The Pope’s speech on Christianity and Islam


The Muslim world is aflame over these words (In bold) in a speech by the Pope. Here is the passage containing the inflamatory quote:

"Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he [Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus] addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably – is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…".

"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, [editor of the text of the dialogue carried on – perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara – by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam] observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry."

….from Full text of Benedict XVI’s speech in Germany Text, provided by Vatican, includes comments on Islam — http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14848884/

Pope Benedict XVI said Sunday that he was "deeply sorry" about the angry reaction to his recent remarks about Islam, which he said came from a text that didn’t reflect his personal opinion. His point would have been better made if he had included references to similar Christian behaviour, such as the Crusades or the Inquisition, where Christians tried to convert Muslims by the sword. The religious wars between Protestants and Catholics in the 15th and 16th centuries seem to me to be very similar to the current conflicts between Sunni and Shia.

Never the less, it seems to me that the current violent reaction around the world proves the point of the quote. Any one who is critical of Islam or speaks out against it is targeted for violence and death threats. Fundamentalist Islam, just like fundamentalist Christianity, is intolerant and violent. Neither is reasonable and open to discussion; both believe they have the absolute truth and unbelievers are doomed.  The Pope’s point – "not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature" – just is not reaching fundamentalists of either faith. We need a middle reasonable way to end the current violence in the world. It is unfortunate that so many are missing the Pope’s point.

Posted in Religion - Anglican | Leave a comment

Canada in Afghanistan


I do not agree with NDP leader Jack Layton that Afghanistan “is the wrong mission for Canada.” I like to think that Canada stands for democracy and equal rights, and that is why we are in Afghanistan. We were asked to be there by a duly elected democratic government and by our allies. We are not an occupying force; we are fighting alongside the legal government of Afghanistan and the coalition’s presence is, I believe, sanctioned by the United Nations.

We are there to help the Afghan government rebuild after decades of occupation and then civil war. We are there to provide stability and enforce the rule of law. We are there to protect the civil rights of every Afghan. We believe young women have a right to go to school and that teachers who teach them should be protected. Women also have a right to work and not follow the dress code of a particular religious sect. They have a right to medical care. We are there to stop the Taliban from burning schools, threatening teachers, beheading and targeting those who build, and of course to stop them from supporting terrorism and extending their fanaticism to our county.

I do not believe any of this is negotiable, so how then can we enter into a “comprehensive peace process” with the Taliban? Are there moderate Taliban adherents who believe in women’s rights and full equal participation in Afghanistan? Would they sit at the same table as women in the Afghan government or on coalition negotiating teams?

I have voted more often than not for the NDP, and in the 1960s and ’70s I was a card-carrying member of the party and worked a few elections. But I cannot support the NDP in this, and certainly will not be making a donation or signing any petition. Furthermore, if the NDP make this part of their platform, I will not be voting for them in upcoming elections.

We need to learn from history. Appeasement just doesn’t bring “peace in our time.” I believe we must be willing to fight for what we stand for.

Posted in News and politics | Leave a comment

Hold Ontario Liberals to their promise


On page two of Monday’s
Record there was this article, “89-year-old
loses home to fraudster
.”  The
Records says, “Paul Reviczky, who fled Hungary in 1957 to escape Communist persecution,
is one of the latest homeowners to discover that Ontario law
favours banks, mortgage
companies and purchasers over innocent victims of fraud.”  “On May 15, the property was sold on his
behalf [by one of his tenants who forged his name on a power of attorney] for
$450,000 to a purchaser who took out a mortgage of $337,500.”  Ontario law recognizes the transaction as
valid where the buyer is unaware of the scam. 
Why?  Because otherwise the bank
would be out the $337,500 and the purchaser would be out $112,500.  While I can see that the purchaser should be
protected why should this be at the original owner’s expense? It seems to me
that bank and realtor should practice due diligence and insure that the seller
is who he says he is and truly owns the property. If they haven’t done due diligence
then they should be the ones to make amends to both victims – seller and purchaser – and cover the loss.  Mr. Reviczky should get his property back and
he should be compensated for his legal fees and the pain that this caused
him.  This is an extremely important
issue with the emergence of the Internet and phishing and identity theft.  Similar situations have occurred often enough
for insurance companies to offer “title protection” insurance when you buy a house.  (I wonder if I can get such
insurance now so long after I bought.) 
Fortunately “Gerry Phillips, Ontario’s minister of government services,
vowed Friday to change the land-registry system to protect homeowners like
Reviczky from title fraud.”  We should
keep an eye on this issue and make sure his promise is one the Ontario Liberals
actually keep before calling an election.
Posted in News and politics | Leave a comment

Final sections from my 1988 Lenten Journey


10. Who is this Word that spoke by the prophets and became incarnate in
the man Jesus Christ? The Word is an eternal idea like the personification of
wisdom in the Old Testament. As the active agent of God, the Word has eternity.
Proverbs and Ecclesiastes describe Wisdom as the power of God and
the agent of creation. The Word referred to in both John and Hebrews as
pre-existent with God, is the wisdom of God that is reflected in the reason and
moral sense of  upright  men and in the order and beauty of creation.
A Qumran text describes it thus:

"By his knowledge all has come into being and by his thought

he directs everything without him nothing is done."

