Count Yourself In

Tomorrow, May 12^th, is Census Day in Canada and like other households in Canada we received a census form in the mail a while ago.  It wasn’t a form to fill out, rather it was information about filling out the census form on-line – a first I believe for the census.  The census is done every five years and if memory serves me, we received the census form in the mail which we completed. 

We completed the on-line form which took about 40 minutes.  I’m not sure if we were fortunate enough to receive the long form which goes to about a quarter of households but it included questions on a range of subjects such as income, employment status, education, sexual orientation, homelessness, religion, amount paid for utilities and property taxes, marital status, and other areas that I may have forgotten being a retiree and born in 1949. 

Listening to an interview with a rep from StatsCan this morning on CBC radio, he noted that the completion rate was 98% for past censuses, which makes Canada the envy of other countries.  There are a few people who object to the census as an invasion of privacy.  However, these have been relatively few in past years.  I have a suspicion that this may be larger in these times when conspiracy fears are growing and separation movements with them in Alberta and Quebec.

Having worked with StatsCan data in a past life and worked with staff at StatsCan, I am able to affirm how important the data that is collected in the census and other surveys conducted by StatsCan.  The staff that I worked with were dedicated and hard-working and wanted to produce the best results for the people who utilized the data.  Census information is a valuable resource for academics and planners in many fields and is an invaluable resource for the country.  I would encourage everyone who has not yet filled out their census form to do so.  If you aren’t willing or able to do it on-line, it can be done the old-fashioned way. 

Censuses are not something new and have been around for a very long time.  Indeed, there is mention of censuses in the bible.  The book of numbers recounts a census taken by the Israelites in the exodus from slavery in Egypt.  God commands Moses to take a census of the Israelite community in the wilderness of Sinai. "Take a census of the whole congregation of Israel by their clans and families, listing every man by name, one by one."  This information was valuable in planning by Moses and other leaders for battles with tribes they encountered before and after entry into the Promised Land.  

King David also undertook a census of his kingdom.  It was a census of the troops available to him.  However, as was often the case with David, his actions often did not please God as, unlike in the Exodus, God had not commanded the census to be undertaken.  God saw this as an act of pride by David. 

Finally, we have the census that most Christians are aware of, being part of the Christmas story.  This was the first census to take place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.  This census is significant as it fulfilled the prophecy of the Messiah's birth in Bethlehem according to the Gospel of Luke.  This has been problematic for the accuracy of the birth narrative, as there is no historic record of a census at that time.  But that is an issue for another time.

There was a saying when I was involved in planning and utilizing data, you can’t make good decisions without good data.   That may not always be true, but it certainly helps.  Fortunately, the census data has been a good and valuable resource for Canada to use.  If you haven’t yet completed it, please do your part and complete the census and count yourself in as a household in Canada.     

Religion and Science Dialogue

One of the joys of being retired or at least semi-retired is that I have more time to do some of the thing I would not have had time to do previously (or at least would not have made time for).  One of the joys this summer has been to catch up on past episodes of Tapestry, the wonderful CBC radio program on things spiritual and religious hosted by Mary Hines.  Mary does a beautiful job of delving into the different subjects and people being interviewed to get at the heart of the subject.  The show is often interspersed with humor which I think is wonderful as she delves into the “laughter at the heart of things” (a phrase I must credit to Helen Luke).  I would encourage you to listen in to the program which is on CBC Radio 1 on Sunday afternoons or explore past episodes on-line at your leisure. 

Another program I have discovered which touches more directly on what I want to discuss today is Faith and Witness, a podcast which explores ecumenism in the church today.  It is an undertaking of the Canadian Council of Churches.  Faith and Witness explores a number of big theological issues such as salvation from the perspective of different denominations in Canada.  The goal is understand where different denominations are on major issues and to explore the common ground among those denominations. 

The programs are interesting and ecumenism is a worthwhile undertaking.  However, when I was listening to a couple of the episodes I couldn’t help thinking that the discussion would be completely foreign and completely uninteresting to 99.9% of Canadians.  I believe what is truly needed most today is a discussion of a common basis/understanding between people of religious faith and the religious none’s as they are classified on the census.  A large part of that is, I believe, a lack of common language which will help define what we are talking about.  This hopefully might be used to discuss things religious and spiritual from a common starting point.  We can also begin to address the assumptions (often wrong) that we have about the different perspectives that people bring to the discussion.  This is what the ecumenical movement tries to do with different denominations within Christianity.  

This was brought into focus for me by an article in the Globe and Mail this past week.  The August 5^th edition had an article entitled “Magic in the machine” which explored the phenomenon of consciousness from the current understanding in psychology and neuroscience.  Consciousness is a topic which is of great interest to me particularly in the area of dreams and Jungian psychology.  There seems to be a great divide between those studying the brain from a scientific basis and those who approach it from the spiritual/metaphysical perspective.  There is, I believe a consensus that human being are conscious but consciousness cannot be put under the microscope and examined as a physical entity therefore as quoted in the article, “  The scientific and philosophical consensus is that there is no non-physical soul or ego, or at least no evidence for that.”  The implication is that unless scientists can find hard evidence for it, it is not worth discussing.

