Clergy? How many Canadians have qualms about his treatment? I suspect it's a clear minority.

Take a look at this from Harper's 

Jesus killed Mohammed

Plumbing the darkest depths of insanity…

My guess - few clergy, if any, will respond to this. They would rather discuss whether God is over six feet tall.

Like I said.....

I well remember listening to the weekly report from our missions. It told all about the suffering in places like Africa. But it never once mentioned why it was happening.

A Christian can't be mainstream and fully socially acceptable in a world that does not operate on Christian principles (or principles of any religion.) At council, the UC will be more adventurous. But to ask a clergyman to examine current life from a Christian perspective is, in too many cases, like asking him to preach with his fly unzipped.

In today's world, the people who are safest from crucifixion are Christians.

Graeme - I am so tired of your negative attitude.  Your opening post was a good, concise review of the situation that it seems to me most people are aware of.  Thank you for bringing it back to our attention.  I'll rank the Harper Government at close to zero on a scale of Christian behaviour.  Notice, I don't say the Canadian government because I don't think the present government represents the majority of Canadians.  I rank myself at about 6 on a scale of 1 to 10 - concerned, occasionally talking to others about the injustice, voting ABC, supporting my congregation's group who study and educate and write letters and to all they can about such matters, but not getting actively involved myself.

But your final question, added to the many snide remarks you have made in the past about churches and clergy, is what irks me.   No, I don't expect to hear about this matter from the pulpit on Sunday morning.  But there may be something in the bulletin and/or on our web site directing people to Romeo Dallairde's letter if it is available, and there may be an article in our congregational newsletter.  Or it may be forgotten by all but a few - but I don't blame the clergy.  Not everything gets attention in our morning worship - not everything should.

Does it take any more to indicate that in the sense of God as love ... real people have lost it ... God is an imaginary dimension in reality?

Now that is deep and dark ... 6 feet or just 4 down ... out of the light .. where a real person can think about it a long time after the sentience is gone ...

It is a concept as foggy as the Golden Rule where taking is the primary Act ... no given required ...

Does harshness have any place in religion of the Levite ... as it falls upon us under the tree ... softly ... unknown to most that take up arms ...

seeler - those are not snide remarks. Those are drawing attention to a reality. at the congregational level, churches tend to be pretty cosy clubs that shy away from questions that test their principles.

Nor is it churches alone that behave that way. Churches and clergy are people. And that is the way people often prefer to act.

I have no interest in insulting  you or the church. I have an interest in telling the truth - always a fault, I know.

Our faith should be reflected in our everyday life. It isn't. It should be reflected in congregational life - it is - but only in carefully selected areas.

Of course, getting insulted is a good way to avoid the issue.

Hi graeme,

No such post received hereabouts.

My understanding, which may be faulty, does not indicate that arresting child soldiers is illegal under international law or under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.  There are limits placed on what can or cannot be done with respect to the age of the child soldier in question.

So I am not convinced that the arrest is illegal.  Controversial certainly.

To complicate matters further, while the USA has signed (and indeed was a driving force behind the creation of the Convention) it has not ratified the Convention.  I believe this means, in effect, that the USA does not recognize the Convention as binding with respect to their legislative processes.

I'm not convinced that imprisonment of child soldiers is illegal either.  If they can be arrested I suspect the arresting power can also detain.

Torture certainly is illegal.  There are questions as to the truthfulness of Khadr's claims to torture.  If memory serves Khadr has recanted.  I am aware that others have made claims that Khadr was subjected to torture and I am aware that certain American officials have no objection to torture.

Still, at this point I don't know that torture has been proven, so much as it has been alleged.

The military court is problematic.  Trials of Child soldiers are not illegal under international law or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.  The Convention does place limits on the sentences that can be handed down and it prohibits death or life sentences.  Again, because the USA has not ratified the Convention they can argue that they are not legally bound by the Convention.

Shameful.

Hardly surprising is it?

If I rank it against ideal Christian behaviour it would be very, very low.  Certainly a failing grade.  If I rank it against typical Chritsian behaviour (myself included) it would be pretty much the norm.  It might do well in some regards and it certainly does not do well enough in others.

Should we expect more?  Not with the talent (or lack thereof) currently forming the government.

No clue.  I probably won't mention it.  Not because it isn't worth mentioning.  Will it ever come up on a Sunday morning.  I wouldn't say no to that.  One doesn't get to big stuff like this without turning their back on smaller stuff.

Vic Toews was convincted in 2005 for a violation of the Manitoba Election Finances Act during the 1999 Provincial elections.  While I, as a Christian, believe in second chances, I think that allowing Toews to hold be the Minister of Justice casts aspersions on the Office.  I also think it is poor optics at the very least to name him President of the Treasury Board.

I'm reasonably confident that the Conservative Party of Canada doesn't care at all about what I think of either assignment.

I preach in Conservative territory (Provincially and Federally) I don't hide my views on political platforms or practice.  That said, my views on political platforms or practices, are not the constant fare of my sermons.

