Quick Post After Long Absence

This is what has been going on in my life: 1) one of my dogs had an operation for a torn ligament and it got badly infected. As a result she didn't walk at all for 3 weeks and she's 103 pounds. Needless to say, as a total mama's girl, I had to be at her side all the time, which meant I had no chance to go to my computer. However, my computer gave up the ghost, which I might have mentioned in a previous post and I have a spanking new laptop, which is the only good news that I have.

My dog's leg problem led in turn to a cold or the flu, probably as a result of me falling with her down the four stairs to the outside of the house at 3 in the morning when it was 30 below, and no one to rescue her or me until the pain subsided enough for me to get my voice back.

Which in turn resulted in a return visit to the vet for her and a visit to the hospital for me with a badly sprained leg and bruised ribs and some sort of body whiplash from bracing myself (apparently) before I hit the ground. I never knew you could get whiplash-like symptoms from falling.

And eventually, possibly, as the result of lying in the snow in my bathrobe, my present cold or flu. I should go to the doctor but I think I'm far too sick for that, haha.

And in the meantime, at the same time, my horse barn flooded and the guy who did the trenching for me this fall was being an asshole (excuse the language, I was trying to think of a euphemism for asshole but there doesn't seem to be one) about it so I had to call Guy Number Two who discovered that an artesian well had been broken by Guy Number One.

Then my fridge went on the blink just before Christmas. Trenching Guy Number Two and the Fridge Repair Guy both showed up at the same time on the same day. Both got fixed and then the pressure pump inside the house went, which meant we had no water inside the house, drawing water as we do from an artesian well. And it is the holiday season, boo hoo hoo. Whose holiday do I spoil? I hate to bother people at times like these.

And last but not least, my brother wants a divorce from his wife. It is only a surprise in the sense that it has taken him a long time to work up to it. I won't go into details. I would appreciate prayers but in my opinion the marriage was a disaster from the start, ten years ago. Yes, God can work miracles but they are called miracles because they are rare. There are children involved and for that I am very, very sad but the marriage as it has been for so long, isn't sustainable. It would take a very big miracle along the level of the Red Sea parting to put Humpty together again, if I can mix my metaphors.

I don't know if I should be grateful the year is coming to an end or fear it. If I seem a little snippy and my humor a little black, it is because it is either laugh or cry.

I will make one comment vis a vis your post at this time, which is that you make a difference between a Christian living life as an individual and the state. However, you don't do that when it comes to issues like prayer in schools, or abortion or....?

In any event, I think capitalism is evil but will expound on that at some future date when I feel better. And yes, I do trust my government. I've noticed that Americans have a peculiar faith in their governments as evidenced by the fact that they so often refer to the US as the greatest country on earth, defender of free speech and all that democratic stuff, and yet at the same time are great believers that governments are not to be trusted in matters like gun control, health care, etc.

It seems contradictory to believe that one is living in the land of the free and home of the brave and at the same time say one does not trust one's government in terms of doing what is best for all citizens. It's like on the one hand Americans are proclaiming they live in the best country in the world, yet on the other hand they are prone to see black helicopters hovering over head, as though people run for elections in the US for primarily nefarious purposes, not altruistic ones.

See, I know there will always be a level of corruption in government, the same way I know there will always be poor people in the world. But I trust absolutely that my government wants what is best for all its citizens. It may not always be right but its aims are to provide good government and all that it means, including liberty and human rights, for all of its citizens, not just a few rich ones. The disagreements are mostly honest ones, as to how exactly one would achieve those goals.

PS. I think your definitions of communism and socialism got a little turned around. May I ask how you came by them?

Layla

Capitalism anti-Christian?

Good morning! To clear up the last bits of the Prop 8 mess, we were definitely confused, because I could have sworn that you thought that I thought that Prop 8 had failed and that thus the Christians here in Cali were being persecuted. As for the state and religion - let's face it, religion and government are always in each other's pockets. That's how life works. Because both seek to tell the person on the street what is permissiable and what is not. I could go off on a major tangent about this... :) But I won't.

