To me this bears in on my pet issue "Just what is the gospel of Jesus?"  The gospel has to be what the word entails "Good News" and has to be something that is accesible and actually more desired by the lowliest of society than the upper class.  It has to be something that goes counter-culture and importantly something in the here and now that can be useful to the people on the street, the uneducated, the sick and hurting.  The gospel must be something that a person with mental handicaps can grasp a hold of.  To me a local church body that is portraying the message of Jesus to the people around them would be composed of such "lower class" people. 

This is not to say that lower classes would be attracted to come to them, but they were going out to the people.  I think this is a lot of the insular problems of not just the EC, but most Western Christianity, it is that they do the occasional ministry moment amongst street people or something, but building real relationships is not seen as possible until after the lower class cleans themselves up some.

Many times we assume people are middle class or better.... Many times we assume education levels...

We assume because people hide, don't share, or let us think whatever.....

We are often disconnected, even those connected.

My last sermon banged this home, those divisions we put up. Some are not real walls, they are just fancy blinds we like to use to block the view. We shade ourselves from the world around us and people cannot see in and see us. We hide ourselves behind them and even use them as room dividers.

We have drug addicts, alcoholics, battered spouses, survivors of molestation, those having financial hardships, those with eating disorders, mental illness.... we just hide it from "the church folks".

It is why some find more "spiritual" stuff happening in AA meetings. The masses don't show up there and pretend they don't drink.

I asked what a drug addicted prostitute would find in our church... what would we make that person feel like...

Should they come in?

How do they know they can come in, as they are, or what they will find.... when we hide our own baggage and pretend to be other people?

Yes, Stevie, I think and believe they would come in, IF THEY FELT SAFE.  When talking to non-church going people in our town, hands down, the biggest detriment to going to church is they are afraid of the appalling behavior they've been made aware of, which happens regularly within most of the denominations.  If there were church policies and canons and laws about "how people will behave", I know it would be socially artificial, but at least bullying and power struggles could be minimized, as would incredible psychological scarring.

I can totally understand how someone, who is already maginalized and struggling with inner pain, would stay away from a place where it is possible they could receive more of the same.

Preach it, brother....   Sounds like you're building in that theme of honesty as the ground floor of your emerging congregation. Very Jesus-like, cutting through the games we play. And very pragmatic too; it surely will prevent a lot of wasted time and headaches. But how is it that you're able to push against the conventional ethos that hard? What's the process? How do you get people on board to face that kind of discomfort?

I read a fascinating study recently by a Methodist in the U.S.. It focused on an old urban congregation that was 100% white, located in a neighborhood that was now over 90% black.  As usual, the church was facing financial difficulties. Instead of closing, they decided to meet their neighbors and invite them to church.  Their black neighbors came in droves, and many joined the church.  But this was just the beginning.

The researcher's focus was on observing nonverbal "body language" between black members interacting with other black members; white members interacting with black members; and white members interacting with other white members.  I don't remember all of the results, but what stayed with me was the finding that, when interacting with the white members, black members took on subservient bodily postures, which they didn't with other black members.  The researcher's conclusion was that the white members were very appropriate, liberal, and accepting in their mental attitudes and verbalizations toward the new black members, but at a more subtle bodily level there was a kind of domination going on. And the bodies of the black members picked up and responded to the incongruity. All this was discussed in terms of the need for deep spiritual transformation that actually changes people at a bodily level.  If anyone's interested, I'll see if I can find the reference.

rishi,

My first thing is that I always remind them that in asking me to step behind a pulpit, they know I will go where I am led (painful for me or painful for them, painful to say or painful to hear) and it may pinch, be painful...

The congregations I speak at are not hip, young, metro... they are rural and geriatric.

The thing is I do not push.

I inquire. They face the painful answers on their own.

Many people wandered out or did not wander into our churches, because they saw what it did for us (made us self-righteous, lofty, stuck up, hypocrites... pck a word) or  they did not know what it did for us (kept us alive, sober, plodding on...) We kept that well hid. We showed 'em the ugly and hid the beauty because it was where we were broken, cracked, our veneer was thin... The Light shines though those places, but we covered 'em.  