Grace and peace to you.

John

But political platforms and practices are the guideposts of our daily lives - and of how we treat each other.

Where is your dividing line?

Obama has the power to order assassinations. If Harper were to get that power (not impossible), would that merit congregational attention?

If Canada were to go to war? (with or wthout the consent of parliament.)

If Harper were to cut medicare? ( certainly a possibility.)

Churches can and do speak on such issues - though usually on those that are politically safe. (I think here of churches that pray for our side, and the chaplain who assured our troops in Afghanistan they were doing an important job.)

If an individual were to drive millions into poverty and suffering, churches would have no trouble discussing this. But governments do it, and not a word is said.

You don't know that torture was proven? He was held in a camp notorious for torture. He was held in solitary for long periods. That's torture. And since torture is rarely carried out before independent witnesses, I rather doubt when most torture can ever be proven. Incidentally, I cannot remember Jesus ever waiting for a judicial decision before deciding whether something was wrong.

I'm not suggesting these be the constant fare of your sermons. I am suggesting that governments, banks, etc. should be outside the range of our faith. And whether they care about it has nothing to do with the issue. Mao wouldn't have cared about our opinions, either. But nobody would suggest we should ignore  his excesses just because he wouldn't care what we think.

Government is our choice of what our future should be, of what we should aspire to. I don't think it should take over the sermons. But I don't see how it can be so largely ignored in a dicussion of faith.

Bankers in the western world in general have driven tens of millions into despair and hopelessness. If Jesus were here, would he simply have ignored this?

Would the good Samaritan have avoided the injured traveller, saying that his condition was a government matter?

You say you make no secret of your political opinions. But I am not talking about your political opinions. I am talking about your faith and the faith of your congregants, and how that faith affects the behaviour of all of you. There is no need for the congregation to share or to hear your political opinions. What's needed is to examine our daily lives in the light of our (presumed) beliefs.

Hi graeme,

Well I start with the foundations.  Love your neighbour is a foundation.  Political platforms may or may not build on that foundation.  Those that do are fair game for critique based on how well they stay true, or stray from the foundation.  Those that don't aren't.

If, for example, legislation is introduced that claims to be tough on crime then the conversation would be, is the legislation tough on all crime or simply some crime?  How is it tough and the like?

The foundational question would be does toughness on crime translate into love of neighbour?  Depending on the context it may or it may not.

As a Christian, I want to build close to the foundation of love of neighbour.  As politicians, a political party might not want to build on that particular foundation.

Should they?

Depends on who you ask and even then since Christianity isn't monolithic you will get wild variations in whether or not a love of neighbour foundation should even be considered.

Sure it would merit some congregational attention.  It isn't the only game in town though graeme.  And how would I address it?  I would definitely critique it against "Do not commit murder."  I don't know how the local conservatives would look upon a Prime Minister seeking or even capturing that kind of power.  Like most political observations I suspect it is always something we feel our party is responsible with but not something we would want to see in the hands of opposing parties. 

Again, that would merit some congregational attention, it still isn't the only game in town.  Again I would be critical of such a move.  It isn't going to become the central issue of a series of sermons.

As above.

That certainly happens.  Though politically safe issues shift with the wind.  Political safety is very contextual. 

I don't think that observation is necessarily true.  Mind you I don't think the words that are said represent many or much depending on who is looking.

Agreed.  That isn't proof though is it?  At best it is circumstantial evidence.  The pile of circumstantial evidence is pretty high, enough perhaps for many to come to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.  Still at this point it is allegation not proven.

I cannot remember Jesus ever bearing false witness either.  He also tended to be big on avoiding heresay.

Working on the presumption that you meant "should not be outside the range of our faith" I agree with you.  They shouldn't and I suspect for most clergy they aren't.  What remains to be seen is how often they become the targets of criticism and whether or not that is a fair proportion.

Speaking personally, I attempt to frame every Sermon in the context of congregational discussion.  If there is an issue pressing for the congregation, I attempt to address it.  If a matter is not pressing and I think it should be then I have to step carefully.  Not for fear of treading on toes and being censored but rather out of concern that I am having a conversation by myself or worse, only for my own benefit.

Fair point.  We know Mao wouldn't have cared and Mao is outside of our circle of influence.  The question then becomes who has Mao inside their circle of influence and how can we get them inside of ours.  China and Canada do business.  So, if I can influence Canada's willingness to do business with China I can potentially modify China's behaviours that I do not approve of.  To do that I can start by discouraging people with whom I have some influence that they should not do business with the Chinese.  Leading hopefully to a majority of Canadians convincing the government and Canadian corporations and possibly some multinationals to no longer do business with China.

Getting that ball rolling would take a hell of a lot of sermons from more than just me.

The fly in the ointment is cost.  What is the cost to me?  Even if I am prepared to pay it the cost to any one of us isn't going to be enough to change the political opinions or the economic practices.  People deal with China because dollars can be made doing so.

They put lead in the paint of children's toys.  That will make Canadian businesses hesitant because killing or injuring children will cost them dollars.