Capitalism is decidedly Christian - at least if you define "capitalism" as "I work for what I earn, I keep whatever I earn to spend as I choose". (I don't think that wall street is Christian, I am certain that cut-throat business practice is not Christian). Socialism is NOT Christian. Groups of Christians, particularly the early Christians, did practice Christian Communism... very briefly, because human nature isn't set up for perfect communism. (Socialism is not Communism. Communism does not involve a government, it is the place of perfection where all share everything directly. Socialism is where you are forced to give what you earn to the government, which then distributes it).

Capitalism is part of the daily life of a Christian (or Jew). 1) It allows for the blessing of God to be shown to the world at large. This is how it worked in the OT, and what Jews still believe - godly people should expect to prosper financially. (Christians expect to be provided for by God directly and expect to go through worldly travail). 2) It allows for charity. Socialism removes charity from the hands of the individual. Both Jews and Christians are commanded to care for the widows and orphans and to give generously. 3) It allows for hard work. Again, human nature... socialism doesn't inspire individuals to work hard, unless negative sanctions are made directly. (We can certainly prove this!). If you know that you'll be provided for, regardless of what you do, you do very little. Paul commanded that if a man didn't work, he shouldn't eat!

Communism works very well in very small groups that are all committed to the same goal. It worked briefly in the early church. And then it failed. Most spectacularly in the case of Ananias and Saphira. I've always been taught that they didn't die because they held back part of the purchase price, but because they lied about it.

Everything that we own belongs to God. And we are to be stewards of that which He has given to us. We are to strive for its increase and we are to give generously to all who ask of us (individuals).

WWJD? Well... Jesus will give every human his vine and his figtree, that we are all given something to work WITH! No one will have the fruits of his labor stolen from him (war). Beast and moth and corruption won't steal either. And no orphan or widow will go hungry. Jesus' economy is a gift economy.

Now... socialism depends on the government. It depends on the honesty and efficiency of the government. And it's always been a BIG government thing. Do you trust your government? I don't!!!! Do I want my government giving money to huge corporations? NO! That's not good stewardship. They *in no way* fall under any of the guidelines of who might be found need of organized charity in the Bible. I rather think they fall under the "don't work, don't eat" set of guidelines!

So, in socialism, or in what the ranters and ravers are calling socialism, I am forced to give larger sums in taxes to my government so that they in turn can use it as they see fit. (In true socialism, I'd work for the government, they would take all the fruits of my labor, and I'd be paid whatever they felt like paying me, which I would then use to purchase whatever they felt like offering).

Christians are called to open-handed charity, but I see nowhere, OT or NT, where we are called to socialism. Small groups that take good care of each other, such as the Anabaptists, aren't socialist, they're communist, and praise God that they can make it work. I don't believe that communism is possible outside a small community that knows and works with one another. And socialism is a bird of a different color entirely.

I will try to be better about checking and posting...... all the best! :) Hearth

What Would Jesus Do?

I've been thinking about this more since the current financial crisis and the subsequent references by some to the bailout of Wall Street being "socialism."

And I've been thinking about it in relation to Obama being called a "socialist" because he talked about redistributing the wealth.

And I've been thinking about the many Christians who associate socialism with something bad.

And the popularity a few years ago with WWJD pins.

Do people think God is a capitalist? Or that Jesus was a capitalist? Or that the early Church was capitalist?

I can think of few things that one can say for sure that God, Jesus and the early Church were not, and that was capitalists.

We are told of the beliefs of the early Church and how they applied that to their day-to-day lives, presumably, with the idea that they were living a WWJD way, that they "held all things common."

Acts 4: 32: And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

We also are told the theology that led to that belief, which was the whole idea of loving your neighbour as yourself. It is a belief which Anabaptist groups such as the Hutterites who live communally and take care of their own still hold.

