When your leader calls citizens who protest him terrorists, police trample on disabled old women, and seize bank accounts, you are no longer living in a liberal democracy. Freedom loving Canadian refugees are welcome in America.
Thanks for the link. It's up to the citizens of Canada to bring these forward since our legacy media is not reporting it.
“When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always.”
Let's hope that our contemporary attempt to control & enslave us is doomed to failure, but we need more than hope. We do need to Lean Out and speak out with countless flames of spirit that serve to ground us in who we really are and subsequently push back the darkness that we viscerally feel descending around us.
That’s if we can get out of the country! But the NDP/Liberal government just voted for the travel mandates, both domestic and international, to stay in place, despite the Conservative motion that they be repealed. I may be wrong, but I saw a world map recently showing Canada as the only country in the world where its citizens, at least 20% of them, are not allowed to travel, even to another province to see their family. And why? To score political points only, with the mean-spirited people (Trudeau & Singh included) who seem to get self-righteous satisfaction at punishing the unvaccinated. Some compassion! Some democracy!
I blame Trudeau for his “”divide and rule” rhetoric and MSM for fanning the flames of hate towards our fellow citizens. My family immigrated in 1974 and i have never witnessed anything like this in my life here in canada.
For this statement to be accepted as true we have to agree upon the definition of 'enlightened people', as Jewel just pointed out. Context is crucial in order to evaluate this statement. That said, and having read Orwell a few times, I believe he was referring to "enlightened people" as measured by the metric of an imposed Orwellian social psychological structure, i.e. the only enlightened people were those who accepted the 1984 psychic gulag as valid because they were the elitists who were benefitting...On the other hand, I believe that being enlightened, awakened or wise means you have a marvellous grasp of your sense of responsibility and you let it guide you daily (Taoist concept of 'wu Wei')
For someone to have an epiphany and suddenly realize that they need to 'smarten up' and become enlightened because they have been believing some things that are totally wrong-headed necessarily initiates cognitive dissonance of the greatest magnitude which tends to make that person reject those new ideas because of the sudden psychic PAIN and discomfort they are experiencing. An imprisoned part of their consciousness self-talks them and says that if they just discard any new, troubling thoughts or concepts and 'go back to the old, comfortable ways' they will feel better...so they do...
As someone who believes in the Trinity, I’d say he serves God first then his community. I greatly admire his service to the community and the fact that he is encouraging his congregation to do the same. But, faith in Jesus and His resurrection gives an individual the gift of God’s Holy Spirit. This Spirit gives an individual a peace which surpasses all understanding and can sustain you and give you joy even during the worst times imaginable. Conveying this truth to others is thus far more important than administering social services.
As a United Church Minister, he serves his community first. From the United Church of Canada Website, their mission statement reads: "The United Church of Canada is a community of hope, a vibrant and vital church with both purpose and vision. We live in a time of rapid change in religious life, great inequities between peoples, and collective harm to our earth community. As church, we have been complicit in injustice. And yet we have this hope. We believe we continue to be called to witness in love and justice to the liberating, healing Christ risen in this place and time. Together, we strive towards repentance, repair, and right relations with all peoples and the planet. Our call and vision statement speaks to how we boldly embody the Christian story in this time, filled with the certainty of resurrection and hope for new life. Living purposefully into this call and vision anticipates becoming what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and others called the Beloved Community—the ever inbreaking, ever transforming, ever reconciling realm of God, realized in our time." https://united-church.ca/community-and-faith/welcome-united-church-canada/our-call-and-our-vision
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the United Church. "Administering social services" isn't even in our mandate. Helping those who require it, is first and foremost the purpose of even having a church in our community. If, while in our church, you find time for reflection and seek a meaningful relationship with God, that's a bonus.
Yes, of course a Christian minister serves his community. I agree. He also serves God.
In any case, I didn't mean to suggest that that he "had" to do anything. Or, more definitively: I wasn't saying that. I wasn't saying that he could, or ought to be, compelled.
I do think, though, that he ought to have mentioned Jesus. And yes, I'm disappointed that he didn't.
I'll explain myself. You've asked a question, which feels like an invitation to provide an answer. My answer will be long-winded.
First this: my (and many other Jesus-followers') understanding of Christian ministry depends on a proper ordering of the First and Second "Great Commandments." These ought to be distinguished from one another, for one thing. The First does not simply reduce to the Second. And our reflection on what they require ought to observe the order of priority whereby the First is allowed to be first, and the Second second.
I'll elaborate.
As followers of Jesus we must resist the temptation that gripped Judas (see the story that opens chapter 12 of John's gospel) when he dreamed of seizing that costly perfume, which belonged to Mary of Bethany, imagined withholding it from Jesus, fantasized about selling it and giving the proceeds to “the poor,” but dreamed as well, secretly, of keeping a sly little nest egg of wealth (hence, power and prestige) for himself.
