felix hominum

Affirming Laudianism - your best Anglican resource

Since today we are commemorating the Saints of the Reformation, I thought it only fitting to share this invaluable resource with my readers. (Via Tim and Dave Keen)

You have found the website of Affirming Laudianism:

Affirming Laudianism, much like another organisation in the Anglican Church, does not expect its members to have any firm beliefs or doctrinal commitments but is solely concerned with:

• The externals of religion

Our primary aims are to encourage:

• The wearing of copes at the Holy Communion;

• The application of Laudian frontals to Altars;

• The use of silver candle sticks and incense at divine worship, in accordance with the principles of The Parson’s Handbook;

• Bowing at the Holy name and during the Gloria Patri;

Our secondary aims are:

• The discouragement of male puritans (Baptists, Evangelicals, et al) from wearing hats during divine worship;

• The cult of His Late Majesty King Charles I, King and Martyr.

‘Old Wine Skins’ is a new movement in the Church of England which seeks to renew the Church as she used to be for our own age. They believe:

1.  That it is better to patch the old than embrace the new;
2.  That where decline is inevitable it is better to die valiantly than to lose what has been cherished;
3.  That vitality in Church life can co-exist with decadence and hypocrisy.

‘Old Wine Skins’ is affiliated to ‘Regress’, a grouping of Church people who seek to enthusiastically embrace the ways of the past, applying them to new situations.

The Vibrant Cathedral Church of Affirming Laudianism:
 

photo felix hominum 2008 (Central Turkey)

Virgil's Aeneid, pt 3

...at once the Phoenicians put aside belligerence
As the god willed.  Especially the queen
Took on a peaceful mood, an open mind
Toward the Teucrians
(I.407)

Aeneas and his band of defeated Trojans have not washed up on just any shore, but on the coast of North Africa, in a place inhabited by a group of Phoenicians under the leadership of their queen, Dido.  Welcome to Carthage, a name familiar to anyone who has had a smattering of Roman history.  It is no mere accident which brought Aeneas here.  For in many ways, the founding principles of Carthage and of Rome will be competing for supremacy.

Aeneas’ divine mother (Venus) meets him.  She is disguised as a huntress (why must the gods always hide themselves so?).  Aeneas himself laments this distance between the god and man, even when the divinity is his own mother:

You!  Cruel, too!
Why tease your son so often with disguise?
Why may we not join hands and speak and hear
The simple truth?
(I.558)

Venus covers Aeneas and his companion with a mist, so that they might enter into the local city of the Phoenicians undetected, and so they will be reassured as they observe the treatment their fellow companions are receiving.

A brief word might be in order here on the “titles” given to Aeneas.  Even a not so careful reading of Virgil will reveal that he is always giving Aeneas some sort of adjective as title:  pious Aeneas, dutiful Aeneas, and so forth.  These adjectives are clues not only to the character of Aeneas (and hence of the ideal Roman), but they are often carefully placed indicators of the kinds of “temptations” which threaten to deter Aeneas at any given moment.   Keep an eye on the way Aeneas is described, and how he describes himself.

View entire series on the Aeneid here.

You see, it's not really about what you think it's about...

I suggest that God was so disappointed with our convoluted thinking that he inspired another messenger to make us think again. The doctrine of the Trinity had already confirmed the Jews that Christians were barking up the wrong tree and now they were confusing possible converts, so God sent a new messenger to proclaim that "There is only one God, Allah". Of course, his disciples added "And Mohomet is His prophet".

...Islam recognises Jesus as a prophet. Let us start there and show how great a prophet he is. He is the model, the ideal that God had in mind when he caused the development of the first human ancestor.

From an article in the November 2008 Niagara Anglican (pdf)

Susan Westall has written a very interesting piece for the Niagara Diocesan newspaper - "Has Christianity Blown It?".  The article seems to be a rejection of a Trinitarian understanding of God, and specifically of the divinity of Christ.  I tend to think those things are important, or at least "core doctrine in the sense of being creedal" as GS 2007 phrased it.  The article is a continuation of a bit of back and forth which started when the newspaper's editor suggested that no one knows who was really right in the 3d century christological controversies.  There was a reply by John Bowen, and now this seems to be another volley.

Does it matter whether or not Jesus is God?

Update: not that it answers the question, but it's kinda cool:

Diocese of Montreal: SSB's and SEM?

Only one acronym ever makes the news.  Okay, so what is SEM?  "Shared Episcopal Ministry".  Some intriguing things from Rev Timbo's blog, out of the Anglican Diocese of Montreal.

Among many interesting things, here's a snippet:

Last week, the soon to be Bishop Stephen Andrews presented a talk called “Post-Lambeth: The Tearing and the Taring of the church.”  After his presentation I asked him about his thoughts on SEM.  His first response was “Well, I was in favour until two weeks ago.” (ed:  his recent election as bishop)

"They asked the family not to take him home"... 41 years later

Matthew achieved the highest Scouting honour by becoming an Eagle Scout:

Matthew, who lives with Down Syndrome, has been involved in Scouting for 23 years. Fewer than 1 in 1000 special needs Scouts make this achievement.

Virgil's Aeneid, pt 2

Virgil Aeneid

Book I:

Here Virgil introduces us to the themes, the characters and the main tensions which we will see unfold in the story.  Arma virumque cano – I sing of war and a man of war.  If you haven’t seen much of Aeneas since the movie Troy, he’s come a long way.  Virgil’s poem tells of the struggle of Aeneas and his fellow Trojan refugees to come to Italy “by destiny” (I.3)  But the goddess Juno (Hera for the Greeks) is still in pursuit:  she hates Aeneas and the Trojans.  She is willing to defy even the Fates in order to frustrate the destiny of Aeneas. 

“Give up what I began?
Am I defeated? Am I impotent
To keep the king of Teucrians from Italy?
The Fates forbid me, am I to suppose?”  (I.56)

What reasons does Juno have for being so opposed to the ex-Trojans founding a new city?  Virgil tells us (I.40ff) that she is still offended by the judgment of Paris, that she still opposed the Trojans descent, and she is still offended that the gods snatched up Ganymede (a Trojan boy) into Olympus.  Part of understanding her opposition to Aeneas is understanding what Juno represents.  The gods generally have some particular virtue associated with them.  Juno is the goddess of marriage, and so her offense at Paris is reasonable.  Recall that Paris, in judging the best of three goddesses, decided upon Venus, who was to arrange for him to have Helen.  And so Paris’ choice was not merely an ancient beauty pageant among goddesses, but a decision as to which goddess was to be preferred overall.  Paris choose adultery  with Helen over the virtue which Juno represents:  the bonds of marriage.  We will say a bit more about Juno’s other reasons for opposing Aeneas as the book goes on;  we will discover that Juno has her own favourite city (Carthage).