The very definition of capitalism - an unmodified capitalism - is that selfishness is good and that if you don't succeed as the world defines success, you are "lazy." Much as Martha, for example in the NT, she of the Lazarus fame, viewed her sister Mary, who preferred to listen at Jesus' feet rather than to cook.

Capitalism does not love one's neighbour. It is in fact human selfishness, a worldly human selfishness.

Yet in all the world, there is no greater misunderstanding about socialism, "liberalism" and Marxism than in the United States. None of them equate communism and none of them speak against communism any more than the intrinsic selfishness of a capitalist system speaks against many kind and caring individuals in the US.

Given that the US is such a conservative nation, a nation so obsessed in a sense with matters of faith that politicians have to play to the Christians in order to win elections - it kind of boggles my mind that the US isn't a socialist country, a Good Samaritan country, a country that acts in a WWJD manner by not living for earthly treasure, but by sharing good fortune in a communal or socialist way as defined in Acts.

It really puzzles me why people are so against spreading the wealth, Jesus-style.

well...

Let's take this slow and see what I've misunderstood. I Googled for Christian persecution and Prop 8 (yes, I knew what that was about) and read some blogs, watched a video of what happened in the Castro district. I'm aware that the church was for Prop 8, and that the Mormons and Catholics seem primarily to have been financing/or for it, and I'm aware that it overturned same-sex marriage and that there's now a pending court ruling which will likely overturn Prop 8 and allow same-sex marriage.

And obviously gays are upset about Prop 8.

But persecution? Even if one believes that homosexuality is a sin against God, since there is no law against Christianity and no law that is intended to force Christians into becoming married homosexuals I don't see how this qualifies as anything resembling persecution. Christian rights aren't being violated. Christians are imposing their beliefs instead on non-Christians. So the non-Christians are being persecuted, if anyone is being persecuted at all.

I agree with your husband - Western Christians haven't the faintest idea what persecution is. Instead of looking for trouble in the Castro district, they could be feeding the hungry or housing the homeless. Less hymn singing in gay areas and more doing things that would bring honor and glory to Christ. Neither the Christians nor their protesters acted particularly well in my opinion.

I thought I basically said the same thing in my post? My concern is that when Christians meddle in the governing of the world, in thinking that their Christian ideas of morality (which I am not saying I disagree with) can be or should be imposed on the State, they are setting a legal precedent for their own secular freedom to be taken away at some future date.

In my opinion, it is the very meddling and insistence in the US of Christians wanting to take their Christian agenda to governments, federal and state, that has caused the very things you have talked about in relation to your doctor or your pharmacist. You open yourself up to others when you make religious issues out of government. If state and religion are supposed to be separate, why does the church keep interfering in government? That is asking for the government to interfere in the church.

I don't get that.

An epic misunderstanding

I think that this is the most profound misunderstanding we've had in months! I do *not* think that Christians are persecuted because of Prop 8*. I was trying to get your thoughts about the foo-foo-rah about the aftermath. But since it seems that you didn't know about the foo-foo-rah... I'll have to tell you a bit about it to explain.

Prop 8 was pushed heavily by the church, and funded thereby. Not only Protestants, but the Catholic church and the Mormon church heavily funded the "Protect Marriage" campaign. No surprises there, I'm sure.

In the aftermath of the "Yes" vote, the homosexual community has risen up, and there have been numerous marches against large, visible churches, particularly the Mormon church. I hear that somewhere in Castro, activists broke into a church service and threw condoms.

Because of this, and because of individual unpleasantness like "Yes" groups being flipped off or sworn at and people being beaten up (again, very individually), a lot of the blogosphere is crying "persecution". The only blog I read that countered this thinking was the blog on revelife, which said, "um... guys... this isn't persecution. You don't know what you're talking about".

