One thing that we have done: some of our woodworkers made advent candle wreaths for all of the households of our congregation, we wrote a devotional for each day, and our elders and deacons dropped them off. Each day we light an advent candle, read, and pray as a reminder that we are never alone.
"tyranny of the urgent" - brilliant! May I borrow that? Full footnotes and attributions of course!
Excellent article. I wonder, though: Is it really that hard to attribute a source during a sermon? I find it quite easy to weave a good quote or story in while letting people know where it comes from and if I've found myself inspired by someone else's line of thought, I find that a direct quote is a good homage, reference, and lead in for that part of the discussion.
Passing off someone else's work as your own though...definitely not cool...and...everyone in the pews have the same internet we do...some of them have it on their phones too!
A couple of thoughts - as a pastor and as someone who has worked with others in similar situations - navigating a crowd is really difficult. Things that I do personally: I go into the fellowship hall with a plan. I try to make sure I see 3-4 specific different people each week and I figure out who they are beforehand. Even when you are seeing the same people - it's good to have a mission and a reason to leave a conversation a little early. Disentangling from a conversation can be difficult and sometimes it's useful to have someone watching who can join in on a conversation and relieve your pastor - ushers and elders can be really useful here - especially if the same people are known to dominate Sunday morning time. The third thing I do is know my schedule for the coming week so that I can schedule appointments. Sunday morning can be an outstanding introduction to later conversations in the week. Ultimately - it's about planning. With a plan you don't have to ignore your regulars or neglect those who are less forward.
1. By the time you change bylaws, articles of incorporations, letterheads, website addresses, church order, and a whole host of other little things that will need to be done the financial and time considerations for individual church budgets, staff and volunteers will be significant.
2. Explanining Classis (and Synod) to someone who doesn't know takes literally 3 seconds. Jargon isn't a barrier and for many access to a new lexicon is a joyful opportunity to learn and explore - not to mention a boon for those of us who tackle crossword puzzles.
3. Watering down the terms removes the weight and significance of the event. A decision of the "regional gathering" lacks the impact of a "decision of Classis". While some may bristle at notions of structure and accountability, there is tremendous value in having those institutional distinctions.
4. There is no gospel necessity here and no real pragmatic value. Changing the name isn't going to jump start renewal of what is a semi-transitory, functional, meat and potatoes structure. This will neither change the function of Classis meetings nor the desire for people to want to serve.
End it already. I'd say there are bigger fish to fry but this isn't even a fish.
1. Framing UNDRIP as a radical proposal ignores the very long history of Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decisions surrounding treaty rights that through continuous rulings have affirmed what is at the heart of Article 26. It is essentially the law of the land and putting it into law simply means that every time there is a project to be negotiated the government will save years, lawyers fees, and animosity with indigenous peoples fighting losing court cases. This is not a huge radical change. It is good policy rooted in long history that the author does not have access to.
2. "CRC Leadership in Canada" creates an impression that this is a few people in a room making decisions. It is not. Decisions like this are made through a robust process of delegated authority with multiple points of accountability and are received and endorsed through the Canada Corporation at the Council of Delegates and then received and endorsed by Synodical decision.
3. The author's personal bias against ecclesial involvement in the political process is known and based on experience in the US regarding what lobbying is. The Canadian experience is markedly different involving deep and careful study of a limited number of files in which we have a long history and a wealth of relationships and expertise. It is also governed by processes of accountability, regional, delegated, representational authority, and oversight via the Canada Corporation, Council of Delegates, and Synod. The relationship between indigenous peoples, the Government of Canada, and the churches is one of those files. The CRC in Canada has a decades long involvement in these discussions and the involvement of churches in the process of Truth and Reconciliation is essential not only for public policy but for gospel proclamation.
4. The answer to your question regarding whether the action of the Canadian churches are properly endorsed is yes. This is a long conversation in Canada with decades of history, decisions, and accountability through proper ecclesial channels. Endorsement of UNDRIP is not surprising, shocking nor is it controversial.
5. Taking the very important issue of reconciliation out of the process (which is enough to do it in the first place): this is good social, economic and legal policy for Canada. It will save tax dollars, create stability for businesses, and improve health, education and economic well-being for indigenous peoples.
A note: this will be my only response. I'm not interested in engagement as the article only requires refutation. The author's blog lacks merit and I write only to inform readers that the deep flaws in information and context contained within it render it inadequate for serious consideration with respect to conversations of Truth and Reconciliation in Canada.
1. There is a point of passing the law. It codifies what the SCC has consistently directed the government to do and the government has consistently refused to do. The change would be two-fold: 1. The government would stop wasting time on losing cases. 2. Clarity regarding title and consultation would be achieved. Your argument on this point demonstrates that you lack specific knowledge on how Government and the SCC interact on matters of policy and legislation.
2. Since this has been an ongoing file in Canada you can look to every BoT report for the past decade or so for Synodical reference. The Canadian church has been endorsing this change for a long time and we have been part of the dialogue with government for making these changes. This is neither new nor unendorsed.