So how is Juno going to thwart destiny?  Can she really oppose the Fates and succeed?  Well, she is going to give it her best shot.  She calls on the winds to blow Aeneas’ fleet off course.  She has power to throw certain kinds of obstacles in the way of Aeneas and his destiny.  And it is precisely these kinds of obstacles which Aeneas (and the Roman genius at large) must learn to overcome if they are to be a true empire, a truly eternal city.  In the midst of the storm, Neptune becomes aware of some disturbance on the seas and comes to quiet it.  There is a marvelous description given of the process:

When rioting breaks out in a great city,
And the rampaging rabble goes so far
That stones fly, and incendiary brands-
For anger can supply that kind of weapon-
If it so happens they look round and see
Some dedicated public man, a veteran
Whose record gives him weight, they quiet down,
Willing to stop and listen.
Then he prevails in speech over their fury
By his authority, and placates them. (I.201ff)

Virgil gives us a wonderful image:  a “public man”, able to calm even a riotous crowd by his authority and speech.  We will see this same sort of image come up again in Bk VII.  But for now Virgil is content to give us an image of divine authority ruling over an irrational crowd.  Always these “irrational” things seem to happen to Aeneas, these incidents which threaten to move him away from Roman destiny.  Yet here we see the beginning of the Roman ideal:  political rule over the passions which can cause society to disintegrate into mere “mob”.

In the midst of the ruin of his fleet and their grounding off course, Aeneas encourages his men and reminds them that “God will grant an end to these” (I.273) and that they will have to trust their fate as they encounter “diversities of luck, and …so many challenges” (I.279).  Aeneas himself realizes that they have a fate, a destiny, but there is a force which is opposed them: Fortuna.  What exactly is “fortune”, and how can fortune oppose fate?  Hmmm…well…  Fate is the big thing; fortune is all the little things along the way.  Eventually the two must somehow be reconciled, yet at the outset they are opposed.  Like Juno and Jupiter.  Juno has so far wrecked Aeneas’ plans.  Now we see Jupiter come on the scene and reassures Venus:

No need to be afraid…Your children’s destiny has not been changed…
For these I set no limits, world or time,
But make the gift of empire without end.
Juno, indeed, whose bitterness now fills
With fear and torment sea and earth and sky,
Will mend her ways, and favor them as I do. (I.347…374)

That's a rather lofty claim:  limitless empire.  Why does Virgil think that this is possible?  Can there be a permanent political ideal which will allow a society to continue?  Remember that part of ancient thinking (very much opposed to modern at this point) was the notion of a "golden age", in comparison to which every subsequent age is a degradation.  We tend to think the opposite (or at least we did until post modernism) - that there is a feeling of evolution of society and humanity toward an ever greater good.  So I think in one sense this notion of Virgil's is rather new:  there is the possibility of a perpetual golden age, a kind of stability to life and society which had not been seen before:  the joining of Olympus and earth,  "Wars at an end, harsh centuries then will soften" (I.391)

Well, a high and noble calling.  But we have a new player introduced:   Queen Dido.

View entire series on the Aeneid here.

The Aeneid of Virgil part 1: can you read an ancient text?

I was leafing through some of my favorite passages of Virgil's Aeneid and thought I would begin in a rather roundabout way.  Can a contemporary person read an ancient text?  I mean, of course, read it in the sense that one can still find its basic message and meaning?  Stripped of such notions as "author's intent", with a limited knowledge of the ancient world (let alone the transition from Republic to Empire), and in a language other than the original?

I believe I have discovered at least part of why a series on the Aeneid intrigues me.  Such an exercise is, to my mind, related to another exercise which I deem profitable:  the reading of the Bible.  You see, I tend to believe that one can read the Aeneid with much profit if guided by the insights and learning of others, but one can also read the Aeneid and get the basic sense of the poet's text and message.  There may be a number of reasons for this.  You might say that because many of us are heirs to the Western tradition, the ideas found in Virgil's work are in some sense familiar.  He writes about humanity, about destiny, about fate, about the gods and the hand of the divine in human affairs.  He writes about warfare, about anger, about lust and also about love (and he doesn't confuse the two).  He writes about things which are, well, universal to being human.  Yes, a few notes about this particular goddess or that particular geography are helpful, but in the end all one needs to be is human in order to read the Aeneid. 

Now I don't intend to add any biblical commentary or insight into my postings on the Aeneid, except at this beginning point.  I believe that we may have come to a point where we can no longer read a text (or a Text) with confidence, unless we are guided by an expertise beyond our own.  And at the same time, we might become bogged down under the weight of an "expertise" which removes from us the mere confidence that we can read and grasp the basic message of a text simply because we are human. 

A few minor things:  there are particular passages which may, in any edition of the Aeneid, thought to be in the wrong place, or at least in a contested place.  A critical edition will have plenty of room for footnotes. The overall story is really unaffected by such things, however much fuss one might make.  The large themes are still clear;  the main characters are still who they are;  the actions of gods and men are largely unaffected.  I am not going to get too worked up over it.  Might the same principle apply elsewhere?

Then there is the question of the main themes of the story.  It will probably become clear as you read the text what the author wanted us to hear.  If we think we need to have a clear picture of Virgil's "authorial intent" before we begin the story, then I think we underestimate the genius of the poet.  Enduring texts don't entirely work that way:  when the text elicits in us a certain response - when we "get it" - then the author's intention becomes much clearer.

Virgil's themes are grander than the mere politics of Augustus, although the politics of Augustus are not indifferent to the time and place of the Aeneid.  So it is, in a sense, with Scripture.  The intentions of the individual authors are born out of particular times and places and concerns, but the grand themes are universal.  Sometimes the intention of authors transcends the limited range of their own particular community in geography and history.  Their intentions are larger than we think.

Well, with all of that behind us, off we go.  I will be using Robert Fitzgerald's verse translation.

View entire post series on the Aeneid here.

Nov 1-7 is National Down Syndrome Awareness Week

The Edmonton Down Syndrome Society (EDSS) 4th Annual Buddy Walk,
November 2, 2008 at Hawrelak Park

Every participant helps promote the importance of understanding, acceptance and awareness of people with Down syndrome.

Pledges collected will help fund the Down Syndrome Medical Clinic at the new Edmonton Clinic. This clinic will provide dedicated services to people with Down syndrome of all ages.

For more info, contact your local branch of the Canadian Down Syndrome Society.

