Theological Digest & Outlook

Selections from the September 1999 issue (Vol. XIV, No. 2)

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

• The United Church of Canada to 2010 (T.G. Bandy)
• Church Alive's 25th Anniversary: Alive and Kicking (K. Hamilton)
  
• Reflections on the 25th Anniversary of Church Alive (C.D. Mathison)
  
• Remembering Church Alive: An Historical Memoir (C.G. Ross)
  
• Infidelity (P.Wyatt)
  
• Faithfulness in the United Church of Canada (G.A.D. Scott)
  
• Response To Graham Scott's Response (P. Wyatt)
  
• Response To Peter Wyatt's Response (G.A.D. Scott)
  
• 'A ratchet-like inexorability' (D. Walker)
  
• Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (J. Satinover)
  
• Review: Renew! Blended Worship (D. Faris)
  
• Guest Editorial: Dead Reckoning
  
• Palms and Scorpions, Cheers and Tears
  
• Sermon Post Modernism (V. Shephard)
  
• Incarnation (G. Scott)
  
• It's Empty (R. E. Mayan)
  
• A Kaleidoscope (C. Colson)
  
• Will Nietzche (C. Colson)

The United Church of Canada to 2010: Opportunities and Challenges Thomas G. Bandy

Anniversaries (like Jubilee 2000, the 75^th for the United Church of Canada, or the 25^th for Church alive) all tend to invite predictions about the future. My own perspective on the next decade for the United Church of Canada is stamped by my personal experience, and I recognize that it is at best, and at worst, only a perspective.

I have recently departed from the Division of Mission in Canada national staff on the most friendly terms, because I know God calls me to a new ministry of consultation and training that crosses denominational and national boundaries. I leave the General Council with warm feelings about many positive relationships, and with continued commitment to the work plan of the DMC which I helped to create. It is a good plan. It emphasizes congregational growth (in all meanings of the word) and mission toward the spiritually seeking, institutionally alienated people of Canada.

There is a tremendous opportunity before the United Church in the next decade. There is growing openness to the kind of inclusive, moderate, relevant church that is intrinsic to our denomination. The Canadian public (old timers and new comers) are generally open to a church that can transform lives and change society for the better. The polity of the United Church is generally poised to be more flexible and adaptable than that of any other denominational body.

Yet there are at least five discernible challenges our church must face in order to seize this growing opportunity.

1. We need to make up our mind whether to live within the Basis of Union, or change the Basis of Union. I do not think we can live much longer in a constant state of ambiguity. The real issue for me is not the authority of scripture, but the Christological assumptions of the denomination. Either the church embraces the Chalcedonian confession of the mysterious person of Jesus as paradoxically fully human and fully divine, or it does not. If it embraces the traditional formula, then advocates emphasizing one side or the other can still live harmoniously together. If it does not, then the church will fragment.

2. We need to make up our mind whether to live with the Trust of Model Deed, or change the ownership rights of congregations. The prophetic (and in my view correct) stance of the church in the residential schools crisis is going to force us to resolve issues of shared financial responsibility, and this will also pressure us to clarify who really owns the assets of the church. I would have preferred that this issue had been prompted by new church development, but what this mission failed to do, the residential schools crisis will likely do for us.

3. We need to reunite evangelism and social action. The old wars between evangelicals and social activists simply must be overcome by a higher unity of calling. Of course evangelicals believe in changing society and of course social activists believe in faith transformation and discipleship. The polarization between factions across the church today is really no longer about theology or ideology. It is about power, control, and turf protection, and we need to get over it. Faith witness and personal transformation, and prophetic witness and social change, are just two sides of the same coin.

4. We need to empower congregations and downsize the judicatory role. There is an important middle judicatory role for leadership development, capital resourcing, and partnership building for national and global mission. However, much of the bureaucracy to achieve these important goals has become needless and drains energy away from real mission. The organizational options for congregations and judicatories need to become team-based and spiritually entrepreneurial. Every effective organization in Canada is surrendering hierarchy and bureaucracy, except the church, and we need to change.

5. We need to emphasize credibility and authenticity, not just credentials and skills. This means that adult spiritual formation needs to be even a higher priority than youth and children Sunday School. It also means that professional and volunteer leaders need to lead in a whole new way. They need to lead by the credibility they have among church outsiders, and by the spiritual authenticity that speaks out of both life struggle and spiritual victory.

I am proud that the national Division of Mission in Canada has a vision to respond to all five of these challenges and more. Please don't assume that the way I have stated the issues are exactly the way other divisional colleagues might state them. My celebration is that I left a division in which these broad goals could nevertheless embrace a diversity of perspectives. I think I helped create that environment and that sense of purposefulness. Every two or three years people always ask each other "What would be your agenda if you were Moderator?" Well, that's my answer. What is yours?

There is a tremendous opportunity in the next decade for a church like ours. The public are open to us as never before but they are less patient than ever before! If the United Church has not addressed these issues in significant ways by 2010, I fear it will be increasingly difficult to expand our mission among the Canadian public and the world. On the other hand, if the United Church does address these issues in significant ways, I believe the opportunities for mission and growth to be limitless.

Church Alive's 25^th Anniversary

ALIVE AND KICKING

Kenneth Hamilton

Say not the struggle naught availeth,
The labour and the wounds are vain
The enemy faints not, nor faileth,
And as things have been they remain.

. . . . . . . .

And not by eastern windows only,
When daylight comes, comes in the light;
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly!
But westward, look, the land is bright!

During the darkest days of the Second World War, when the Nazis had over-run Continental Europe and Britain stood alone, Winston Churchill read this poem by Arthur Hugh Clough in a radio broadcast to the nation. The message of Clough's poem seems apposite for the twenty-fifth anniversary of the founding of Church Alive.

All Christians are called to engage in spiritual warfare (Eph. 6:12), and down the ages part of that warfare has always been the struggle to preserve the integrity of the Apostolic faith within the Christian community itself. The Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century took as their motto Ecclesia Semper Reformanda­the Church has to be continually reformed. They saw that Churches deserved to be called Christian only so long as they continued to confess belief in Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Son of God. Church Alive was called into being by dedicated members of the United Church of Canada who shared the conviction that their denomination was drifting away from its foundations. A reformation from within was imperative

It was not that the United Church stood alone in this respect. All Churches to some degree were then departing from their traditions and embracing a "Culture Christianity" taking its values not from the Gospel but from contemporary society. There was a widespread feeling that in an increasingly secularized world the credal beliefs defining Christian faith could scarcely be understood by the unchurched and therefore Christians should concentrate upon what could be better appreciated and put their energies into social action. Underlying this choice was the (no doubt unconscious) surrender to the cynical advice, "If you can't lick 'em, join 'em." Consequently, as Church Alive was born, so were similar reform movements in most other denominations to protest this course.

None of these movements was able to halt­or even slow down to any marked extent­the apparent willingness of the Churches to engage in a Gadarene rush towards their own destruction. In the Roman Church, indeed, the accession of John Paul II to the Papal Chair was effective in stemming the flood that had threatened to sweep away centuries of Catholic traditions. But the "mainline" Protestant Churches continued to implement policies bringing accelerating losses in membership and guaranteed to result in their eventual extinction. Ecclesiastical bodies declaring their chief reason for existence to be advancing "social justice" have ipso facto declared themselves redundant. Laws are not made in churches.

"Say not the struggle naught availeth." The history of faith is filled with examples of seemingly hopeless situations being reversed. Elijah imagined himself to be the only one in Israel who had not forsake the service of the Living God for the worship of Baal. The early Christians survived three centuries of persecution by the Roman Empire to find Christianity made the recognized religion of that same Empire. In the eighteenth century Bishop Butler wrote that Christian faith was "fast wearing out of the minds of men." Yet, only a few years later, the Evangelical Revival swept over Britain and America. Even in the history of culture the totally unexpected often happens. After William the Conqueror invaded England, Norman-French became the official language of the country; so more than a century after it was reported that the English tongue was still used "only by a few uplandish men." How English made its come-back has never been fully explained, and it never could have been guessed that English would finally become the language used internationally.

The closing line of Clough's poem was very relevant when Winston Churchill made use of it, because at that time the lease-lend agreement with the United States made it possible for Britain to continue the struggle against the Axis Powers. Today, Christians are more likely to say, "But eastward, look!" At recent Church Conferences, the Churches of Africa, Asia, and the Far East have been the ones standing firm on the issue of traditional doctrines, resisting those departures from tradition urged by Church leaders from North America and Western Europe. It was a Polish Pope who turned the tide against threatened disruption of Papal authority. And a revived Orthodox faith is one of the few hopeful signs present in post-Communist Russia.

We of the West still wait impatiently for any strong evidence of a change of heart among the leaders of our Churches. While patience is a leading Christian virtue, to be impatient with a state of affairs which calls out for change is also Christian­provided it be a prayerful impatience. By the Grace of God, however, bad times also produce unexpected blessings. One of the most hopeful and significant developments resulting from the flight from orthodox beliefs found in such a wide spectrum of Churches is that in almost all denominations those who cherish the integrity of the Gospel are discovering that they need to come together. Old animosities and prejudices forgotten, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians find themselves united when basic doctrines of the faith are under assault in their respective Church bodies.

After the Second World War the formation of the World Council of Churches seemed to promise a bright future for Christian unity. Those who are as old as I am remember what hopes were raised by Ecumenicism­called by William Temple "the great new fact of our time." Those hopes have faded, since the World Council became politicized. But perhaps a New Ecumenicism is arising, one based not upon organizations but upon people of faith ignoring ecclesiastical divisions for the common cause of proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Lord of All.

Meanwhile, Church Alive remains active in pursuing its mission. It is not simply alive, it is kicking­kicking impatiently yet prayerfully against the watering-down and trivializing of the historic Faith. Long may it continue, living hopefully and praying for the arrival of that time when it will no longer be needed.

Reflections on the 25^th Anniversary of Church Alive
C. Daniel Matheson

Twenty-five years ago I was one of the founding members of Church Alive. I recall those years as being a time of controversy, confrontation and, consequently, stress within The United Church; but it was also a time of confirmation in faith. Those of us who were at the centre of the movement were inspired and strengthened by one another and by many faithful United Church persons who supported us. For us they were good years. I have to remember two great men, the Rev. Dr. G. Campbell Wadsworth and the Rev. Dr. Victor Fiddes, who have gone on before us into the reality of the Church Triumphant. Their splendid unity of faith, learning and zeal became the essential spirit of our movement.

During that time many ministers were having difficulties with either their congregations or presbyteries or both. I recall admiring their stability, courage and fairness. I also remember my own thoughts about their situations: I believed that I could never face what they were facing with like fortitude. In fact my own turn came in 1983 when I was in the midst of retirement. The end result came in 1987 when I was received as a priest by the Antiochian jurisdiction of the Eastern Orthodox Church. My relief at being free from the continuous stress, anxiety and confrontation of the United Church ministry was enormous. In due time, of course, I found that I had entered into new stresses; although, it is important to state, heresy is not one of them.

If Church alive had done nothing more than give birth to Theological Digest & Outlook it would have been worth while. This publication­which seems to improve with each new volume­is a continuing source of well researched and brilliantly expressed material which always keeps before its readers the firm foundations of our faith; as well as the commendations, rebukes and exhortations that Saint Paul advised in his pastoral letters. It deserves a larger group of readers than just The United Church: I hope it grows in that direction.

Personally, I am very much on the side lines now. Because of my wife's health I am unable to be very active in my retirement, but I am involved enough to know still the joy of leading Public Worship and the privileges of pastoral ministry. I am a happy man.

Although I am no longer in The United Church of Canada it is still very much in me. I wince with the same painful distress when persons like the current Moderator proclaim their heretical beliefs; and I am frustrated at a press that asks continually what he and others believe. Why do they not ask what the Church believes? My prayer list still contains the same old names as well as the new­and sometimes strange-sounding­names of my fellow Orthodox Christians.

It is gratifying to know that what we began twenty-five years ago is still the strong witness that it always has been for the Trinitarian faith and for the Church that the Te Deum calls "the Holy Church throughout all the world." At the time of its foundation, I seem to remember, we expressed the hope that we would continue as long as God needed us. The need is still there, and God is still blessing Church Alive. Thanks be to God.

REMEMBERING CHURCH ALIVE: AN HISTORICAL MEMOIR
C. Gordon Ross

Throughout the spring and fall months of 1973, through correspondence and personal meetings, a group of concerned persons began to dialogue with each other about their growing concerns about the denominational context in which they found themselves as members of the United Church of Canada's ministry. They shared together a high level degree of concern about the present circumstances and future prospects of their denominational family. Those persons were Graham Scott, Daniel Matheson, Campbell Watsworth, Victor Fiddes, Judith Richards, and C. Gordon Ross. Soon after, they were joined in this process of dialogue and reflection by Kenneth Barker, who shared with them concerns about the present and future tendencies of the United Church, although he was less convinced at the time about the need for continuing organizational structure within the denomination to reflect that concern. Also available to this leadership grouping as a theological resource was the distinguished theologian, Prof. Kenneth Hamilton, who however, did not participate directly in the meetings of this leadership group.

None of the participants in this group were theological clones of the other. Some were pastors of many years standing; others were in the early stages of their professional ministry. All shared a common devotion to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and each was deeply distressed at the state of the United Church of Canada theologically and spiritually.

They were:

. Campbell Wadsworth, minister emeritus of Montreal West United Church, who passionately held to a Catholic and High Church view of ordered ministry. He had a lifetime of experience in the United Church, with deep roots in its Presbyterian traditions. Wearing his Trinitarian faith on his shirt sleeve, he fretted presciently about the serious risk that the United Church might soon end up as an unacknowledged proponent of Unitarianism.

. Daniel Matheson, then senior minister of Westboro United Church, brought the perspectives of a devout and dedicated pastor of many years of experience. A winsome, caring and deeply spiritual man he was even then deeply influenced by the tradition of Orthodox spirituality.

He experienced that tradition as a kind of oasis amidst the spiritual aridity of many of his denominational colleagues. Later he would himself become an Orthodox priest.

. Graham Scott, then as now, a man of remarkable erudition and a class mate of mine from seminary days, had been increasingly distressed by his difficulties in finding published comments by official spokespersons of the United Church consistent with the apostolic faith itself. He functioned as chief draftsman of our efforts at Church wide communications. Deeply influenced by the Catholic tradition, he felt called to the United Church and challenged to work within it for its reform and renewal.

. Judith Richards, then a diaconal minister of the United Church, now exercising her gifts as an educator within the Ontario public school system, brought the perspectives of one who had come to vital faith experience within the Ugandan Church while serving with Canadian University Students Overseas (CUSO) in the last 1960's.

At this time, Judith was serving as a diaconal minister of Humber Valley United Church and brought to our deliberations the perspectives of a gifted Christian educator with an internationalist flavour, influenced by her Ugandan experience. She had returned to Canada with a deep sense of call to prepare for service within the Church as an educator. Her theological and church concerns were significantly shaped by the writings of Karl Barth. She brought an emphatic Barthian flavour to our discussions.

. Victor Fiddes, then pastor of St. James United Church in Montreal was, in many ways, a thorough-going offspring of the United Church. He had at an earlier point in time, seen himself as belonging at or near the centre of his denomination's life but by this point in time he felt religiously more and more a stranger in a strange land­"in" but no longer feeling whole-heartedly "of" the kind of Church the United Church of Canada seemed intent on becoming. He joined us largely because of the deepening dismay he felt by the progressive abandonment of the UCC leadership of the church's theological foundations and scriptural heritage.

. Kenneth Barker, both a former and a future Presbyterian minister, was more optimistic than some about the capacity of the church courts to respond relatively to our concerns. Nonetheless he was ready and committed to participating on a process that would give voice to his deeply held theological concerns. He brought to our discussions church court experience and a moderate and ecumenically balanced emphasis. He would later serve as the first secretary of the Community of Concern's Steering Committee.

. Finally, the writer of this presentation, a lawyer and an adult convert within the United Church. I was at that time serving in Northern Ontario in my sixth year of pastoral ministry. By this point I had become convinced of the need for a more effective voice to give expression to the catholic and evangelical traditions of the Church. In my early formative years as a Christian I had been influenced by a variety of renewal movements as well as the grant themes of the Magisterial Reformation. I wanted very much to bring together the concerns for doctrinal integrity, personal devotion and issues of Church governance.

Thus the core leadership of Church Alive reflected the attitudes and values of a substantial minority of the United Church membership and represented a considerable diversity in outlook and emphasis.

This memoir is an attempt of one of those early participants to tell you a little of who we were and what it was we tried to do within the fellowship of Church Alive. I leave it to others to evaluate the validity or significance of these efforts.

The first substantial contribution of the theological reform movement that became Church alive pre-dates the founding of Church Alive itself. Throughout the winter and spring of 1974, an Ad Hoc committee circulated a document entitled, 15 Affirmations for Lent 1974, and invited concerned clergy and laity to subscribe their support to the document. About 200 clergy and a significant number of laity subscribed to this statement. Subsequently it was prominently published by the United Church Observer, whose editor, A.C. Forest, discerned in it a theological rigor and competence that compared most favourably with emanations from the Division of Mission in Canada. In fact, he believed it was qualitavely superior to them.

