Seeler-you're a lightweight. Somegal and the "Sheila" from Oz go for the kill. they make me cry.

Hi GeoFee,

It definitely would have been wiser.  Still, that is not what I said.  Debate as you wish.

Grace and peace to you.

John

LOL - perhaps we could form a gang? Perhaps we could call ourselves the Bible Thumpers.

I, reluctantly, have to agree with you on this one.......

When my Mum visited me in hospital, after breaking my leg trying to master the art of bicycle riding she said, "How old are you going to be before you accept that you can't ride one of those things?"

Unfortunately I live in an apartment with stairs to negotiate - and I learnt that I was crap when it came to going down stairs with crutches.

Now that John is no longer with me I've had to concede that it would be foolish to persist with something I had my heart set on mastering...... such is life..........

Years ago I remember a colleague saying to me, in exasperation, "You're such a know-all. "

Now you know I'm fond of ya, sister, but sometimes................

Is this how you see us, Graeme?

I'm much more like this.........

Great pics. I'll post them on the door for Halloween.

What I have learned I cannot do at all properly again is to play the piano. I hadn't practiced it for years. Five years ago, I bought one again. I can't even play pop tunes that aren't an embarassment.  the last remnant of my playing days is Feur Elise.

Would you then be so kind as to make plain why you chose to attribute your point to Jesus; why did you choose to say what you did say when it might have been wiser to say something other?

Graeme,

My mother-in-law died in her late nineties - and she had advanced alzheimers.

She could no longer communicate - except that when anyone played a tune on the piano that she knew - she would move her fingers as if she was playing.......

She had been an accomplished pianist - so it was fascinating to notice that music still was a means of communicating for her.

You just might need to wait a few years...........

One swallow doesn't make a Summer. 

Um, how do you know what was on Jesus's mind?

You were not even a blush on your mother's cheek when he walked this world.

C'mon admit it - you're putting your own thoughts into Jesus's mind - just like the rest of us.

Still, I like you better now that I know there's Scottish blood running through your veins...........

Hi GeoFee,

I agreed with you.  It would have been wiser of me to have said.

That is not what I said, the cat is out of the bag, I posted unwisely.  Surely you can grasp that I did not post at my wisest.

Now as to why I have yet to emend my statement?  I'm not that anal about appearing unwise.  I'll resolve to be more wise in future posts.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Pilgrims Progress

True.  One swallow may end a swimmer though.

Well seeing as how GeoFee has also caught me being unwise and I have admitted to being unwise it would be difficult for me to pretend that I did not slip up wouldn't it.

I do not believe inclusion is the point of the parable.  Jesus may or may not have intended for inclusion to be the point of the parable.  Since nowhere does Jesus actually address the issue of inclusion within the parable, discussing instead the graciousness of the landowner and the resentment of the early labourers.

I confess I found the issue of the landowner's graciousness so blindingly obvious that it must be intentional so I never bothered to imagine other readings.

I am open now to hear how it could not possibly be as simple as lifting up God's grace and it must be about inclusion.

Mea Culpa.  I erred.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Thanks be for the sufficiency of Grace!

I can't wait for Altzheimer's so I can play Chopin again.

The Graeme crackers?

The Graeme Crackers?

The Graeme Crackers?

oops. A double post.

Is it not the case that grace includes where any other consideration might exclude?

Grace does not just sit there, it accomplishes something and invariably that something is the inclusion of some one or other who has been pressed beyond the boundary for failing to meet some standard, by accident of birth or determination of will.

It seems that the parable notices the offensive quality which Grace brings into a merit based social economy, they grumbled. We may think of the Pharisees may we not?

Where is the offense in our day?

I like it - wanna join?

Would I be lacking in grace if I asked for this in triplicate?

Just kiddin' - with time, I might even get used to your multiple quotes.

You're funny when you're not grumpy. (oops, "firm") 

LB, I apologize - this comment was not nice.............

Every day I go for a walk around the bay and , about half-way, I go out on this finger wharf where God and I have our wee chat for the day.