Edmonton branch info is here.

brochure as pdf.

The CDSS has features on a number of regional events here.

Synods & bishops in the Anglican Church of Canada

Stuff about Anglican Synods ahead. 

The Anglican Diocese of Edmonton just concluded its Synod.  The Bishop's charge can be found here on the Diocesan website, along with some suggested discussion questions.

A few other dioceses have had synods over the last little while:  Brandon just concluded its synod, but the bishop's charge will probably not be up for a bit on their site.  (Snippets are floating around the ol' interwebs, but I'll try to wait for the whole official version).  And BC had a Synod in September, which had a few important items in Bishop Cowan's charge (in pdf at the BC Anglican site).

And the Anglican Parishes of the Central Interior (Bishop Gordon Light) have just wrapped up their Assembly.  Melissa gives us a snapshot of some of the business of the Assembly:

I seconded the motion asking for permission from our "Suffragan Bishop to allow clergy whose conscience permits, to bless same-sex couples following their duly solemnized and registered civil marriage, where at least one party is baptized, and to authorize an appropriate rite of blessing and guidelines for its use." I don't know if any of you have heard about this issue in the Anglican Church of Canada, but it is a major one, with two distinct sides, and even to the point of parishes leaving the Anglican Church of Canada. Even though I knew that I supported the motion fully, it took me a few days to say I would second it, just because I knew of the distinct sides and different feelings of the people. I didn't expect to change anyones opinion but to allow mine to be heard. I believe that it is time for the church to accept everyone, to really live out the commandment to love one another. I believe by not offering the blessing to those in same-sex unions we are not inviting everyone to be a part of our church. Everyone deserves to be blessed, and no one likes to feel not included. I was anxious to see where the conversation would go and what would happen. After one person spoke to the motion another person tried to table it, at vote it was only supported by five people or so. So discussion continued into Sunday. After everyone who wanted to speak spoke, which might I add it was emotional listening to the feelings and opinions of both sides, we took it to a vote! And 72% voted in favor of the motion, 20% against, and 8% abstained from vote. So by quite a percentage the resolution was carried, the Bishop concurs with the decision from the people but clergy can't go out and act upon the motion. The Bishop has some discussions to have with other Bishops, and also has some guidelines to authorize and make. And yet, it's great; it's great that the people of APCI have talked about it, and came to a conclusion, were respectful to one another, and our voices have been heard!!

Melissa had posted this a few days ago, but I thought I might wait for something more 'official' on the subject, since APCI didn't seem to have much in terms of website news.  Here's the article at the Anglican Journal.

Update: Holy Land Pilgrimage 2009, In the footsteps of Jesus

We've had interest from bishop Greg Kerr Wilson of Qu'Appelle having some people from his diocese join us on a Holy Land Pilgrimage in 2009.  So we have done a bit of adjusting and here is the updated info for 2009: 

The itinerary is very similar to our original pilgrimage route, with two options:  Israel only, and for those who wish, Egypt and Israel combined.

For full itinerary and pricing click here.

Virgil's Aeneid: new post series

Now that one election is over, and another one is going to soon take place, I thought this an appropriate time to have a casual stroll through the Aeneid of Virgil.  The idea of doing a series on the Aeneid struck me as an eventual possibility after last Lent's series on Dante's journey through the Inferno.  Dante found himself guided through the circles of hell by the wise Poet, who represented the best in humanism, in reason, and philosophy (Dante giving Aristotle the title of "king of men who know" notwithstanding).  It was at that point I thought that I would sometime turn the blog toward Virgil and the ancient tradition of humanism.  It might help explain why Virgil could not accompany Dante into the Paradiso, much as we might like to have such company in heaven.

Plus, I thought that Virgil's opening line is perfect for election season.  What makes for a leader of an empire?  What, indeed, makes an empire? Virgil wrote in the time of Augustus, and he died shortly before the birth of Christ.  Many have looked to Virgil's imagery of the founding of a divine empire as the model of political evolution:  Rome would rule the world by law, and bring even the barbarians under the sway of the rational principle.  Others have disagreed.  St Augustine, writing in the City of God, reduces Aeneas to little more than a pirate, cruising the seas in search of power - libido dominandi - lust for power and domination.  In any event, the first line of the poem introduces the themes:  the man Aeneas (refugee from fallen Troy) and the arms which will bring glory to Rome and stability to the world:

Arma virumque cano
Of arms and a man I sing

I haven't decided which translation to use for the blog series, but I'm sure I'll let you all know.

Roman ruins, theatre, Hieropolis

photo: felix hominum

View entire series on the Aeneid here.

ritual washing / 'baptismal' at Qumran

Notice the two sets of steps:  you go in one way, and you come out a different way.  It captures my imagination that this is a physical image of change of direction.

"Repent, and be baptized."

photo: felix hominum

speaker profile: Nick Brotherwood

Nick will be speaking at our local Diocese of Edmonton synod in the next couple of days.  So who is Nick?  Well, I assume that there will be a bit of an intro to Nick at the synod itself, but I also thought you might like to know a bit about him before hand.  Here's a bit of bio from Wycliffe:

Some highlights of Nick’s CV:

• In 2003, he and his wife Sue led a team which planted a new church—Emerge—focusing on 18-25 year olds in downtown Montreal. Nick will continue to pastor this congregation half-time.

• He has been Bishop’s Missioner to Young Adults in the Diocese of Montreal from 2003 until the present.

• In 2006, he was made a canon of Christ Church Cathedral in Montreal.

• Since 1996, he has been an Alpha Resource Advisor for Quebec.

• From 1989 till 2002, he was on the staff of St. Stephen’s Anglican Church, Westmount QC, where he served first as Assistant, then as Associate and finally as Priest in Charge. For a part of this time, he was also a chaplain at McGill University.

In the 1970’s, he was a professional rock drummer—a skill he has never lost.
Nick is married to Sue, and they have six children and two grandchildren at the last count.

Nick’s long-term commitment to congregational health and evangelism, his wide experience of the church and its ministries, and his passion for Fresh Expressions make him an ideal candidate for this position.

Fresh Expressions presently has three levels of training: Vision Days (a single day experience), Mission Shaped Intro (a 6-week course) and Mission Shaped Ministry (a one-year program). Nick has already led one Vision Day, and this Fall will be leading a second one, plus a Mission Shaped Intro course in Quebec.

Watch the website for forthcoming information on other Vision Days and Mission Shaped Intro courses in different parts of Canada. (We anticipate that Mission Shaped Ministry will take longer to prepare and will be available in a year or 18 months.)