That spring, both Judith Richards and C. Gordon Ross met with A.C. Forest and presented the document to him. After this discussion, he agreed to publish it and in effect, legitimize it as a valid contribution to an on-going and necessary debate within the United Church about its present and future directions.

Shortly after this, a decision was made to develop an organization with an on-going structure entitled, Church Alive. This new organization was duly incorporated and placed on a permanent footing so that there would be a structure in place to participate in the on-going debate around theological issues within the United Church as such contributions were needed.

A substantial number of the signatories to the 15 affirmations for Lent did not see the need for continuing movement within the United Church of Canada at that time. Some were quite content to have made their statement of concern and to thereafter participate within the courts of the church in the hope and expectation that the confessional words of the 15 Affirmations for Lent would not fall on stony ground.

A number of persons standing within the conservative evangelical tradition saw the United Church Renewal Fellowship as their natural home and took up their vocation of dissent within that context. However, most of the core leaders of the Ad Hoc Committee that had produced the 15 Affirmations believed that there was a distinctive place for a non-fundamentalists group with the United Church family that was prepared to see on-going theological reflection as its primary and on-going task.

There were reasons of substance for this conclusion. At that time the church's doctrine of ministry was in a profoundly unsettled state. A fundamental debate about the church's understanding of ministry had been launched in 1968 and was to continue throughout the '60s and '70s as a prominent issue within the courts of the church. Largely because of that unsettled state, the core leaders of Church Alive believed it would be unwise and inappropriate to in effect withdraw from the ongoing denominational debate. We sensed that we would need to be ready to actively participate in it.

'Accordingly, further contributions around these issues were sent forward from time to time, including communication to Commissioners of the General Council on that important question. At least one former moderator expressed the view to Church Alive, that its contribution to the debate had made an impact out of all proportion to its numbers with a result that some of the more radical notions associated with the Task Force on Ministry report were not uncritically embraced by the General Council of the day.

While unsuccessful in bringing about a turnaround in the church's understanding of the place of ordered ministry within its fellowship, Church Alive had arrested for a time at least a tendency to transform the denomination into a little more than a liberal sect, fundamentally out of step with its mainstream colleagues within the World Council of Churches in its understanding of ordered ministry in the Church Catholic.

Church Alive's voice was also heard on another important issue and one which continues to challenge mainstream denominations today. Throughout the 1970s, the siren song of syncretism/universalism began to manifest itself as a pressing issue for the United Church courts deliberation. Probably the most prominent voice associated with that tendency was that of a former moderator, the Rt. Rev. Bruce MacLeod. From him and others as well, the United Church began to hear a variety of formulations in which was affirmed that there were many ways to God and that the church needed to clearly declare this "truth." In a variety of ways and formulations, the United Church began to hear it said that the saviourhood of Jesus Christ did not really extend beyond the confines of the church itself. Despite the Basis of Union's adoption of the confessions of the universal Church that Jesus is both God and Man and the unique Mediator between them, the scandal of the Incarnation increasingly proved to be too heavy a burden for a number of Liberal Protestants at the heart and centre of United Church leadership to bear. It became increasingly difficult to understand in what sense, if any, the unique and universal saviourhood of Jesus Christ was being upheld. Jesus, it was alleged, while undoubtedly Lord of the church, might simply be one of the ways in which God was manifesting his saving purpose to the world.

In short, the saving significance of Jesus Christ appeared to be minimized and compromised. Not for the first time, nor for the last, prominent voices within the United Church's leadership, advocated a line of teaching that reduced the significance of Jesus, rather than rejecting him outright. In doing so, it professed itself to be in essential agreement with the Basis of Union of the United Church. Others, including the leadership of Church Alive, rejected the proposition that such teaching was indeed consistent with the Basis of Union.

To Church Alive, the reductionist tendency reflected in the utterances of Bruce MacLeod and the many others who joined him in this emphasis was unacceptable. Consequently a challenge to this teaching went forth. It has to be said that Church Alive's achievements on this issue were ambiguous at best. True, the General Council of the United Church fell short of an open formal acceptance of the MacLeod position. But, at least as importantly, at no time did it come close to repudiating the teaching of MacLeod. Rather it simply contented itself with accepting the advice of another former moderator, the Rt. Rev. George Tuttle that it ought to consider the importance of the questions formally raised before it by way of petition. Ultimately, it did address these issues in a document which it commended for study by the church entitled, "The Lordship of Jesus."

Within a little more than decade the language of that report had itself become unacceptable and instead, by 1992, Jesus was simply to be affirmed as Mentor and Friend, a position adopted in a report entitled, "The Authority Interpretation of Scripture" received by the General Council of the United Church in 1992.

As events proceeded within the denominational life of the United Church of Canada, it became clearer and clearer that the original foreboding that animated the initial core leadership of Church Alive, had been amply justified. Beginning in the 1980s and culminating in the Sexual Orientation, Lifestyle and Ministry Report of 1988 (SOLM) and its off-spring, Membership Ministry and Human Sexuality (MMHS), the denomination became engulfed in a divisive debate that profoundly injured the denomination and led to painful separations from its life by many faithful members, both lay and ordered.

To that wrenching debate, Church Alive and its leadership made its own unique and distinctive contributions joining with a wider network of concerned persons within the United Church and participating in the work of the Community of Concern, 1988 to 1990, an organization that I had the honour to serve as its Executive Director. In 1990, having decided that I could no longer continue within the United Church of Canada, I withdrew from Church Alive. I therefore leave it to others to describe and evaluate the contributions of Church Alive to the on-going life of the United Church of Canada subsequent to that time.

I would be remiss however, if I did not acknowledge another very important contribution of Church Alive to the establishment of the first "Faithfulness Today" conference held in Hamilton, Ontario in March 1990. The conference featured important theological papers on a number of contentious issues within the life of the denomination together with workshops which focused in part at least on practice of ministry questions as well as important theological questions. In that task, Church Alive and Graham Scott in particular, was being true to the conviction that a fundamental part of Church Alive's mandate was to contribute to informed theological debate.

Church Alive had been founded in the belief that ideas did matter and that theology mattered in a fundamental way to the health of the church.

It did not hold the view that theology alone mattered. Throughout its life, it had attempted to ensure that there was a corresponding and balancing emphasis on the importance of the devotional and worshipping life as well. But it did believe and affirm that an unreflective piety would be ill-equipped to withstand the pressures and challenges of a secularized and compromised theological leadership.

It is likely that a commitment to this twin emphasis will continue to be of importance to those within the United Church who confess the reformed evangelical and catholic faith as reflected on the Basis of Union of the United Church of Canada.

Faithfulness in the United Church of Canada
GRAHAM A.D. SCOTT

Peter Wyatt recently defended the liberal leaders of the United Church of Canada from charges that they violated its doctrine. He rightly pointed out that the framers of the Basis of Union Doctrine "scarcely assumed that these articles would be the last word spoken by the new church declaring its faith."

Dr Wyatt failed to mention two crucial aspects of the Basis of Union. First, the Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregationalist commissioners who formed the union put their signatures to the document. Their signatures showed how important that doctrine was to them. By contrast recent General Council decisions have seriously compromised the basic doctrines on God, Holy Scripture, Jesus Christ, atonement, and God's everlasting moral law.

Second, the founders of the 1925 union regarded the Basis of Union as deliberately minimal, setting out what was held in common. Principal Alfred Gandier wrote that this brief summary of our common faith "is not set forth as exhaustive of the faith of any, or with a view to restricting thought. ... The aim is not to have a Church of minimums, but a Church of maximums, not to find the least common denominator, but a Church in which we gain riches from all the past, and profit by the contributions of those most unlike ourselves." By contrast recent General Council decisions and widespread acceptance of the scepticisms of Bultmann, Spong and the Jesus Seminar have so reduced the belief of many, that the Basis of Union Doctrine now seems to them impossibly maximal, with the result that they simply ignore it.

Members of the renewal and reform groups in the United Church find the Basis of Union Doctrine a thoroughly Biblical summary of the "substance of the Christian faith." We do not necessarily believe every word of it, but after deliberation and sometimes considerable wrestling with the issues we find ourselves in essential agreement with it.

For example, I do not believe a particular phrase in Article VIII, which declares that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The phrase "and the Son" was added to the Nicene Creed by the Latin Church late in the first millennium and without sustained ecumenical agreement. But I think I am still in essential agreement with the Article as a whole. Even the Vatican now admits that this phrase "and the Son" is problematic in the Greek language.

Yet many, not just the current Moderator, doubt or deny the full divinity of Jesus Christ, his atonement on the cross and his bodily resurrection from the dead. In my opinion such doubts or denials indicate essential disagreement resulting in a new and different religion. If I had such doubts or made such denials, I would be compelled by intellectual honesty to resign from the United Church pastorate. Yet such is the habit of theological indifference in the United Church and the power of entrenched special interest groups in its courts that the requirement of essential agreement is now taken to include essential disagreements, which constitute new faiths. Indeed Professor David Demson identified the position expressed by Moderator Phipps ("Jesus is not God") and the position that Jesus is God as two faiths. This should be obvious to everyone.

Dr Wyatt's claim of United Church inclusivity overlooks the fact that including those who deny essentials relativizes the essentials as one option among others. Relativizing "the substance of the Christian faith" in effect excludes the framers of the Basis of Union, who regarded the doctrine they signed as truth and not as one option among others. It likewise excludes the founders of Methodism, John and Charles Wesley, in the 18th century; the Reformers of the 16th century; the Fathers of the Church; and the martyrs, who died rather than compromise on the faith that Jesus Christ is Lord. Evidence of the excluding nature of self-styled inclusivism is the harassment, not to say the persecution, of Ted Wigglesworth by Coronation Presbytery.

Peter Wyatt misunderstands the agenda of the renewal and reform groups of the United Church if he thinks that we are calling for uniformity. We are diverse in backgrounds, spiritual disciplines, preferences and approaches to theology. In opposition to the homosexual agenda we counted such liberals and former Moderators as Ernest Marshall Howse and Angus J. MacQueen as signatories of the Declaration of Dissent. Diversity is not our concern. It is a given and it appears to be intended by our Creator.

Rather than uniformity we would call for what St Paul called the mind of Christ, who, though God, humbled himself and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross. Obedience to God's eternal moral law is difficult for anyone. Obedience in the spirit of Christ is impossible without God's gift of his Spirit. Yet obedience involving humility, repentance and sacrificial love is the bottom line of discipleship.

Peter Wyatt and many United Church leaders believe that their initiatives result from the faith that "at the centre of the universe there beats the heart of a sovereign love." This faith is significant and I respect it, but if the love it speaks about is truly sovereign, then our part as disciples is obedience, not denials of universally accepted doctrine, not contradictions of God's moral law, and not a blinkered inclusivity that excludes Scripture, martyrs, Fathers, Reformers, the Wesleys and the renewal/reform movement in the United Church today.

Response
Peter Wyatt

I am grateful for the generous offer on the part of Graham Scott to respond to his reply to my article in The National Post. This offer serves as a model for more constructive theological discussion in the church.

I agree fully that the signatories to the Basis viewed the doctrinal articles as important.However, the assertion that recent General Council decisions have seriously compromised the basic doctrines on God, Holy Scripture, Jesus Christ, atonement and God's everlasting moral law is painting with a very broad brush.Defence of such a statement would require the citation of specific instances of General Council actions and some discussion of their purported significance.

Principal Gandier's argument that the Basis is an attempt to set forth "the essential content of the Christian faith as it has found expression in the great creeds of Christendom and the Reformation confessions" is persuasive. However, he never would have disputed what the Basis makes abundantly clear, namely, that the Scriptures are "the primary source and ultimate standard of Christian faith and life."  Creeds and confessions remain subordinate standards and always stand under the authority of Scripture.

To give an example, the Council of Nicaea set forth not only a normative doctrinal solution to the christological controversy of the early fourth century but also a normative polity.  This polity affirmed as alone valid the hierarchical rule of the existing patriarchates in the church, giving pride of place to the bishop of Rome.  For the fathers at Nicaea there was an integral connection between its authoritative confession and the ecclesial authority that would teach and enforce it.  Reformed and Wesleyan Christians have long since dissented from this judgment of Nicaea and have established other forms of polity in the church.  They did so, and do so, on the basis of the Biblical witness.  This does not mean that we are free to be cavalier with the Nicene creed because we reject Nicene polity.  It points rather to divergent interpretations of the relationship between christology and ecclesiology in the ecumenical community, and to the insistence of our forebears that historic creeds and councils derive their authority from their agreement with Scripture.

One is intrigued by Gandier's assertion that "a Church of maximums" will "gain riches from the past and profit by the contributions of those most unlike themselves."  One does not have to be in league with Bultmann or Spong to believe that "God has more truth to break forth from his word." Maximal regard for truth means continuity with the historic creeds and the Reformed confessions; it also means learning from contemporary scholarship (even those most unlike ourselves!) and from other faiths.

In sum, Principal Gandier's observations are instructive.  However, others had a hand in framing and interpreting the significance of the doctrinal articles of the Basis in the young church.  For an account of how several others of the time viewed the significance of the Doctrine section, one might refer profitably to John Young's article, "   " in Touchstone, No. ,

On the subject of "essential agreement", I am glad that Graham has made his peace with the problem of the "filioque"; much of the ecumenical church has. But surely there are more pressing theological challenges regarding essential agreement today.  For example, there is need to relate our teaching about Jesus Christ as the sole mediator between God and humanity to our growing awareness that people of other faiths seem to manifest fruit of the Holy Spirit.  Again, how does our confession of the sovereignty of God relate to our participation in an economy whose "invisible hand" does not seem to be that of Providence?  If there are those in the church who fit Graham's description of actually being in "essential disagreement" with the Basis, that is a sad matter.  But raising questions about, and clarifying, our doctrine as expressed in the Basis is not in itself disloyal or such disagreement.

I too prefer the kenotic mind of Christ and a unity in faith and life arising from it to any strictures of uniformity.  For this reason I am puzzled that Graham invokes what is fast becoming a shibboleth of orthodoxy -- the statement that "Jesus is God".  As far as I know, the moderator has never said "Jesus is not God".  In answer to the question, "Was Jesus God?", he gave the answer, "No, I don't believe that."  He did not say that Jesus is not God (in any sense), but denied the truth of the statement that "Jesus is God."  It is my conviction that both "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is not God" share the same theological weakness: they are unrefracted responses to a question that by its very nature is inept and distorting, i.e., "Was Jesus God?"

At this point, I am not concerned to defend the moderator's theology, since he and I disagree on a number of convictions.  What concerns me is the sudden pride of place given to the "Jesus is God" statement (for which I shall use the acronym, "JIG", to facilitate repeated reference).  I remember a time when confessing or accepting Jesus Christ as "Lord and Saviour" was thought to be a hallmark of authentically evangelical faith.  By what logic, or by what authority has the JIG statement become a litmus of orthodoxy?

The doctrinal articles of the Basis do not use the phrase, nor do any other official documents of the UCC.  To my knowledge the Reformed confessions do not use such phraseology.  In the recent controversy the basis of both the WCC and CCC have been cited by those who insist on JIG, i.e., the WCC/CCC is "a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour . . . ."  As a member of the WCC and CCC, the UCC clearly subscribes to this statement of faith.  But we ought to note that in this confession it is "the Lord Jesus Christ" who is named.

This may seem like an insignificant distinction, but in fact the vocable "Jesus" appears to most people to refer to a first-century Jew.  The distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith has been a part of theological discourse for over a hundred years.  Today there is revived and widespread academic interest in Jesus as an historical (and evidently human) figure who is accessible to all who care to engage the records.  However one may regard the work of the so-called "Jesus scholars", and even if one believes that the search for the historical Jesus is finally irrelevant for faith, most of us think of "Jesus" as the fasting, feasting, loving, weeping, story-telling, suffering, praying human who is our brother.

It is only when we add titles such as Lord, Christ, Saviour, to the name of Jesus that it becomes clear that the speaker views Jesus as more than a teacher.  To speak of "Jesus" is not in itself a confession of faith. Faith confession comes into focus only with the addition of such titles.  And only the use of other titles like "Son of God", "Word incarnate", "God's equal", and so on, makes clear that Jesus is regarded as divine.

More important than the distinction born of the historiographical revolution of the nineteenth century is the fact that a distinction of identity between Jesus and God is drawn in the New Testament.  By chance, on the very day that Graham's reply to my article appeared in the Post, the Canadian Bible Society's daily reading called for Acts 7, the story of Stephen's speech before the Sanhedrin.  At the climax, Stephen "gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God" (Acts 7.55). According to the JIG doctrine, Stephen's heavenly vision is incomprehensible.  (Other instances of such a Jesus-God distinction are replete in the NT.)  The answer to the problem of this evident difference in identity between Jesus and God, it will be argued, is that one must take into account the complexity of the Trinitarian mystery, realizing that by "God" one is to understand "God the Father."

