Canadian Citizenship Test: Could you pass?

It was harder than I thought it would be. And I was born here!

Punishing Success, Rewarding failure

"This denomination," writes William Willimon, speaking of the United Methodist Church, "has a way of rewarding its failures and punishing its successes. That's what I heard veteran church observor Lyle Schaller say to a group of us clergy.

"The clergy-dominated system tends to promote and empower its failures - those incompetent or at at least ineffective pastors who just get by, who never rock the boat, and who never cause problems for those in power - and tends to disempower its successful clergy."

I'm not sure what Willimon means by "promote" or even "success" or "failure." But I think his point is a good one.

"Just let one of our pastors serve a church with great effect - a dramatic rise in giving, large growth in new members and listen to how the rest of us will respond," Willimon explains.

"'He has such a large ego,' they will say. 'He has built an empire around himself.' Anything to explain what the new life that seems to be breaking out there is really not so wonderful after all."

"The system is threatened by new life," said Schaller. "It robs the rest of us of our alibis for poor leadership, it causes us to question our excuses for our ineffectiveness. Effectiveness is a threat in any declining organization."

That same could be said of most mainline churches. But I don't see this as readily here in Alberta than I did in the Eastern Synod.

"Church is not a numbers game," I would hear. "A church that is growing must be compromising the gospel."

"I'm not going to play that evangelical game," another would say.

This is a convenient theology for many pastors who've seen their congregation rapidly decline on their watch.

I see many of these same dynamic at work in the political arena. "We aren't supposed to win," one NDP operative told me. "We're the conscience of the House."

Or

"The Liberals and Conservatives play dirty to win. We're just not going to play that game."

These are the stories we tell ourselves to relieve the pressure of not meeting our ministry or political goals.

"It's Fun to Shoot People..." says soldier. "Indeed...!' responds Lutheran theologian

Sightings 3/7/05

Fun for Christian Soldiers?
-- Martin E. Marty

"It's fun to shoot some people." "You got guys who ... ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." Speaking out was Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis of the U.S. Marine Corps. Chastened by his superior and inspiring reactions such as "How terrible! How insensitive!" Lieutenant General Mattis found a defender in the conservative Christian magazine World (February 26, 2005). Columnist Gene Edward Veith derides those who were shocked by the lieutenant general's call to have fun shooting and killing. Veith reminds readers that "there is a pleasure in battle .... Excitement, exhilaration, and a fierce joy ... go along with combat." Some soldiers testify to this pleasure; others offer different reports.

Dr. Veith wants readers to appraise Mattis's call to killing-fun "from a Christian point of view." The question: "Should a Christian soldier take pleasure in killing people?" His answer: war-making is precisely the work of killing people, and "there is nothing wrong with enjoying one's work."

Those who are not fully convinced might ask some questions, samples of which follow:

If a Christian believes that humans are made in the image of God, should it be "a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them"?

World Wars I and II, and many other wars, had Christian fighting Christian, sometimes because they were drafted to do so against their will. If a Christian believes that another Christian is a child of God, should it be a "hell of a lot of fun to shoot" and kill him?

If a Christian is an evangelical -- like those to whom World magazine is directed -- and he must kill someone who is as yet unevangelized, thus cutting short his potential for salvation, should it be a "hell of a lot of fun" to shoot him?

If a Christian is a grandson, son, father, husband, brother who knows that survivors of his killed counterpart will suffer all their lives because of his necessary act of killing, should it still be a "hell of a lot of fun" to shoot him?

If a Christian is to pay special attention to the weak, and he decides that someone "ain't got no manhood left anyway," should he do Darwin's work and eliminate the unworthy, taking a "hell of a lot of fun" in doing it?

Can the unconvinced -- and I don't mean just the "What Would Jesus Do"-types -- at least ask how finding it a "hell of a lot of fun to shoot" those who "ain't got no manhood" squares in any way with "love your enemies"?