I had a chance to hear Nick last winter at a church planting conference in Toronto, as he shared a bit about the community he was involved with in Montreal:  Emerge. 

World's cheapest Hallowe'en pirate costume

Only in Canada.

Just get two $1 coins (loonies).  Tape one to each ear.  And voila:

You're a "buck an ear".

Autumn Leaves: a jazz cabaret

Oct 25, 8 pm
St Tim's:  8420 145 St;   tix $15
(all proceeds to support the choral scholarship program)

Aidan McGarrigle directing the Edmonton Swing Band.

Big Band and Swing from the 30's & 40's.

Yes, there's a dance floor, and there will be jive.

(And Tim can see how the C-7flat5 chord works...)

page loading issues

Apparently Typepad is having some issues being uploaded in certain versions of Safari (they say they are working on it).  Which means you should all have switched to Firefox by now anyway...

A fascinating account of one former Anglican cleric's journey out of the church

All right, I know that on the verge of our Diocesan synod this might not be the most obvious choice for an encouraging word, but I think it is well worth the read.  Jeffrey Olsson is a former Anglican priest who is now a self described agnostic/atheist.  His blog is here. 

Many of you have asked why I would want to leave a faith community such as the Anglican Church of Canada. The truth of the matter is that I had contemplated leaving long in advance of actually doing so. The intention of this letter is simply to explain why I left. This is my personal story, and the message I tell in this story is deeply meaningful to me.

Some people, even some of my friends, have started to make up their own reasons as to why I left the Church, none of which are based on any sort of fact. My intention in writing this letter is to explain my personal reasons. This is not to attack the Christian faith; however, I will be frank and honest, as I had good reason to leave the church behind. I will also present a rationale that explains why it is so important that I do not return to Christianity. If you have trouble with this type of thinking, and I know some of you will, I suggest that you do not read this letter. Put it down...

Jeffrey Olsson's story in his own words is here.

The Solemn Declaration of 1893, and the Dioceses of New Westminster and Athabasca

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.

We, the Bishops, together with the Delegates from the Clergy and Laity of the Church of England in the Dominion of Canada, now assembled in the first General Synod, hereby make the following Solemn Declaration:

We declare this Church to be, and desire that it shall continue, in full communion with the Church of England throughout the world, as an integral portion of the one Body of Christ composed of Churches which, united under the One Divine Head and in the fellowship of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, hold the one Faith revealed in Holy Writ, and defined in the Creeds as maintained by the undivided primitive Church in the undisputed Ecumenical Councils; receive the same Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as containing all things necessary to salvation; teach the same Word of God; partake of the same Divinely ordained Sacraments, through the ministry of the same Apostolic Orders, and worship one God and Father through the same Lord Jesus Christ by the same Holy and Divine Spirit Who is given to them that believe to guide them into all truth.

And we are determined by the help of God to hold and maintain the Doctrine, Sacraments and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded in His Holy Word, and as the Church of England hath received and set forth the same in “The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the Use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter or Psalms of David pointed as they are to be sung or said in churches; and the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons;” and in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion; and to transmit the same unimpaired to our posterity.

So what exactly was that, you ask?  Why, it was the Solemn Declaration of 1893.  And why, exactly, does it matter?  Well, depending on who you ask, that question should be relegated to the past tense:  it used to matter, but doesn't so much anymore.  Or at least not in the way people might think.  Here's an interesting excerpt from the New Westminster website, regarding their position in the ongoing difficulties (eg lawsuits and such) of the ACoC:

The 17 Plaintiffs also claim that what is known as the 1893 Solemn Declaration, one of the foundational documents of what the Anglican Church of Canada, requires a diocese to “maintain and defend historic, orthodox Anglican teaching and practice.” They say the Diocese of New Westminster violated the Declaration by establishing a rite for the blessing of same sex unions.

In its statement of defense, the Diocese notes that Bishop Ingham has always acted in accordance with the Diocese’s Constitution and Canons, and his actions have been properly ratified by Diocesan Council.

The statement adds that the term “historic, orthodox Anglican teaching and practice” has no basis in law or in Anglicanism, and that “the Solemn Declaration does not constrain the evolution of doctrine.”

The Diocesan statement filed in court also notes, as the Bishop has said from 2002 onwards, that no person, parish or priest in the Diocese will ever be required to perform blessings of same sex unions against their conscience. None of these former priests had ever been required to do so.

full article at Diocese of New Westminster website (h/t Scott)

That last paragraph might be seen as a possible red herring.  For the underlying issue is not whether anyone is presently compelled to perform such a rite, but whether one will be allowed to speak against such rites, or in good conscience to protest against them in the proper manner.  The phrasing sounds "generous", but I suggest it betrays a fundamentally relativistic approach to the question:  you do what you want and I'll do what I want.  

The position of the Diocese of New Westminster might appear at odds with the position of another diocese in the Anglican Church of Canada.  In 2008, the Diocese of Athabasca passed the following resolution:

Resolution #2008-16 - BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Diocese of Athabasca reaffirm and uphold its foundational theology as expressed in The Solemn Declaration of 1893 as complete and accurate in every part,  and consequently,

That this synod repudiates those actions of the Anglican Church of Canada and its constituent parts which are contrary to the Solemn Declaration in any way; 
That this synod affirms and encourages the stand of those who have declared a like understanding of Anglican theology as expressed in the Solemn Declaration;

That this synod directs the Secretary of Synod to memorialize Council of General Synod of this motion.

So we have one diocese saying that the Solemn Declaration does not "constrain the evolution of doctrine", and another diocese apparently affirming that the Solemn Declaration indicates "a like understanding of Anglican theology".

Patristics Blog Carnival XVI is up

over at HYPEREKPERISSOU. There are a great number of links there, and I'd encourage folks who are involved in our Tuesday evening study of the early church to head over and click through a few links.

the state of evangelism in the Anglican Church can be explained by this:

can mostly be surmised by this: the Liturgy of the Notices

Funny, and all too true in so many ways.
via Bosco Peters, the naked liturgist.

sermon notes: Harvest Thanksgiving, Luke 17:11-19 (& 2 Tim 2:8-15)

Luke 17:11-19 (& 2 Tim 2:8-15)

The story of the 10 lepers, and only one returns to give thanks.  And perhaps we only return a 10th of what we should to God in thanksgiving.

[11] On the way to Jerusalem Jesus was going through the region between Samaria and Galilee.

So here we have Jesus going on his way from the northern, Jewish area toward Jerusalem, with a pleasant meander through the rather unclean Samaritan area.  Jesus himself is going through a sort of border region, and on his way to Jerusalem, where others will treat him as an outcast and a sinner.  Jerusalem is a place of death (but also, eventually, of resurrection).