But that is just the point, isn't it?  Trinitarian theology is not simple but complex, and the attempt to reduce it to slogans scarcely is inevitably distorting.  The substantial theological difficulty with JIG is that it is half a truth at best, since the classic Christian doctrine is that Jesus Christ is both fully divine and fully human.  In the light of the classic teaching about the two natures, JIG carries with it the unfortunate implication of docetism.  JIG also seems to imply a unitarianism of the second Person of the Trinity.

If there are those for whom the confession "Jesus is God" is personally satisfying as a summary of christological faith, may they be encouraged in it.  But to insist on JIG as a test of orthodoxy seems to me like an attempt to impose uniformity, and uniformity of a distorting kind.

Peter Wyatt

How I yearn that a majority of Ministers and Members of The United Church of Canada would embrace the whole Gospel by believing in Jesus as Lord and God and Saviour! Jesus is the very Bread of Life, a sumptuous banquet--and yet so many talented and well-meaning colleagues and members are starving to spiritual death through an anorexic habit of reductionism.

'A ratchet-like inexorability': Inclusive Language Policy and the United Church of Canada

This essay looks at those characteristics of the historical and contemporary United Church which have influenced the inclusive language debate. Inclusive language can be seen as the most notable outcome of the influence of feminist theology on the church, rivalled only perhaps by the astounding increase in the numbers of women in ministry. Furthermore, I will argue that the issue of inclusive language reflects many of the key characteristics of the late twentieth-century United Church. The denomination is marked by an ostensible commitment to radical inclusivity and a concomitant reluctance to be bound by tradition. The United Church also has a bias for change, innovation and great desire to be in the temper of the times. There is tension between insiders with access to power through familiarity with process and outsiders who are marginalised. This concentration of power in the hands of an elite group sometimes results in grave difficulty in implementing decisions taken.

We will examine the debate about inclusive language to see how the ethos of the denomination intersects with the concern for inclusive language born in feminist theology to create profound changes in the denomination.

Historical Survey

Since 1977 the United Church of Canada has been dedicated to "raising the consciousness of its members to the importance of language."⁽¹⁾ Like other issues which have come to the forefront of the attention of the United Church, the issue of inclusive language has several propelling forces.

The changes in the culture created by the women's movement began to be addressed by the mainline churches in the 1970's. In June 1974 the first meeting of the United Church of Canada's Division of Mission in Canada "Task Force on Women and Partnership between Men and Women in the Church and Society" was chaired by Dr. Harriet Christie. In 1976 sexism and language were linked in a denominational document entitled Guidelines for Equal Treatment of the Sexes, and "the patriarchal character of our Christian past as imbedded in our language" was noted in a report given to the General Council in 1977 (GC1977 ROP p.280). In 1980 the Division of Mission in Canada asked the General Council executive to establish a staffed and funded taskforce to "conduct studies, develop models and initiate projects in specific areas or issues related to women and men and propose policy statements"(GC1980 ROP p.152).

Also evident by the mid to late 1970's were the increasing numbers of women seeking ordination. These women were exposed to the emerging disciplines of feminist theology and feminist orientations in biblical studies in the theological colleges. These waves of new clergy took their concerns about sexist language with them to their congregations. By 1980, presbyteries (if not congregations) were beginning to petition the General Council for the elimination of sexist language in hymn books, creeds and other worship resources. As John Webster Grant reminds us "to leaf through the Proceedings of General Council is to be made aware that shifts in policy have frequently coincided with fashionable trends."⁽²⁾

The road to non-sexist, inclusive language in the United church has not been a smooth one. A survey of the Records of Proceedings of the General Council and of other resources published by the church reveals a consistent and steady resistance to the full implementation of the inclusive language agenda. To be fair, however, part of the continued resistance may be due to a continued "upping of the ante" on the part of the proponents of inclusive language.

To look back at the 1981 Guidelines for Inclusive Language prepared by the interdivisional task force on the changing roles of women and men in church and society is to see a much more restrained and moderate approach to inclusive language than the latest guidelines, Just Language (1996).⁽³⁾ For example, in 1981: "In language about the Holy Spirit, masculine, feminine and neuter genders are all appropriate and are biblically rooted" (p.11), but by 1996 there is a lament that "people are still heard to say, 'I don't think of the spirit as male or female, I think of him as spirit' (p. 15, emphasis original). The use of masculine gender for the Holy Spirit, acceptable in 1981 (accompanied with a request for a balance of masculine and feminine usages) has been rejected by 1996. Similarly, the concerns about the use of the word "Lord" are not even mentioned in 1981, but by 1996 there are suggestions for reducing the use of the word "Lord" by expanding other references to Jesus because of the "emotional connection people have to specific words such as Jesus is Lord" (p.14). The question arises, however, as to whether what this document refers to as an emotional connection to words is in fact the historic, central affirmation of the Christian faith. While the document does not actually say that the word " Lord" is to be avoided it is clear that other more suitable terms such as "Living One, Christ is alive, Precious Liberator" are preferred (p.14). Perhaps this growing unacceptability of the use of the word "Lord" can be seen most clearly in the psalter section of the new Voices United hymn and worship resource. As was noted above (chapter 3, page 1) only nine of the 141 psalm selections retain the word LORD as a translation for Yahweh, reflecting the editors' concerns that "For many, Lord is oppressive and hierarchical." The word LORD is consistently replaced by the word God.

A respondent to a 1995 survey on inclusive language⁽⁴⁾ related an anecdote about the rejection of the word Lord:

At the time I received this survey, I also received bulletin covers from the U.C. Book Room. This bulletin was for Baptism/Confirmation and written on the cover were the words "One, Lord, One Faith, One Baptism." I selected this bulletin (half price sale, you know ) & when the Intern saw it, she commented on the words wondering how inclusive "One Lord" is. I failed to see her meaning and much discussion has resulted. It has been very stimulating and a great opportunity to listen to the interpretation and bias of other's thoughts. Two other congregation members, who dropped into the office at the time, and the minster were drawn into the discussion! Apparently, I have much to learn about what "inclusive" means. Still "Lord" to me means Jesus - a pretty special guy & lord doesn't mean to me some male brute holding power over me - but I guess it does to others. When I say the word Lord & hear it said, it brings to mind gentleness, love & peace. ⁽⁵⁾

In a gradual process, more and more traditional language for God becomes unacceptable to the proponents of inclusive language. The 1981 guidelines call for King, Father, Master to be eliminated; by 1996 we see the word Lord being downplayed. Ironically, one of the earlier justifications for inclusive language was broadening our understanding and knowledge of God by expanding our language about God; sadly, the perhaps unforeseen result is a narrowing of acceptable language.

The 1980 General Council identified resistance to initiative against inclusive language-- "many in the Church have not owned the issues and do not understand them." (GC 1980 ROP, p. 154) -- asking to the church "to monitor any material distributed by the Church in order to identify and correct any usage of sexist language, to encourage the production of worship resources using inclusive language, and to help those who lead in worship to understand the problem and resolve it" (pp.155-156). This conveys a sense of confidence that the issue of sexist language will be quickly and simply resolved.

By 1982, the Task Force on the Changing Roles of Women and Men in Church and Society's report to General Council indicated clear dissatisfaction with the name of their committee, changing it to Committee on Sexism (GC1982, ROP p.400). The bias for experience over tradition as a source of authority, a major theme of feminist theology also emerges:

What we've done...

-wrote a theological statement...

-let it go in favour of the ongoing process of theologizing from our own experience" (p .400).⁽⁶⁾

A motion from Montreal and Ottawa conference requested official church policy on inclusive language, and an inclusive language editorial policy for church publications (including the proposal "that images and stories used in United Church publications be carefully screened for their sexist content" )(ROP p.441, Petition No. 13). A motion from Regina Presbytery asked that "no action be taken to impose 'inclusive language' proposals with reference to God in the life, worship or publications of the national church" (ROP p.475, Petition No. 82). These motions were both denied by the sessional committee.

The council amended the resolution affirming inclusive language to include these words: "that there be no attempt to impose Inclusive Language proposals with reference to God" (ROP, p.92). The notion of imposition becomes key to the debates over inclusive language.

The 1984 Council at Morden, Manitoba extended the work of the task force who, in their lengthy report, noted their particular concern with inclusive language, especially "our experience of the lack of commitment by the church to the language guidelines" and of "backlash" (GC1984 ROP, p.486). This reluctance is clearly perceived as evidence of patriarchy: "The Task Force's experience of patriarchy within the institutional church is illustrated by the church's response to the Guidelines for Inclusive Language" (ROP p.495). Opposition is characterized as anger and those who resist inclusive language are accused of powermongering : "The Task Force believes that there was some realization that language change means more than changing words: it means changing values, worldview and power relationships"(p. 495). The Task Force did not seem to acknowledge that some of the values people were resistant to changing were values valuable to them, such as Father language for God or the authority of Jesus Christ as Lord.

At the same council a motion which originally called for baptism "into the name of the Holy Trinity" was amended by Gwen (sic) Griffith and John O'Neil to baptism "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (ROP p.79). This reflects the ecumenical concerns brought to the General Council Executive by the Inter-Church Inter-Faith Committee (ROP p.423). Motions from two charges in Temiskaming presbytery asking for a halt to inclusive language implementation did not come to the floor (ROP pp.507-509). The Task Force's own motions received editorial amendment on the floor which rather softened their original rhetoric (ROP pp. 90-92). The Task Force was dismissed as of December, 1984, to be replaced by the Committee on Sexism, a standing committee of the General Council.

The 1986 Council at Sudbury heard nine petitions on the issue, expressing a broad range of opinion on the subject (GC1986 ROP pp. 647-653) indicating that acceptance of inclusive language was by no means assured. The Committee on Sexism made a brief report (pp. 247-248) which was received for information, but a substantial report on Inclusive Language was received from the Theology and Faith Committee (pp. 337-345). It examined the nature and function of language, drawing on the work of theologians such as Rosemary Radford Ruether, Dorothy Soelle and Sallie McFague, essentially adopting the position that all language for God is incomplete and inadequate and thereby subject to alteration, virtually without limit. No consideration was given to such theologians as Elizabeth Achtemeier, Donald Bloesch, or Robert Jenson, who all hold a higher view of revelation and the value of the revealed names of God in Scripture. This General Council report continued the tradition of earlier reports by using sources from an insufficiently broad range of opinion, as a result of which the diversity of feminist theology was not well represented.

The report stressed the importance of "being faithful to the spirit and intention of previous Councils" (p.344), which seems to imply that setting a precedent establishes policy. The section on ecumenical implications suggested a turn in focus away from ecumenical consensus "among the institutional Churches and their respective hierarchies" (p.342). Such a focus on ecumenical consensus would preclude the United Church's proposed changes to the Trinitarian formula for baptism. Instead it suggested a pursuit of "discussion with members of other faith communities who use other names and metaphors for God" (p.342).

In commenting on the action of a previous General Council and its commitment not to impose inclusive language, the Reverend Hallet Llewellyn, then Secretary for Theology, Faith and Ecumenism, writes that imposition is "foreign, in my opinion to the nature and style of our functioning as a United Church ...[which] does not operate with the intent to impose anything" (pp.344-345). In private conversation⁽⁷⁾, Llewellyn outlined the differences between the three types of General Council decisions: those which are binding statements (which involve, for example, changes to the Manual, or the policy that sexual orientation, in and of itself, is not a barrier to ordination or commissioning), those which are statements of guidance (non-binding) and a third category which are statements of influence (meant to influence the wider church). He characterized policies on inclusive language as being guidance for congregations and sessions and binding on the General Council and its publications. He described the piles of angry letters that were received in the General Council office from congregations who misunderstood the actions of the Council and believed that the decisions were binding, whereas in reality, sessions and congregations are to make their own policies about inclusive language.

The Theology and Faith Committee brought a resolution to the 1986 General Council affirming inclusive language for God. The resolution was recommended for defeat by the sessional committee which presented it to the Council. Following substantial debate and revision it was adopted by the court with an acknowledgement of those opposed to the changes in language (p.129). The resolution was amended with a rejection of the terms "formally adopt" or "accept as the norm" in reference to inclusive language in favour of "continue to use" (p.130).

The 1988 General Council at Victoria was preoccupied with the issue of sexual orientation and ordered ministry. Two petitions were received from congregations regarding inclusive language. One asked for a halt to the practice and the other for a referendum on God-language (GC1988 p.630). The court declined to take action on these petitions "because they are contrary to the General Council's policy as passed in 1986" (p.113). Once again previous actions not debated as establishing policy suddenly became precisely that established policy.

This decision to preserve General Council policy by subsequent councils is applied unevenly. The 1986 council affirmed its desire to move toward a more inclusive language for God, particularly with regard to the Trinitarian formula; it is difficult to see how this action is not contrary to General Council's policy of 1984 which affirmed traditional Trinitarian language for baptism (ROP p.79).

The Committee on Sexism made another major report to the 1988 council. Again, resistance to inclusive language was characterized as fear and anger (GC1988 ROP p.340) and the "traditional hold the Trinitarian Formula has on the members of the church" was noted. There is, however, in descriptions of the discussions with Theology, Faith and Ecumenism staff, an awareness of the need to grapple seriously with these issues and to consider the claims of tradition, ecumenical relationships, and the authority of scripture (p.347). This contrasts sharply with another section of the same report which describes the church as "in the midst of a paradigm shift as we move from a primarily fall/redemption way of experiencing God and God's creation" as "we are called to make our own history and develop our own traditions for today" (p.345). Again, citations tend to be from a more liberal or radical strand of feminist theology (Ruether, McFague, Carter Heyward).

The report from the Theology and Faith Committee noted that Hallett Llewellyn is "to provide competent instruction on language usage for the staff of all units of the General Council" (p.306) and that the United Church is petitioning the Canadian Council of Churches "to study the issue of inclusive language in general and the trinitarian formula in particular" (p.306).

The 1990 General Council in London received a flurry of petitions (GC1990 ROP pp.729-739) expressing dismay over what was characterized as a theological crisis in the United Church. Of particular concern were the saving significance of Jesus Christ and the Committee on Sexism's reference to a paradigm shift away from fall and redemption. The sessional committee responsible was not given time for a first hearing and made a motion, which carried, recognizing the concerns, affirming Jesus Christ as the cornerstone of the Church, and calling for extensive consultation throughout the church.

The Report of the Committee on Sexism noted that they felt "devalued and marginalized" in their meeting with the General Council executive (p.252). An evaluation was done by the Division of Mission in Canada of the work of the Committee on Sexism. It noted the error of those working against sexism in their decision "to by-pass the local congregation" so that

involvement with like-minded people in presbytery, Conference or national committees and divisions was not matched by issue raising and struggle sharing in congregations and groups. In some places, a lack of attention to history and to our own traditions and stories was resulting in the unfortunate and unnecessary alienation of many who were natural allies in the struggle against sexism (p.256).

Once again, opposition is characterized as anger and hostility, confusion, fear of change, suspicion and denial:

There was a latent anger and hostility among many throughout the Church, many of whom chose to remain silent­sometimes feeling confused and threatened, sometimes fearing confrontation and/or change. Response to issues and concerns raised was sometimes passive aggression, sometimes a gentle humouring' [sic] of those written off as radicals...Reactions of anger and denial reveal a phenomenon in which the naming by the Church of a "Committee on Sexism," in itself was very threatening. The impact of the name itself was conciousness-raising...The reactions of anger, suspicion and denial are evidence of the anxiety and disease we experience around a question which we believe can now be addressed in a more focussed way in the United Church (pp. 256-257).

While specific reference to the issue of inclusive language is not made in this report, it is clear that there is no perception of valid disagreement on feminist issues. Irrational emotions such as suspicion, denial and anxiety are imputed to those who disagreed with the aims of the Committee on Sexism. This fails to acknowledge that disagreement might be due to pastoral or theological concerns or as a matter of personal conscience.

The results of the Committee's work are lauded as "many and positive" (p.258); this in spite of the criticisms regarding alienation of natural allies.

The 1992 General Council in Fredericton received the report of the Committee on Sexism which noted the clarification of the Committee's relationship to the Division of Mission in Canada, and the comments from the Division that "the work of the Committee was too soft and needed additional rigour" (GC1992ROP p.272). The report made no specific reference to inclusive language (indicating that perhaps the issue is considered resolved?), and makes reference again to "increasing backlash to feminist ideals and principles occurring both in the church and outside it" (p.273).

The Committee on Sexism made no report to the 1994 General Council at Fergus, although reference to work with the committee appears in the report of the Theology and Faith Committee.

This review of General Council debate on inclusive language would seem to indicate that despite ongoing opposition and resistance in the wider church, the General Council and in particular its Committee on Sexism considers the matter closed. The evidence of the validity of this thesis can perhaps be seen most clearly in the new hymn book and worship resource, Voices United.

In many ways the new Voices United resource is a miracle of tact and diplomacy, a skilful and delicate balancing of the myriad of competing claims in a very diverse and often divided church. But this book is also an endorsement and justification of the United Church's policy on inclusive language which has been steadily promoted in a well-orchestrated campaign for twenty years. Not only has the Committee on Sexism become a standing committee of General Council, but it is curious that a church which has not found resources to produce a Sunday School or Confirmation curriculum or a catechism for many years would have the energy to produce guideline after guideline for inclusive language. And now, in Voices United, inclusive language has its imprimatur, for there is an important difference between, for example, knowing that some people somewhere address their prayers to a Mother God, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, finding words like "Mother and God, to you we sing, wide is your womb, warm is your wing" (#280) in the official hymn book of the denomination.

