SOmething to Celebrate or to Repent?

FOr the last 24 hours international news (at least in NOrth America, it would be interesting to know how the story is being covered elsewhere) has been filled with one story, and only one story.

The assasination of Osama Bin Laden.  Because, if we are honest that is what it was.  Now it can be argued that assassination is a legitimate weapon of war (as it would have been for Hitler, as the Us seemed to believe it was for Castro at one point in time).  ANd although there is no confirmation that the mission was to kill and not extract realistically speaking there was no chance of a non-lethal extraction.  And even if there was a chance of extraction, extract to where?  Where would there be a place to try him?  By whose laws?

BUt in the end this was vewngeance.  This was not justice, any more than the trumoped up trial of Saddam and the resulting hanging was justice.  THis was retribution, understandable and predictable but still retriburtion pure and simple.

ANd what do we do now when/if it turns out that killing the titular leader (and it has never, in public documents, been proven that he was the strategic mastermind) makes no difference to the movement.  Although it may slow up the flow of money I suppose.  ANd then there is the problem of Pakistan.  AN already uncertain relationship, a government that was already forced to try and play both sides against the middle, and the US have invade Pakistani territory in an act of war--what does that do to the future relationship (remembering that there are still Taliban and other "unfriendlies' hiding in the Pakisatni border-country.

But even more troubling, what does this say about the US value system?  I am not naive enough to believe this is the first time US forces have actively participated in assassination, to say nothing of the time US money/information/material have supported other assassinations.  BUt when we start to use these sorts of tactics, the same tactics we demonize when used by our enemies, have we infact become just as bad?

Oh and I have to point out that 30 years ago the US supported Bin LAden and his mujahadeen.  THe US also installled Saddam in power.  Which US-supported movement now will turn around and bite them in the backside in 2030?  Will it be the nationalist movements in Egypt? TUnisia? Libya?

In the end though it comes to this.  As people of Christian faith we follow the one who taught his friends to love their enemies.  Who taught a new way of change.  Who called us to be people of nonviolence.  Assassination, however understandable, even justifiable, is a failure to follow that Way.  ANd rejoicing in the death of anyone, no matter who they are, is also a failure to be people of The Way.

A Matrimonial Friday Five

As found at RGBP

1) Will you be watching? If so, is this your first royal wedding? I had better things to be doing at 2 in the morning. (although in hindsight I may as well have gotten up at 4:15 instead of tosssing and turning for the next 45 minutes or so).  But 30 years ago I remember getting up at o-dark-o-clock to watch Charles and Diana.

2) The bride has chosen as her wedding cake a fruitcake. Where do you stand on this pastry? It is regrettable she did not choose real food.

3) The dress code for royal weddings has not seen the same sad decline as that for most other weddings. If you could design your own royal wedding hat, what color would it be and what special decoration would it feature? Being male my hat choices would be rather limited would they not?  BUt there is the temptation to have something in a rainbow of colours with a giant plume--or even better mulitple plumes--floating on behind....

4)  Any chance the Archbishop of Canterbury is using a Sustainable Sermon (tip of the mitre to the Vicar of Hogsmeade)? What would you tell the couple were you offering the homily? Generally my wedding message is about the hard work of building a relationship and the power of love in the bumps and twists and hiccups of life.  ANd I seriously doubt the Archbishop did the Sustainable thing. Although I almost always do for a wedding.

5) Believe it or not, kathrynzj is getting up early mostly to see the wedding dress. By the time this post is up, the world will have seen it. Did you like it?  I haven't seen it yet....

Book 7 of 2011 -- The Future of Faith

In this book Cox covers some of the same territory as Phyllis Tickle does in The Great Emergence (see entry below) but does it far better in my opinion.

Cox suggests, as have others, that Christianity is entering a new age, the Age of the Spirit.  However, where some use this in a Trinitarian way (following on from the Age of God and the Age of Jesus) Cox sees it as a time when the focus on creeds and othodoxy will give way to a renewed focus on faith.  Cox's paradigm starts with the early church in an AGe of Faith which gives way by the time of Constantine to an Age of Belief.  Cox also suggests that this development was a huge negative.  Cox is suggesting that Christianity is not about creeds or believing the right propositions but is about faith as trust or confidence.  (note that Marcus Borg also highlights the importance of this definition of faith within the Emergent church in The Heart of Christianity)

I liked this book.  I liked how Cox makes his arguement.  I am not as convinced that the North American church is as far along in the change as he seems to suggest but I see it as a real way forward.  ANd I found, as I so often do in books in this topic area, that he was decribing where I feel at home.  But of course as a person whose theology has always been far more pneumocentric than theo- or christocentric it only makes sense that I would feel at home in an Age of the Spirit.

I encourage the reading of this book.

Christ Has Risen!

He is Risen Indeed!

Death is defeated, God's YES has beaten the world's NO!

Happy Easter!

Book 6 of 2011 -- The Great Emergence

This book has, directly and indirectly, been referred to in a number of on-line discussions over the last few months and so when I saw it on the book table at Presbytery last month I decided it was worth a read.

IT was, okay.  THere were times when I found that Tickle was over-simplifying both the historical and present analysis.  With the result that the picture of what she was describing felt skewed (in favour of her thesis of course).

However I found her basic premise sound.  And it was an intriguing look at where the Church Universal may be heading.  Certainly worth a read.  But not, IMO, a "must read". 

SHould I or Should't I?

Last month when I was back at college I took time to talk to one of the professors about further study.  As it happens they have a program which is currently classified as a STM (Master of Sacred Theology) but is being rejigged as a DMin (Doctor of Ministry).  Academically the requirements are the same but the reclassification recognizes that thsi program is intended to be taken while one is in active ministry and to feed on/into that ministry.