The use of the term "Word" in the New Testament also comes
from Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus. Philo set out to synthesize
the Jewish concept of WISDOM with the Greek concept of LOGOS. Philo defines the
Word as the image of God’s mind in creation, in the law and in man’s reason.
Thus we get in the Letter to the Hebrews, Christ "reflects the glory of
God … upholding the universes by his word of power" and in the Gospel of
John, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God … all
things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was
made."

In John 14:10,
it seems almost that Christ himself is using the term "Word" in this
sense

when he says,

"The
words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but

the Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works."

Paul also
subscribes to the concept of the Word dwelling in Christ; in Colossians
2:9 he writes:

"For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and

you have come to fullness of life in him, who is the head of

all rule and authority."

and in Paul’s
quote of an early Hymn in Philippians 2:6-11:]

"Who
though he was in the form of God did not count it robbery

to be equal
with God but emptied himself taking the form of a

servant,
coming into existence in the likeness of men; and

being found in human form he humbled himself and became

obedient to the point of death (even death on a cross).

Therefore God
has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the

name which is
above every name, that at Jesus’ name every knee

should bow in heaven and earth and under the earth — and

every tongue confess ‘Jesus Christ’ to the glory of God the

Father."

11. It is difficult to distinguish between the Word in Christ and the
Holy Ghost. Like the Word, the Holy Ghost is described as the concentrated and
focalized power of God. The Nicene Creed emphasizes that the Holy Ghost is the
giver of life, who proceeds from the Father… and who has spoken though the
prophets. In the Gospels, the Holy Spirit was viewed not as a personal figure
but rather as a power and appeared graphically only in the form of the dove
descending on Christ. The Holy Ghost is portrayed as not subject to the will of
the prophet or even the anointed one; it seems to have a will of its own, to be
free. Revelation of the Holy Spirit in the prophetic word or in the word of
knowledge becomes Holy Scripture, which as divinely breathed cannot be broken.
I am not sure there is a difference between the Word and the Holy Ghost. Christ
has the Holy Ghost descend and remain with him during his mission and Christ is
the Word incarnate. The Holy Ghost that spake by the prophets speaks most
perfectly in Christ. Christ talks both of sending a comforter and of being
always with us. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit to all who believe takes
place only after the ascension of Christ. It is the beginning of a new time of salvation, in which the Holy Spirit (Christ as the Word) is sent as the
Paraclete to the church remaining behind in the world.

12. In Hebrews 3: 1 readers are reminded to consider Jesus, who
is both apostle and high priest. As apostle he represents, not his own
interests but those of the one who sent him. Here the divine initiative in
salvation is stressed; we can do nothing to effect our own salvation. God must
offer grace. As high priest he mediates between God and man, bring God’s will
to men and interceding for men in the divine presence. Hebrews 3:2 shows how Jesus perfectly carried out his mission as
Messiah: "He was faithful to him who appointed him, just as Moses also was
faithful in God’s house.

Hebrews 5:1 goes on to explain Christ’s role as a high priest:

"For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to

act on behalf
of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and

sacrifices for sins. He can deal gently with the ignorant and

wayward,
since he himself is beset with weakness. Because of

this he is
bound to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well

as for those of the people. And one does not take the honour

upon himself,
but he is called by God, just as Aaron was. So

also Christ
did not exalt himself to be made a high priest,

but was appointed by him who said to him, "Thou art my Son,

today I have
begotten thee" as he says also in another place

"Thou
art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."

 

                Note that in the
above passage it is emphasized that Christ is appointed and that the begetting
of Christ, as Son, occurs when the Holy Ghost descends on him and remains with
him at his baptism by John.

                 Christ is the
fulfilment of the Old Testament faith which saw a triumph of God over all
present sources of frustration. God’s Kingdom would be established by an
anointed one (Messiah) of the line of David, King of Israel in the tenth century B.C.
Christ brings the newKingdom by defeating death and at the same moment (the symbolism of the
temple curtain ripping after his death) doing away with the need for an earthly
temple and high priest. As Hebrews 8:1 states, "Now the point in
what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at
the right hand of the throne of Majesty in heaven, a minister in the sanctuary
and the true tent, which is set up not by men but by the Lord." Christ is
Messiah, Son of God, the prophet, the high priest and the Paraclete. He lives
and is with us, that is the whole point of Easter. There is no need for a Pope
or High Priest: Christ lives and is always with us, the only mediator
necessary.

