Theological Digest & Outlook

Selections from the March 1999 issue (Vol. XIV, No. 1)

NOTE: THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THE SIGNED ARTICLES ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHORS AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT ENDORSEMENT BY CHURCH ALIVE.

• Paul Miller, "Strength for Today and Bright Hope for Tomorrow: P.T. Forsyth's Congregational Vision."
• Bernard Warren "Theology, Scripture and Healing."
• Christine Jerrett, "Ten Years Later: Why I Stayed."
• Two Views of the Moderator's Comments: by Roger C. Hutchinson and by David E. Demson.
• Andrew J.B. Stirling, Review of Bonhoeffer for a New Day.
• Don Faris, Review of the Aryan Christ: The Secret Life of Carl Jung and Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth.
• Frank Lockhart, Review of Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths.
• Victor H. Fiddes, Review of The Marriage of Sense and Soul and The Religion of Technology.
• Paul Miller, Review  of The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness and Touchstone, September 1998.
• Kenneth S. Barker, "A Note on the 1988 General Council."
• Graham Scott, "An Open Letter to Bill Wall."
• Palms & Scorpians, Cheers and Tears
• Association for Church Renewal, Proclaims Liberty: A Jubilee Appeal.
• Victor Shepherd, "What is Man? or Does Theology Matter."

Strength for Today and Bright Hope for Tomorrow: P.T. Forsyth's Congregational Vision
by Paul Miller
 

Peter Taylor Forsyth
 Amidst all the hoopla surrounding the coming millenium, one significant date has gone almost unnoticed -- the 150th anniversary of the birth of the British theologian Peter Taylor Forsyth (1848-1921.) Forsyth was a Congregationalist pastor and college Principal who stood head and shoulders above his contemporaries on the English theological scene. These days, his name is well-known but his work less so. Many bend the knee to him and claim him as an influence, but few have read his books thoroughly and even fewer have written about him in a systematic way. Not since J. H. Rodgers The Theology of P.T. Forsyth  has a full-length study been published, and among contemporary theologians, only Donald Bloesch and, to a lesser degree, Thomas Oden, have used Forsyth extensively.  There is no question, though, that P. T. Forsyth was one of the twentieth century's great theological minds. Forsyth diagnosed the condition of the church and anticipated the consequences of Protestantism's love affair with modernity. He was a student of Albrecht Ritschl and, in my view, can be described appropriately as a "Ritschlian"; but he came to see the spiritual thinness and insubstantiality of the optimistic, this-worldly version of Christianity which Ritschl's followers disseminated to a wide audience. It was during his days as a pastor, during the 1890s that Forsyth realized the depths of the Gospel that were left unplumbed by the bourgeois liberalism of his day, and he underwent a conversion, in his own words from being "a Christian to a believer, from a lover of love to an object of grace." It was Jesus Christ, and not the culture of Christian consciousness, that was the foundation of faith; and only Jesus Christ, Forsyth believed, can furnish the answers to the perplexities of modern existence.
 I first encountered P.T. Forsyth as a student at Emmanuel College in 1979. The late Dr. David Newman suggested Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind as optional reading for a homiletics course. As I recall, I barely understood a word of Forsyth's exuberant and convoluted prose, but I had the unmistakeable impression that I was reading things that really mattered. There was substance and power and muscle to what this man was saying. That impression motivated me to make Forsyth the subject of my Ph.D. thesis and it is confirmed each time I return to his works.
 I want to look at what Forsyth has to say about the church, especially his vision of the Congregational tradition, and apply his insights to our present situation.
 
 
 

"Nothing but a congregationalist!"
 Something has happened in the United Church of Canada. One of the founding traditions of our church, with a three-hundred year history, has become an term of derision. "The church is becoming too congregational," we hear. "Congregationalist" in some circles has become an insult, like "fundamentalist" or "homophobe." Of course, "congregationalist" in this sense refers more to a certain attitude than it does to a formal polity. It means someone who places the local congregation ahead of the denomination in importance and believes that the real church is found in the local community.  Congregationalism is equated with isolationism and indifference to what it called "the wider church."
 Before turning to Forsyth, though, we need to ask, "What is it that connects Christians and Christian congregations to one another?" In fact, this question, far from being irrelevant to Congregationalists, has always been at the forefront of their understanding of the church. Emerging in the seventeenth century was a conception of the church as a gathered community of saints, united not by a particular outward form or structure, but simply by their faith in Jesus Christ. Like the early Christians, Congregationalists believed that each local gathered community was the universal church present in that place. It does not require a bishop or a Presbytery or a synod to make it the church. There has always been a strong sense of catholicity in classical Congregationalism. Not being defined by "non- essentials" such as episcopacy, liturgical forms or baptism, Congregationalists are free to be in communion with anyone who confesses Jesus Christ as Lord.

Synchronic and diachronic unity
 Congregationalism raises this question of what holds the church together so that we may properly speak of the church and not of isolated little bands of wandering seekers. It seems to me that the oneness or the connectedness of the church has both a synchronic and a diachronic aspect. Synchronic unity refers to those things which unite Christians at this point in time. Diachronic unity refers to those things which have united Christians across time.
 Synchronic unity is created by those visible, tangible commonalities that identify disparate gatherings as in some sense belonging to the same body. For example, the practice of the sacraments, being able to participate with others in the Lord's Supper, is one such commonality. Now it is certainly true that sacraments have a profoundly diachronic dimension, uniting the church to its past and eschatologically anticipating the future. Sacraments transcends the present and link us to the very source of our faith. But they are synchronic in the sense that, for the average believer, the sacraments are observances that create identity here and now, in this place, with these people.
 Within each denomination is a particular "culture" or way of doing things. In the United Church, this includes submission to church courts and support for the Mission and Service Fund. It is affected by the monopoly of United Church theological colleges on the training of clergy. It is influenced by official church organs like The Observer.And it is expressed in less formal ways by, for example, an increasing commitment to inclusive language, support for gay ordination, and use of Voices United. These, and countless other markers, combine to identify what is loosely called "the United Church ethos."
 Every church has these cultural marks. There is a disquieting sense, however, that the churches today are becoming preoccupied with non-essentials, with the secondary domestic and internal issues of the institution to the detriment of a larger vision of the church's reason for being It is important to remember that the unity of the church experienced in the present is grounded in diachronic realities. Christians are united by foundational events to which we are tied and which continue to shape our common life. The most notable of these, of course, is the resurrection. They are united by the Scriptures which preserve a witness to these events and provide an ongoing rule. There are the ecumenical creeds which have summarized the faith of the generations. They are united by traditions that transcend the present and stand the test of time. The church is united, not just by the habits and practices that hold it together now, but by a message that, at its essential core, endures unchanged through time.
 What is becoming apparent today is that when these diachronic sources of unity are weakened or forgotten altogether, unity can only be maintained synchronically, that is, superficially, bureaucratically, institutionally or according to the prevailing values of the present day. Today, in the United Church, a rampantly individualism in essential matters of faith coexists with an increasingly rigid control over employment practices and personnel policies.
 This is one of the fall-outs of modernity. Until 150 years ago, most church traditions held the diachronic and synchronic dimensions of their existence more or less in balance. Even though there were plenty of often bitter disputes over the contemporary significance of tradition, mainstream Christianity accepted that the present must be shaped by the past. Reform movements within Christendom were movements ad fontes -- back to the sources. Only with the advent of modern turn to the subject and the undermining effect of scientific and historical criticism was it possible to conceive of a church not essentially connected to its past. The idea that the church may construct its present form without reference to the history of Christianity, or may simply invent "new traditions for today" is one of the strange characteristics of modern times. Now that we find ourselves immersed in the "carnivalesque" world of post-modernity, where reality can be constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed virtually at the whim of the individual, the "church" (whatever meaning that word may continue to have) may actually define itself in conscious opposition to what has been confessed "always, everywhere by everyone." Mainline churches like the United Church, for example, are becoming radically disengaged from those central convictions that have traditionally made the church the church.
 My impression is that the epithet "congregationalist" is usually bandied about during conflict over the specifically synchronic aspects of the church's life. Congregationalists are those who are not sufficiently deferential to Presbytery oversight, who believe that they and not some higher body should control the proceeds of the sale of church property, that they ought to be able to hire and fire staff without the intervention of Ministry, Personnel and Education, that they do not need to observe General Council edicts on inclusive language or gay ordination, that they can still be concerned with Christ's mission but not support the M & S Fund.
 This is where P.T. Forsyth comes in. Against a loose, atomistic, individualistic debased "congregationalism", Forsyth helps us to see the true genius of the Congregational way. In the early years of the twentieth century, Forsyth strove to resurrect the Congregationalist tradition as a beacon for churches that had lost their bearings, that had become uprooted from the soil in which they had grown. This essay will be of no solace to those who believe that what we need to do is to uproot more aggressively, who think that the synchronic dimension is all that matters -- feminists, for example, who, as a matter of principle hold to the doctrine that the history of Christianity is just one long sorry tale of partiarchal oppression which must be overcome. There are those who firmly believe that the church's future depends on being able to distance the present as far as possible from the past; and this essay will be of absolutely no value or interest to them. But for those who believe that the church's future grows out of the past, and that with God there is only the eternal now, P.T. Forsyth offers hope and encouragement.

Forsyth and the Free Churches
 The Free Church tradition in Britain at the turn of the century was lost in the wilderness. Its social witness had been co-opted by the emerging labour movement. Its political voice had been effectively silenced. It was producing few preachers and pastors of genuine stature and more than its share of cranks, like the infamous R. J. Campbell and his "New Theology."  The "solvent of criticism" had eroded the foundations on which the Congregational tradition had been built, namely, Scripture and ecumenical doctrine. Now it seemed there was no glue holding the Free Churches together. Forsyth observed that, in such a situation, only an externally-imposed authority like the Roman curia or the High Anglican episcopacy, could weld the church together. Virtually all of Forsyth's theological writings respond to this situation of impending crisis. His work was a thirty-year plea to the heirs of the Congregational tradition -- but through them, to Protestant Christianity as a whole -- to rediscover their roots.

The Church as the Creation of God's Grace
 The Church, Forsyth argued, is more than a voluntary association, made and unmade by human choice. The church is the supernatural creation of God's grace.Forsyth took all of Christian belief and practice and refocussed it on the central fact of God revealed in Jesus Christ, testified to in the Scriptures and experienced in history. Forsyth's whole theological enterprise was profoundly theocentric. He regrounded the church's life firmly in the sovereignty, transcendence, freedom and holiness of God, rather than in the aspirations of human culture. Forsyth, like Karl Barth a decade later, saw the Gospel as being in fundamental conflict with the basic tenets of nineteenth century theology. First of all, there was the belief that God was radically immanent in either nature or history. Hegelian idealism dissolved the free action of a transcendent God into an evolutionary historical process. Hegel's radical follower Feuerbach argued that God was simply a word to describe the projection of human desires. This drive to deify the realms of nature and human history had infiltrated the mainstream of Christianity and was sucking the lifeblood out of the church and its witness.
 Forsyth also opposed the agnosticism of Schleiermacher, Ristchl, and others who, following Kant, argued that God could not be known in himself, only the religious consciousness of church in history could be known. This agnosticism tended to place the experience of faith ahead of the One by whom, for whom and in whom faith exists.
 Christianity, Forsyth said, proclaimed a God who is above all holy. God's will is perfect and, as such, collides at every turn with the human will corrupted by sin. The Gospel which Christians have to offer is that God has acted freely and decisively to redeem a fallen world through Jesus Christ.
 Forsyth's theology is profoundly a theology of grace. But grace is not the mere sentimental love of an indulgent parent. It is holy love, the love of a God who cannot abide sin but who cannot abandon his creation either. God's holy love is so incomprehensibly great that God took the initiative to reverse the alienating effects of sin through the Cross of Jesus Christ. Even though Forsyth came out of the Free Church tradition, his ecclesiology has a depth and a grandeur missing from many formally "high" doctrines of the church, because he grounds the church's existence so uncompromisingly in the magnificent grace of God. The church is nothing less than the community that has been born in response to amazing grace.

Reconciled through the Cross
 It is impossible to understand Forsyth unless we see that, for him, grace is only disclosed fully in the Cross. It is grace given at a terrible cost -- the life of God's own Son. The church's one foundation, he writes, is not merely Christ, but "Christ crucified." The church "rests on the Grace of God, the judging, atoning, regenerating Grace of God, which is holy love in the form it must take with human sin."  Forsyth departed from the prevailing liberalism of his day for example,  in arguing that Christianity is founded primarily on the work of Christ, and only derivatively on the teachings and example of the historical Jesus. Liberals, like the great Adolf Harnack, for example, saw Jesus as "the first Christian", the greatest historical exemplar of a religious soul. Not so, said Forsyth. Jesus was the incarnate Son of God whose death and resurrection did more than simply provide an inspirational example. Through the Cross, Christ effected an objective change in the relation between God and sinful humanity.Humankind is in a state of sinful rebellion against God, out of which we cannot be educated but must be rescued. The radical alienation of sin can only be overcome a reconciliation brought by a sinless, divine mediator. God is holy, humankind is sinful, and restored communion between them is impossible unless something is done to remove the barrier which keeps them apart. That something was the atoning death and resurrection of Christ. Forsyth recovered the almost forgotten doctrine of the objective atoning work of Christ and stated boldly for modern times. The church, he argued, in its enthusiasm for human progress, had naively underestimated the terrible power of sin and was in danger of losing touch with the one antidote to sin -- God's gracious offer of reconciliation in Christ.
 Forsyth avoided a crude substitutionary theory of the atonement in which Christ is offered as a ransom to appease an angry God. He grounded his understanding of atonement in the personal relatedness of God and humankind. Christ, who is the Second Person of the Trinity, willingly took on human existence and perfectly acknowledged through is human nature the righteousness of God's judgment on sin. As representative of a redeemed humanity, Christ enacted a holy life. He satisfied, not God's lust for retribution, but God's loving demand for holiness in human creatures made in his image. Our individual reconciliation is made possible because God has created the conditions which make possible the reconciliation of the whole human race.
 Forsyth's account of the atonement was moral rather than metaphysical. It was not based on speculation about two natures, but on the union of two wills. Through Christ, God makes it possible for the human conscience to be renewed. Here, actually existing in space and time, was a man whose will and conscience were not in radical rebellion against the will of God. But he was not just a supreme example. Christ was God incarnate, and therefore his obedience was sufficient to actually effect the reconciliation of
fallen humanity to God. Christ established the relationship between God and humankind on an entirely renewed basis and unleashed a moral power sufficient to create a "new humanity." The church, according to Forsyth, is the community of those who have acknowledged this act of God and claimed their share in it.

The Word and the Spirit
 Forsyth was a churchman. His theology was formed in the pulpit and the congregation. Theology, he believed, was for the benefit of the church, the gathered church of real Christian men and women. He knew intimately the praxis of the Christian community and not just its theory. He was only too aware on the sometimes intolerable tension that erupts between the principle of freedom and the need for order when the church seeks to be true to its life. The church is the creation of the Holy Spirit, who, as John reminds us, blows like the wind where he wills (John 3:8.) The church must be ready to move with the Spirit. But without some outward order, the church is not the church but an anarchy. Congregationalists, Forsyth believed, had in their history followed a more moderate path than radical sectarian and separatist groups, and had combined local autonomy with catholicity, flexibility with tradition.
 Congregationalism, while not being the full and perfect embodiment of the Kingdom of God, had succeeded in bringing to expression a principle that is inherent in the Gospel. The history of Christianity, Forsyth argued, has been the history of the dynamic interaction of two principles, the Word and the Spirit. The Word, according to Forsyth, is the objective historical revelation of God in Jesus Christ, attested to by Scripture and reflected in the doctrines of the church. The Word is that which is given.First John 1:1 says, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched, this we proclaim to you concerning the word of life." The Word is "tradition" in the sense of that which is given and handed down. The Spirit, on the other hand, is the free, changing, personally experienced power of God which is ever fresh and new. Neither can properly exist without the other. The church has been created by the one who is both the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8) and who makes all things new (Revelation 21:5.)
 Throughout history, the church has struggled with the temptation to overemphasize one of these two poles at the expense of the other. It is hard work to live in the constant tension between the two and much easier to smooth that tension out. At various times the Word has been exalted above the Spirit and the church has become rigid, pharisaical, tradition-bound, obsessed with the form of godliness while denying its power (2 Timothy 3:5.) Historically, an overemphasis on the Word has produced patristic disputes over dogmatic minutiae, the inquisitions of the Middle Ages and Protestant scholasticism and fundamentalism.
 When the Spirit is exaggerated, the church falls prey to uncontrolled subjectivity and the changing winds of culture. Any church in which individuals presume to be speaking out of direct, unmediated contact with God is prone to terrible conflict. Montanism, the Radical Reformation and some kinds of Pentecostalism are manifestations of this hegemony of the Spirit over the Word. Today, certain feminists claim direct inspiration from "the God within" to reinvent Christianity and to discredit the past. Some draw their inspiration directly from the example of the second-century Montanists or the seventeenth century New England Antinomians.
 The balance between the Word and the Spirit was classically represented, according to Forsyth, by the Independents of seventeenth century England who gave birth to Congregationalism. The equilibrium which they achieved has not been maintained, however. Forsyth argued that in his own day the Spirit had been allowed to overpower the Word. The idealism, pantheism and immanentalism of his day was the latest manifestation of an historically repeated occurrence. In reaction to the soul-destroying dogmatism of Protestant orthodoxy, the objective givenness of the Gospel had been undermined. Rediscovering authentic Congregationalism can help to restore the balance between a diachronic rootedness in the redemptive acts of God, while at the same time being open to the synchronic, gracious and surprising movements of the Spirit.
 What P.T. Forsyth perceived at the beginning of the twentieth century is all the more acute at the end. We find the Spirit placed in active opposition to the Word and threatening to expunge its enduring witness. The special gift of the Free Church tradition, properly understood, according to Forsyth, is its profound understanding of the Christian life as "founded freedom." It is one of the energizing mysteries of the Gospel that liberation and submission coexist in the life of the believer. We find our true freedom in obedience, a paradox which is expressed most eloquently in  George Matheson's classic hymn:

 Make me a captive Lord,
 And then I shall be free.
 Force me to render up my sword
 And I shall conqueror be.
 I sink in life's alarms
 When by myself I stand.
 Imprison me within thine arms
 And strong shall be my hand.
 

Christ the Centre
 This dynamic polarity of Word and Spirit is consistent with Forsyth's key ecclesiological principle that Christ stands at the centre of the church, commanding our obedience ahead of all merely human ideologies and philosophies. The church belongs to God, not to its members. Wherever Christians seize control of the church and resolve the Word-Spirit tension, whenever they redefine the church's essence in terms of transient cultural norms, the church ceases to be what it was created to be and the power of God departs from its midst. But in saying that Christ is at the centre of the church, Forsyth is consistently clear on the meaning of "Christ-centred." It does not mean centred on Jesus as the pinnacle of human spirituality or the paradigmatic religious subject, but on Christ as the One through whom God has acted decisively to overcome the alienation of the sin, to effect our reconciliation to God, and to renew our consciences. Churches which stand on this evangelical Gospel do not require any institutional structures or strategies to make them the church. The Gospel which gave birth to the church is the source of their life.

9.5 Theses on the Future of the Church
 Where is the church headed? Who knows? Forsyth intuited many of the problems ahead but not even he could have predicted the precise forms in which those problems would manifest themselves. We can venture a few guesses, though, about what lies ahead.

1. Mainline churches, like the United Church, will continue to become more "congregational" almost by default as social, cultural and economic forces erode denominational structures.

2. Christians will, more and more, seek opportunites for fellowship and nurture that cross traditional denominational boundaries. Like-minded people from disparate churches will make common cause, bypassing those in their own denominations who do not agree with them. Some of the most exciting movements in the church today are transdenominational, such as Promise-Keepers, Cursillo and grassroots networks of small groups.
3. The church will continue to be faced with a critical question: What ties us together? That question will become more urgent as the institutional framework of the church further disintegrates.  We will find it increasingly difficult to define the line that divides the church from a loose assemblage of "fellow journeyers."

4. Churches will face an increasingly clear choice between an authentic, Gospel- based congregationalism on the one hand and a atomistic, every-church-for-itself congregationalism on the other. Christian unity in the future will be evangelical rather than institutional. It will find its root solely in Christ rather than in the habits and forms that we have come to think of as constituting "the church."