So the question I was trying to ask was, "Why do you think Christians in the blogosphere are crying persecution, and do you have any thoughts about Christian persecution in the social sphere to add".

I have a number of thoughts on this issue, which I'd put down quickly before, but would like to expand on at length. I was gonna blog this separately, but might as well put it here and copy/paste, since I've not managed to even start this essay separately.

1) We know that persecution has to come to the Church as a sign of the End Times, and most of the conservative protestants who would take an interest in the one issue take interest in the other. I know I want to go Home, want the Bridegroom to return, so of course I take all signs hopefully - even the ones that mean personal inconvenience.

2) My husband brought this one up. Most people of my generation who live in the West have absolutely no idea about what real hardship is. We don't know about war, we don't know about violence, we don't know about any of that on a PERSONAL level, no matter how many bloody videogames we play or how much TV news we watch.

3) We know that there are martyrs to Christ right now in other parts of the world, and we feel vaguely guilty about not being part of that movement. It's not particularly comfortable, knowing that you're the beginning of the church of Laodicea.

4) America was formed by Protestants. For four-hundred years, protestant Christianity has been the approved of norm. "Christian" used to be a synonym for "good/nice" in the same way that "white" used to be a synonym for "pleasant/civilized/kind". The former word didn't have anything to do with the person's religious associations any more than the latter word had to do with the absence of a tan. The dominant paradigm of Christian = good is that hardwired into our culture. (Which of course it OUGHT to equate, but that's another post we've covered often). So, when people who were raised to go to church and potlucks and be 10% more modest than the world at large suddently aren't "good" by default anymore - it's freaky.

I do know that individual Christians are being persecuted in America for their religious beliefs. My OB/GYN is... I wrote about him before. There are pharamacists who are. There are city clerks who got fired. *That* is persecution. There always have been people who have lost jobs because they wouldn't be dishonest. There always will be people who will lose friends, whose families will be permanently at odds because they follow Christ. We were promised that, it shouldn't be a surprise. Being the target of marches is *not* persecution.

Eyes open, we see the tide change and turn against Christian = nice. Eyes open, we see what that means, and will mean. But we are grasping at what the world will be like in ten years, or five - not what it is today. And I think we *are* dragging the word persecution down into non-meaning when we use it today, even as my emotions are with those who are doing so.

Why do YOU think we're doing that? Have you seen it for yourself? Thoughts? I think the Western Church is going to have a BIG "come to Jesus meeting" (Southern expression) when we are actually facing real hardship for our beliefs.

*Prop 8 defines marriage in California as only between a man and a woman. We voted this into law in 2000, the Supreme Court of Cali overturned it this Spring, and then prop 8 made it part of our state's constitution. Hope that clarifies.

...........

I am very sorry to hear that you're still in mourning for your dog. I agree with your belief that animals were certainly not meant for just food and work, I think they were supposed to be much more than that. Glad to hear that your other lady is doing better. Stitches are no fun!

Persecution, Prop 8

I probably should be embarrassed to admit that I prayed very hard for my dog considering there are so many people suffering in the world. I rather shy away from the use of the word "miracle" but she certainly looked like she was on her deathbed. The vet said she had multiple organ failure and she seemed to be in a coma for about a week. But dying itself seemed to come hard - this was back in September.

I really prefer never to put an animal down but neither do I want an animal to suffer. My husband and I had finally made up our mind that if she didn't pass away over that particular September weekend, we would take her to the vet to have her euthanized.

That weekend, since she couldn't walk, we scooped her up using two blankets as slings and carried her outside, took her to all her favorite places. And eventually she was able to put weight on her front legs, so I walked her around with a sling supporting her back legs. I fed her people food - whatever she would eat, around the clock, and would you believe she recovered well enough to go hunting for mice? She had a lovely, lovely 4 weeks of life after that, including the day before she died.