They put melamine in dog food.  That will make Canadian businesses hesitant because killing or injuring pets will cost them dollars.

Telling Canadians that refusing to do business with the Chinese means that we start paying higher prices for their stuff and suddenly it is time to think about it harder.

The reasons why government is self-interested is because they know most of us are just as self-interested.  The only real difference is the scale graeme.  Which is why I start with the foundations and wander into global specifics sparingly.

If our big issue of the week is Gertie Fencebuster refusing to turn over the baked bean recipe then that is where our focus may be on Sunday.  I respect that such an issue is trivial in the global context of lives lost and economies ruined.  Still, the foundation is the same and if people cannot be trusted with little they cannot be trusted with much.

Politicians worth their salt have been trustworthy with little and can be trusted with much.  Politicians who aren't worth their salt can't be trusted with little and shouldn't be trusted with much.  Which is precisely why I wouldn't have put Toews anywhere near the treasury or justice.  Truth to tell because of the violation of Election Finance Law I wouldn't be putting Toews in my Cabinet, nor would I want him representing my party.

That others are happy to have him in all of that makes me wonder.

Ideally government is our choice of what our future should be.  Realistically it is an auction of liars.  The real difference between most parties is the colour of their advertizing and not the content of truth in their advertizing.

There is difference in scale among the dirty tricks practiced.  Maybe.

No.  There is a question of strategy.  The only applicable encounters we have in scripture are Jesus turning the tables in the temple and Jesus going to Zaccheus' house.  Turning the tables is a deliberately provocative action.  It contributed to Jesus' death and did not, apparently change the practice.

By contrast Jesus simply invites himself to Zaccheus' house, saying nothing at all about Zaccheus' corrupt business practices which introduced hardship into his client's lives.  In return Zaccheus promises to recompense anyone he has treated unjustly four-fold.

Regrettably we are not given an opportunity to talk to Zaccheus about how that was managed.

He didn't.  Nor does he stand around pointing fingers at others.  He does what is necessary and invites the innkeeper to assist by promising he will be compensated for personal expenses not already covered.

You start off asking where I draw the line and now you are intent on drawing one.

I have stated that I start with my faith foundations and I do, whenever possible draw parallels with our community.  On occasion that leads me to be critical of current practices.  I have spoken out about abuses to the quota system with respect to fishing and processing limits.  That makes immediate impact in outport Newfoundland.  It doesn't gain much traction in rural Ontario.  I have spoken on numerous occasions of broken campaign promises.

Most frequently my attention is on the small things in our communal lives simply because I am convinced that if we fail at that the big things will never have a chance to be done right and someday, one of the kids I sit and talk with week after week discussing the small things in life may be sitting somewhere on Parliament Hill and hopefully he, or she got there because of their integrity and not because they were willing to sacrifice it.

Grace and peace to you.

John

[/quote]

that's a classic article :3

(assuming that both actually existed, Mo prolly would've killed Jesus...)

(though we're still living in a bizarre world that, in some respects, hasn't changed much -- the leaders of the US still have to profess belief in a Deity to get elected -- some presidental incumbents don't believe in evolution...)

Seeler==

As usual, 

Rev John:

A welcome informative response to the wild waving of arms...

Graeme,

Self-interest is, whatever you may think of it, is what drives us all.......

(See my thread on self-interest - I'm not happy about it, but I can't refute it's dominant influence on others or myself).

You disappoint me, Graeme. You are well-read and knowledgeable on politics and history.

You have a lot to offer us here at Wondercafe on both these subjects. If you think something is wrong you're not afraid to point it out and offer it up for our consideration.

But sadly, whilst professing a humanitarian and faith-driven focus, you are both scathing and irritable when questioned. 

If people matter - so do folks here at Wondercafe matter.

Until you "get" this many here will tend to dismiss your posts and you with words like negative - it's what folks do when they feel that they have been "put down"  by another.

This is a shame because you could be a  source of education here.

I can see revjohn's point about relating the foundations to local concerns - if only because it is extremely difficult to get people to go beyond their local concerns.

But the foundations don't just naturally adapt themselves to greater issues. The German Christians of the 1930s and 40s knew their foundations very well. That did not prevent them from supporting Hitler and all he did. (Yes, I know some reacted differently. But they were relatively few. The Nazi armies were well staffed with Chaplains who, no doubt, assured the troops that God was with them - just as our chaplains said to our troops.)

Church-going America knew its foundations well, too. But not much was said about "bombing Cambodia back to the stone age", killing half a million people in a defenceless country. A Catholic cardinal (Spellman) blessed the bombs that were to dropped on Cuba. Very few churches seemed concerned about the slaughter of millions in Vietnam or , more recently, about the genocide of Guatemalans - which included the murders of clergy..

And doesn't that article in Harper's have the story about how Christian fundamentalists now dominate the officer corps of the US army? And doesn't it talk about their murderous behaviour?

Mitt Romney, the darling of much of the Christian right in the US, perhaps the most fervent of Christians, has their support for a plan to deprive some 28,000,000 Americans of health care.