I have pondered going for further study at times.   But the standard STM as an academic degree wasn't really what I was loking at (like who really wants to write a thesis?).  I was thinking of something that woudl be a way to make more focussed use of my study leave time and would complement my daily ministry in a congregation.  Mind you I have always known that if I went in for the more Traditional STM I would choose to focus my studies on doctrines of humanity and atonement since that is an area of interest  (and because you simply cannot talk about what understandings of atonement are needed in the world today without talking about the nature of humanity and what is needed to help us re-learn that we are at-one with God).

In this other program I have lots of possible project ideas.  If I were starting now I would like to do something on being the church in a world of social media and multimedia projectors and internet research etc.  ANd that may be one that stays.  In fact I am really tempted to do a paper later this year on the theological implications of using technology to prepare and present worship, with a focus on multi-media projectors --just for the chance to explore the topic.

But do I have the time or the cash at this point in my life cycle?  I would not start for a couple years at any rate.  The program is 3 years and I would time it to be finishing in a year when I am eligible for a sabbatical thus giving me time to finish writing up the results of whatever major project I undertake.  But with 4 girls 10 and under?  ANd a program that would require 2-3 weeks away for intensive courses each year (at a few hundred a pop) plus reading and work in-between?

Still it sounds REALLY tempting

Why Can't we All Just Get Along???

Last month when I was at a con-ed event at my alma mater the principal made an interesting observation.  Lorne is a former Provincial Premier and he commented that in his experience politicians were much more collegial than clergy, that outside of the debates they shared each others struggles (it is my hunch that this is becoming less true in Canada these last few years btw).  But Clergy seemed to feel that they were in competition with each other and were less apt to share struggles.  And that seems wrong somehow.

I was reminded of this comment this afternoon when I was listening to this interview when MArtha made a comment about clergy being too competitive.

And I am wondering....

Why?  Why are clergy comepetitive?  To be truthful, it is not my experience.  I have always found the clergy with whom I work to be collegial.  What is your experience?  ANd if clergy tend to be too competitive then how do you experience that?  and why do you think it is???

A STudy Idea

LAst week whilst channel surfing I came across (on PBS) a 25th Anniversary Concert of Les Miserables.  It was over half over but as I watched it I was struck by a thought.

Watching the video and discussing the themes we find (which include justice and forgiveness and changing the world) would make an excellent study group opportunity.  And so I ordered the DVD.  Maybe May?  I am thinking three sessions to do the whole show.

ANd today I found this link that has the whole libretto so we could have the words in front of us too!

An Old Column

The last keynote of the ConEd event I attended this week was The Bible, Eros, and Sexuality.  It reminded me of a sermon I gave in Lent a few years back (2004 or 2005) and this column that I wrote after preaching it:

Let’s Talk About SEX…

I hold the church partly responsible for the pornography industry. Now that I have your attention, let’s talk about sex a little bit.

For centuries people in the church have talked about sex as something that is sinful, or dirty, or a necessary evil (after all without sex there wouldn’t be new church members). To my eyes it appears that they have tried to de-sexualize humanity. I find many problems with this type of theology but the biggest problem I see is that it opened a door for a de-humanized sexuality. This is where the church holds some responsibility for the pornography industry.

To be as clear as possible, sex is not evil or sinful in and of itself. Certainly sexuality can be lived out in ways that break down relationships or is not life-affirming (and is therefore sinful) but that is true for any part of human activity. The first commandment God gives to humanity is “Be fruitful and multiply”. This is right after God looks at Creation and says, “it is good”. Therefore sex is also good.

There is an alternative. As people of faith we can teach our children a healthy view of sexuality. We can teach them to be appropriately modest but not ashamed of the fact that they are sexual beings. Sex education is a difficult topic. It is sometimes hard for children and parents to talk about sex openly. But we have to. Schools are really good at teaching the nuts and bolts of sex. Schools are less well equipped to teach about the values and decision-making side of sex.

A faith-based discussion about sex goes far beyond the “just say no” rhetoric we often hear connected to the church. Not that there is anything wrong with raising up abstinence as a value but if all we say is “don’t do it” we are often speaking into a vacuum. A faith-based sex discussion means talking about our self-image and how sexuality is a gift from God. It means talking seriously about relationships and commitment. It means talking from an early age about values and making choices. It means acknowledging the reality of sexual feelings and impulses. It means taking seriously the fact that we are created as sexual beings but that when we mis-use the gift of sexuality we can damage our relationships with ourselves and our friends and family. Such a discussion starts early in life and grows in complexity as our children develop.

We are sexual beings, that is a gift from God. We are called to live out our sexuality in ways that build strong relationships, in ways that affirm life. This means that we deal with sex differently at different times in our lives. It means that we have to think seriously about the ramifications of becoming sexually involved with someone. It means that sex is far more serious than a fun night in the sack. May God help us as we struggle to understand what it means to be sexual beings.

Book 5 of 2011 -- Christ of the Celts

I have long had a fascination with things Celtic.  ANd so last fall when I  was browsing online and saw this book it took little time to click "add to cart".

I found it a very enjoyable read.  Lots of good ideas.  Not that I necessarily agreed all the time.  But I found a lot in Newell's portrayal of Celtic faith that resonated more with my heart than traditional "orthodox" Christianity.

Not that this means all of Christianity will or needs to agree.  My vision of the future of the church is that we will finally embrace the reality that we are, and always have been, heterodox.  NOt one right answer but a variety of right answers in all areas of doctrine and faith.  A quick read, an easy read, but a worthwhile read.