Veith, a fellow Lutheran, cites Luther to the effect that while soldiers can abuse their license to kill (I wonder if having a "hell of a lot of fun" is doing just that) and should never fight in an unjust war, soldiers can fight "in good conscience," be "confident" and "untroubled," and go "forward with joy." He translates this into a defense of Mattis. Should he?

I have spent much time with chaplains of the Christian genus and Lutheran species, and agree with them that some people are called to the military and will have to kill. Every one of these chaplains has argued that this should be done as a tragic necessity, with consciences shaped by repentance. Is having a "hell of a lot of fun" killing compatible with this?


Martin Marty's Website can be found here.

A Seamless garment of life

This from the BeliefNet Archives. Wallis, a leading figure in the so-called "religious left," a term he dislikes. In his book The Soul of Politics, Wallis argues that the old political categories of left and right are no longer relevant.

This article is a classic example. There are many on the so-called political left who don't believe in abortion on demand.

Many Democrats fail to comprehend how fundamental the conviction on "the sacredness of human life" is for millions of Christians, especially Catholics and evangelicals, including those who are strongly committed on other issues of justice and peace and those who wouldn’t criminalize abortion even as they oppose it. Liberal political correctness, which includes a rigid litmus test of being "pro-choice," really breaks down here. And the conventional liberal political wisdom that people who are conservative on abortion are conservative on everything else is just wrong. Christians who are economic populists, peacemaking internationalists, and committed feminists can also be "pro-life." The roots of this conviction are deeply biblical and, for many, consistent with a commitment to nonviolence as a gospel way of life.

Hillary Clinton is a great example; a Democrat who has been reminding her party of the value of human life:

...the work of the Clinton Administration and so many others saw the rate of abortion consistently fall in the 1990's. The abortion rate fell by one-fourth between 1990 and 1995, the steepest decline since Roe was decided in 1973. The rate fell another 11 percent between 1994 and 2000, from about 24 to 21 abortions for every 1,000 women of childbearing age.

But unfortunately, in the last few years, while we are engaged in an ideological debate instead of one that uses facts and evidence and commonsense, the rate of abortion is on the rise in some states. In the three years since President Bush took office, 8 states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and four saw a decrease (4.3% average), so we have a lot of work still ahead of us.

(Read the rest of her speech here)

The strength of Hillary's speech lies in the respect she's shown for the Republican position without compromising her core values, and for her challenge to her own party to establish a culture of life.

The Village Voice has a great article on Hillary's speech.

Sermon: Lent 4 - Year A

(With help from Willimon's Pulpit Resource)

Methodist Bishop William Willimon tells a story about a pastor-theologian friend of his whose furnace broke down. Someone came in to fix it and gave it a clean bill of health. But it was not in good order as things turned out.

One Saturday night in January, this fellow said he awoke early and tried to get out of bed. But he couldn’t get fully awake. He thought he was simply tired from the night before, so he went back to sleep. He awoke later, and in a stupor, looked at the alarm clock. It was almost noon! He tried to get up out of bed. His head was throbbing, and he couldn’t move. He couldn’t get up. So he fell back to bed.

At that moment he saw a small child, a little girl, cute, dressed in white.

“How did you get in here?” he heard himself ask. “What is a child doing in my house?”

The little girl gestured toward him, pointing him toward the door. She said something to him like “You must get up and get out, or you will never get out.”

He struggled out of bed at her urging, crawled through the bedroom door and out of the house, collapsing on the front steps. The child was gone.

Heating experts were called. The house was full of carbon monoxide.

Now, as I said, the fellow is a pastor and theologian. He is not given to flights of fancy. He told Willimon, “I think that ‘child’ in my room was an angel. I think God sent her to me to warn me.”

Willimon was skeptical. But he kept his skepticism to himself. He told his friend to be careful to whom he told his story!

“All I know is,” his friend said, “a few more minutes and I’d have been dead.”