They did not hear our low points. We were fixed, not broken. We were healed, not weak or sick.... We came off holier-than-thou and they bought it. We thought there was no need for grace, no need to dispense more after we got our share and we act surprised that people quit coming to get a dose. We handed out doses of judgment, shame... Hand out grace, healing.....

When they hear something real, they will tune in and not tune out. When they see things miraculous, they will look. When they feel healing, they will come for more.

Yes, they laugh I am 100% modern liberal UCC and preach it like I am Baptist or Pentecostal.

The church has to change, the people are ready 18-80.... I even got chastized a bit  for leaning on the pulpit. Yep, the church ettiquette thing. Yet, the congregation said that lean stared them in the eyes and said I was one of them. Can't have that, people in the pulpit who act human.... Like I said, the church needs to change, the people have spoken. Change or die.

Rishi- you talked about the theology being for educated folks.  I think the only reason that seems to be true is because it is the only stuff we can find to explain it.

Not necessary.  Its the reason The Da Vinci Code was so huge - because people are interested, and could access that book.  What they needed was churches to then open the discussions.  
 

Ok- still to cerebral?

How about this?  No more apologies for skipping bad theology in liturgy, hymns, stories - how about just telling it like it is:

Jesus saw the suffering around him that came because of the systems of the day - in the synagogue, in the politics, and he decided to turn it upside down.  He kenw God wanted something else for the world,  so he gave up a comfortable life and decided to speak out.  He ate with the poor, sat with the outcast, brought women & children to positions of influence, and he said we should love our neighbour, love our enemies, speak up about injustice, turn systems on their heads to show what is good & true.

there.  not cerebral, not uppercrust.

I think we need to take good theology out of the dusty tomes and get it into our common easy church language & practice.  Sooner the better.

Amen, birthstone!

Until recently I would agree with your theory that the church is rather upper class, well educated.  That was a conclusion drawn in Pierre Burton's book "The Comfortable Pew" over 40 years ago.  It probably still applies to a lot of urban churches.

But at the church I presently attend we have a WonderCafe live every Sunday morning (except in summer).  Some of our most active members:  a couple both university professors; and a young woman who fled an abusive situation, depended on the food bank for some time and gets her clothes and furniture at rummage sales.  Both are valued for their active participation. 

And don't always relate education to wealth.  I've known well educated people who were unemployed, under employed, or unemployable.  And don't assume that education and intelligence go together.  Some very intelligent people have only elementary school education. 

There is a place in the church for everyone - or there should be.   But I agree, we have to find a way to let people know. 

Some of my favourite TV shows are Deadliest Catch and Dirty Jobs. Jesus hung out with the Dirty Jobs folks and he was cool with that. I think more sermon illustrations should come from those shows. As fun as it is, I don't think we Christians are called to 'Dance with the stars'.

Rishi,

Like you, I've given a lot of thought to the problems the emerging church faces in terms of growth and inclusiveness.

Class is definately an issue - the emerging church appeals to essentially the white middle class. But even with the middle class there are problems. Many, and I include my own family in this, are secular or agnostic because their belief in science rejects orthodox Christianity. When they rejected their faith - often many years ago - orthodox Christianity was the only game in town. To quote my Aunt,"I would have thought you were too intelligent to believe such superstitious nonsense." (I then do a Marcus Borg, "Tell me what you don't believe, and I probably don't believe it either.") The end result is that the agnostics see that they have a lot in common with the beliefs expressed by the emerging church - but it takes a lot of work!

To this end, I would like to see the ministers/scholars of the emerging church give presentations in high school and universities. That in itself, would boost membership and practices of the emerging church.

Closely allied to the problem of class is education. To read and comprehend the ideas of Borg, Spong, etc. requires a level of education often not obtained by the working class. (Sorry if I offend the "nice" sensibilities of the middle class, but I believe we have to be honest and open here, folks.) Indeed, the emergent church has been referred to as "Christianity for intellectuals." I belong to an emergent church that has 78% of the congregation with university degrees - which seems to support this belief.