 
13. The point of Easter is that God whom Jesus called his Father raised
him to the fullness of life. As violently as death had been imposed upon him,
he had embraced it out of fidelity to his mission and love for humanity whom he
called his brothers and sisters. By raising him from the dead. God made him
Lord and Christ, the source of forgiveness and renewal for all who believe in
him. However the Holy Ghost can speak through the consciousness of anyone even
if they neither know nor believe in Christ. All who seek God, though they know
not Christ, can be moved by grace, can do His will, and can achieve eternal
salvation through Christ because Christ died for ALL mankind! The ‘good news’
of Easter was, is and always shall be that the same, fully human Jesus who was
crucified, dead, and buried, was the seen alive in a radically transformed spiritual
body by the Apostles and other believers. His visit radically transformed them
into true fisher of men! Jesus’ achievement was important because his obedient
fidelity to his vocation   gave moral and
redemptive value to his self sacrifice, the crucifixion thus is the supreme
redemptive act and also the means of expiation for the sins of man. Original
sin is essentially the assertion of self in its separation from God. The nature
of sin is self-centredness, the putting of self in the centre where God alone
should be. We are all born doing this; that is original sin. Most of us
continue to put ourselves first all our lives; that is why the general
confession must stay in the Anglican communion service. We continually need to
be reminded that we are all sinners. Sin as 
the misuse of our freedom has led man into total opposition against God,
who in return delivers him over to death.

"But God shows his love for us in that, while we were yet

sinners,
Christ died for us."
Romans 5:8

"Through
him you have confidence in God, who raised him from

the dead and
gave him glory so that your faith and hope are in

God." 1 Peter 1:21

14. God
is understood by most Christian to be one God but three persons. God is seen:

a. as
Creator, Lord of the history of salvation. Father, and

Judge,
who revealed himself in the Old Testament;

b. as the
Lord who, in Jesus Christ lived among men and was

and is
present in their midst as the risen Christ;

c. as the
Holy Spirit, who is experienced in prayer as that

inner
voice praying and also comforting them.

 

                I find this
doctrine of the Trinity difficulty to understand. In the New Testament, it is
hard to see the Word incarnate in Christ and the Holy Ghost as two separate
persons. The word "person" designates an individual being, a
separate, stand alone being. The Bible emphasizes that man is created in the
image of God. We should be able to understand the concept of the Trinity from
some parallel in us. In man, there is the body, the mind and the soul but only
one man not three men. God is the ONE and there are the Father, the Son and the
Holy Ghost as parts of the ONE. I don’t think I am far wrong in this
interpretation of the Trinity. Irenaeus, an early church father, seems to be
saying something similar when he called the Word and the Holy Spirit the two
hands of the Father. This interpretation certainly answers the Question of the
three being equal: all three are subordinate to the whole.

 

15. On the night before he died, the New Testament tells us, Jesus took
part in a Passover meal with his apostles. On that occasion he took bread and,
when he had given thanks, he brake it; and gave it to he disciples, saying,
"Take, eat; this is my Body, which is given up for you: Do this in  remembrance of me." Likewise after
supper he took the Cup; and, when he had given thanks, he gave it to them
saying, "Drink ye all, of this; for this is my Blood of the new Covenant,
which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins." And then he
said, "Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me."

                This command is the
key to our worship; we are to break bread and drink wine as often as two or
three are gathered together in his name. In insisting on a Mass being
celebrated at every service, the High Anglicans, together with other
traditional Catholic churches, are no doubt correct. However, I do not believe
in a repeated sacrifice or that the bread and the wine actually change into the
body and blood of Christ. The natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ, they
are in heaven and not here. The Mass is a sign given by our Lord with the gift
that is given through the sacrament. It is both a pious rite carried out by
Christians in memory of Christ and an act of the living Christ reaffirming his
mediation (as our high priest) between God and men.

                The Holy Ghost,
during the Mass, forms in us that intimacy with the Father which is the
all-determining reality of Jesus’ life and death: his real presence in the
bread and the wine. Like the majority of Anglicans, I believe there are only
two sacraments: the Eucharist and Holy Baptism. I believe that the Word became
incarnate in the man Jesus when it descended on him and remained with him at
his baptism in the Jordan. Holy Baptism is a particularly significant sign, a
sign of God becoming Emmanuel, present for all as He was for Christ. It also
symbolizes the coming of the Holy Ghost promised by Christ.