He article did a good job of exploring the subject given the limits of a short newspaper piece.  However, one statement stood out for me and independently for Lorna as well.  The article stated, “We no longer believe in a numinous life force, an élan vital.  So what’s the big deal about consciousness?”  My question is, who is we and what is the statement based on?  If there is no numinous life force then this life on earth is all we get.  There is no continuation of the life force or soul or spirit beyond the material life we now live.  Here we have assumptions and perspectives that are not universal and need to be explored.  This is where Tapestry excels in exploring how different aspect of the experience of the Divine play out in our lives. 

Richard Rohr does a wonderful job of exploring the False Self or Ego and the True Self which is the person God intends you to be.  The ego, despite the lack of evidence for its existence, is a force which often keeps us from God—the ultimate being.  It is exactly this ultimate question, which science will never find what it considers satisfactory evidence for the existence of, is one of these issues that keep us in (at least) two solitudes.  I will close today with a quote from Richard Rohr which explores the True Self.  I may explore this use further if the spirit inspires me to:   

Your True Self is that part of you that sees truthfully and will live forever. It is divine breath passing through you. Your false self is that part of you that is constantly changing and will eventually die anyway. It is in the world of passing forms and yet it sees itself as a central reference point—which is never really true. The false self is passing, tentative, or as the Hindus and Buddhists might say, “empty.” Richard Rohr Daily Meditation August 8, 2016

I don’t not have a sermon to share with you today as I had Sunday off from official duties only providing the music for St. Alban’s in Souris.  Blessings on your journey.  

Ecce Homo; "Beast Jesus"

Yesterday afternoon I was driving home from doing a service with the little congregation of faithful Anglicans in Georgetown PEI and was able to listen to CBC Tapestry.  This is a wonderful CBC program on religion and spirituality which I don’t listen to often enough—basically because I am not mindful enough about it. 

Yesterday’s program didn’t disappoint me.  It was on the subject of the “Beast Jesus”.  If you aren’t aware of this phenomenon, as I wasn’t, it involves an early 20^th century fresco in a church in Borja Spain.  An attempt to restore the painting in 2012 by, an 83-year-old widow and amateur painter Cecilia Giménez had disastrous results—at least that was the initial assessment of the work.  The well-intentioned effort turned out to be less than intended and the result was, shall we say, interesting.  The restored face of Jesus has a definite animal or bestial appearance.  I have copied a before and after picture of the fresco from the Tapestry website.

The “restoration” was halted when the church officials saw what was happening to the work.  However, as you may have guessed that is not the end of the story.  The fresco has become something of a sensation and has attracted many curious people.  It has apparently become a significant tourist attraction and has revitalized the economy of the small town of Borja, Spain. 

The subject of the work is Ecce Homo (Behold the Man), a depiction of the Jesus presented to the    crowd by Pontius Pilate after the scourging (John 19:5) shortly before his crucifixion.   It is an interesting case of intentional fallacy—the literary criticism which addresses the issue that often the intention of the author or artist is not the most important meaning.  In this case the intention of the restorer was to restore the work to its original glory.  However, something unintended was created with unintended results.  The results are interesting in a number of ways.  First the popularity has had apparently positive economic results for the town.  In addition, a comic opera is in the works, which was the subject of the Tapestry program. The intention is to have the world premiere in Borja and an annual performance thereafter which will help the positive impact on the town to continue. 

There is also another unintended consequence which I find as interesting.  As pointed out in the CBC program the impact of the new image of Jesus is more dramatic than the original.  As can be seen in the pictures below, the original face of Jesus has the eyes looking up to heaven.  The new face of Jesus is looking at the viewer with the eyes engaging the viewer eyes.  In the view of the interviewee on Tapestry, the librettists of the opera, the eyes on Jesus seem to be asking, “What is it that you are doing in world”.  To that I could add, “What are you doing to follow me”.  

   

That is where the subject connected to me yesterday.  My sermon took the passage from Luke 7: 11-17 in which Jesus raises the widow’s son from the dead in the town of Nain (a copy is attached).  I compare this to the miracle he performs and casts out the unclean spirit “Legion” in the country of the Gerasenes (Luke: 26-38).  In the case of both miracles the reaction of the crowd is to be afraid; however their response in very different.  In the case of the people in Nain, they praise God for sending them a great prophet.  In the case of the Gerasenes, they, in effect, run him out of town on a rail.  They were afraid because the people knew that Jesus could change their lives in radical ways—a valuable herd of swine were destroyed in the town of the Gerasenes.  If we take Jesus seriously we are going to be faced with Jesus asking us what are we doing in the world?  Are we going to run him out of town or are we going to rejoice that God has sent us a Saviour and Messiah.  If take Jesus seriously our lives will be changed radically and we know what happens to radicals in our society; It is often not pleasant.  