5. As countercultural as it may sound, though, without some doctrine, or "theory" of the church (as Forsyth calls it), the church will be powerless to find that ground of unity that will sustain it. The need for careful theological reflection, far from being obsolete, will become more important than ever.

6. Any uniting principle must balance the synchronic dimension with the diachronic. There must be a catholicity of time as well as place. The present-day church must be related dynamically to the whole tradition of Christianity. In other words, we cannot carry on as if nothing prior to 1960 matters.

7. Real change and creative growth must take place primarily where the church is gathered, that is, in concrete communities. The impetus for significant change must emerge from the ministers and leaders of congregations rather than the fiat of denominational structures.

8. At the same time, denominational bureaucracies could have a continuing role to play if they can redefine themselves. Their role must evolve from one of leading and establishing policy to supporting and encouraging the living-out of the Gospel in congregations. Denominations will have to adjust to existing for the benefit of congregations, not vice versa.

9. But since this is almost certainly not going to happen, and since there are no signs that the theological captivity of mainline denominations will end any time soon, individual congregations who have a heart and vision for the Gospel must prepare themselves. They must recommit themselves to Christ-centred preaching and sound doctrine. They must ensure that their common life is built on the firm foundation of Jesus Christ, so that they at least may continue to bear witness to the truth in the stormy days ahead.

9A. Ecclesial forms come and go. But we have God's Word: the gates of hell will not prevail against his church. So we can be at peace even as we contend for the Gospel.

. John H. Rodgers, The Theology of P.T. Forsyth, (London: Independent Press, 1965)
. I make this case in my doctoral thesis The Theocentric Theology of Peter Taylor Forsyth (McMaster University, 1995), pp.15-16 and passim
 . Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind (1907) (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1949, 1964), p.193.
. See Geoffrey Nuttall Visible Saints: The Congregational Way 1640-1660(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1957) for a good introduction to Congregationalism.
. G.R. Evans, The Church and the Churches: Towards an Ecumenical Ecclesiology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p.4.
. This description is borrowed from BrianWalsh and J. Richard Middleton, Truth is Stronger than it used to be: Biblical Faith in a Post-Modern Age, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1995.)
.  See Thomas C. Reeves, The Empty Church: The Suicide of Liberal Christianity(New York: The Free Press, 1996), especially pp. 1-36.
. Campbell expounded his New Theology, a mishmash of popular evolutionary thought and Hegelian pantheism, from the pulpit of the London City Temple. Forsyth destroyed Campbell's teachings in "Immanence and Incarnation", in C.H. Vine, ed., The Old Faith and the New (New York: Eatonand Maine; Cincinnati: Jennings and Graham, 1907.) See John Webster Grant, Freechurchmanship in England, 1870-1940 (London: Independent Press, 1962), pp.132ff., and Brown, P.T. Forsyth: Prophet for Today, pp.26-29 for a description of the New Theology.
. The Person and Place of Jesus Christ (1909) (London: Independent Press, 1930), p.213.
. The Church and the Sacraments (London: Independent Press, 1917), p.3.
. This theme runs through the length and breadth of Forsyth's work; but may be found most clearly expressed in God the Holy Father (1897) (London: Independent Press, 1957 and The Principle of Authority (1912) (London: Independent Press, 1952), pp.362-390.
. The Church and the Sacraments, p.34.
. IBID
. IBID
.  The Person and Place of Jesus Christ, p.6; The Work of Christ (1910) (London: Independent Press, 1938), p.55.
. The Work of Christ, p 92
. IBID p 132
.  This argument, and its embodiment in the Congregational tradition, are described in Faith, Freedom and the Future  (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1912.)
.  E.g. Elaine Huber, Women and the Authority of Inspiration: A Re- examination of Two Prophetic Movements from a Contemporary Feminist Perspective, (Landham, Md.: University Press of America, 1985.)
.  Faith, Freedom and the Future, p.290.
.  The Church and the Sacraments, pp.53-70.

THEOLOGY, SCRIPTURE AND HEALING
Bernard Warren
 
 

It was an interesting quote.  While thumbing through the March 1971 issue of the Clerical Collar, the publication of the student body of Emmanuel College of that era, I found it.  Principal Earl Lautenslager said to his students, "A minister without theology is like an engineer without physics, or a doctor without anatomy.  He'll kill you."  That statement still stands.  Let me illustrate.
She was hesitant on the telephone as she introduced herself and then asked, "Could I come and see you about a problem I'm having?"  Not knowing anything about her I enquired, "Do you have a home church?  "Yes, I do." she answered.  "Then why not take your problem to the pastor of your church?"  She jarred me with her reply.  "In our church we're not allowed to have problems."  I said, "You'd better come."  She came.
It reminded me of driving down U.S. Interstate 75 seeing signs "Rest Stop.  1 mile.  No Facilities" There are churches which seem to have few or no facilities, little in the way of spiritual medicines for dealing with wounds of the people.  My caller's cry was like many others; her's was clearer than most.
For eighteen years I was responsible for the ministry of Bezek Centre, an ecumenical healing, teaching and retreat centre near Campbellville, north of Burlington, Ontario.  We provided hospitality to the bruised, the weary, the enquiring and the confused.  We didn't have all the answers; we had some.  We welcomed those whose needs were not being met elsewhere.  It was not surprising to hear that a lot of clergy, for a variety of reasons, respond feebly to humanity's cries with a, "I can't help you."  They may phrase it, "You should just pray more."  "I don't do counselling.  Maybe you need a psychiatrist."  "I've got too much on my plate with raising funds for our new building."
Perhaps the most crushing response is, "If you were really a Christian you shouldn't feel that way."  Maybe my caller's pastor had a strange theology which recognized Christ's imputed righteousness, but did not understand that imparted righteousness is also a gift of God.  This gift means that Christ takes an imperfect life and, over time, begins to cleanse, heal and free that life.
Scripture recognizes two kinds of righteousness. Imputed righteousness that is given when one trusts Christ for forgiveness of sins, and surrenders to Him.  Christ's righteousness becomes ours by faith.  In Him we are perfect.  Imparted righteousness is different.  It comes as the Holy Spirit does His work in the believer, changing our character, our morals, our attitudes.  We "become partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) That takes time.
Scripture certainly recognizes that Christians have problems.  The epistles are filled with examples.  But rather than acknowledging them and finding help in dealing with them, many are turned away from the "waterless clouds."  (Jude 12)
The wounded are expected to try harder to live the victorious life, or silently cover over their wounds by denial.  Thus spiritual schizophrenics are born.  Forced to live a lie, they may say they are fine but the reality is quite different.  That's the result of bad theology, lack of resources, or both.
Many pastors do not seriously acknowledge Christ's finished work of redemption at Calvary.  They exhort their people to try to become good Christians be being and doing good.  Marley on his death bed said to Scrooge, "Save yourself."  But those who travel the route of self-effort never come to believe that God accepts them as they are.  Their faith statement is, "I'm trying real hard to get God to love me."  For them the Christian life is a moral struggle which they confuse as an attempt to grown in righteousness.  Visible and inner righteousness is only imparted by God's Holy Spirit.  Both imputed and imparted righteousness are gifts of God.  The first is given in an instant by trusting Christ for it, the second is worked out over a lifetime.
A more helpful reading of 2 Corinthians 5:17 than the usual one says, "When anyone is united to Christ there is a new act of creation.  The old order has gone, and a new order has already begun."  (New English Bible, Margin) The operative word here is "begun."  The King James rendering is, "all things have become new."  We know that this is just not the experience of most.  The "old man" dies hard and the perfect has not yet come.  The reality is that for the new believer in Christ the process of healing and change has started then continues for a lifetime.  St. Paul said of himself, "I have not yet reached perfection, but I press on, hoping to take hold of that for which Christ once took hold of me.  I do not reckon myself to have got hold of it yet...." (Philippians 3:12-13 NEB)
The pastor who advises his flock that Christians should be beyond having problems has a theology which implies that, "One trip to the altar for salvation should fix up everything."
The misreading of scripture can sometimes blind us to reality.  If we feel that there are no resources to deal with troubles, we keep carrying our burdens; and increasing our guilt feeling that our faith must be weak or we should be doing better.
Some theologians imply that, in an instant work of grace, complete sanctification is possible; all sins, all burdens, all problems are gone.  But in the world I know best, it isn't so.  I long for it to be so, and there may yet be a large gap in my theology and experience.  But if there are problems, unless they are dealt with, they either create misery for everyone within reach or they are buried alive to fester.  Somewhere along the way they will need to be faced and dealt with.  If they are prematurely buried, they must be exhumed, dealt with, and then given a decent burial.  One can rightly face imperfections without feeling unloved by God.
Over the years at Bezek Centre we conducted what we called guided retreats.  The purpose was to help people find what was missing in their lives and leave behind stuff they didn't need to carry.  The groups were small, usually eight or ten, and we met for three days.  Assuring the retreatants that we had no interest in exposing anything they were not willing to deal with, we began by looking at variant readings of Psalm 139:23-24.  I call that David's dangerous prayer.  Different versions of the Bible indicate a diversity of things to be excavated.  "Search me O God and know my heart, try me and see if there be any:-"wicked way in me." (RSV) or "way of grief or pain." (Margin KJV) following any, "pernicious way." (Jerusalem) and, "if on any false paths my feet are set." (Knox) The Living Bible puts it so well, "See if there be anything in me that makes You sad, and lead me in the way everlasting."
By our permission, what the Lord might expose is sin patterns, corrosive attitudes, perversions, destructive habits, real or imagined guilt, occult practices, warped doctrine, or unhealed wounds.  We took our time, lovingly applying scripture and prayer as we went.  The retreat would usually end with a healing service in the context of Holy Communion.
Over the years we found that problems usually fell into one or more of six categories:-
The first was unforgiveness.  We looked at the story Jesus told of the Unforgiving Servant in Matthew 18.  Briefly, it's about a servant who owed his master a large sum of money.  He asked for and received forgiveness of his debt.  Shortly after that he saw a fellow servant who owed him a small sum.  Not giving the fellow servant time or grace, he had him thrown into debtors' prison.  Other servants, seeing what happened, reported back to the master who immediately called in the servant whom he had forgiven.  Knowing that the forgiven one had refused to forgive his fellow servant, the master had him given over to the torturers.  "So," said Jesus, "will my Heavenly Father do to you if you do not forgive your brother from the heart." (Matthew 18:35)
It is quite common for people to hang onto hurts and resentments, "keeping the wound green."  According to the Lord's prayer and the word in Matthew 18, God's forgiveness, although sought, will not find a resting place in the soul of the seeker until pride is broken and forgiveness is offered to an offender.  The theology is simple, the unforgiving have trouble receiving forgiveness.
The second area of difficulty arises as a result of people's involvement in occult practices.  If one wanders into spiritually dark places, the soul comes into a shadow.  Deuteronomy 18 lists things which were and are forbidden to believers.  A 20th century update of those things might include fortune telling, omens, attempts to contact the dead, palmistry, tarot cards, types of New Age meditation, astrology and ouija boards.  It is quite amazing the number of churches who sponsor yoga classes, whose Sunday School teacher brings to the class a ouija board, whose members believe in re-incarnation and look first for their daily horoscope in the newspaper.  Witchcraft is a credit course in some community colleges as are courses in the development of psychic skills.  We found that it is a freeing thing to renounce any involvement in occult practices, past or present; to ask forgiveness for that involvement, and claim the washing of the blood of Jesus over any area that may have been spiritually infected.  There sometimes needs to be a ministry of deliverance for those who have come into Satanic bondage because of participation in forbidden things.
The third area of difficulty is from binding relationships.  Many people are manipulated by others.  One uses soul force to bring another into ungodly submission, and a process of bullying, abuse, the imposing of imagined guilt; all bring people into bondage to one another.  People put hooks into people.  They say, "It's for your own good."  Parents can do it as can pastors, spouses, and siblings.  Others allow them to do it.  Out of laziness, fear, lack of courage, powerlessness or low self-esteem people are sexually, financially, emotionally or physically abused.  When people are unanchored in the truth of the Gospel, they often look for someone to tell them what to do and are vulnerable to cult influences.  Wrong marriages take place when one party, knowing things are not right, fears the anger of the other if postponement or breakup is suggested.  Good human relationships are between two nouns, not a noun and an adjective.
Moses commanded Pharaoh to, "Let my people go."  St. Paul warned that, "You are bought with a price, so glorify God in your body." (I Corinthians 6:20) Jesus said, "Whom the Son sets free is free indeed." (John 8:36) So if one in bondage comes for help, the truth of one's worth revealed by the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, can sever the bonds and set the prisoner free. (Hebrews 4:12) If one has brought another into bondage, there needs to be a relinquishing of that other, a hands-off policy and a godly love expressed instead of a smothering so-called love which is simply a means of control.
The fourth area of need is the healing of wounds.  Who has had a perfect childhood, an easy transition into puberty, a healthy growth into adulthood and all primary relationships positive?  Who has never suffered a trauma of one kind or another; a frightening experience, a major rejection, incessant teasing, a serious accident, debilitating sickness or verbal curse?  Nobody I know.  At the beginning of Jesus' public ministry in Nazareth, he read from Isaiah 61 which includes the mending of broken hearts, and the setting at liberty "them that are bruised." (Luke 18:4) Unhealed wounds from incidents in our past cause us to react unnaturally ti simple events which trigger the memories.  Still feeding poison into our system they cause us to respond irrationally in fear, anger, or withdrawal when ordinary life experiences rekindle memories of old hurts.
Inner Healing or the Healing of Memories is a valid ministry as we ask Jesus to gather in His arms, the wounded one and take from her the sting of the memory and absorb the hurt unto Himself.  As the prophet wrote of Him, "Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows." (Isaiah 53:4)
The fifth area which was often seen to create problems was unresolved grieving.  Unchosen change produces anger, and anger is one manifestation of grief.  It's that simple.  When someone dies, when a favorite store goes out of business, when a child's special woodland place becomes a subdivision or when a church splits, anger and grief result.  When it is not dealt with, the body systems have trouble adjusting to chemical changes.  A study made by the Rev. Ken Beale, one- time Chaplain at the Kitchener-Waterloo hospital, found an interesting correlation between unresolved grieving and diabetes.
To deal with grief, one needs to learn to grieve.  That sounds trite, but so often the bereaved are forbidden to cry, forbidden to lash out in frustration, and so they swallow their sorrow only for it to fester.  The medicine that best deals with grief is relinquishment; we dare not hold onto anything or anyone so tightly that losing it destroys us.  Death and loss are realities.  We need to respond from the depths of our being letting our reactions all hang out.  We are not to say to a grieving one maudlin things like, "It was God's will, she is an angel now." or "God wanted another star in heaven so He took her."  The scriptures help us to know that "Our times are in His hands."  Separation, loss and death, are all part of living in a fallen world that is groaning to see creation whole and all her people free.  The Holy Spirit the Comforter is too often under- employed when He could be ministering to the grieving, helping them to cry; helping them to sorrow adequately, helping them find peace.
Without exhausting the list we find the sixth thing which so often cripples a soul is having made a major mistake or committed a devastating sin.  It may have created an unwanted pregnancy.  It may have come as a bad choice of vocation, marriage partner or stock investment.  One may have chosen the wrong course at university or committed a foolish act that caused an accident with disfigurement or death resulting.  For some the reaction is, "Life is over."  Tragedies do happen, some as a result of our choices, some unbidden.
Don't let someone tell you that, "When life hands you a lemon, make lemonade."  That has limited power to heal.  God Himself has given us the remedy.  The Psalmist writes, "He redeems thy life from the pit."  (Sometimes translated destruction.)  (Psalm 103:4) Again he writes, "I waited patiently for the Lord; He turned to me and heard my cry.  He lifted me out of the slimy pit, out of the mud and mire; He set my feet upon a rock, and gave me a firm place to stand.  He put a new song in my mouth."  (Psalm 40:1-3 NIV) I am always reluctant to, too quickly, quote Romans 8:28 as a medicine for the recently bereaved.  "All things work together for good to them that love God and are called according to His purposes."  Though true, it takes time to see the fruit of that.  God is a redeeming God who takes the sins, the mistakes, the accidents, the tragedies of this life and makes of them a crown of loving kindness for those willing to wear it. (Psalm 103:4b)
Not all healing, not all restoration, not all acts of redemption are accomplished in a moment of time.  God has all the time He needs to accomplish His works in His way.  We do know that He is not embarrassed by His people's problems.  If we can avoid living a life of duplicity, denying the truth about ourselves, "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in the time of need." (Hebrews 4:16)
I'm all for experiencing every good thing that God has for His people.  I am aware that having a theological understanding of some of His ways, helps us avoid the trap of prescribing medicines that do not heal, or offering twisted counsel that complicates an already burdened life.  We do well to do as the Lord does, for, "The blessing of the Lord, it maketh rich, and He addeth no sorrow with it." (Proverbs 10:22)

Ten Years Later:  "Why I Stay"
by the Rev. Christine Jerrett

The man standing in my office was visibly upset.  "I've been a member of the United Church all my life," he said, "and today, for the first time, I am ashamed of it."  It was shortly after the "Sexual Orientation, Lifestyles and Ministry" report had come out from the National Office.  The morning's newspaper had reported a raid on a public washroom being used as a meeting place for homosexual liaisons.  Two United Church clergy had been arrested and charged.  The talk among the group that met every morning at the coffee shop had left this member of my congregation embarrassed, hurt, and angry.
Ten years later, in response to remarks made by the Moderator to the Ottawa Citizen in November 1997, people were saying similar things. Throughout the years, many people have felt called to leave the United Church.  Others of us have felt God calling us to stay.  The conditions under which we stay have meant that we have had to find resources to endure some very trying times (even as there were suggestions from some quarters that we should leave if we didn't like what was happening).
The first resource for enduring that I found came from the book of Jeremiah and Walter Brueggemann's reflections on events in Jeremiah's life.   Jeremiah's experiences helped to put into perspective what was happening in our denomination.  Jeremiah recognized a deep illness at the heart of the life of the people of Israel.  He told them that their culture was dying because they had been neglecting God and the things of God.  Many people had thought that obeying God was unimportant and that the scriptures were irrelevant to their day.  What hurt Jeremiah even more was that people did not seem to notice or care that they were in danger because they had been neglecting God and the things of God.  He was not sure whether they were stupid, blind or deliberately deceiving themselves.1  In the end, it did not matter.  Jeremiah had a message to preach and preach it he did. "This is what the Lord says, 'My people have committed two sins:  They have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water'."  (Jer. 2: 13)  He called for repentance and, when that call was not heeded, he proclaimed the dying of the culture and the systems within it.
The authorities responded as people in power often do when they are angry and afraid.  They first of all tried to convince people that, contrary to Jeremiah's perception of things, 'all is well' (Jeremiah 8: 4-12).  They denied that there were deep problems that were undermining the health of the community.  They tried to keep they system intact even when it had ceased to function (Jeremiah 26:1-11).
Refusing to deal with the real issues, they started attacking the prophet who was exposing them.  They accused Jeremiah of treason and disloyalty:  "If you expose the rottenness, you will cause the people to lose their courage."  "Your words weaken the entire enterprise."  (Jeremiah 38: 2-4).

When people in positions of power and authority feel threatened they try to:
* deny the hurt
* still the groans
* go on with business as usual2

Their aim is to keep things under their control. They want to keep everything neatly managed.  But the prophets are not fooled.  They continue to articulate the grief that is in the hearts of the people because they know that it is also the grief that is in the heart of God  (Jeremiah 9: 1-3).  They know that it is only as grief is acknowledged, articulated, and worked through within the community of faithful people, that the 'new thing' God is preparing can begin to emerge.
 In the tempest that developed after the 1988 General Council, there was a lot of rhetoric and propaganda swirling around.    The accusations that were being made against the dissenters sounded very much like the kinds of things the Temple priests had said against Jeremiah:  "Nothing has changed".  "The Community of Concern is contributing to the disunity of the Church".  "The energy being expended on this issue is causing us to neglect the 'real' mission of the church."  It helped me to recognize those comments for what they were- attempts to intimidate the opposition into silence.  And, it helped me to know that that is the kind of thing authorities say to protect themselves when they feel threatened and are trying to retain power.   It gave me perspective so that I didn't fall victim to their attempts at intimidation.

