felix hominum

speech, rights and boundaries...

What is the place of freedom of expression?  What (if any) are its limits?  I ran across this interesting news story  from CTV.   In light of the current political debates with Canada on the definition of marriage, how do we as a society move forward?

It seems the Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary is the subject of a complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, over his statements regarding his church's position on the matters of human sexuality.  I haven't seen his full statements, so I'm not certain of the full content of what he said.   But it does raise two questions:  who gets to decide what kind of speech is "legitimate",  and what is the place of freedom of conscience and religion in our society?

I don't try to understand...

Whose children are these, and why are they acting so strangely?  I know I need a haircut, but must they cover their faces when I come in the room?

learning to change

From AKMA  comes the following thought:  "Church should be the place we learn how to change."

"Not, “avoid change” — that’s a futile striving for a timelessness that characterizes only God. Neither, therefore, does it mean “we need to learn the capacity to change,” since we’re always already changing anyway."

"Not, “celebrate change” — that’s pointless. The canard about “change” manifesting life ignores the fact that we don’t stop changing when we die. “Changing” doesn’t prove anything about how lively or moribund we are, about how imaginative or how faithful we are."

This gives a bit to think about in the context of the recent discussion over at Dead Apostle.   But more later when I've had a chance to wolf down some post Easter chocolate that belongs to children who shouldn't eat too much of the stuff...

love and sin

A while ago in a local conversation a student raised a question:   How can I tell someone else they are wrong?  Isn't that judgmental?  Isn't that a bad thing to do?

Can you really love someone and tell them that they are wrong, that they are sinning?

The person on this earth whom I love and trust more than any other has a unique commission from God.  It is the prophetic commission to speak into my life and tell me (among other things) when I am wrong.  I am referring to none other than AKW, my long-suffering wife, companion and fellow disciple  of these many years.   

There is a marvelous thing at work here.  Because she loves me, she needs to tell me when I am wrong - when I am doing, thinking, saying in a way that makes me less than what God wants me to be.  It is part of the mutual stewardship of lives that is Christian marriage.   Not only does she have my permission to do these things - she needs to do these things for my sake.

In our deepest relationships, we are free to be told where we fall short.  That is because we know that we are loved and valued.  We know that the other is there as a fellow traveler.   It is within the safety net of love that we can face the truth of our failings, and be caught in our fallings.

Without love, truth-telling about sin becomes despair.  With love, truth telling about sin becomes hope.
 

a short Good Friday sermon

Greetings, fellow Christians.

I was recently involved with a ministry at the “Edmonton Max” prison.

I was given the opportunity to speak to a room full of  murderers.

(glancing to the cross, and then out over the congregation)
I did not think that I would have the chance to repeat the experience so soon.

Amen.

proof of original sin

I have for some time come to agreement with the early church theologians on the question of original sin.  Further proof of this most true doctrine constantly presents itself to my senses.   It is a most wholesome thing to reflect upon at this time of the Church year.

The latest argument for this doctrine was brought to my attention only recently, and by a young theologian whose tender years did not hinder a full and sound grasp of the doctrines of sin, and rebellion against God.  Rather, in a most convincing manner,  said person has again convinced me beyond any counter argument that we are by nature sinful, and stand entirely in need of the redemptive work of Christ, and that even after our baptism and reception into the family of our heavenly Father, still do we play the prodigal and move ourselves unto a far country.

Verily,  it is often with the very instruments of praise and right religion that we do most offend the Divine law of love of God and neighbour.   For while at my daily chores, (my godly wife being preoccupied with other business of the household), I didst leave several of our blessed olive shoots at play and leisure, imagining (fancifully, though, I see clearly now), that such young ones would enjoy a certain fellowship and commonwealth as we of more discerning years and society are accustomed to.   We had even come lately from Divine Service, and one of the members of that generation yet to come had, clasped still, the branches of the palms with which we offer most noble Lauds and Praises unto our Blessed Saviour.

Thinking that with these instruments of praise in their possession, such little ones as Christ bid come unto Him and not be hindered, should enjoy a most wholesome fellowship, suddenly a sound altogether like the wailing and sorrowing of a stag caught by the arrow in hunt, began to echo from the chambers.   Leaving my chores unfinished, and rushing headlong into this sea of despair, it was discovered that the very Palms and Branches which marked the entry of our King had become the scourge with which a man (though small) might injure his fellow, and think naught of it, musing to himself that the Father heareth not.   

He that thought so was mistaken.

for further consideration

As another follow up to yesterday's conversation, a little piece by Edith Humphrey on the question what constitutes a faithful reading of Scripture?

sol cafe Easter

Just another note for the locals:  this sunday @ 5 pm we're doing a sort of pot luck kind of thing for anyone who is here over the weekend.  Starving students welcome. 

