Seriously Considering Christ and Christianity

As everyone knows, there is a crisis going on in the church which has massive ramifications for the church and, ultimately, for world culture.  Young people, especially, are being challenged to walk away from their families' commitments to Jesus Christ and the church.  They are being told that Christianity is simply not true, that Jesus is not the Son of God and Saviour of the world, and that exclusively to hold to the truth of Christ is intellectually irresponsible or disreputable.  And such claims are coming not just from university departments of philosophy or biology, they often come from inside the church, even from those with lifelong involvement with the church, as some of those previously committed to Christ now significantly question most of what they previously were taught and believed.  This is not just sad, it is tragic, especially when the challenges made to Christianity are so often grounded on less than the most rigorous intellectual, philosophical, historical foundations.

From merely a human perspective, Jesus the Messiah or Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Bar Joseph from Nazareth in Galilee, born about 4 B.C., is the most important, most admired, most followed human being who has ever lived.  The social ethic he taught and exampled is considered the most important, most revolutionary, most widely influential, loftiest social ethic ever conceived.  The social community He created has been the most significant, most influential, most powerful force for good that the world has known.  If the poor, the sick, the lonely, the heartbroken, the unattractive, the outcast, the hurting, the disadvantaged, the imprisoned, the persecuted, the oppressed, the self-destructive, the addictive, the demonized, the evil and the rejected ones have received from someone a blessing, a helping hand, a bed for recovery, a word of encouragement, an opportunity to arise from their misery, or an opportunity for healing, forgiveness, sustenance, grace, and love there is a good chance that the good things that have come their way ultimately have a source associated with Jesus the Jewish Messiah.  The extent to which the evils of humanity that otherwise would have been put upon each other, but which were avoided or overcome by Jesus and those who with genuine commitment have followed Him, is simply incalculable.  About these things there can be no debate.

Some today, and even many Christians, have been compelled to re-evaluate all this, as if maybe what I wrote in the previous paragraph is not empirically true.  They would speak of the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition, or colonization, or Constantinianism or American Imperialism or Capitalistic Materialism as if these movements are directly based on who Jesus was and taught, as if Jesus and His true followers were responsible for these tragedies.  I will admit that those who claimed to follow Jesus were to a lesser or greater extent behind such movements; but no one who has carefully read, or even cursorily read, the teachings and example of Jesus in the Bible could ever link together with Jesus such aberrations from true Christianity.  Humans beings who truly and consistently followed His teachings would not, could not perpetrate such sinfulness.  He was entirely non-violent when it comes to military, governmental, institutional, and private action by his followers.  He specifically commanded against violence.  He taught His followers to love everyone, including themselves.  He was accepting of all those who hurt, including those who greatly sin because of their hurt.  He and His closest followers made virtue, kindness, love, goodness, gentleness, humility, peacefulness, patience, meekness, and non-judgmentalism the core of Christian teaching about how to live. These facts about Jesus and Christianity are very easy to verify, and they need to be kept in mind by those threatened by the attacks and unbelief that frequently come against Christ and the church, whether from inside the church or from outside.