No doubt, Judas dreamed of serving his community. And perhaps he would have, given half a chance. (His chance was lost, of course.) No doubt, there are those who would have applauded him, or who did nod approvingly when he declared his aim of serving "the least of these." No doubt, too, he would have felt very justified in the eyes of God and human beings if he had done all that. And maybe these plaudits, real or imagined, would have sufficed to numb his conscience in respect of the gratification of his own vanity that he was deriving from the whole God-forsaken affair.
But we know how Judas’ story ends. His impulse to "serve" arose from within Jesus’ own movement and it arose, too, in response to Jesus’ own teaching (thus, a kind of Iscariotic anti-christology is endemic to Christendom). Nevertheless, it proved to be a harbinger of the most awful treachery. Whereas Peter’s anti-christological impulse (also endemic to Christendom) did, at least, want to make Jesus’ king, and expressed genuine (if wholly clueless and untrusting) loyalty to his beloved teacher and friend (Matt 16: 21-23), Judas’ anti-christological impulse was a betrayal of Jesus (not merely of "God," conceived in a crypto-Unitarian fashion, but Jesus himself, that very man, the one from Nazareth, the son of Mary, etc.). Judas' impulse jeopardized Jesus’ life; ultimately it presented Jesus to those bent on killing him. And it did that because Judas was in thrall to his own conception of what the Kingdom of Heaven was “really” about.
In short, he proposed to reduce concrete observance of the First Great Commandment, which relates, from the Incarnation on, to the man, the very body, that is Jesus of Nazareth (destined for death and burial, and resurrection), to an abstraction made concrete in no other way than by observance of the Second Great Commandment. He wanted his "service" of "the poor" to suffice for love of God. He thought he could out-Jesus the Son of Man, teach him a thing or two about "agape."
Jesus--not to mention Mary of Bethany's gushing love for the man--embarrassed him. He turned away, averted his gaze from the most Beautiful Face, proposed to "serve the community."
I would suggest--and I speak, here, as a struggling, dull, mire-caked, would-be lover of my Lord and my God, Jesus, and of my neighbours--I would suggest that in contrast to Judas, we must, like Mary of Bethany (and indeed like Peter, later on, when he was forced by bloody death to "stretch out" his hands) “waste” what is most essential and precious in us (our deepest and entire heart, mind, soul, and strength) on Jesus himself (that is, on God-in-Christ, in acts of worship, of the Father, of the Proceeding One).
My sense is that it is only if we are pursuing all that, first, that we will actually do right by our neighbours, second. This is especially so, I mean to say, in the long-term, along the whole arc of history. And this is so, I'd add, notwithstanding the genuine appearance, from time to time, that a poverty-free utopia--or, inclusivity, diversity, and equity--are within the grasp of human beings who care not one whit for the One that made them.
We fulfill the First Great Commandment, then, not (at all!) by feeding the poor (etc.), but by worshipping God in and through his Chosen Messiah; that is, by our devoted surrender to Him "in secret"; by our corporate worship of Him in company with the Host of Heaven and the whole body of those who are "ekklesia"; and by searching out, loving, and proclaiming as much of the truth about God and human beings as we are able.
Judas gave the impression, at a certain point, of caring deeply about the Second Great Commandment. He gave the impression of a man, a Minister even, who "serves the community." But in the end he was a crass traitor who loved the power and prestige associated with a certain mode of "the presentation of self in everyday life" (an anachronism, I know) more than he loved Jesus.
And here, at the tail-end of Old Christendom, to be widely regarded as an expert adherent--as many good, kind ministers are--of the Second Great Commandment is to be endowed with very significant power and prestige. The Ruling Classes will certainly think well of you if you are "kind," that is, if you espouse all the openness/looseness/weakness, all the D.I.E., all the empathy and hospitality, that good Liberals are meant to espouse (libertarian or libertine, I hasten to add, each in his or her own way).
But if you are too akin to that passionate saint, Mary of Bethany, you will certain get called a fool. And if you insist too firmly on the inevitability and necessity of Jesus, the Cross, the Blood, and God's defeat of Death though him--well, eventually, you will be called "unkind." Your insistence on all that will be to closed, too tight, too strong to be tolerated in the towering Babel that our professional managerial classes are currently raising heavenwards.
Now, please do not think, for a minute, that any of what I just said is applicable, in my mind, to this particular minister. I have no idea. I only know this edited interview. I do not know the man.
However, if he would have insisted on Jesus a few times, at moments when to invoke the Way, the Truth, and the Life would have been appropriate--if he would, in short, have proclaimed the only Good News that there is, in the face of Death and Death's (in fact, defeated) Dominion--then I wouldn't have found his approach to the things he was approaching quite so weird, given that he is a minister of the Gospel.
One other thing: what I've written above is a kind of proclamation of what I take to be true. It's not meant to be an argument for what I take to be true, however.