16. The early Christians maintained that the unity of the early church,
which exhibited a vast array of institutional, theological and worship forms,
consisted not of an external constitutional dogmatic and liturgical uniformity
but of a "unity of the Spirit" maintained, "in the bond of
peace… just as you were called to one hope that belongs to your call, one
Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all
and through all and in all" (Ephesians 4:2-6). The Lund Principle of the
World Council of Churches states this idea in modem terms:  "The churches should do all things that
are possible to be done together and only do separately those things which for
conscience sake they must do separately."

                I do not believe
that we Anglicans, or even we Christians, have an exclusive redemption: Christ
died for all and God is present in all world religions. The many varieties of
religions in the world are simply pictures of God, taken from different angles.
These different religions are provided by Him so that all people are saved by
believing in Him and living a life of service to their neighbour according to
their conscience. The unifying principle is God himself. Religion is not
primarily about holy places, holy rites and vestments, holy days or holy
clerical castes, it is about people, about justice, about the healing of a
torn, tortured, needy world. It is about the 
naked, the hungry, the downtrodden, the weak, the wandering homeless.
While God speaks and acts in other religious cultures, it is only to Christians
that he is manifest as Father, Son, Spirit. This means that to Christians is
given the joy and the responsibility of recognition and proclamation of the
Triune God, Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer, but this does not mean that other
revelations are any less true to the Creator.

                I am an Anglican.
My church’s stand is summed up as follows: "Show us that there is anything
clearly set forth in Holy Scripture that we do not teach and we will teach it.
Show us that anything in our teaching or practise is clearly contrary to Holy
Scripture, and we will abandon it." The Anglican Way is summed up thus:

"Our
system is simple and intelligible. We expect every

one to be
able to understand it, and to make use of it

all. The
individual is not supposed to make selections

from it as he
pleases and to discard the rest. Yet it

leaves him
sufficient moral and intellectual freedom to

be fully
educative… Of course, any one who is entrusted

with freedom
will make some mistakes. The Church can

afford to
take that risk, because it knows that no

mistake or
failure is beyond repair. Naturally everyone

to whom the
exercise of Private Judgement is abhorrent

will not find
himself at home in such a system as this.

But it may be
worthwhile to point out that to decide to

forego all
private judgement is in itself an exercise of

private
judgement on the most comprehensive scale

imaginable
and with very far-reaching results."
R.H.

Maiden, The
Anglican Communion
, p 19.

17. Why do we not keep the Jewish sabbath? The old Sabbath marked the
close of the first stage of divine activity. Creation; the new Lord’s Day marks
the beginning of the second stage, Regeneration. The Sabbath ended the week
with the Nunc Dimittis of resignation; the Lord’s  day begins the week with a Te Deum of
renewal. The Council of Laodicea forbade Christians to abstain from work on the
Jewish sabbath, calling this practise ‘Judaizing’.

                Justin Martyr,
writing in the 2nd century, wrote: "But Sunday is the day on which we all
hold a common assembly, because it is the first day of the week on which God
… made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the
dead."

                Also from a 2nd
century Church father: "Wherefore also, we keep the eighth day withjoyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose from the dead."

 

18. It is easier to worship Jesus as the message rather than to follow
the message he came to preach. Jesus said, "Not everyone that saith unto
me. Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of
my Father who is in heaven." There is a new richness of content in Jesus’
concept of God. Fatherly attributes come to the fore in his teaching. God is
one who loves, cares, gives, listens, welcomes, seeks, accepts, forgives,
provides. However, Jesus’ teaching regarding God as Father was not new; what is
new is his individual unique feeling of sonship. Both the Old Testament and the
contemporary Jewish theology emphasized God’s role as father, his protective
and nurturing care of his family, the discipline which he imposes on his
children, the love and affection which he displays, and the intimate
relationship which they (the Jews) enjoy with God. Christ expanded on this by
calling God by the familiar ‘Abba’ — what a young Jewish child called his
father.

                Christ said,
"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have
come not to abolish them but to fulfil them." Christ taught that man has
nothing from himself but owes everything, even his being, exclusively to the
will of his divine Creator. He is joined with all  their fellow creatures through a relationship
of brotherly solidarity. We are given dominion over the Earth, not to rape it
but to husband it, to nurture it, to be in "brotherly solidarity"
with all creation. Christ’s sermon about the lilies of the field is a message
not to worry about the future but  to be
at peace with creation, to be in harmony with nature. Christ taught that God is
in every man; he states: "As you did it not to one of the least of these,
you did it not to me," and "If you have seen your brother, you have
seen your Lord."