Self-interest drives us all? We also have a natural urge to burp during heavy meals. we have a natural urge to rape. we have a natural urge to be greedy and covetous. If we didn't have those "natrual" urges, we wouldn't need morals. The whole reason morals exist is to curb our natural urges.

Scathing? Now and then.

Irritable? Yes- when people pretend to be what they are not, when they seek excuses to avoid action or responsibility.

I have no doubt that some people dislike me. If everybody likes you, you're doing something wrong.

On - re dislike - if you check google, it should be easy to find evaluations of me and of the courses I taught. They were done by students, and you'll find that most students did not think me irritable or scathing. In fact,MacLean's one year rated me as one of the five most popular teachers at my university.

I'm not here to be liked. I'm here to stir up thinking. Those who would rather not think will, of course, be annoyed by me.

Hi graeme,

Respectfully, knowing the foundations and understanding the foundations are not the same thing.  The whole parable of the Good Samaritan, for example, shows that being neighbourly is much bigger than what one does for the person next door and yet, any dictionary definition of neighbour begins with definitions of proximity.

So tribalism is an ever-present threat to the notion of neighbour.  And fostering an environment which encourages tribalism, say Europe in the 20's and 30's means that the word neighbour is going to focus more on proximity than need.  One could argue that making German solely responsible for the reparations is an example of the Allies setting upon a man on his way down to Jericho.

The Marshall Plan was a step in the right direction though I suspect it was motivated more by fear of our Communist neighbours than it was our love for our defeated neighbours.  I don't know how many more wars it will take to take us to get love of neighbour right, although having to have the war to learn the lesson doesn't seem like a solid curriculum plan.

Same plot different setting.

I don't know that I've read that particular article.  I can't say that it surprises me.  Neighbur talks about the different ways Christ relates to culture.  It strikes me that the dominant relationship that America appears to embody is Christ of Culture though I suspect that they don't understand how Neibbur articulates that particular relationship. 

The patriotism of the United States, combined with Christ belonging to their particular culture is going to lead them to some interesting interpretations of what Christ means when Christ says certain things.  Which really shouldn't come as a surprise.

I sincerely doubt that Romney is the Christian right's darling.  I suspect he is the anything but Obama candidate.  If he was legitimately the darling of the Christian right he wouldn't have been backseat to so many over the last year of Republican Primaries.  I suspect if the other candidates had managed to keep their mouth shuts and not betray glaring dim-wittedness the Christian right would have buried Romney months ago.

It isn't the only driver.  There is no denying that it is a motivator.  Morals do exist to curb our natural urges.  Morals also exist as part of our social responsibility and perhaps you missed it, the notion of rights (what isociety owes us) is currently trump over responsibility (what we owe society).  Christianity, being more about the service we render than it is the service we can expect to be given fails to attract when surrounded by culture of privilege.

Unfortunately the Christ transforming culture relationship will constantly be attempting to keep up to culture unless.  It tends to be more reactive than it is proactive.  Even an emphasis on fundamentals (not to be confused with Christian fundamentalism which is a very different kettle of fish) only works so long as the fundamental appealed to finds immediate traction in the surrounding culture.

Sure there are people who want to serve more than they want to be served.  They are not, I believe, a majority at present.  And even if they were, the shift from modernity to post-modernity means that any Church wanting to exercise leadership in that regard has to cut through the conspiracy thinking which is suspicion's cojoined twin.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I think any disagreement between us is superficial. Certainly, I have no great quarrel with the post above.

I'm afraid I just don't adapt well to the post-modern world. And I never shall. And I really don't want to.

I am profoundly disturbed and ashamed as a citizen of one of the countries that has participated in the abuse and torture of Omar Khadr. It breaks my heart to know that we are part of a society that has lost so much ground in how we care for each other.

Also, as we know from others who have been wrongfully convicted, circumstances can turn against any of us or our family members. Letting this happen means that the risk has increased.

When the deal was struck with the US, I watched the language used. There was always an "out" for the Canadian government. I read that Omar Khadr was to be permitted to apply for transfer and that the application would be given full consideration. That's all...dollars to doughnuts, Toews will reject the application on the grounds that Omar Khadr poses a threat to Canada's security. Nothing in the American deal precludes that outcome, which I believe is very likely.

He signed the confession to get out of Guantanamo - he's been betrayed from the beginning. Omar Khadr is everyone's child.

Hi graeme,

There is a proverb, still waters run deep.

Anyone who has been out on the ocean knows that deep waters also run rough.

Disagreement may be superficial, it can still provide mighty hard chop.  Meanwhile, below the surface, the fish swim just fine.

Right now we are living in the breakwater of post-modernity.  Surf can be rough here and bodies out in it are going to be pushed up onto the rocks with some force.  The only ones who are enjoying it are the thrill junkies who enjoy their life extreme.  When the tide rolls in a little bit more and the surf relaxes, that is when they'll start to complain.

That is where the tide analogy ends.  There will be no low tide for post-modernity.  Just a new high tide for whatever is coming next.