This is, in your words, your own opinion about what the Christian religion should encompass, and you're entitled to that. Understand though, this is not the main focus of the United Church. We welcome ALL people to worship with us, those who may have other beliefs, as well as those who are non believers. If the main job was to talk Jesus I can assure you we would not be around here any longer. I've worked in the United Church for many years. I can assure you most ministers do not mention Jesus in conversation, nor do they have to. As pointed out in our Mission Statement which I have already alluded to, the bigger role of our church is serving Community, in whatever capacity that may be. Folks are welcome to explore their relationship with a higher power with or without the guidance of their Minister, but his/her bigger role is to serve others which is why our churches were once the gathering places in communities and why they are still relevant today. This minister's personal beliefs about his relationship with God aren't relevant. The well being of his flock, *is*.
I think you miss the point. He was served a softball question. He should have knocked it out of the park. The audience probably includes many non Christians. He could have mentioned the hope found in Jesus. But he didn't. Very strange.
He doesn't have to, it's irrelevant to the conversation. I'm not sure why so many believe a Minister's job is to sell Jesus. It's a Minister's job to bring a community together for the common good, to support each other, and to help each other whenever and wherever they can. Many non believers attend Church...why? Because of a shared sense of community. THAT is the point of this conversation, not Jesus.
Sorry this is just a sad comment. A minister's duty isn't to talk about Jesus? Really sounds like the United Church has turned into a community outreach organization rather than a group of believers spreading the gospel. I urge you to reread the gospels and see how Jesus taught nonbelievers.
I totally understand, Tara. I do. And you're right, I was simply expressing, in my own words, what I take the Christian religion (an awkward expression, I find) to encompass.
I was part of a UCC congregation for about six years--and not that long ago. I got pretty tired, eventually, of the lack of any transcendent horizon. It really felt, to me, like humankind, all the way down. You won't be surprised, I shouldn't think, if I told you that, in the main, the human beings in question had the sorts personalities that generate words and deeds that are comfortable to be around--you know, kind and admirable words and deeds. Nevertheless, I really longed for a corporate (not merely a "personal" and "private") orientation that was Godward in a sense that wasn't mere poesy, or that wasn't reducible to something that was a matter, at bottom, of social-anthropology.
I do see the institutional UCC (but not every member thereof) as having succumbed, to a temptation that gripped many in the earliest days of Christianity, and now grips a huge part of the world today, which is to prefer a version of the “good news” that:
- is intrinsically Unitarian (or indifferent, at best, in its nominally “Christian” form, to the doctrine of the Trinity);
- denies the Incarnation (or, at best, in its nominally “Christian” form, reduces the Incarnation to sentiment and symbology whose ultimate referent is wholly and simply imminent in history);
- rejects the Cross and secretly (or not so secretly) reviles Jesus’ shed blood (seeing all that as unnecessary and repugnant, rather than as an expression, no doubt difficult to parse, of the Creator’s absolute dominion over the cosmos);
- rejects Jesus' Resurrection (or, at best, in its nominally “Christian” form, scoffs at the ordinary believer's commitment to a robust realism about it, reducing the Life that Jesus now lives to a relatively shallow metaphor for something rather less than God’s indefeasible triumph over sin and death);
- stands in judgment of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, judging them to be so corrupt, so riddled with error and impenetrable obscurity, that they are mostly worthless; and
- hates and rejects Israel (regarding citizens of the modern State as interlopers in their land, rather than as the denizens of a land of which they are the rightful heirs [indigeneity anyone?]).
Now, does this remind you of another "religion"? It should. It will be very interesting to see whether--and how!--that religion, together with it's "western" cognates, may be amalgamated with the sacred path that UCC folx celebrate, for example, on Pride Sunday. That's coming. I know it sound improbable, but there it is. More of my opinion--expressed in my own words.
Yep that is your opinion; we all have one. However the subject at hand here isn't which brand of Christianity is best; it's about the wealth inequalities in our communities that Tara's guest is intimately familiar: "I think there has been a deliberate attempt over the last 40 years to de-emphasize community and emphasize the individual. So: “You are the master of your own fate. You are the self-realized individual. Community is a fiction.” That’s been fed to us and fed to us...There’s a spiritual emptiness. That’s at the heart of where we are right now. " Irrespective of his faith, the more pressing issue is peeling back the layers to determine what is causing this, and to do something about it.
His answers were consistent with how he runs his church. On their website: "Our Mission Statement:
We the congregation of Kedron United Church chose to worship God, grow our Christian faith and live God's love by serving our world. We believe in a hopeful, accepting, spirit-filled Christian community by providing a safe, caring and welcoming space for all. We believe in sharing the good news locally and globally, using our time and talents to reach out and serve others. We are a warm and welcoming Church performing marriages for everyone." But like most Mission Statements, there must be action tied to it in order to make it valid. He's trying to do that. I fully support his viewpoint.
His job is to serve his community, and to attend to those who are suffering; on that end he answered the questions thoughtfully and truthfully. Prayer is great on Sundays but a Minister's job is 24/7, in the community. The modern United Church is a living, breathing entity; it's not static, where you show up once a week to pray. Social Justice is one of the main pillars of our faith. Those who attend our church are already aware that a Minister can offer spiritual guidance anytime - day or night. And they all do. Why mention this in a column when the topic at hand is about the destruction of our communities? It's not political to state basic facts that at the heart of any thriving community is a successful economy. Once this is taken away, the finger pointing and malaise sets in, and there has to be real action and tough decisions in order to make things right. Insisting on holding our decision makers accountable is hard work but we need to step up and do that. Creating a thriving, meaningful democracy is hard work. Prayer can come later.