Then just when I started to think I had hallucinated the condition she was in previously, she took a turn for the worse. I sang "Jesus Loves Me" to her and she passed away in my arms, as peacefully as any child of God going to sleep for the night.

I often think that everything I know for sure about God, I've learned from animals. There is a faithfulness and a lack of guile, and a forgiveness of even the foot that kicks them, that points the way to how we ought to be ourselves. As one prayer goes, "Lord, help me to be half the person my dog thinks I am."

I know that traditional theology doesn't allow for animals to have souls but then why did Balaam's ass speak to him about being just to animals? Why does God make a point of telling humanity "thou shalt not muzzle the ox treading out the corn" or not "seething a calf in its mother's milk?"

Why, in the future vision of the earth, do the lamb and the lion lie down together, if not to point out that even the animals have suffered in a pre-redemption earth?

Animals were given to us for more than food and meat since there is no evidence to indicate that was their original purpose in the Garden of Eden.

I miss her a lot. I am not through crying yet. I really hope my animal friends are all waiting to meet me when it's my turn to go.

My other dog had her surgery and now the challenge is to keep her from moving much for the next two months while her leg heals. She'll have the staples removed last week but she's already been removing them herself with her teeth.

Well, I tried to go to the site you referenced as having a discussion about the Prop 8 thing and couldn't find the conversation you were referring to, but I gather you're asking about gay marriage and Christians feeling persecuted because of that?

I was raised to believe that persecution was the natural state of the Christian - the best state - the state that refines. So I suppose based on that, for Christians who believe that homosexual marriage is wrong on a secular level of government, maybe they ought to be rejoicing and being exceedingly glad that they are being persecuted by homosexual marriage?

As far as me personally, I would find it hard to make the leap to feeling persecuted as a Christian by a state allowing same-sex marriage. The state's business is different in my eyes than the business of Christians. If Christians believe homosexuality is wrong and condemns souls to hell, then by all means, if they feel so called, they ought to make that point - in churches, to their homosexual friends - out of a spirit of caring for the mortality of the other person's soul.

Protest on an individual level, in other words. One soul at a time as God has seen fit to make souls cross paths to be guided.

As far as goodness and niceness being equated with Christianity, in the Matthew 5 version of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says just the opposite: For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

He says that even the publicans/sinners do good. That is the reason for turning the other cheek, and that is the very foundation of nonresistance and pacifism - to do more than just "niceness" requires. Niceness, kindness, compassion, charity, love and forgiveness are not only qualities possessed by Christians. I know more compassionate atheists than I know Christians. Could just be the circles in which I hang though. I'm not saying there aren't compassionate Christians.

I find it hard to get worked up about abortion on the grounds that it is murdering a person when there are Christians who think it is not only a-okay to go to war and kill people who are actually born, but that it is God's will to do so. I mean, I happen to believe that a fetus is a person but I also believe that an enemy is a person. Maybe when - as in when-hell-freezes-over-when - states abolish not only abortion but also state-sponsored killings in the form of wars, I'll get excited about homosexual marriage. Until then, I just can't get terribly interested in it.

Persecution and Police

I'm so sorry to hear about your dog! I know you were expecting her death, but it's never easy, even when we know such things are coming. Are you doing okay?

The police & firemen being put together is just my sloppy thinking. Police and firemen are always teamed here in the States whenever you speak of them as a group - their unions work together most of the time, take the same sides politically. Public servants willing to undertake danger? Police, firemen, soldiers... it tends to fall into the same category in my brain. And both firemen I know well would do equally well as police officers. As I said, just sloppy categorization.

I've been interested in something someone on revelife (at xanga) said in regards to persecution and Prop. 8 here in Cali. I wanted to get your thoughts on the persecution of Christians and why we here in the States are going nuts just 'cause we're getting snubbed.