Post-modernity isn't all bad.  It is going to wreak havoc on many established "isms" which have been dominating society.  I'd cheer louder for that if it promised anything meaningful in their place.  My biggest concern is that post-modernity is but a hair's breadth away from individualism and if it doesn't attempt to put the axe to the root of that tree the fruit we have to live on is going to become increasingly sour.

Still, if everybody's teeth are set on edge.  There will be many more people around inclined to change what is.

Hopefully post-modernity is a new broom sweeping clean.  If only (to mix metaphors) we can do that without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Grace and peace to you.

John

And if we didn't have cynicism and debate ... would there be any fun for the deviants? There are some on either extremes and and in the medium that the extremes don't believe exisit ...

It's a thin area of de veil ... hidden as an un-woven  fabric ... string theosophy? It depends on how the varied fibres are received ... causes some hostility among institutional things ... if there is no curio-citi ... about Y ... a 3D Semitic form ... mire symbol of wonder?

Just recall its deeper than it appears ... the medium that is ...

In reality it is irreconcilable ... like anger and fear ... just beyond us in another dimension perhaps? This'll pas and something else will come along ... could be awesome if you don't like it ... much dissonance ... once know as Eris ... that too pas'd ... NOS-ite ...

The change has not been continuous. Empires and civlizations have been destroyed to leave us to start all over.

In the western world, democracy has been pretty effectively destroyed. Our new rulers are people without nationality or loyalties, without social ojectives. we now exist only to be used by our new rulers.

As well, they are proving themelves as incompetent to run  economies and socieities as they are to run the vast and complex corporations they command.

The new western rulers are now intended on world military domination as the key to world economic domination. That is scarcely a secret. They made it public knowledge almost a generation ago. The scale of the suffering and slaughter doesn't matter.

The whole puprose of human existence has become to made a few of the super-wealthy even wealthier. That is a system that will destroy itself - but will also be very difficult to replace - and risks terminal damage to earth along the way.

We have morality to prevent us from the doing damage to each other because such damage ultimaely destroys all of us.

The post-modern world (a term I detest) simply means to return to a state of savagery and mutual destruction (from which we never fully escaped.)

It is everything that Jesus spoke against.

Either we believe in the teachings of Jesus or we don't. Either we are partners in this "Post-modern" savagery or we are not.

I really don't think there's a middle ground.

We are now watching the collapse of the western empire. That's a matter of indifference to its rulers becauee they are no longer people of any nationality (free trade is such a wonderful thing). but everyone else will suffer. They already are in the US where cities are going broke, municipal employees, including police, discharged, schools closing... buildings neglected and dangerous.  In Scranton,whatever city employees are left, including the mayor, are on minimum wage - $7.25 an hour.

None of this is likely to come to a peaceful ending. The church can, of course, simply deal with the casualties as they come. Or, as in the case of some churches, many churches, they can cooperate with the process of demolition.

There is a reason we have morality. The Christian faith, like most major religions, is an eminently practical one. Morality is an expression of reason.

Eventually, we are going to have choices forced on us - and that is not far distant. Indeed, we have already made some - of the wrong sort.

It is quite true that the powerful won't care what we have to say. They didn't much care what Jesus said, either.

Graeme are you saying that most churches are fostering apathy rather than empathy? Because then I may be able to agree with you in part.

Many churches seem to have become shrines that are placed there merely to make us feel better about ourselves on Sunday. We go for a message that will foster our personal spirituall growth and open our eyes to an opportunity that will make US feel good throughout the week (such as working at the food bank) and come away believing we are doing enough.

Churches seem to have lost their clout when speaking out against anything that may matter on a global scale. Maybe that is because we have become content to just take care of the immediate corner of the world that we live in falsely thinking that the condition of the rest of the world will never affect us.

We do need a wake up call......and often.

"Apathy is the glove into which evil slips it's hand"  Bodie Thoene

One of the things that we who support Omar and the Germans of the 30s and 40s who opposed the Nazis is that we feel powerless to do something. that is away of saying many have no faith that there actions count. Either or faith is weak, or we do not not whcih actions we can effectly apply it to. The Germans were brought up to believ that obedience was a high virtue. obedience to parents, the church, authority and God. today fitting in and getting along is a virtue and we are afraid be too different and many wait for a certain number of people to be involved before they are willing to take an action.

Alex, that speaks to me that we are learning that our faith is only to be taken on a personal basis and not learning how to extend it beyond ourselves.

How often do we bring up the "Nazi's" and previous genocides while we remain standing in the midst of many more, and say nothing other than bringing up our disgust with previous generations failure to speak out?

It's more than extending it beyond ourslef, ot is also doing it collectively. It much more difficult to stand up to systematic wrongs than to do an act of charity.

Which brings us to church. Can the church not only nourish the individual, but be a basis where people can learn to work together to stand witness to collective justice actions?

I guess much of what Waterfall and Alex say is what I was trying to say.