So, as one who has carefully investigated these things over the last 40 years, some words of advice.  Don't just accept accusations against Christ and Christianity or accept claims made about the irrationality of belief in God without considering these things at great length and seriously testing their veracity.  Often young people, especially, hear claims made against Christianity or the church and with very little serious investigation accept such claims, or at least allow such claims to colour their view of Christ and the church.  Please don't just accept such claims just because it is considered more socially acceptable to disbelieve or to criticize the church or because you are embarrassed to go against the grain of society in its attack against Christ and the church.  Study history for yourself.  Study ethics for yourself.  Study science and philosophy for yourself.  Read the Bible and evaluate the church, yourself.  And please don't stop after reading one or two or ten books critical of Christianity thinking that such critics have said all that there is to be said.  I weary of hearing about those who have taken a class or two, read a couple of books, listened to a couple of lectures, and have decided that Christianity is not true, or that it is not noble or intellectually defensible.  Often I find the intellectual effort that has been expended in such investigations of Christ and the church to be truly second class; it simply does not measure up to the best of human investigative efforts.  It is shallow and incomplete, and those who conduct their inquiries in this way too often reach conclusions and make statements about Christ and Christianity that have little or no merit whatsoever, simply because they are looking for an easy way to excuse themselves from taking seriously the claims that Christ makes on their lives.  They simply wish to not be uncomfortable in their belief, or they wish to sin and feel better about it, or they are lazy, particularly intellectually, and so do not want to do the hard work on their own of finding out the truth about Christ and Christianity, about Christian history, about the real teachings of Jesus, about what authentic Christianity looks like.  Some have been hurt by Christians, or by the church, or their loved ones have been hurt by Christians or the church, to the point that hearing criticisms of Christianity are psychologically soothing or satisfying, because accepting such criticisms fits with the anger or hurt they already feel toward Christians who have harmed them.  This is understandable and explainable, but to hold against Christianity what has been done to you by sinful Christians is like despising gravity because the contractor who built the deck on your house built it poorly, causing it to fall and injure you or your loved one.  It is like despising rye or wheat or hopps or those who harvest such crops because someone else bought the grain and made from it alcohol, which another person bought, got drunk from, and then he or she drove while drunk and killed your loved one.  It is hardly the fault of the grain or the harvester.  But for some, it is far easier to just believe what an author or professor or the internet or Facebook tell you about Christians and Christianity, because some Christians have made big mistakes, than it is to conduct a long careful investigation, and so many just accept the easy answer.  It is too easy to stay where you are in carrying out your lifestyle of less than noble pursuits, your materialism, your self-centeredness, and to criticize Jesus and His followers, than it is honestly and plainly to be confronted by who Jesus really was and is, by what He really taught, by what He really calls us to.  So, many simply parrot the easy answers they have heard.  Please, don't stop after a half-hearted, lazy, easy quasi-investigative look at Christianity and then settle yourself in unbelief, ignoring the fact that you haven't really put in the effort needed.  Because the decision of whether or not to accept Christ or to remain Christian and connected to the church is so significant in one's life, you owe it to yourself, if to no one else, to honestly read and study for yourself, without cutting corners and without accepting easy answers.  Listen not only to critics of Christ and Christianity, especially as Jesus, the church and Christians are portrayed in contemporary mass media and social media, but give attention, too, to those who have investigated at a profound level both the claims of the critics and the claims of Christ and His followers and have found Christianity not just defensible, but have found it to be a system of belief to which it is worth being faithfully committed for life.  Nothing less will do.  If, in the end, after much careful, serious thinking and investigation you find Christ and Christianity not worth giving your life to, then so be it.  At least you will have reached your conclusion in light of your own honesty and to your own intellectual satisfaction, and not just because those around you─who live in a questionable world with questionable motives, and who themselves may not have been very careful in doing their own searches─have told you that Christ and Christianity don't deserve your attention or allegiance.  Or, if you should choose Christ, you will not be doing so because you simply adopted your parents' faith or have believed blindly.  You will have a faith that is grounded in what you seriously take to be the truth because you have investigated the question and found that God was quite capable of defending Himself.  You will have seriously considered Christ and Christianity, chosen faith, and you will be Christian because you will have seen that it is the best system of faith the world has known, because it is the only faith system in line with things as they really are.

 

 

Continuing Reflections on the Stone-Campbell Movement in Western Canada, Part 4

 If there is any merit in my suggestions in Part 2 that Discipleship, MIssionality, and Church Planting should be central concerns of our churches as we attempt to move forward out of a kind of stagnancy, it makes sense that our churches would understand well both what each of these is really about and how our churches and Movement can best accomplish something with respect to each.  The first part of this – understanding well what each of these areas of ministry is about – is not hard for anyone willing to read a bit, and I don’t know that room here needs to be taken up in describing each of them.  If you would like some help in knowing what you may purchase in order to know something about each of these, email me at Kelly@calgarycofc.com.

The second part concerning how our churches and Movement can best accomplish something with respect to each of these areas of ministry is a bit more difficult to answer.  Let me start, though, by saying that I think the biggest problem is not a lack of understanding but is, rather, in our being significantly distracted away from these basic areas of ministry.  Other foci capture our attention.  We end up spending our time, efforts, and money elsewhere.  We don’t give enough attention to discipleship, but instead focus on the worship experience we have on Sunday mornings.  We spend our money on world missions, which is important, but sometimes it is spent to the detriment of spending money here, where Christianity is perhaps making less headway than it is in some of the mission destinations we support.  We don’t spend enough time thinking about the growth of the Kingdom, planning for how the Kingdom can best impact western Canada through our efforts, because we are exclusively focused on our own church’s efforts, when there is evidence that fostering new church plants is one of the best things any church can do to expand the Kingdom.