I share Willimon’s skepticism. Obvious questions arise: Entire families have been killed by carbon monoxide poisoning, why would God single out this one man for protection? If God can save a pastor from dying a peaceful, sleepy but premature death, then why couldn’t God stop four bullets directed at four young RCMP officers who were serving the common good? Why would God rescue some and not others?

Also, the angel angle. Biblically, angel appearances were met with fear and trembling. Cute little girls don’t usually strike terror into the heart. Popular religion is rife with angels. But do they really point to God or have they become an object of worship in themselves? Do angels still appear?

But while others endure tragedies that have scarred them, this man escaped death. And he has an incredible story to tell.

I’m sure folks who knew the blind man had the same questions after he was healed.
Jesus meets this blind man who has been blind from birth. With some spit and dust Jesus heals him. Praise be to God! A man who was blind can now see.

But not so fast. A controversy breaks out. Was this man really healed? How was he healed? If Jesus healed him, what does that say about Jesus?

Fortunately, a bunch of pastors appear on the scene to help sort things out, religiously speaking.

“Who sinned? This man or his parents that he was born blind?” they ask. Like lots of religious people, they want to place blame. They want to talk about sin. They want to beat this guy with a theological stick.

Jesus doesn’t play that game. He just heals the man.

The neighbours can’t believe it. Isn’t this the same blind man who once had to beg to survive?

The pastors alert the bishop who strikes a committee to investigate.

“All I know,” the man tells the committee, “is that this man put stuff on my eyes and now I can see.”

Though the man is standing right in front of them, the committee can’t reach a conclusion. They subpoena the man’s parents.

“Is this your son?” they ask.

“It looks like our son, but we don’t want to get into any trouble. We have no idea how he got his sight back. If you want to know ask him,” his parents reply.

They call Jesus back in and say, “This Jesus doesn’t have a medical license. He’s not on the clergy roster. He shouldn’t be playing around with things he knows nothing about.”

The bewildered and annoyed formerly blind man says, “I don’t know a lot about all that big theological stuff. I don’t have a lot of fancy words. The only thing I know is that a few days ago I was blind and now I can see. If you want to know how all this works ask Jesus.”

****

It’s not that I don’t value theology. A quick glance at my library will tell you how much I appreciate theological discourse. But I’ve learned to see the line between theology and faith. Theology is important. But some of the most unloving people I’ve met have been most rabid theological pit-bulls.

Lutherans are famous for this. Lutherans love correct doctrine. Often at the expense of people.

In my first year doctrine class at seminary, I was a real jerk. There was nothing I loved more than jumping on my classmates for any theological error.

At one class, a woman presented a paper that I thought was just terrible. So I did my best to make sure she knew why I thought her paper was terrible.

She broke down and cried. The class turned and glared at me. I began to sweat. Even more than usual. I hadn’t noticed that she was wearing black that day or that she was off to a funeral of a close friend who had recently died. Her paper was a theological discourse on grief born out of her friend’s death.

Ouch.

Paul’s words taunted me, “If you understand all mysteries and have all knowledge but have not love, you are nothing.”

Looking back I wonder if the best theological response I could have given was to wrap my arms around her and give her room to cry.

Sure, her paper was awful. But I think that Jesus was more interested in her wounded heart than her incorrect doctrine.

Author Brennan Manning tells the story of a recent convert to Jesus who was approached by an unbelieving friend.

“So you have been converted to Christ?”
“Yes.”
“Then you must know a great deal about him. Tell me, what country was he born in?”
“I don’t know.”
“What was his age when he died?”
“I don’t know.”
“How many sermons did he preach?”
“I don’t know.”
“You certainly know very little for a man who claims to be converted to Christ.”
“You’re right. I’m ashamed at how little I know about him. But this much I know: Three years ago I was a drunkard. I was in debt. My family was falling to pieces; they dreaded the sight of me. But now I’ve given up drink. We are out of debt. Ours is a happy home. My children eagerly await my return home each evening. All this Christ has done for me. This much I know of Christ.”

Despite all the books on my shelf. Even though I have the accumulated wisdom of the saints at my finger tips. I still don’t know how all this works. I don’t know why some people get healed and others don’t.