Messily, I think some of the things are we're just too used to equating "christian" with "good/nice" and having them de-equated is shocking. Another would be a half-wish to be shown as "real Christians" and a grasping after an end-times kind of paradigm. (This ignores the millions of Christians who are being Persecuted with a capital P... but we've talked about nationalism and American christians before). I guess we want to be part of God's Army... so long as we don't break any nails? Church has equalled safe for SO LONG here... I really think it's messing with people's heads.

Anyway, I know you have lots to say about the persecuted church, and I'm pretty sure people flipping off churchgoers or marching - or even throwing condoms into a church service - is pretty laughable on the grand scheme of things.

Hoping you are doing better....

Hearth

I haven't fallen off a mountain

My old dog died a month ago - peacefully, contentedly in my arms. And in the meantime, one of my other dogs tore a ligament and is having major surgery tomorrow. And I'm having computer problems. If it ain't one thing, it is the other.

I did have an intelligent response waiting in my head but it seems to have deserted me. However, I am thinking, wrt Mennonites and firemen (and who knows what else) somehow left the wrong impression. Mennonite theology allows particpation in everything that does not take a human life, so clearly, being a fireman wouldn't be out of bounds, no matter how strict the interpretation.

If I may ask, I'd like to know why you would have that impression? I have a number of folks in my family who are in volunteer fire departments. Policing is another matter, in the sense that obviously, you might be required at some point to take a life. However, as I said, all of this is traditional anabaptist beliefs and not necessarily something that is followed by most Mennonites today unless you go to the Amish.

I also have a lot of policemen in my family. I honor them. I pray for them. I recognize that they are performing a valuable service. That being said, I do not entirely approve on account of my anabaptist beliefs. None of them have had to take a life to date and I hope they never have to. It isn't that Mennonites don't recognize the need for policemen or have their heads so far in the clouds that they think God will save them and they are not to use their brains or common sense - i t is rather that Mennonites/Anabaptists believe that society does need all those things, including soldiers - but that given the fallen nature of the world, God knows that, and given that there is no shortage of unbelievers at any given time, it is for those unbelievers to do those things if they wish to.

While we are told to pray for our goverments and those in power, we are not told that we have to like an unjust ruler. God has ordained earthly nations and earthly rulers and when He has His proverbial nose full of thier unrighteousness, then He will send armies or allow circumstances that can provide for the overturning of unjust governments.

it isn't wrong for the children of the Most High to enjoy peace and freedom, and to appreciate those things even if they themselves believe it is a sin to fight for those things. It's like when Jesus paid his taxes, it didn't mean he approved of Caesar or wasn't aware of what Rome was all about.

I remember when it was utterly shameful - life ruining - to become pregnant and be unmarried. I remember how those girls were talked about. It isn't secular society that made it seem so sinful but Christian society. And that was a very big reason for an abortion. I can't swear at all that if I had become pregnant when I was a young teenager, that I wouldn't have had an abortion if they had been legal then (they weren't) in order to avoid the social consequences and to avoid telling my parents.

And yes, many churches support homes for pregnant teenagers. I still wonder how many would take unwanted children - handicapped children - into their own homes? Until they do, it's meaningless and along the lines of "until you've walked a mile in their shoes."

Well, wrt your comment about in a "perfect" Church - the Church ought to be perfect. We're told to be perfect. The fact that we can't be shouldn't be something we keep bringing up, as in "Christians aren't perfect, just saved." That is a cop-out. We know we aren't perfect but that idea makes people think they don't even need to try to be perfect.

As far as in that same perfect church, one should be living their faith and evangelizing - to me in a certain way that doesn't make sense because to live one's faith is to evangelize automatically. Your life is your witness.

As far as political involvement is concerned, again, to pick one candidate over another always means picking one evil to somehow be less evil in God's eyes than another evil since we do not live in a theocracy. Democracy is a great thing. It allows me to hold this opinion. But no one can lead a country democratically and be fair to all peoples and all faiths while legislating so-called Christian values.