3. There is no sense debating political involvement. Neither of us agree and neither of us will be persuaded. What is important is the Canadian context of this particular issue. You are approaching this particular policy decision as though it is something novel and theoretical. In the Canadian context these discussions are long had, well studied and are an essential part of ministry being done on the ground. The Canadian ministries would not weigh in on this if we lacked experience, expertise, a clear ministry goal, or support from the churches. You might be catching wind of it through a blog post that you didn't like but we've been wrestling with it for years. To use a sports analogy: you're a football coach coming into the 3rd period of a hockey game that we're winning and questioning why we're using sticks and skates.
4. This isn't a partisan issue. There is very little for/against language in our body politic. Canadian churches are sensitive to issues of Truth and Reconciliation and have a long and well founded relationship with our structures of leadership and political dialogue. You're inferring a conflict that isn't part of the dynamic here. It is a part of why Canadian matters are dealt with through our own process.
5. You're not a Canadian constitutional lawyer who has dealt with issues of Treaty. Appeals to your experience don't apply here. It's football and hockey. Canada is a generally less litigious society except in the area of Treaty where the government has consistently tested the limits of those treaties. Adoption of UNDRIP into statute is not new law. It is the incorporation of SCC direction into policy in a way that provides definition to relationship. Will these definitions be contested - absolutely - but this is neither a change in course nor a new thing - it is simply the next step in a process of social, political, religious and economic reconciliation that has gone on for a long time.
Adding a 6th. There is a profound reason that Canadian issues are dealt with through the Canadian process. It is because there are things that are unique to the realities we face. We've been doing this for decades. We are generally happy with the process and trust the people we've put in place to guide us along the path. You are inferring a fight that simply isn't happening here and to be frank - because of your lack of experience, knowledge or context - you're not helping. To borrow from one of yours: "stay in your lane."
In the documents provided to the Canada Corporation, the BoT, and the Advisory Committee to Synod the statement affirming UNDRIP as a framework for reconciliation was presented and endorsed by all three bodies which was then ratified by Synod. This is denominational position, duly debated and passed under the ongoing activities of the Canada Corp.
Posted in: Practical Advent Ideas to Shine the Light of Christ
One thing that we have done: some of our woodworkers made advent candle wreaths for all of the households of our congregation, we wrote a devotional for each day, and our elders and deacons dropped them off. Each day we light an advent candle, read, and pray as a reminder that we are never alone.
Posted in: Begging, Borrowing—But Not Stealing
"tyranny of the urgent" - brilliant! May I borrow that? Full footnotes and attributions of course!
Excellent article. I wonder, though: Is it really that hard to attribute a source during a sermon? I find it quite easy to weave a good quote or story in while letting people know where it comes from and if I've found myself inspired by someone else's line of thought, I find that a direct quote is a good homage, reference, and lead in for that part of the discussion.
Passing off someone else's work as your own though...definitely not cool...and...everyone in the pews have the same internet we do...some of them have it on their phones too!
Posted in: Pastor Connections on Sunday
A couple of thoughts - as a pastor and as someone who has worked with others in similar situations - navigating a crowd is really difficult. Things that I do personally: I go into the fellowship hall with a plan. I try to make sure I see 3-4 specific different people each week and I figure out who they are beforehand. Even when you are seeing the same people - it's good to have a mission and a reason to leave a conversation a little early. Disentangling from a conversation can be difficult and sometimes it's useful to have someone watching who can join in on a conversation and relieve your pastor - ushers and elders can be really useful here - especially if the same people are known to dominate Sunday morning time. The third thing I do is know my schedule for the coming week so that I can schedule appointments. Sunday morning can be an outstanding introduction to later conversations in the week. Ultimately - it's about planning. With a plan you don't have to ignore your regulars or neglect those who are less forward.
Posted in: Time to Rename Classis?
1. By the time you change bylaws, articles of incorporations, letterheads, website addresses, church order, and a whole host of other little things that will need to be done the financial and time considerations for individual church budgets, staff and volunteers will be significant.
2. Explanining Classis (and Synod) to someone who doesn't know takes literally 3 seconds. Jargon isn't a barrier and for many access to a new lexicon is a joyful opportunity to learn and explore - not to mention a boon for those of us who tackle crossword puzzles.
3. Watering down the terms removes the weight and significance of the event. A decision of the "regional gathering" lacks the impact of a "decision of Classis". While some may bristle at notions of structure and accountability, there is tremendous value in having those institutional distinctions.
4. There is no gospel necessity here and no real pragmatic value. Changing the name isn't going to jump start renewal of what is a semi-transitory, functional, meat and potatoes structure. This will neither change the function of Classis meetings nor the desire for people to want to serve.
End it already. I'd say there are bigger fish to fry but this isn't even a fish.
Posted in: Should the CRC Endorse and Lobby for Making UNDRIP Federal Canadian Law?