I was shocked by this as well. No God. No Jesus. No Holy Spirit. Speaking as a believer, Jesus is the reason I have been grounded throughout the pandemic.
It is really not as complicated as people make it. The west gave up our economic health to China and a few other countries... mostly in Asia. It benefited the elites, the professional class.. and the political class. It harmed the western working class and poor (because they lost upward mobility to the working class). This has led to all the other rot we see.
Agree. As a resident of Vancouver I see who (mostly) buys the houses (pretty much all of which are multimillion dollars), who drives the luxury cars, who buys out the shop rentals and replaces them with the “bakeries, restaurants, spas, skin care, bubble tea, tutoring sites, kids clothes” fronts (in quotes out of disdain AND skepticism over whether or not they are what they say they are). It sounds to me like the rest of Canada is finally catching up/waking up to this new form of insidious globalist colonialism. Oh! And don’t get me started on fentanyl! Gee where is it coming from? Why isn’t anyone checking the shipping containers? It’s sold in an open air drug market in our city. Easier to get than housing, that’s for sure! And wayyyyyyy easier to get than alternate treatments for covid!
People who focus on INEQUALITY rather than POVERTY are extremely unlikely to have (involuntarily) gone without food, a safe place to sleep, and reliable electricity.
2 points. First, I find it interesting that institutions like the United Church call for mass immigration and unlimited refugees, then wonder why there is a shortage of housing. Bring in a million people a year, what do you think will happen? Secondly, we here people complain about Toronto housing prices. How about moving? Lots of affordable housing in smaller towns and other provinces
Thank you for this. Especially the words about housing. Home-ing. I've never made $80k in my life--as a writer that's just not reality. But it's not reality for my musician son either. Artists can't do this. Yet you speak of the peace in classical music. Sitting in front of jazz musicians, playing together, live, restores me and I need a weekly and more dose of that.
Spirituality is significant, not in the old ways, but in renewed ways that go to the root of the thing--that we are loved in this place. Thank you for your words, Rev. White, and thank you Tara for your questions and making this happen.
I can’t help but think that many of these problems stem from globalization. Perhaps that’s why we’ve seen such a rise in populism. I’m happy to see that globalization is in retreat.
Yes, people are focused on their identities and personal/family safety because they are economically forced into a life without time for contemplation and continually immersed in materialist and selfish cultural striving as part of their self-imposed limitations created by their 'buy-in' to the predominant social paradigm. People don't even know who they really are anymore, and we certainly do not understand exactly how each one of us fits into our universe, much less the political system or the village church...
Thank you both for this. These are the issues that should be front and center yet most people seem to be focused on identity politics and personal safety; they've been hoodwinked, in my opinion. I wish we still had one day a week when commerce ceased and we had time for rest and reflection.
Normalized ambiguity is a permanent characteristic of the psychic gulags of the Orwellian society we find ourselves subconsciously confined within. There is a much larger dimension of humanity that traditional religions based on anthropomorphic duality cannot comfortably comprehend and, therefore, dismiss.
Yes, “there is a much larger dimension of humanity…” And Shakespeare’s line, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” has stayed with me my whole life, as a reminder to stay clear of fixed and unyielding positions based on dualistic thinking.
Tara - thank you, as always your work is excellent and thought provoking.
How many people will make the connection in Oshawa that Canadian tax policy and labour laws played a role in driving GM to friendlier places?
When the top three employers are public employers that speaks to the death of free enterprise. And with no free enterprise there is no middle income jobs to pay income and corporate taxes to fund everything.
Consider that for credentialed urbanites--throughout the West--having to prepare meals from scratch, talk to a worker, change a light bulb it is the end of the world. Hence the Freudian death drive.
When your leader calls citizens who protest him terrorists, police trample on disabled old women, and seize bank accounts, you are no longer living in a liberal democracy. Freedom loving Canadian refugees are welcome in America.
Maybe you have seen this already. Justin Trudeau Getting ROASTED by European Parliament. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zizUmJUyO6o
These brutally piercing statements were music to my ears. He deserves every bit of the scorn and condemnation.
Thanks for the link. It's up to the citizens of Canada to bring these forward since our legacy media is not reporting it.
“When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always.”
― Mahatma Gandhi
I dunno.. is it true what the Mahatma said... truth and love always win? Yeah maybe after everyone is dead.... tell me i'm wrong!
Let's hope that our contemporary attempt to control & enslave us is doomed to failure, but we need more than hope. We do need to Lean Out and speak out with countless flames of spirit that serve to ground us in who we really are and subsequently push back the darkness that we viscerally feel descending around us.
Good for her! I salute these brave politicians who are standing up for human rights wherever they see them violated.