To sum up, the emergent church has an enormous task ahead, if it's to grow.

p.s. Rishi, as a babyboomer myself, I loved the cartoon!

Well, this is it in my experience. The people I've invited to church who are spiritually mature enough to show their vulnerability, and/or less skilled at hiding it, don't find the mainstream liberal Protestant ethos as welcoming as we imagine it to be. 

Yes...  I wonder, though, even if those ideas were comprehensible... would they be helpful?   We have a church-based outreach program here in one of Toronto's public housing projects. I wonder, if we brought our libraries of emerging authors with us into a ministry of this kind, re-read them on site, and crossed out everything that was not helpful to us in that context, how much would be left?  And how many things not written down in those books would we have to come up with to actually make Christ present in that context?  A lot, I suspect.  Because these works are still really pre-theological. They're helping us get to the place where we can see the possibility of not having to throw up our hands in despair with respect to the church.  But that is not enough hope, not enough good news, for the addicted prostitute, to use Stevie's example.  We're not ready for him or her.  We're still tinkering with our viability as an institution and trying to figure out what is worth believing in.  At some point down the road, then, we'll  have to ask the question that Charles T asks above -- what is the gospel of Jesus anyway?  Then maybe we can get back to welcoming the addicted prostitute. But maybe there's a problem with that order of service.  Maybe the 'good news' -- both for us and for all the people in the public housing project and for the addicted prostitute, etc. etc. -- needs to come first, or at least simultaneously.

If you are looking for the proletarian revolution in religion, it's already happened. People voted with their feet and walked out. All that is left is the academics in the room to notice or not that they are only ones left in the room.

WOW! Great comments.  From experience and listening to others who worship in a variety of situations, the primary issue for churches is relationship:  relationship with each other, with God, and with ourselves.  For me, the main role for theology is in enlightening our relationships and looking for ways to heal, deepen and strengthen them.  My favourite theology includes the line by Jesus when criticized by religious leaders for letting his disciples pick grain on the Sabbath.  His reply: "The Sabbath was made for man/humanity, not man/humanity for the Sabbath."  His lived theology of putting relationships ahead of doctrine and tradition is enormously important to me.

I have not been able to attend any Emerging Church workshops, but the message I get from their website is that they are targeting one small tribe out of the large number identified in Sex in the Snow many years ago.  If we can offer people something vitally important to a fulfilling life, tribe won't matter.

Jim

I agree that church should be a lot about relationships and healing.  Agreeing about that doesn't mean that congregations are willing to enter into relationships with those who show up in church.

I wasted a few years before realisng and accepting that the congregation were happy enough as they were and had no interest in including me.  I no longer attend. 

I noticed when I was attending that although this community has a significant percentage of First Nation residents - I didn't see any at church.  When I asked about that someone said 'they don't fit in very well'.

To me, a basic tenant of Christianity is one poor begger telling another poor begger where to find bread..and, if he has any left, maybe sharing what he has with his fellow traveller. That doesn't require a church... but how rich a church would be if those members who are Christians would risk sharing their sources of spiritual and physical comfort, maybe even a bit of their own excesses, with others, of what ever class, who are walking down  the same road. There is no room for "class" in the emerging church. There is only room for people, meaning the disciples and the children of God.

This certainly puts a different spin on things. 

Who stays if "something vitally important to a fulfilling life" is not being offered?

Maybe only people who have brought their own lunch or who do their eating elsewhere?

As you describe it though, Kay, this kind of happiness is not real bread, not, as Jim says, "something vitally important to a fulfilling life." So perhaps the people who do get invited to stay and partake are not the fortunate ones.

But getting back to the academics (Borg, Spong, etc) .... are they offering real bread?  or maybe just trying to repair the oven so that others (like us) can?

I believe that it is an impossible quest to find a one size fits all church.

What led me away from the organized religion in the first place was the insistence that I had to fit a label.  That if I wanted to participate I had to climb into a box and close the lid to any other conflicting ideas or possibilities. 

What led me to the United Church was an acknowledgement that I could open the box lid.  That I did not have to agree with everything said by other members.