                Christ taught that
every individual can have an unmediated relationship without priest or
minister, without rite or ritual, to God, "as God is present in the midst
of his gathered people."  We are
instructed to shine forth in the world, not to withdraw from the world or to
become celibate. The most important single thing that any person can ever do in
this world is to marry the right person by the right authority in the right
place – a harmonious family life is a gift of God. But, we are also to follow
Christ’s example and teach the Kingdom of God by living his life. God is good,
and He expects all to be good, in the plainest and most unvarnished sense of
the term — "to do justice and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy
God."

We need not
bid, for cloistered cell,

Our neighbour and our work farewell,

Nor strive to wind ourselves too high

For sinful
man beneath the sky;

The daily
round, the common task

Will furnish all we need to ask—

Room to deny
ourselves, a road

To lead us daily nearer God.

 

Posted in Religion - Anglican | Leave a comment

More items from my 1988 Lenten journey


These are my personal thoughts; I am not trying to convert anyone.  I was, in 1988, trying to clarify my own beliefs; something like what the early Quacker, Isaac Pennington did when he wrote down his thoughts in The Inward Journey of Isaac Pennington.

8. The Gospels always insist on Jesus’ humanity. Christ is a deified man in whom God dwelt fully. The Holy Ghost descended at his baptism and remained with him throughout his brief mission. It is only in this sense that Christ’s last words have meaning: i.e. it is the Holy Ghost that he feels leaving him at the end.

"Eloi, Eloi lama sabachthani" which means "My God, my God, why

hast thou forsaken me?"

Mark 15:34

"Eli, Eli lama sabachthani," that is "My God, my God, why hast

thou forsaken me?"

Matthew 27:46

"Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!"

Luke 23:46

"It is finished" and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."

John

19:30

Christian mystics have long claimed that the soul may be lifted into a union with God (as Christ promised) so close and so complete that it is merged into the being of God and loses the sense of any separate existence. One such mystic describes it thus, "we can nevermore find any distinction between ourselves and God…we are one being and one life and one blessedness with God." This is what Christ achieved and what he means when he says "I and the Father are one." Christ is the first to achieve this, the pioneer. Christ’s human nature was so utterly bereft of self, and apart from all creatures, as no man’s ever was, and was nothing but a house and habitation of God. Christ did not begin as perfect; he was made perfect by God and then became one with God. The key to understanding this is in Hebrews 2:10:

"For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things

exist in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer

of their salvation perfect through suffering. For he who

sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin.

That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren saying "I

will proclaim thy name to my brethren, in the midst of the

congregation I will praise thee."

It is through the Word that Christ, on earth, was God: "the Word was with God and the Word was God." Jesus’ disciples recognized him as the Messiah, the anointed one. He himself, is not recorded to have used the word. The titles, Prophet and Rabbi also were applied to Jesus. (Which incidentally means he must have had some education or training in Hebrew tradition. The fact that James, has brother, became head of the Church in Jerusalem after the resurrection also indicates that the family must have been fairly well off and could afford to send the children to some sort of Hebrew school.) Jesus’ own enigmatic self-designation was "Son of Man" which refers to his suffering or to his further role as judge (Isaiah 53; Daniel 7:13).

Throughout the New Testament he is referred to as the "Son of God." The meaning of "Son of God," to the New Testament writers was "one who has a unique relationship to the Father, one who carries out the will and purpose of the Father, and who therefore has a unique and supreme revelatory function." All Jews of the period considered themselves to be "sons of God" as the chosen people of God. The New Testament writers do not equate the "Son" with the "Father;" in fact they consistently subordinate the Son to the Father. The most notable feature of Jesus’ spirituality was that, without in any way denying the Laws, he did not relate to God through the Law but directly as son to father. Jesus invited his hearers to share in the same relationship.

9. Christ, as a man, had to be prepared to receive God. This is made clear in Hebrews 5:7:

" In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and

supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able

to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear.

Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he

suffered; and being made perfect he became the source of

eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God

a high priest after the order of Melchizedek."

I believe God became incarnate in the man Jesus at Jesus’ baptism. Jesus’ self- understanding of his mission, according to the Gospel of John, comes when he is baptized and a voice from heaven says, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." It after this that Jesus really begins his mission and becomes greater than John the Baptist. The Gospel of Mark understood the baptism of Jesus Christ as the adoption of the man Jesus Christ into the Sonship of God accomplished through the descent of the Holy Spirit. In the Gospel of John, the divinity of the person of Jesus is understood as the result of the descent of the divine Word, a pre-existent heavenly being, again, at the baptism by John in the Jordan. This is evident in John 1:30, John the Baptist is quoted as saying:

"I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with

water said to me, "He on whom you see the Spirit descend and

remain this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit."