A few things:
1. Framing UNDRIP as a radical proposal ignores the very long history of Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decisions surrounding treaty rights that through continuous rulings have affirmed what is at the heart of Article 26. It is essentially the law of the land and putting it into law simply means that every time there is a project to be negotiated the government will save years, lawyers fees, and animosity with indigenous peoples fighting losing court cases. This is not a huge radical change. It is good policy rooted in long history that the author does not have access to.
2. "CRC Leadership in Canada" creates an impression that this is a few people in a room making decisions. It is not. Decisions like this are made through a robust process of delegated authority with multiple points of accountability and are received and endorsed through the Canada Corporation at the Council of Delegates and then received and endorsed by Synodical decision.
3. The author's personal bias against ecclesial involvement in the political process is known and based on experience in the US regarding what lobbying is. The Canadian experience is markedly different involving deep and careful study of a limited number of files in which we have a long history and a wealth of relationships and expertise. It is also governed by processes of accountability, regional, delegated, representational authority, and oversight via the Canada Corporation, Council of Delegates, and Synod. The relationship between indigenous peoples, the Government of Canada, and the churches is one of those files. The CRC in Canada has a decades long involvement in these discussions and the involvement of churches in the process of Truth and Reconciliation is essential not only for public policy but for gospel proclamation.
4. The answer to your question regarding whether the action of the Canadian churches are properly endorsed is yes. This is a long conversation in Canada with decades of history, decisions, and accountability through proper ecclesial channels. Endorsement of UNDRIP is not surprising, shocking nor is it controversial.
5. Taking the very important issue of reconciliation out of the process (which is enough to do it in the first place): this is good social, economic and legal policy for Canada. It will save tax dollars, create stability for businesses, and improve health, education and economic well-being for indigenous peoples.
Posted in: Should the CRC Endorse and Lobby for Making UNDRIP Federal Canadian Law?
A note: this will be my only response. I'm not interested in engagement as the article only requires refutation. The author's blog lacks merit and I write only to inform readers that the deep flaws in information and context contained within it render it inadequate for serious consideration with respect to conversations of Truth and Reconciliation in Canada.
1. There is a point of passing the law. It codifies what the SCC has consistently directed the government to do and the government has consistently refused to do. The change would be two-fold: 1. The government would stop wasting time on losing cases. 2. Clarity regarding title and consultation would be achieved. Your argument on this point demonstrates that you lack specific knowledge on how Government and the SCC interact on matters of policy and legislation.
2. Since this has been an ongoing file in Canada you can look to every BoT report for the past decade or so for Synodical reference. The Canadian church has been endorsing this change for a long time and we have been part of the dialogue with government for making these changes. This is neither new nor unendorsed.
3. There is no sense debating political involvement. Neither of us agree and neither of us will be persuaded. What is important is the Canadian context of this particular issue. You are approaching this particular policy decision as though it is something novel and theoretical. In the Canadian context these discussions are long had, well studied and are an essential part of ministry being done on the ground. The Canadian ministries would not weigh in on this if we lacked experience, expertise, a clear ministry goal, or support from the churches. You might be catching wind of it through a blog post that you didn't like but we've been wrestling with it for years. To use a sports analogy: you're a football coach coming into the 3rd period of a hockey game that we're winning and questioning why we're using sticks and skates.
4. This isn't a partisan issue. There is very little for/against language in our body politic. Canadian churches are sensitive to issues of Truth and Reconciliation and have a long and well founded relationship with our structures of leadership and political dialogue. You're inferring a conflict that isn't part of the dynamic here. It is a part of why Canadian matters are dealt with through our own process.
5. You're not a Canadian constitutional lawyer who has dealt with issues of Treaty. Appeals to your experience don't apply here. It's football and hockey. Canada is a generally less litigious society except in the area of Treaty where the government has consistently tested the limits of those treaties. Adoption of UNDRIP into statute is not new law. It is the incorporation of SCC direction into policy in a way that provides definition to relationship. Will these definitions be contested - absolutely - but this is neither a change in course nor a new thing - it is simply the next step in a process of social, political, religious and economic reconciliation that has gone on for a long time.
Adding a 6th. There is a profound reason that Canadian issues are dealt with through the Canadian process. It is because there are things that are unique to the realities we face. We've been doing this for decades. We are generally happy with the process and trust the people we've put in place to guide us along the path. You are inferring a fight that simply isn't happening here and to be frank - because of your lack of experience, knowledge or context - you're not helping. To borrow from one of yours: "stay in your lane."
Posted in: Should the CRC Endorse and Lobby for Making UNDRIP Federal Canadian Law?
2016 Acts Article 72. section 8.
In the documents provided to the Canada Corporation, the BoT, and the Advisory Committee to Synod the statement affirming UNDRIP as a framework for reconciliation was presented and endorsed by all three bodies which was then ratified by Synod. This is denominational position, duly debated and passed under the ongoing activities of the Canada Corp.
This concludes our discussion.
Posted in: A New Hymnal - Lift Up Your Hearts
My only hope, and I've expressed this to Joyce before, is that there will be some French language inclusions in the hymnal.