That’s if we can get out of the country! But the NDP/Liberal government just voted for the travel mandates, both domestic and international, to stay in place, despite the Conservative motion that they be repealed. I may be wrong, but I saw a world map recently showing Canada as the only country in the world where its citizens, at least 20% of them, are not allowed to travel, even to another province to see their family. And why? To score political points only, with the mean-spirited people (Trudeau & Singh included) who seem to get self-righteous satisfaction at punishing the unvaccinated. Some compassion! Some democracy!
Canada joins Ukraine and Russia as sketchy democracies....
Indeed!
Just avoid the Karenland FUPAZ, which are no better than Ottawa: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-visit-karenland?s=r
I wouldn’t move to the States, Karenland or not. There are other preferable places, Canada excluded.
Naples looks nice! I could take those beaches!
It sounds idyllic, Jewel. Would love to visit there sometime!
It does seem one of the saner places in North America. Warm too!
I blame Trudeau for his “”divide and rule” rhetoric and MSM for fanning the flames of hate towards our fellow citizens. My family immigrated in 1974 and i have never witnessed anything like this in my life here in canada.
Who voted for him?
I ask myself this question.
Enlightened people seldom or never possess a sense of responsibility.
George Orwell
For this statement to be accepted as true we have to agree upon the definition of 'enlightened people', as Jewel just pointed out. Context is crucial in order to evaluate this statement. That said, and having read Orwell a few times, I believe he was referring to "enlightened people" as measured by the metric of an imposed Orwellian social psychological structure, i.e. the only enlightened people were those who accepted the 1984 psychic gulag as valid because they were the elitists who were benefitting...On the other hand, I believe that being enlightened, awakened or wise means you have a marvellous grasp of your sense of responsibility and you let it guide you daily (Taoist concept of 'wu Wei')
"A word means exactly what I say it means..." -- Humpty Dumpty
The Enlightened:
https://i0.wp.com/dailyexpose.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/image-272.png?resize=768%2C616&ssl=1
The Enlightened when they start to sense something ain't right:
https://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/20220318slide05.png
The Enlightened when they realize they've been had and refuse to take responsibility:
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/conscription
Hmmmm...those are 'enlightening' graphs, Abner. Thanks.
For someone to have an epiphany and suddenly realize that they need to 'smarten up' and become enlightened because they have been believing some things that are totally wrong-headed necessarily initiates cognitive dissonance of the greatest magnitude which tends to make that person reject those new ideas because of the sudden psychic PAIN and discomfort they are experiencing. An imprisoned part of their consciousness self-talks them and says that if they just discard any new, troubling thoughts or concepts and 'go back to the old, comfortable ways' they will feel better...so they do...
So true, Jewel.
It's weird when a minister of the Gospel says nothing about Jesus.
Why does he have to? A Minister serves the community.
As someone who believes in the Trinity, I’d say he serves God first then his community. I greatly admire his service to the community and the fact that he is encouraging his congregation to do the same. But, faith in Jesus and His resurrection gives an individual the gift of God’s Holy Spirit. This Spirit gives an individual a peace which surpasses all understanding and can sustain you and give you joy even during the worst times imaginable. Conveying this truth to others is thus far more important than administering social services.
As a United Church Minister, he serves his community first. From the United Church of Canada Website, their mission statement reads: "The United Church of Canada is a community of hope, a vibrant and vital church with both purpose and vision. We live in a time of rapid change in religious life, great inequities between peoples, and collective harm to our earth community. As church, we have been complicit in injustice. And yet we have this hope. We believe we continue to be called to witness in love and justice to the liberating, healing Christ risen in this place and time. Together, we strive towards repentance, repair, and right relations with all peoples and the planet. Our call and vision statement speaks to how we boldly embody the Christian story in this time, filled with the certainty of resurrection and hope for new life. Living purposefully into this call and vision anticipates becoming what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and others called the Beloved Community—the ever inbreaking, ever transforming, ever reconciling realm of God, realized in our time." https://united-church.ca/community-and-faith/welcome-united-church-canada/our-call-and-our-vision
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the United Church. "Administering social services" isn't even in our mandate. Helping those who require it, is first and foremost the purpose of even having a church in our community. If, while in our church, you find time for reflection and seek a meaningful relationship with God, that's a bonus.
Yes, of course a Christian minister serves his community. I agree. He also serves God.
In any case, I didn't mean to suggest that that he "had" to do anything. Or, more definitively: I wasn't saying that. I wasn't saying that he could, or ought to be, compelled.
I do think, though, that he ought to have mentioned Jesus. And yes, I'm disappointed that he didn't.
I'll explain myself. You've asked a question, which feels like an invitation to provide an answer. My answer will be long-winded.
First this: my (and many other Jesus-followers') understanding of Christian ministry depends on a proper ordering of the First and Second "Great Commandments." These ought to be distinguished from one another, for one thing. The First does not simply reduce to the Second. And our reflection on what they require ought to observe the order of priority whereby the First is allowed to be first, and the Second second.
I'll elaborate.