[12] As he entered a village, ten lepers approached him. Keeping their distance, [13] they called out, saying, "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!"

What strikes me most about these verses is the dual posture of both approaching Jesus and yet keeping distance.  On the first level, this is understandable.  Perhaps the lepers are merely keeping up their duty not to get too close to anyone, lest they spread their infection.  They know their place in the order of things. There are no explicit reasons given in the text, although some can reasonably be assumed. They are content just to get within “shouting distance” of Jesus, whom they call “Master”.  As long as he can hear their cry for mercy, that is close enough.

And yet this dual posture strikes me as something which we can all engage in.  Approaching Jesus, and yet keeping our distance at the same time.  Just get close enough to be within “shouting distance” when we need something.  Or perhaps we are so used to our position, feeling ourselves far from him and others, that we dare not get too close.  Whatever the reason, it is a tendency of human hearts to draw close and then withdraw.  Maybe we suffer from a bit of Christophobia – we don’t want to get too close to Jesus.  There is something of this sentiment in Jesus’ plea as he completes his journey to Jerusalem:  "How I long to gather you under my wings, and you would not.”  Jesus is always approachable, but it is we who decide to pull back, lest we encounter the real Jesus, who as Paul says, “was raised from the dead, a descendant of David” – the Messiah.

[14] When he saw them, he said to them, "Go and  show yourselves to the priests." And as they went, they were made clean.

No healing touch or magic words come out of Jesus.  He simply gives them something to do.  The priest was rather like the public health officer of the day:  if the priest said you were cured, then you could be restored to your family, you could be restored to your community.  “As they went, they were made clean” – it is in the journey of obedience to Christ that we are healed.  This is a significant part of this healing story:  there is something about simply obeying Christ which is part of the cure;  they are not healed by a word, an action or a touch:  they are healed as they respond in obedience to Jesus.

[15] Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice. [16] He prostrated himself at Jesus' feet and thanked him.

This fellow doesn’t quite follow the rules here:  it appears that he did not makes it to the priest to get his official clean bill of health.  The gift from Jesus evokes in him a more immediate response: praise of God and thanks to Jesus.

And he was a Samaritan.
[17]Then Jesus asked, "Were not ten made clean? But the other nine, where are they?
Was none of them found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?"
Then he said to him, "Get up and go on your way; your faith has made you well."

It is worth noting that Jesus does not revoke the healing of the other “ungrateful” nine (“if we are faithless, he remains faithful-- for he cannot deny himself”) which tells us something of the nature of God's mercy.  There is certainly a tie in to the epistle on this point.  The Samaritan is now made well, or whole.  The gift of Jesus has cured him, but it is faith that has made him well.

Later we might expand this outward to the greater them of "thanksgiving" throughout Scripture.

the only vote that matters

is the one cast in the contest to pick the new theme song for Hockey Night in Canada.

Albertan Colin Oberst, an elementary school teacher and musician, has made it to the final 2.  You can vote online at the CBC Anthem Challenge

a joke only a serious guitarist could appreciate

What's the difference between a blues guitarist and a jazz guitarist?

A blues guitarist plays 3 chords in front of a thousand people...

as heard at this Tim's house, in the midst of a musicians' circle, sometime after I played a little progression involving a lot of C minor 7 flat 5's...

Ruins, Petra, Jordan

Roman square, Petra, Jordan.

[click for full size & better colour]

Cyprian on the Unity of the Church pt 8; (two parishes and a diocese decide to break away)

Back to our good friend St Cyprian, toiling away under the pressures of his day.  Meanwhile in our day, two more parishes have decided to leave the Anglican Church of Canada, and an entire diocese decides to take the exit door from the Episcopal Church.  In Canada, we have this story:

"We are aligning with the worldwide Anglican church," said Rev. Sandy Copland of the Church of St. Peter in Hamilton, which was part of the Niagara diocese.

"It's the Canadian church or parts of it that have broken away."  Votes were held at St. Peter and St. George's in Ottawa on Sunday, with overwhelming majorities. At St. Peter, 42 voted in favour and one was opposed. At St. George's, the vote was 130 in favour and 27 opposed.

The churches, and others that have joined the network, believe the Anglican Church of Canada has drifted from core doctrine by taking a more liberal approach to interpreting the  Bible.

    story at the Hamilton Spectator

And south of the border, the diocese of Pittsburgh has decided to remove itself from membership in the Episcopal Church.  I believe the first diocese to do this was San Joaquin, and a few more may make the same move.  Story at the Anglican Journal, and many other places.  Here is the Diocese of Pittsburgh home page.


Well, how is Cyprian doing? 

24. The Holy Spirit warns us, and says, “What man is he that desireth to live, and would fain see good days? Refrain thy tongue from evil, and thy lips that they speak no guile. Eschew evil, and do good; seek peace, and ensue it.” (Psalms)

The son of peace ought to seek peace and ensue it.  He who knows and loves the bond of charity, ought to refrain his tongue from the evil of dissension. Among His divine commands and salutary teachings, the Lord, when He was now very near to His passion, added this one, saying, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you.”

He gave this to us as an heritage; He promised all the gifts and rewards of which He spoke through the preservation of peace. If we are fellow-heirs with Christ, let us abide in the peace of Christ; if we are sons of God, we ought to be peacemakers.  “Blessed,” says He, “are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the sons of God.”  It behoves the sons of God to be peacemakers, gentle in heart, simple in speech, agreeing in affection, faithfully linked to one another in the bonds of unanimity.

25. This unanimity formerly prevailed among the apostles; and thus the new assembly of believers, keeping the Lord’s commandments, maintained its charity. Divine Scripture proves this, when it says, “But the multitude of them which believed were of one heart and of one soul.”

And again: “These all continued with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren.”  And thus they prayed with effectual prayers; thus they were able with confidence to obtain whatever they asked from the Lord’s mercy.


26. But in us unanimity is diminished in proportion as liberality of working is decayed. Then they used to give for sale houses and estates; and that they might lay up for themselves treasures in heaven, presented to the apostles the price of them, to be distributed for the use of the poor. But now we do not even give the tenths from our patrimony; and while our Lord bids us sell, we rather buy and increase our store. Thus has the vigour of faith dwindled away among us; thus has the strength of believers grown weak. And therefore the Lord, looking to our days, says in His Gospel, “When the Son of man cometh, think you that He shall find faith on the earth?”