I just know that some people have extraordinary stories to tell. Whether it’s an angel rescuing someone from a carbon monoxide filled house, a drunk whose life was put back together, or a blind man receiving sight, God leaves tracks, clues for us to find. But when we piece them together we still don’t get the whole picture. God is God. We are not.

Is that good news? Maybe not for those who need God wrapped up in a tight little box.

But for those of us who would rather be saved then be correct; for those of us who rather be healed than brilliant; those of us who rather be loving rather than clever; maybe it’s all the news we need. Amen.

Lutheran leader in Holy Land urges treaty to end Middle East Violence

Jerusalem (ENI). The head of the Lutheran church in the
Holy Land has urged Israel and the Palestinians to skip interim peace negotiations and work at finalising a treaty that would give Palestinians an independent state of their own. "Now is the
time to negotiate an end game for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to implement it quickly," said Bishop Munib Younan, the
leader of the 3000-member Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan & the Holy Land.

While this may seem hopelessly naive, Bishop Younan has been a tireless worker for peace between Palestinians and Israelis for many, many years.

Being a Palestinian Christian he is able to negotiate between the two factions because he doesn't have as large a theological stake. But Bishop Younan has often remarked that many evangelical Christians are no help in achieving peace in the Middle East.

But of course, peace in the Holy Land is not the objective for many conservative evangelicals. Armaggeddon is.

Harper on not politicizing the RCMP tragedy

For once I agree with Stephen Harper.

From today's Globe and Mail,

“It is too early to make links between this tragic event and public policy, he said.

"Yesterday's deaths are, of course, a painful reminder that law enforcement is a dangerous business, that these people put their lives on the line every single day so that Canadians can live in a high degree of security and safety," Mr. Harper told a press conference in Ottawa on Friday.

While the Tories do not support the federal Liberal bill to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, Mr. Harper said, he called it dangerous to relate Thursday's shooting to changing Canada's laws. (read the rest here). See also here.

But I’m wondering why folks immediately jumped on marijuana as the cause of these murders. Why hasn’t anyone mentioned anything about guns?

But still, this is a terrible tragedy and should not be used for political fodder.

Read the RCMP statement here.

Prime Minister Martin's response (I couldn't link to it):

“It is with great sorrow that I have learned of the tragic deaths of four Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers today in Rochfort Bridge, Alberta.

The Deputy Prime Minister has spoken with the Commissioner of the RCMP and is following the situation closely.

Canadians are shocked by this brutality, and join me in condemning the violent acts that brought about these deaths.

This terrible event is a reminder of the sacrifice and bravery of the men and women who serve in our national police force, and of the dangerous circumstances which they often confront, in order to make Canada a safer place.

On behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to express my condolences to the families of the officers who were killed as they carried out their duty in enforcing the law and protecting the public.

At this moment of difficulty and loss, you are in our thoughts and prayers.”

"No Missile Defense? Then Screw You!"

Is it a coincidence that the Americans decided to keep the border closed to Canadian cattle just one week after Canadians rejected involvement in the Missile Defense Program?

U.S. Ambassador Paul Celluci says the two aren't related. But can he understand why Canadians find that hard to believe?

For an American perspective the Washington Post has a good piece.

4 Mounties killed at marijuana site

This is so tragic. Marijuana is not worth killing for.

Children's Message: Lent 4 - Year A

I was warned NOT to post my sermons/children's messages until after Sunday. Just so no one will steal and appropriate it for themselves. I don't care. If you can use it, use it. Just don't put your name on it.

I'll post my Sunday sermon tomorrow.

I was given this sermon format by Roland McGregor. Here's his site.

A Story About Jack

“Jack,” his mom said, “guess who coming today?”

“Who?” asked Jack.

“Grandma is coming, we’re going to pick her up at the bus station this evening, would you like to come along?” asked Jack’s mom.

Jack’s face brightened. “Yay! Grandma’s coming! I’m going to bring something special for her when we see her.”