In recognizing that this is what is important to me, I must equally acknowledge that it is important to another.  I have to be willing to allow the other the freedom to choose the open or closed box for themselves.

The United Church is frequently condemned for being wishy washy because it permits this freedom.  I believe that diversity is the key to survival of all things.  The key to diversity is accepting differences and learning to work with them.  The failure of diversity is when one attempts to impose specific structures onto another.

I think there is room enough for both the open and closed boxes.  That there are treasures to be found within each if there is a willingness to seek them out.  In the open box you may have to dig through the dust, in the closed box you may have to dig below items that have been trapped, but within each there will be a common item of shared value.

That commonality is the thread that binds - not a one size fits all garment - but a crazy quilt that provides warmth to all who need it.

LB

If we are to achieve a richer culture, rich in contrasting values, we must recognize the whole gamut of human potentialities, and so weave a less arbitrary social fabric, one in which each diverse human gift will find a fitting place.     Margaret Mead

Maybe there's a one size fits all God behind the gods of the church of the open box and the church of the closed box?

Perhaps.   I suspect that the size is much larger than any of us imagine.

LB

An infinite God can give all of Himself to each of His children. He does not distribute Himself that each may have a part, but to each one He gives all of Himself as fully as if there were no others.     

Aiden Wilson Tozer (1897-1963)

Canadian society is a classless society; even the Canadian poor are well off by third world standards. Canada is a land of freedom and opportunities; the Canadian poor are poor not for lack of opportunities or social justice, but for lack of wise choices. The masses of the third world poor don't have the opportunities, choices or social justice that are avalilable to us here in Canada.

I came to Canada as a European peasant/craftsman with a grade 8 education. I found the possibilites for self-education and self improvement to be virtually limitless here in Canada, and took full advantage of them. But I still cling to my European peasant/crafts upbringing by pursuing a simple and largely self-supportive lifestyle. I regard myself as classless person. I would say that Canadian society is a rather classless society (at least that's what I would like it to be :-) and an expample to global society.

Well that's painting with a broad brush.  You have a pretty pie-in-the-sky view of Canadian society.

I earlier posted, "what is the gospel of Christ?"  While along with that I ask "What is the gospel that we are presenting?"  Not being a member of the UCC I wonder if this not not show some of it:

The major commonality I have seen here on Wndercafe from those in the UCC is that their good news seems to be, "Come in here we over freedom and acceptance of everything and everyone, expect those who do not agree with this."  That may seem harsh to some, but I do believe it is fairly accurate.

The problem you have is that this is the same ethos that Canada already has and gives in political parties such as the NDP or the liberals.  We are the tolerant society that is intolerant to intolerance.

Now being a church you wish to offer something different than a political party does, that being a spiritual component.  I find it hard to see how you can really do that as an organized group when you don't even agree to even a small degree what that means.  There seems to be a large understanding and agreement upon how morals and lifestyles should be looked and lived out.  There appears to be an understanding of relationship with others and helping, etc. . .. but all of these things can also be found in non-spiritual charities and groups already.

This is why I say that the only thing I see you offering that is unique is the freedom to come in and believe whatever you want about spiritual matters.  LB sees this as a strength I don't agree.  I agree that many other organized religions need to open themselves up to debate and the ability to question things, but I don't see this openness as something that appeals to the masses.  If you can't agree upon what it is you believe how can you offer anything to anyone?  If all you offer is the freedom to believe what they already hold true and learn about what other people think, how are you any different than some sort of university class in different religions and spiritual paths?

Perhaps I am wrong on all of this, but this is how UCC members on WC come across to me.

Well, maybe. But, speaking from personal experience, I did come to Australia peniless, with only a Grade 8 education and no knowledge of English, and found Australia, and later Canada, to be very generous countries, with virtually limitless opportunities for self improvement, and took full advantage of them.

What is on offer is the ability to share; our individual successes, failures, hopes, dreams and fears.  We can choose to learn from others or hold fast to our experiences.  We should be able to acknowledge that the choice to do so is available and equal to everyone not just ourselves or those who agree with us.