It is interesting to see the footnote which Cyprian adds to the ills of divisions.  He makes reference to the idealistic vision of Christian community found in the early chapters of the book of Acts.  Apart from the division of heresy/schism, there is the division which is caused by a lack of concrete care one for another in the Christian community.  It used to be, Cyprian tells us, that the first Christians would share their goods, and now we can barely give a tenth of our wealth for the common good.  I'm not sure what Cyprian would have to say about the current state of errr, "stewardship", in our parishes.  Now a question remains: Is this lack of concrete care a symptom, an effect, or a cause of division?  It seems to me that Cyprian is saying it is an outcome of the divisions which have already happened.  Perhaps no relation at all to the current slew of lawsuits and disagreements over assets and property which have overtaken parts of the North American Anglican church.  But I think Cyprian certainly was on to something.  In a divorce, the biggest fight is over the assets.

Backing up a bit, Cyprian tells us that we are supposed to inherit peace as a gift from Christ.  This peace, this unanimity, was present in the first apostolic community (well, at least after Judas left it!).  How can the same peace be present in "the new assembly of believers"?  Only by "keeping the Lord’s commandments".

St Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church

related posts: Cyprian On the Unity of the Church
intro  part 1  part 2  part 3  part 4  part 5  part 6

part 7

Fresh Expressions...

One of the things I expect we will be hearing about at our upcoming synod here in Edmonton is "Fresh Expressions".  Don't be scared.  It won't bite.  It's a bit of a new way of envisioning what church could look like.  You can learn more at the Fresh Expressions website.

15 reasons why Romans 1 isn't about temple prostitution

I did a little thesis a while ago.  I'm sure a copy is buried somewhere in an obscure corner of Robarts Library at the University of Toronto.  It addressed some questions about the interpretation of Romans 1, (some of which thoughts I've posted here)  Before and since that time, I've been interested to see how aspects of Romans 1 are interpreted in public discussions and debates surrounding two themes: natural theology, (which the Wiki page says is in need of an expert to update the article),  and same sex issues.  One very particular question is whether or not Paul is talking same sex stuff in the context of the practice of ritual temple prostitution. Eg., what Paul has to say in opposing same sex practice has more to do with temple worship, and little to do with what we might tend to think of in contemporary terms.  So to keep to this one particular aspect of interpreting Romans 1, here are 15 reasons why Paul is not talking about temple prostitution.  The context was a reply by Dr Robert Gagnon (author of the 15 reasons) to some thoughts by Jack Rogers on Romans 1 and Temple Prostitution. I haven't fully digested this exchange, but hope to have some reflections later

I. Fifteen Reasons Why the Temple Prostitution Theory Is a Bad Idea

I know of no serious biblical scholar, even prohomosex biblical scholar, who argues that Paul had in mind only or primarily temple prostitution (not Nissinen, not Brooten, not Fredrickson, not Schoedel, not Bird, not Martin, etc).  There are many reasons why this view has not found a welcome in serious biblical scholarship. I shall limit myself to fifteen such reasons, without making a pretense that the list is exhaustive.

1. Rogers' historical anachronism regarding temple prostitution in Corinth. Rogers' trip to Corinth convinced him that Paul's views on homosexual behavior were profoundly influenced by the alleged existence of seven thousand prostitutes, male and female at the temple of Aphrodite in Corinth in Paul's day. As it happens, the only ancient account that refers to cult prostitutes at the temple of Aphrodite in Corinth is a brief mention by Strabo in Geography 8.6.20c:

And the temple of Aphrodite was so rich that it owned more than a thousand temple-slaves, prostitutes, whom both men and women had dedicated to the goddess. And therefore it was on account of these women that the city was crowded with people and grew rich. (Text and commentary in: Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, St. Paul's Corinth: Texts and Archaeology [GNS 6; Wilmington: M. Glazier, 1983], 55-57)

Any critical New Testament scholar knows that Strabo's comments (1) applied only to Greek Corinth in existence several centuries before the time of Paul, not the Roman Corinth of Paul's day; (2) referred to more than a thousand prostitutes, not seven thousand; and (3) mentioned only female (heterosexual) prostitutes, not male (homosexual) prostitutes. Scholars agree that there was no massive business of female cult prostitutes, to say nothing of male homosexual cult prostitutes operating out of the temple of Aphrodite in Paul's day; and that there may not have been such a business even in earlier times (i.e., Strabo was confused). This is not particularly new information, which makes it all the more surprising that Rogers was taken in, apparently, by an ill-informed tour guide. For example, Hans Conzelmann made the following remarks in his major commentary on 1 Corinthians written some thirty years ago:

Incidentally, the often-peddled statement that Corinth was a seat of sacred prostitution (in the service of Aphrodite) is a fable. This realization also disposes of the inference that behind the Aphrodite of Corinth lurks the Phoenician Astarte. [Note 97:] The fable is based on Strabo, Geog. 8.378. . . . Strabo, however, is not speaking of the present, but of the city's ancient golden period. . . . Incidentally, Strabo's assertion is not even true of the ancient Corinth. (1 Corinthians [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1975 [German original, 1969], 12)

This continues to be the view held by scholars. As Bruce Winter notes in a recent significant work on 1 Corinthians,

Strabo's comments about 1,000 religious prostitutes of Aphrodite . . . are unmistakably about Greek and not Roman Corinth. As temple prostitution was not a Greek phenomenon, the veracity of his comments on this point have been rightly questioned. The size of the Roman temple of Aphrodite on the Acrocorinth ruled out such temple prostitution; and by that time she had become Venus, the venerated mother of the imperial family and the highly respected patroness of Corinth, and was no longer a sex symbol (After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001], 87-88; similarly, Murphy-O'Connor, St. Paul's Corinth, 55-56)

The scholarly consensus that there was no homosexual prostitution at the Corinthian temple of Aphrodite in Paul's day is enough, all by itself, to dispense with Rogers's theory and show Rogers's unreliability as an exegete of the biblical text. But we continue anyway.

2. The plain-sense meaning of Romans 1:24-27. There is nothing in the language of Romans 1:24-27 that keys into the issue of prostitution or indeed the issue of exploitation generally. What Paul expressed as the problem was not the particularly exploitative way in which some homoerotic relationships were conducted in the ancient world but rather same-sex intercourse per se: females exchanging sexual intercourse with males for sexual intercourse with females, and males likewise having sex with males.

3. The mention of lesbian intercourse in Romans 1:26. The fact that Paul mentions lesbian intercourse in Romans 1:26 (which in the ancient world did not take the form of temple prostitution) proves that Paul did not have in view only forms of same-sex intercourse associated with idol worship or commercial transactions.