Focussed and balanced attention is, then, necessary for us to center ourselves in Discipleship, Missionality and Church Planting.  Here, I will just mention how this could be playing itself out in our churches with respect to discipleship.  Are we as concerned to get our Elders, full-time ministers, and congregants involved in discipleship as we are in making sure our Sunday morning worship is outstanding?  Of course, should our Sunday morning worship not be done at its very best?  Definitely.  In fact, does the Sunday morning experience not also contribute to the discipleship and growth of those who attend?  We certainly want it to.   But I am not sure the Sunday morning experience warrants more attention than our more direct efforts to bring about discipleship in our churches.  Preaching on Sunday morning and our corporate praising of the Lord need to happen at a high level, but giving more attention to one-on-one discipling of each other could be more significant in bringing about genuine growth in the spiritual lives of Christians and in the numerical growth of the church, especially if disciples are created who themselves go about discipling others.  What is it that we most want for each Christian in our churches, that they are 1) blessed by great worship and are moved by a great sermon on Sunday morning, or that they 2) grow in their ability to build faith-fostering relationships with those around them who do not know Jesus, or who know Him at an immature level?  Although we obviously want both, I would say that if I could pick just one, it would be the latter, and that where we see ourselves at present defaulting to the first, there needs to be correction.

BTW, I am fully aware that my perspective on the priority of discipleship is not original and that current trends in ministry across North America lean in this direction.  But, like the sharing of the gospel, the fact that I am not the first to say it doesn’t mean it doesn’t need to be said again.

 

Continuing Reflections on the Restoration Movement in Western Canada, Part 3:

Often the question is raised as to whether or not there is still value in the Restoration plea, a plea that has at its center two major elements:  1) Christian unity and 2) fidelity to the original church.  Perhaps the question is raised because denominational sectarianism has taken such a beating in the last 50 years, that there is seemingly less urgency for us to continue calling for Christians to accept one another or to work together; we now do this on a grand scale.  That said, I think there is still much work to do on the unity front.  Perhaps the question is raised because biblical primitivism – strict fidelity to the original church - just doesn’t seem in our time to be particularly meaningful, or effective, or full of value or even possible.  The conclusion is that other emphases would actually serve the church better.  Perhaps the question is raised because our plea is often viewed as itself being responsible for a great deal of denominational sectarianism, both because we have shortsightedly denied the denominational status of our Movement and its various streams and because we have been sectarian even while denying that we are a denomination. So, some think that not only is restoring the church to its original form not necessary, it is actually a hindrance in our age to the advance of the Kingdom and of the gospel.

Personally, I am not ready to give up on the Restoration Movement, a.k.a. the Stone-Campbell Movement, meaning in this context that I am not wanting to see our plea come to nothing among western Canadian churches affiliated with the Stone-Campbell Movement.  Even in an age in which denominational loyalty is perhaps lower than it has ever been, many Baptists think there are still good reasons to be Baptist.  Many Methodists think there is good reason to remain Methodist.  Many Roman Catholics defend the value of continuing to be RC.  Many Presbyterians remain in their fold.  It would appear that remaining committed to one’s own heritage does not automatically have to be jettisoned as an option, even if we are committed to Christian unity (as so many Baptists, Methodists, Roman Catholics, and Presbyterians are).  For us to think that there is something of value in still being committed to at least some of the things that have made us who we are is not an absurdity.  In fact, for me, remaining committed to many of the principles, values, and doctrinal positions of the Stone-Campbell Movement is of vital importance.   Let me list some.

 In our time I would hope that we would especially be committed to:

1)      The identification of freedom of the will as a theologically rich, necessary, biblical principle.  Religious determinism, especially in the subtle forms it takes in much of Reformed theology, was rejected by the formerly Presbyterian progenitors of our Movement, and for this I am grateful.  In an age when Reformed theology is often identified with orthodoxy, as if this, and only this, position is orthodox, there must be other faithful voices to counter this trend.  Twenty years ago I thought a more Arminian oriented position was winning the day, but things have changed a bit, in an unhelpful direction I would say.  I am glad we consider those with strict Reformed theologies our brothers and sisters, but I don’t find their theology to be particularly defensible, either biblically or intellectually.  I hope we remain committed to an Arminian perspective.