Jack locked himself in his room and pulled out his crayons and pad of multi-coloured paper. He drew a circle, but the shape looked too much like an egg. So he ripped the page out from the pad and threw it in the recycling bin.

He drew another circle, but still it was the wrong shape. He tore out the page a tossed it away.

Jack’s older sister Suzy knocked on his door.

“Jack, mom’s ready to go soon. You need put your jacket on.”

Jack was quiet. He sat at his table colouring.

“Jack, did you hear me?”

“Just a minute,” Jack shouted impatiently.

Suzy jiggled the handle to Jack’s room. The door was locked.

“Jack, let’s go!” Suzy shouted, “Or mom’s going to leave without you.”

“In a minute. I’m almost done.” Jack shouted back.

Suzy tried the handle one more time.

“That’s it, we’re leaving. Dad’s in his workshop.”

Suzy and her mom closed the front door behind them. Jack ripped the page from the pad and hurled it in the recycle bin and turned to a fresh page.

Jack didn’t notice the sun set. His dad brought him a hot dog.

“Why don’t you take a break, son” handing him the plate.

“I want to get this just right,” replied Jack not looking up at his dad or his food.

“Your mom called and grandma’s bus is late, why don’t you get into your pajamas so she can tuck you in when she arrives,” said his dad.

“Soon,” Jack replied, still not looking up.

It was dark outside and Jack felt a hand on his shoulder. He jumped. Jack didn’t realize he’d been sleeping at his table.

“Jack, dear. Why don’t you let me tuck you in,” said Grandma.

“Grandma!” said Jack sleepily, then looked down at the picture he had drawn for her.

“I wanted to draw you something special for when you arrived,” Jack sobbed.

“This is a beautiful picture, Jack” Grandma said. “It looks just like me and buster” (Buster was grandma’s cat). “But why is there an ‘X’ through the picture?”

“Because I drew your face the wrong shape.” Jack replied. “I was going to throw it away and start all over.”

Grandma looked at the recycle bin. There were at least 10 drawings of her and Buster, crumpled up and thrown away.

“These are all wonderful drawings, Jack. Why did you throw them away?”

“It doesn’t look just like you. I didn’t get your face just right. Buster’s colour is the wrong red. I wanted to give you something that was just right.”

“Anything that comes from you will be ‘just right.’ It doesn’t have to be perfect. Did you go to church this morning?”

“Yes.”

“Then you probably heard the story of Jesus healing the blind man. Some of the religious leaders thought that the man was blind because either he or his parents made God angry and that God punished them by making the man blind.”

“Does God really do that?” asked Jack, his eyes opened wide.

“Some people believed God punished people for their parents’ sins. But Jesus didn’t believe that. Jesus knew that God was more interested in the love that’s in our hearts than how perfect we can be.

“So, if it’s okay with you, I’m going to take all these pictures from the recycle bin and put them in my bedroom and on my fridge and anywhere else I can find a place. That way I can always remember the love that’s in your heart.”

Jack said, “I’d like that.”

Then they said a prayer like this as we do now: Dear God, thank you that we don’t have to be perfect for you to love us. Amen.”

Hey There! Watch Your Language!

[11] And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends.

1 Kings 16:11 kjv

Thanks to Ono.

Mel Gibson buys an island, just like Jesus would do.

Check this out.

Maybe it's just me, but given the near sainthood status evangelical churches have given this guy, buying an island seems a little on the "conspicious consumption" side for someone who confesses to be a follower of the poor man from Nazareth. I guess if you say the right words, make the right movie, and are conservative on the political spectrum you can ignore those pesky little bible verses where Jesus warns his disciples about the perils of wealth.

Not that I'm any different. I'm not poor. In the grand scheme of world affairs I live with an embarassment of riches. I own my house. I have a job I love. My kids lack for nothing.

To me, Mel's recent purchase and the silence from the church reveals our complicity in the consumerist culture of the western world.

Troubling.