.

Thanks Rev Steven. Great little essay on root and branch. I appreciate your inclusion of the other side of the coin. We are pretty much all of us complicit.

sorry, i forget that not everyone lived in ottawa....

yeah, he is gay.  it isn't something that he talks about, anything more than any other MP discusses their sexual orientation.

but yes, john baird is gay.

it doesn't matter to me either.  i don't care for him as a foreign affairs minister, cause he can be offensive when he speaks without thinking first.  but most people that i know who work for the government say that he is an excellent minister, even if they disagree with his political stance.  he runs his departments very well.

the only reason i mentioned that he is gay is because i am always amazed when the evangelical christians trot out the idea that the harper conservatives are 'against gay marriage'.  they are not against gay marriage.  one of their key cabinet ministers is gay, for crying in the sink.

Thanks GeoFee. We don't always agree, as you may have noticed, but essentially I'm onside with your critique of the church and how it often operates in relation to the society. I'm not at all sure there's a perfect solution to the church's dependence on the state and thus its complicity in some of the less than Christian ways in which the state operates. But I do think we at least need to acknowledge our complicity and willing participation in some of the excesses of our culture rather than just railing against those who use or abuse the church and the Christian faith for their own ends. Then we throw ourselves on God's grace and pray for the Holy Spirit to grant us transformation into the community Jesus wants us to be.

I'm keeping quiet because this is a thread worth listening to.

Some maybe interested in this article, by Jim Wallis (my favourite evangelist) ....

Defining “Evangelicals” in an Election Year
 

Here we go again. Presidential elections are coming and the role of “the evangelicals” is predictably becoming a hot political story.

Ironically, voices on both the right and the left want to describe most or all evangelicals as zealous members of the ultra-conservative political base.

Why? Perhaps because some conservative Republicans want to claim a religious legitimacy and constituency for their ideological agenda, and some liberal writers seem hell-bent on portraying religious people as intellectually-flawed right-wing crazies with dangerous plans for the country.

Let me try to be clear as someone who is part of a faith community that is, once again, being misrepresented, manipulated, and maligned. Most people believe me to be a progressive political voice in America. And I am an evangelical Christian.

[article continues click link above]

*****************************

There are a couple of other articles on Sojourners on this subject as well that people may find interesting

Sojourners.net

LB

--------------------------

But millions of evangelicals feel stuck and almost invisible in the middle of that political and cultural battle.... The facts do belie the stereotypes. Evangelicals run the political gamut from conservative and moderate to progressive and decidedly liberal. To suggest that most evangelicals reside on the far right is simply not true.

     Jim Wallis, 2011

Sorry sighs, I can't even begin to explain it. 

(My apologies to all the other posters whose posts I have not yet read and who no doubt have explained it perfectly.)

I'm reading now ...

Who the heck is this Faytene Kryskow (rhymes with "fattening Crisco"?) that Stockwell Day is quoting???

... and how else does one lay down one's life other than "LITERALLY"

On the John Baird as gay thing ... I think I just saw an article in MacLeans about the power wielded by the four "bachelors" in the cabinet.

John Baird

Jason Kenney

Nigel Wright

James Moore

The article is called "Harper's single white males" and is a fawning piece of flattery written by the ever conservative Paul Wells 

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/09/12/harper%E2%80%99s-single-white-males/

JOhn Calvin referred to Scripture as a wax nose, saying it could be twisted to the form one wanted.

It seems that the "Christian Ideology" is the same.

First, sorry for misleading (careless) language, Stockwell is not quoting Kryskow. He is out and about resourcing persons who will adopt and promote Christian activism specific to the support of Conservative politics.

Faytene Kryskow (married name = Grasseschi) is an interesting person actively mobilizing Christian youth as a force for change in Canada. 

Some say: (link to Extreme Prophecy web page)

Others say:

I am aware that McDonald's book is considered by some as a biased polemic against the Christian right and should be taken with at least a fair measure of critical distance.

Here is a snapshot of the politically active Faytene.

I do wonder what the other wing of the Holy bird is up to when it comes to activism in the political realm.