However, it also became apparent that the homosexuality issue was but a touchstone of a grievous sickness that had been in the United Church for a long time.  There had been complaints for years about the theological and biblical illiteracy of our members; about the low level of commitment shown by many people on our rolls; about the need for our denomination to reach out beyond its middle-class constituency.  The conflict around the sexuality issue was a symptom of a deeper malaise - a malaise which had left many of us ill-equipped to articulate what was wrong with the documents being produced by the National Office and General Council.  When people who disagreed with the direction that was being advocated were accused of being homophobic, they lacked the theological skills to counter that personal attack.   They knew something was amiss but they didn't know how to express it.
That lack of biblical and theological knowledge had been undermining the vitality of our congregations for years.  The conflict in 1988 exposed just how weak the foundations had become.  For many of us, the level of our discipleship had not been what it ought to have been.  The problem was not merely with a bureaucracy that was pursuing an agenda with which we  disagreed.  We, too, had neglected the things of God. We had not been good stewards of the 'mysteries of God' (1 Cor. 4:1) which had been entrusted to us.  The 1988 conflict was a wake-up call.
Again, Jeremiah was a guide to what needed to be done.  It was a time for mourning and for experiencing the judgment of God's grief over what we had become.  It would only be out of our confession and repentance that we would find the freedom to turn and embrace the 'new thing' which God was already creating in our midst.  The first few years after General Council 1990 adopted the "Membership, Ministry and Human Sexuality" were, for many of us, spent mourning and grieving.  Our beloved denomination was suffering great losses; many of our people were hurt, confused and demoralized.  Gradually, however, we moved into a period of self-examination and repentance.  This was difficult and painful work and certainly not very popular.  It wasn't what most of us wanted to be doing, but it was necessary.

The signs of God's Spirit already bringing new life to birth among us were beginning to appear.  They were small and tentative, but they were there for those who had eyes to see them and hearts to receive them. For me, those signs came from a common theme in a number of books I was reading.  These books were suggesting a 'new' way of being the Church.  Greg Ogden3 called it 'The New Reformation'.  Carl George talked about the Meta-Church ('meta' meaning 'change').4  Paul Stevens wrote about 'liberating the laity'5.  Harold Percy of Trinity Anglican Church in Streetsville, Ontario has spoken of 'mission-minded churches.'  Ephesians 4 was the passage that kept recurring in the literature.

"Christ gave gifts to humanity; he appointed some to be prophets, others to be evangelists, others to be pastors and teachers in order to prepare all God's people for the work of Christian service, in order to build up the body of Christ.  And so we shall ...become mature people, reaching to the very height of Christ's full stature.  Then we shall no longer be children, carried by the waves and blown about by every shifting wind of the teaching of deceitful people, who lead others into error by the tricks they invent.  Instead, by speaking the truth in a spirit of love, we must grow up in every way to Christ who is the head."  (Ephesians 4: 11-15)

   The books pointed out what many of us were already sensing:  the model of the Church by which most of our congregations operated was no longer working.  In that model, we assumed that ministry was something the ordered minister did.  The laity were there to support the ministry that the minister offered. The clergy were the stars; the laity were the supporting cast.
 This model resulted in clergy who were burning out from overwork and unrealistic expectations.  As well, many lay people felt there was no really challenging work for them to do in and through the church.  In fact, many capable and energetic people left for social agencies where they felt they could make a 'real' contribution.  To be fair, some laity were finding the work they were doing in and through their churches fulfilling and challenging.  They knew there was a lot of work that was being left undone because other people weren't participating at the level that had given these still-active members such satisfaction.  However, the reality was that people were leaving our churches in droves, giving their time and talents and money to other 'worthy causes'.
Greg Ogden, in The New Reformation traced the roots of the problem back to the Reformation.  The first Reformation had handed the scriptures back into the hands of the people in the pew.  It had also talked about the 'priesthood of all believers' but had fallen short of actually handing power over to the laity.
 The scriptures are quite clear- there are no 'laity' in the church.  Every member of the Body of Christ is a minister.  There are no spectators; everyone is a player.  God has given each member gifts of grace and a work to do- work that has as much dignity and value as the work the ordained ministers are doing.  Each member is to minister in Christ's name out in the world.
From the earliest beginnings of the church, some Christians were set apart and were given a special mandate within the church.  Their task was not primarily to minister in Christ's name out in the world (although they did that).  Their primary task was to nurture the community- to equip the saints within the church so that those saints were better able to take the light of Christ out into their places of work, play and into their homes.  Their 'orders' were to be exercised within the Church community so that that community could be out in the world in faithful ways.  Persons in ordered ministry are called to equip the other ministers in the congregation to do their ministry.  They are to help people identify their gifts and their calling, train and equip them to do that work, and then commission and support them in it.
The experience of many churches is that health, vitality, and enthusiasm returns to their congregations when they embrace this biblical model of ministry. Encouraged to follow the 'song in their heart'6, they discover new ways of reaching out to people who haven't yet heard the good news. People then find themselves in situations where their faith is challenged.  They learn to pray deep prayers because they need the presence of Jesus with them.  They are driven back to the biblical stories in order to find the strength and wisdom they need to be ministers in Christ's name. Growing in a vital relationship with the living Lord Jesus Christ, they bring more of themselves to worship and find more in worship than they had experienced before.

For a period of about five years, I took some time away from full-time ministry while my children were small.  During that time, I filled in at pastoral charges which were 'between ministers.'  As I learned more about the 'priesthood of all believers' and how that was being lived out in other congregations, I began asking that my contract with the pastoral charge include an opportunity to work out some of the ideas I was encountering.
The response of the congregations was always surprising.  People knew something was wrong in the Church.  Something was no longer working.  They could not keep their young; they could not attract new people; they themselves had spent many frustrating hours in meetings that seemed to go nowhere.  However, they were reluctant to give up what they had until they knew that there was something else that provided some promise and some hope.  They weren't going to change just because somebody said they needed to.  They needed something to which they could change.
Once they could see that there was a viable alternative way of being the Church, they were willing to give it a try.  They responded enthusiastically to the opportunity of being given more power and responsibility for the shape of the ministry in their congregation.   They were eager to receive training and guidance and support, especially once they found themselves in situations where they felt inadequate!  The energy that they gave to their work always left me awed.
I made a number of important discoveries.  The first was that I had a very hard time relinquishing the power and privilege that were part and parcel of the old style of ministry.  The first time a situation came up on the pastoral charge, my first reaction was, "How am I going to find the time to visit this person?"  Then, I remembered that we had put into place pastoral visitors with responsibility for the pastoral care for the people in their district.  I called the appropriate pastoral visitor and asked him to make the call.  He was willing to do that, even though the situation was somewhat awkward.  I realized it was far more important that he make the call- both for his own growth in discipleship and for the health of the congregation.  People needed to learn to relate to one another, not just through the minister, when it came to spiritual needs.  I knew all that in my head.  Doing that in practice meant I had to slow down my knee-jerk reaction to being 'the saviour'.  And then I had to overcome my feelings of guilt that I couldn't do everything that needed to be done.  I wouldn't be doing everything that people expected 'the minister' to do.  Ministry in this new model means a constant struggle against ego and guilt on the minister's part.7

The other thing I learned was that much of the literature about the 'new Reformation' comes out of the United States.  Their experience and advice does not translate easily into a Canadian context.  It just doesn't 'work' the way the books say it should.  There is a different mentality in Canadian mainline churches than in the States.  That was a blessing in disguise because it meant that I couldn't come into a situation as 'the expert', expecting people simply to implement this miraculous cure for their congregation's malaise.  I had to ask people to help me test out whatever resources we used.  They became part of the process of becoming a church of the New Reformation for the Canadian context.  People seemed to enjoy being in on the ground level of a new project.  Again, they were needed in a very real way; they weren't just recipients.

Tom Bandy, the National Office Officer for Congregational Mission and Evangelism has popularized many of the concepts of this new model.  He speaks about "Thriving Churches" and the changes that are needed to turn around the frightening rate of decline in our congregations.  The challenge that is ahead of us is two-fold:  1) the changes have to be made on a number of different levels and, 2)most congregations do not have a very high level of tolerance for the pain that that causes.   Worship, outreach, growth in Christian discipleship, organizational structures, pastoral care- they are all affected by the Ephesians 4 model of ministry.  Many people have looked to their church as a 'safe place' in the midst of the cultural shifts around them.  The push to keep things the way they are is strong among us.  It seems that the level of pain in a congregation has to reach a fairly high level before enough people are prepared to make the necessary changes.  Even then, it becomes very difficult to stay the course as people begin to 'long for Egypt' after a short time in the wilderness.  Again, resources for endurance must be found.

As the stress of change begins to be felt in the congregation, people inevitably begin to object.  Naturally, we long for peace.  We are tempted to stop the process of change so as not to offend too many people.  However, if we opt for peace rather than change, we very often choose to abandon our mission.
A number of years ago I helped at the funeral of an elderly woman who had left strict instructions with her daughter:  "Don't let anyone say at my funeral, 'Everyone liked her.'  If everyone likes you, it just means you haven't done anything significant with your life."  If we are going to do anything significant, we shall inevitably offend somebody.  We need to decide whom it is we are willing to offend. Up to this point, most congregations have been willing to offend outsiders, people on the fringe, rather than the core members.  Often, this is not done intentionally.  People do things the way they do them because it 'works' for them.  It requires a conscious decision to become aware of the people we are driving away because the way we do things is not comfortable for them.  The first step in making the change is to remember that the church never exists merely for itself.  It exists so that other people will hear and respond to the gospel.  We are called to sacrifice even our own comfort in order to make that happen.  Congregations that catch a vision of reaching out to their community with Christ's love and grace find that 'change' is a small price to pay to accomplish that God-given task.

It is foolish to attempt to make the journey through change alone.  Weariness, doubt, failure, uncertainty are part of the terrain.  The lone traveller will be overcome.  Community within the congregation becomes imperative.  However, such genuine community is hard to come by.  As Eugene Peterson says, "There is nothing we are less good at than loving."  People hold strong opinions about the way things are done.  They express them passionately and, inevitably, relationships are strained, feelings are hurt.  Congregations that are surviving and thriving are constantly learning how to be genuine communities- characterized by openness, forgiveness, support and a commitment to follow Jesus Christ above all else.
Ministers are also discovering the need for mutual support.  I could not have kept going the past ten years without a group of colleagues with whom I meet every other week.  We provide a safe place to vent our frustrations, check out our perceptions of what is going on, be challenged in our thinking, and be held up when we are weary.    It's hard to continue speaking the truth you know if you feel as if you are the only one who sees things that way.  We are constantly tempted to join Elijah in complaining to God, "Lord God Almighty, I have always served you- you alone.  But the people of Israel have broken their covenant with you, torn down their altars, and killed all your prophets.  I, only I, am left- and they are trying to kill me!"    We need to hear God tell us, "Quit your whining.  There are seven thousand people in alive in Israel who are loyal to me and have not bowed to Baal or kissed his idol.  Go find them."  (1 Kings 19)
One of the things that has sustained me in the past ten years is the times of meeting with some of those other 'seven thousand.'  Here and there, throughout the United Church, there are others who grieve and mourn for the condition of our congregations and our denomination.  They have not given up.  They are not willing to paint over the problem with shallow and illusory 'solutions'.  They hold fast to hope in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.  Some are involved in the formal renewal groups within the United Church.  Many are working diligently in their own congregations to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, bring people into vital relationship with Him, and create congregations that are signs and witnesses of the new work God is doing among us.  Each new controversy within the United Church seems to reveal that there are more of us than we had first thought.

William Stringfellow felt that we Christians could take some lessons from the French Resistance movement during World War II.  Shortly after the end of the war, Stringfellow spent some time in Europe among the nations that had suffered occupation.  Through a number of contacts, he became acquainted with many of the people who have been deeply involved in the Resistance.  Years later, he reflected on his conversations with them.  What struck him was that the Resistance consisted, day after day during the long years of Nazi occupation, of small efforts.  Each one, if regarded in itself, seemed too weak, too temporary, too trivial against the oppressive, pervasive presence of Nazism.  Some helped people escape; some circulated news; other hid fugitives; others obtained money or needed documents.  However, the Nazis were so powerful, efficient and brutal, that their small efforts seemed ridiculous.  They risked torture, imprisonment, death.  Still, many persevered, despite the hardship and apparent hopelessness of their cause. "Why did they do it?" asked Stringfellow.  He came to the conclusion that resistance became the only human way to live.  These people lived in the midst of a regime that wanted people to keep silent.  The only way to retain one's sanity and conscience was to resist in whatever small way one could, even if it seemed ineffective.8
The situations in which we live out our faith are not as dramatic but we hold on to our faith and we contend for the truth in much the same way.  We make the small efforts that are available to us, trusting that God will take all that we offer in His name, bless it and use it to create the new Church which is already emerging among us.
There are many signs of hope among us.  They help to make the journey easier.  However, in the end, the only reason to stay in the United Church is because God has called us to do so.  We do what He asks us to do.  The results are up to Him.
 
 
 
 
 

1 Brueggemann, Walter.  Hopeful Imagination:  Prophetic Voices in Exile.  Philadelphia:  Fortress Press, 1986, p. 32.
2 Brueggemann, Walter.  Hope within History, and Hopeful Imagination.

3 Ogden, Greg.  The New Reformation:  Returning the Ministry to the People of God.  Grand Rapids, Michigan:  Zondervan Publishing House, 1990.
4 George, Carl.  Prepare your Church for the Future,   Parrytown, New York:  Fleming H. Revell Co., 1991.
5 Stevens, R. Paul.  Liberating the Laity:  Equipping all the Saints for Ministry, Illinois:  Intervarsity Press, 1985.
6 Tom Bandy uses this phrase to describe the excitement that comes when people catch a vision of the work God has called them to do.
7 Eugene Peterson's books, especially Working the Angles, have been invaluable in keeping me clear as to what my work is.
8 Stringfellow, William.  An Ethic for Christians and Other Aliens in a Strange Land, p.119.
 

TWO VIEWS OF THE MODERATOR'S COMMENTS

Beliefs About Jesus and the Reality of Faith
Roger C. Hutchinson

In his 18 February 1990 sermon at Trinity-St. Paul's United Church in Toronto, Peter Wyatt told a story about villagers in the eastern Mediterranean who for generations have genuflected toward a plain, blank wall as they entered their church.  One day someone banged something into the wall and a piece of plaster fell off revealing coloured tile underneath.  When all the plaster had been carefully removed a beautiful mosaic of the Madonna and child was uncovered.  It had been plastered over to protect it during a time of persecution.
"People kept genuflecting toward the wall as their forbears had done before them, but the succeeding generations had ceased to know why.  Something happens over time to the blazing insights of the founders of a religion.  They get tamed and domesticated until they are common conventional wisdom.  They can even be lost in the accommodations and accretions of intervening time.  People still genuflect but they no longer know why." ("The New Morality as Taught by Jesus," in The Page That Fell Out of My Bible: Sermons 1990-1995, p. 1)
Peter's sermon was about situation ethics, and about Jesus' twofold emphasis on fulfilling, not abolishing, the law and the prophets and on adherence to the spirit as well as the letter of the law.  Beliefs about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit handed down from preceding generations and expressed in the creeds and the Basis of Union can become like the plaster wall.  If they are not continually questioned, they will lose their ability to point beyond themselves to the God whose reality will never be completely captured by our doctrines.  The balance between affirming received beliefs and being open to new interpretations can be threatened both when faith is denied and when doctrines are taken too literally.  When the Moderator said that he does not believe that Jesus is God, and that he does not know whether heaven and hell are physical places, he was not denying the faith.  The nature of the questions drew him into a situation in which he knocked some of the protective plaster off the real Jesus Christ behind the creeds.  Those questions gave him an unanticipated opportunity to reaffirm the reality of his faith in Jesus, and to challenge his critics to clarify what they thought he was denying and, therefore, what needed protection.
The tools Bill Phipps used to break down the protective plaster were gentle but sharp: honesty, respect for diversity, and a first-hand faith based upon his experience of the reality of God's transforming love.
When asked, "Is Jesus God?" he said, "No."  Had he said yes, he could have been accused of the Monophysite teaching that Jesus was all God and not human.  That view was rejected during the fifth century debates over the early creeds.  (A major source of confusion in subsequent discussions has been the tendency of critics and the media to equate the view that Jesus is not God with the conclusion that the Moderator denies the divinity of Jesus.  He has explained over and over again that Jesus reveals as much of God as is possible in human form, but he quite rightly insists that God is more than Jesus.)  Had he qualified his answer with an academic discussion of the difference between literal and metaphorical language, both his critics and the media would soon have lost interest.  It was his direct answer to a straightforward question that put a crack in the protective plaster and produced the current flurry of interest in his beliefs.  As this fascination with the Moderator's views matures into a revitalized discussion of the range of beliefs about God and Jesus actually affirmed (or taken for granted) by members and leaders of the United Church, it will be important to think about what diversity means and how it works in practice.
Some of the Moderator's critics admit that his views have been commonly held in theological circles for the past century, but they believe that he should not have shocked lay members by expressing such beliefs openly and publicly.  This reflects an inadequate understanding of diversity.  Theologically educated Christians are told not to speak openly about their beliefs because they will shock or upset believers who might disagree with them.  Ordinary church members, on the other hand, are reluctant to talk freely about what they really believe because they do not want to shock or upset the clergy!  This double dishonesty reduces religious beliefs to private little secrets that should not be talked about too openly.
Affirming traditional creeds without feeling free to discuss what one really thinks is like genuflecting towards the plaster wall without daring or bothering to ask why.  A further problem, as the Moderator explained in his interview in Maclean's, is that when traditional beliefs are reduced to literal fact they lose their power.  What Christians know is that after Jesus' death on the cross his followers experienced his presence and the power of a transforming love they were convinced was from God.  It is the continuing experience of that presence and power in our lives that continues to make the affirmation of these beliefs in creeds, songs and stories a satisfying part of the life of faith.

Two Doctrines/Two Faiths
David E. Demson

Roger Hutchinson, in the last issue of this Newsletter, describes what he thinks Bill Phipps' comments about Jesus have accomplished.  "Bill knocked some of the protective plaster off the real Jesus Christ behind the creeds."  According to Roger, Phipps espies the real Jesus Christ, while the creeds are plaster hiding the real Jesus Christ.
The difficulty I have with Roger's description is that it suggests that Phipps is speaking from a doctrine-free position.  In fact, Phipps introduces a doctrine, i.e., "Jesus is not God," to counter another doctrine, i.e., "Jesus is God."  What is at issue is the different faiths which these two different doctrines express.
Let us look at the second doctrine: Jesus is God.  The faith that expresses itself in this doctrine believes that Christian doctrine is a conceptualization of biblical narrative.  (Narrative here includes within it other genre: e.g., laws, wisdom, prayers.)  It reads the biblical narrative as the narration of God's identity as an Agent.  God is the One who came and comes to be with us as Jesus of Nazareth (by incarnation, not be metamorphosis) and in so doing God constitutes God's identity.
The doctrine of the other faith, which declares "Jesus is not God," holds "that god is more than Jesus."  Note Roger's quantification.  Here we are not in the realm of narrative, but of ideas.  It is neo-Platonism that quantifies God and thinks of some entities as more God and some as less god in a great chain of being.  In thinking of God in this quantitative way, God is no longer regarded as Agent–as in the biblical material–but rather as being and power.
Now, it may be that neither Bill nor Roger wish to be identified with this latter faith.  (Or, perhaps they do.)  But that is where Roger's article places them.
Roger also speaks of "literal fact."  But this is a category confusion.  "Fact" refers to a phenomenon.  "Literal" refers to a literary genre.  A literal text is a text which is not allegorical.  There are many literal texts, for example most novels, which make no claim to facticity.
Allegory, which Roger seems to mean by his use of "metaphor," aligns itself with metaphysics–quite easily with the metaphysics of neo-Platonism.  So, it fits quite well with the faith that expresses itself in the doctrine that "Jesus is not God."  Here, the story of Jesus is the allegorical tale of a saviour figure who represents real salvation–the power of being within each of us.  A literal narrative, which is to be read at face value, is one well suited to the description of a specific agent enacting its specific identity.  Literal identity description fits well with the faith that expresses itself in the doctrine that "Jesus is God."  The Bible is taken to be the narrative which depicts God enacting God's specific identity.
The two faiths, then, have two quite different Gods.  The "Jesus is God" faith holds that God is Agent.  And because this Agent, who is different from us, becomes one of us in deepest humility, lowliness in self giving is this God's very nature.  The New Testament uses the word agape here.
The "Jesus is not God" faith does not believe in God as Agent–lowly, humble Agent–but as being and power.  God is not humble and lowly, for this God does not do anything at all.
Finally, Roger says that to say "Jesus is God" is the monophysite heresy.  But the great Christological Council which repudiated monophysitism, Chalcedon, specifically confessed "Jesus Christ is true God."  Of course, it also confessed that "Jesus Christ is true human."  One is only monophysite if one affirms only the first phrase and not also the second.
My description of the current situation is very different from Roger's.  But, he may appreciate this description for he is quite familiar with the recent work in theology which informs it.