As Revjohn said in one of  his post, the powerful don't care what his opinion is and as he - or another clergyman said, it is difficult to move people out of thier narrowly local range on concerns.

I certainly recognize the truth of that. But faith demands that we take the whole meaning of the faith out to the real world. I cannot stand a church that is just a ritualistic or comfortable place to go.

"It is difficult to move people out of their narrowly local range on concerns."
.
True for some people.
.
But many times you have told me STOP reading world news, books written by people of different places.
.
I'm confused.

(emphasis mine)

I agree with this, graeme. In my view, the famous verse from Revelation applies.

Revelation 3.16:

So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

There's the rub - and the greatest challenge we probably face as a church. 1500 years or so of christendom have made us comfortable in the assumption that we are actually important players in the world. Not only have the powerful cared what we had to say; we were in many cases among the powerful. We have to give up the illusion that we have or should have power. Only then can we really get on with the mission of Jesus - which was associating not with the powerful but for the most part with the powerless, and seeking to change the world from the bottom up, so to speak. But that's not a comfortable thing to do. As we watch the ongoing collapse of christendom, however, it will have to become our reality - or we will simply continue to fade slowly away.

I agree.

When I think of how Jesus lived out his life - and try to live as a Follower of the Way - I think of the many questions I must face.

How does one live a life of social conscience, knowing all the while that I, like others, put self-interest and tribalism ahead of  unity for all?

Surely the Kingdom of God that was central to Jesus's message spoke against such division?

How do we speak out against injustice whilst remembering that we are called to love our neighbour?  Doesn't this mean that we are to love the perpetrator of injustice as well?

In modern times I look to the likes of Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King - for the spirit in me whispers "this is the way"...............

A church has to concern itself with it's own community and the community at large (including worldwide). It has to meet both the spiritual, social and political needs -with it's focus on Jesus and his theology.

I hear people fret that science is disappearing as well

But the truth of the matter is

That it, like Christianty & Judaism, has 'spread its seed' out into the World, where it will never die; it is a part of humanity

The Church isn't what Christianity & Judaism are...to hold on to them is to hold on to something that never really existed

Have faith

Our children will amaze us

(look at this guy, Wavy Gravy; he's 75 and still going strong...go to your local library and check out "Saint Misbehavin"...hippy, clown, still continuing to help humanity...I was happy to find out their way of 'policing' woodstock...such compassion)

I don't know anyone who doesn't care about how Omar was treated, but I have weeded out people who try to get along with Americans a long time ago.

Also, what our kids and population are lacking is not religion or science but philosophy, logic and political science - and we are past the turning point on this.  I think that we hit crisis with this by 1981,  We are now dying from our lack of the above.

Pilgrim's Progress - you're a grandmother? that avatar must  be a good thirty years old. Isn't that sort of lying?

EO - I never said you should stop reading. I said you should use judgement, see things in the context of the bigger picture, and stop using readings as though they have some special authority. learning is not simply about reading. It is about judgement. Pierre Trudeau spent very little time looking at newspapers. (He claimed he never read them: I think that was an overstatement.)  Yet he had a pretty fair idea of what was going on in the world. That was because he used common sense and his understanding of human behaviour.

Generally, I agree with what I'm reading here. I'm happy enough the churches have lost power - and I don't much like those churches that still have it. But we have to work out ways to bring faith to people, to make it part of their daily lives.I think ritual often works against that - though it's quite the opposite for some people.

I once delivered a sermon on the subject of gossip (without saying so but obvious to everybody) using  a vicious case in the community.

We might get some ideas from the Unitarians. I've occasionally spoken at their services. It's quite a different experience from the UC,

And could the failure be related to going out and teaching when the archetype is that the tree of knowledge is a sin?

It would however make us question where our loves would take us ...

But that would disturb the past as concerning where our loves had come from ...

Speak of chaos of double dimensions .... absolute and abstract ... leading to destruction of any concept of the old way ...

One must burn all the history books and tomes of myth ... show them all the past wasn't ... its just a rapturous hole ... I can't recollect ...

Have you heard that somewhere before in the courtroom of life?

I  believe I have two prime responsibilities as a pastor: comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable.

The afflicted need support in claiming or reclaiming the fullness of their humanity.  The comfortable need encouragement to direct their fullness towards lives that are open to generously and courageous risking that personal fullness in the quest for a greater fullness for humanity as a whole.  In this, the comfortable will find the door to a life rich with opportunities for personal fulfillment.

Both tasks need to include spiritual, personal, social, emotional, and political acts and information.  Eating only healthy vegetables and no other food will not make a person healthy, and focusing only on political aspects to our faith calling will not make for effective and enduring action as a follower of Jesus.

Graeme, that photo was taken last year by myst in Vancouver. (For your information Vancouver is on the west coast of Canada - it really is time you travelled further than New Brunswick.)

Strictly speaking my seven grandkids are children of my three step-daughters. But, as I was married to their Dad for the birth of all the grandkids, I've always been thought of as Nana.

The youngest grandchild is seven and the oldest nineteen.