Inclusive Language Survey

Ironically, at almost the same time as the hymn book appeared, the United Church reported⁽⁸⁾ on the results of a 1995 survey on inclusive language. The survey was sent to 101 congregations "known to have been intentional about their introduction of inclusive language" (p.1), with 43 responses received. The report notes the confusion extant about inclusive language in the church (p. 2) and that even in the carefully selected churches surveyed "it is evident that the way of change has not been smooth" (p. 5), "in virtually all cases it was the leadership of ministry personnel which set the change process in motion" (p. 6). The report cites "the effectiveness of allowing people to hold onto some parts of the tradition such as favourite hymns, the twenty-third psalm and 'the Lord's prayer' without feeling ostracized" (p.8). It was also noted that "In one congregation where there had been members who opposed the need of inclusive language, change was not successfully made until they left"(p.11).

There is clear understanding in the survey report of how critical the new hymn and worship resource will be (p.10) to the churches implementing inclusive language and an assumption that others will welcome it as well (p.14). Also, "education is seen to be a real need" (p.11) in the implementation of inclusive language and the report suggests the provision of materials (p.13) for study.

A number of assumptions in the report on the survey that deserve close attention. First, the entire survey exercise may have been more helpful if the base had been broadened to include surveys of congregations who have studied and set limits on uses of inclusive language (such as inclusive people language, expanded female imagery for God, plus retention of the Lord's Prayer and the Trinitarian formula for baptism and benediction) or those who have rejected it outright. Nonetheless, the level of opposition found in congregations who had adopted inclusive language is very significant. While the official survey report simply indicates that the way has not been smooth, the unpublished survey results (cited above) with summaries of answers given to the survey questions, provide a clearer picture. Of forty-three responses to a question of how successful the change to inclusive language has been, only six congregations answered positively without qualification.⁽⁹⁾

The survey report indicates how clergy-dominated the move to inclusive language has been, that in "virtually all cases" impetus came from ministry personnel. This is in contrast to the United Church's official commitment to lay empowerment. The survey report reminds us that "It was, after all, resolutions to General Council which set the direction for change more than fifteen years ago" (p.10). However, as the survey of the Records of Proceeding shows, it was seldom congregations who asked for inclusive language; these requests came from the clergy-dominated presbyteries and conferences. Had inclusive language sprung up from the grass-roots of the church, perhaps its growth would not have been as slow and controversial.

Perhaps the most painful comment in the survey report is that which describes how people are allowed to hold on to selected parts of the tradition (p. 8, emphasis added). How this use of the word "allow" jars with the vaunted self-perception of the United Church as an open and inclusive church, a church which likes to think that to "impose" is "foreign...to the nature and style of our functioning as a United church" (GC 1986 ROP p. 344). The survey results contain some disturbing examples of how uninclusive the inclusive language process can be: "I began to use inclusive imagery, theology & language & to sing loudly hymn changes into the microphones" (p.7); another minister notes that following abrupt, unconsulted introduction of inclusive language, "things are improving since the Dissident Group departed" (p.7).

Not only does this attitude run the risk of excluding people from their own church, it also sets the church clearly at odds with centuries of Christian tradition. John Webster Grant has noted that "the dangers inherent in a search for contemporaneity have been compounded by a growing indifference to the church's inheritance from the past."⁽¹⁰⁾ Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the controversial attempt to shift fundamentally the church's use of language in theology, liturgy and courts of the church.

The authority of scripture and of the traditional doctrines of the church is giving way to the authority of personal experience. It has become difficult for any authority -- scripture, doctrine, tradition or other -- to challenge "my (or our) experience." Vernon Wishart describes this as the "core assumption [of] "the experiencing self [which] is the centre of authority and the source of meaning."⁽¹¹⁾ The authority of scripture and the traditions of the church have been drastically diminished, which seems to be why it becomes possible to dismiss adherence to tradition and a valuing of tradition as mere emotional attachment to traditional forms.

If Voices United is as successful as it promises to be at encouraging inclusive language, then there would seem to be one last hurdle to cross: the Bible. The survey report notes requests for assistance with scripture: "Scripture in Inclusive Language; the present [ones] are not good" (p.21) and "It would be useful to have a Bible which uses inclusive language" (p.24). However as the Committee on Theology and Faith has noted:

Inevitably, consideration of the biblical implications of inclusive language raises the issue of biblical translation...The question is; How is one to proceed in this area? How much flexibility is permissible? Inclusiveness is most appropriately addressed at the level of interpretation rather than at the level of translation in order that the integrity of the text as a historical document be maintained...change may not be appropriate in the actual translation, but it may be valid in the public reading of the text, and is almost certainly legitimate in discourse upon it (GC1986 ROP p.340).

As the study of the Authority and Interpretation of Scripture, and the controversy over remarks made by the United Church moderator in the fall of 1997 have shown, there is a broad diversity of belief in the United Church about the nature and authority of scripture as revelation.

The assertions of the Committee on Theology and Faith about the limits to flexibility in translating the Bible could be, I would argue, a valuable resource to the Committee on Sexism, in its provision of inclusive language versions of scripture.

Finally, as the Committee on Sexism describes the need for ongoing "education" about inclusive language, they would do well to remember John Webster Grant's warning about the

many church members [who] began to look upon church assemblies and especially church bureaucracies as distant structures, impervious to their expressions of concern, that treated them "like passive clients to be educated, animated and conscienticized."⁽¹²⁾

A Historical Parallel

Nancy Christie and Michael Gauvreau⁽¹³⁾ have provided an account of an earlier attempt to implement change in the church. There are some interesting parallels between what Christie and Gauvreau describe as the movement for social service in the Protestant churches of Canada in the 1920's (perhaps more familiar to readers as the social gospel movement) and the contemporary push for inclusive language. The following is a summary of their analysis.

The ministers registered their protest, quietly, through passive resistance. The aspirations of bureaucrats who envisioned a national and homogeneous church were thwarted by clergy who depended upon the financial support of the middle-class members of their congregations and were reluctant to relinquish their autonomy in the local church. The progressive inner circle of the centralized bureaucracy set for themselves the task of rallying and inspiring the local clergy who sometimes reacted with outright hostility to the new ideas put forth, despite all kind of adaptations to make the program versatile and accessible. A major battle had to be waged against the local churches, which were home to a pervasive conservatism, in order to establish the authority of these progressive leaders who were sometimes shocked at the depth of the opposition they faced.

Gauvreau and Christie describe "the concerted campaign to indoctrinate and re-educate reluctant ministers in the principles of the new evangelism" effecting a "transformation of the church bureaucracy which ensured efficient and centralized control" (p.34), including a bypassing of traditional sources of information in order to "strategically minimize the impact of traditional theology upon the local minister" (p.36).

There is no denying the positive impact of the social gospel in the twentieth century church. The church was reawakened to Christ's compassion for the least. It could well be argued that Canada's social safety net and socialized medicine are attributable, in at least some degree, to the impact of the social gospel on the church, and through the church, to the wider society. But even the social gospel was not without negative effect. Social concerns often managed to consume a disproportionate amount of the energy of the courts of the church, to the detriment of other matters of importance such as theology, Christian formation, mission, stewardship and evangelism. Even at the congregational level, social justice concerns have been known to crowd out Bible study and developing the discipline of prayer.

Are there parallels between the current situation regarding inclusive language and the description given by Christie and Gauvreau of the Protestant churches in Canada in the 1920's as change swept the churches? There is certainly quiet protest and passive resistance to inclusive language, as evidenced in the results of the survey on inclusive language. The lack of petitions going forward to General Council should not indicate acceptance; it merely indicates the acknowledged futility of asking the council to reconsider this issue; the matter is considered closed (see above for petitions sent to the 1988 council). John Webster Grant has drawn our attention to other instances of the "great danger...of an ever-widening chasm between what the church officially says and what the bulk of the members believe."⁽¹⁴⁾ He also points out the "ratchet-like inexorability" of the way in which those who possess information about how the system works are able to effect change: "There may be modifications and retreats but the status of the subject is unlikely to revert to what it had been before"(p.22). This is augmented by the practice of "Divisions responsible for selecting task forces look[ing] for people of ability and insight, [and then] if most of them agree with the Division that is supposedly coincidence, [the happenstance of appointing] the sort of people who are more likely than not to agree with them [the Division staff]"(p.21). Grant uses the phrase "supposed coincidence" to describe the situation in which the staff of divisions seek out members for task forces which relate to the work of the Division and then those appointed members agree with the work being done and the viewpoints taken. A less charitable view than Grant's might describe it as a manipulation for planned outcome.

Christie and Gauvreau describe the aspirations of bureaucrats who envision a homogeneous national church finding themselves thwarted both by clergy who treasure their autonomy and by congregations which are pervasively conservative. This situation can result in a major battle to establish the authority of this progressive inner circle as they undertake a concerted campaign to indoctrinate and re-educate the reluctant.

George Rawlyk has been harshly critical of what he describes as the hegemony of liberal bureaucratic, academic and administrative elites in mainline churches who are "by the last decade of the twentieth century, pushing up against a largely hollow organizational structure and using increasingly meaningless administrative connections."⁽¹⁵⁾

The United Church has worked assiduously for decades to eliminate differences in status and power between clergy and laity and has achieved a fair measure of success. The power differential seems to have shifted to one between those who have information and familiarity with the process and an ability to make it work to their advantage ("administrative elites") and those who do not. And while it was relatively easy to try to balance lay-clergy power, for example by reserving a proportionate number of spaces on committees for laypersons, it is much more difficult to try to reserve some power for those who have little familiarity with process or jargon and no access to the circles of power. This change is partly due to the fact that at one time, the ranks of the bureaucrats were populated by ordained ministers with formal theological training. This is not the current reality. It also leaves the church and its bureaucracy open to more vociferous accusations of manipulation. John Webster Grant has noted the irony of the United Church's deemphasis on the significance of ordination ostensibly designed to broaden participation in ministry, but in reality resulting in the "transfer [of] much of the power of the parish clergy and of prominent lay people to burgeoning bureaucracies."⁽¹⁶⁾

It remains to be seen whether these bureaucracies, no longer burgeoning but rather diminished by the precipitous decline in giving to the Mission and Service Fund (which funds the denomination's administration) will be able to retain this power. In any case, the issue of inclusive language is probably largely settled in the United Church, with the possible exception of the retention of the Lord's Prayer and the Trinitarian formula out of consideration to our ecumenical partners in the Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican and Roman Catholic churches. What kind of contribution might be made to the debate by entering into discussion with Orthodox or Evangelical denominations will likely never be known. When the United Church thinks about expanding horizons beyond PLURA, it tends to look to inter-faith dialogue and not to discussions with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. As Pamela Dickey Young, prominent United Church theologian, remarked: "Where's the incentive for the United Church to be involved with evangelical Christians? As a church we have more in common with liberal Jews than with evangelical Christians."⁽¹⁷⁾

Some United church people might counter that what they had in common with evangelical Christians, namely Jesus Christ, constituted a far greater commonality than that which they hold in common with liberal Jews, namely a liberal ideology.

Conclusions

As I have shown, the issue of inclusive language reflects many of the key characteristics of the late twentieth-century United Church. Inclusivity has been elevated to the status of a prime theological virtue (albeit with a rather narrow definition of who and what needs to be included). Along with a weak commitment to tradition, the denomination displays a bias for change and innovation, a bias that is manifested in an unfortunate deficiency of historical perspective and a lack of awareness of how time-bound and culture-bound contemporary trends, such as inclusive language, may well prove to be. This is the danger implicit in a desire to be in the temper of the times. Another key characteristic of the United Church demonstrated in the inclusive language debate was the way in which insiders with access to power through knowledge of process are able to pursue their agenda and incidentally marginalize those who do not have such advantages. But perhaps most significantly the inclusive language debate illustrates the way in which the identification of a controversial issue as a "justice issue" is the one argument that admits no dissent.

Catherine Mowry LaCugna makes a plea for the traditional Trinitarian formula for baptism so that baptism becomes "the source of power by which the people of God can become an inclusive community."⁽¹⁸⁾

Living what we promise in baptism and becoming a community of inclusiveness ultimately may have less to do with language than with ourselves... a commitment to inclusive language must be matched by a commitment to inclusive community (p. 250).

Sometimes inclusive language efforts in the United Church seem to result in a kind of "feminist fundamentalism" that seeks to erase male language for God at any and all costs; surely a far cry from a truly inclusive community that could even include those who use sexist language. This marks a contrast between a theocentric approach to language for God that seeks to know God more fully and an anthropocentric approach to language for God that focusses on human desires, even as elevated as that for inclusive human community.

We have seen multiple strands of influence which, woven together, have produced the United Church approach to language for God. These include the ethos of a church which has sought to be in step with the tenor of the age and to respond to the agenda set by the surrounding secular culture. It also reflects the dominant orientation of the church's leadership which has a bias for change and innovation compounded by a lack of awareness of or loyalty to tradition. In this the church reflects the wider culture's infatuation with novelty. Another strand is the impact of feminist theology on the Christian church. My own research of the theological views of the women in paid, accountable ministry of the United Church shows the influence of feminist theology to be very significant. But that is perhaps a discussion for another day.

1. The United Church of Canada, Record of Proceedings of the Thirty-First General Council, Sudbury 1986 (Toronto: United Church of Canada, 1986), 337. Subsequent references to General Council Record of Proceedings (G.C. R.O.P.) will be given in parentheses.
2. John Webster Grant, " What's Past in Prologue: Prospects For the Continuing Story", Voices and Visions: 65 Years of the United Church of Canada (The United Church of Canada: The United Church Publishing House, 1990), 138.
3. Brenda MacLauchan, Just Language: A Guide to Inclusive Language in the United Church of Canada (The United Church of Canada, Committee on Sexism, Division of Mission in Canada: Etobicoke, Ontario, 1997 ). Further references to this work will be noted in parentheses.
4. The United Church of Canada, General Council Standing Committee on Sexism, Inclusive Language Survey (Unpublished, March 1995).
5. The United Church of Canada, The General Council Standing Committee on Sexism, "Just" Language Survey Results (Unpublished, undated, 1995 or 1996), pp. 24-25. Further references will be given in parentheses. This passage is quoted as it appears in the report.
6. This quotation from the report is presented exactly as it appears in the ROP.
7. At Queen's Theological College, February, 1997.
8. Language Subcommittee, General Council Committee on Sexism, United Church of Canada, Just Language: Inclusive Language Survey Report, Spring 1996, unpublished.
9. United Church of Canada, "Just" Language Survey Results, Unpublished paper, Undated, received February 1997, pp. 9-10. Mailed from the Women in Ministry Desk, Division of Mission in Canada, United Church of Canada, Etobicoke, ON.
10. John Webster Grant, What's Past is Prologue,138.
11. Vernon R. Wishart, "The Making of the United Church Mind --No.1" Touchstone,Volume 8, No. 1, January 1990, p. 16.
12. John Webster Grant, The Church in the Canadian Era; Updated and Expanded (Burlington, ON: Welch Publishing Co., 1988), 238.
13. Nancy Christie and Michael Gauvreau, A Full-Orbed Chritianity: The Protestant Churches an Social Welfare in Canada 1900-1940 (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1996), 24-36. Subsequent citations to this work will be given in parentheses.
14. John Webster Grant, Theme Address delivered by Rev. Dr. John Webster Grant; Annual General Meeting - Division of Ministry Personnel and Education, February 16, 1989 : Roots and Wings (unpublished, unpaginated, page numbers given are my own), p.20. Subsequent reference will be given in parentheses.
15. G.A. Rawlyk, Is Jesus Your Personal Saviour?: In Search of Canadian Evangelicalism in the 1990's (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1996), p. 32.
16. John Webster Grant, The Church in the Canadian Era, 231.
17. Private conversation with Pamela Dickey Young, Queen's Theological College, Kingston, Ontario, February 28, 1997.
18. Catherine Mowry LaCugna, "The Baptismal Formula, Feminist Objections, and Trinitarian Theology," Journal of Ecumenical Studies 26:2 (Spring 1989), 235. Further reference to this work will be given in parentheses.

Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth
Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.,
(Hamewith Books, an imprint of Baker Bookhouse Company)
Second printing, June 1996
Reviewed by Mary Fraser

Some time ago, when the Mayor of Toronto caved in to homosexual activists and announced he would take part in a Gay Pride Day parade, a gentleman by the name of John McKellar, a self-declared homosexual, told a talk-show C.F.R.B. audience that he and his organization were disappointed and disgusted that Mr. Lastman had allowed himself to be pressured into a situation that the vast civilized majority of homosexuals felt was degrading and undignified.

John McKellar is (or was) the national director of H.O.P.E. (Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism). Their manifesto is the antithesis of the rhetoric we continually hear from what McKellar refers to as the radical, militant homosexual fringe. It states, for example, that the demand for special rights based on sexual orientation is socially and culturally subversive.

The manifesto also supports and respects the legal definition of marriage and spouse, affirming that it must remain in the context of the opposite sex, (Bill C-225) and vigorously opposes same-sex parentage and same sex adoption.