In doing so as much as they do in the States, Christians don't seem to realise they are sowing the seeds of their own demise, that the very tolerance that allows them to practise what they will religiously, is the tolerance that they would deny to others, thereby making a democracy not a democracy. And sure as shootin', even if certain Christian ideas of morality became the law of the land, they would be at odds with other Christians' heartfelt interpretation of the Bible. And also sure as sunrise, those very same laws through which a Christian agenda took away the rights of non-Christians will be used to take away their own rights. And that concerns me.

I don't know how much you read on the link, but here is something that may explain better the attitude of anabaptists toward government.

I take a very deep interest in politics and my non-voting has only been for the last two federal elections here. Most Mennonites today vote. There are many Mennonites in powerful positions in the Canadian government. I voted from the time I was 18 up to recently when I came to the conclusion that the early anabaptists had it right. It is not God's way that he would pick one evil as somehow less evil than another evil, in a perverse version of "Sophie's Choice."

And like most of the world, I too was mesmerized by your federal election and sat watching the results and cheering loudly and weeping while wearing my Barack Obama T-shirt. But do I think that everything he stands for is in accordance with the Bible? No. Neither is everything in accordance with the Bible with the McCain campaign.

On a secular level I am glad he won. Americans may think they were electing a President but for the rest of the world, you were electing a world leader. Like it or not, all of the world has suffered from American navel-gazing and my hope - my secular hope - is that America will be respected in the world again. It hasn't been since the Vietnam War.

On a spiritual level, I know that there will be no righteousness, no end to human suffering and injustice until our Lord comes. I don't have faith in Obama (or anyone else). I have faith in God and every day say, Maranatha, Lord Jesus.

Layla

The parable of the talents

Sorry, really I've not been hiding underneath a rock... :) I've been thinking and reading and running around.

To me, voting is one of the things that I've been given in this time/place. It's something like the parable of the talents - I should use, to the best of my ability, all of what I'm given in this time and place for Truth and Good, as defined by God. My vote is one of the things I'm given, so I use it. Whether or not it takes is up to God, not to me. John Piper wrote an interesting article about that... realising that our citizenship is not here, and we shouldn't get worked up about the results of political races.

As for abortion and doing things to prevent that... yes, of course. That's a great example of how the body of Christ should be out there as a whole body. One part of the body working to prevent abortions from being needful (in fact my church supports an agency that helps unwed moms through keeping their children or adopting them out) and another part of the body sitting in front of abortion centers nursing their babies and/or praying peacefully. We are supposed to do BOTH things, not pick one or the other. What can we do that is good and lawful and shows our love?

In an ideal Church (spoken of as the Church as every believer, not Mennonites or Baptists or...) we would be out there living the life of faith *and* evangelizing. Putting our hands out to the folks around us in a helpful manner *and* standing up for what our Lord tells us is good and right. Some of us are good at one, some at another.

I didn't know that Mennonites did fireman sorts of work - to me that is wrapped up in police work.

I believe that police work is just part of living in this fallen world, and is part of the authority that God has given to kings and governments generally, to protect the people under their rule. So, performing those duties is just being part of that temporal "body" of the government. Would it be best if that wasn't needful? Yes. But do I want to live without my police? No. Should I shun work that is needful? I don't think that's right, really I don't. If it needs doing, we should do it, "as unto the Lord".

Does it matter if we "win" this election, or any of the things that are on the ballot that are near and dear to my heart? No, it doesn't. Not eternally. I know God has it under control. But it matters how I vote, what *I* do. Because what I do is not to this temporal world, it's to God. He put me here... I shall do my best to make this world a place where God is given the glory.

Just adding this

because somehow I missed this: "They don't do evangelism, they don't vote, they don't become firemen/policemen/soldiers, etc. Yes? "

Well, sure they become firemen and sure they do vote. The voting is relatively recent as democracies weren't around during the Reformation.