And this is wrong, why? Is not the search for answers part of one's spiritual journey?

There will be those who believe they have found all the answers, and for them maybe they have.  Who, of any of us, has the authority to deny them their belief?

If all we have to offer is the freedom to believe, I say that is a value worth preserving and a strong core value to build upon.

LB

Many are the names of God and infinite the forms through which He may be approached.      Ramakrishna (1836-1886)

Makes me wonder.... what would it be like to pray this prayer to a God that big?

Our Father, Who Art in Heaven

Hallowed be thy name

Thy kingdom come

Thy will be done

On earth as it is in heaven

Give us this day our daily bread

Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us

Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil

For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever and ever.

Amen.

Hi Rishi:

I pray this prayer to an infinite God.

LET US PRAY !!!

Thanks, StevieG, you said it better than I could.

(((((((((((((((((((((((StevieG)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

the Canadian poor are poor not for lack of opportunities or social justice, but for lack of wise choices.

It certainly doesn't look that way to me.  To me it seems that some are poor because they don't have the ability to make 'wise' choices.

Meet my neighbors.

#1  40ish male.  Lives in a filthy two room shack that is shared with three others. Income from Social Services.  Brain damaged in early childhood by drunk family member.   Has alcohol problem.

#2 30ish female. Lives in a filthy shack with brother.  Income from Social Services. Separated from partner.  Children recently taken away as they needed protection when mother gets drunk. Brain damaged from accident as a teen. 

#3 40ish male.  Developmentally challenged (but not enough to get realistic help).  Has crooked leg that interferes with mobility.  Lives with #2. Income from Social Services. 

None of these people can read.  Need assistance to make phone calls. 

Canada may well be a land of opportunity but everyone can't grasp those opportunities.

Hi Kay, Stevie, and everyone:

Of course, we are often choiceless, but acceptance is also a choice. And not everyone can grab the opportunities Canada has to offer, and for this they need help. And they deserve all the help and compassion we can muster!

By absence of "lower class" didn't mean absence of people who are handicapped or physically or mentally ill and should definitely be looked after better. I only meant to say that Canada does not have a large underprivileged lower class who are condemned to a lifetime of povery just because they were born into poverty, as is the case in many third world countries.

I am nearly 70 years old, but still grow a large vegetable garden, with berry garden and orchard, and give my surplus away. Most people who come to the foodbank (I know some of them personally) are not handicapped to the extent that they couldn't garden, and it isn't lack of time or available land that keeps them from gardening. And gardening is not difficult; one just does it, and learns by doing. They just don't garden!

Thanks for letting in that big gush of fresh air....  I hope to not derail your conversation with Arminius by picking up a slightly different issue, but your testimony here has struck a chord in me that I've been meaning to pluck for some time now.

My partner and I both come from the other side of the tracks. We've been rehab'd and psychotherapy'd and educated and spiritually transformed to the point that, in many ways, we're no longer the oppressed waifs we once were. In other ways we still are. But each in our own way, we're continuing to develop the power to make a difference.

The main power that I feel I have in the church is that I 'get' the way and the message of Jesus from the perspective of a person who has lived in hell, seen the loving, messianic hand reaching out to me and felt it pulling me out of the fire (for those who don't know me, I'm being metaphorical; I don't believe in hell).   For all of that and more, I love God in a way that keeps me faithfully coming home, and the love keeps growing.  And personal suffering has played a key role in all of this.

This same power, however, alienates me in a church, where, in my experience, people's lives have been so heavily wallpapered and tranquillized that they don't really need God, or me, all that much.  And yet, they like having me around, as long as I don't get too personal or make too many waves.  Sealing me into this conundrum is the fact that, if not for the progressive social values of these folks, I wouldn't have a place in any Canadian church, except perhaps MCC.

But sometimes I wonder -- do they, the people, really want me to have an influence on them and their way of life, or am I to them more of an entertaining curiosity?  Making it all still somehow ok, though, I feel called to this ministry. 

Ever have such ghoulish thoughts? 