As followers of Jesus we must resist the temptation that gripped Judas (see the story that opens chapter 12 of John's gospel) when he dreamed of seizing that costly perfume, which belonged to Mary of Bethany, imagined withholding it from Jesus, fantasized about selling it and giving the proceeds to “the poor,” but dreamed as well, secretly, of keeping a sly little nest egg of wealth (hence, power and prestige) for himself.
No doubt, Judas dreamed of serving his community. And perhaps he would have, given half a chance. (His chance was lost, of course.) No doubt, there are those who would have applauded him, or who did nod approvingly when he declared his aim of serving "the least of these." No doubt, too, he would have felt very justified in the eyes of God and human beings if he had done all that. And maybe these plaudits, real or imagined, would have sufficed to numb his conscience in respect of the gratification of his own vanity that he was deriving from the whole God-forsaken affair.
But we know how Judas’ story ends. His impulse to "serve" arose from within Jesus’ own movement and it arose, too, in response to Jesus’ own teaching (thus, a kind of Iscariotic anti-christology is endemic to Christendom). Nevertheless, it proved to be a harbinger of the most awful treachery. Whereas Peter’s anti-christological impulse (also endemic to Christendom) did, at least, want to make Jesus’ king, and expressed genuine (if wholly clueless and untrusting) loyalty to his beloved teacher and friend (Matt 16: 21-23), Judas’ anti-christological impulse was a betrayal of Jesus (not merely of "God," conceived in a crypto-Unitarian fashion, but Jesus himself, that very man, the one from Nazareth, the son of Mary, etc.). Judas' impulse jeopardized Jesus’ life; ultimately it presented Jesus to those bent on killing him. And it did that because Judas was in thrall to his own conception of what the Kingdom of Heaven was “really” about.
In short, he proposed to reduce concrete observance of the First Great Commandment, which relates, from the Incarnation on, to the man, the very body, that is Jesus of Nazareth (destined for death and burial, and resurrection), to an abstraction made concrete in no other way than by observance of the Second Great Commandment. He wanted his "service" of "the poor" to suffice for love of God. He thought he could out-Jesus the Son of Man, teach him a thing or two about "agape."
Jesus--not to mention Mary of Bethany's gushing love for the man--embarrassed him. He turned away, averted his gaze from the most Beautiful Face, proposed to "serve the community."
I would suggest--and I speak, here, as a struggling, dull, mire-caked, would-be lover of my Lord and my God, Jesus, and of my neighbours--I would suggest that in contrast to Judas, we must, like Mary of Bethany (and indeed like Peter, later on, when he was forced by bloody death to "stretch out" his hands) “waste” what is most essential and precious in us (our deepest and entire heart, mind, soul, and strength) on Jesus himself (that is, on God-in-Christ, in acts of worship, of the Father, of the Proceeding One).
My sense is that it is only if we are pursuing all that, first, that we will actually do right by our neighbours, second. This is especially so, I mean to say, in the long-term, along the whole arc of history. And this is so, I'd add, notwithstanding the genuine appearance, from time to time, that a poverty-free utopia--or, inclusivity, diversity, and equity--are within the grasp of human beings who care not one whit for the One that made them.
We fulfill the First Great Commandment, then, not (at all!) by feeding the poor (etc.), but by worshipping God in and through his Chosen Messiah; that is, by our devoted surrender to Him "in secret"; by our corporate worship of Him in company with the Host of Heaven and the whole body of those who are "ekklesia"; and by searching out, loving, and proclaiming as much of the truth about God and human beings as we are able.
Judas gave the impression, at a certain point, of caring deeply about the Second Great Commandment. He gave the impression of a man, a Minister even, who "serves the community." But in the end he was a crass traitor who loved the power and prestige associated with a certain mode of "the presentation of self in everyday life" (an anachronism, I know) more than he loved Jesus.
And here, at the tail-end of Old Christendom, to be widely regarded as an expert adherent--as many good, kind ministers are--of the Second Great Commandment is to be endowed with very significant power and prestige. The Ruling Classes will certainly think well of you if you are "kind," that is, if you espouse all the openness/looseness/weakness, all the D.I.E., all the empathy and hospitality, that good Liberals are meant to espouse (libertarian or libertine, I hasten to add, each in his or her own way).
But if you are too akin to that passionate saint, Mary of Bethany, you will certain get called a fool. And if you insist too firmly on the inevitability and necessity of Jesus, the Cross, the Blood, and God's defeat of Death though him--well, eventually, you will be called "unkind." Your insistence on all that will be to closed, too tight, too strong to be tolerated in the towering Babel that our professional managerial classes are currently raising heavenwards.
Now, please do not think, for a minute, that any of what I just said is applicable, in my mind, to this particular minister. I have no idea. I only know this edited interview. I do not know the man.
However, if he would have insisted on Jesus a few times, at moments when to invoke the Way, the Truth, and the Life would have been appropriate--if he would, in short, have proclaimed the only Good News that there is, in the face of Death and Death's (in fact, defeated) Dominion--then I wouldn't have found his approach to the things he was approaching quite so weird, given that he is a minister of the Gospel.