I feel especially blessed when the birds don't fly away - but just let me pass.

I call it my Assisi moment -and it tends to set me up for the day.

At the very end of the wharf I shut my eyes and feel the breeze on my face - symbolising God's presence.

Then I gaze at the sky and imagine falling into it -a reminder to me how most of the world lives "up north".

But it wasn't so peaceful today........

(Being authentic means I can be such a bitch at times)..........

Please don't apologize, I laughed out loud and scared the dogs when I read it.  If anyone is owed an apology it is the dogs.

I have long exasperated people, it is one of my talents

Be at peace today, if you can't be bitchy with a friend what is a friend for ;-)

LB

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

BITCH - Babe In Total Control of Herself.  For those who realize that when called a "bitch" it's not always a bad thing!

     Irony Designs

Hi GeoFee,

That is the case.  Is it the case that where ever any are included it is an act of grace?  Can grace be legislated?

Agreed.  Which is why I'm sympathetic to the issue of inclusion and continue to reject it as the point of the parable.  By moving the point of emphasis away from the gracious generosity of the landowner to those "included" however we choose to define that inclusion we have denied recognition of grace, for which we should be properly grateful to a right which we are now suddenly owed.

In so doing we transform the outrage of those who have carried the burden for the whole of the day at what they feel is shabby treatment into the gatekeepers who exclude.  While the grumbling workers are behaving poorly in believing that they are now owed more than they agreed to work for it is unjust for us to now condemn them for pushing others aside.  Which is us excluding them to make sure we exclude others and make no mistake we have a merit based criteria for that as well.

The parable is very clear in pointing out that nobody is cheated even though some are grumpy about grace being shown to others.  You can get to inclusion through the parable as an afterthought.  Any who read it immediately into the parable, I would argue, are pushing for a right rather than receiving a grace.

Grace, where practiced well is scandalous.  It is an assault against pride and the myth of autonomy.  If we are being honest we don't need to point the finger at the Pharisees, a simple glance in the mirror should suffice. 

Offense abounds.  Show me those scandalous conduits of grace.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Pilgrims Progress,

Grace makes no demands so, yes.

That is sufficient grace for me.

Grace and peace to you.

John

PP - sure. go ahead and rapture about the beautiful weather in your convict colony. I'm looking out on drizzle and cold. That's what makes us Canadians superior to southerners.

think two people --Alabama sheriff, RCMP constable. What images come to mind?

The alabama sheriff - overweight, corrupt, bigoted, stupid, sitting in his hot office under a fan.

The RCMP constable - sturdy, upright, honest, healthy, fair - sitting on his horse in a  blizzard with his butt frozen to the saddle.

Oh Canada, the true north....

Thank you for pressing for clarity, as together we seek that unity by which the divisions that plague us each and all are overcome.

I can think of examples by which we may notice that not all inclusion is gracious. A golf and country club offers services to those who make application for membership. Those who meet the criteria of membership are included. Those who fail to meet the criteria are excluded. The principle in play may be generalized to a whole range of examples, including the diverse institutions of religion past and present.

I certainly would never make an appeal to legislation to promote the full inclusion of all persons in the common good of any social construction. Doing so would catch me in the contradiction of my anarchist bias, to say nothing of my roots in the ground of grace.

Still I will graciously support and encourage those who do press along the way of legislation, trusting that the press will bring matters of critical concern into clearer view and permit opportunity for reconsideration of priority and commitment; most especially in the community which is founded and fostered by grace.

This makes plain that I have failed to clearly express my perspective on the matter of grace as the inclusive gift of God. 

With you I am clear that not a single one of us is owed anything. The whole of life comes as gift, freely given and fully adequate to the whole spectrum of our need and desire. Our part consists in grateful and responsible participation in the way of that life as it is shaped by the inscrutable will and purpose of God.

While all in the community called by the name of God will affirm this propositionally, not all will affirm it experientially. Indeed, confidence in the capacity of law has almost wholly eclipsed confidence grounded in grace. 