LB - I figured that would be the response I would receive.  I was thinking about this today.  There is no porblem with individuals having concepts of God, or about asking questions.  The thing I am getting at is not the individual's beliefs, but the corporate body's beliefs.  What is it that you as a church offer to the individual?  What beliefs unite you?  What is your good news as a church?

The reason I say, that if all you offer is a freedom to believe as you want is not enough, is because it isn't.  Put yourself in the shoes of someone who is not intellectaully seeking a refuge to believe as they want, but are hurting and destitute.  To sit in a building and sing some songs, listen to a discussion of differing views of the crucifixion or some other topic, is not going to come close to touching them.  This is not just a problem in the UCC, but in many churches which instead of offering a place to think whatever, allow you to congregate with others who agree with you.  ((By the way there are always things people don't agree on, even hardcore fundies, and the questioning and debating is part of the process)).

I don't know if you've read much of David Hume's stuff, but he is considered to be the father of modern sceptisim.  The problem I see with Hume is not that he does not make sense, but that he stands on nothing.  Using methods of critique and sceptism Hume shows errors in everybody's beliefs, from the religious to the scientific; he does a very good job of it too.  At the end of the day though you are left with nothing.  To just question and doubt everything is not a place many people are willing to live.  At the end of the day we want something that we can hold onto, some sort of hope or faith in something.  I question what it is that the UCC offers along this line.  It is great at letting people be sceptical and ask questions, but what does it hold to?

I decided to try to answer my own question by once again reading through the UCC website.  It did not help any.  There is a pretty good statement of faith from 1940, much of which would not be accepted by some here at WC, such as the trinity - therefore divinity of Jesus, and the resurrection stated as a fact, not to mention a concept of sin, and an afterlife for believers, and another for those who refuse God's gift.  Then I looked at the more modern Song of faith 2006.  It was much more where the UCC is now, and to me says what UCC members seem to believe, which is ambiguous at best.

There is some beautifully worded stuff in there, but at the end it doesn't really stand on anything, especially when one reads the appendexes.  It is almost an apology for trying to create a statement of faith.  The writers say it was necessary, but holds the tension of trying to explain what they are as they grow into what they are.  I can see some truth to this statement and even a value in seeing the Church as an organism that is growing and changing.  However, I still believe that there are truths that hold over time.  Example a puppy will grow up to be a dog, not a girafee.  Even with all the variations of puppies, there are still some truths that hold over time about what a puppy is.

Hi Rishi:

Thanks for de-railing my conversation with Stevie. I don't really disagree with her, I just didn't regard the sick and handicapped as a "class." They exist in every society, and the extent to which we take care of them is the measure of a society. Perhaps Canada does not rate very highly in that regard?

Your dilemma is of a different nature. Most people want their opinions confirmed, not overthrown. Those who seem threaten the status quo are perceived to be a personal threat to them.

I preach that we are godly, and better learn to think and act in a godly manner rather than abusing our godly powers in an ungodly manner. My definition of God is welcome news to some, mildly interesting to others, but nothing changes. But one can only teach and preach—and practice what one preaches.

...And so each venture

Is a new beginning, a raid on the inarticulate,

With shabby equipment always deteriorating

In the general mess of imprecision of feeling,

Undisciplined squads of emotion. And what there is to conquer

By strength and submission, has already been discovered

Once or twice, or several times, by men one cannot hope

To emulate—but there is no competition—

There is only the fight to recover what has been lost

And found and lost again, and again: and now under conditions

That seem unpropitious. But perhaps neither gain nor loss.

For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.

T.S. Eliot

I see what you're saying. For me, though, this is more a kind of liberal democratic ideology, kind of like Unitarianism, than a religion.

I'm not complaining too much, because it's an ideology that gives me a voice, where otherwise I wouldn't have one.  But its roots, in my view, don't go below the realm of ideas. It's pre-religious. Religion is another kettle of fish altogether, with roots in a realm beyond thought and ways to get you there. 