Jim Moore is a powerhouse? God help us. I've met him.

so, anyone?? 

so far we have one response, but the poster also has now left the board.

is it me??  is it that there really IS no way that the conservative ideology has anything even remotely christian in it??

Hi sighsnootles,

Part of the problem, I believe, is literalism.

Conservative, as defined by a dictionary means predisposed to preserve existing conditions or to restore traditional ones or to limit change.

Liberal, as defined by the same dictionary means favourable to progress or reform.

So, on the top of things you have two ideologies which are either averse to change or embracing of change.  Each ideology has a place and in their place those ideologies serve their champions well.  Should ever of those ideologies become a worldview then the problem is not those ideologies having a place it is that those ideologies demand every place.

Oddly, both fit well into the Christian context.  For example, Jesus talks about loving our neighbour and a conservative would hold on to that tradition.  The conservative, depending upon where they enter the Christian stream either understands neighbour in a limited or an unlimited sense so their application of that particular teaching may not be perfect.  The liberal, also depending upon where they enter the Christian stream will seek to reform this principle of faith, so that it is broader.  They instinctively grasp the notion of neighbour as unlimited, they tend to monkey around with the meaning of love and what loving action actually is.  That can also be problematic.

Both perspectives play against each other in that they react to change differently.  One opposes while the other forces.

What I find most interesting about the phenomenon is that evangelical Christians are the result of a liberalizing trend in Christianity as a whole.  Protestant  Christianity (to which most Evangelicals belong) came into being through the Reformation which was a huge change.  Oddly most of the Reformers argued against their position as new invention and instead put forward the idea that the Reformation was actually a recovery of Christian tradition predating the Romanization of Christianity.  So, theologically speaking, Reformers saw themselves as traditionalists and painted Roman Catholicism as the failed progression of the Christian faith.

Since the Reformation there have been several upheavals where reformed Churches have embraced new strategies as a result in perceived changes to culture around them.  Christian Fundamentalism, for example, believes itself to be holding true to earlier Church traditions when it is, in fact a reaction to changes in the Christian culture specifically and the wider European culture in general.

Which explains a little of why the names "liberal" and "conservative" impact upon political and theological understandings.  Most of it has to to with whether tradition will be kept or whether tradition will be swept aside.  This also begs the question of how closely the culture of church reflects the culture that surrounds it.

During Christendom the Church was the tail that wagged the dog.  As Christendom declined the tail's ability to wag the dog diminished.  This kind of change terrorizes conservatively minded individuals and energizes liberal minded ones.  In the midst of global culture change (meaning both the Church and wider society are changing at the same time) it became more and more evident that there were places where Church and society were joined at the hip.

Some liberals and conservatives probably never questioned whether such joining should be.  They simply assumed that it must be and battle lines were drawn.  Those resistant to change and/or wanting traditions restored squared off against those insistent on change and demanding tradition be shelved.

Because religion and politics are fields of human endeavour it is not surprising that there is overlap of ideals and perspectives.  It can often be confusing as to how those ideals and perspectives overlap.  

For example, as a Calvinist I am theologically conservative and if need be I can trot out my theological positions and demonstrate which are firmly rooted in the Christian tradition and how deep those roots run.  I simply cannot buy into the Conservative "tough on crime" posture for theological reasons, it is a rejection of grace.  Theologically, tough on crime is a great fit for the elements of Christianity that place a higher emphasis on personal accountability than they do the grace of God.

There is still some confusion about who is responsible for all the wagging, is it the tail or the dog?  That problem exists for both conservative Christians and liberal Christians we don't focus on that problem so much as we focus on how we don't like the way conservative or liberal dogs display their tails.  Arguing about change appears to be more important than understanding why we should or shouldn't change.

So long as we can keep folk polarized we only have to deal with appearances and not actual substances.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Some thirty years ago I began my own journey of transformation. The principle text at the outset and for the duration is:

If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)

The example of an athlete who desires the perfection of her talent and pursues that desire by a relentless elimination of all that hinders and a determined encouragement of all that helps.

The Psalmist notes this as a process of purification, as silver refined in a furnace of earth seven times, and Wesley picks this up as sanctification.