I'm flattered that you think it's an old photo (sorry Jlin, my feminist stance doesn't seem to preclude me from enjoying compliments).

But, Graeme, in the noble endeavour of telling the truth, I must confess that it's not a close-up - and thus my extremely wrinkled skin is not as obvious as it really is.

We older Aussie women, because of our constant sun, age considerably more than those in colder climates.

Dame Edna, our Aussie icon, refers poetically to our wrinkles as being "the dried up river beds of old smiles". (It sounds sooo much nicer!)  She adds that we need to by Nivea creme by the drum, rather than the tube.......

Hi graeme,

Two questions, for the sake of discussion.

What is the "whole meaning of the faith?"

And what is "the real world?"

Grace and peace to you.

John

PP - there's a reason why I use a portrait of myself as a child.

revjohn - as you know, it is not possible to define either faith or the real world in a note that anyone would read - or that I could write in a life time..

The real world - notably, is an Africa we have brutalized for several centuries. The real world is wars fought and people killed for personal profit. It's people in your community who live on little money or with little education or with little opportunity because in the eyes of some people they exist only to provide the cheapest possibly labour. The real world is a church which provides people with a temporary comfort and, sometimes, a sense of superiority, while neglecting to follow the teaching style of Jesus which he used in relation to His real world and used to provoke  thought.

The real world is next door, or in the same world or 12,000 miles away - the one in which faith calls on us to forgive and to love and to help. The real world is the one in which the news media and political leaders and economic leaders teach us to hate and to fear and to consume. So far, they have been more successful that the church - which sometimes helps them to manipulate us, and sometimes simply diverts us to no effect.

On the faith, we might disagree. I have faith in God and faith in eternal existence. But I have little idea of what either of those means. And I don't fuss about things i cannot possibly understand.

Anyway, faith to me means most of all observing the fundamental moral codes because, like most of such codes that come to us through faith, they are essential for survival. (some are not. and we could use some guidance and discussion of those codes. Like all reading, The Bible requires judgement.

I note that Jesus talked more about life on earth than about life in heaven (whatever that might mean). I think we and our churches should do the same.

I have noticed, revjohn, your nimbleness in dodging the bullet in every exchange.

Stop trying to reach the majority/average, they'll ignore yas; search, instead, for the Otaku, the fiercely passionate, get them with your message and then, from there, your message can spread...

Hi graeme,

Fair enough.  Tell me what the real world isn't.

Which would include the local concerns I mention up above and is not limited to whatever leads the 6:00 news or makes tomorrow's headline wouldn't it?

Again, that doesn't disqualify the local concerns.

That is not the whole of the real world is it?

Possibly.  I don't think the whole church is waving the white flag just yet.

Only sometimes?  What is it doing the other times then graeme?

Since you have said that we might disagree on faith I wonder if such disagreement is permitted?  And if it is I don't understand why you would be critical of a Church or Churches that define faith somewhat differently.

I don't know where you worship that your experience of the Church is that it is so heavenly minded it is no earthly good.  I would have to go quite a ways back in my memory to even recall a sermon that emphasized heavenly reward more than it does earthly duty.

Perhaps I'm not the sitting duck you expect clergy to be graeme.

You are the one claiming the foundations of the Christian faith don't naturally adapt themselves to greater issues and then complaining that the Church is doing nothing.  If, for example we stuck with the ten Commandments (fairly foundational and fundamental to the Christian faith) there is nothing in them that speaks to greater issues?

If the foundations of the Christian faith do not naturally adapt themselves to greater issues then we have to bend them to fit and respectfully, isn't that historically just what governments have done with religion when they claim that God fights for their side or they fight for God? 

If it is true that the foundations of the Christian faith do not naturally adapt themselves to the greater issues then they obviously do not naturally adapt themselves to the smaller ones.  My neighbour and I have a dispute about a property line is very small scale compared to say, North Korea and South Korea disputing a boundary line.  Is that a difference of degree or a difference of kind?

Faith to me is more than observing a moral code.  So yes, we differ in our understanding of faith. 

That makes it pretty clear that both of us are going to be approaching faith in different ways.  Personally, I think that you are at your most honest and genuine when you are true to your understanding.  Likewise, I am at my most honest and genuine when I am true to mine. 

I don't for a minute think that makes us antagonists. 

It may well mean that we each think the other is barking up the wrong tree.  So what?  I presume that there are more than enough trees to be barked up and I am not obligated to bark up a tree that is already being barked up.

The real world I inhabit includes global and local events and issues.  Currently I am sought out to advocate for parents of children with special needs when the local School Boards aren't fulfilling their mandate to teach those children.  One kid getting shafted probably doesn't qualify as a "great issue."  It certainly got zero press compared to Omar Khadr. 

Of course unlike Khadr's story.  This issue was resolved.  Though my experience with School Administrators tells me not to count chickens until they've hatched.

A trivial pursuit?  The stuff of angels dancing on the head of a pin?  Pie in the sky?  All of the above?  An apolitical lounging about perhaps?