Bonhoeffer For a New Day: Theology In A Time Of Transition. John W. De Gruchy, Editor. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1997, 378 pages ($30.00).
Reviewed by Andrew J.B. Stirling

Gazing across the turbulent waters that lie between Robben Island and the city of Cape Town, participants at the 7th International Bonhoeffer Congress asked the question: Are we still of any use?  This question was particularly timely because Bonhoeffer's writing on costly discipleship and free responsibility as well as his own opposition to Hitler, profoundly inspired those who resisted Apartheid.  In the wake of the dramatic changes that have swept that country, the participants asked the inevitable question: Are the teachings of Bonhoeffer able to contribute to the period of transition and reconstruction?  Also, are those who challenged Apartheid's status quo able to draw from his theological experience and thus play a constructive role in the new day which is dawning?  It is precisely this quest which is at the heart of De Gruchy's work–a collection of 22 essays presented at the Congress.
The book, however, is not simply a product of introspection on the part of South Africans, it is an anthology of writings representing divers backgrounds.  In each case the writer was asked to reflect on the application of Bonhoeffer's theology within his or her own context, ever asking the question: Is he of any use?
Divided into three sections, ‘Christianity in a world come of age', ‘Responsible freedom' and ‘Political witness in the Oikumene', the editor managed to draw the eclectic selections into cohesive subjects.  Indeed, the broad scope of the essays reflects the pervasive influence of Bonhoeffer's writings, and the fact that his views are so eloquently applied to current situations answers the very question which the book poses.
As in all collections, some essays inspire and inform the reader while others stimulate controversy.  It is no coincidence, therefore, that the most contentious paper is the first in the book.  Chung Hyung Kyung, a self described ‘Asian eco-feminist postmodern liberation theologian' addresses Bonhoeffer's theology in the form of a letter written to him.  Through this method she examines Bonhoeffer through the lens of her own experience and tries to reconstruct his views for the context in which she lives.  One is left at the end of her paper seriously questioning her sense of his usefulness, for he comes across as simply a relic of the past, a man ‘too embedded in traditional western doctrines of Christ....and too European, male and orthodox.'  Chung's paper, therefore, tells us more about her than it does about Bonhoeffer and highlights the widening gap between the Christocentric Theology of orthodoxy and the universal unitarianism of many deconstructionists.  However, the essay stimulates the reader to determine for themselves whether dead writers can speak to the ‘new day' or force us to jettison the past in favour of what Kenneth Hamilton condemns as the obsession with the ‘perennially new'.
Chung's views are rarely supported by other writers, however Alias Bongma draws on some of her ideas by searching the depths of Bonhoeffer's theology in an attempt to validate the new pluralism at work in Africa.  He contends that Bonhoeffer's concept of the ‘other' is a call to embrace people's differences and thereby correct Africa's often ethnically driven ‘one party demagoguery.'  Unlike Chung, however, he comes to his conclusions through Bonhoeffer rather than in spite of him.
The essdays which follow endeavour to show that far from being outmoded, some of Bonhoeffer's ideas are still relevant and even timeless.  Peter Selby of Durham, England, sees the relevance of Bonhoeffer's humiliated Christ as a call to discipleship, for in Christ we find a bridge between a culture (which Selby sees as becoming increasingly materialistic) and those whom culture has rejected.  He sees the humiliated Christ redefining our concepts of the ‘other' and ‘us' and by doing so, allows us to embrace those whom our culture easily discards.  This theme is picked up elsewhere.  Alejandro Zorzin deals with the issue of human rights and the Jewish question and points out that unlike many of his compatriots (even in the Confessing Church), Bonhoeffer was concerned with bringing the plight of the Jews to the forefront of ecclesiastical discussions.  Furthermore, he wanted to put a ‘spoke in the wheel' of a Nazi state which was arbitrarily determining who the ‘other' and the ‘us' were.  For Zorzin, this has implications for the way in which Latin American societies create ‘victims' and treat the poor in the same way that the Nazis dealt with the Jews.
It is the south African writers, and De Gruchy in particular, who engage the issue of the ‘Church for others' with the greatest clarity.  What is clear from Pityana, Cochrane, Botman and De Gruchy is thaat Bonhoeffer's concept of ethical responsibility freed South Africans from the constraints of the absolutist ethics of Dutch Reformed Calvinism which provided the foundation for Apartheid.  However, contemporary South Africans are not free from the anxiety of wondering where this new freedom will lead.  For example, they question whether the Church in the new South Africa should merely retreat into a bunker of religious isolationism and once again become a ‘real' Church or still engage the political issues of the day.  Clearly, the writers believe the latter but they do with an almost myopic concern for social policy.  De Gruchy, however, restores a balance between the imperative of political change and the need for a more encompassing devotional life by drawing on the fullness of Bonhoeffer's theology and the profound spirituality manifested in Life Together.  He does so by pointing to Bonhoeffer's commitment to the Word and Sacraments and the fact that the concreteness of his political action came from his spiritual devotion.  The strength of the other three essays is the way they deal with political issues, but their weakness is a lack of truly contextual theology and how this manifests itself concretely in the daily lives of Christian congregations in the affluent suburbs of Johannesburg or the decimated villages of the old Transkei.
Of particular interest to North American Christians if Geffrey Kelly's essay, ‘Bonhoeffer's critique of freedom in the United States.'  Kelly rightly points to the errors of America's love of civil religion which Bonhoeffer observed during his sojourn in the United States, and its propensity to allow consumerism, racism, violence and the marginalization of the poor.  He is also correct in implying that the Gulf War Crisis in 1991 constituted a moment worthy of a status confessionis–a position taken by a number of American preachers at that time.  He goes beyond the boundaries of reason, however, by equating the Republican Party's ‘Contract with America' with the oppression that Bonhoeffer faced.  Nevertheless, there is much for western theologians to gain from heeding Kelly's warning that ‘the churches have yet to shake completely loose from their secularized patrons and their alliances with the affluent.'
A more innovative perspective on Church/State relations comes from the eloquent paper by Jean Bethke Elshtain.  Drawing from Bonhoeffer's view of the state and sovereignty, she produces a tripartite argument by showing that while being a product of modernity, Bonhoeffer was always uncomfortable with its claims of autonomy from God.  His concern with the ‘apostasy of the western world from Jesus Christ' is manifested in the unwillingness of human beings to see themselves as creatures as well as creators.  By tracing the routes of state sovereignty to the sovereignty of God, Elshtain establishes the foundation for her final point, that Bonhoeffer's views lay between ‘state idolatry' and ‘state diabolization'.  It is from this vantage point that Christians are free either to support the state or vigorously to oppose it, precisely because they are called to recognize the ultimate sovereignty of God.  This sovereignty, however, is not manifested in a series of absolute laws, but in a faithfulness to Christ which allowed Bonhoeffer the freedom to put a ‘spoke in the wheel' of the Nazi state–a position seemingly contradictory to his overall pacifism.  As Elshtain points out, Bonhoeffer's views are quite orthodox for he believed that theological liberalism does not afford us this freedom ‘for it conceded to the world the right to determine Christ's place in the world.'
Similarly impressive is the work of Ralf Wustenberg in which he deals with Bonhoeffer's Tegel Theology.  He places particular emphasis on his ‘non religious' interpretation of history–an area of his work often misunderstood and which led to the God-is-dead theology of the 1960's.  Wustenberg feels that the Christological centre of Bonhoeffer's works has been ignored and that his view of religion became critical and ‘a'-religious precisely because he saw faith in Christ as involving the whole of one's life, rather than being a simple religious act.  The writer claims that Bonhoeffer drew on the philosophy of Dilthey and the theology of Karl Barth and that he saw life as the experience of being both joyful and of sharing the sufferings of Christ in the world.  This is a life that embraces the disciplina arcana (the discipline of the secret) which leads believers to see the imperative of living for others.
As with any anthology, the reader is left with glimpses of Bonhoeffer through varied eyes.  While not exhaustive, they provide a pericope through which we can interpret him in our time.  Unfortunately, the scope of some of the papers is sometimes limited by the obsessions of our age as Bonhoeffer is seen solely as a devotee of a particular political position and one which leads to the implication that the world is redeemed through our efforts.  This is contrary to Bonhoeffer's own warning to the Church in Letters and Papers, "We are certainly not Christ; we are not called to redeem the world by our own deeds and suffering, and we need not try to assume such an impossible burden.  We are not lords, but instruments in the hand of the Lord of history."  It is my contention that Bonhoeffer would be critical of both the political Left and the Right and that he would address issues of environmental destruction, abortion, euthanasia, materialism, capital punishment and the lack of Christology in much of modern liberal theology with equal vigour.  While some of these issues were addressed briefly in these essays, we must eagerly await the next Bonhoeffer Congress when these key issues facing the twenty first century will be dealt with.  Nevertheless, this book goes a long way to showing that Bonhoeffer will no doubt be a viable prophet in the new millennium, thus answering the question: Is he still of any use?

Richard Noll, The Aryan Christ: The Secret Life of Carl Jung (Random House, 1997) and
Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and The Politics of Truth, (Baker, 1996),
reviewd by Don Faris

Before you read Richard Noll's The Aryan Christ, you should know that Noll is a clinical psychologist and a lecturer in the History of Science at Harvard and his previous book, The Jung Cult, won the 1994 Best Book of Psychology Award from the Association of American Publishers.  I say this because when you read The Aryan Christ you very well may be deeply shaken!
We live in an age of psychological reductionism.  Theological statements are regularly reduced to psychological statements.  Psychologists, psychiatrists, and counsellors have become the priests, confessors, and spiritual guides of this age.  Two of the High Priests of this secular religion are Sigmund Freud and Carol Gustav Jung.  While Freud appeared to be antireligious (see Paul Vitz, Sigmund Freud's Christian Unconscious (Eerdman's 1988), on the surface Jung appeared to be religious and therefore an ally of Christianity.
Some ally!  Noll traces the roots of Jung's thought back to the occultism, mysticism and racism of nineteenth century German culture.  He reveals the roots of Jung's advocacy of polygamy and his affairs with his female patients and disciples.  He reveals Jung's neo-paganism and polytheism; his anti-Semitism and support of the Nazis, and his pivotal visionary experience of being the reborn lion-headed god from an ancient cult!  In other words–Jung was one sick puppy!
You may ask how Jung has influenced the liberal mainline churches?  That is why I recommend you also read Jeffrey Satinover's Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth after you read Noll's book.  Chapter 16, "The Pagan Revolution" is worth the price of the book.  Satinover very clearly and very briefly lays out the Gnostic neo-pagan roots of the sexual ideology of liberal North Americans and Jung's disciples within the churches.  And what are Satinover's credentials?  As well as holding degrees from MIT, the University of Texas, and Harvard, he is former Fellow in Psychiatry and Child Psychiatry at Yale University and a past president of the C.G. Jung Foundation.

Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths. By Karen Armstrong, N.Y.: Ballantine Books, 1997, 471 pages.
Reviewed by Frank Lockhart

I looked forward to reading this book because of the perennial importance of Jerusalem to us–for many reasons–and because of the author's intent to treat this city thoroughly as a focus of faiths.  I was not disappointed.  The work has been very rewarding both on my first reading and in my return to it–which it both demands and warrants.
Most of us know something of the Jerusalem story including, for example, the building of Solomon's temple, the conquest by Babylon, and the destruction in 70 A.D. by Rome.  And we are conscious of Jerusalem's place in mid-east tensions today.
Armstrong reminds us that Jerusalem's intense but checkered career began early.  It had a considerable history before becoming central to Judaism.  And she adds so much detail to that with which we are more familiar.  For example, here she describes the Romans' destruction of the temple:
 And so, when the Roman troops finally broke into the inner courts of the Temple on 28 August, they found six thousand Jewish Zealots waiting to fight to the death.  The Greek historian Dio Cassius (d. 230) says that the Jews defended themselves with extraordinary courage, deeming it an honor to die in the defense of their Temple.  Right up to the end they observed the purity laws, each fighting in his appropriate place and despite the danger, refusing to enter forbidden areas....Finally they saw the Temple catch fire, and a terrible cry of horror arose.  Some flung themselves onto the swords of the Romans, others hurled themselves into the flames.  (152)
And she informs about areas of Jerusalem's history especially important to the biblical background and about which we are largely ignorant.  For example, this is a brief excerpt about the Hellenizing of Jerusalem under the Greeks in the inter-testimental period:
 But Jerusalem could not become a polis overnight.  A significant number of the citizens had to be sufficiently versed in Greek culture to become Hellenes before the democratic ideal could be imposed on the city.  As an interim measure, Jason probably had leave to establish a society of "Antiochenes," who were committed to the Hellenizing project.
   (111)
And we learn much about the dynamics within Judaism just prior to the time of Jesus.  For example:
 The stillness in the Temple courts was almost eerie.  "So great is the silence everywhere that one would suppose that there was no one in the place," Aristeas observed, "although the priests number seven hundred and they who bring the victims to the Temple are many; but everything is one with awe and reverence for its great sanctity."
 But not all the Jews of Judea shared this admiration.  They were all passionately attached to the Temple, but a significant number of people felt that the Hasmoneans had damaged its integrity.  These difficult years had led to the emergence of three sects in Jerusalem; they involved only a small percentage of the total population but were extremely influential. [Saducees, Essenes and Pharisees] (120)
About two hundred pages are devoted to the history of Jerusalem from the time of Christ to the present.  Sad to say and worthy of reflection, the long-term Christian involvement with Jerusalem tends to be a disgrace to us while that of Islam is more noble and generous.
Throughout her work Armstrong struggles with the intense attraction of Jerusalem as a special piece of geography.  Here she is describing the effect on Christians of the discovery of the holy sepulcher:
 Yet Christians had thought that they were above this type of piety.  They had proudly proclaimed that theirs was a purely spiritual faith that was not dependent upon shrines and holy places.  Their startling response to the discovery of the tomb shows that the myths of sacred geography are deeply rooted in the human psyche.  (183)
Similar, of course, is the importance of the Temple Mount to Islam.  And this unique attraction of Jerusalem for modern Judaism is indicated in her account of his first encounter by a prominent Jew, A.S. Hirshberg in 1901, with the Wailing Wall:
 Walking through the Maghribi Quarter, he felt ill at ease and out of place.  But as soon as he stood before the Western Wall and took the prayer book offered him by the Sephardic beadle, he started to weep uncontrollably.  He was in shock, he recalled later, touched to the depths of his being: "All my private troubles mingled with our nation's misfortunes to form a torrent."  (367)
Because of this intense attraction of Jerusalem as sacred place for so many diverse groupings, Armstrong does not end her study on an optimistic note.
It is her treatment of Jerusalem as sacred place that is both the strength and weakness of her work.  Wishing to be inclusive of all religion in her treatment, she deals with the unique attraction of Jerusalem in terms of "the old myths" which "could reach to a deeper, less rationally articulate level of the soul" and of archeology as "itself a powerful symbol of the quest for psychic healing." (p. 406)
Her approach, which draws heavily on the social sciences and the study of "religion," has its value and is perhaps what is to be expected in such an overview.  But it leaves one unsatisfied, asking how adequately revelation, with the difficult questions it involves, has been treated in all this.

The Marriage of Sense and Soul, Ken Wilber. New York, Random House, $32.00 Can.
The Religion of Technology, David F. Noble. New York, Alfred A. Knopf, $36.00 Can.
Reviewed by Victor H. Fiddes

It would be difficult to find three words used more freely today than the words technology, science and religion.  The above writers have a field day with all three.  Both books are about marriage, albeit not the marriage of male and female.  In the case of Wilber the marriage is of science and religion.  In Professor Noble's book the marriage is that of technology and Christianity.  Both are in trouble.  In Wilber's book the marriage is capable of a happy ending.  In Noble's scenario the thing should be dissolved.  What both writers share is a jaded liberalism which refuses to face the devastating fact of sin.  Both agree that all is not well in human relationships but Wilber would remedy the situation by contemplation.  Noble would alter "the ideological basis of the whole system", bringing man "down to earth" where he belongs.
First, Sense and Soul.  My trouble with Wilber began at the opening paragraph where he harnesses science with Truth and religion with Meaning.  (He is great for capitalization.)  "Science tells us what is", he declares.  Atoms, molecules and data bits are factual.  But they don't seem to have much meaning in and of themselves.  That's where religion comes in.  Unfortunately "We still cannot figure out how to get the two of them together."  What conceivable meaning, however, can religion have (I'm asking this, not Wilber) unless it too is anchored in Truth?  If science possesses Truth why does it need meaning?  He seems to be confusing facts and truth.
Wilber's field is psychology, and he feels at home in the field of paradigm.  His observations on Thomas Kuhn were helpful.  I felt that his competence in physics was compromised when he observed that "molecules have simple location.  You can put your finger right on them–more or less"!  Actually Wilber has more interest in the application of science than the theory.  Science has given us "Modernity" - a blessed word.  By modernity he means "the liberal democracies, the ideals of equality, freedom and justice, regardless of race, class, creed, or gender; modern medicine, physics, biology and chemistry; the end of slavery; the rise of feminism, and the universal rights of humankind."  To these achievements religion must now relate itself and give meaning.
How?  By synthesis.  "If we cannot find a core of the world's great religions, then we will never find an integration of science and religion."  (Italics  mine)  Religious experiences, however, are not completely subjective.  There is data for a genuinely scientific investigation of the spirit world.  We find it in "The Great Chain of Being" - the Great Nest of matter, body, mind, soul and spirit which must now be unified in terms acceptable to science.  The Kosmos and the soul must fuse.  Contemplation can achieve this.
As in Professor Noble's book the Index in The Marriage of Sense and Soul is revealing.  There is no reference to Jesus Christ.  On page 6 there is passing mention of "a fundamentalist Christianity."  "Most fundamentalists", we are told, "are refusing to grow up cognitively."  There are many references, however, to Buddhism, the Zen variety providing the key to contemplation.
I rather imagine that biblical scholars and theologians of repute will abide the omissions of this book, grateful that Christianity has been left out of this collage of religiosity.  Apparently, however, there are eminent scholars who do not share my negative impressions.  The blurbs on the back of the jacket include the praises of Deepak Chopra who says that Ken Wilber is "one of the most important pioneers in the field of consciousness in this century."  And the observation of Houston Smith that "No one–not even Jung–has done as much as Wilber to open Western psychology to the durable insights of the world's wisdom traditions."
When I discover, however, that among the dozen books which Wilber has written one of them is entitled A Brief History of Everything I cannot help but wonder at his qualifications to write about sense and soul.
David Noble, professor of History at York University, is a little more specific about both technology and religion.  He uses the word technology in the sense in which Jacob Bigelow of Harvard discussed it a century ago at the opening of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology which, at his suggestion, had adopted the new term for its name.  Paying homage to "the mighty mind of Bacon" Bigelow boasted that modern man has "acquired a dominion over the physical and moral world which nothing but the aid of philosophy would have enabled us to establish...Next to the influence of Christianity on our moral nature...technology has had a leading sway in promoting the progress and happiness of our race."  Thus interrelated Christianity and technology, far from being opposed to each other, have been mutually supportive.
Considering this relationship from the historian's point of view Noble draws an impressive sketch of the impact of the Christian church on the culture of the past millennium, the defining mark of the integration emerging in the Middle Ages.  In Part 1, "Technology and Transcendence", we see the Christian faith evolving into a Christian humanism which, circumventing the fall of Adam, restores man to his prelapsarian stance and promises to fulfil his millennial hopes of a new heaven and a new earth here below.  To this scenario the biblical prospects of premillennarian and postmillennarian hopes and fears are attached, together with the nightmare of an Armagedden which the science and technology of the twentieth century can now bring to reality.  The nightmare itself is detailed in part 2–"Technologies of Transcendence".  Nuclear physics (its development was by deeply religious people like Wernher van Braun). NASA (the conquest of outer space was made by decent WASPS like John Glenn), the promise of Artificial Intelligence (Alan Turing's atheism was probably a pose.), the genetic deconstruction of man (Crick and Watson fused God and chemistry) combine to achieve this end.  Chapter 10, "The Measuring Mind", lays the basis for a mathematical calculation of reason which imposes the computer mentality on a human brain devoid conceptually of the influence of a transcendent God.  One does not feel comfortable after reading what Professor Noble says in Chapter 11 about "Powers of Perfection".
For all its scholarship there is a remarkable hiatus in the scope of this book.  How a historian of Noble's stature can survey the two thousand year's story of the Christian church and ignore the element of faith which is central to the gospel is something of a mystery.  It simply isn't good enough for scholarship to attach the label of "collective myth" to the faith reality that has had such a colossal impact on culture.  Why in the index of a book comprehensive enough to cover everything from ADA deficiency to Francis Yates is there no mention of John Calvin, Karl Barth or C.S. Lewis?  Should Martin Luther be dismissed with the observation that he "revived the apocalypse as a pattern of history"?  That such omissions and glosses are intentional is shown by the fact that the twentieth century's leading interpreter of technology, the late Jacques Ellul, is ignored except for the observation that he "echoed Augustine's view of technology existing for man in his fallen state."  What if both Augustine and Ellul are dead right in their view that man's estrangement from God has something to do with the human predicament?  Is it realistic for scholarship to ignore the "givens" of the gospel because they challenge the positivism of Auguste Comte or the expectations of Lewis Mumford?
Professor Noble concludes his fascinating survey with the assertion that "the thousand year convergence of technology and transcendence has outlived whatever historical usefulness it might once have had...Transcendence is a wrong-headed solution."  Noble's solution?  "As our technological enterprise assumes ever more awesome proportions, it becomes all the more essential to decouple it from its religious foundation."  Noble's closing sentence: "Such an undertaking demands defiance of the divine pretensions of the few in the interest of securing the more mortal necessities of the many, and presupposes that we disabuse ourselves of our inherited other–worldly propensities in order to embrace anew our one and only earthly existence."  The assumption here seems to be that man must now overcome his attachment to the vertical in order to satisfy the horizontal dimension of life.  "The revolutionary step would be to bring men down to earth."  What assurance is there, however, that if man ignores God above he will better serve "the world's poor"?  While reading Noble's politics of perfection I recalled Professor George A. Lindbeck's chilling observation that "traditionally Christian lands when stripped of their historic faith are worse than others.  They become unworkable."