But we are not keen on sanctification, the stripping away of impediment and the revelation of maturity in the faith. Rather, we prefer that easy grace by which we are excused and accepted just as we are.

We are indeed accepted as we are when found by the grace of God, as the prodigal son is welcomed in his father's home. We do not stay in the condition in which we were found. 

Grace offers us a way to turn from the ways and means by which we have come into our sorry condition. We are made able to turn towards the ways and means of grace by which we are edified and equipped for service along the way of the gospel. With the apostle we run to obtain the prize; not as those who box with shadows.

Rev John has made some key points above. Do we not get enmeshed in the bipolar conflict of left or right, liberal or conservative when we ought to be directed by the call to the maturation of holy living as a personal calling practiced in a community of free association and mutual accountability grounded in love rather than law?

Character is the cornerstone of viable social economy. Where character is corrupted by indulgence and indolence no political remedy will suffice.

Very good lines, geofee--and revjohn, thank you.  THIS is an example of this site at its best.  Keep it coming.

Amen, Rev John.

This afternoon I will go vote in the Ontario elections.  I would be a fool to say my beliefs do not affect my vote, they will.  However my vote is not predicated on my beliefs.

I had the opportunity to listen to each of the mainstream candidates in my riding.  It was an intimate setting and one that afforded the opportunity to ask each candidate their positions on topics that concerned us, the voters in the room.  It was a room filled with people who run the gamut of political and religious views from conservative to liberal, right to left.  Yet we had consensus about what concerned us; agreement on what we wanted from our government.

My vote today will be based on those responses.  My alligieance to the individual is not based on what was said - because honestly they all basically said the same thing - but on the candidate's ability to hear what was asked.  It was very interesting to watch as each candidate answered what they thought they heard but not necessarily on what was really said.

For me the ability of my government to hear the voices of the people is far more important than what colour of jacket they wear or what God they answer to.  I discovered in that room that I was not alone in this POV and I know that polarization is created by those that do not listen.

LB

-------------------------------

I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. 

     Robert McCloskey

I have long argued that we SHOULD pay property taxes.  But the tax receipts is another matter.  We have the same right to those as any charity, and for large part that very minor concession exists because it allows governments to ignore their obligations to some of the less desirable members of society.  If all charities lose their receipting abilities, fine, but the churches shouldn't be treated differently.

And I don't see why questioning ourselves should interfere, or come before, the ways we question others.

hear hear.

"before" might have been the wrong choice of words, but my point is that we can't turn a blind eye to our own actions while condemning others. It's so damn easy for the liberal, mainstream church to point fingers and talk about how bad "they" are. 

As to charities, you raise the issue of our "right." Do we have a "right" to issue them? Sure. The point again, though, is that the fact that we have such right is another way in which we're mixed up with the system and dependent (to some extent) on the government to fund us. That makes us part of the system and not counter-culture.

I'm not condemning any of that. I'm just noting it. I think it's too easy to see "them" as the bad people and "us" as the righteous. Jesus would probably have something to say to us about that.

Of course, we (UCCan) are part of "it" - we were formed by an act of Parliament. It's hard to get much closer than that.

How many of our congregation would close if they had to pay property taxes?

Ours definitely!   Unless of course the government paid us for all the services that we provide for the elderly, the young parents, the people who live in the downtown (in single rooms with a shared bath down the hall), AA, the legal advice clinic, etc.    Unless it paid us for the many times we have provided venue for various charities - free of cost at the present time, the organized support we give to the community kitchen, the food bank, and the emergency shelters - the information we provide for women leaving abusive situations and for people concerned about global warming, the air we breath, the water we drink. 

Perhaps instead of paying taxes we should just turn our building (we have practically no parking lot of open spaces) over to the government on the condition that they continue to provide the services we presently provide on this location.  

We can worship anywhere - we need our building to provide our outreach. 

seeler, for this post, I just have to say that I love you.

Why, in the light of the example we see in the way of Jesus? Or, the sending out of followers two by two?