I see big things.  They are a part of the real world.  I see little things.  They too are a part of the real world.  I'm finite and the concerns be they big or little, are inexhaustible.  If it bugs you that I bite off only what I can chew then you need to find a way to deal with that.

Grace and peace to you.

John

revjohn, you are not even a flying duck. You just perpetually duck.

You raise questions of a sort I had just said were impossible to answer in anything short of a lbrary of writing. example? - what is the real world?

You pretend I said things that I did not. I never suggested that local concerns should be ignored. But you pretend that I have said so - rather as if suggesting that sending money to a mission is Africa is bad because it diverts money from local concerns.

You discuss as if this were a formal debate - and a high school one, at that.

Jim kenney - you speak of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. And you give examples of the first case. But there is no mention of who the comfortable are that you afflict or what it is you have done to them.

And let me return to the impossible question about what the real world is not.

The real world is not governed by spiritual or religious forces of any sort. It is governed by materialism, greed, corruption and brutality. Far from being condemned, those governing forces and their methods are highly praised in our real world. A local multi-billionaire who robbed this province blind and who established residence in the Bahamas so he wouldn't have to pay taxes has a church named after him.

The family currently appoints the official advisors of the govermment committee on economic policy, including taxes. In consequence, local people who need help aren't getting it; their land and their water is being poisoned by shale gas extraction.

These are pretty local concerns. But I've never known a church congregation that has tried to understand these local concerns in a Christian context.

George Bush should hate his church for attacking him as a mass murderer. But he has no occasion to, does he? How often does the church face any attack - except an attack of indifference?

This was posted on Twitter in response to the question of whether clergy should get involved in the effort to return Khadr to Canada:

RT @dlynnebrown: RT @stjohnsunited: @WonderCafe Read Reverend Linda Yates' 2010 sermon 'Omar Khadr' http://t.co/mcj7ppsY 

Graeme,
You said I should use judgment. But in some cases my judgment does not agree with yours (and in some cases it does). When I try to back up my conclusions you insult my sources.
.
You have done this several times. If someone disagrees with you, you basically tell them they are stupid.

The link doesn't work, Eastern Orthodox, but if you copy the web address and paste it into your browser you'll get the sermon. Strange.

EO - One can't insult a source. It's not a person. If I criticize a road for having potholes, I'm not insulting the road.

I spent my working life dealing with sources. I spent my life learning what to look for in sources, what to question. I tried to pass that understanding on to my students. I don't think any student said I was calling them stupid for doing so.

I have never called you stupid. You aren't. but you are peronally insulted by anyone who disagrees with you.

now to get a look at that site.

Hi graeme,

True.  You didn't.  

Untrue.  I don't.

The hyperbole would have been devastating had it supported a point.

At the very least you credit me with having that much ability.  Thank you for not opining on whether I do that much well or not.

This is a point of agreement between us.

Hinge-point perhaps in the discussion.

I gather that you believe the Church should be leading the charge with respect to condemnation. 

I can't say that I know of any congregations who have done so either.  To be fair, I have no regular contact with congregations where these matters would be local concerns.  I have ministered in a fishing outport of Newfoundland and Labrador where our congregation's Clerk of Session was the administrative assitant to Chris Decker MLA (had some Cabinet position I forget just ) and Brian Tobin (Then Premier and soon to jump back to the Federal scene naively believing he was a front runner to replace Jean Chretien).  Our local issues unsurprisingly related to the Fishery and in particular processing quotas which are assigned by the Provincial Government.  

That issue, as well as other issues pertaining to hospital cutbacks, and cutbacks to air-ambulance funding were not primary preaching material.  They did get covered.  I remember calling a statement made by John Crosbie stating more fish was trucked onto the Great Northern Peninsula that was ever trucked off of it (for the purposes of processing) a whopping great lie.

Most recently I have served pastoral charges on the Haldimand-tract which is an ongoing concern primarily because the Federal and Provincial governments are very clear that it isn't they who are responsible but the other.  Mind you, if the Six Nations had their act together they could probably make more of a dent.  Land Claims is an issue which I have preached on, not at any great length since none of the land my parishioners lived on and farmed was actively disputed.  Although that would depend on who you talked to.

When you say "his church" are you talking about his congregation, his denomination or Christianity in general?

I'm not familiar with anything that his congregation has said about him.  It is documented that The United Methodist Church to which he belongs has differed with many of his policies.  It is also documented that the UMC declared him "Methodist Layman of 2002"

While the separation of Church and State is, more often than not, an American idea there is a pronounced belief that The United States of America is a Christian nation.  I suspect that Faith Patriotism makes it difficult for American Churches and Clergy to be critical of American Presidents.

Not that I endorse the lack of criticism.  I don't know that condemnation is the appropriate corrective.  Generally, when Churches take a disciplinary approach towards politician members the hue and cry regarding the separation of Church and State clangs.

If by attack you mean criticism.  Churches faces a fair deal of it.  In this thread you are critical of the Church I gather that is more than indifference.

Grace and peace to you.

John