Simon Wiesenthal, The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness,
revised and expanded edition, New York: Schocken Books, 1997, 271 pp.

Reviewed by Paul Miller
 

 In January, 1999, a Christian missionary to the lepers of India and his two young sons were incinerated in the Jeep in which they slept by radical Hindu militants. His wife was quoted as saying, "I am terribly upset, but I am not angry. Jesus has taught us to forgive our enemies."
 What are the proper limits of forgiveness? In a new and expanded edition of his powerful autobiographical tale, The Sunflower, Simon Wiesenthal raises just this question.
 While imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp, Wiesenthal was selected to go to the bedside of a 21-year old SS soldier named Karl. Karl had been mortally wounded and was near death. He begged the young Wiesenthal to sit and listen to him as he confesses his part in the gruesome murder of innocent Jews. One episode haunts him: his unit herded 300 Jewish men, women and children into a building, doused it with gasoline and set it on fire. The SS, including Karl, ringed the building with machine guns, shooting any who tried to leap to safety. On his deathbed, Karl is tormented by the image of one small boy held in his father's arms. Engulfed in flames, they jumped to their deaths.
 Karl asks Simon to forgive him in the name of his Jewish victims. Before he dies, he must clear his conscience -- to a Jew. In The Sunflower, Wiesenthal turns the question on his readers and asks, "What would you have done?"
 Wiesenthal chose not to forgive Karl. He left his room in silence. Afterwards, his decision gnawed at him. Was he right to deny a dying man his last wish, even if that dying man was a member of the SS? On the other hand, would it not have been criminal to offer forgiveness in the name of innocent victims?
 Wiesenthal discussed his problem at length with his fellow-prisoners. Josek, his friend, says, "I was afraid you had really forgiven him. You would have no right to do so in the name of people who had not authorized you to do so." Bolek, a Polish Catholic and student for the priesthood before his arrest, said that if the SS man's repentance was sincere, Simon should have forgiven him.
 More than twenty years after the end of the War, Wiesenthal's dilemma still bothered him. He wrote to many of the leading intellectuals of the day, asking them the question: Did I do the right thing? What would you have done in my circumstances? Later, in the 1990s, a second group was asked to respond to this most difficult moral problem. Wiesenthal's story plus their responses make The Sunflower.
 All respondents naturally acknowledged the dreadful dilemma that Wiesenthal faced at Karl's deathbed, on the very outer limits of human morality. For the most part, they explore the connection between forgiving and forgetting. Any expression of forgiveness must not attentuate the obligation to remember the atrocities of the Nazis so they do not happen again.
 Two responses, not necessarily the most eloquent or profound, highlight for me the competing understandings of forgiveness with which we must grapple.  The critic and essayist Jean Amery, himself a death camp survivor, writes from the vantage point of an atheist. Forgiveness, he says, has two aspects, one psychological, the other political. The psychological aspect is "nothing more than a question of temperament or feeling." What is really involved on a personal level is how Wiesenthal felt afterwards. If he had forgiven the man, the most that would have happened is that Karl would have died in peace rather than torment, and Wiesenthal himself would have felt that he had done something charitable. However, forgiveness in this sense is ultimately irrelevant because it has no substance apart from subjective feeling. Whether he forgave him or not is of no consequence because forgiveness has only a sentimental meaning.
 Politically, Amery says, the question of forgiveness is also irrelevant. The only issue of importance is that what happened at the hands of the Nazis must never be allowed to happen again; and to that end there can be no question of reconciliation with criminals. Amery deals with forgiveness from the point of view of someone who has rejected God and any "metaphysics of morals."
 Fr. Edward Flannery, an American Roman Catholic priest, not surprisingly expresses a very different view. "The ultimate question posed in The Sunflower is whether the fundamental norms of ethics and morality are exceptionable in certain difficult circumstances." His reply is that they are not and that one is bound to forgive the sincerely repentant, no matter how heinous his crimes. While Flannery and Amery are diametrically opposed to each other, their responses are based on a common conviction that apart from belief in God, forgiveness loses its meaning.
 Many of the respondents, including several Christian theologians, argue that had Simon forgiven Karl, it would have been a betrayal of all victims of the Nazis and a trivialization of their suffering. The Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse writes that "the easy forgiving of such crimes perpetuates the very evil it wants to alleviate." But had the issue been framed only in such general and collective terms, Wiesenthal's choice would have been easy. Of course he could not offer absolution for Nazi atrocities against all Jews. As Edward Flannery points out, though, that is not what was being asked of him. Karl did not ask him to speak abstractly for all Jews. "The situation was interpersonal."
 Christian forgiveness is profoundly interpersonal. That is why it is so often misunderstood. We prefer to deal in abstractions that permit us to avoid the concrete reality of persons. And so we will frame questions of the possibilities and limits of forgiveness, or other ethical dilemmas, in theoretical terms. But forgiveness is not an abstraction; it is an interpersonal event. It is this fact that weighed so heavily on Wiesenthal's conscience and, in my opinion, constitutes the real challenge of his dilemma. Try as he might, he could not evade Karl's irreducible humanity, and it was that humanity that, disturbingly, bound them together. Several times, Simon writes that he was on the point of leaving Karl's bedside during his confession. After all, Karl embodied all of the evil of a monstrous regime that had wiped out Simon's family and would soon, he was convinced,  murder him. He recoiled in horror at even being in the same room as this Nazi. And yet he could not escape the realization that they were two human beings, thrown together by circumstances, being made essentially of the same stuff.
 One small episode, breathtaking in its simple profundity, illustrates their connectedness. A fly buzzes around Karl's bandaged head. Simon brushes it away. "Thanks" says Karl. "For the first time," Simon writes, "I realized that I, a defenceless subhuman, had contrived to lighten the lot of an equally defenceless superhuman, without thinking, simply as a matter of course." The significance of Wiesenthal's tale, missed by many of his respondents, was the dreadful inescapability of their common lot.
 How did the Nazis succeed in mobilizing an entire nation against the Jews? Was it not by using fear and propaganda to obliterate their humanity and reduce them to a nameless, faceless collective? When they killed Jews, they were not killing human beings with whom they had anything in common, but alien creatures. Only by severing that common thread of humanity could the Final Solution even be imagined. On his deathbed Karl repented of his cruelty, but it seems clear to me that he repented of a deeper crime -- failing to regard the Jew as human like him. To atone, he asked to spend his final hours in the company of a Jew, holding his hand, talking to him, confessing his guilt.
 Our instinct is to "collectivize" people, to submerge individual humanness behind labels -- "Jew", "Nazi", "SS." The Sunflower stubbornly sabotages this instinct, even when it is applied in righteous outrage on behalf of the victims of torture and genocide. The demonizing and dehumanizing of "the other" is a story that is played out to this day - - in Bosnia and Rwanda, in the Middle East and Northern Ireland. We will do whatever we can to avoid seeing what we have in common with our enemies.
 This is not, of course, to excuse or diminish the crimes that were committed by Karl and the Nazis. The Holocaust was a crime against heaven. It must not be forgotten, and where still possible, the guilty must be brought to justice.
 But surely the only way we will transcend the seemingly endless cycle of human barbarity will be to discover our essential humanness. The Sunflower opens with a Jewish legend, that man was made out of a clod of earth soaked with the tears of the angels. "Were truly all made of this same stuff?" Wiesenthal asks -- murderers as well as victims?
 Genuine forgiveness is such a frightening gesture because it threatens to restore community, and forces both forgiver and forgiven to acknowledge their common ground.  And is that not what the Gospel teaches? The paradigmatic forgiveness which Christ pronounced from the Cross, does it not make us see that all of us stand in the same place before God? There is not a human being who does not deserve God's condemnation; and there is not a human being for whom divine forgiveness is anything but a free and undeserved gift. We all exist on a continuum of guilt. Jesus surely taught this when he said that those who lash out angrily at another are as liable to the fires of judgment as those who commit murder. We comfort ourselves with our distinctions between the clean and the unclean. We would be love to know that the Karls of this world inhabit a totally different moral universe than we do, but unfortunately they do not. And we cannot say that, given the same circumstances, our lives would not have followed the same course as his.
 Who can say what they would have done in Simon Wiesenthal's shoes? I know I can't. But what reading The Sunflower has shown me is that the act of forgiveness is a much more humble thing for a Christian than we sometimes suppose. It is not absolving the wrong-doing out of my store of righteousness, but simply bearing witness to unimaginable price paid by God to secure the possibility of forgiveness for us all.

Touchstone, September, 1998.
Reviewed by Paul Miller
 

 This issue of Touchstone opens with a reprint of "The Grand Miracle", a sermon delivered by C.S. Lewis in 1945. Not surprisingly, it is the best piece in the issue. Lewis, as usual, is magnificent. In the face of those who somehow think they are enhancing the credibility of Christianity by shrinking the mystery of the Incarnation down to a more manageable size, Lewis reiterates not only its grandeur but its irreducibly miraculous nature. In the present climate where everybody from Moderators to seminary principals are rushing to get on the "Jesus-is-just-one-of-us" bandwagon, the truth of the Incarnation cannot be repeated too often.

 Otherwise, this is a rather disappointing issue. It is characterized by two very strange articles.

 Donald Schweitzer, a United Church minister from Prince Albert, Saskatchewan has written a piece entitled "Who Will Bear the Burden?" He analyses in some detail the debate over two petitions at the 1998 Annual Meeting of Saskatchewan Conference.  The first of these petitions condemned the environmental dangers of uranium mining and called for its eventual phasing out. The second petition called for more ecologically sound methods of wheat farming.

 The first petition (uranium mining) passed while the second (agriculture) was roundly defeated. Schweitzer perceptively points out the degree to which self-interest was at work here. If action were taken on both these petitions, it would cause economic hardship to communities directly involved in each pursuit. But, since most people (and Conference delegates) lived in the farm-dependent south of the province, they were prepared to ask northern communities to bear the burden of shutting down uranium mines, but not economic impact or the social conflict that would result from a change in agricultural practices.

 Mr. Schweitzer is clearly a very thoughtful and earnest person and he makes a telling point. Like Luther, he recognizes that even our most well-intentioned actions often conceal self-interest and sin. However, he draws  on a rather predictable group of writers like Douglas Hall, Gregory Baum and Marilyn Legge for the conceptual underpinnings of his argument. His article would have had more substance if it was argued more theologically rather than being built on a foundation of Marxist-inspired "social analysis."

 The real weakness, however, is its main premise: that the church's "prophetic" voice is expressed though motions passed at meetings of Conference and other courts. There was no real risk involved in supporting either of the petitions because neither one is likely to influence the course of events in any meaningful way. Our Church has long laboured under the illusion that passing resolutions is prophetic.
 

 Self-interest in another guise is described in "Sabbath Anguish and Baseball Delight" by Barry K. Morris, a minister from Vancouver. He describes how his son's little league baseball team, of which he (Morris) happened to be the coach, improbably and against all odds found themselves playing in a championship game which was scheduled for Sunday morning. The source of his "Sabbath anguish" was this: should he be at worship and miss the game, or coach the game and miss worship? "What really matters?" he asked of his tortured conscience. "What values get top priority? How could I exercise integrity to my son and yet, at the same Sunday morning time, express integrity in my Sabbath commitments?"

 As I read this, I found myself saying "This guy can't really be serious." He is the minister of a congregation and here he is agonizing over whether to miss church for a baseball game! Morris tries to convince us, with quotations from Abraham Joshua Heschel and his own prolix journal entries, that this is an ethical dilemma worthy of serious discussion. In the end, he chose the game. Which says to me that the church is in worse shape than I thought.

 One of the things about Touchstone that amazes me is that each issue manages to present a thoroughly-researched and usually fascinating profile of some lesser-known figures in our Church's past. Marily Fardig Whiteley has contributed a sketch of the life of Annie Leake Tuttle (1839-1934), a school teacher who, after she was widowed, began a home in Vancouver for young Chinese women who had been enslaved as prostitutes. Once again, the historical profile has proved to be a strength of Touchstone.

 Four book reviews and a couple of minor pieces round out this issue. I worry about the direction in which Touchstone is headed, away from disciplined reflection on major theological themes to a style of writing that reflects the self-absorption and narcissism of the Church today.

A Note on the 1998 General Council
Kenneth S. Barker
In the frontpiece of the July-August 1998 issue of The United Church Observer, Bill Wall reflects upon the events of the Victoria General Council in 1988.  Perhaps the time has come for some further reflection by those who were involved in those tumultuous events.  And so as the person who served as the first secretary of the Community of Concern in 1988-89 and who still retains a complete list of the signatories to the "Declaration of Dissent" and a full set of minutes, I want to make a few reflections.
One issue which disturbed me greatly was the systematic way in which the Community of Concern was portrayed as being ultra-conservative.  This when the United Church bureaucracy was calling for an understanding which refused to speak in terms of "them" and "us".
In a conversation with the late Ralph Donnelly at the outset to the Victoria Assembly, he remarked to me, "I don't want to see the United Church take a massive step to the right."  I responded that I hardly considered Ernest Marshall Howes and Angus McQueen, two signatories to the "Declaration of Dissent", as right wing extremists!
In reality the Declaration attracted the signatures of a number of people who would be classified as moderately liberal or moderately conservative, rather than the image which the United Church set out to portray.  The tactic was guilt by association, reminiscent of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy.  If faithful United Church people questioned the leadership of the church, questioned the unqualified principles of justice or tolerance divorced from a mature understanding of the Christian Gospel, they had to be reactionary fundies or unrepentant bigots who, to quote Bill Wall, "would use the situation for their own ends, to assume power."
But aside from the signatories to the Declaration of dissent, there is the equally important issue of the position taken by the Community of Concern.  It was not a call to hate or persecute people.  It was a call for faithfulness on the part of all God's people to the long established Christian moral principle of fidelity in marriage and abstinence in singleness.
Moreover it called for the compassionate treatment of all Christians.  The text of the Declaration of dissent #7 read, "We recognize that all people are alienated from God and stand in need of God's redemptive love and forgiving grace.  We also recognize that all Christians fail in their Christian calling, and we support the compassionate care of any who transgress these standards.  We are called to restore those who have done wrong with gentleness in the full recognition that all are tempted and can fall."
To portray this position as one of mean spirited bigotry or ultra-conservative legalism is action for which the United Church may some day be called to repent and apologize, before spiritual wholeness is restored to the denomination.

Church Alive: a theological association and spiritual fellowship of United Church members, ministers and friends

AN OPEN LETTER TO BILL WALL
      18 September 1998
Rev. Wilbert R. Wall
Executive Secretary
Saskatchewan Conference
418A McDonald St
REGINA, SK  S4N 6E1

Dear Bill Wall,
 This letter is about your letter to the editor of the United Church Observer published in the December 1997 issue and your Front Page article in the summer issue of the Observer. It is sent to you in accordance with Matthew 18:15, namely:
  ...if your brother sins against you, go and tell him    his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you,    you have gained your brother.
 In your letter published in the December 1997 issue, you tar the Community of Concern and the National Alliance of Covenanting Congregations with the charge of wanting to display "hate literature." But it was not just the CofC and the NACC who were denied display space. You also denied it to Fellowship Magazine and to Church Alive. By implication you have accused Church Alive, specifically our twice-a-year publication Theological Digest & Outlook, January (March) 1997 issue, of being and/or containing hate literature.
 This is a very serious accusation, so serious that lawyer Ian Outerbridge, QC, wrote the Observer editor to show that your choice of words was both inappropriate and unreasonable. He indicated that others than the Community of Concern might not be so forgiving. Certainly I find it difficult to forgive when you have not, to my knowledge, apologized or repented in accordance with Luke 17:3-4, namely:
  Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against    you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if   he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven    times in a day returns to you, saying, 'I repent,' you    shall forgive him.
 I decided at the time to take no action, because it is often wise to ignore insults and personal attacks. But your Front Page article makes a similar accusation, and this time I am calling you to task for your unjust accusation, which I can only regard as personal attacks on renewal people.
 I object to the statement in your Front Page article: "...the renewal groups were denied display space...because some of the material they wanted to display contained attacks on other people, particularly gay and lesbian people."
 Show me where in the January (March) 1997 issue of TD&O there was a personal attack on anyone. If you cannot show me, why was that issue denied display space? Enclosed is a copy of the issue in question. Comb it and show me where there is a personal attack. Our policy is to address ideas and statements, not to insult people. If a "scorpion" is awarded to an individual, it is not to insult but to identify who said or did what and to call that person to repentance, in the meantime showing why what was said or done is wrong.
 Let us suppose for purposes of argument that someone in the current renewal movement does attack gays and lesbians, do you do justice to find all that person's associates, friends and relatives guilty of his or her offence? Deuteronomy 24:16 indicates that only the one responsible for a crime is to be punished. But you (1) have not proven any crime (2) nor have you confined denial of display space to the perpetrator of a personal attack--assuming for the moment that such an attack was ever made. In fact you have rendered an unjust verdict of guilt by association. Moreover you have done so without specific charges and without evidence.
 I have before me a list that was submitted to the Saskatchewan Conference Program Planning Committee. Your committee and conference denied display space to such esteemed authors as G.K. Chesterton (his Orthodoxy), C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity, Screwtape Letters), and Alistair McGrath (Understanding the Trinity), inter alia. Doesn't the denial seem like an uninformed over-reaction? Moreover, I understand that the conference vote to deny display space was narrow and that there were many abstentions. I wonder if the conference would repeat such a vote.
 I am writing to ask you to apologize publicly for your remarks both in your letter to the editor and in your Front Page article. By public apology I mean a letter to the editors both of the United Church Observer and of Theological Digest & Outlook (myself). Your apology would surely help to bring about a more civil debate in our church.
 Also enclosed is a copy of the current issue of TD&O, where, on pages 27-28, I give you a scorpion to call you to repentance and offer criticisms of your Front Page article.
 Yours in our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ,
Graham Scott
President, Church Alive
Editor, TD&O
 (As of February 1, 1999, Bill Wall has not replied to this   letter. We are therefore publishing it as an Open Letter.)
 

An editorial feature:

Palms & Scorpions,
Cheers and Tears

Notice: We repeat the long-standing notice in the box on page 2, namely, that "The opinions expressed in the signed articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect endorsement by Church Alive." This notice obviously applies to this editorial feature, which has long been written by Graham Scott as editor.