Gretta and me

Recently I have re-encountered Gretta Vosper—not directly but on the radio and in the news.  Gretta Vosper is something of a well-known personality.  For those of you who are not familiar with her, she is a United Church of Canada ordained minister who has declared herself to be an atheist.  She has written a number of popular books including: With or Without God: Why the Way We Live is More Important than What We Believe, and Amen: What Prayer Can Mean in a World Beyond Belief. 

I became aware of the Rev. Vosper a few years ago when I heard her interviewed on that wonderful CBC radio program Tapestry with Mary Hynes.  I was somewhat troubled by what I heard at the time but I guess not enough to follow up on what I heard.  I re-encountered the Rev. Vosper last week when I heard a rebroadcast of the program while driving in my car.  That was followed by a Canadian Press news item on Huffington Post that stated Vosper was undergoing a process in the United Church that could lead to her being defrocked.  The article notes, “An ordained United Church of Canada minister who believes in neither God nor Bible said Wednesday she is prepared to fight an unprecedented attempt to boot her from the pulpit for her beliefs”. 

My reaction to hearing the broadcast and the news item was quite visceral—indeed I was surprized by how charged it was.  It caused me to investigate and examine her beliefs in more detail to help me understand my reaction more fully.  My initial reaction (which probably many people have) to hearing about Vosper was, “if she is an atheist and no longer believes in God (the definition of an atheist), why is she still an active United Church minister leading a congregation in The United Church?”  I felt I needed to understand more fully where she was coming from and where she was going in the church.

Vosper “came out” and revealed her atheism in a sermon in 2001.  The lay leaders of the congregation agreed to walk with her in the new path she was exploring which was, I presume, the bringing about a non-religious church in a non-religious time.  However, there were apparently, and not surprisingly, many of the members of the congregation who could not make that journey with her and left her flock.  As she describes in the interview, worship looks very much like a typical United Church worship service with hymns and prayers and a sermon. However, there is a distinct difference.  They no longer use scripture passages; they have rewritten hymns to take out any reference to God; indeed they no-longer is the G** word in any in most context.  If there is a reference to God they always state, “By God I mean…”  

Vosper noted in the interview that she came to the point of “coming out” when she had to deal with the devastation of her daughter who was mourning the loss of a beloved teacher to cancer. The daughter had, unknown to Vosper, prayer for God to heal her teacher.  Vosper could not reconcile the devastation of her daughter  and her non-belief in an interventionist personal God who answered prayer for which she had no satisfactory answer to comfort her daughter.    She decided to stay in her position as a minister due to the pastoral relationship she had with her flock. 

My next question is, why Vosper doesn’t join the Unitarian Church (as one on-line commenter noted) where she would fit in with no problem doctrinal?  Vosper holds the United Church to be the most progressing denomination in the world and is comfortable staying in the church.  As she states on her web site:

My congregation belongs to The United Church of Canada, probably the most progressive Christian denomination in the world. It ordained women over seventy years ago and has been ordaining openly LGBTQ leaders for decades. But theologically it remains in the closet about the human construction of religion and all its trapping. I couldn’t stay in that closet.

I have concluded that Vosper doesn’t want to leave the United Church to join the Unitarians or perhaps lead an independent secular humanist “church” because she would not be able to make an impact on the church.  She believe that the church needs to be converted to an organization that does not believe in a supernatural being in the sky who intervenes in human affairs for better or worse—a belief that, in her mind, has caused so many problems in the world. 

As noted above, Vosper does not usually use “God” in her worship—but when she does she qualifies if with, “by God I mean…”  This seemed to imply that she does believe in some form of higher power.  I had hoped to discover what Vosper does actually believe in which could be considered a higher power.  Unfortunately in the interview she did not specify what she might mean by God.  My investigation to date has not born much fruit.  I have not read any of her books.  However, the blurb for her book, With or Without God on her web site states:

Envisioning a future in which the Christian church plays a viable and transformative role in shaping society, Gretta Vosper argues that if the church is to survive at all, the heart of faith must undergo a radical change. Vosper, founder of the Canadian Centre for Progressive Christianity and a minister in Toronto, believes that what will save the church is an emphasis on just and compassionate living—a new and wholly humanistic (my emphasis) approach to religion.

What then are the conclusions I have reached at this point in my investigation?  First, I must say that I admire Vosper for having the courage to say and stand by what she believes—even if I believe that she is wrong—and I certainly do.  I do not believe that she is wrong about wanting the church to move beyond the belief in God as a supernatural person in the sky who is arbitrary and can be bribed (she didn’t say that last part directly, as far as I know, but I extrapolated  from what she has said).  That has been called succinctly “God the Butler” who is called up to serve us on demand.   I believe that the church must change.  However, if all that the church is going to become is another place to gather together to be a supportive community and do good works—which are undoubtedly a vital part of being church—how is that different from any secular group such as Rotary already in existence?  If we Christians do not believe in God—a higher power who calls us to be more than we are and shows us how we can be that—then that is not Christian. 

May the God, who Gretta Vosper apparently does not believe in, bless her and keep her.  I wish Gretta Vosper well in her future endeavours however, I hope and pray (to that same God) she will pursues those endeavours in place where atheists have a home: that in my view is not the Christian church.