 

2)      Our sanctification.  Although we have been a bit anemic when it comes to our comprehension and emphasis on the Holy Spirit and His role in creating in us holiness, we have always defended the notion that faith without works is dead.  Christians should live better because they are in Christ.  Yet, when it comes to the need for sanctification, I am not so much thinking that Christians should be sinning less (they should, but that is not my real concern at just this point).  My concern is more that there is something necessary about us having a strong theological commitment to right living, a longing for holiness and Christlikeness, so that whether or not in our actual practice we miss the mark, at least there remains among us a commitment to uphold virtue.  For example, rather than overtly asserting our freedom to drink alcohol or to use the words “what the hell” in conversation (often I find the attitude that accompanies the presence of such things in someone’s life to be surprisingly immature), because we want to separate ourselves from restrictive moralism, I would rather that we continue to teach against drunkenness, to expect and teach a level of respectful, non-judgmental holiness, all the while recognizing the value that exists in Christian freedom.  So, we can without guilt drink alcohol, but the attitude with which one does so needs to be Christ-honouring, mature, with a sober mind, rather than with an immature flaunting of worldliness.  This is a different attitude than one present in the minds of some Christians and their theologies, when they apply the grace of God almost as a permission slip for acting in unholy ways.  We are to be transformed from one level of glory to another, Paul would say, living exemplary lives of holiness.  In this the Spirit wants to work cooperatively in transforming our lives.

3)      Our commitment to biblical, exegetical theology.  At times our biblical rationalism has not been as theologically fruitful as what we might hope.  We unfortunately can be atomistic “prooftexters” dependent upon induction and syllogistic reasoning.  Nonetheless, I am grateful for our commitment to the biblical text and for our desire to ground what we think, do, and say in Scripture.  This has always been a core identifying mark among us, not that it necessarily separates us from others, but it does speak to who we are.  I hope this never changes.

4)      An adherence to certain core biblical doctrines and practices.  The importance of believers’ baptism by immersion, communion each Sunday, autonomous churches, plurality of Elders, the priesthood of all believers, the simplicity of our worship – these are some of the beliefs and practices that for me are distinctly believed by us (at least in the way that we believe and practice them) and which should be maintained among us.  Do they have to look exactly the same in every one of our churches?  Definitely not.  Should an attitude of exclusivity and sectarianism accompany our beliefs and distinct practices?  No.  But we should recognize the great value that there is in so many of the things that make us who we are.  We have a rich tradition, not one to be undervalued or of which we should be ashamed.  There is as much legitimacy, if not more, in our distinctiveness as there is in the distinct traditions that identify our friends in other Christian fellowships.  They may recognize with more appreciation their tradition, and in some cases their traditions may seem more time-honoured, but our distinct practices are at least as biblically defensible as theirs, in my opinion, and as long as we can adequately defend our positions with graciousness and love, we need to believe them and practice them, being grateful for the richness of these beliefs and practices for our lives in Christ.

That’s all for this installment.  I would love to hear from others what they think concerning the value or vacuity of our Restoration plea.  In your opinion, what is there from the RM/S-CM to which we should cling?  What should we count unimportant?

Continuing Reflections on the Restoration Movement in Western Canada, Part 2:

 Approaches to church ministry constantly come and go; they rise up to dominate our efforts for a time, and after they have run their course without great success, we move on to another ministry paradigm.  Today I want to offer three significant areas of ministry concentration on which RM churches may wish to focus if we want to break free from what I summarily called stagnancy in my first blog in this series.  I will mention these three specific ministerial foci because from what I can tell, they have the best chance of standing the test of time, being successful in the long run, without being subject to the ever-changing verities of both society and church.

First, Intentional, Relational Discipleship.  Relational discipleship is, of course, as old as the New Testament.  Jesus did it.  The apostles did it. The early church rapidly grew because of its impact.  In the first decade of the twenty-first century, discipleship has arisen as a major focus for many churches, with some having a great deal of impact on their communities because they vigorously applied a well-constructed vision for carrying out discipleship.  Usually such success is accompanied by a well-developed plan for small groups, but what must happen, whether in small groups or not, is that more mature Christians must be reaching out to those who are either not yet Christians or who are less mature, intentionally and relationally helping them to grow.  Our lack of commitment to this task and the limited number of church leaders we have (Elders and Ministers, especially) who actually disciple others, is as likely as any other factor to be a key reason for our lack of success in reaching our communities for Christ.