Scripture and the straw man

I asked the question this morning:  does anyone know what the term “straw man” refers to in a debate or discussion?  No one knew, so let me give an example.  For those who were not there, we were having a discussion on homosexuality in a class on marriage and human sexuality.  While there were a variety of opinions in the class, I just want to highlight what I think are a few basic principles involved in having discussions on this topic in the current church.

There is a tendency toward “straw man” arguments in these conversations.  For instance, in the course of the class a “scriptural argument” was presented on the conservative side based on Genesis and on Jesus’ quotation of Genesis in the context of marriage in the Gospels.  Another “argument from scripture” was presented on the more liberal side.  This argument focused on deconstructing the prohibitions in Leviticus and an interpretation of the story of Sodom, and an interpretation of Romans 1.   Is this an example of the straw man argument?   Instead of addressing the interpretation of Genesis and of Jesus’ use of Genesis in the gospels, this position addressed other texts, ones which were not used (or intended to be used?) by the presenter, or by the most thoughtful proponents of a conservative position.

So we have a classic example of the straw man argument:  “Conservatives say x,y and z, based on these texts which we are quoting.  We can bring an argument against these texts, therefore the conservative position is not tenable.”   But what actually happened was that the conservative position was not based on those texts, and an argument addressing those texts was not presented.   The liberal argument defeats a straw man.

Of course it works "both" ways.  A conservative position can build up a false presentation of what the liberal side is arguing.  For those in the class, below are two pieces which highlight some of the other parts of the discussion.

Inclusiveness, round two

Incomplete thoughts, part one...

What is “inclusive”?  It is a buzzword that has been floating around Christian circles for some time now, and particularly in the Anglican Church.  It is used to describe an ideal, but that ideal itself is sometimes fuzzy in its presentation.  To be up front, the word has mostly seemed to mean a change of attitude toward homosexual lifestyle and practice.  Although to be more precise and charitable to those who use the term, it is not used to refer to simple acceptance of every aspect of any individual’s behavior, but rather it is used in the context of what is termed a “committed relationship”.  Now before I go any further, let me state that small pieces of reflective writing, such as this, are not full expositions of a particular position.  These words might be misinterpreted, and often when we have an agenda from one angle or another, the filter of interpretation is applied.  So I hesitate to write, but add the warning that a reader may not fully understand exactly what I am saying.  There will be many loose ends and thoughts which are not brought to their full conclusion.  If I ever have time from all the routines of daily life, I would perhaps write more fully.  I am not a theologian, an academic, or an author.  This is simply a bit of conversation.  Please reply if you wish, but do not presuppose that I have articulated everything possible on the topic, because I am certainly aware of the limits of my own thought and experience.

The most inclusive community I have been privileged to be a part of is one in which brokenness is most up front and obvious.  It is the faith community of the mentally disabled as I have encountered it in L’arche.  What makes for inclusiveness?  True Christian inclusiveness admits two things:  an acceptance and profound awareness that each human being bears the image of God, and an acceptance and awareness that each human being lives with a brokenness which can only be healed by the person of Jesus Christ. 

If we take the first thing seriously, we cannot but offer that reassuring truth to each human being we meet.  To see another human being is to see that which is nearer to myself than anything else in creation.  A fellow human being is the most glorious thing I will encounter outside of God.  I have more in common with a fellow human being than with anything else in the universe.  I am kindred to every person.  That is the beauty of the faith community of L’arche. 

We need also to take the second point seriously.  For that is the heart of the Christian faith.  True Christian community happens when we acknowledge our brokenness before God and one another, and center ourselves around Jesus.  The most fully inclusive Christian community I have been a part of is one where brokenness is so obvious that it cannot be denied.  There is no point in trying to hide it.  Because it is not hidden, it is not shameful.  Hidden or denied brokenness often results in shame.  It is simply there; to be lived with, to be acknowledged, and to be offered up to Jesus for healing in his fashion and in his wisdom.  To have true inclusiveness, we must look to Jesus.

the Suzuki religion, revisited

As a follow up to our conversation at St Joe's, a few further thoughts on what I called the Suzuki religion.  Part of the general worldview of contemporary culture is the notion that somehow "Nature" is always "good" or "right".  As we talked about the phrase "God made me this way", one of the things that came to light was the notion that "whatever I am naturally, must be the way God wants me to be."   

Now there is much about us that is as God wants us to be, and as well, there is much about us that God does not want us to be (or at least much about me, anyhow).  But I find this phrase "This is the way God made me" to be false on a few fronts.  First, it assumes that all the input into what I am naturally is solely from God.  As a Christian, I would tend to say that somehow the brokeness of the world around us is evidence that there is such a thing as "the fall" (but that is for another conversation as well).   While we all bear the image of God, the creation is not exactly as God desired it to be.  Scripture talks of creation itself longing for its full redemption.