Agreed, none are given less than what they were offered. Rather, some were given more than what they might have expected. It is those who resented the giving of an equal measure to those they considered less deserving that reveal the contradiction of grace, then as now.

Inclusion in the freely given good is wholly grounded in the merit of the giver, but it is inclusion none the less. And, this inclusion cannot be divorced from the character of the one who expresses it as gospel. God is the one who includes in a world where law is deployed in the service of exclusion.

By that law a hierarchy of worth is established based on merit, most simply the deserving rich and the undeserving poor.

No where is this more clearly spelled out for our consideration than in the discussion of honour and dishonour in the “Leviathan” of Thomas Hobbes; whose doctrine of unequal shares effectually governs the consciousness and anticipations of persons in the present milieu, inclusive of the multiplied Christian denominations.

This brings the resistance of grace into view. Who resists and why?

Agreed, with the apostle, I know myself to be first among the violators of that which grace makes available as the means of remedy for a world sickened to the point of death by the seductions of autonomy.

Out of this awareness my finger points only to grace, however poorly I may enact this determination, as the means by which we may all of us be included and by that inclusion include. In all of my weakness I resist any rationalization which seeks justification of exclusion.

Let me briefly indicate a particular example by which offence and grace are visibly in play.

The state, with the implicit endorsement of its citizens, discriminates against those considered less than worthy by virtue of accident or choice.  Social policy offends grace by legitimizing the exclusion of persons who fail to measure up to prevaling standards of acceptability. In effect, society at large aids and abets predators, of which Robert Picton is nothing more or less than a stark example.

Grace Memorial United Church opted for inclusion as the expression of God’s grace. Feeding the bodies and souls of the forsaken and broken poor gathered at the back porch the congregation was singled out for the hostility of the decent folk in the neighbourhood. They were hostile to the experiential practice of grace which included those deemed unacceptable by virtue of their abject poverty in body and spirit.

That hostility took form as a determined course of action intended to force the guests of grace back into the back alleys and far reaches of the city. The hostility was enabled by officers of the church who authorized the forcible eviction of the sons and daughters whom grace had included as brothers and sisters in the family of God.

Surely this presents the confusion at work in the community gathered to the name of God in our day; a confusion not at all alleviated where we diminish inclusion as the effective expression of Grace.

Are you able to illustrate the agency of grace without resort to inclusion?

Graeme - I would love to think of the members of the RCMP as sturdy, upright, honest, healthy, fair . . .   Unfortunately the RCMP has been getting some very bad press lately.  I think it is time they cleaned up their act.  

Graeme,

I managed to get this one off his horse.....

Seeler,

This one was a perfect gentleman.....

Seeler - it has, indeed, been getting some bad press. There seem to be serious problems with leadership.

PP - I have flagged your post as offensive (pornography). we Canadians are a morally upright group.

Indeed we are morally upright!   When I copied that article about the sex-abusing residential private school from Der Spiegel, I had to "asterisk" out some of the phrases.  Der Spiegel is a German weekly magazine, like Newsweek.   (It means "The Mirror")

I also learnt from reading (their English on-line site) that they have a brand of schnapps called "Ficken."  This is cognate with a certain English word that I will not mention.   Can you imagine a beer with this name anywhere in the Anglo world?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,786190,00.html

Well,as I watch the television aimed at children in our society, I think that we're ready for such a name in a beer.

LOL - it's the shorts, isn't it?

Now Canadians might be morally uptight (oops upright).

In Oz convict society our women were described as "damned whores

 - possessing of neither virtue or honesty."

Alas, I'm just a tragic remnant of a tragic past.....

Hi GeoFee,

He said his name was Bob.  I took his word for it.  How he came to be wandering by our rural church I can't rightly tell.  Our tiny little hamlet was not usually a destination.  It wasn't typically a way point either.  People do pass through few intend to stop.