 Second, Missionality.  Three caveats:  1) It is tragic that the words “missional” and “missionality” ever became buzz words within North American Christianity.  Because they have, it is too easy for some to view missionality as just another fad among ministerial foci.  It should not be thought of in this way.  It is far too rich an idea for us to be cast off because its use sometimes seems faddish, or because it can be a bit difficult to define.  2) Also, because the word “missional” is so closely grammatically related to “mission” and “missions” it is easy for confusion, as if a call to be missional is primarily defined with reference to world missions.  World missions should be missional, but missionality needs to happen domestically.  3) Further, because those who wish to be missional are often oriented toward social justice, it sometimes feels like being missional is exactly co-existent with and completely encapsulated within social justice.  This is far from the case for most who wish to be missional, and it certainly should not be all we think of when desiring to be missional.  Like mission and missionality, missional churches need to have a social justice focus, but missionality is not just about social justice.  In fact, missional churches should be significantly involved in relational discipleship.

Third, Church Planting.  There have been some monumental failures in planting churches in western Canada; you will receive no argument from me about this.  However, there have also been some wonderful success stories, including the planting of almost every church of which the readers of this blog are currently part.  Your church was planted by someone at some point!  Church planting has, since the Book of Acts, been a key component of the progress of the church, and it will always be, and certainly this is the case in our own time.  I wish there were fifty or 100 RM churches in Calgary.  And I wish they were all participating in relational discipleship, missionality, and church planting.  The Greater Calgary Church Planting Network needs to keep planting churches.  We need a large number of church plants to take place in western Canada, especially in Greater Vancouver.  Whether new churches arise as multi-sites or fresh, newly birthed independent offspring, we need more churches.  We need, therefore, to have a proactive church planting mindset among us, and we need to keep producing church planters.

Just imagine if all our churches were really successful at Relational Discipleship, Missional outreach into our communities, and planting churches.  The contrast between what this could look like and the stagnancy that some of us feel is striking.  How can the revitalization needed to make this the case best come about?  Honestly, I am not completely sure; but having a number of us engage in dialogue about such things could serve as an impetus or catalyst for our moving forward with success.

Wow, it has been a long time since I have visited this particular web address.  The occasion for being here today is my reflecting upon the status and future of Restoration Movement churches in western Canada.  Our church is an interesting hybrid, finding itself settled between the a cappella Churches of Christ (C of C) and the Independent Christian Churches (ICC).  We have both a cappella and instrumental worship assemblies on Sunday morning.  We also have close connections to numerous churches among both the C of C and ICC sides of the RM.  I, personally - and this is also the case with Dustin Lammiman who is on staff with me - have daily contact with those from the ICC.  We have occasional contact with churches that are still a cappella only.  This is not by choice, it just has worked out this way since there are so many ICC churches in our immediate area.

Being who we are as a church (Calgary Church of Christ), when I think of the future of the RM in western Canada I tend to think of the whole of the Movement, and not just the a cappella or instrumental side of things.  And I would love to see all churches historically connected to the RM move forward and grow.  It is on this I want now to make some comments, although I would imagine I will not have time to go as far today with this as I would like.  So, I will likely complete this project in stages.  Because I am so ignorant of the Disciples of Christ affiliated churches in western Canada I will leave them out of the discussion here.  When I know them better, I will gladly include them in this discussion.

First, I want to reflect a bit on what I think is the status of our churches.  These reflections are based on nothing scientific; they are impressionistic, so I could be far off the mark.  First, my impression of the a cappella churches is that they are on the whole, at best ineffectual, or perhaps stagnant is a better word.  I don't mean they are doing nothing with respect to ministry, they certainly are, I just mean that in the grand scheme of things, and on the whole, they are having little impact, and they are not growing.  In fact, given the fact that there has been a steady reduction in the number of C of C churches in the last 25 years, there is good reason to say that, taken as a whole, the a cappella side of the Movement is struggling.  I do know of four church plants among the C of C that have taken place in the last 25 or so years, the Gentle Road inner city church plant in Regina, the South Edmonton Church of Christ, Northwest Church of Christ in Regina, and the South Island Church of Christ.  I am not sure that any  C of C that is long in existence in western Canada has grown by more than five percent in the last fifteen years.  Yeah, I would say stagnant, on the whole.