Notice: Fallible and sinful as we are, we continue to award tokens of praise or of disapproval to those who, in our opinion, have said or done things of which Scripture and/or Tradition would approve or disapprove. Palms celebrate primarily faithful acts. Scorpions call for repentance. Tears indicate our dismay and sometimes our hope for repentance. Cheers usually indicate approval for primarily decent or courageous acts. Occasionally Cheers are ironic.
 We expect to make mistakes in the course of this editorial feature. We will publish letters demonstrating a mistake and/or unjustifiable cries of outrage. To date we have not been made aware of any serious mistakes. We expect to miss many worthies and we know we have; their reward is in heaven or hell, as the case may be. It is because we believe that there is a hell--Jesus is said to have preached more about hell than any other biblical figure--that we call those apparently heading there to repentance and to reconciliation with God, who does not want anyone to perish.
 We try to check our sources for accuracy. We invite readers to send nominations with stories, background and sources. Please write us (see box, page 2) or E-mail us at theology@itcanada.com

[PALM] Thomas C. Oden, Janice Shaw Crouse and team, for bringing the voice of renewal, reform and orthodoxy to the World Council of Churches Jubilee Assembly at Harare, Zimbabwe, December 3-14, 1998. The team produced an appeal and position papers published under the title Proclaim Liberty: A Jubilee Appeal: A Challenge... by the Association for Church Renewal.  Church Alive, Community of Concern and the National Alliance of Covenanting Churches are members of ACR.
 The WCC Jubilee Assembly is building on the Old Testament law calling for a liberation every 50 years, freeing slaves, forgiving debts and restoring land to its original owners. ACR's Jubilee Appeal explains the WCC dilemma: whether to embrace whole world ecumenism making Christianity just one of many 'religions' of the organizational umbrella or to bond with more conservative churches that have been absent or marginalized from the Council.
 The Appeal urges the WCC to strengthen its ties to 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism.' It presents affirmations about who God is, how human beings relate to God, the mission of the Church and the source of human identity and relationships. The Appeal ends with a pledge to support church leaders around the world working to fulfill the dual aspects of Jubilee--repentance and restoration--recognizing that spiritual vitality springs from the biblical, orthodox, Christ-centred and Trinitarian faith upon which the WCC was founded. The Appeal also asks help from Christians around the world as North American renewal organizations work to address the spiritual and moral poverty of the West. At the same time, ACR is committed to helping their churches address the poverty, oppression and persecution that afflict so many of their societies. For more information see Tom Oden, Chair of Project, 405-721-3515 or Janice Crouse, Vice-Chair of Project, 703-367-0985.
 Position papers are: "The Basis of Christian Unity," by Parker T. Williamson; "Syncretism: Designer Gods and Religion a la Carte," by Donna Hailson; "Missions: The Lost Call," by David Runnion-Bareford; "Jubilee Challenge: Global Poverty and Debt," by Robert Miclean and Alan F.H. Wisdom; "The Persecuted Church & the Household of Faith," by Faith McDonnell; "The Ecumenical Decade: Churches in Solidarity with Women," by Faye Short; "Biblical Foundations for Morality and Sexuality," by Stephen Noll and Todd Wetzel.
 The Appeal and position papers are available in pamphlet form from The Association for Church Renewal, 1521 16th St NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036 (Phone IRD at 202-986-1440). They are also available on the internet at www.acrchurches.org
 The Affirmations of the Appeal are reprinted at the end of this editorial feature and are commended to the attention of Canadian denominations and Christians.

[TEARS] Moderator Bill Phipps, who is quoted as saying to the WCC  Assembly at Harare, "Our people need a conversion experience. Conversion has to do with economic relationships. Economic relationships are central to our understanding of the faith" (The Presbyterian Layman, Lenoir, NC, Jan.-Feb. 1999, p. 2).
 Moderator Phipps should try to avoid new-speak when using such words as conversion.
 He should also re-examine his assumptions, which appear from this quotation to be Feuerbachian, if not soft marxist. Both Feuerbach and Marx are passe. Capitalism is much less worse than Soviet, Chinese, Cambodian and Cuban Marxisms, all of which involved an unprecedented and appalling shedding of human blood. And capitalism is proven to be a lot more open to human freedom while keeping the human propensity for sin and sloth under the discipline of the market place.

[PALM] A large majority of Bishops at the 13th Lambeth ConferenceJuly 18-August 9, 1998, for upholding biblical truth on sexual morality. Out of 641 voting bishops, 526 or 82% passed a resolution that the Lambeth Conference, "in view of the teaching of the Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union and believes that abstinence is right for those not called to marriage."
 The Conference recognized "that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. ...we commit ourselves to listen to the experiences of homosexual people. We wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the body of Christ."
 The Conference, "while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all, irrespective of sexual orientation, and to condemn an irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialization and commercialization of sex."
 Moreover the Conference resolved that it "cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same-sex unions nor the ordination of those involved in such unions." (Sources: The Times, London, UK and Anglican Journal, September 1998)
 At the conference were 739 bishops altogether. The vote on the above resolution was 526 for, 70 against, 45 abstaining. The vote in favour garnered support from 71% of all the bishops there, whether they voted or not, but 82% of those who voted.

[PALM] Renewal leaders at the Lambeth Conference 1998, for countering the pro-gay/lesbian influence of most North American bishops. One dramatic action, reported by Professor Stephen Noll, was that Bishop Alex Dickson from South Carolina led faithful American bishops to humble themselves before their Third World brethren in an act of repentance for the Episcopal Church's toleration of John Spong and his heresies.

[CHEERS] Church Alive, for 25 years of bearing witness to Jesus Christ crucified, risen and ascended. Church Alive was founded as a theological association and spiritual fellowship in 1974, following publication of the 15 Affirmations for Lent 1974. The name Church Alive can be considered a prayer that the Church may be fully alive in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit to the glory of God the Father. For more information see our website at itcanada.com/~theology

[CHEERS] Norbert Reinhart, 49, mining executive, for exchanging places with employee Ed Leonard, 60, who had been held captive by leftist guerrilas in Columbia for about four months. Leonard's ordeal started in June of 1998 and Reinhart replaced him as a hostage on October 6, thinking his action might speed up negotiations. It didn't, but on January 8th he was finally released after payment of an undisclosed ransom.

[CHEERS] Notre Dame College High School, Welland, for raising $50,000 on its 23rd annual pilgrimage for 20 km along the Welland Canal on Sunday, October 26, to help less developed countries break out of the cycle of rampant economic, social and environmental upheaval. Event organizer Paul Turner said, "We are putting Christ's words into action. We are putting the oppressed ahead of our own needs."
 Cheers also for every other high school that requires students to do 40 hours or so of community service in order to graduate.

[CHEERS] Newsweek, for its August 17, 1998, cover story questioning the gay myth that homosexual orientation is unchangeable. The cover features John and Anne Paulk. John Paulk is North American Board Chair of Exodus International. Both John and Anne overcame homosexuality; they have been married for six years and have a 19 month old son. The Newsweek article reports that 56% of the public think change is possible and 11% of gays agree.
 Of course, while Newsweek did it in 1998, our Canadian newsmagazine Western Report did it in 1993, and on August 16! WR commented, "When we put it on our cover, gay and lesbian lobbyists publicly condemned us for 'homophobia,' criminal hate, medical and scientific ignorance, and making things up. They organized boycott campaigns against our advertisers, made personal threats against our staff, and sent us disgusting objects in the mail. Simply because we reported the fact that some gays can and do convert to hetersexuality."

[CHEERS] Exodus International, offering freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ, not only for its effective ministries, but for its stand against violence towards gays. Following the death of Matthew Shepard, the 21 year old Wyoming student robbed, beaten and left to die, Exodus and other copnservative groups were accused by media of promoting hatred toward gays. The day of Shepard's death Exodus condemned violence against gays and called for zero tolerance in churches which promote hatred and abuse directed at members of the gay community. Executive Director Bob Davies said, "This type of outrageous criminal behavior against members of the gay community should be punished to the full extent of the law."
 Davies also said that members of Exodus have received death threats in the past. Exodus board chair John Paulk received a written threat of physical violence against his family the same week as Shepard's death. "We know what it is like to be on the receiving end of harassment," Davies said. See http://exodus.base.org  or write Exodus International, P.O. Box 21039, Ajax, ON  L1H 7H2.

[CHEERS] New Directions, a ministry to homosexuals, is now offerings materials for gay youth and those who minister to them. See www.freetobeme.com

[SCORPION] Fred Phelps, the Topeka, Kansas, Baptist, for picketing funerals of prominent gays with signs saying, "God hates fags" and "AIDS cures fags." Exodus International Executive Director Bob Davies questioned Phelps' approach and his theology. "The Bible is clear that God loves sinners," Davies said. "That's why Jesus died."

[CHEERS] Gerald Emmett Cardinal Carter, for setting the record straight about the Christian stand against murdering abortionists. Commenting on the murder of Buffalo NY abortionist Barnett Slepian on October 23rd, Carter wrote, "Life came from God and there is no justification for the brutal murder of an abortionist doctor as there is no justification of the forcible death of innocent babies. No human being has the right to take the law into his own hand and decide that he is God and has the right to decide life and death. No matter what the justification. If anything he or she who decides to play God in this manner, is only multiplying the evil" (National Post, Oct. 30/98).

[SCORPION] Peter Singer, chair of bioethics at Princeton University, for advocating infanticide and sneering at Christian faith. In the journal of pediatrics in 1983 Singer wrote approvingly that it had become "standard practice in many major public hospitals to refrain from providing necessary life-saving treatment to certain patients," including "severely defective newborns." Singer describes the new ethical formula for determining who lives and who dies as a "blow to the sanctity-of- life tradition" that comes from the "religious mumbo-jumbo" that "human beings are a special form of creation, made in the image of God, singled out from all other animals, and alone possessing an immortal soul."
 In his book Practical Ethics (1993) Singer wrote that "no infant--disabled or not--has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time." He reminds his readers that "our present absolute protection of the lives of infants is a distinctively Christian attitude rather than a universal ethical value."
 Let us beware of universal ethical values like Singer's, for they clearly exclude Jewish and Christian values and can therefore hardly claim to be  universal. Of course they are not particularly ethical either.

[CHEERS] The Globe and Mail, for its editorial

[TEARS] Centre for Christian Studies, Winnipeg, Queen's Theological College, Kingston, and United Theological College, Montreal, for sending information about their programs that do not mention Jesus Christ.
 In an August 29, 1996, letter, Suzanne Sykes of United had this to say about future courses for Lay Pastoral Ministers in Training: "As you can probably guess from the past event, Theology will be biased in favour of liberation, feminist and process theologies. (However, we promise not to completely neglect the classics for those of you who are dying to know what Barth said--and why it doesn't work!)" Barth's theology is noted for its Christ-centred approach.
  Queen's sent ministers a packet of brochures and clippable items to introduce "a new curriculum for today's students and tomorrow's world" for 1998-99. We could find no mention of the name of Jesus in any of the 12 items sent to us. We did find occasional mention of "Christian" and "Christianity." We also found courses entitled, "Feminist Theology," "Soul-Murder and the Scriptures: Towards Recovery of a Biblical Theology of Protest," "Introduction to World Religions," and "Women and Religion." But in all the material received, not one mention of Jesus Christ was found.
 The December 1998 highlights from the Newsletter of the Centre for Christian Studies (now located in Winnipeg) describes the Centre's theological stance: "The life and work of the Centre..., as a learning community of faith, proceeds from an understanding that God is acting in our lives and that we are called to be co-workers with the Divine in the struggle for justice and peace. In accepting the gifts of the Spirit, we are called to a responsible practice of ministry, exercising vision and solidarity with the marginalised people of the world. We strive to be a worshiping, witnessing presence, encouraging and equipping each other in our shared ministry, and modeling respect, mututality and integrity in our relationships." Fair enough, as far as it goes, but again, no mention of Jesus Christ.
 No doubt all three institutions do mention Jesus to their students from time to time--maybe most of the time. But after the Peggy's Cove Memorial Service, where the name of Jesus was forbidden by some authority or other, and in face of the Christ- less materials before us, we do wonder how many United Church centres of learning can say with Paul, "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes" (Rom. 1:16). We hope that they can all say that, and do so with passion and sincerity.

[TEARS] In the movie, The Lost Daughter (shown on Channel 11 Jan. 23 and 24, starring Richard Chamberlain and Helmut Griem), while  exposing a (fictional) murderous cult based on the Order of the Solar Temple story of 1994, it included the Swiss inspector's frustrated comment that the law's "freedom of religion" clause protected the cult from investigation.
 The implication could be drawn that all religions are fraudulent and equivalent to this particularly deadly cult. Unfortunately the same inability to distinguish between cults and religions is found among our judges. The cause in our opinion is the widespread belief that there is no God or that God has nothing to say. This belief is supported chiefly by ignorance of serious theology by the Fathers of the Church and by such modern theologians as the dense Karl Barth and the accessible Thomas Oden.
 Freedom of religion is the fundamental freedom. When it is eroded, all freedoms are threatened. The Ramsey Colloquium stated, "Because religion most directly addresses the foundation of human dignity, religious freedom is the source and safeguard of all rights and freedoms."
 The statement went to say: "In addition, human rights are threatened in the name of human rights. When claims to rights are severed from the just requirements of morality and the common good, the inevitable result is a distorted understanding of human rights that all too often leads to the violation of the rights of others. There is, moreover, a powerful inclination to pick and choose among human rights, which results in favoring some (e.g., the right to privacy) at the expense of others (e.g., the rights of the family). Such selectivity undermines the necessary connections between rights, wrenching 'favored' rights out of context and weakening 'disfavored' rights" (First Things, April 1998, pp. 19-20).
 Perhaps renewal/reform groups should be sponsoring sensitivity seminars for judges, academics and media on the reasonableness of time-tested theology, the interconnection of  rights as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the very real limits of scientific enquiry in ethics and morals.

[CHEERS] The movie, Patch Adams, for a somewhat thoughtful and mainly cheerful story of an older medical student 20 years ago,  whose relational, if not humour-based, insights are now making inroads into the medical establishment, for example at McMaster University.
 Parental guidance is advised. Blasphemy is refreshingly minimal, but some language is indeed earthy, as might be expected among medical students. Starring Robin Williams, the movie is based on a true story.
 However, there is one scene that is quite inconsistent with Patch Adams' character as portrayed. This scene is part of the graduation ceremony near the end of the film and in our opinion diminishes the power of the story, reducing Adams to a flake. The fact is that the scene is an invention by writer-director Tom Shadyac, who is reported to be quite proud of it. And we are assured that audiences love it. But the film would be truer and funnier without it.
 As for the true story, you can find it in Geshundheit: Good health is a laughing matter, by Hunter Doherty Adams with Maureen Mylander.

[SCORPION] Larry Flynt, for political pornography, aiming in Canada at Heritage Minister Sheila Copps and in the United States at Republican adulterers. We have little love for Sheila Copps, but what Hustler has done to her, a minister of the Crown and a mother, is unthinkable to anyone but a sex-obsessed and utterly depraved criminal like Paul Bernardo.
 As for Flynt's outing adulterous Republicans--in revenge for their attempted impeachment of President Bill Clinton--this expose is at least consistent with Jesus' warning that "There is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known" (Matthew 10:26. Cf Mark 4:22). That is about all that could be said for it. Two wrongs don't make a right, though exposure might conceivably bring a politician to flirt with repentance, as Clinton has.
 What we decry about Flynt's expose forays for revenge is the demeaning of sexuality and its reduction to lust. His message is that all Clinton has done wrong is sexual, so-what's-the-problem, as if carnal knowledge outside of marriage were a perfectly healthy recreation, harming no one. But even Clinton knows better than that. Flynt should too. And Flynt has been given a taste of God's mercy and an opportunity to repent when he survived a murder attempt. He does not appear to have heard God's message. He should seize the opportunity to repent of his sins now and to spend the rest of his life as Chuck Colson has in ministering to others.

[CHEERS] 157 American religious leaders, including Gerald Anderson, Janice Shaw Crouse, Richard John Neuhaus, James Heidinger, Todd Wetzel and Parker Williamson, for calling on President Clinton to resign because of the messages that are being delivered in the current campaign to retain to retain his office, namely:
 "That adultery and bearing false witness, and encouraging others to do the same, are minor offenses; That an exploitative sexual relationship with a young woman in your charge, hidden through the efforts of other subordinate employees, is merely a private matter; That under certain circumstances the nation's chief legal officer is justified in subverting the law; That those who expose these sins are more blameworthy than those who committed them; and That there should be no further discussion or action regarding these misdeeds, because the country needs to 'move on' to more important concerns."
 The signers said that broad social damage occurs when the sexual boundaries and marriage are transgressed. They decried the blessing of extra-marital trends by "political, cultural and even religious leaders," who teach "by word and example that the sexual boundaries are not absolute and the marriage-based family may be expendable."

[SCORPION] American actor Alec Baldwin and Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, the former for hate, the latter for hateful libel. Baldwin: "I'm thinking to myself, if we were in other countries, all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death...and we would go to [Republican leaders'] homes and kill their wives and their children." Dershowitz: "If this president is impeached, it will be a great victory for the forces of evil--genuine evil...[a] victory over decency and decent people." Incredible.

[SCORPION] The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) for falsely convicting Focus on the Family of "abusively discriminatory comment" by attributing "to the gay movement a false and flimsy intellectual basis and malevolent insidious and conspiratorial purpose". This non-judicial conviction was made without contacting Focus on the Family to inform them of the complaint against them, or to give them an opportunity to explain, or even to inform them of their decision.
 Darrel Reid, President of Focus on the Family Canada, wrote that "the fundamental issue at stake is our right in Canada to express consistent and earnestly held religious convictions, as guaranteed by our Charter of Rights. Focus Canada stands by the material broadcast that day. I recognize that there are some Canadians who may disagree with our biblical stand on this issue. That is to be expected in any free society., but it's also not to point. The point is that there are people out there intent upon taking away the right of Christians to state their beliefs when they do not conform to current political correctness. And they will do so, if we continue to let them do so unchallenged."

[CHEERS] Dr William Malloy, geriatrician at McMaster University, has at last brought rock-bottom conviction and professional certainty to the question haunting the secret soul of every thoughtful Christian, namely, Was Jesus sane? Quoth Dr Malloy: "Jesus clearly understood this context, these choices and the consequences, and therefore must be judged competent" (National Post, Nov. 21/98). What a relief to know that Jesus has been judged competent.
 Now does this logically mean that God must be competent? Better not ask Bill Phipps.

[CHEERS] Tom Wappel, M.P. (Scarborough Southwest, Liberal), for moving Bill C-225, a private member's bill to ensure that a marriage is void unless it is a marriage between one unmarried man and one unmarried woman.
 Deemed unvotable, the bill was allowed one hour's debate on second reading as a sort of consolation prize. We know why it was so deemed, now that Justice Minister Anne McLellan has come out of the closet on where the Justice Department is really at, namely to recognize the spousal rights of same-sex couples.

[CHEERS] Ayden Byle, 24, of Kincardine, for running 6,495 kilometres from Vancouver to Halifax in six months, to raise money to find a cure for diabetes. He raised about $200,000, a quarter of which must go to pay for the expenses of the run.   Ayden said, "I wanted to challenge the diabetic community to get engaged. I wanted to raise $20 million. Neither of those things happened. But there were exciting times too. The run has been a success." To a charity whose annual budget is just over $15,000, Ayden Byle's run was very successful even financially.
 We would like to suggest to the United Church Women and other women's groups serving meals that they remember that for diabetics sugar can be poison. A dessert of a small apple or a sugar-free Weight Watchers pudding would be very much appreciated by their diabetic brothers and sisters.

[TEARS] A former Church Alive director, Rev. David Clark, 36, died in his sleep on October 26 at Uxbridge. Ordained by Hamilton Conference in 1986, David served the Beachville-Sweaburg-West Oxford; Hyatt Avenue, London; and Trinity, Uxbridge pastoral charges. David was sponsored as a Candidate by Welland Avenue United Church, St Catharines, and graduated from McMaster University and Emmanuel College, Toronto.
 Noted for his faith, friendliness and humour, he leaves his wife, Sandra (VanHelvert), and two girls, Rebecca, 10, and Laura, 8, and parents, siblings, in-laws and relatives.
 David made this editor proud when the Globe and Mail Literary Review published his letter critical of the Jesus Seminar (April 18, 1998). He concluded: "Christianity should not hide its head in the sand from scholarly examination (indeed, it does not have to), but to represent the Jesus Seminar as the accepted standard (even cutting edge) of academic inquiry is a disservice not only to Christian faith but to educated people of all convictions."