Stop he did as he wandered by and politely wondered if I might be able to offer some financial assistance.  That kind of help I couldn't offer.  What I could do was bring him down to the basement where he could freshen up and there were some meagre foodstuffs that I could prepare.  Nothing fancy.  Everything filled a present hunger.

And while Bob ate Bob shared his story.  I listened.  That appeared, from Bob's expression, gift in its own right.  When Bob convinced me he eaten enough I whipped up a few sandwhiches which would keep for a day or so and then I bundled him into my car and gave him a lift to the next community in the direction he was headed.  Saving him time on the road and maybe some hours of of his entire journey.

Bob was grateful for what humble grace I could offer.  I've not seen or heard from him since.  All efforts to get a contact name and number so I could call a loved one and let them know where he was and how he was were rebuffed and he declined the offer to use the phone to make that contact himself.

Bob was an opportunity for me to live the grace I acknowledge has been given to me.

Bob had no desire to be included.  He had plans elsewhere and what he asked of me I couldn't give.  I found other things he might require and was thus able to help Bob in someway.

Bob's story is not a solitary tale.  In my years I have met many in Bob's position.  Some there honestly and others using the story for some other purpose. 

The argument can be made that I included Bob in some way by opening the door to him, feeding him and helping him on his way.  What was it that I included Bob into?  A series of anecdotes or a community?

Grace and peace to you.

John

[/quote]

Your hospitality included Bob, even if only for that short while, in the grace of God; did it not?

Perhaps today, tomorrow or another measure of time from now Bob will give thanks to God for those moments of being included by which the trajectory of his living was ever so slightly shifted towards full inclusion in the grace of God.

My own conversion to the way of God revealed in the gospel of Jesus Christ was much advanced by the gracious gifts of inclusion given by strangers (angels?) met along the way.

Hi GeoFee,

Some will make that argument.  I still find "inclusion" to be afterthought.  

I am a recipient of grace and, at times, its conduit.  I am not grace's originator.

Bob never gave me reason to think that he felt excluded.  Things were, in his words, what things were and choices he made were choices he made.  Was he happy?  Not about all things.  Did he accuse others?  Not that I heard.  If Bob did not feel excluded then how does my grace to him include?

Indeed.  Sometimes their appearance is a greater gift of grace to those who receive them than any effort to help them.

Grace and peace to you.

John

revjohn,

Thank you for the story of Bob.

It illustrated the gift of grace in a clear and compelling way.

Sometimes ministers and "religious" folks spray words like grace, salvation, redemption, etc around like a run-away hose - rather than taking the time to illustrate the nuances of their meaning.

As small children we hear stories on our mother's lap - so it is both a familiar and excellent way to make the leap from vague to "I get it".

And no multiple quotes either!

Geo,

IMO, grace is always inclusive. It comes from God as a gift - and God doesn't exist outside humanity but is in relationship with us all.

Once the gift of grace has been received - one tends to pass on it's effect to another.......

I too was delighted by the story of Bob's visit with John. It seems to perfectly illustrate the thesis which considers grace as the divine inclusion of each and all in the manifold goodness of God.

This has me puzzled. What, in all of the above, gives indication that any one of us takes inclusion to be the ground of grace rather than the other way around?

We do not include strangers who come to our door, or who in any other manner cross our paths,  so that grace may be produced. We have tasted the gracious inclusion of God and allow that inclusion to run out over the brim of our living to include all those with whom we come into contact in its benefits. What we have is not ours but God's and given for the benefit of all. Grace admits no earned, private good.

You opened the door to Bob. You said come on in for a bit, or something of the kind. You opened the cupboard to include him in the benefit of the resources given you by the grace of God. You took an interest in his life without pushing him to disclosure of that which he preferred not to disclose. You helped him along his way without asking any price for the hospitality you made present.

The grace of God was active in you to bring benefit to a stranger met along the way by opening your life to his presence, you welcomed him; included him.

Only if you are interested, I would appreciate hearing from you on the inclusion of the Gentiles and the refusal of that inclusion among those who opposed the apostle for proclaiming that inclusion at every opportunity.