It urges that every individual infected with HIV, Hepatitis-C and AIDS be registered, treated and monitored by government so that the safety and well-being of the majority takes precedence over the "rights" of the radical-selfish minority.

As well, it recommends the prohibition of all homosexual youth support organizations' propaganda in the schools, and upholds the premise that the primary and final authority on sex education must always remain with the parents. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover's "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth" is cited as the most scholarly and lucid book available on the subject, and one which should be compulsory reading at the secondary school level.

The manifesto of H.O.P.E. left me extremely curious as to what I would find in the pages of Satinover's "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth"

Scholarly and lucid it is to be sure. It is also the most compelling, comprehensive and compassionate book on this subject I have ever read.

With painstaking thoroughness, Dr. Satinover probes into every aspect of many "homosexualities", scientifically dissecting all that has been learned to date about this condition. He discusses every possible known cause of homosexuality, examining genetics, twinness, heredity, environment, psychology and sociology. He separates fact from fiction, media reporting from reality. He delves into normal and abnormal, natural and unnatural--with some surprising conclusions--and brutally examines the desirability of homosexuality, which not only inflicts suffering from many diseases and cancers but shortens life by an average of twenty-five to thirty years.

Satinover begins by looking at homosexuality from the two most common perspectives, that of the gay activist who claims that homosexuality is genetically determined, irreversible and normal, and that of the traditionalist who sees homosexuality as a choice that is both abnormal and reversible..

The book examines these contrasting views from two distinct angles: First, to what degree are the claims true? Second, what bearing does their truth or falseness have on the "normalization" and moral status of homosexuality?

Considering the life-threatening difficulties encountered by those who live a homosexual life-style, Satinover, a psychiatrist, has personally devoted much time, energy and dedicated effort into the healing of those who wish to be healed. Though he readily admits that healing is extremely difficult, he compares the results to the success rate of curing alcoholism.

"Homosexuality has at least a 50 percent chance of being eliminated through lengthy, often costly, and very time-consuming treatment in an otherwise unselected group of sufferers (although a very high success rate, in some instances nearing 100 percent, for groups of highly motivated, carefully selected individuals)."

"Alcoholism has only a 30 percent likelihood of being eliminated through lengthy, often costly, and very time-consuming treatment in an otherwise unselected population of sufferers (although a very high success rate among highly motivated, carefully selected sufferers)."

The difference of course, is that while it is generally accepted that to cure alcoholism is a good and worthy endeavour, which results in the relief of suffering for both the alcoholic and his family, to cure the homosexual for the same worthy reasons, is ridiculed by gay activists as unnecessary and impossible. The public (including the United Church) has been sold a bill of goods, as Satinover proceeds to demonstrate.

Much touted media hype concerning brain differences in hetero- and homosexuals (hypothalamus) is explained by Satinover as quite likely the result of certain behaviour patterns and not, as the media would have us believe, a genetic deviation. Since it is scientific fact that repetitious behaviour changes the structure of the brain in the area where that behaviour is controlled, (constant piano practice will enlarge that portion of the brain responsible for musical talent, finger dexterity and ability to memorize, or grow more cells in the part of a blind person's brain which controls the index finger responsible for the reading of braille), so will certain repeated sexual practices also bring about changes in that part of the brain responsible for sexual behaviour (hypothalamus).

The so-called "gay gene" is also examined and discarded, a supposition which subsequent studies reported in medical journals have disproved altogether.

Satinover explains how psychology, biology, choice and habit all interweave to produce a deeply imbedded pattern of sexual behaviour--compulsive and addictive, a soul-sickness extremely difficult to cure, though quite curable if the motivation is there. His findings are non-judgmental and full of compassion for those compelled by feelings they do not understand and who make no conscious choice.

Satinover goes on to explore homosexuality within a moral context, first from a Christian perspective and then from the point of view of Judaism. His clear thinking and insightful conclusions make these chapters a joy to read.

A last chapter before the postscript, entitled "The Pagan Revolution", examines the so-called new spirituality that has captured so many and which is being hailed as the new compassionate and tolerant Christianity by some in our own church. Blowing the lid off this can of worms, Satinover easily cuts through the rhetoric to reveal a society that is not progressing spiritually, but rather reverting to paganism, embracing the beliefs of Gnosticism and Jungianism whose "primary aim...is the removal of barriers to sexual expression of every type and to justify the consequent behaviour in the language of the mystery religions. Such characterizations lend these ideas an aura of 'spirituality' that effectively obscure their fundamental tendency toward hedonism and amorality".

At this point the reader is encouraged to examine not just the mores of those who are gay, but of all sexual behaviour, as it has evolved in the last century.

"The modern change in opinion concerning homosexuality, though presented as a scientific advance, is contradicted rather than supported by science. It is a transformation in public morals consistent with widespread abandonment of the Judao-Christian ethic upon which our civilization is based. Though hailed as 'progress' it is really a reversion to ancient pagan practices supported by a modern restatement of gnostic moral relativism."

The postscript of this book is worth reading all by itself for its insightful, compassionate and caring humility. His respect and love for the gay person (as distinct from the gay activist) is profound and genuine, as is his summation of the whole of the human struggle.

In this writer's opinion, "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth" should not only be compulsory reading for every secondary school student, but obligatory also for every minister and every lay person within the United Church of Canada.

While writing this review I have tried in vain through many sources to contact John Mckellar. I do not know whether in fact the organization H.O.P.E. is still in existence, nor do I know what happened quite suddenly to all the information that was available on the Internet about it, only a short time ago. If anyone knows anything that might shed some light on this subject, I would be grateful if you would please contact "Theological Digest". Thank you.à

Review

RENEW! BLENDED WORSHIP (Carol Strearar, Ill. Hope Publish, US $15, $20 and $30 eds.)
SPIRIT ANEW; Prayer & Praise (Wood Lake Books, 1999, $12.95)
Don Faris

Two new supplementary chorus and hymn books to encourage prayer and praise are Spirit Anew 1999) from a liberal/ecumenical perspective and Renew! Blended Worship (1995) from an evangelical/ecumenical perspective.

Spirit Anew is a puzzlement! There is much that is good in it. It attempts to meet the need for more choruses, songs and hymns of prayer and praise. It is more ecumenical than most hymn books coming out of United Church circles in that it has, for example, some music from John Wimber, founder of the Vineyard movement, and Graham Kendrick, founder of the March for Jesus movement. It also has some of the great new choruses or chants from Africa, Iona, Taize, as well as 17 African-American spirituals.

It is the inclusion of Wimber and Kendrick which is significant as neither found their way into Voices United. But when Kendrick's great praise hymn Shine, Jesus, Shine is excluded, one is puzzled. Perhaps the Introduction can explain this exclusion?

There we find a short and confusing section on "Naming God". This section explains that Spirit Anew intends to use LORD sparingly. The explanation for this decision is both superficial and unconvincing and puzzling in that LORD appears frequently in the choruses and hymn which follow!

What is puzzling, also, is that the "Naming god" section does not pursue the feminist ideological move to name God "Mother". In fact, none of the hymn name God "Mother", but there is a price to be paid! Every time Jesus prayed, he prayed to his Father. Out of 171 pieces of music which are intended to teach us how to pray only 4 name the Father, and only 2 name the Father, Son and Holy Spirit­the name in which we are baptized! And these references are in the liturgical section at the back of the book! Thank God for liturgy! But in the Methodist tradition we sing our faith, and if we are going to be faithful witnesses to Jesus, the Son of God, and sing and pray in the Holy Spirit, then we must share their praise of the Father.

The fact that some people are suddenly becoming aware of the pluralistic culture in which we live, should not move us to worship some sort of generic "god", but encourage us to return to the Biblical practice of Jesus, unashamedly naming the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Pluralism required both Israel and Jesus to identify the God to whom they prayed!

Renew! Songs and Hymns for Blended worship should be read along with Robert E. Webber's Blended Worship: Achieving Substance and Relevance in Worship (1996). Webber, an evangelical Anglican, is a key player in the movement towards blended worship. "Blended Worship" is the convergence of the best of modern evangelical music with the best of traditional music and worship. If you want to transform and deepen the worship in your congregation, I recommend you have your entire Church Board, elders, music leaders and choir members read Blended Worship and then purchase Renew! It has many of the best new evangelical choruses and hymns (Shine, Jesus, Shine) as well as the best traditional evangelical hymns (eg. To God be the Glory, And Can it Be).

And yes, the Psalms and Hymns, are not ashamed to praise the Lord, the Father, or the Father, Son and Holy spirit! Along with Webber's Blended Worship, Renew! Can help congregations be transformed by worship which empowers Evangelism, Healing, Education, Spirituality and Social Action. If this journal were Consumers Digest, I would recommend Renew! And its accompanying user's manual (Blended Worship) as a Best Buy!

COMPARISON TABLE

1971 1990 1996 1997 1995 1999
Red Worshipping Voices Book of Renew Spirit Anew
Hymn Church United Praise Blended prayer &
Book Worship praise
(U.C./Ang.) (Evan.) (U.C.) (Presby.) (Evan/ecum) (lib./ecum.)
Number of entries 533 845 974 835 308 171
"LORD" in Psalms YES YES 90% NO YES YES YES
"Father" in Hymns 115 138 13 82 47 4
"Father, Son & 50 61 2 45 19 2
Holy Spirit"
"Mother" God NIL NIL 9 3 NIL NIL

An editorial feature:
Palms & Scorpions
Cheers & Tears

Notice: The opinions expressed in this editorial feature are those of the editor and do not necessarily reflect endorsement by Church Alive.

Notice: Fallible and sinful as we are, we continue to award tokens of praise or of disapproval to thopse 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 a Cheer may be ironic.

The Scriptural mandate for a feature like this is found in such passages as Romans 12:15; 1 Corinthians 12:26; Ephesians 5:11; 2 Timothy 4:2; and in the prophets, including the examples of St John the Baptist and the Lord himself.

We expect to make mistakes in the course of this editorial feature. We will publish letters demonstrating a mistake and even letters containing unjustifiable cries of outrage. To date we have not been made aware of any serious mistakes. We expect to miss many worthies and in fact 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.

For those who think this feature is too negative, we point out (a) that a negative appraisal of negative ideas or actions is positive; and (b) that in the last issue positive comments outnumbered the negative by 25 to 19 or about 3 to 2.

We try to check our sources for accuracy. We invite readers to send nominations with their stories, background and sources. Please write us (see box, page 2) or E-mail us at theology@itcanada.com

or theology99@hotmail.com

[Palm] Pastor Joe Wright, of Central Christian Church, for his prayer at the opening of the Kansas Senate:-

"Heavenly Father, we come before You to ask Your forgiveness and seek Your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe on those who call evil good" (Is 5:20), but that's exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values.

"We confess that: We have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and called it pluralism.

We have worshipped others gods and called it multiculturalism.

We have endorsed perversion and called it alternative lifestyle.

We have exploited the poor and called it lottery.

We have neglected the needy and called it self-preservation.

We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.

We have killed our unborn and called it choice.

We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable.

We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem.

We have abused power and called it political savvy.

We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition.

We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.

We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

"Search us, O God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Guide and bless these men and women who have been sent here by the people of Kansas, and who have been ordained by You to govern this great state. Grant them the wisdom to rule, and may their decisions direct us to the center of Your will. I ask it in the name of Your Son, the Living Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen."

Although a number of Kansas legislators walked out during Pastor Wright's prayer, most of the response has been positive. Central Christian Church received 5,000 phone calls over six weeks, of which only 47 were negative. Commentator Paul Harvey aired the prayer and received a larger response to this program than any other program he ever aired. The Church has received requests for the prayer from India, Africa and Korea. We tattled it from Anglicans for Renewal Canada; it tattled it from the internet.

Would Pastor Wright's prayer ever be permitted in the House of Commons? After the Chretien Government's protocol officer banning Jesus and the New Testament from the memorial service at Peggy's Cove? (See TD&O, March 1999, pp. 27-28.) But Jesus said, "With God all things are possible" Mk 10:27b).

St Augustine said, "Where faith fails, prayer perishes. For who prays for that in which he does not believe? ... So then in order that we may pray, let us believe, and let us pray that this same faith by which we pray may not falter." (Quoted in Thomas C. Oden & C.A. Hall, eds., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament II: Mark [Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1998], p. 102.)

[Palm] Cassie Bernall, 17, and seven other Christian students, martyred at Columbine High School, Colorado, on April 20, 1999; at the hands of fellow students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who hated not only minorities and athletes, but Christians.

Two days before her death, Cassie wrote a kind of poem:- "Now I have given up on everything else. / I have found it to be the only way / To really know Christ and to experience / The mighty power that brought / Him back to life again, and to find / Out what it means to suffer and to / Die with him. So, whatever it takes / I will be one who lives in the fresh / Newness of life of those who are / Alive from the dead."

(For more, see Chuck Colson's "A Kaleidoscope of Hate: The Columbine Martyrs" in the beige pages.)

[Palm] Rev. Dale Lang, Anglican rector, and family, for their Christian response to the shooting to death of Jason Lang, 17, by a 14 year-old fellow student at W.R. Meyers High School, Taber, Alberta, on April 28, 1999.

Dale Lang said that his son Jason was a "very fine young man who loved life. He played soccer, hockey and golf and enjoyed spending time with his friends. He loved little children, especially his seven year-old sister whom he played with frequently. But most important to us, however, was his love of Jesus. It is that reality that gives us some peace in this time of chaos, knowing that he is in that place Jesus called paradise."

By our count the Taber shooting is the eleventh such atrocity at a school or college: Brampton, ON, May 28, 1975; Ottawa, ON, Oct. 27, 1975; Montreal, QC, Dec. 6, 1989; Pearl, MS, Oct. 1997; West Paducah, KY, Dec. 1, 1997; Jonesboro, AR, March 24, 1998; Edinboro, PA, April 24, 1998; Fayetteville, TN, May 19, 1998; Springfield, OR, May 21, 1998; Littleton, CO, April 20, 1999; and Taber, AB, April 28, 1999.

Was it a coincidence that nine Christian students in North America were shot within the space of eight days?

The West Paducah shooting occurred immediately after about 35 students had finished their morning prayer time in the lobby of Heath High School. The students were holding hands, singing songs and praying. As soon as they said, "Amen," 14 year-old freshman Michael Carneal pulled out a pistol and started shooting. The story of courageous survivor and preacher's kid Ben Strong can be found in Christian Reader, Jan.-Feb. 1999, pp. 20-25, and that of paralyzed survivor and twin Missy Jenkins, "I can forgive Michael," pp. 25-28.

On the matter of forgiving see Paul Miller's review of Simon Wiesenthal, The Sunflower: On the possibilities and limits of forgiveness (NY: Schocken, 1997, rev. ed.) in Theological Digest & Outlook, XIV/1, March 1999, pp. 16-17.

[Palm] Chuck Colson, for his prison ministry and for his radio and E-mail program "Breakpoint." (To subscribe: http://www.breakpoint.org/script4.html)

Colson's reflections on the Littleton tragedy deserve particular attention. See the beige pages, "Will Nietzsche Win? Why Worldview Matters."

For an extended treatment of the importance of one's worldview, see Kenneth Hamilton, "Doctrine and the Christian Life: Reflections on kingdom and triumph of the will," in Theological Digest, V/2, July 1990, pp. 14-17.

[Cheers] The majority of the House of Commons for approving and Calgary Reform MP Eric Lowther for moving the resolution "that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." The vote was 216-55 on June 8, 1999. The reason for the huge majority was that Justice Minister Anne McLellan announced that the Liberal Government would vote in favour of the Reform motion.

Lowther said his resolution was responding to Canadians who fear that the M v. H decision of the Supreme Court of Canada "opens the door to homosexual marriage."

Our cheers are somewhat muted by the fact that the vote was on a resolution and not on a bill that would become law such as the United States now has. Even so, we trust that the Canadian judiciary will pay attention to this parliamentary signal.

The argument that the resolution was redundant because marriage is so recognized in law fails to take seriously the Supreme Court's extension of the definition of common-law "spouse" to include homosexual partners. Granted that the court said the decision had nothing to do with marriage, we have heard such temporizing before, as when then Justice Minister John Turner affirmed in 1969 that abortion to save the life or health of the mother would only regularize current practice.

[Cheers] The Government of Canada's Justice Department announced recently that it would not end the practice of swearing an oath on the Bible in Canadian courts. About 50% of respondents to a question on the subject wanted witnesses to continue responding to the question, "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"

Ray Blessin, a self-described "aggressive atheist" and member of the Humanist Association of Canada, said, "I'm stunned about the immense and all-encompassing intolerance of the religious community in this country. There's a huge non-religious community in this country and we object to this instrusion in our lives."

In fact the law allows almost any oath that a judge believes will compel a witness to be truthful. Affirmation instead of an oath is even used by hyper-scrupulous Christians who fix on the words of Jesus about not swearing an oath at all (Matthew 5:34-37). Swearing an oath before God on a Bible is not an intrusion in anyone's life, because, although it is common, it is also in fact optional.

Mr Blessin might reflect on his own tolerance level.