[SCORPION] Tolerant Canadians, almost 60% of the population, according to the Maclean's-CBC 15th annual year-end poll, not for genuine tolerance, but for the muddled thinking and fake tolerance whose mantra is the question polled, namely, "No one has the right to impose their morality and ways of doings things on others." This mantra would in fact impose the morality --or amorality--of individualism and privatism on just about everyone.
 What is more, Canadians really do not believe this mantra, however they may be duped by libertine pollsters into saying they believe in it. As the furor over B.C. Judge Duncan Shaw's decision annulling the heart of the child pornography law shows, Canadians--even Anne McLellan--are more than willing to impose their morality on everyone in this matter and presumably other matters such as killing and stealing. So in fact Canadians do believe in imposing some moral directives on others, indeed on everyone.
 Christians need to push for clear thinking on morality and law. We should spread the word that pure science has nothing to say about ethics or morality or values; that values, morals and ethics come from another sphere than science; that if God and his revelation of his will are not accepted as the basis for morality and law, then morality and law will be determined eventually by the powerful few (as in the dictum that might is right); that individuals are shaped and defended by family and community and do not exist in isolation; and that virtually all religions past and present counsel a wide range of common moral precepts. This last point is demonstrated by C.S. Lewis in the appendix of his brief book, The Abolition of Man.

[PALM] Barbara Vogel's Grade 4 Class, Highline Community School, Aurora, Colorado, for working for and purchasing freedom for slaves. Last February Mrs Vogel told her class about slavery in Africa--about how Christian women and children are stolen by Moslem slavers and taken to northern Sudan. The children began to cry, but when they had wiped their tears away, they said, "What are we going to do about this?"
 What they did was to form a group called Slavery That Oppresses People, known as STOP. They found out about Christian Solidarity International--a human rights group that purchases slaves back and returns them to their families. The kids began saving their allowances and selling lemonade, T-shirts and old toys. Soon thanks to their own fund-raising and corporate
donations they had enough money to buy freedom for 150 slaves.
 Since then they have written more than 1,500 letters telling media, celebrities and politicians how they feel about slavery, raised $50,000 in donations and bought freedom for 5,060 slaves.
 Mrs Vogel told BreakPoint, "As a public school teacher, I cannot say publically what I believe, that Christ is the greatest thing in my life, but that doesn't mean I can't model my faith." Mrs Vogel's E-mail address: TPerrymcne@aol.com
PSMAR99

[CHEERS] Margaret Boyce, Toronto Star columnist, for her opinion piece, "Respect at top of Christian values." Unfortunately her piece was marred by the opening remark that she did not "know of a corresponding list of virtues" to the seven deadly sins. We thought everyone knew of the Seven Virtues. They are:-
 Faith, hope and love; justice, prudence, temperance and fortitude.
 The first three are called the theological virtues and are found in 1 Corinthians 13:13, which was written between 54 and 57 A.D. The remaining four virtues are found in various non- Christian philosophers, as well as in the Old Testament.
 Where would respect come in? Logically it could be a category of justice, though it could very well be a category of love. In any case Christians are not confined to the seven virtues; Paul's list of the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23 suggest many others.
 (In case our readers wonder what the Seven Deadly Sins are, here is the unhappy list: Pride, covetousness, lust, envy, gluttony, anger, and sloth. Compare with Paul's list of the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-21.)

[CHEERS] Gerd Ludemann, theologian at Gottingen University, and Rev. Chris Jukes, former Anglican rector in Calgary, for honesty.
 Professor Ludemann showed his honesty in his decision to stop calling himself a Christian. Why? Because he rejected all the central Christian doctrines one by one, finally concluding that Jesus did not rise from the dead, and that the biblical account of him was fiction. Said he, "A Christian is someone who prays to Christ and believes in what is promised by Christian doctrine. So I asked myself: 'Do I pray to Jesus? Do I pray to the God of the Bible?' And I don't do that. Quite the reverse."
 Father Jukes showed his honesty in his decision to leave a diocese and denomination that intended to do nothing about Vancouver Bishop Michael Ingham's doctrinal and moral disavowals. Some might say Jukes is guilty of schism. We are content to contemplate his honesty.

[TEARS] We weep for the Canadian justice system, not only because the judiciary seems to be unhinged from God, the source of law and justice, but because the jury system is falling into an amoral mind-set that makes justice unlikely. The tip of the iceberg is the case of Gillian Guess, who was a juror in the 1995 trial of accused murderer Peter Gill, but who hopped into bed with him and influenced the jury to acquit him. Court officials knew what was going on, but they too were amoral and non- interfering, presumably because they like 60% of Canadians have been duped into believing the absurd proposition that "No one has the right to impose their morality and ways of doing things on others." Perhaps the most appalling amoral jury decisions of all were made by the Quebec jurors who twice acquitted abortionist Henry Morgentaler.

[PALM] National Review Editorial, "Dead Reckoning," (Jan. 26, 1998), for identifying the basis of the abortion movement's success (lies) and the ensuing corruption of family life, the courts, and liberalism. The editorial is reprinted in First Things, April 1998, pp. 64-67. It is a must-read.

[CHEERS] Darrel Reid, President of Focus on the Family Canada, for warning (Citizen, Dec.-Jan., p. 6) about the Supreme Court of Canada's possible decision on the M vs. H case, to be released early this year, after the hearing of March 18, 1998. The case involves a property and support dispute between two Ontario lesbians after the break-up of their ten year partnership. M wants her share of the assets on the grounds that the lesbian relationship was spousal. The question before the Supreme Court is therefore: "Can a spouse be defined as someone of the same sex?"
 If the court follows the lower courts and rules in favour of M, then Ontario's law regarding marriage will have to change. Ontario's former NDP Government tried to enact such a change in its 1994 Bill 167, but a free vote resulted in its defeat. Despite the fact that M and H have settled their grievances out of court, the case remains in the Supreme Court. Reid suggests that the reason for this is that "activists want the courts to impose values upon our society they couldn't accomplish through democratic means."
 Reid asks Ontario citizens to call on the Ontario Government to enact the Notwithstanding Clause (Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) if the Supreme Court finds in favour of M and requires all our marriage laws to change to include homosexual unions.
 Reid noted that in the recent U.S. election, nearly seventy percent of Hawaiians and Alaskans authorized their legislatures to ban same-sex marriages in their state constitutions.
 We believe that if the Notwithstanding Clause is not used in the event of a Supreme Court decision in favour of M and redefining marriage, it will never be used (outside of Quebec), no matter what the provocation or necessity.
 We believe moreover that if the Supreme Court decision is in favour of M and redefinition of marriage, then it will have taken a irrevocable step into the legislative arena--making laws rather than interpreting them. In this case democratic values would require that judges be elected just like Members of Parliament.     Also concerned about this issue is the Canada Family Action Coalition, 99 Fifth Ave., Suite 225, OTTAWA, ON  K1S 5P5. Phone 613-230-8542. E-mail NationalAffairs@FamilyAction.org

[TEARS] Jesus snubbed at Peggy's Cove/Swissair Flight 111 Crash Memorial Service on September 9, 1998. The Rev. Carolyn Nicholson and Father Duncan MacMaster were required by officials prior to the service to omit any reference to Jesus and any reading from the New Testament. Since they had counselled victims' families, they felt they were obligated to participate in the service, and out of pastoral concern for the families they acceded to official censorship of the Lord Jesus at the service.
 On September 30 Nicholson sent a letter to Prime Minister Jean Chretien asking why Jesus could not be mentioned when "the Native Canadian spoke about her beliefs, the rabbi read from the Hebrew Scriptures and the Muslim representatives read from the Koran." (United Church Observer, Dec. 1998, p. 8)
 On January 15 the Prime Minister replied, expressing sincere regrets that a service that "was clearly meant to provide comfort and closure in dealing with a horrible tragedy has itself become a focus of controversy." He wrote, "I wish to assure you that no government official would ever be instructed to, or permitted to, censor or prohibit religious content in a memorial service." (Toronto Star, Jan. 16, 1999).
 On January 30 law professor Thomas Kuttner published an article in the Globe and Mail in which he asserted that government had mangled communication of the usual Jewish policy of not participating in a multi-faith service "if such service would include the expression of worship traditions in which Jews will not participate". The government official's mangled communication was then misinterpreted by Nicholson and MacMaster as a government directive, which it was not, according to Kuttner.
 Meanwhile former United Church moderator, Re-Imagining Conference celebrity and appointed Senator Lois Wilson wrote an article recognizing "the offense to faith communities sometimes given by the imperialistic claims of Christians." With friends like Lois Wilson who needs enemies? But even Wilson called for a multi-faith service in which "each particular faith will be free to pray and read scripture freely out of its own tradition."
 That would not mollify Kuttner, who is also chairman of community relations for the Atlantic Jewish Council. For Professor Kuttner said in his article that virtually no Jewish official would participate in a service "where other faith communities worship in accordance with their particular traditions. This is particularly so in the case of Christian worship service, which includes any sort of witness to the 'Kingship of Christ.' For those Jews who wish to participate in positive expressed of shared belief, the emphasis is just that-- the shared beliefs--and the New Testament and messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth play no part in that shared belief. On the other hand, the Hebrew scriptures are considered by Christians as part of their heritage, too--something they do share with Jews."
 We are simply amazed that a rabbi can share a service with a Native Religion leader and a Moslem reading from the Koran, but not with a Christian reading from the New Testament. Have we missed something here?
 In any case we cannot fully agree with Professor Kuttner that Christians share the Hebrew scriptures with Jews. In a superficial sense we do. In the sense that the New Testament is hidden in the Old Testament and the Old revealed in the New, and in the sense that our interpretation of the Old Testament is made in the light of Jesus Christ, for whom they were written, and in view of the statement of Hebrews 13:10, "We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat," we don't really share much more than history, much of it unhappy. Yes, we worship the same God, but in a radically new way, which is the way of Jesus Christ our Great High Priest. Yes, we call Abraham the father of believers (Rom. 4:16) but we remember that  Abraham rejoiced to see Jesus' day (Jn 8:56).
 We do not believe that a worship service that omits any reference to Jesus Christ has any Christian validity. Christian worship is not a matter between me and God, as it is in unitarianisms optimistically devoid of the empirically verifiable doctrine of original sin.
 Christian worship is essentially the perfect worship of Jesus of Nazareth, God's only-begotten Son, who offered himself as a bridge-building sacrifice through the eternal Spirit (Heb. 9:14). Christian worship for Christians is therefore an entering into Jesus Christ's worship through faith and incorporation into his body through baptism by the power of the Holy Spirit.
 In other words Christian worship is Trinitarian, centred on the Incarnate Son and proceeding from his on-going worship, and empowered by the Holy Spirit whom the risen and ascended Jesus poured out on his Church so that we might worship in spirit and in truth. (No Protestant that we know of has articulated this Trinitarian view of worship more clearly and exactly than Professor James B. Torrance in his brief book, Worship, Community & the Triune Grace of God, published by InterVarsity Press, 1996. We commend it.)
 We have therefore concluded that orthodox Christians simply cannot participate in a non-Christian or multi-faith worship service--though we can attend out of respect, for example, for people in mourning.
 Moreover, we see nothing in the New Testament to show that government has a leadership role in worship. In the Christian tradition that role is entrusted to those elected and ordained by the Church. We think that government, especially the Canadian Government in its dalliance with amoral paganism disguised as pluralism and secularism, should leave the ordering of worship to religious leaders and content itself with attending, not arranging, worship services.
 Professor Kuttner came to a similar conclusion. He wrote, "Government has no place in the organization and sponsorship of public worship, and should leave it to the faith communities to structure such events in a manner true to their own faith and worship traditions."
 Of course, really being true to the Christian faith and worship tradition would automatically result in observant Jews opting out of participation. And so such multi-faith services are really impossible ever to hold with integrity. Indeed multi-faith worship is syncretism and syncretism for a Christian is apostasy.
 We suggest that it makes sense in a democracy to expect government officials to attend the worship service organized by the majority religion, that is, in Canada today, by the Christian Church. If the denominations cannot agree to a Trinitarian service of worship that meets the needs of a particular situation, then the largest denomination should call the shots. That makes sense in a democracy, and we recommend it.
 In any case we will not actively participate in any multi- faith worship. We may passively attend such well-meaning confusion out of respect for mourners. But we will not actively participate and we urge Christian leaders and followers alike not to participate.
 At the same time we will happily participate in inter- denominational, Trinitarian Christian services of worship, if invited to do so. And on invitation we will happily participate in any particular denominational service of worship if it is Trinitarian, that is, Christ-centred.

[SCORPION] Fred K. Graham, Worship Desk, Division of Mission in Canada, The United Church of Canada, for syncretism, if not blasphemy, in his "Festival of the Sacred Earth--A hymn festival" (Gathering, 1996 Summer Autumn, pp. 46-47). This service was presented as the opening worship at the Festival of Arts, sponsored by Emmanuel College, Toronto, at Grace Church-on-the- Hill in the spring of 1995.
 First a positive comment. The name of Jesus is not mentioned in the liturgy as printed in Gathering. Normally we would not regard this omission as positive, but in view of the pantheistic horrors of the liturgy, it can perhaps be regarded as the least negative thing we might say.
 There are four prayers and one blasphemy in the service. Each prayer is directed to the great Spirit of a point of the compass. Under the East the sun, fire, and nuclear fire are prayed to. Under the West the Spirit of Great Waters and grandmother Ocean are prayed to. Under the North grandmother Earth and the Soul of Nature are prayed to. Under the South the invisible Spirit of the Air and grandfather Sky are prayed to. We are not making this up.
 The blasphemy is the re-writing of the Anima Christi (Soul of Christ) prayer so as to address the Soul of the earth (sanctify me), the Body of the earth (save me), the Blood of the earth (fill me with love), Water from earth's side (wash me), Passion of the earth (strengthen me), Resurrection of the earth (empower me). We are not making this up.
 The blasphemy ends thus: "Good earth, hear me. Within your wounds, hide me. Never let me separated from you. At the hour of my death, call me. That with your living ones I may thank you for all eternity. Amen."  We are not making this up.
 We are utterly appalled at this exercise in sheer paganism by an official of The United Church of Canada. We cannot in any sense be in communion with such an official, or those who follow his lead, unless they repent. If we had written such a service, we would be compelled by simple honesty to regard ourself as apostate and, like Professor Gerd Ludemann, to stop calling ourself a Christian. In fact we would prefer honest atheism to such absurd, muddle-headed and superstitious imbecility.
 If you wonder why we have such reservations about Voices United and the Services for Trial Use (soon to be published with official approval), one of many reasons is that Fred Kimball Graham was Coordinator of Liturgical Resources for both books.
 If you think we are over-reacting, we suggest you read Paul's letter to the Galatians, Chapter 1, verses 6 to 10.
[CHEERS] The Globe and Mail Editorial, "Gay Pride's day in court: Should the law have forced the mayor of Fredericton to proclaim Gay Pride Weekend?" (Oct. 24/98) In short the editorial said, "No." This is significant for a newspaper whose current editorial policy is blatantly gay/lesbian friendly.
 The Globe argued that, mayoral proclamation or not, gay and lesbian citizens were already receiving protection of all the rights and benefits of the law. They were free to hold Gay Pride celebrations and events in public places. "It's just that the mayor didn't want to give them what would once has been called his blessing."
 Mayor Brad Woodside's lawyers argued--correctly in the Globe's opinion--that freedom of speech and thought were at stake in this case. The Globe argued that Mayor Woodside was not merely being asked to tolerate a Gay Pride festival but "to actively support it." Noting similar human rights commissions' rulings ordering the mayors of Hamilton and London to issue Gay Pride Day proclamations, the Globe said that "the precedent set by human- rights tribunals ordering their issuance is, we believe, a bad one."
 The Globe concluded, "No mayor should be permitted to block or impede Gay Pride Weekend just because he doesn't appreciate the lifestyle of the participants. But neither should the law force him to say he supports Gay Pride Weekend, that he agrees with it, that he likes it. He doesn't. In a liberal society, he shouldn't have to."
 Our questions are: Are human-rights tribunals turning Canada from a liberal society into a totalitarian one? Are they bent on destroying basic human rights like free speech and freedom of religion in the name of sexual orientation rights? Are our charter rights, including freedom of religion, being reduced to mere paper rights? (In the Soviet regime, the constitution included plenty of rights on paper but they never got into practice.)

[SCORPION] BC Judge Duncan Shaw, for striking down the section of the Criminal Code which outlaws the possession of child pornography in a ruling released on January 15. Justice Shaw wrote, "The intrusion into freedom of expression and the right of privacy is so profound that it is not outweighed by the limited beneficial effects of the prohibition." He was ruling in the case of John Robin Sharpe, who was charged with two counts of possessing child pornography and two counts of possession for the purpose of distributing and selling the material.
 Shari Graydon, of MediaWatch, said, "The very existence of pornography, featuring children, on some level, condones and normalizes and makes acceptable the sexual objectification of children, which most people will categorically agree is not appropriate and is not acceptable and should not be condoned."
 Andrew Coyne in the National Post said, "Children are not capable of giving consent to sex, or to being depicted in a sexual manner. Anyone who participates in the violation of a child's dignity in this way, whether as producers, distributors or consumers, is guilty of the same offence."
 It occurs to us that, because of this and other bizarre rulings from the bench, Canada needs a more accessible process for impeaching judges. The Supreme Court has allowed a number of incroachments on charter rights such as free speech because of the public good. We suggest that a more accessible impeachment process for judges would not unduly imperil judicial independence. Right now it takes both houses of Parliament to fire a judge, which means that judges are virtually unaccountable, especially Supreme Court judges.
 It would be simpler to require judges throughout Canada to undergo sensitivity training on the lifelong harm that pedophilia does to children. (We understand they have already had training on feminism.) Here in Ontario we have Mme Justice Rosalie Abella of Ontario, who with Justices Goodman and Catzman ruled that consenting 14 year-olds have a right to be sodomized. Justice Abella is widely considered to be in line as the next female appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada. Perhaps Sheldon Kennedy could communicate something of the reality of pedophilia to these ivory tower theorists.
 But even a simpler impeachment process and sensitivity training will not solve the problem of loose cannons on the bench. What is really needed is an end in public and academic life to the idolatrous worship of individualism and privacy, and a beginning of genuine respect for both the public good and the universal moral standards upheld by virtually all religions.
 If anyone doubts that all historic religions teach virtually the same moral standards, read the appendix listing them with references in C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man.

[CHEERS] The Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Affairs, for responding to our concerns about the persecution of Coptic christians at El-Kosheh in Upper Egypt, through our MP, John D. Maloney (Erie-Lincoln). There follows excerpts from Mr Axworthy's letter of January 18:-
 "Reports from the Canadian Embassy in Cairo indicate that the events referred to in your letter appear to be more the result of police misconduct than religious intolerance, though the latter was undoubtedly a factor. This was affirmed by Pope Shenouda III as well as by Bishop Wissa of the diocese in which the village is located. The Deputy Minister of Interior for Upper Egypt visited the village on September 17, 1998, and ordered the release of two persons who were still detained. Susequently, the Egyptian Minister of the Interior, Habib el-Adli, announced that the civil and criminal rights of those who have been harmed would be settled in court and has taken firm measures against the offenders. Our concern over the events in El-Kosheh village has also been registered with the Egyptian Embassy in Ottawa. The Embassy has informed us that five members of the police involved in the August incident have been disciplined for mistreating suspects at the police station.
 "Our Embassy in Cairo actively follows the human rights situation in Egypt, including the treatment of minorities, and arbitrary detention of citizens. Likewise, the Canadian International Development Agency conducts a number of projects in Egypt supporting organizations that promote respect for human rights and the pursuit of justice. Successive Canadian ambassadors to Egypt have met regularly with Pope Shenouda III to discuss the situation facing the Coptic community. These important contacts will continue. During my visit to Cairo in November 1997, I had the opportunity to discuss the treatment of religious minorities with senior Egyptian government officials. Canada will continue to raise the issue of human rights with Egyptian officials at every opportunity."