Also Hebrews 1:3 shows that the writer understood that the Word was reflected in Christ:

"He [Jesus] reflects the glory of God and bears the very

stamps of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of

power."

The promise of the resurrection is that we will be united with God and with Christ as one. This is what Paul teaches. In Paul’s letters, the reoccurring phrase "in Christ," implies personal union, a participation in Christ’s suffering, resurrection and destiny. The Christ with whom Paul desires union is not the man Jesus (the one "after the flesh"): he is the resurrected Christ who has been exalted and glorified so that he is one with God and the Holy Ghost.

Posted in Religion - Anglican | Leave a comment

Auto workers sever ties with New Democrats


I read the Regina Manifesto in 1958 and have to admit to voting for the NDP more often than not.  I also read George Grant’s Lament for a Nation in the 1960s. I think  of myself as an old CCFer / Red Tory.  I grew up in a radical riding, Spadina, and attended the University of Toronto when Stephen Lewis was head of the young NDP there.  I applauded when he and his father got rid of the Waffle; I guess I’m just not that far left.  I felt great unease when the CCF joined with unions to form the New Democratic Party.  One joins a union for job protection and to improve working conditions.  Union members do not make a political commitment when they join a union and they certainly should not have to commit any of their union dues to a particular political party. Joining a political party is an individual decision and unions speak for the collective in work and employment matters only. I am also uneasy about unions having a vote on policy and leadership in the NDP.  I am not unhappy about the Canadian Auto Workers union voting to formally sever ties with the New Democratic Party.  In fact I wish the NDP would sever ties with all its unions and get back to being a party of the centre left. Maybe then they can get back to being Canada’s conscience and a truly progressive party.

Posted in News and politics | Leave a comment

Indian Restaurants in Waterloo Region


I tasted my first curry in 1963, my first year at U of T. I was on a date and we were looking for some where to eat before taking in a movie.  We passed by a just opened India House on Yonge Street just north of Wellesley and decided to try it. There was only one thing being served that night – a sampler platter of everything on the menu. It was great.  India House became one of my favourite restaurants.  I later discovered other Indian restaurants; many of them no more. We visited the Rajput on Bloor west of Spadina a lot when we lived at Walmer and Bloor and when we moved into my renovated family home on McCaul Street, Babur at Dundas and McCaul (later on Queen opposite McCaul) became a favourite. One Indian Restaurant, alas no more, that I just have to mention is Samina’s Place, a small authentic Indian restaurant on Dundas opposite the Art Galley.  Samina’s taught us that Indian food did not have to be ‘HOT’; her dishes were spicy but subtle; you could distinguish between all the ingredients and every entre was unique and absolutely fabulous. They were family recipes passed on through the generations.  When we moved to Kitchener we first tried Koh-I Noor on the corner of King and Cedar in those days; it has since moved up to Phillip Street in Waterloo. It was and still is a pleasant dining experience. It and Masala Bay (at Dupont and Regina) are slightly more upscale than the other Indian places in Kitchener/Waterloo. We also tried Vijay’s on Weber and its franchise operation Curry in a Hurry. Vijay is is good but nothing special; Curry in a Hurry’s curries seems all to use the same sauce. Mahararaja Palace on King above Bridgeport is still a favourite.  Its vegetable thali (my favourite) and non-vegetable thali (James’) are both very good value for your money and the staff and owner are very pleasant and friendly. Pat and I think one gets the best curries at Classic Indian in a mall on the corner of Wissler and Northfield in Waterloo.  Classic Indian won the best soup several times at the Heart Smart Soup lunch before that wonderful annual event ended. Modern India on King opposite Sports World is an Indian buffet restaurant we go to when we want good curry, at reasonable prices, in a hurry.  We recently discovered a new place in Preston that is likely to become a favourite. Grain of Salt (1512 King St. E. Cambridge) does pakoras just like Toronto’s Rajut used to; you get an assortment (enough for two) in the Grain of Salt snacks.  Pat and I are agreed that the Grain of Salt palak paneer is the best saag peneer we’ve had either in Toronto or here in Waterloo Region. We also liked the baigan bharta very much.  My friends Bruce and George enjoyed goat curry and the goat Vindaloo respectively and are interested in visiting again. Pat and I certainly will be coming back and we recommend Grain of Salt highly.  They have a working gas fireplace that promises to be tempting come cold weather.
Posted in Food and drink | Leave a comment

More thoughts of a Christian layman Contined 5-7


5. Jesus Christ, to be able to redeem us, must have been fully human. To be fully human, as all the Gospels insist he is, Jesus must have two human parents. The New Testament states that Christ is "in all things like us." Also the Messiah must be of the house of David. Christ is the Messiah. Mary is not of the house of David; Joseph is. In the Gospels the genealogy of Jesus is traced back to David through Joseph:
        " and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ." Matthew 1:16