[Cheers] Canada holds more conferences on workplace spirituality than anywhere else in the world (according to experts cited in a report in the National Post, June 2, 1999).

An example of workplace spirituality would be the dozen Nortel Networks employees in Brampton who have been meeting once a week over lunch to study the Bible, listen to devotional readings, meditate or pray. A group leader said, "The greatest thing about it is that we connect with one another. We don't have to leave our spirituality at the door."

The University of Toronto recently hosted the second annual Conference on Spirituality in the Workplace, attracting hundreds from Canada and the United States. Seventy speakers were scheduled, including Martin Rutte, co-author of Chicken Soup for the Soul at Work.

Conference Chairwoman Sherry Connolly says that people seek meaning and balance in their work. If they find them, absenteeism and stress are reduced, productivity goes up and innovation is encouraged. People are reacting against workplace attrition, years of lay-offs and unfulfilling "McJobs."

We see this trend as an opportunity for sharing the good news of Jesus Christ. We know that the word spirituality today covers a multitude of vices as well as virtues, but it also signals opportunity for ordinary Christians to share their faith and their hope.

[Palm] Courageous members of the Ouachita Baptist University Choir, for acting out their faith in the crash of American Airlines Flight 1420 at Little Rock, Arkansas, on June 1, 1999. The twin-engine jet crashed during a severe thunderstorm and rolled into the Arkansas River, where it burst into flames.

In the chaos of the crash and fire, the choristers went to work, helping get survivors out of the wreckage.

Choir member James Harrison kept running back to the burning plane to pull passengers to safety but was overcome by smoke, collapsed and died.

Chuck Colson pointed out that the choir members were just a few years older than the Columbine killers, and they grew up in the same culture. "And yet when the plane crashed, these Christian young people remembered the Christlike lessons their parents and church had taught them." (Breakpoint, June 21 & 22, 1999).

[Cheers] Blackwell Publishers are launching a new journal, the International Journal of Systematic Theology, whose editors are Prof Colin Gunton (King's College, London), Prof John Webster (Oxford) and Prof Ralph De Colle (Marquette). International and ecumenical in scope, the journal has a broad based editorial board and is intentionally diverse. Personal subscriptions cost US$45 for three issues (Canadians add 7% GST). For information contact jnlinfo@blackwellpublishers.co.uk

[Cheers] Celibacy and chastity are becoming "in", as we can see from comments by such public figures as Curtis Brown of the Buffalo Sabres and Calgary Reform MP Jason Kenney. Secondary virginity is also "in." Even some not noted for either primary or secondary chastity are taking it up temporarily or between partners.

So pronounced is the trend to chastity that columnist Byron Rempel writes a lament, noting in astonishment that whereas 48% of teens had not had sex in 1993, in 1997 the percentage had risen to 54%. Rempel need not worry too much about the passing of the free sex culture. We've a very long way to go before we approach the Christian ideal.

[Cheers] Ian Hunter is introducing readers of the National Post to American scholar Michael Novak, of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC. Novak recognizes as two of five degenerating factors in society (a) the exclusion of religion from the public square by the courts under the guise of neutrality, and (b) the widely held conviction that religious belief is a private idiosyncrasy, if not a private aberration.

Hunter cites Novak on "judgmentaphobia"

-- an unwilligness to make moral judgments. Christ's instruction "Judge not that ye be not judged" is reduced to "Judge not because it might lower someone's self-esteem." Hunter says, "To lose the capacity to judge between good and evil, innocence and guilt, is to lose the sine qua non of liberty."

Novak finds three basic principles in the American Declaration of Independence: "No Republic without liberty. No liberty without virtue. No virtue without religion." Since moderns have weakened the second and third points, our democracy is imperilled. (Tattled from National Post, July 1, 1999)

[Cheers] Mark Steyn's column, "What's all the fuss about Bubbles Galore?" provides some lighter comment about judgmentaphobia. "Presumably we have public funding to promote Canadian values, and what values are more Canadian than the porn industry's? 'Diversity'? Hey, they live by it. 'Multi-culturalism'? Take a stroll round the 'Asian Babes' section. 'Tolerance'? Listen, you wanna see three-way sex between transvestite, a donkey, and a separatist, that's cool, whatever's your bag, man. The porn business and our Supreme Court have both adapted the same definition of 'partner': whomsoever you happen to be entwined with at any particular moment of the day. You couldn't ask for two more scrupulously non-judgmental cultures than Canada and the hardcore sex trade--though, curiously, in practice both wind up being subtly judgmental about what one had hitherto assumed to be the tastes of the majority" (National Post, April 13, 1999).

[Cheers] At this year's Toronto Conference a group of renewal-minded ministers and lay persons calling themselves The Orthodox Connection provided a positive and welcoming display. The displays including the renewal groups, TD&O and Fellowship Magazine, were grouped together in the arena, where the 600 delegates were seated. The united effort made a beautiful and strong positive statement with a large six-foot cross, Scripture quotes, Bethel posters and displays of FM. In addition there were workshops on Bethel and Alpha, drawing 30 participants. A minister not noted for his orthodoxy took one look at the united display and commented, "I don't believe it!" Church Alive has received positive feedback from its limited display of TD&O.

[Scorpion] Former Communist and current Socialist President Slobodan Milosevic, of Yugoslavia, for atrocities first in Bosnia and now in Kosovo.

For information about the war and the Church, see Jim Forest, "Kosovo and the Serbian Orthodox Church: Not what cartoonists would have us believe," in Again, XXI/2, pp 29-31. Website: www.incommunion.org/nato.htm

[Scorpion] NATO leaders, particularly President Bill Clinton, for bombing Serbia on the Orthodox Easter (April 11 this year), despite pleas from Orthodox bishops worldwide and despite Milosevic's unilateral cease-fire on this first of all holy days. The offense is especially acute because Clinton pointedly timed the bombing of Iraq last December to avoid the Moslem fast of Ramadan. Leaders in the West respect a month-long Moslem fast but not the one day prized above all by Christians in Serbia. For shame.

[Scorpion] The Humanist Association of Canada, for its pitifully subscribed petition to remove God from the Preamble of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Of course they and any Canadian at all have the right to petition the House of Commons on anything. We question the association's decision on their grounds that the name "God" in the constitution is "discriminatory to people who hold no religious beliefs."

Not only do at least 80% of Canadians believe in God--and removing God from the constitution would be offensive to this huge majority--but in fact individuals who call themselves Humanists are willing to use God as a useful term for their highest convictions and ideals.

One such individual was the American philosopher John Dewey, who signed the original Humanist Manifesto of 1933 (drafted by Unitarian Minister Roy Wood Sellars). In 1934 Dewey published a book entitled A Common Faith (Yale UP), in which he distinguished between religion and the religious, and discussed faith and its object, and the human abode of the religious function.

Dewey gives the name God or the divine to the active relation between ideal and actual. Dewey does not accept any supernaturalism in his concept of God, but he thinks that only such a name as God (or the divine) will allow widespread participation in the concrete goods of values in art, knowledge, education, fellowship, friendship and love, and growth in mind and body (pp. 50-51).

Dewey dissociates himself from militant atheism. Not only can it be too negative, but it is preoccupied with man in isolation. "Militant atheism is also affected by lack of natural piety." "Use of the words 'God' or 'divine' to convey the union of actual with ideal may protect man from a sense of isolation and from consequent despair or defiance" (p. 53).

For us, a former Humanist (and the founder of the Humanist movement on the University of Toronto campus in 1959--all of which we now regret), the place of God in the constitution is at least a signal that right and wrong do not depend on human invention or power; that law is something more profound than a smokescreen for power-plays; that justice is for all human beings without exception.

Take, for example, the insight of St Gregory Nazianzus into merely man-made laws: "In respect of chastity I see that the majority of men are illdisposed, and that their laws are unequal and irregular. For what was the reason why they restrained the woman, but indulged the man...? I do not accept this legislation; I do not approve this custom. Those who made the law were men, and therefore their legislation is hard on women... God...says Honor your father and your mother... See the equality of [God's] legislation" (Fifth Theol. Orat.).

Susan Martinuk, a Vancouver writer, wrote, "Subjecting our principles to the manipulations, biases, ambitions and frailties of man's intellectual ideas won't bring us greater freedom. It will only bring about totalitarianism...and a constant struggle over whose intellectual ideas should rule and whose standards of morality should be used to create laws. Those in power will win" ("Supreme law-maker," National Post, June 1999).

Unless the objectivity of right and wrong are recognized, then might is right. Human beings have this choice: either accept the objectivity of right and wrong (which depends on God or tradition) or accept that might is right, and despair.

The Second Humanist Manifesto of 1973 explicitly denies the need for a theological (or even an ideological) basis for ethics, which is "autonomous and situational." Which is to say that there is no universal ethics and that the strong can dominate the weak and indeed that "the central humanist value" of the "preciousness and dignity of the individual person" has no basis in reality. No wonder Bertrand Russell ended his essay, "A Free Man's Worship," with noble despair.

We take exception to Andrew Coyne's flippant comment, "The reference [to God in the constitution] is in the preamble: It has no legal weight."

It certainly seems that the Supreme Court of Canada since 1982 has ignored the preamble's reference to God, and will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future. But I argue that the Charter is one piece; the preamble is part and parcel of it; the preamble's reference to the rule of law has not been cavalierly dismissed. Once you dismiss one part of the charter, you have a precedent for dismissing another part (such as, the rule of law, or freedom of conscience and religion, or freedom of the press).

Susan Martinuk warns that disregard of God and Judaeo-Christian morality will eventually reduce us "to a nation of individuals who can rationalize anything and are ultimately responsible only to ourselves. Such an unstructured and fragmented society would be unable to summon the collective will to set limits or punish crime--a rather frightening prospect.

"In Canada, our laws increasingly reflect the morality of those in power. Since these individuals have no more moral authority than we ourselves possess, it isn't surprising that this shift in law-making has been accompanied by a rise in social disintegration and violence, and a drop in respect for human life and law."

[Scorpion] The majority panel of the B.C. Court of Appeal--Justice Mary Southin and Justice Anne Rowles--for upholding Judge Duncan Shaw's ruling that the law making possession of child pornography a crime is unconstitutional. In other words, for Shaw and for Southin and Rowles, possession of child porn is legal. The BC Attorney General is appealing the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Ontario Attorney General will join BC in its appeal.

Andrew Coyne argues that the issue is harm, that is, when child pornography uses real children as in photographs or videos. He would deem drawings of child pornography legal. But drawings might use real children as models. Moreover, if you buy a stolen car unknowingly, that car can be seized and returned to its owner; you have no right to it. Similarly, you should have no right to drawings of an illegal act--sex with children.

Our guess is that the ruling to make possession of child pornography legal comes partly because most pornography is legal; in fact it is Government subsidized, as the Bubbles Galore grants from many governments and tax-funded agencies shows.

And most pornography is legal because judges refuse to consider Judaeo-Christian morality or any other morality with a religious base. Most judges for the last few decades seem to be religion-blind, if not downright anti-religion. They pretend to be neutral, but consider the neutrality of Madam Justice Saunders, also of the BC Supreme Court.

Saunders is the judge who interpreted the BC School Act's provision that all schools be conducted on secular principles to mean exclusion of religion or religious belief! She would require teachers and administrators not to be "significantly influenced by religious considerations" in decision-making. Iain Benson and Brad Miller noted that in the statute's origin, "secular" meant "non-sectarian" rather than "non-religious."

Saunders' view, applied wholesale, would disenfranchise the 90% of the Canadian population whom Statistics Canada lists as religious. Benson and Miller argue, "Nothing in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, democratic theory or principled pluralism requires that atheism be preferred to religiously informed moral positions in matters of public policy." Saunders' stance is anything but neutral. It is manifestly anti-religious. We understand that her attitude is typical of the current Canadian judiciary.

Without a religious basis, judges have little but their own biases to guide them in moral decisions and rulings. The legalization of the possession of child pornography is simply an obvious example of what happens when public officials ignore religion or--in Saunders' case--exile religion to private life.

As for Justice Southin, her comment at the hearing, "Perhaps the views Canadians have about child pornography may change over time, perhaps to the point where it becomes acceptable," could be interpreted as pre-judgment. But would child pornography and paedophilia become acceptable anywhere in the world?

The court's argument that child pornography keeps paedophiles from actually seducing children is absurd. Pornography led Ted Bundy down the path to serial murders, and he told Dr James Dobson that every murderer he knew had been influenced by pornography. Child pornography will not reduce incidents of paedophilia; it will inevitably lead to an increase of that sick and radically abusive activity. When will judges wake up to the harmful effects of pornography and to the life-long problems of children and teenagers (like Sheldon Kennedy) who were sexually abused?

It is hard to think of anyone who brings the administration of justice into more disrepute than tunnel-visioned judges like Shaw, Southin, Rowles and Saunders. And if you think that the current Supreme Court of Canada won't sustain Southin and Rowles' ruling, we'd guess that you'll soon be buying a lottery ticket and bringing it to the bank as collateral for a loan to start up a new business venture.

[Scorpion] Division of Mission in Canada, Worship section, for proposing to bypass the 1975 PLURA ecumenical agreement on the baptismal formula, and for attempting to justify anarchy in baptismal practice, contrary to the Basis of Union.

In 1975 the Canadian Presbyterian, Lutheran, United, Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches (PLURA) signed an agreement on the matter and form of baptism. The matter is water; the form is the traditional Trinitarian formula mandated by Matthew 28:19. The agreement facilitated mutual recognition of baptism. This agreement was respected by the 1984 General Council and used in Services for Trial Use.

Draft II of the Baptismal Service now offers other wordings in place of the biblical baptismal formula, although admitting that "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" remains the officially accepted formula. These other wordings are:-

(1) "...in the name of God, Source of Love, in the name of Jesus Christ, Love incarnate, and in the name of the Holy Spirit, Love's power."

(2) "...in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit--one God, Mother and Father of us all."

(3) "...in the name of God the Father, who loves us as a mother loves a child, and of the Son, who dwells among us as a friend, and of the Holy Spirit, who inspires, challenges and comforts us all."

By offering these formulae as options for baptism, the DMC is bypassing,if not repudiating, the 1975 agreement; is acting contrary to the instruction of the 1984 General Council; and is turning the United Church into a sect outside the Holy Catholic Church and the Reformed tradition.

The first optional formula above is particularly noxious, because it includes three names, thus opening itself to charges of tri-theism. The biblical formula of Matthew 28 shows the unity and tri-unity of God by the singular for "name" and then "Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

The second optional wording above adds baggage which is unnecessary and which actually contradicts the biblical part of the formula. For if the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit equals one God, Father and Mother, what is left of the Son and the Holy Spirit?

The third optional wording is also loaded with unnecessary baggage. Note that the Father is called God but not the Son or the Holy Spirit. It too is inadequate.

Draft II then leaves us with optional formulae which are simply inadequate and which leave the United Church with a reputation for reneging on ecumenical commitments.

That is not all. It goes on to make this absurd claim: "In keeping with our denominational polity and heritage, whichever wording or wordings to be used is a decision to be made by the congregation's Session, Official Board, Worship Committee, or equivalent."

Such anarchy is not in keeping with our polity or our heritage. And it is in fact a repudiation of Article XVI of the Basis of Union, which states, "Baptism with water into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is the sacrament by which are signified and sealed our union to Christ and participation in the blessings of the new covenant..." Note that there is no optional formula for baptism in the Basis of Union Doctrine.

If every session or worship committee could determine the baptismal formula, we might well ask why every board or finance committee cannot sever the congregation's property from The United Church of Canada.

The question is whether the United Church is an organic whole or a voluntary association of autonomous congregations. The former is Basis of Union polity, though it allows considerable freedom. See Basis, 3.4, "...it is possible to provide for substantial local freedom, and at the same time secure the benefits of a strong connexional tie and cooperative efficiency." But disparate baptismal formulae destroy not only unity within the United Church, but destroy continued recognition of our baptisms by other denominations.

[Tears] The unbiblical anarchy on baptism and all the other lamentable, appalling and unbiblical positions and policies of the United Church courts of the last decade have driven one United Church Minister (Dr Don Faris) to suggest what the official United Church really believes is something like this:-

"A New Creed

"We are not alone. We live in the wide womb (1) of the Father/Mother (2) God/Goddess of our preference, who approves of whatever we choose to do.(3)

"We also like the nice person, Jesus, who falsely claimed to be the Christ (4), and was, therefore, justifiably crucified, died, and whose bones were eaten by dogs.(5)

"And we believe in the spirit of the age (6) and whatever makes us feel good. We denounce the Church as a patriarchal, homophobic institution. And we glory in diversity and inclusivity because what we really, really believe is that there is no such thing as absolute truth and everything is relative. AMEN."

Notes (abridged)

1. Voices United, 280. This hymn's author explains elsewhere what she means by Mother: Anath-Astarte and lady Asherah--goddesses against whose devotees King Josiah acted (2 Kings 23).

2. VU, 916.

3. A Roman Catholic observer opined that the United Church had worked itself into a position of approving virtually any sexual behaviour "no matter how unbiblical."

4. Bearing Faithful Witness declares that Jesus probably did not claim to be Messiah. Since the biblical Jesus did claim to be the Messiah, we assume the committee which produced BFW considers his claims to be false.