4. Mutual gratification and mutual condemnation in Romans 1:24-27. If Paul were condemning only exploitative forms of male-male intercourse, he would hardly have indicted in Romans 1:24-27 both partners in the sexual relationship. Yet he does condemn both partners: males engaging in indecency with males, receiving back in themselves the recompense which was required of their straying. This is consistent with the fact that he regards the activity as mutual and consenting: dishonoring their bodies among themselves and being inflamed with their yearning for one another. Far from painting a picture where one party is being degraded and exploited by the other, Paul portrays both partners as seeking to gratify their urges with one another and together reaping the divine recompense for their mutually degrading conduct.

5. The Genesis connection. That Paul had the other-sex prerequisite in Genesis in view is obvious from the clear intertextual echoes to Genesis 1:26-27 found in Romans 1:23-27 - eight terms of agreement between the two sets of texts, in nearly the same order. It is no accident, too, that the other major Pauline text dealing with same-sex intercourse, 1 Corinthians 6:9, is cited in close proximity to Gen 2:24 (1 Cor 6:16). And it is also no accident that these are the two key creation texts lifted up by Jesus in Mark 10:6-8 as prescriptive norms for defining all human sexual behavior: 'male and female he made them' (Gen 1:27) and 'For this reason a man will . . . be joined to his woman (wife) and the two shall become one flesh' (Gen 2:24). The story in Genesis 2:18-24 clearly images marriage as the sexually intimate 're-merger' of the constituent parts, man and woman, split from an originally undifferentiated sexual whole. Same-sex erotic unions are structurally precluded from reconstituting a one-flesh merger because the male and female elements cannot be reconstituted from a male-male or female-female union. Since the only differentiation created by the splitting is the differentiation into the two sexes, the presence of the two sexes is indispensable to a valid sexual rejoining. There is no realistic possibility that Jesus, in citing Gen 1:27 and 2:24 as prescriptive norms, missed this other-sex prerequisite 'male and female', 'man and woman' so clearly embedded in these verses and their surrounding narrative and so staunchly embraced by Jews everywhere in Jesus' day. (Many other arguments could also be made for adducing Jesus anti-homosex stance; see ch. 3 [pp. 185-228] of The Bible and Homosexual Practice or pp. 68-74 of Homosexuality and the Bible). And the fact that Paul had the Genesis creation accounts in view when he indicted homosexual practice proves that he recognized their implication for abrogating all forms of same-sex intercourse (The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 289-93).

6. The parallel between idolatry as an act against creation and same-sex intercourse as an act against nature. Rogers belittles the notion of a parallel between idolatry and same-sex intercourse. Yet the context makes the parallel obvious (see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 266-69). Paul emphasizes in Romans 1:18-32 that human beings are 'without excuse' even unbelievers who do not know Scripture 'because God's will is evident to them in creation/nature. Exhibit A (on the vertical level) is idolatry and exhibit B (on the horizontal level) is same-sex intercourse. Both alike represent attempts at suppressing the truth about God in creation or nature, transparent to human minds and even visible to human sight. Both acts are spoken of as 'exchanges' of clear natural revelation for gratification of distorted desires (1:23, 25 and 1:26 respectively). Both acts are depicted as absurd, foolish or self-dishonoring denials of natural revelation. The parallel, and not merely consequential, relationship between idolatry and same-sex intercourse is confirmed in Testament of Naphtali 3:3-4, where both idolatry and same-sex intercourse are viewed as exchanging the order of nature:

Gentiles . . . altered the order of them [viz., either that of the sun, moon, and stars, cited in v. 2, or their own], and have followed after stones and pieces of wood by following after wandering spirits. But you should not act in that way, my children, recognizing [instead] in the firmament, in the earth and in the sea and in all the products of workmanship, the Lord who made all these things, in order that you may not become like Sodom, which exchanged the order of its nature.

For further discussion of this text, see: The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 88-89n.121, 258n.18; and Homosexuality and the Bible, online note 35.

In short, the parallel between idolatry and same-sex intercourse in Rom 1:18-27 is evident: Those who had suppressed the truth about God visible in creation were more apt to suppress the truth about their sexual bodies visible in nature.

7. The other vices in Romans 1:29-31 not dependent on idolatry. Yes, Paul sees idolatry as leading to an increase in same-sex intercourse as well as to an increase in the other vices cited in Rom 1:29-31. But to say that Paul was limiting the indictment in Rom 1:24-27 only to homosexual cult prostitution is like saying that the continuation of the vice list in Rom 1:29-31 had only idolatrous contexts in view. Obviously, persons who reject the clear revelation of a transcendent God in creation are going to be more likely to engage in forms of sexual behavior that suppress the truth about human sexual complementarity accessible in nature. Equally obvious, however, is the fact that Paul recognized that it was not necessary to worship idols to commit any of the immoral behaviors cited in Rom 1:24-31.

8. Sexual uncleanness in Romans 6:19. Later in Romans 6:19 Paul warns believers not to return to the kind of 'sexual uncleanness' - akatharsia, the same Greek term employed in 1:24 of same-sex intercourse and other sexual offenses that characterized their lives as unbelievers. He certainly was no more restricting the use of the term to sex in the context of temple prostitutes than he was restricting any of the other instances of 'lawlessness' to activity conducted in the context of idolatrous worship.

9. The distinction between idolatry and male-male intercourse in 1 Corinthians 6:9. To say that Paul was limiting the indictment of male-male intercourse in 1 Cor 6:9 to homosexual cult prostitution is like saying that Paul was only opposed to incest (the case under discussion in chs. 5-6) in idolatrous and commercial contexts. In fact, 'idolaters' are listed as a separate category of offenders, distinct from those who commit incest, prostitution, fornication, adultery, and male-male intercourse. The case of the incestuous man in ch. 5 involves a self-professed Christian with no linkage to idol worshipping or to prostitution. And the discussion of prostitution in 6:12-20 certainly is not tied only to temple prostitution. The reasons for the proscription of incest and same-sex intercourse are similar: sex with someone who is too much of a same, whether a familial same (incest: sex with the 'flesh of one's flesh,' Lev 18:6) or a sexual same (homosexual behavior: males who have sex with males).

10. The expression 'contrary to nature' as applied to same-sex intercourse. In all the critiques of same-sex intercourse as 'contrary to nature' that can be found in the ancient world, not a single one ever refers to the idolatrous or commercial dimension of same-sex intercourse. For example, the physician Soranus described the desire on the part of 'soft men' to be penetrated (cf. 1 Cor 6:9) as 'not from nature', insofar as it 'subjugated to obscene uses parts not so intended' and disregarded 'the places of our body which divine providence destined for definite functions' (Chronic Diseases 4.9.131). Moreover, numerous cases of same-sex erotic relationships involving neither prostitution nor cultic activity can be documented for the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial periods.