My perspective on the ICC side of our Movement is a bit different, although it is far from being all positive.  The number of churches is expanding a bit, with six or so church plants still functioning that were initiated in the last fifteen years, out of about ten or so that have taken place in the last fifteen years.  West Coast Christian Church in Surrey, Northern Hills in Calgary, Mahogany and Skyview in Calgary (which are multi-site plants of Bow Valley Christian) and Mission Heights (a multi-site plant of the Grande Prairie Church of Christ) are bright spots, although Mahogany and Skyview are brand new and Northern Hills is only a year into its existence.  West Coast Christian is the most successful church plant taking place among RM churches in the last fifteen years or so.  I will admit that I am a bit unfamiliar with all the workings of the ICC in western Canada, so if someone in the know challenged me and said that there have been twelve or thirteen church plants in western Canada in the last fifteen years, I would just have to accept the correction.  Is it all good?  Certainly not. Some of the largest ICC churches in western Canada have plateaued.  There are almost no ICC churches in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, with only a few in BC.  The strength of the ICC is clearly in one Province - Alberta.  So, I would say that in general the ICC, too, is a bit stagnant, with some exciting bright spots perhaps poised to take the Movement out of its stagnancy - but that remains to be seen.

Interestingly, there are a few churches like ours that cannot simply be identified with either the C of C or ICC, because they are churches that have historically been C of C churches that have now accepted the use of instruments in worship.  Our church has both a cappella and instrumental worship services.  The Shelbourne St. Church of Christ in Victoria is now instrumental.  The Glen Elm Church of Christ in Regina is now instrumental.  Each of these churches is a bit plateaued in terms of growth.

So, if stagnancy is the general feel of the Restoration Movement as a whole, where lies our future?

First, the conversations that I have with the ICC brothers and sisters with whom I have most of my discussions about such things, are generally hopeful, forward looking, and visionary.  Whether they will long-term be successful or not (they certainly have the potential to be successful), that Grande Prairie Church of Christ and Bow Valley Christian Church have planted multi-sites, and that there have been several church plants take place in the last fifteen years, and that the Greater Calgary Church Planting Network would like to plant more new churches is all exciting.  It is disturbing that the majority of ICC churches are not growing, but that there are bright spots, especially those connected to new churches, is something about which it is worth being hopeful.  If I talk to Alan Jones, or Rick Scruggs, or John Nicholson, or Steve McMillan, or Kurt Kuykendall, they may say that the Movement in general is stalled, but all are hopeful for and working toward their churches moving forward.  One positive that exists for the ICC that is not there for the C of C is the connectedness that exists among them because of ABC.  If there is value in a collective vision of any kind, the prospects for the ICC carrying out such a collective vision are far greater than they are for the C of C.  But in this there is a challenge.  Given the overt unity that exists between ICC churches, largely because ABC is in existence, can this unity actually perform a function in enabling the ICC to intentionally plan its future, thereby creating a more effective future for the Kingdom?  I am not sure this is happening at present; perhaps something more directed and intentional should be happening.

I am not sure if I have enough up-to-date knowledge of the C of C churches to speak accurately of their future prospects.  I am sure the individual congregations are positive and hopeful and working hard.  These are great brothers and sisters.  I think of my brothers like Lee Patmore in Lloydminster or Mike Parker in Saskatoon, or Kirk Ruch in Burnaby or Kevin Vance in Regina.  I have great respect for such friends and servants of Christ and the congregations they represent, and of all the C of C churches in western Canada I could say the same.  The biggest fear I have about their future is that with the loss of Western Christian College, and with some key congregations no longer being as unified with the a cappella churches because they now use instruments (like our church, Glen Elm in Regina, and Shelbourne St. in Victoria), the C of C in western Canada suffers from a lack of cohesiveness.  It could be that this lack of cohesiveness will hamper their ability to break free from stagnation.  Small autonomous churches sometimes lack the needed momentum and resources to make great strides.  This could limit the future possibilities for the C of C.