One other thing: what I've written above is a kind of proclamation of what I take to be true. It's not meant to be an argument for what I take to be true, however.
This is, in your words, your own opinion about what the Christian religion should encompass, and you're entitled to that. Understand though, this is not the main focus of the United Church. We welcome ALL people to worship with us, those who may have other beliefs, as well as those who are non believers. If the main job was to talk Jesus I can assure you we would not be around here any longer. I've worked in the United Church for many years. I can assure you most ministers do not mention Jesus in conversation, nor do they have to. As pointed out in our Mission Statement which I have already alluded to, the bigger role of our church is serving Community, in whatever capacity that may be. Folks are welcome to explore their relationship with a higher power with or without the guidance of their Minister, but his/her bigger role is to serve others which is why our churches were once the gathering places in communities and why they are still relevant today. This minister's personal beliefs about his relationship with God aren't relevant. The well being of his flock, *is*.
I think you miss the point. He was served a softball question. He should have knocked it out of the park. The audience probably includes many non Christians. He could have mentioned the hope found in Jesus. But he didn't. Very strange.
He doesn't have to, it's irrelevant to the conversation. I'm not sure why so many believe a Minister's job is to sell Jesus. It's a Minister's job to bring a community together for the common good, to support each other, and to help each other whenever and wherever they can. Many non believers attend Church...why? Because of a shared sense of community. THAT is the point of this conversation, not Jesus.
Sorry this is just a sad comment. A minister's duty isn't to talk about Jesus? Really sounds like the United Church has turned into a community outreach organization rather than a group of believers spreading the gospel. I urge you to reread the gospels and see how Jesus taught nonbelievers.
I totally understand, Tara. I do. And you're right, I was simply expressing, in my own words, what I take the Christian religion (an awkward expression, I find) to encompass.
I was part of a UCC congregation for about six years--and not that long ago. I got pretty tired, eventually, of the lack of any transcendent horizon. It really felt, to me, like humankind, all the way down. You won't be surprised, I shouldn't think, if I told you that, in the main, the human beings in question had the sorts personalities that generate words and deeds that are comfortable to be around--you know, kind and admirable words and deeds. Nevertheless, I really longed for a corporate (not merely a "personal" and "private") orientation that was Godward in a sense that wasn't mere poesy, or that wasn't reducible to something that was a matter, at bottom, of social-anthropology.
I do see the institutional UCC (but not every member thereof) as having succumbed, to a temptation that gripped many in the earliest days of Christianity, and now grips a huge part of the world today, which is to prefer a version of the “good news” that:
- is intrinsically Unitarian (or indifferent, at best, in its nominally “Christian” form, to the doctrine of the Trinity);
- denies the Incarnation (or, at best, in its nominally “Christian” form, reduces the Incarnation to sentiment and symbology whose ultimate referent is wholly and simply imminent in history);
- rejects the Cross and secretly (or not so secretly) reviles Jesus’ shed blood (seeing all that as unnecessary and repugnant, rather than as an expression, no doubt difficult to parse, of the Creator’s absolute dominion over the cosmos);
- rejects Jesus' Resurrection (or, at best, in its nominally “Christian” form, scoffs at the ordinary believer's commitment to a robust realism about it, reducing the Life that Jesus now lives to a relatively shallow metaphor for something rather less than God’s indefeasible triumph over sin and death);
- stands in judgment of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, judging them to be so corrupt, so riddled with error and impenetrable obscurity, that they are mostly worthless; and
- hates and rejects Israel (regarding citizens of the modern State as interlopers in their land, rather than as the denizens of a land of which they are the rightful heirs [indigeneity anyone?]).
Now, does this remind you of another "religion"? It should. It will be very interesting to see whether--and how!--that religion, together with it's "western" cognates, may be amalgamated with the sacred path that UCC folx celebrate, for example, on Pride Sunday. That's coming. I know it sound improbable, but there it is. More of my opinion--expressed in my own words.
Yep that is your opinion; we all have one. However the subject at hand here isn't which brand of Christianity is best; it's about the wealth inequalities in our communities that Tara's guest is intimately familiar: "I think there has been a deliberate attempt over the last 40 years to de-emphasize community and emphasize the individual. So: “You are the master of your own fate. You are the self-realized individual. Community is a fiction.” That’s been fed to us and fed to us...There’s a spiritual emptiness. That’s at the heart of where we are right now. " Irrespective of his faith, the more pressing issue is peeling back the layers to determine what is causing this, and to do something about it.
His answers were consistent with how he runs his church. On their website: "Our Mission Statement:
We the congregation of Kedron United Church chose to worship God, grow our Christian faith and live God's love by serving our world. We believe in a hopeful, accepting, spirit-filled Christian community by providing a safe, caring and welcoming space for all. We believe in sharing the good news locally and globally, using our time and talents to reach out and serve others. We are a warm and welcoming Church performing marriages for everyone." But like most Mission Statements, there must be action tied to it in order to make it valid. He's trying to do that. I fully support his viewpoint.