As for Seeler's comment, addressed by GeoFee...I think we need churches to worship together. We also need churches as a "community well"...a meeting place to do so much more than worship and outreach, but also celebrate, learn, play music and sing, have conversations, meals together...

Churches are like community centres, but with a focus on spiritual learning and growth occuring along with all the other things a church does.

The church building provides a space, a sanctuary for worship, as well as a space for community and belonging. I think, having church as our home base, we can go out and recreate that in other places in our lives..as well as learn ways to strengthen community in our churches.

Another way of looking at church, is as a "household" for the broader community family. When I go to church, it feels like family...with all it's bump and bruises and joys and sorrows, agreements and disagreements...there is an unconditional love and acceptance there, and the building provides a place to serve as a model for that to happen outside of it.

Kimmio - I agree with you.  I think that the church is important as a meeting place.  But I was answering specifically to the matter of taxes on church property.  It seems to me that churches provide many services that would otherwise fall on the government to look after (or remain undone).  In many ways the church actually saves the government money that it might have to spend to provide these services.  I don't think the government would put much value on our desire to have a place to meet and celebrate, nor is the government likely to be sensitive to the value of building community.

I think you're right about the government likely being insensitive to the idea of building community as something churches should get tax breaks on. It's a shame, but most likely true. I also think you're right that churches save government more money in the long run than they cost in lost taxes if they are providing outreach. I also don't think churches should be the sole providers of social programs and outreach. Other types of programs must be funded because churches alone usually don't have adequate resources and infastructuire to support all the existing need in the community. Not to mention, I don't believe people should be forced to access  any and all social programs through churches if they don't want to associate with religion. I still believe their needs should be met regardless.

Again - right on!   

I sure would like to have let this thread end on such an upbeat note. This said, there are questions that rise.

Are there other players in the neighbourhood who offer pretty much the same services the congregation offers to the assorted persons dwelling in the three hundred or so single occupancy rooms of downtown Fredericton?

I have in mind places like the Community Health Clinic. This small group of persons provide support of all kinds for many persons, some of whom are also guests with the congregation.

Then there is the John Howard Society which houses and trains persons so that they may secure some advantage while finding a way forward in the social economy.

These two examples would be much advantaged by the kind of economic resources and political influence the congregation has at its disposal. I could also add the thirty or so social intervention associations working under the name Community Action Group on Homelessness. Many of which struggle to say solvent so that they may continue in the delivery of front line physical, emotional and spiritual services for the most vulnerable members of the social economy.

Another matter comes forward. What is the cost of maintaining the congregation's building? Is that cost best deployed in the manner that it is. Take for example the repairs and renovations the congregation has funded in the past several years. Might that disposable economic substance not be better employed as funding for the other associations in town which do just what it is that the congregation does?

The matter is complicated when we remember that there are two congregations in the downtown core, each within a five minute walk of the other. This presents the observer with a picture of two substantial budgets devoted to accomplishing charitable work which requires not nearly a tenth percent of those budgets combined. What a remarkable liberation of resources would emerge if the two were to consider themselves one. Imagine it ... a church united.

Perhaps this is already in the works. It does sound as if very positive steps are being taken by the congregation, by which the emphasis may be shifting from concern for maintenance to concern for mission.

My experience in the context indicated a strong bias against the poor at all levels of government. In all of my conversations with the sitting mayor he not once made any show of readiness to advocate for the excluded persons who seemed to be less than acceptable by the citizens of the city. Nor was there any appreciable support from the thirty plus congregations in the city. Perhaps this is because I so poorly represented the gospel among them?

During the whole time of my work in Fredericton it was common practice for merchants to call the police at any time that the poor who lived downtown were conspicuous in the street. Neither the liberal nor the conservative congregations showed much inclination to make their available economic and political weight come to bear on the problem.

That same social advantage could have gone far to advocating for examination of living conditions in the single occupancy rooms. Many are fire traps waiting to make front page news. One such fire trap is at the back door of the congregation, is it not?

Turning just a bit towards theological concern. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is very much in play among us as among those of the first century. In Jerusalem and the domain of its influence wealth was considered a sign of God's benediction.