All that said, I wonder if there would not be value in more collective intentionality being present among RM churches in western Canada.  For various reasons some C of C churches would likely choose not to participate in vision framing discussions. But at least Calgary Church of Christ, Shelbourne St. in Victoria, and Glen Elm in Regina could join with ICC churches to discuss not just what they are doing, as is shared every year at the Summit at ABC in May, but what we might do together to further the influence of God's Kingdom in western Canada, expressed in the RM.

Well, that's all for now.  A little reflection on the status and potential of the RM in western Canada; a hint that we should perhaps work on a collective vision.

Last night I was privileged to sit in on a lecture at Alberta Bible College given by Dr. Irving Hexham, a scholar of world religions who teaches in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Calgary.  Irving is a Christian, but his professional life centers not only on his own faith choice but on all religions.  In the course of his work he regularly writes and lectures on the place of Christianity in our religiously pluralistic world.  The lecture was very good.  New info for me concerned the widespread impact on prominent theologians of Thomas Paine.  I knew of Paine and have read some of Paine, but I certainly didn't know that he had impacted Feuerbach and Wellhausen.  I don't know enough of the latter two to say if Hexham has this right, but if he does, I find it very interesting.

Hexham's main point was that Canada is experiencing the same kind of demise of Christianity that much of Europe has experienced, and he offered reflections on this and a challenge for churches to do something about it.  What I appreciated most was his call for intellectual engagement on the part of evangelicals.  Many times I have heard people talk about how so and so went to university and lost his or her faith, or about how so and so became too smart or too educated for Christianity.  The latter comments I have always found very strange, and the comment about university students losing their faith I find very unfortunate.  In both cases I find that the problem is not that students or others start to be challenged by thoughts that are too deep or that are irrefutably critical of religious faith.  It is actually exactly the opposite.  This is even the case for graduate students who go to seminary or who study religion or, specifically, Christianity in any academically rigorous environment.  The problem is not that they look too deeply into things, but that they so quickly in their searches think that they have fournd irrefutable challenges to religious perspectives.  I am often surprised when I read athiests or hyper-critical scholarship at how unsubstantiated their opinions about faith systems really are, but one may not see this upon a cursory glance or after taking a couple of university level courses in religion.  That despisers of religion find something unproven in Christianity or some other faith does not mean that their perspectives are  proven, or even that they are intellectually profound, but many of those with faith never allow their searches to take them to a place where this can be seen.  Nor do faithful people allow room for the fact that while someone may successfully challenge some feature of Christianity or another faith system, this does not constitute a refutation of the entire faith system.  Instead, faithful people are often like teenagers who hear from their peers something that contradicts the beliefs or values of their parents, and without even knowing how to check out the truth of the opinions of their peers, they accept them because we all tend to have a bit of a rebellious streak.  So, when we hear something that contradicts the faith system in which we were raised, we immaturely accept the validity of the challenges, without really doing the intellectual investigation needed to be discerning.

No doubt part of our problem is the general lack of intellectual discernment and unwillingness to explore ideas in print (people don't read!) that so typifies our society.  And, of course, it is getting worse.  This accounts for so much laziness, sloppiness, and lack of concern on the parts of evangelicals when it comes to thinking seriously about faith.  It is so easy to continue just to believe and trust either 1) the shallow, not very discerning stances that our faith has often taken, leaving us as believers unequipped to deal with challenges; 2) the insufficiently defensible positions that challenge our simplistic, not very discerning faith systems, leaving us unbelievers who unsuccessfully dealt with these challenges, when really there is so much more that should have been considered.  Obvioulsy, neither of these options should be selected by anyone with the ability to do otherwise.

So, I would say Dr. Hexham has it right that the church must promote something different than the simple acceptance of belief claims coupled with ignorance regarding the challenges that will continue to face Canadian Christians.  He may have overstated the problems we have in sending our children to Christian schools.  These don't have to be intellectual ghettos that simply reiterate the same faith claims we have always made while closing our ears to our challengers.  I think it is wise to have our children very well grounded before they face challenges  on the world's terms; it is best to see them first in environments that will challenge them, where they can face new perspectives, but where they can reflect upon such challenges in a context that inculcates faith along with serious intellectual rigor.   But when this has taken place, or when individual Christians have been well prepared at church or at home, there is simply no reason to fear intellectual challenges to our faith, or to be put in environments that will educate in challenging ways, because we must prepare people who can not only remain faithful but who can state their faithfulness in compelling ways before the world - a world into which they must enter in order to be the church in the world.