Secondly, the phrase seems to be used more as a "self-justification".  If I feel something is "natural" for me, then I should go ahead and do it.  Again, this worldview comes from a notion of nature that sees creation as presently perfect.  But as one of our company pointed out over the conversation table a while ago: "Some species eat their young or their mates - is nature always a good and perfect guide for living?"  Extreme, maybe, but it gets the point across.   We need a guide to living which is beyond nature, which in the true sense of the word is "supernatural".

on Palm Sunday

There is a difference between Palm Sunday love and Good Friday love.  Yesterday's sermon is here

finishing touches

Well, time to head over to Cafe Leva and put the finishing touches on the ole Palm Sunday sermon.  Antonio makes the best coffee in the city.  It is truly inspiring.

Editor's later note:  Flambero's comment is referring to the project Uncommon Ground .

Beatitudes IV

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

As I get closer to the end of lent, I look to this beatitude and compare it with the temptations of Jesus in the wilderness.  Lent is a period of fasting.  Jesus fasted for 40 days, and when offered the opportunity to turn stones into bread, he refused.  “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.”

What do we hunger for?  What do we thirst for?  Our lives are full of desires – things we long to have, to experience, and to be.  Hunger and thirst are not “unnatural” things.  It is quite normal for us to hunger and thirst.  These are desires which are “built into us”.  But in this beatitude, Jesus says that those who hunger and thirst for righteousness will be filled.

What does that mean for the rest of our desires?  That they will not be filled?  That there is ultimately something unsatisfying about all the other wants and desires I have in life?  We throw around the word “blessed” quite a bit.  “We’ve been blessed with good health”;  “We’ve been blessed with a certain level of income, a certain kind of house…”

Hunger and thirst come from inside me, but they are only satisfied by something outside me.  Jesus is trying to tell us something about the Christian life.

the burlap sack

"The Burlap Sack" is a semi regular feature in The Gateway , our student newspaper at the University of Alberta.  It is a place where deserving individuals are placed in a metaphoric sack and assaulted in print. Today's copy shows we've hit the big time:

This verbal set of steel toes to the teeth is directed at the global Anglican Church.  See kids, the primates of the Anglican Church have issued this nifty little ultimatum to the Canadian Anglican Church, stating that they're not allowed at the next meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council unless they smarten up on same-sex marriage.  In other words, "Do what we say, or we're taking our ball and going home."

For a church that prides itself on encouraging debate and welcoming diverse views into its community, to threaten to cast out a large portion of its community because of their views is utter folly.  I'm sure even Jesus would have a few kicks of his own for these bastards.  If it wasn't for the whole pacifism thing, that is.

Patrick Ross

Hmmmm....a golden opportunity of free publicity....any thoughts?

he carries on his work

Just a quick note to say that another student from one of our campus Alpha courses has become a follower of Jesus and would like to be prepared for baptism.   God never ceases to amaze me.

a word of prophecy for Anglicans

I’m not entirely sure where I’m going with this, maybe nowhere, but…

As part of our recent Vocare retreat, we attended Sunday morning worship with our host parish, St Paul’s Anglican Church in Edmonton.  On each retreat weekend we have worshipped with a different local parish – giving participants a sense of the breadth of Anglican worship. As part of the Sunday worship at St Paul’s, at the beginning of the service the clergy ask the congregation if anyone believes God wants to communicate something to the church.  Several folks read from Scripture, or related a thought or “word” which they believed God was speaking to the congregation.

For my charismatic friends – now don’t get too excited – there were no foreign tongues – no need of interpretation.  Until we came to the last person who had a “word’ for the church.  At the end of the time of speaking, one person began making some sounds – obviously words – which were interpreted by a friend.  I caught a few garbled words – “church…let….people…”  and then waited for the friend to fill in the rest of the words which I could begin to understand.

One by one the words slowly came out – from the heart of a person in a wheelchair, who appeared to me to be a person living with cerebral palsy. 

“let people with disabilities worship God in their way”

I suppose that because I have a daughter with a disability, what that “prophet” was speaking to the church cut me to the quick.  We speak of being an “inclusive” church, but are we?  I have been to many Anglican churches across this country, and a few in the US.  I am sure there are exceptions, but I have yet to see a person with a mental disability assisting at the liturgy, greeting parishioners as they come in the door,  offering a song or musical gift during worship.  I have seen such things in other Christian communities and churches. 

Our churches are full of 'inclusion' for those who have talent, intelligence, ability and can organize, lobby, and speak articulately on their own behalf.   Our churches are not so full inclusion for those who cannot do those things.

mourning...