        "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child." Luke 2.3

All the Gospels are emphatic that Jesus was fully man. The understanding of the human reproductive system in the ancient world considered the mother to be simply a vessel (like the soil in which the seed is planted) to contain and feed the child. It was the father alone who contributed all the human material that would develop into the future person. Without a human father, the Hebrew writers and Apostles would not have considered Jesus to have been fully human.
Matthew either misquoted Isaiah 7:14 in describing Mary as a "virgin" or it was changed later by Marianists when they were almost deifying Mary in the fourth century. Some Biblical scholars say as much both for the Matthew version and the verse where Mary expresses surprise at being told she will bear a son in Luke. Isaiah speaks of a "young woman" who shall conceive and bear a son. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament verse quoted, the word for "young woman" is ambiguous as it can mean either "young woman" or "virgin". The Hebrew is not ambiguous, there, it is definitely the word for "young woman." Matthew alone specifically mentions that "before they came together she was found to be with child." Luke, with his own unique version of the extraordinary birth of Jesus, does not quote or refer to the Isaiah passage at all. In Luke, the implication is that the Holy Spirit will play a part but he does not specifically rule out Joseph being the father. Neither Mark nor John (nor Paul’s letters for that matter) have any hint of the virgin birth story. It should also be noted that in Luke’s birth story, Mary’s surprise could well be surprise not at being told she will bear a child but at that child becoming the Messiah.

6, Mary was betrothed to Joseph. At that time in Jewish history betrothal was an official relationship; it often involved cohabitation culminating in legal recognition of marriage when the woman proved she was fertile. Most authorities agree that the virgin birth concept in Christianity did not become important until the fourth century. In Matthew the alteration of the text describing Mary as a "virgin" is fairly obvious; in the rest of his gospel, he does not mention the virgin birth again. Matthew is more concerned with defining Christ as "Emmanuel" – God present. Though not proof that Joseph is the genetic father of Jesus, there is a verse in John 6:42 where the Jews ask, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph whose father and mother we know?"
7. Considering Roman Catholic teaching on Mary, Jesus’ own attitude to his mother in Mark (the earliest Gospel), is startling. There is the passage where Jesus is surrounded by a crowd and Mary and his brothers come and have word passed to the front that they want to speak to him. Jesus looks around at the throng and replies, "These are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister and my mother." Also in John, when Mary asks him to intervene in the situation where the host at a wedding feast had run out of wine, Jesus responds quite sharply, saying to Mary, "Woman what have I to do with you?" From the Gospels themselves it can be seen that Jesus’ development into the preacher of the Kingdom of God took place in very sharp opposition to his family, who were so little convinced of his mission that they held him to be insane (Mark 3:21). If Mary herself, was aware of the virgin birth, why then would she be unaware of his mission? And all the Gospels stress that Jesus separated himself from his family. It is only in Luke’s Acts that a member of Jesus’ family is mentioned as playing an important roll in the Church. James, the brother of Christ, is recorded in Acts 12:17 as being head of the Jerusalem Church.

Posted in Religion - Anglican | Leave a comment

More thoughts of a Christian layman


Before I go any further with this I should state that these are personal thoughts and though I call myself an Anglican, they do not represent the position of my church. They were first written down during Lent of 1988 in an attempt to clarify my personal beleifs.

3. The authority of the Creeds derives from the fact that they are regarded as stating and defining rightly certain central beliefs which are found, explicitly or implicitly, in the Scriptures, and had always been part of the living rule of faith in the Church. Note that Scripture is still of special : authority when dealing with the creeds. As Anglicans say, "Show us that there is anything ‘clearly set forth in Holy Scripture that we do not teach and we will teach it. Show us that anything in our teaching or practice is clearly contrary to Holy Scripture and we will abandon it." This applies equally to the Creeds and the teachings of the Church. The danger of creeds, dogmas, rituals or even sacred scriptures is that people consider them as the reality itself rather than a means toan end. They are only signs of God’s reality – the means by which we come to know Him. To see these creeds, etc. as anything more than mere signs (i.e. they have to be believed fully for salvation) is to elevate them beyond signs and to ignore the biblical injunction against all forms of idolatry: the putting of anything or anyone in the place of God.