[TEARS] We weep for secularists whose faith is in science. Science is a wonderful method for examining measurable phenomena. But values lie outside its scope. This summer we read a scientistic review of science fiction writer Ben Bova's Immortality (Avon) by Canadian sf writer Spider Robinson (Globe and Mail, Aug. 29/98).
 Robinson actually made us chuckle when he went from "written science fiction has been pondering...immortality for more than half a century" to "its consensus conclusions" in short order. If he is talking about fiction, how seriously can we take its conclusions, whether consensus or not?
 Robinson waxed eloquent: "Death itself is mortal, and beginning to sweat." We were immediately reminded of St John Chrysostom's Easter sermon: "He that was taken by death has annihilated it! He descended into Hades and took Hades captive! He embittered it when it tasted his flesh!"  Of course Chrysostom also quoted St Paul, "O death, where is thy sting? O hades, where is thy victory?" and went on to say that Christ is risen and death has been dealt a death-blow.
 Now human beings have thought about immortality for a lot longer than half a century or even a whole century. A thousand years before Christ Homer sang about the goddess Eos (Dawn), who fell in love with Tithonos, a prince of Troy. She got Zeus to grant Tithonos immortality, but forgot about perpetual youth. Tithonos therefore aged, and when he lost the power of movement, she shut him up in his room and eventually turned him into a grasshopper.
 So what, Spider Robinson, can science do with the problem of perpetual youth? Even if the body were not to age, what about the mind? How much input can one human mind endure? Ovid sang about Erisichthon, who, the more he ate, the more he wanted. Having reduced his estate to utter destitution, he was driven to eat himself, finding peace only in death.
 Speaking of appetite, what can science do about human hatred, greed, theft, murder and war? Will the makers of telomerase, hGH and nanotechnology find a way to manufacture justice and peace?
 Being over 50 years of age we cannot hope for Ben Bova's chemical immortality. We accept our finitude with faith in God's promises and in the hope of resurrection. For St Paul says that resurrection involves change into a body suited for eternity (1 Cor. 15:51-52), and St Gregory of Nyssa affirmed eternity to be a dynamic dimension of ever-new beginnings.
 

[CHEERS] General Council Executive meeting October 23-26 authorized Moderator Bill Phipps to apologize "for the pain and suffering that our church's involvement in the Indian Residential School system has caused"; and for the physical, sexual and mental abuse of individuals in the Schools. He said, "We are the bearers of many blessings from our ancestors, and therefore we must also bear their burdens."
 We trust that the "many blessings" refer inter alia to the many good things which the residential schools did, like keeping children from starving, educating them, etc.
 We question that the old system of assimilation is adequately described as "cruel and ill-conceived." Some individual experiences have certainly been of cruelty. Some administrators or teachers may have had ill-conceived methods. But the system was well meant, just as many of our church's initiativesn today are well meant, but may later be judged negatively.
 In any case the apology is a step toward reconciliation and healing, and for that at least we are supportive.

[TEARS] The General Council Judicial Committee panel of retired Judge A.M.N. Austin, Executive Secretary Dianne Cooper, and === N. J. Zishman {???} rendered a decision on December 3, 1998, in the appeal of the Rev. Ted Wigglesworth from a decision of the Alberta and Northwest Conference made November 5, 1997. The decision concluded that Wigglesworth was not denied procedural fairness. Costs were left to the parties involved. Any comment we might make will have to wait until we have been able to study the 55 page plus appendices decision.

[CHEERS]  Rev. Dr. Connie den Bok, for suggesting that June 10 be set apart by renewal/reform-minded United Church people as a day of prayer and fasting.
 It is of course the anniversary of the 1925 union. It is also the anniversary of the Bermuda judgment.
 Connie also noted that John Wesley thought Methodists should follow the twice-weekly fasting of the early Church on Wednesdays and Fridays, not to exclude the forty days of Lent.

[PALM] Serbian-American Bishop St Nikolai Velimirovich (1880- 1956), for his profound exposition of repentance. Every Sunday Orthodox Christians confess in the Liturgy just before Communion, "I believe, O Lord, and I confess that thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who didst come into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief..." St Nikolai wrote:
 "In one day, my brother, you can gain all eternity. And in one day you can lose it all. You are given thousands of days on earth to determine for yourself whether to pursue eternal salvation or damnation. But blessed a hundredfold be that day on which you repent of all your unclean works, your unclean words and thoughts, and turn to God with a cry for mercy! That day is worth more to you than a thousand other days.
 "What is that blessed day? It is the day of self-judgment. When that day dawns, the man who has condemned the whole world until then will at once come to regard himself as the greatest stain on the whole of God's earth. He will be ashamed before God; he will be ashamed before every man and before everything that God has created on earth. And this shame will begin to burn him like a fire. And he will acknowledge and confess: 'Truly I am the greatest stain on God's earth. Truly, are all other men not better than I am? ...O Lord, Lord, have pity on me a sinner and rescue me from the mire of my sins, that I may so much as begin to resemble Your creation.' My brother, do not expect that blessed day of repentance to come of itself. Take firm hold on yourself the first day that it comes to meet you, and say, 'You are the blessed day on which I shall purchase life eternal!'" (Prolog, 26 May, transl. by Johanna Manley)
 
 
 
 
 

Proclaim Liberty:
A Jubilee Appeal

A Challenge for the World Council of Churches Jubilee Assembly, Harare, Zimbabwe, December 3-14, 1998

by the Association for Church Renewal

AFFIRMATIONS

1. Who God is. We affirm the Triune God--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We believe in Jesus Christ as the Word of God Incarnate. We receive the Word of God written in the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. We affirm the Bible as the divinely- inspired standard that is to form our beliefs and practices. We accept the witness of the universal Church to the Word of God as conveyed, for example, by the Nicene Creed.
 THEREFORE, we urge the WCC, in all of its worship liturgies and public statements, to refer to God by using the ancient and traditional trinitarian language of the Church, vigorously and unambiguously.
 THEREFORE, we urge the WCC strongly to reaffirm Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God, and to repudiate the invocation of all other purported gods and saviors.
 THEREFORE, we urge the WCC to uphold a high view of the Holy Scriptures, as the authoritative message shaping all its words and actions, and to respect and safeguard the tesimony of the universal Church throughout the ages.

II. How Human Beings Relate to God. We affirm that repentance and belief in Jesus Christ are the only means that we have been shown to be reconciled to God. Thus we cannot accept the view that all human beings can find salvation in anything or anyone apart from Jesus Christ.
 THEREFORE, we urge the WCC to sound forth again the call to all people of every nation: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven."
 THEREFORE, we urge the WCC to reject all syncretism and "customized" forms of faith.
 THEREFORE, we urge the WCC to turn aside from any "macro- ecumenism" or any type of inter-religious dialogue that would put anything other than Jesus Christ at the center of the ecumenical movement.

III. The Mission of the Church. We affirm the commission that Jesus gave to his followers that they "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you." This remains our central task today if we are to obey our Lord.
 THEREFORE, we urge the WCC to reject the false teachings that would offer the poor and exploited people a human ideology as a substitute for the gospel of Christ, or that would propose a human social scheme as a functional equivalent of the Kingdom of God.
 THEREFORE, we urge the WCC to reaffirm that it seeks the unity of all Christians "so that the world may believe" that the Father has sent Jesus Christ.

IV. Human Identity and Relationships. We acknowledge human sinfulness--personal as well as corporate. We affirm the redemptive, transforming power of Jesus Christ, who made freedom and dignity possible for all. Because we are God's creation, God has inalienable claims on us and we exist in the order that God has created.
 We are grieved by the disrespect, the abuse, the personal prejudice and oppression by which humans so often dishonour the image of God in their fellow human beings. We pledge ourselves to stand with all who have been denied justice and freedom. We know that, ultimately, the fullest freedom is to be found only in Jesus Christ, and that his gospel must be the foundation for any social or political change.
 THEREFORE, we urge the WCC the base efforts toward social reform on the gospel of Jesus Christ, the vision of God's kingdom that it sets forth, and the power of transformation that it brings to those who believe.
 THEREFORE, we urge the WCC, as it strives to uplift the poor, to prefer those solutions that have been proven effective in overcoming poverty above those that simply are rhetorically dramatic.
 THEREFORE, we urge the WCC to promote religious freedom around the globe, and especially to speak out for our fellow Christians wherever they are persecuted.
 THEREFORE, we urge the WCC to affirm that the gospel is the most effective force in history for raising the dignity of women and to proclaim that women are the beneficiaries, not victims of the Christian faith, despite its imperfect outworking in history.
 THEREFORE, we urge the WCC to uphold the biblical and traditional teaching of the Church on marriage: that the lifelong union of man and woman is the divinely-ordained channel for human sexual expression and reproduction, and that persons are called to repent of any departures from the marital norm--whether it be premarital or extra-marital sexual relations or homosexual activity. We affirm the transformation made possible for all who sin through the power and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
 (Copyright by The Association for Church Renewal, 1998. Used  by permission. ACR, 1521 16th St NW, Suite 300, Washington,   DC 20036. Phone 202-986-1440)
 

WHAT IS MAN?
or
DOES THEOLOGY MATTER?
(Psalm 8; 144:3-4; Job 25:4-6)

   Even churchgoing people are impatient with theology.  They regard theology as utterly abstract and uselessly otherworldly.  Theology, they assume, has to do with dotting i's and crossing t's.  But help people? give hope to people? even save people?  Since when did i's and t's save anyone?
   Frankly, I think there is a place for crossing t's and dotting i's.  After all, there is a difference between asking someone to run your business and asking him to ruin your business, isn't there?  In any case, theology isn't utterly abstract and uselessly otherworldly.  Theology is the discipline of reflecting upon the truth of the living God.  And God is neither abstract nor otherworldly.  God is concrete.  God is the reality with which all of us collide and wrestle and which we sometimes deny; and God remains that reality which none of us can ever escape.
   Make no mistake.  When a theology of nature is dismissed nature becomes a giant garbage pail slowly gathering up lethal chemicals.
   When a theology of history is ignored we give up the struggle to lend visibility to the kingdom of God and instead make our peace with the kingdom of evil even as it savages us.
   What about a theology of humankind?  What are man and woman?  Who are we, anyway?  Are we merely two-legged featherless creatures whose toys and tools are a bit more sophisticated than those of a monkey?  Are we simply the cold-blooded killers the man from eastern Europe told me we are after he himself had been victimized by both nazis and communists?  Or are we simply angelic creatures of superior rationality?  C.S. Lewis pointed out that when people believe they are only animals they behave like animals.  And yet paradoxically when they believe they are near-angelic their behaviour eventually becomes near demonic.  Theology -- our reflection upon the truth of God -- matters.  Whether explicit or implicit it governs how we view ourselves, what we do to other people, and whether there is hope for any of us.
   The important theological question, "What is man?", is asked several times in the Hebrew bible.  Today we are going to probe several of the answers given this question.

I:  --   "What is man that you, God, are mindful of him and care for him?"  Answer:  "I have made him little less than God, and have crowned him with glory and honour."  All men and women are the pinnacle of God's creation, higher than anything else God has made, only slightly lower than God himself and crowned (the fact that we are crowned means that everyone belongs to the royal family; before God there are no commoners) crowned with a glory and an honour which no one else can snatch from us and which we cannot even forfeit ourselves.  This is what we are.
   It's important that we understand we are created with a dignity we can neither lose accidentally nor fritter away foolishly nor give up disgustingly nor be robbed of helplessly.  To be sure, we can always behave in such a way as to contradict this dignity, and other people can treat us so as to deny it, but by God's ordination it is ours, and is ours forever.
   Think of the situations where our society implicitly recognizes humankind's ineradicable glory/honour/dignity and explicitly pays dearly to uphold it: the convict, for instance.  One person in a penitentiary costs us (ie, taxpayers) $55,000 per year.  When a new jail is built the cost is $285,000 per cell.  From time-to-time my wife has a child in her class who is severely challenged, whether physically or  emotionally.  A teacher's aide is provided (taxpayer's expense) who assists the youngster with getting around, getting to the toilet, getting winter clothes on or off; or else the teacher's aide attempts to defuse explosions hidden away in the girl's psyche, and then attempts to console the child and others when defusing doesn't work and there is emotional shrapnel spewing in all directions.
   What does our society spend on the aged, the infirm (who may be young), the deranged, the new-born with the birth-defect?  What do we spend on people who are socially unproductive and will never come close to paying their own way?  And why do we spend it?  Because despite the explicit secularism of our society there is an implicit theology at work: any human being is created only less than God, and is crowned with glory and honour.
   We must not think that everyone knows innately what the psalmist tells us.  Conviction of the glory and honour of humankind is not innate; conviction of this truth is fostered by the gospel.  Where a society isn't illumined by the indirect lighting of the gospel, or is no longer illumined by the indirect lighting of the gospel, people are regarded as tools to be used while useful and discarded when not.  Solzhenitsyn, the Russian novelist and historian, asks, "Do you have difficulty imagining what becomes of people in a society which is no longer controlled, even unconsciously, by the indirect illumination of the gospel?  Ask me", says Solzhenitsyn, "ask me.  I have lived in such a society myself!"
   In the war between China and Japan just prior to World War II it was learned that the Japanese estimated how long it would take a wounded soldier to recover and return to combat, and then decided whether or not the wounded soldier would be given medical treatment.  If his injuries were such that he would be unavailable for several months -- as was the case with a broken leg -- he was shot in the head by his own people.
   When I was a young teenager I was fascinated with accounts of the Battle of Britain.  One aspect of it, however, did not fascinate me as much as it amazed me.  Injured enemy fliers who had been shot down in the course  of slaying defenceless civilians were themselves given the very best medical treatment available in Britain.  If the flier had glass fragments in his eye and he needed the world's best ophthalmologist, he got her, even if there was a lineup of British citizens who needed medical treatment but whose condition was deemed less urgent.  This, I thought, was irrational.  It is irrational -- unless even our worst enemy is someone who cannot forfeit the glory and honour and dignity in which he or she was created.
   Theology matters.  Imagine a society where the indirect illumination of the gospel flickers out completely.

II: --  What is man? woman?  "Man is like a breath", says the psalmist in  his second answer, "man is like a breath; his days are like a passing shadow.  "In other words, we are short-lived creatures for whom life passes speedily; in addition, we are vulnerable creatures for whom life unfolds perilously.
   Our days are like a passing shadow.  Once we see this we can react in two quite different ways.  One way is the way of fatalism and indifference.  "Since life passes so very quickly, what is the point of doing anything? of exerting ourselves anywhere?  Why not sit back and let the passing shadow pass?"
The other way is the way of biblical faith.
   Just because life is but a breath and our days a passing shadow, every moment has eternal significance.  Every moment is an opportunity for mirroring the truth of God.  Every moment is unique, pregnant, unrepeatable.  Every moment can be a window opening on the God who sends rain and sun on just and unjust alike.  And because we are vulnerable creatures, what occurs in any moment can have consequences for some person beyond anything we might imagine.
   Several times I have said from this pulpit that the day came for me when I realized that I could control almost nothing; could influence a great deal, to be sure, but control almost nothing.  I used to think this was so because of my social situation.  But someone like the Chief Executive Officer of a major corporation, someone whose social situation wasn't mine; he could control eversomuch!  Then one day I learned that a CEO, in Canada, lasts 3.5 years (on average), whereupon he is fired.  What does he control then?  What did he control earlier?  Not even enough to keep himself from being fired!  And political authorities?  How much can Jean Chretien control?  If the American government raises interest rates tomorrow there will be huge consequences for every dimension of Canadian life.  And Chretien  will have no control over the move by our American friends or over the consequences for Canadian life.
   I understand now the people in Jerusalem who laid their sick friends in the street in the hope that Peter's shadow might fall on them.  Peter himself had no control over his bad reputation as someone who had failed Jesus at the latter's moment of greatest need.  Neither did he have any control over the Jerusalem authorities who were harassing him at that moment.  And yet so great was Peter's influence that people went home happy if only his shadow fell on them.
   As my children grew up into adolescence I came to realize how little control I had over them, and yet was always astounded at the influence I had upon them.  A line casually dropped at suppertime was repeated six months later; an attitude commented on and commended during a late-night car ride when everyone was sleepy was done some time afterward.  One day, after someone in the congregation had excoriated me and my daughters had witnessed it, we talked it over at home.  I told them that Mr. XYZ wasn't really nasty, in my opinion; he was far more unhappy than nasty, and insecure as well.  I explained that unhappy and insecure people are far more likely to lash out than nasty people are and lash out without intending to be nasty.  A few weeks later I heard my daughter reflecting the very same approach to someone who had treated her shabbily.
   Because my life is a breath and by days a passing shadow I have to realize that I have only a few breaths in which to be.  I don't have to do something dramatic or eye-catching.  I have to be.  It's my "be-ing" that will prove to be my greatest influence.
   In the midst of "passing shadows" I often feel I am endlessly jostled by semi-anonymous people.  The woman from the Ontario Housing Development who needs a few dollars because her child is sick and what the sick child needs is just enough to put the family finances below the line this month.
   The schizophrenic fellow who wants to talk to me not because he has urgent information to convey but because he is lonely and can't understand why people weary of and walk away from his pillar-to-post ramblings.
   I start to feel that all of this is crowding out the really important work I am to be about.
   Then I recall the master himself on this way to the house of Jairus who was the president of the synagogue.  Jesus is going to the man's house because the daughter is sick unto death.  As Jesus walks resolutely through the crowds an unnamed woman reaches out and touches him.  Doesn't she know he's hurrying to make a housecall before a young girl dies?  She doesn't know this.  How could she?  But at least she can see how busy he is.  "Hold it!", says Jesus to impatient disciples accompanying him, "someone has touched  me.  Some one person has reached out to me.  Let's deal with this."
   Then I remember the people who have delayed themselves in order to be kind to me.  I'm not talking now about the people who have assisted me dramatically on the two occasions I was injured on the street and needed an ambulance to get to the hospital.  I'm talking about the unnamed people who have gladly inconvenienced themselves in order to help me, therein mirroring our Lord himself.
   The clerk at the Lufthansa counter in Frankfurt, Germany when my pick-up didn't show up and the Frankfurt telephone directory had defeated me and I couldn't find the village of Arnoldshain in the Frankfurt directory inasmuch as I had been given the wrong spelling of "Arnoldshain".
   The bag lady who welcomed me to her table in the doughnut shop when I was undercover in Parkdale.  Sure she was deranged.  But who ever said you had to be sane in order to be a Christian?  This 25 year old woman was unafraid, and assumed that I, grubby as I was, was another needy person as needy as she.
   The house painter in Winnipeg who got me to the bathroom when I was throwing up with measles.  My father had already been transferred to Guelph, my mother had my sisters out shopping for some items needed for our train-trip to Toronto that night, and I was sick in bed while the painter painted.  When my mother returned home and thanked the man he merely shrugged and smiled, "I had young children myself, you know".
   Wherever I have been in life I have found no shortage of people who were kind to me.  (I didn't say "everyone": I have met my share of curdled spirits.  I said "no shortage", a sufficient number of them.)  They have intuited, even if they never thought about it consciously, that because life is but a breath and our days a passing shadow, the only time we have to exemplify God's truth and mercy and faithfulness is now.  This moment is unique and is fraught with eternal significance.

III: --  "What is man?"  The book of Job gives a third answer: "A maggot, a worm."  I thought we were little less than God, crowned with glory and honour!  And now a maggot, a worm?  Actually, it is no putdown, no belittlement of us.  To understand what is said we must first hear the question it answers.  "How can anyone be innocent? (NEB) or clean? (RSV).  Can anyone be righteous or pure in God's sight? (TEV)  Worm!  Maggot!"  It is the writer's way of reminding us that we are unrighteous before God.  We are sinners through-and-through.
   Are we?  Paul says, "There is none righteous, no, not one."  Jeremiah says, "The human heart is deceitful above all things and desperately corrupt."  Jesus says, pithily and unmistakably, "I came in order to call sinners to repentance.
   In other words, that creature which is crowned with glory and honour is also the sinner whom the Hebrew writer speaks of as "worm" and "maggot".

IV: --  Then what are we finally?  Are we a combination of the three descriptions we have heard today?  If so, are we all three equally?  Does one predominate?  Which one?
   Our questions is answered as we leave off guessing  about ourselves and look to Jesus Christ.    In him we are created for fellowship with the one who has crowned us with glory and honour.  In him we are created for fellowship with the One in whom our dignity and worth are guaranteed forever.  In him we are created for fellowship with the One in whom our frailty is no longer a liability and in whom any Christ-like deed is rendered eternally significant.  In him we are created for fellowship with the One in whom our sin is pardoned even as a new heart begins to throb within us.  We are created for a fellowship in which our glorious humanity is restored, even made resplendent.
   Some people have indeed affirmed this and are stepping forward in it.  Others have not yet affirmed it, but rather scorn it and thrust it away.  Yet the invitation and summons remain.  And therefore you and I are to look upon every human creature as appointed to this fellowship and appointed to be a beneficiary of it.  What the future of humankind is, at least in the western world, according to Solzhenitsyn, depends on whether the Christian Church can reassert convincingly the truth of God concerning his creation.
 Theology matters.

Victor Shepherd January 1999