Sunday afternoon at the sol café we touched on some recent events.  We talked about James Roszko  the man who killed the 4 RCMP officers, and himself.  We talked about how easy it is to love those who love us, to admire those who live and die honorably, to join in the mourning for the officers.  And it is right so to do.  It is tragic.

We wondered who mourns for James, and whether or not our love could extend to mourn for him, for his family.

the last post

First Post

One of the most well known nick names here at the University of Alberta belongs to the main athletic centre.  A large pavilion painted warm yellow on the outside has been known as the “Butterdome” to many U of A students.  There is a constant flow of students going in and out; hangout spots by each entrance.  Chatter and smack talk at the west basketball courts as casual games get underway.  Varsity athletes lacing up skates preparing for a big game.

It is a place full of life.

Second post

Because of my position at the University of Alberta, I am privileged to have witnessed many speakers and events in the Butterdome which have brought hope and life.  Desmond Tutu has spoken there about justice and peace, Jean Vanier has spoken there about love and humility.

It is a place full of life.

Last post

A classical philosophy professor from my undergrad days once remarked:  “We became human when we began to bury our dead”.

Thursday afternoon it was the scene of the national memorial service for the 4 RCMP officers gunned down, in the line of duty, by a troubled man who ended his life by his own hand.  The father of one of the slain officers related something his son asked of him:  “Dad, if anything happens to me, tell them about Jesus”.

“Son of man, can these dry bones live?  O Lord, thou knowest.”

It is (still) a place full of life.

Beatitudes III

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

I have often wondered exactly what the quality of being “meek” is all about.  I think about the Magnificat – the song that Mary sang as recorded in the gospel of Luke - “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour…”

he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts
he has put down the mighty from their seat, and has exalted the humble and meek.

Contary to common wisdom, the meek are the realists.  They are contrasted by Mary with those who are proud in the imagination of their hearts.   I do not think “imagination” is used here in the positive, creative sense.  I think it is rather about having a false notion of who or what one is. 

We sometimes have a great deal of angst around issues of ‘finding ourselves” (thereby acknowledging that we are “lost”?).  The proud are not realists – they live in an imaginary world of their own making.  I can imagine myself to be a certain kind of person.  The reality of my imagining finds its limit when I bump up against real people in my life.  They tell me the truth about myself.  Hopefully, this “truth telling” is helpful.  Helpfully, this “truth telling’ is hopeful.  The truth of who I am is most evident when I bump up against The Person.  I need to know the truth of who I am before God - that is part of what we are doing this lent.

How then do I become real?

Jesus, in being meek, did not consider his own “needs” first.   

We sometimes think that the Christian life is about putting others first and ourselves second. It is not.  It is about putting others first and not keeping score to see if I came in second.  That's the example we are given.

which one to pick first?

I've had a good deal of great conversation lately - at our recent retreat, and with several friends.  There are some great one liners that bear some examination, which I hope to do sometime soon.  A few that pop into my mind for the moment are "Mystery is not magic", which we started to get into yesterday.  And via Poul Mark  comes the challenge that we tend to "live far too cautiously".   Both of those are worth pondering for a bit.    Which we will try to do soon. 

Two reminders:  we are looking at John 1 this week at sol cafe;  and we are having an Easter vigil service with the baptism of a student on Holy Saturday.  Will say more in a bit.

Vocare

Well, there won't be any posts for a little while.  I'm off for a few days with some young adults and students for our Vocare  retreat weekend.  We will be looking at discerning and responding to God's "call" on our lives.  If you stumble across this post, please keep us in your prayers.   You can leave a prayer in the comments...

Beatitudes II

Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

A few days ago, just before we got started at the sol café, I was casually reading the front page stories from our local newspaper.  Somewhere on the bottom was an article about the latest suicide bombings in the middle east – X number of people died at location Y.  What struck me afterward was my lack of mourning for the victims – including the one who committed suicide.  The thought that was in my mind was how this might affect my proposed travel to the middle east this spring.

Why is it that those who mourn are blessed?  I think Jesus is not simply offering a promise of comfort to those of us who experience the tragedy of death in our lives (and we all do at some point).  I think Jesus is getting at something more profound – something deeper.

I mourn for those I love.  I do not mourn for those I do not love.  It is as simple as that. 

If I do not mourn at the tragedy of the death of your friend, or your brother, it is because I do not love them.  My lack of mourning is a sign that I do not love all  my neighbours as myself – I only attempt that kind of love for a select few.  I do not mourn much if I do not love much.

Remember Jesus weeping?  He wept for Lazarus – a single person he knew and loved, and he wept for Jerusalem – a whole city.  I believe this beatitude is his invitation to mourn as He mourns.  Not just for a select few neighbours who are close to me, but for all who suffer.

hmmm

just trying to add  a search to the site - will be messy for while...