11. Early Jewish critiques of same-sex intercourse. When one reads the critique in early Judaism of homoerotic practice -especially in Philo and Josephus- one notices rather quickly that the remarks focus on the compromise of sexual identity, not issues such as exchange of money or idolatrous connections. The same holds for rabbinic literature. See The Bible and Homosexual Practice, ch. 2.

12. The link between 'men who lie with males' in 1 Cor 6:9 and the absolute prohibitions in Leviticus. The term arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9, a distinctly Jewish and Christian term; literally, 'men who lie with males' is derived from the absolute prohibitions of male-male intercourse in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (Septuagint: koite = lying [with], arsen = a male). That these prohibitions have to do, first and foremost, with sexual intercourse and not with idolatry is evident from their sandwiching in the midst of the sex laws in Lev 20:10-21, separate and distinct from the regulation against sacrificing to Molech in 20:2-5. They are no more tied to idolatry or prostitution than are the laws against adultery, incest, and bestiality that surround them. Neither Second Temple Judaism nor rabbinic Judaism (nor Patristic Christianity) restricted the relevance of the Levitical prohibitions to male-male intercourse conducted in the context of idol worship or prostitution.

13. The main objection to the homosexual cult prostitutes in the Old Testament. The Old Testament, particularly Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua through 2 Kings) does condemn homosexual cult prostitutes (the so-called qedeshim, 'consecrated ones'). But even here, parallel figures in the ancient Near East 'the assinnu, kurgarru, and kulu'u, were held in low regard not so much for their prostitution as for their compromise of masculine gender in allowing themselves to be penetrated as though women (The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 48-49). Even Phyllis Bird, a prohomosex Old Testament scholar who has done as much work as anyone on the qedeshim, acknowledges that the writers of Scripture emphasized not the cultic prostitution of these figures but rather their 'repugnant associations with male homosexual activity.' On the qedeshim, see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 100-110.

14. The meaning of 'soft men' in its historical context. The term malakoi in 1 Cor 6:9 - literally, 'soft men' - was often used in the Greco-Roman world as a description of adult males who feminized their appearances in the hopes of attracting a male partner. Jewish and even some pagan moralists condemned them, not for their role in temple prostitution; [most were not temple prostitutes] but for their attempted erasure of the masculine stamp given them in nature. See further The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 306-12; and Homosexuality and the Bible, 82-83 with online notes 96-98.

15. A Corinthian critique of male-male love. The pseudo-Lucianic text Affairs of the Heart records a debate between Charicles, a Corinthian, who defends the superiority of male love for women, and Callicratidas, who defends the superiority of male love for males. Interestingly, the Corinthian never focuses on the association of male-male love with temple prostitution. Instead, he notes that men who engage in sex with other males 'transgress the laws of nature by looking with the eyes at the male as (though) at a female,' 'one nature [coming] together in one bed.'  'Seeing themselves in one another they were ashamed neither of what they were doing nor of what they were having done to them' (cited in The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 165-66 n. 10). What does this critique have to do with temple prostitution? Absolutely nothing. Yet Rogers would have us believe that Paul's view of same-sex intercourse, and that of Scripture generally, which every historical piece of evidence indicates was more absolutely, consistently, and strongly opposed to same-sex intercourse than anything found in the Greco-Roman world - was actually more accepting of homosexual behavior than the cultural milieu out of which emerged.

review: Edmonton Contemporary Artists' Society

The opening reception of the 16th Annual ECAS exhibit took place last night at the Common Sense gallery.  At the risk of incurring either the wrath or derision of Vue Weekly or the fine folks at the North Edmonton Sculpture Workshop, I will attempt to write a completely unqualified review of the show, in several parts.  Here is part 1:

Licorice Tea, I thought, is great - among the best of the show.  If I had $1500, I'd buy it and put it in my house, and look at it on a regular basis.  Or you could buy it for me.  Or if you buy it and keep it for yourself, let me know when I can come over and look at it.  I'm not kidding.

The show runs until October 30.  Stay tuned for the next installation.

Resources for evangelism: Wycliffe Institute

Wycliffe College's Institute for Evangelism has a number of online resources.  There are print and video resources, booklets, lectures - a variety of things on a wide variety of topics.

One little article entitled "Fresh Understanding – Research for Good News Sharing" highlights the importance of understanding the context of where your ministry is.  In others words, how much do we know (and I mean really know) about the areas where we see our ministry taking place?  There are some basic things we can do:  online demographics are usually available from government websites;  a habit of getting out of the office and into the neighbourhoods on a regular basis will give you a sense of who lives there, where they gather, and what the needs (and successes) are in the neighbourhood.  A while ago I downloaded information from the City of Edmonton census on the makeup of the neighbourhoods around St Timothy's.  Are we aware of who lives in our neighbourhoods? How might that information inform or change the way we approach ministry? Outreach? Evangelism?  Remember that the plural of anecdote is not data.

While that is a fairly formal approach, I believe that there is also need for the informal approach:  get to know your neighbourhood, hang out, participate, and develop relationships with those outside your doors.  A lot has been written and spoken in recent years using phrases like 'mission vs maintenance';  'attractional vs missional', etc, etc, etc.  Here is a simple thought, completely untested and quite likely untrue:  church communities have to go through the process of becoming attractional before they can become missional.  Now what do I mean by that, for those who don't follow the latest jargon explosion in church circles?  I mean this: the first step in being willing to reach the unchurched in one's community is recognizing that this may mean willingness to become more attractional to those outside the church.  Behind this thinking is the notion that if we do a few things here and there, or offer certain kinds of ministries and programs, people outside will be attracted to the church and they will come in.  Despite criticisms of this approach, I think it is a very good start, if done with the right attitude.  I think it signals a recognition that the church does in fact exist for the benefit of those who are not currently members; it is the beginning of the recognition that their is a clear call in Christianity to reach those who are outside.  Of course, one can also become 'attractional' merely to have more bodies to pay the bills, but let's set our sights a bit higher...

Once a church becomes attractional in the best sense, it is then ready to realize that there are those who will never step inside the doors, no matter how 'attractive' the church may become.  It is then that the church can decide to become missional - to move outside the current form of church to reach people where they are, instead of inviting them to come to where the church is.

Yeah, well, there you have it.

Aristotle, rest in peace

or at least rest in the lethargy of Limbo, if Dante is correct.

According to one system of reckoning, today is the anniversary of Aristotle's death in 322 BC.

"All men by nature desire to know".