5. Moderator Phipps urges us to "look to modern scholarship such as that of the Jesus Seminar." One of the seminar's leading members, John Dominic Crossan, suggested that Jesus' bones were "eaten by dogs."

6. The liberal strategy of accomodation to the ideology of the surrounding culture has resulted in our United Church leaders being committed to the relativistic obsession with the self of the 1960s era in which they grew up. This unquestioning acceptance of popular culture is completely unbiblical.

(Tattled from Concern, June 1999, pp. 3-4).

[Scorpion] The House of Commons of the United Kingdom, for lowering the age of consent for gay sex to 16 from 18. The House of Commons vote was 313 to 130. Strong opposition is expected in the House of Lords. Heterosexual sex is legal at age 16, and this measure would bring gay sex into line with that rule. Home Secretary Jack Straw said that the law was subject to challenge in Europe and had to be changed.

The relevance of this for Canada is that the age of consent here is 14. It should be raised to at least 16, though we believe that this is too low; the age of consent ought to be 18.

We would argue that since those under 18 committing a crime are tried in juvenile court and the press is forbidden to publish their names, they ought not to be considered sufficiently mature to give informed consent to sexual advances. Moreover, the international Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as someone under 18.

[Cheers] Lesbian lawyer Barbara Findlay, for candour. She is quoted by Western Report as saying last year, "The struggle for queer rights will one day be a showdown between freedom of religion and sexual orientation."

[Cheers] A feminist writer in a law journal, for candour. Ian Hunter provides this quotation in the July 15th National Post:

"It is in women's interest to refuse to subscribe to, or commit themselves to, any single meaning of equality. Feminist advocates need to learn to use the equality discourse on behalf of women in as many and as diverse situations as the term can bear. The needs and experiences of women will dictate the meaning of equality in each particular context."

[Scorpion] The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for shoving homosexual advocacy down the throats of TTC riders. A new series of Toronto bus transfers will now feature advertisements for Toronto Area Gays and Lesbians. The transfers come in three versions, one each for gay, lesbian and bi-sexual services. The OHRC settlement requires that the ads appear sporadically throughout the summer and fall and that similar messages appear on subway clocks and in association with Gay Pride Day in June. Any customer refusing a gay, lesbian or bi-sexual transfer will be required to pay a full fare and then lodge a complaint to be reimbursed. Any employee refusing to distribute the transfers will be disciplined.

We wonder if the Ontario Human Rights Commission should be re-named the Ontario Commission for Compelling Acceptance and Approval of Homosexuality on Everyone.

[Scorpion] Upper Canada College, Toronto, for apparently buying into the gay agenda. The May issue of "Current Times" reported that homophobia has been identified as a key issue facing young people today. The report said that statistics show "that one in four young people will be homosexual, and as such, it is important to educate people to be accepting of this lifestyle."

The report said that in May all UCC students in Grades 9 to 11 attended Young People's Theatre to see The Other Side of the Closet, "a play that takes a close look at homophobia, specifically as it relates to adolescents." UCC students met with the Toronto Board of Education Human Sexuality Program team during health classes prior to, as well as after the play. The hope is that as awareness is raised UCC will be a safe and supportive place for all of its students.

But will it be safe and supportive for those students who may feel ambivalent in their sexuality but who want to be heterosexual?

What statistics show that 25% of young people will be homosexual? Kinsey's methodologically questionable figure of 10% is discounted and most research has shown that the incidence of homosexuality in the population is between 2 and 3%.

Does UCC expose students to the other side of the question such as Exodus International and New Directions represent? Are they informed that sexual orientation can be changed through therapy in the majority of cases involving willing participants?

On June 7 we wrote the Principal of UCC, Douglas Blakey, asking such questions and recommending Jeffrey Satinover's Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth and the Exodus and New Directions' websites. On June 28 we phoned to see if our letter had been received; it had been. To date (August 10) we have not had the courtesy of a reply.

It deeply pains us that a great independent school has apparently bought into the gay agenda. UCC did us a lot of good when we attended as a boarder from 1955 to 1959. We hope that it will have second thoughts on the gay agenda--at least that it will give an equal opportunity for ex-gays and biblical Christians to present their stories.

(The Exodus website is www.exodusintl.org The New Directions website for young people is www.freetobeme.com)

[Tears] Casey McKibbon, 61, has retired and resigned from the Order of Ministry. McKibbon ran the Clergy Support Network for almost 20 years, providing a listening ear for almost 2,000 Canadian clergy. He estimates that about 300 United Church ministers run into trouble either with their congregations or with the church courts every year. He is quoted as protesting the church's "brutal and soul-destroying treatment of its clergy."

Steven Chambers, General Secretary for the Division of Ministry, Personnel & Education, responded, "I do not in any way see this church as a brutal and soul-destroying organization. We work hard to encourage healthy relationships between ministers and congregations. Like all bodies, sometimes we fail."

[Cheers] Orville James' column in the July-August Observer (p. 50) reported on a new process for solving church disputes. "Each Conference has trained several Conflict Resolution Facilitators (CRFs) who are available to work within your church body to sort out differences without tearing apart the Body."

James says that Hamilton Conference has dealt with 20 cases of church conflicts in the past year and not one of them resulted in a lawsuit. The new process draws on Mennonite and Quaker experience and involves valuing both head and heart, seeking negotiation and forgiveness, harmony and justice, and pointing the facilitators to help the disputants themselves to move toward win/win solutions.

United Church legal counsel Cynthia Gunn says, "It's an evolving process that will be evaluated and improved if necessary, but this is a new direction we think is better." So do we. Three cheers for Conflict Resolution Facilitators! Contact your Conference office for more information.

[Tears] BC Conference's Naramata Centre, for the arguably unbiblical program "Healing Touch", also known as "Therapeutic Touch." Naramata has been offering such programs since 1993. The 1999 catalogue offers events under the umbrella of "Healing Pathway" from January 31 to October 27.

Naramata's claim that the Healing Pathway is faithful to the life and teachings of Jesus would be disputed by nurse Sharon Fish. Fish's article, "Therapeutic Touch: Healing science or psychic midwife?" describes the process and traces its botanical, theosophical and metaphysical roots and its psychic, occult, wicca, spiritualist and mesmerist associations.

Fish concludes: "Therapeutic Touch is not a practice Christians can engage in without seriously compromising their faith and potentially endangering their relationship with God. He alone can teach the true meaning of the laying-on of hands to comfort, care, and cure."

We would applaud Christians getting in touch with health and healing programs. We remember our involvement with the International Order of St Luke with gratitude.

We note that Naramata held a conference in June on "Reclaiming the Church's Healing Ministry," involving Flora Litt and Wayne Irwin on "Healing Prayer" and Marianne Wells Borg leading in the Taize Service for Healing and Wholeness. We would not criticize Naramata wholesale but we think a caution on the "Healing Touch" and "Therapeutic Touch" is very much in order.

[Scorpion] Justice of the Peace Marcel Bedard, for ignoring the Charter's guarantee of freedom of religion in the case of a blind person's guide-dog being barred from an Orthodox Church, and for arrogance and concomitant ignorance of Scripture.

Bedard said, "The law is quite clear and the evidence in this matter is quite clear. Persons with guide dogs are to be permitted access, including access to a church."

He then asked Fr Elles of St Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church whether he was familiar with the nativity scene that often decorates Christian churches, pointing out that it features "the newly arrived baby surrounded by animals."

Bedard fined Fr Elles $1,000 for barring Patricia Simmons and her guide-dog from his church.

Fr Elles's lawyer argued that the priest was bound by religious tradition and practices. "It is an ecumenical decision of the patriarch," he said. "Father Elles is obligated to follow those instructions. The church is viewed as a holy, consecrated place. It is a policy that has been in place for hundreds...of years."

Now we are firmly of the opinion that guide-dogs for the blind should be permitted in a church. We hope that the Orthodox will eventually show their usual skill at accomodating special situations.

But we protest the complete and total ignoring of the Charter's freedom of religion clause by this justice of the peace. Is the Blind Persons' Rights Act more fundamental than the Charter-guaranteed freedom of religion? Is freedom of religion no more than a meaningless paper right in Canada and anything at all can override it?

We wonder if Patricia Simmons ever asked the priest's bishop for a dispensation. I suspect he would have granted her request.

As for JP Debard's invocation of nativity scenes with animals, three points can be made. First, the Gospel of Luke makes no mention whatsoever of animals near the manger. There may have been or maybe not. We don't know. The animals in paintings and carols come from human imagination.

Second, in any case the manger then was not in a consecrated church building. The oldest surviving church in the world is the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Its exceptionally low doorway was built with a view to preventing horses and camels from entering.

Third, Jesus found oxen, sheep and doves being sold in the Jerusalem Temple and he drove out the merchants and bankers, saying, "Take these things away! Do not make my Father's house a house of merchandise!" (Jn 2:16). For the Orthodox the consecrated church building is a temple with an altar. Their rule against animals in such a holy place is at least consistent with Jesus' fiery cleansing of the Jerusalem Temple.

Moreover St John's Revelation excludes "dogs" from the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev 22:15). A literal interpretation would make exclusion of dogs from a Christian temple mandatory. (We do not accept a literal interpretation of this text.)

In any case, for ourselves we believe that seeing-eye dogs for the blind should be admitted to church buildings, not because of the Blind Persons' Rights Act, but because of love for the disabled--a love that Jesus Christ showed time and time again.

[CHEERS] Stephanie McClellan, for courage and perseverance in her ablities/disabilities cycling tour, "On Wings Like Eagles" from Vancouver to Ottawa, 5,500 kilometres. She started out on May 28, reaches her home church, Pelham Centre United, Fenwick, Ontario, on August 16, and finishes in Ottawa about August 28. She logs up to 150 km a day on her modified, three-wheeled mountain bike powered by hand-crank-operated drive train.

Stephanie is an intended candidate for the United Church ministry, was suddenly struck with rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia that left her immobilized, and is studying theology at Regent College, Vancouver. She hopes her tour will help people recognize abilities in the disabled.

"A lot of people look at people with disabilities as people who need to be served," she said. "But we want to flip that around, that we need to serve."

Donations toward her and the support team's expenses should be made out to "St Andrew's Hall" with a note for "On Wings Like Eagles" (404-6040 Iona Dr, Vancouver, BC, V6T 2E8). Website: www.pz.com/on-eagles-wings

E-mail: smcclell@interchange.ubc.ca

You Asked For A Sermon On Postmodernism

I: -- What is postmodernism or postmodernity? Plainly we have to know what is meant by "modernity" before we can grasp "postmodernity." Some people maintain that modernity begins with the French Revolution with its avowedly secularist, anti-religious outlook. Others date modernity from the Enlightenment with its development of science. Others still (here I include myself) date modernity from the Renaissance with, among other things, the rise of market-capitalism, the development of transnational banking, the nation-state. Modernity, then, runs from mid 15^th century to mid 20^th century, or from 1450 to 1945.

Let’s think first of modernity. There are several features of modernity that we all recognise as soon as they are mentioned: technoscience, for instance. Think of how the telegraph was followed by the wireless, followed in turn by sophisticated telephone systems, followed yet again by satellite communication, and so on. The same path, of course, is found from the printing press to the word processor.

Mass production is another feature of modernity. At one time goods were produced in what were known as "cottage industries." Someone with a few sheep spun wool in her living room and then wove it, eventually having a garment of some kind she could sell. With mass production a newly-invented mechanical loom hummed night and day in a factory, producing wool far more quickly, and thus permitting a vastly more efficient means of manufacturing and distributing huge quantities of woollen goods. Horse-drawn carriages used to be made by one or two men who spent weeks building one carriage completely before beginning another. With the advent of the horseless carriage, the automobile, Henry Ford developed the assembly line. The number of units manufactured per week skyrocketed. Not only did the factory-housed loom and the automobile assembly line speed up the manufacturing process, they also lowered the price per unit so that large segments of the population were able to afford cheaper manufactured goods.

Developments in industrial efficiency, we should note, created what economists call "real wealth" and distributed it in such a way that a middle class arose and mushroomed. Prior to modernity there were two classes: the noble or aristocratic class (very small in number) and the rural peasant class (very large.) In other words, there were a few rich landowners and hordes of poor land-workers. The few possessed immense wealth and power; the many possessed neither wealth nor power. Industrialisation, a major feature of modernity, gave rise to a middle class that was larger than either the rich or the poor. And of course together with the expansion of the middle class there occurred the representative democracy we all cherish.

The nation-state was a feature of modernity. The purpose of the state is to subdue lawlessness, punish evildoers, promote the public good. At the close of the Middle Ages it was noted that a people that had much in common could band together and thereby promote the public good much more efficiently. At the close of the Middle Ages there were 300 fiefdoms or principalities in Germany, with a prince presiding over each. It was obvious that if many German-speaking peoples forged themselves into a single German-speaking people, a nation-state would arise possessed of a domestic and international power that 300 fiefdoms could never hope to have.

By far the most readily recognised feature of modernity, I think, is what I mentioned first: technoscience. "Labour-saving devices" are only a small part of it. The devices that we now take for granted weren’t merely labour-saving (a tractor that ploughs in an hour what a horse ploughed in a day.) The technoscience we admire had to do with vaccinations, inoculations, surgeries (chest surgery was virtually impossible prior to the invention of the heart-lung machine). As well as the technoscience that provided safety: radar, electronic navigation, weather predicting. As well as the technoscience that "greened" large parts of the world with wheat that was impervious to rust, corn impervious to blight, fertilisers that multiplied crop yields a hundred fold, and methods of transportation that were quicker, safer, cheaper, more comfortable than anything our foreparents could have imagined.

Modernity was characterised by a belief in progress, a manifest mastery over nature, and the magnification of efficiency everywhere.

II: -- Then what about postmodernity? What are its features? Let’s begin here where we left off: technoscience. There is now widespread loss of confidence in technoscience as a blessing. While nuclear science generates electricity more efficiently than steam turbines, nuclear science has spawned nightmare after nightmare. (Not to mention propaganda to cloak the nightmare: there are on average 500 major nuclear accidents per year, most of which are never reported to the public.) As for nuclear weaponry, we entered the cold war in 1945, seemed to pass out of it in 1989, and now appear to be on the edge of re-entering it. At the height of the cold war the USA and the USSR were aiming at each other nuclear weaponry that guaranteed what the military-industrial complex called "Mutually Assured Destruction": MAD. Conventional weaponry had been used to win wars; nuclear weaponry guaranteed lost wars for everybody. Yet nuclear weaponry proliferated.

Developments in electronics were hailed as glorious. Electronic surveillance has eroded privacy already and brought depersonalisation and dehumanisation in its wake. And we haven’t seen anything in this regard compared to the Orwellianism we are going to see.

In the postmodern era pharmacology has become suspect. Drugs to relieve pain are one thing. What about drugs that don’t merely relieve pain, don’t merely elevate moods (from depression to contentment), don’t merely subdue agitation or compulsiveness, but alter personality? If drugs can alter personality, then what do we mean by "personality?" Since personality is intimately connected to personal identity, has personal identity evaporated? Then what has happened to the person herself? What do we mean by "self?" Is there a self? Furthermore, if self and personality are related to character, what has become of character?

While we are speaking of character we should be aware that the United States Armed Forces have developed drugs that eliminate fear. Courage, of course, is courage only in the context of fear. Drugs that eliminate fear also eliminate bravery. No American combatant need ever be awarded a purple heart! More to the point, drug-induced fearlessness renders someone a robot; robots are never afraid, and robots are never brave, just because robots are never human. That’s the point: the drugged soldier is no longer human.

What modernity called progress postmodernity deems anything but progress. Where is the progress in ecological damage so far-reaching that air isn’t fit to breathe or water to drink, while ozone-depletion renders us uncommonly vulnerable to skin cancer? Where is the progress in schooling that finds university-bound students unable to write or comprehend a five-sentence paragraph?

To no one’s surprise, postmodernity has suffered widespread loss of confidence in reason. We may call postmodernites cynics or we may call them realists; in any case postmodernites see human reasoning as a huge factor in the postmodern mess. They see reason (so-called) as simply a means to an end that isn’t reasonable itself.

One feature of the collapse of confidence in reason is the disappearance of truth. Truth is now reduced to taste. Postmodernity denies that there is such a thing as truth, or denies that we can access truth. Instead of knowing truth we express opinions, or we indicate preferences, or we "go with our gut." Truth? What is truth, anyway? And if it existed, what makes us think we could know it? And even if we could know it, how would we know when we had found it? Truth? You have your opinion and I have in mine.

Needless to say the disappearance of truth entails the disappearance of ethics. Postmodernites don’t speak of ethics; they speak of values. Everyone knows that different people hold different values. But this isn’t to say one value is superior to another. What any one person values is up to him or her. No one is to be told his values are defective or inferior. After all, there’s no disputing taste. Taste, preference, opinion, whatever – it all adds up to the indisputable subjective.