Poverty was in the main considered a just consequence remedied only by a change of attitude and a move towards self sufficiency. Charity was considered the least that could be done for those who were economically or otherwise unqualified for participation in the good life.

Just as we do, they had outreach programs and support agencies. By them they considered themselves meritorious. Alms given to the poor served to establish one's reputation as a righteous person. Just as we all feel good during the annual charity blitz in the month before Christmas.

I still have in mind the premise of thanksgiving as a gift of grace by which we may put off the way of the world and put on the way of the kingdom. We may call to mind Miriam and her sisters singing: "I will sing unto the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously, the horse and rider are thrown into the sea."

This is an act of gratitude expressed by a people delivered from the hand of the oppressor. It marks a leaving, a journey of transformation, and a new prospect for humane living in the land.

Surely we would do well to take a second look at the meaning and implications of baptism in light of such a text. Among us baptism is much reduced. This takes nothing away from the welcoming and dedicating of our children as a community of faith. It only presses for a recognition that baptism does not qualify us for participation in the work of God without a clear decision for one way and contrary to the other. The baptized cannot knowingly serve God and Money.

But they do! And that is the heart of our dilemma.

Good works are, well...... good. We should do them at every opportunity. Where they are taken as a substitute for Christian discipline we are caught in the downward spiral of idolatry. That is the great danger in possessing a building. We may, by a slow procession of decisions become possessed by it.

For example, all reasonable analysis makes it plain that the two congregations could halve their expenses and double their disposable resources. What prevents it from taking place?

This is where I think graeme catches us in the fallacy by which faithful public witness is diminished to the point of irrelevance.

Those who followed Christ began by going to the waters edge. There they abandoned their place in the realm of experience under the rule of the powers and principalities. In its place they adopted a total commitment to a life of service.

Not a service at a distance, by the giving of money so that others would do the service first hand. The bankers, lawyers, social workers, union leaders and others in our congregations cannot be considered servants of the gospel by proxy, freeing them to implicitly or explicitly endorse and profit by the social structures which marginal the poor and exclude them from full participation in the overflowing goodness of God.

A bit of a ramble, not to contest the good being accomplished but to press for the enlarging of our vision and the expansion of our influence. For it is now needed not by a measure but by the whole.

GeoFee - you have just listed many of the problems we face.  And we are working on them.  Believe me, we are working on them.   People from our congregation (and no doubt from the other churches in the downtown core) support and work with, and within, those organizations that you mention.  Recently we have made a real effort to work with other congregations and organizations to coordinate, rather than duplicate, services provided.  And the people on the streets with no where to go - that is a real concern and one we are continually trying to address.  Making our building a welcoming place is one way.  It's too bad we have almost no parking lot or lawn.   And the maintenance of the building?   Another struggle.   But what good can be achieved by letting the building collapse around us?   It seems more logical to make full use of the building seven days a week from morning until into the evening.   And we are trying to do that. 

No, we aren't perfect.  But we are trying.  

I was much encouraged to hear of the new minister in the congregation, who I met in the seminary and admired for her passionate concern regarding the issues you are now addressing. And, as I have noted before, I consider you to be an fine exemplar of lay ministry which promises an avenue of remedy.

I would like to hear your insight on the matter of two buildings in one neighbourhood. Can it be justified? What is the root spiritual issue preventing a union by which much good could come into play?

Geofee, you lived in this city for many years.  Surely over that time you learned much of the history of the two congregations whose buildings have stood a few blocks from each other for over a hundred years - long before the United Church was ever thought of.  Eventually the congregations may see fit to amalgamate - but they are a long way from doing so now.  One is very open and welcoming to all people, including the GLBT community.  The other was almost destroyed over this issue which was only one of many differences between the two.   But you know all this.

Recently healing has begun to happen, and with it cooperation.  The two congregations are now sharing worship and Christian development opportunities.  But most importantly they are working together to address some of the plight of the downtown poor. 

What might happen down the road is anybody's guess.    

Yes, I am well aware of the dynamic in play. Still, looking past the circumstance, what would you say is the root spiritual issue to be addressed?