We Need So Much More Than Gun Control

While I think there are good reasons to think seriously about controlling the availability of some firearms, because they can so easily be obtained for misuse, I wish I could see far more wise attention paid to the factors that are responsible for the monstrous, escalating societal problems that are making inevitable at an increasing rate acts of violence (as a general trend, over the last several decades - even if in the immediate past there has been progress in this), gross selfishness, a lack of civility, economical irresponsibility, the denigration and suppression of basic morality, and bigotry towards all things religious. I grew up in a society that, while it had many problems, in general was, in my opinion, "better" in many key ways than what is now present. In many areas there has been positive progress, but these do not outweigh, to my mind, the ways in which we are worse off, and are worsening.

Some examples.  1)  Society has taken many positive steps toward responding to homosexuality in less prejudicial, more loving ways, but at the same time it has rejected the Christian perception of homosexual acts as sin.  You can have one (more love) without the other (relaxing the Christian perspective on what is sinful), but this is not the route we are following.  We should not and cannot forcefully bind Christian moral principles on society, but society is unwise in departing from this standard where it has been freely and well applied.  Allowing gay/lesbian marriage or the adoption of children by gay/lesbian couples is a choice society must be freely allowed to make, but these particular choices are at least as destructive as the prejudicial treatment of gays and lesbians.  And of course I have not mentioned the moves made in society to prevent those who find homosexual practice immoral from freely exercising their faith in uninhibited ways.  What I have written here in no way reflects a hatred of homosexuals, but no doubt someone would want to make such a claim, and for this they would find public support.  That is, to my mind, a far more prejudicial perspective than what I actually hold toward homosexuality, but many fail to see this and continue to think in prejudicial ways toward those whose religious beliefs require of them that they think of homosexual acts as sin.

2) Society has created irresponsibility on the parts of many citizens who survive by taking advantage of social programs that are too easily abused, and we insist on blaming everyone and everything for this problem other than our refusal to hold people accountable.  The other side of this, of course, is that it is a good thing on a large scale to offer social programs, to assist those with all kinds of needs, to give people every opportunity and advantage to succeed and to help provide for them when there is deprivation.  I am grateful that there is so much awareness of the needs in our society and so many efforts made to address such needs.  But as a society we are hugely economically irresponsible, with governmental spending being way too high and taxes being too low. I am afraid that if spending cuts do not take place, if austerity measures are not taken by governments, if taxes are not raised, we will all ultimately suffer the consequences, and there will be less money to help the poor.  We will end up with far more poverty if governmental spending is not reduced.  And it is certainly not just the rich who need to have their taxes raised.  Increasing the taxes of only the most wealthy persons in our society will do very little to correct the huge debt problems of the United States.  For many of us, the reason we do not want taxes raised is not because we will not be able to afford our basic needs, but because we will not be able to afford our luxuries.  And this is as prevalent among my middle-class peers as it is among the wealthy.  Raise taxes for all, cut back on the stupid, huge government waste, and meet the needs of those who need society's help.  It will not be painless, but I don't see a way around these inevitable choices.

3) There is something horribly wrong and degraded about a society that allows free access to and promotes the aborting of unborn children.  This cannot be justified, to my mind, on the grounds of women's rights, economic hardships, or the inconveniences of unwanted pregnancies.  How do any of these attempted justifications adequately excuse the killing of children?  This is not just a departure from the Christian perspective to which I personally hold, it is a departure from civility; it is degraded, narcissistic, barbaric destruction of life, chosen for the sake of convenience and so that we may relieve ourselves of responsibilities and hardships.

These are three examples in which society is making what I would consider to be poor choices, and they are signs of deepseated problems.  I don't expect that in any of these areas we will make huge progress any time soon, but talking about these seems to me way more productive than focussing all our attention on the social evil represented by the ownership of firearms.  Personally, I don't get at all the necessity some feel to have access to assault weapons.  Surely they cannot think that their possession of such weapons is the key to preventing governmental tyranny.  So, I would be happy to have them banned if it means less availability of such weapons to those who would abuse them.  But it is a mistake to think that the banning of assault weapons or limiting our access to handguns is a core solution to the societal problems that lead to violence.  This is the treating of a symptom, and not even one of our most detrimental symptoms of societal degradation.  Actually making progress in preventing violent acts will come with the societal change represented by progress in the kinds of choices I have mentioned above.