Despite the media attention, there have been no graves discovered. It is ground penetrating radar that has discerned disturbance in the spoil. No bodies or hard evidence is yet forthcoming. This is not denial that there are such, simply that they have yet to be confirmed. Add to this the fact, as mentioned in a recent letter in the Anglican, that unraked graces were not uncommon, even for Europeans. Then for a real kicker, why is it not mentioned that the Kamloops school was actually founded by Shuswap Chief Louis Clexlixqen? Likely because it does not fit the present narrative.
If we understand God to be a God of truth, ought we to pursue truth and not be caught up in the rhetoric of the day?
Then let me push everyone even further. If this whole reconciliation movement is to be anything but look good and feel good on the part of the church, should we not take the time and make the effort to actually engage "indigenous" peoples in honest conversation? How many of us have actually been on a reservation, had a discussion with a tribal member, sought to understand both their perspective and the European settler perspective and honestly seek reconciliation? Few, I expect.
Then there is the bigger question. Simply gathering as believers is, in itself, communion. Communion with the Lord and with one another. So what is obviously being referred to is something else, but what is it?
The response would be to offer up one of the other names or terms: The Lord’s Supper or The Eucharist. Both generally refer to the last meal Jesus had with the 12, but what we do bears no resemblance. If that meal were a Passover, then Jesus’ words “Whenever. . . “ would obviously mean whenever you ate the Passover bread and drank of the Passover cup, which would make it an annual event. If it were not the Passover (It is debatable.) then it would seem that the words would be taken to mean whenever you shared a meal together. Which brings us naturally to the observation that it was an actual meal, not a wee bit of bread with barely enough juice/wine to wash it down. But let’s not stop there. Whether Passover or another meal, it was not an event held in the temple or synagogue (today, the church building) but in homes. And last, the individual presiding or “celebrating” was not required to be a priest or to have been, in any fashion, ordained. It was the one who was the head of the household or gathered group.
So what’s the point? Simply this. While we certainly have the freedom to “sing a new song” and create liturgies that enhance our spiritual lives and our walk with the Lord, we ought not to fool ourselves into thinking that Communion aka The Lord’s Supper aka The Eucharist in any way reflects what Jesus was urging or what the first believers practiced. We have so modified it and stripped it down that it would be barely recognizable. Oh, and a last question. We know that Jesus blessed the elements before distributing them. How many church actually bless the bread and the cup today, rather than simply reciting what Jesus did? I expect very few, if any.
It does seem that questions often beg rather simplistic answers or labels. As per a previous comment, depending upon what one considers and how one understands the words, "conformist" and "rebel," Jesus could rightfully be seen not as either/or but rather both/and.
As for Satan, the same would seem to apply. First, Satan is not a name, it is a designation. Ha Satan, the accuser. He functions much like a prosecuting attorney. Second, he designated as one of the ben elohim or "sons of God." He is not a foe of God, but rather a servant. It is clear from the book of Job that he has no authority or power of his own and acts with God's permission. authority. Hence he conforms to God's will, be that God's directive or permissive will. If God's directive will then he might be seen as conforming. If God's permissive will, then he might be seen as a rebel. His essential subservience remains in either instance.
I might add that I hope that it does not need to be said that "Lucifer" is not the devil or the Satan or a fallen anhgel, but rather the King of Babylon and the word "lucifer" does not even appear in the Hebrew text. Long story there.
Posted in: Prayer of Confession Regarding Unmarked Graves at Kamloops Indian Residential School
Despite the media attention, there have been no graves discovered. It is ground penetrating radar that has discerned disturbance in the spoil. No bodies or hard evidence is yet forthcoming. This is not denial that there are such, simply that they have yet to be confirmed. Add to this the fact, as mentioned in a recent letter in the Anglican, that unraked graces were not uncommon, even for Europeans. Then for a real kicker, why is it not mentioned that the Kamloops school was actually founded by Shuswap Chief Louis Clexlixqen? Likely because it does not fit the present narrative.
If we understand God to be a God of truth, ought we to pursue truth and not be caught up in the rhetoric of the day?
Then let me push everyone even further. If this whole reconciliation movement is to be anything but look good and feel good on the part of the church, should we not take the time and make the effort to actually engage "indigenous" peoples in honest conversation? How many of us have actually been on a reservation, had a discussion with a tribal member, sought to understand both their perspective and the European settler perspective and honestly seek reconciliation? Few, I expect.
Posted in: How Often Does Your Church Take Communion?
Then there is the bigger question. Simply gathering as believers is, in itself, communion. Communion with the Lord and with one another. So what is obviously being referred to is something else, but what is it?
The response would be to offer up one of the other names or terms: The Lord’s Supper or The Eucharist. Both generally refer to the last meal Jesus had with the 12, but what we do bears no resemblance. If that meal were a Passover, then Jesus’ words “Whenever. . . “ would obviously mean whenever you ate the Passover bread and drank of the Passover cup, which would make it an annual event. If it were not the Passover (It is debatable.) then it would seem that the words would be taken to mean whenever you shared a meal together. Which brings us naturally to the observation that it was an actual meal, not a wee bit of bread with barely enough juice/wine to wash it down. But let’s not stop there. Whether Passover or another meal, it was not an event held in the temple or synagogue (today, the church building) but in homes. And last, the individual presiding or “celebrating” was not required to be a priest or to have been, in any fashion, ordained. It was the one who was the head of the household or gathered group.
So what’s the point? Simply this. While we certainly have the freedom to “sing a new song” and create liturgies that enhance our spiritual lives and our walk with the Lord, we ought not to fool ourselves into thinking that Communion aka The Lord’s Supper aka The Eucharist in any way reflects what Jesus was urging or what the first believers practiced. We have so modified it and stripped it down that it would be barely recognizable. Oh, and a last question. We know that Jesus blessed the elements before distributing them. How many church actually bless the bread and the cup today, rather than simply reciting what Jesus did? I expect very few, if any.
Posted in: "The Rebel Jesus" - Worst Christmas Song Ever?
It does seem that questions often beg rather simplistic answers or labels. As per a previous comment, depending upon what one considers and how one understands the words, "conformist" and "rebel," Jesus could rightfully be seen not as either/or but rather both/and.
As for Satan, the same would seem to apply. First, Satan is not a name, it is a designation. Ha Satan, the accuser. He functions much like a prosecuting attorney. Second, he designated as one of the ben elohim or "sons of God." He is not a foe of God, but rather a servant. It is clear from the book of Job that he has no authority or power of his own and acts with God's permission. authority. Hence he conforms to God's will, be that God's directive or permissive will. If God's directive will then he might be seen as conforming. If God's permissive will, then he might be seen as a rebel. His essential subservience remains in either instance.
I might add that I hope that it does not need to be said that "Lucifer" is not the devil or the Satan or a fallen anhgel, but rather the King of Babylon and the word "lucifer" does not even appear in the Hebrew text. Long story there.