His job is to serve his community, and to attend to those who are suffering; on that end he answered the questions thoughtfully and truthfully. Prayer is great on Sundays but a Minister's job is 24/7, in the community. The modern United Church is a living, breathing entity; it's not static, where you show up once a week to pray. Social Justice is one of the main pillars of our faith. Those who attend our church are already aware that a Minister can offer spiritual guidance anytime - day or night. And they all do. Why mention this in a column when the topic at hand is about the destruction of our communities? It's not political to state basic facts that at the heart of any thriving community is a successful economy. Once this is taken away, the finger pointing and malaise sets in, and there has to be real action and tough decisions in order to make things right. Insisting on holding our decision makers accountable is hard work but we need to step up and do that. Creating a thriving, meaningful democracy is hard work. Prayer can come later.
I was shocked by this as well. No God. No Jesus. No Holy Spirit. Speaking as a believer, Jesus is the reason I have been grounded throughout the pandemic.
Well, I'm loving that!
That's the United Church.
I'm aware :)
For sure. You've reminded me of Poor Bishop Hooper's rendering of Ps. 39. Check it out here, if you want: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sEoHgV1Dd4
It is really not as complicated as people make it. The west gave up our economic health to China and a few other countries... mostly in Asia. It benefited the elites, the professional class.. and the political class. It harmed the western working class and poor (because they lost upward mobility to the working class). This has led to all the other rot we see.
Agree. As a resident of Vancouver I see who (mostly) buys the houses (pretty much all of which are multimillion dollars), who drives the luxury cars, who buys out the shop rentals and replaces them with the “bakeries, restaurants, spas, skin care, bubble tea, tutoring sites, kids clothes” fronts (in quotes out of disdain AND skepticism over whether or not they are what they say they are). It sounds to me like the rest of Canada is finally catching up/waking up to this new form of insidious globalist colonialism. Oh! And don’t get me started on fentanyl! Gee where is it coming from? Why isn’t anyone checking the shipping containers? It’s sold in an open air drug market in our city. Easier to get than housing, that’s for sure! And wayyyyyyy easier to get than alternate treatments for covid!
People who focus on INEQUALITY rather than POVERTY are extremely unlikely to have (involuntarily) gone without food, a safe place to sleep, and reliable electricity.
2 points. First, I find it interesting that institutions like the United Church call for mass immigration and unlimited refugees, then wonder why there is a shortage of housing. Bring in a million people a year, what do you think will happen? Secondly, we here people complain about Toronto housing prices. How about moving? Lots of affordable housing in smaller towns and other provinces
Thank you for this. Especially the words about housing. Home-ing. I've never made $80k in my life--as a writer that's just not reality. But it's not reality for my musician son either. Artists can't do this. Yet you speak of the peace in classical music. Sitting in front of jazz musicians, playing together, live, restores me and I need a weekly and more dose of that.
Spirituality is significant, not in the old ways, but in renewed ways that go to the root of the thing--that we are loved in this place. Thank you for your words, Rev. White, and thank you Tara for your questions and making this happen.
I can’t help but think that many of these problems stem from globalization. Perhaps that’s why we’ve seen such a rise in populism. I’m happy to see that globalization is in retreat.
Great revealing and topical article - cuts to the serious societal problems we are currently living.
Yes, people are focused on their identities and personal/family safety because they are economically forced into a life without time for contemplation and continually immersed in materialist and selfish cultural striving as part of their self-imposed limitations created by their 'buy-in' to the predominant social paradigm. People don't even know who they really are anymore, and we certainly do not understand exactly how each one of us fits into our universe, much less the political system or the village church...
Thank you both for this. These are the issues that should be front and center yet most people seem to be focused on identity politics and personal safety; they've been hoodwinked, in my opinion. I wish we still had one day a week when commerce ceased and we had time for rest and reflection.
Normalized ambiguity is a permanent characteristic of the psychic gulags of the Orwellian society we find ourselves subconsciously confined within. There is a much larger dimension of humanity that traditional religions based on anthropomorphic duality cannot comfortably comprehend and, therefore, dismiss.
Yes, “there is a much larger dimension of humanity…” And Shakespeare’s line, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” has stayed with me my whole life, as a reminder to stay clear of fixed and unyielding positions based on dualistic thinking.
Tara - thank you, as always your work is excellent and thought provoking.
How many people will make the connection in Oshawa that Canadian tax policy and labour laws played a role in driving GM to friendlier places?
When the top three employers are public employers that speaks to the death of free enterprise. And with no free enterprise there is no middle income jobs to pay income and corporate taxes to fund everything.
Well said. Thank you.
Thank you for this thoughtful interview.
Seconded.
Consider that for credentialed urbanites--throughout the West--having to prepare meals from scratch, talk to a worker, change a light bulb it is the end of the world. Hence the Freudian death drive.
https://cdn.locals.com/images/posts/originals/70528/70528_t8xgqatiw5wmync.jpeg