If someone, nervous about all of this, speaks up, "But shouldn’t opinions or preferences be grounded in something, grounded in reality?", such a person will be reminded, "Asking whether they should be grounded in reality is pointless when no one knows what reality is or how it might be recognised." "But can’t the smorgasbord of opinions be considered and weighed rationally?" The question is pointless when reason is already suspect. Besides, to challenge someone else’s values or opinions is to excite emotion, and everyone knows that when emotion and reason meet, reason always takes second place.

Another feature of postmodernity is the weakening of the nation-state in the face of tribalism. All over the world tribalism is reasserting itself. It is especially strong in Africa. Quebec’s growing self-consciousness, however, is a form of tribalism too, as is the United Church’s all-aboriginal presbytery. The most vicious form of tribalism ("vicious", of course, is a value-laden term, my value) is ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing is on the increase. Internally the nation-state is fragmenting; externally the nation-state is increasingly the pawn of international finances and multinational corporations.

Another feature of postmodernity is the mushrooming of consumerism, consumer-driven everything. In the modern era economics were producer-driven; in the postmodern era, consumer-driven. Consumerism determines what church-congregations offer, what pulpits declare, what school boards program. Reginald Bibby, sociologist at the University of Lethbridge, maintains that there’s a huge demand throughout the society for religious consumer-products. "If the church wants to survive", says Bibby, "it should meet consumer demands." In other words, the church should forget what it believes to be the truth and substance of the gospel. The church should merely prepare the religious buffet that allows consumers to pick and choose according to taste, whim, preference. It must never be forgotten, of course, that it’s consumers who fund the church. Consumerism? My daughter Mary has just finished her B.Sc.N. program at McMaster University. When she began the course she was told that patients are no longer patients; what used to be known as patients are now clients. Patients are sick; clients are consumers who are purchasing a service.

My wife, Maureen, came upon three grade one students writing obscene graffiti. She deemed this to be an "actionable" offence and immediately took action. Next day the parent of one of these three children came to see Maureen. The parent remarked, "How unfortunate it was that my daughter signed her name to the graffiti she wrote." "It wasn’t unfortunate that your daughter signed her name, thereby giving herself away", Maureen replied; "It wasn’t even unfortunate that she wrote the obscene graffiti in the first place. It was simply wrong; wrong." The category "wrong" has no meaning for that parent. The parent has already disavowed everything that might be logically related to the word "wrong." Her attitude encapsulates postmodernity. Besides, as a taxpayer she’s a consumer who is purchasing a service for her child. And since consumers are paying the piper, they are now calling the tune.

III: -- Is postmodernity all bad? Has the sky fallen on Chicken Little? No. Think of something familiar to all of us: the writing of history. We all studied history in school. We all studied it thinking it to be the soul of objectivity. Postmodernites tell us something different. A few years ago I addressed a group of curriculum planners at the central office of the Toronto Board of Education. I was speaking about prejudice in general, racism in particular. I told the group that while racial segregation had always occurred spontaneously in Ontario, it had been mandated by law in one institution only: the school system. Yes, Ontario schools were segregated along black/white lines beginning in 1850. Most of the curriculum planners were completely unaware of this. Then I asked them, "In what year was the last racially segregated school in Ontario closed?" Two planners shouted, "In 1965." They were correct. They were also black. The black educators knew about racially segregated schools in Ontario; the white planners had never heard of it and were aghast to learn of it. When I studied Canadian history in high school I was never informed of this matter. Were you? The postmodernites are going to keep asking us, "Who writes history? Whose viewpoint is reflected? Whose interests are advanced? And what despised group is silenced?" Here postmodernism is doing us a favour.

Is postmodernity all bad? No. Before we deplore the fast-approaching demise of the Church of Scotland (to name only one denomination on its way to death), the Church of Scotland being the national church in the land of the thistle; before we lament the morbidity of the kirk, we should remember that many people won’t be sorry to see it go down. My earliest Old Testament professor, Scottish himself but belonging to a church other than the Church of Scotland, told me that when he was young man in Scotland you couldn’t get work in the post office, a bank, or schoolteaching unless you were a member of the kirk. You didn’t have to attend; you didn’t have to worship; you didn’t have to believe anything; but your name had to be on the roll. This is disgusting.

Is postmodernity all bad? No. Admittedly confidence has collapsed in technoscience as something that can promote the human good. (Technoscience, of course, can always promote the technically efficient. But the technically efficient is a long way from the human good.) While technoscience has done much to ease physical toil and bodily discomfort, done much to promote longer life and reduce the likelihood of sudden death, Christians are aware that technoscience was never going to promote the human good. Then the public loss of confidence in technoscience is loss of confidence where Christians had none in any case.

Is postmodernity all bad? No. To be sure, postmodernites insist that reason (reasoning) is suspect, reasoning being little more than rationalisation serving any number of subtle or not-so-subtle ends. At the same time Christians have always known that sin blinds so thoroughly as to blind humankind to the speciousness of its reasoning. Christians have always known that only grace, God’s grace, frees reason and restores reason to reason’s integrity. In the era of the Fall, where reason itself is compromised, grace alone restores reason to reason’s integrity. Then postmodernity reminds us all of a human predicament that Christians know the gospel alone to cure.

Is postmodernity all bad? No. While tribalism is to be deplored, the radical relativising of the nation-state isn’t to be deplored. Surely the development of hydrogen warheads rendered the nation-state obsolete. Surely the nation-state has been a reservoir of old wounds and resentments and recriminations and national aggressions that we’re all better off without. Surely we don’t need a cess-pool whose toxic wastes seep into neighbouring aquifers.

IV: -- Then what are Christians to do about postmodernism?

First of all we are to remember at all times and in all circumstances that "The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof." (Psalm 24:1) "The Lord of hosts is the king of glory." He is; he alone is. Christians aren’t dualists. We don’t believe that the cosmos is stuck fast in an interminable struggle between two equal but hostile powers, God and the evil one, neither able to defeat the other. We don’t believe that the Fall (Genesis 3) has obliterated the goodness of God’s creation. Yes, Jesus says that the creation lies in the grip of the "prince of this world". But the prince is only that: prince, never king. The earth is the Lord’s, no one else’s.

The gospel of John, the anonymous epistle to the Hebrews, and Paul’s letter to the church in Colosse; all these documents declare that the whole world was made through Christ for Christ. He was the agent in creation, and the creation was fashioned for his sake. He is its origin and end. He is its ground and goal. And no development in world-occurrence can overturn this truth.

We are told in Colossians 1:17, "In Jesus Christ all things hold together." However fast, however violently, the world spins (metaphorically speaking), it can never fly apart. "In him all things hold together." Why doesn’t the creation fly apart (metaphorically speaking)? Why doesn’t human existence become impossible? Why don’t the countless competing special interests group, each with its "selfist" savagery, dismember the world hopelessly? Just because in him, in our Lord, all things hold together. What he creates he maintains; what he upholds he causes to cohere. "Hold together" (sunesteken) is a term taken from the Stoic philosophy of the ancient Greeks. But whereas the ancient Greek philosophers said that a philosophical principle upheld the cosmos, first-century Christians knew it to be a person, the living person of the Lord Jesus Christ. He grips the creation with a hand large enough to comprehend the totality of the world. In other words, the real significance of postmodernism can’t be grasped by postmodernites; the real significance of postmodernism can be grasped only by him whose world it is and in whom it is held together. The real significance of postmodernism, its bane but also its blessing, can be understood only by those who are attuned to the mind of Christ. The sky hasn’t fallen down.

What are Christians to do? If we are first to remember that the earth is the Lord’s, in the second place we are to meet everyday challenges and opportunities each and every day. Many Christians think that the first thing to be accomplished is a philosophical rebuttal of postmodernism’s tenets. I’m a philosopher myself, and I agree that a philosophical critique, a philosophical rebuttal, is appropriate and important. At the same time, there are relatively few people with the training and the equipment for this sort of thing. All Christians, however, can meet everyday challenges and opportunities each and every day.

You must have noticed that Jesus doesn’t merely illustrate his ministry with everyday matters (a homemaker sweeping the house clean in order to find her grocery money); he directs us to everyday matters as the occasion of our faith and obedience, trust and love. Discipleship isn’t suspended until philosophers can dissect postmodernism; discipleship is always to be exercised now, in the context of the ready-to-hand. We trust our Lord and his truth right now (or we don’t). We grant hospitality right now and discover we’ve entertained angels unawares (or we don’t). We uphold our Lord’s claim on our obedience in the face of postmodernism’s ethical indifference (or we don’t). We recognise the approach of temptation and resist it in the instant of its approach, or we stare at it like a rabbit staring at a snake until, rabbit-like, we’re seized. We forgive the offender from our heart and find ourselves newly aware of God’s forgiveness of us, or we merely pretend to forgive the offender and find our own heart shrivelling. The apostle John insists that we do the truth. We have countless opportunities every day challenging us to forthright faith and obedience and trust regardless of whether or not we can philosophically answer postmodernism’s philosophical presuppositions.

What can Christians do in the face of postmodernism? In the third place we can recover the Christian truth that human existence is relational. A few minutes ago I mentioned, for instance, that one feature of modernity’s modulation into postmodernity was the shift from production economics to consumer economics. We should note, however, that neither form of economics impinges upon a Christian understanding of human profundity. God intends us to be creatures whose ultimate profundity is rooted not in economic matters of any sort (contra Marx) but in relations.

Think of the old story concerning the creation of humankind. "God created man in his own image. In the image of God created he them." (Gen. 1:27) Adam is properly Adam; Adam is properly himself only in relation to Eve. To be sure, Adam isn’t a function of Eve, nor Eve a function of him. Neither one can be reduced to the other; neither one is an aspect of the other. None the less, each is who he or she is only in relation to the other.

I am not reducible to any one of my relationships or to all of them together. I am not an extension of my wife or an aspect of my parents or a function of my daughters. I am me, uniquely, irreplaceably, unsubstituably me. Still, I am not who I am apart from my relationships.

Every last human being is a dialogical partner with God. This isn’t to say that everyone is aware of this or welcomes this or agrees with this. It isn’t to say that everyone is a believer or a crypto-believer or even a "wannabe" believer. But it is to say that the God who has made us can’t be escaped. He can be denied, he can be disdained, he can be ignored, he can be unknown; he can certainly be fled but he can never be escaped. Not to be aware of this truth is not thereby to be spared it. The living God is always and everywhere the dialogical "Other", the relational "Other" of everyone’s life, even as there are countless creaturely "others" in everyone’s life.

Decades ago Martin Buber wrote, "All real living is meeting." He was right: what isn’t profoundly a "meeting" isn’t living; it’s death. What isn’t a "meeting" isn’t real; it’s illusory. Postmodernity is suspicious and cynical and bitter all at once, and often for good reason. It denies the category of the real. Right here there is challenge and opportunity a-plenty for Christians: the real is the relational.

What can Christians do? In the fourth place we have to work out much more thoroughly what we understand to be the human, the quintessentially human. Our society is beset on all sides with depersonalisation and dehumanisation. We are now facing the technological novelty known as "virtual reality" or "synthetic reality." Soon we’ll be sitting in front of our TV screens with a contraption on our head that allows us to "experience" the sensations of touch, smell, taste. When so much of the human can be counterfeited electronically, what does it mean to be authentically human? Surely Christians have something to say and do here.

In the fifth place postmodernity forces us to come to terms with something the church has considered too slightly if at all: the polar opposite of evil isn’t good, not even the good. The polar opposite of wrong isn’t right, not even the right. The polar opposite of evil, rather, is the holy. The polar opposite of wrong is the holy. Plainly the holy and the good are not exactly the same. The holy and the right are not exactly the same. Wherein do they differ? The answer to this question comprehends everything that postmodernism brings before us. But since today’s sermon is already unusually long, the answer to this question will have to await another sermon on another day.

A Kaleidoscope of Hate:

The Columbine Martyrs

Charles Colson

It was a test all of us would hope to pass, but none of us really wants to take. A masked gunman points his weapon at a Christian and asks, "Do you believe in God?" She knows that if she says "yes," she'll pay with her life. But unfaithfulness to her Lord is unthinkable.

So, with what would be her last words, she calmly answers, "Yes, I believe in God."

What makes this story remarkable is that the gunman was no communist thug, nor was the martyr a Chinese pastor. As you may have guessed, the event I'm describing took place recently in Littleton, Colorado.

As the Washington Post reported, the two students who shot 13 people, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, did not choose their victims at random--they were acting out of a kaleidoscope of ugly prejudices.

Media coverage has centered on the killers' hostility toward racial minorities and athletes, but there was another group the pair hated every bit as much, if not more: Christians. And, there were plenty of them to hate at Columbine High School. According to some accounts eight Christians--four Evangelicals and four Catholics--were killed.

Among them was Cassie Bernall. And it was Cassie who made the dramatic decision I've just described--fitting for a person whose favorite movie was Braveheart, in which the hero dies a martyr's death.

Cassie was a 17-year-old junior with long blond hair--hair she wanted to cut off and have made into wigs for cancer patients who had lost their own hair through chemotherapy. She was active in her youth group at West Bowles Community Church and was known for carrying a Bible to school.

Cassie was in the school library reading her Bible when the two young killers burst in. According to witnesses, one of the killers pointed his gun at Cassie and asked, "Do you believe in God?" Cassie paused and then answered, "Yes, I believe in God." "Why?" the gunman asked. Cassie did not have a chance to respond; the gunman had already shot her dead.

As her classmate Mickie Cain told Larry King on CNN, "She completely stood up for God. When the killers asked her if [she] had faith in Christ, she spoke up and they shot her for it."

Cassie's martyrdom was even more remarkable when you consider that just a few years ago she had dabbled in the occult, including witchcraft. She had embraced the same darkness and nihilism that drove her killers to such despicable acts. But two years ago, Cassie dedicated her life to Christ, and turned her life around. Her friend, Craig Moon, called her a "light for Christ."

Well, this "light for Christ" became a rare American martyr of the 20th Century.

The best way all of us can honor Cassie's memory is to embrace that same courageous commitment to our faith. For example, we should stand up to our kids when they play violent video games. We should be willing to stand up to community ridicule when we oppose access to Internet pornography at the local library.

For the families of these young martyrs, I can only offer deep personal sympathy and the hope that they might take strength from the words Jesus spoke to the woman who honored Him by pouring ointment on His head. "Wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her" (Matthew 26:13).

"Well done, good and faithful servant. Now enter into the joy of your Lord" (Matthew 25:23).

(From BreakPoint, April 26, 1999, copyright 1999. Reprinted with permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries, P.O. Box 17500, Washington, DC, 20041-0500.)

Will Nietzsche win?

Why Worldview Matters

Charles Colson

Last month was a milestone of sorts for me and my oldest grandson when I spoke at his high school baccalaureate service. Mingling with students and parents afterwards, I found only one subject on their minds: Littleton. Months after the tragedy, Littleton dominates our thoughts and our fears for our kids. I predict Littleton will be remembered as a cultural watershed--the event that signaled the crack-up of postmodernism.

Postmodernism draws inspiration from the 19th-century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who argued that "languages of good and evil" are rooted in neither truth nor reason, but in the will to power. Fifty years ago, the Nazis fleshed out Nietzsche's ideas, and a few months ago, two teenagers displaying Nazi symbols mowed down their classmates in cold blood.

Yet the wrenching irony is that these boys were merely pushing to its logical conclusion the postmodernism of the surrounding adult culture. Political scientist Francis Fukuyama says the decline in traditional morality can be traced most directly to Nietzsche's view that morality is not objective--that it is culturally invented as a smokescreen for power struggles. And since morality is "socially constructed," it must be "deconstructed" to unmask the underlying power grab.

Thus subverting authority becomes a good thing; breaking rules, an act of liberation. As another commentator writes, postmodernists have "transform[ed] sin and evil into a positive term."

In short, evil is "cool." The late postmodernist Michel Foucault even praised orrational violence as a way to be liberated from rules imposed in the name of reason.

As these ideas filter down to popular culture, movies and rap music begin depicting murderers as confident, efficient, unflappable. Cool. And eventually kids shoot down their classmates while joking and laughing.

An historic parallel to Littleton took place seventy-five years ago, when two college students, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, murdered a 14-year-old boy. Their defense lawyer, the infamous Clarence Darrow, made a dramatic appeal, saying Leopold had absorbed Nietzsche's ideas at school. "Your Honor," he said, "it is hardly fair to hang a nineteen-year-old boy for the philosophy taught him at the university."

A startling thought, but a relevant one today. Of course, teen murderers must be held accountable for their actions. Yet it's true the Littleton killers were only acting out the logical consequences of the postmodernism taught today from university to grade school. They were acting out concretely what adults advocate in abstract concepts.

Christian apologist Francis Schaeffer urged Christians to press people to the logical consequences of their own beliefs. Littleton illustrates what postmodernism leads to when lived out in the real world. It's one thing to debate the topic in a rarified academic setting; it's quite another when a Nazi-quoting teenager sticks a gun in your face. Suddenly, you realize that worldviews do matter.

As I told my grandson's graduating class, Littleton brought us face to face with two major worldviews competing for our allegiance--the destructive power of postmodernism contrasted with the transforming power of Christianity.

(From BreakPoint, June 28, 1999, copyright 1999. Reprinted with Permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries, P.O. Box 17500, Washington, DC, 20041-0500.)