4. The starting point for the Christian and Jewish understanding of man is the recognition that man is created after the image of God. This idea views God and man joined with one another through a mysterious connection. It is this special relationship between God and man that accounts for God, at all times (and to all peoples) sending messengers or prophets to preach the unity of God and to warn men of the Judgement. From the beginning of human history, there were divinely chosen and guided individuals who appeared to awaken humanity to God and who were endowed with vast wisdom and with divine revelations. I believe Christ was such a special chosen one who became filled with compassion for humanity, abhorred evil and purified his mind renouncing material pursuits in favour of the pursuit of the highest goodness and began to encourage others to live above the ordinary level of living that consists in satisfying the base urges at the expense of one’s duty to God as well as to others. I believe that Christ’s soul was purified by His suffering of all those feelings and desires and attitudes that separated it from God and that He was, as the Letter to the Hebrews states, made perfect. Though Buddha, Mohammed, etc. were also divine messengers or prophets, they are not equal to Christ as only Christ was made perfect and became one with God and died for our sins and was raised from the dead. I believe Jesus Christ is God’s ultimate revelation!

Posted in Religion - Anglican | Leave a comment

Thoughts after Church yesterday


We attended  a very musically moving Choral Mattins at St. John’s Church, Elora yesterday, Trinty VIII/Feast of the Transfiguration of our Lord.  The sermon was given by a lay guest speaker, Dr. Harley Smyth (neurosurgeon at Trillium Health Centre) who shared his thoughts and beliefs on the Trnsfiguration and how it affected him in his practice. I think it is a good idea for lay people to share their thoughts on God so here, dear reader, you are about to get some of mine. Not all at once as I found Dr. Smyth’s lecture overly long and towards the end he was losing his listeners. Anybody who has not been to St. John’s should attend a service during the Festival; the Elora Festival Singers take over from the regular choir and the music is truly wonderful (the regular choir is good too as many are also members of the Elora Festival Singers.)  Yesterday the guest organist was Matthew Larkin, Organist and Choirmaster of Christ Church Catherdral, Ottawa and the guest conductor was Wayne Riddell, founding conductor of the Tudor Singers of Montreal.

Thoughts

1. Paramount for all Christians is the Bible; it is of special authority in our theology. Here is the inspired record and interpretation of God’s love at work to liberate and transform our humanity and the world in which we live. While the Bible is the traditions and history of one particular people, the Jews, it also represents their understanding of God and shows the development of this understanding from a tribal God to the Christian’s universal God of Love. The Bible shows a  developmental process in man’s understanding of God and there is great danger in emphasizing one part over another, of taking one part out of context from the whole. The process of revelation in the Bible witnesses to a dialogue between the inherited and the contemporary experience of the individual and the community. Under the best circumstances, reading the Bible from beginning to end we grow in our understanding of God just as the writers grew in their understanding. The Gospels fulfil the promises of the Old Testament and expand our understanding of God. Some Christians get stuck in the Old Testament stage with a vengeful God and all the "Thou shalt nots." Others that emphasis the great councils that came after the Gospels tend to ignore those elements of the Bible that were causing the disunity that necessitated the calling of those very councils. Christ taught that his Church was a living Church and that the Holy Ghost has been sent to help us grow in understanding. Christians should welcome new ideas – even old ones laid to rest by the great councils – the Holy Ghost will help us grow and see the truth. Note that while the Bible is paramount for Christian and Jew, it is not the sole revelation of God! The Word has spoken to others besides Christians and Jews; their revelation is equally valid. Christians that do not except this are locked in the Old Testament stage of spiritual growth. Their God is a tribal God and they believe they are the centre and object of God’s activity in creation. This is very egotistical. In the New Testament this elected people view is rejected and Christ calls all men His brothers.

2. The Bible begins with an impressive statement of faith in God, the Creator of heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible. God is the "I am who I am" of Exodus 3:14. The primary truth is revealed: the reality and unity of God, who is all transcendent, immanent and absolutely perfect. God exists from all eternity to all eternity. He is the only reality. As Islam says:

""God – there is no god but He, the Living, the Self–subsistent. Slumber seizeth Him not, neither sleep. To Him belongeth whatsoever is in the Heavens and whatsoever is in the Earth. Who is there that shall intercede with Him save by His Will? He knoweth what is present with men and what shall befall them, and nought of His knowledge do they comprehend, save what He willeth. His Throne is wide as the Heavens and the Earth, and the keeping of them wearieth Him not. And He is the High, the Mighty One."

God is the Creator of all things that exist and hence the Father of all intelligent beings. God is a loving being who created man with free will so that he could respond to God in love. God wants constantly to enter our lives and selves to make us increasingly more like Himself. There is abundant biblical evidence to suggest that God is active in all nations amongst all peoples at all times.  What the writer of the Old Testament could only describe as the hand of God, the breath of God, the word of God, the New Testament calls the Holy Ghost.

 

Posted in Religion - Anglican | Leave a comment