Ramakrishna, whom you quoted, and Jesus, were all about living on earth in harmony with that beyond realm.   Liberal democratic ideology and religion can be compatible I think, to some extent, but they're just not the same thing.  And they have very different 'gospels', the former having no necessary relation to the divine mystery we call God, the latter consciously grounding itself, again and again, in that mystery.

I think there comes a time, though, when they are no longer compatible, when the experiential reality being encountered through religion requires our complete surrender. And that, of couse, is a very undemocratic requirement.  If at that decisive point, we say 'yes' to liberal democratic ideology, and 'no' to that which religion is revealing as the way, we end up, in my view, with a civil religion, religious in form but not in substance. It will allow us great freedom to pick and choose whatever inspires whatever facet of our lives that we wish (as long as our choices don't violate the rights of other citizens), but it won't take us beyond that. For the most part, I think, that is the road we have taken in the UCC, the road most travelled by. And that road has brought us to where we are today, for better and for worse.

Arminius,

The lower class are not made up exclusively of the mentally, physically ill or handicapped. That is a lie we tell ourselves, sometimes just to make it their fault.

There are youth on the streets because of sexual abuse or because they are gay.

Getting up and out is a process.

Those who live in a concrete jungle behind a dumpster cannot garden their way to survival.

What we know colours who we are, what we think.

Arminius, I know you mean no offense. Your experience has been with people who could make other choices and do not or those who accept their fate.

Gardening requires things that the truly poor may not even have, which might even include a shovel. I helped an elderly lady all day on Tuesday who lost her husband recently. My 90-some year old friend I mentioned. I was helping her move from a nice 3 bedroom home with full basement and loft,  into a mice infested black mould covered apartment. It colours what I know.

Hi Stevie:

Well, I probably lead a sheltered life, out here in the country for most of my life, with the only down-and-out people I know being the few drug and alcohol addicts and physically or mentally handicapped people of our nearby village. I have heard that accusation before: "You are not out there!" ("out there" meaning the big city.)

My ideal society is the small Bavarian village society I grew up in, where everyone knew everyone else, and the abject poverty of being without the basic needs was unknown because everyone knew everyone personally, and would not let them suffer that much.

When I was five, my family arrived in a Bavarian village as homeless and penniless refugees. There were many others like us. The American Military Government resolved the issue of massive homelessness by ordering the indigenous villagers to move over and make room, and the refugees were quartered in with the local population and eventually assimilated. It worked out well for everyone.

About 10 million homless refugees, who could not go back home because their homeland had become Russian and Polish territory, were quartered in with the relatively impoverished 50 million inhabitants of West Germany and assimilated. This was assimilation on masssive scale! There is no reason why something similar could not be done with the much smaller homeless population of prosperous Canada.

Actually, I would like to see radical global inclusion, with all borders opened and freedom of movement all over our planet. I have a dozen house sites planned out on my acreage, with 20 acres of fertile bottomland ready to be farmed by hand by twelve families.

StevieG, Arminius,

I've been following your debate with interest.

StevieG, you have given us a powerfully honest account of the problems faced by many children growing up in an "advanced" western society.

Arminius, your account of being fired on a refugee train as a small child, has  made a strong impact on you as well.

I believe that we are the result of genetic and environmental factors. Despite your early childhood difficulties, you both show resilience in overcoming these difficulties. This suggests that your later environmental factors were beneficial. (I'm guessing, but perhaps you've come in contact with other people who were a good influence?)

Thus, as a society, we need to concentrate on doing all we can to live in a environment that benefits us all.

Cross-posting this to "unless the church dies it will not change," because it's occurring to me that this kind of dying we're talking about is distinctly religious. It's not something an ideology has any guidelines for.

Yes, P.P. of course I agree. We are one human family, and have sorely neglected some members of our family. We need to create a social environment that is more inclusive and caring than the present model, not to speak of creating a natural environment that includes and cares for all natural beings.

Back in 1998, then moderator Bill Phipps, addressed a group of First Nations people who were former students of the residential school system, which he described as a "cruel and ill conceived system of assimilation."  And out of this recognition came the response to "travel the difficult road of repentance, reconciliation, and healing."

Then Phipps made a comment that I have been wondering about a lot lately:  "...we commit ourselves to work toward ensuring that we will never again use our power as a church to hurt others with attitudes of racial and spiritual superiority."

What is the nature of that "work" that ensures that "never again" such evil will flow out of us with the best of intentions?   Is it basically just a deepening of our commitment to liberal democratic principles... pushing them even further, to embrace pluralism, for example?

What I would like to see us in this Emerging Church start practicing and proclaiming is that ideology isn't enough. We need practices that draw out and transform even the hidden sectors of our hearts that easily slip through the cracks of our official policies and purposes.  Until we engage at that level I don't see how we can really become more than conventional, except perhaps in our own thoughts.  Activism that's just rooted in ideology can do good things, I realize. But we already have good evidence that it's not enough to protect those outside of society's margins. And that is the real test of being "that Body for whom Christ alone is the one true head" as we affirm here in our presbytery gatherings.

Being human and Christian is such a challenge.  Printed words and pulpit words just aren't enough to heal problems.  During the 20th century I heard horrible anti 'colored' comments from people in the congregation.  In the 21st century I see and hear some who call themselves Christian being anti 'First Nations'.   

This old work computer isn't letting me quote, but I'm commenting on points by both Rishi and Kay.

If this WC community is a microcosm of a larger one, then we have an unbelievably long way to go in understanding First Nations issues.  There have been several people from these communities here on the cafe.  Any of the First Nations folks that I was aware of here have left after witnessing staggering ignorance and intolerance, again largely uncommented upon or moderated.  What was particularily sad was that there was a thread on the äpology""with lots of support in theory, but no one seemed aware that there were actual 1st Nations people here.  Not very many appear to have these issues on their radar.

So in light of the topic (what was it again?) I am at all surprised to learn that there is yet little improvement to the status quo. 

How can we get that there are some issues that are way past the "processing" and "debating" stage?  IMO the UC, given it's commitments and involvement with FN issues needs to show leadership vs indifference.   So how do we reconcile this with  being  body of Christ -- right here, right now?  Where do the discussions take place that will bring about wholeness instead of rehashing the old, tired, hurtful stuff?  And how can we have good conversations when there's no input from the people we've pushed away?

Yes, Rishi, ideology alone, and thought and action that is rooted in ideology alone, is never enough. We need the unitive experience, the expereince of the living Christ, which compells us to act from the depth of the Divine union and communion.

But now I must really get ready for church!

Maybe some of the same underlying issues that led to our violence toward FN communities in the first place are now an obstacle to making real reparations.

(tying this in from another thread:)

I was just thinking of how ironic it is that many of us in the church are now trying to find practices that help us to perceive the cosmos as totally imbued with the sacred. Ironic in the sense that the traditions and practices of the Aboriginals, which the church sought to eliminate, were providing that sacred view. But there was too much dust on the lens for us to realize what we were doing. Not that that makes us any less accountable. And I'm sure that our making reparations, if  approached in the right spirit, can be a good lens-cleaning spiritual practice.

A few weeks ago I took part in a workshop with our local Okanagan Westside Indian Band. The title of the workshop was: "Living in Right Relations."

The workshop leader, an aboriginal woman, kept emphasizing: "We had it right!" What she meant to say is that our aboriginal people always had the type of religion and the social system that we progressive Christians now aspire to.

We imposed our "superior" Christian religion and culture on the aboriginal people of Canada, not realizing that theirs actually was superior to ours! This must be acknowledged!

Honour and respect are very important in Native culture. We asked for their forgiveness, and admitted our wrongs and even paid compensation, but have not yet openly acknowledged the greatness of their traditional religion and culture. Even in apology, our attitude remains patronising and condescending, as patronising and condescending as our "Christian love" for them has been all along.

This needs to change! In addition to apologies and compensation, we need to acknowledge the greatness of our aboriginal culture and humbly ask our Native sisters and brothers to share their wisdom with us.

All My Relations,

Arminius 

Are there more conservative than liberal Christians in the working class than in the more economically comfortable classes, or is it the other way around, or an even split?  Anyone know?