Traditionally, Mennonites did not vote. They did not become soldiers or policemen in the sense of carrying weapons because they would not kill anyone they considered their brother or sister. They were as okay with being firemen as they were with being doctors or nurses, because that saved lives, it didn't take life, life being one of those things in God's domain, not Caesar's.

There have always been Mennonites who evangelized on some level. They just weren't pushy about it, to the point of focusing so totally on the spirit that the body became neglected. The idea was that if the starving person is filled with food, and a roof is put over his house at some point that person, once his belly is filled, will ask, "Who are you and why are you helping me?"

At which point it would be appropriate to bring up Jesus, having already had your deeds bear witness that your words weren't empty.

Not saying that that's the way it is now. There are certainly pushy, annoying, evangelizing Mennonites whose deeds don't precede or follow their words. It's not about deeds saving you, but they point to your character. Jesus made mention of his deeds, not his words, when the disciples of John the Baptist came to him and said John had asked them to ask him whether he was the one, or whether they ought to wait for another messiah.

Jesus said, "Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me. "

People believed Jesus was the Messiah not because he said he was, but because of what he did. That is the point of the traditional thinking of Mennonites, with the emphasis on deeds first, not that deeds save but that they are an outward manifestation of an inward belief. "By their works ye shall know them."

Layla

To your first question, as to whether God is always in charge, yes, I do believe that.

To your next question, there isn't an answer, not because I am opposed to people doing the will of God, but rather that people who believe they are doing the will of God are no less sincere for all that it might be the wrong thing, and not necessarily the actual will of God.

Most people today, who have direct conversations with God on the level of Abraham's face-to-face encounter with the Almighty on Mount Sinai are in mental institutions, so the sense of being certain that one is doing the will of God in the world isn't enough of a standard of behaviour.

The closest thing we have to a guide to Christian behaviour in the world is in the Bible, both in the actions of Jesus and what he said. Politics was alive and well in the world in Jesus' time. The religious leaders of Jesus' time tried to trick Jesus into making political statements, into turning away from his basic message about God and Jesus responded with the familar "Render unto Caesar" phrase, which it seems to me, most people have misunderstood to mean that there is a way to serve both God and Caesar, and have intermingled the two.

There were slaves in Jesus' time too, as there were gays, the death penalty, and all the usual political hot buttons. Yet Jesus addressed none of that. When it came to the religious aspect of the death penalty, he addressed only the issue at the heart of it: "Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone."

He did not say that they were not to stone the woman according to religious law. He basically called their attention to the problem at the heart of all judgment - the problem of who is sinless enough to sit in judgment of those who are sinners. And what is justice, if someone who is an equal sinner executes such judgment on another sinner? Is that justice when the executioner is as guilty as the prisoner?

If Christians participate in anti-abortion work, or anti-slavery work, it is the way and the mindset from which they approach those things that makes the difference. Not so long ago it was very shameful for an unmarried woman to give birth to a child out of wedlock and who were those people who made it so shameful that women would subject themselves to attempts to rid themselves of the fetus even when there was a risk to their own life?

That's the real question. The real question isn't about abortion, but about what it is that, Christians have done or are doing to make it unnecessary.

Christians are to be salt and light. James says, "do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?"

There are two kingdoms - the Kingdom of Heaven and the kingdoms of the earth, which Satan offered Jesus - worldly power over heavenly power. Christians today chose too often worldly power and want to impose Christianity and Christian ideals of right and wrong on everyone else. Jesus never did that.

He spoke to believers about what they ought to do in their own lives as believers, not about what they should be telling unbelievers to do. And their actions are the witness that has served to bring about modern notions of democracy, down to the idea that since in Christ we are not strangers but brothers, no Christian person can hold another person as his slave. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, in Christ Jesus.

So it isn't so much a straight answer. The Bible isn't a handbook in the sense that we can look up every situation or moral delimma and find a quick and clearly right solution. More often that not the answer is something along the lines of "rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and having to decide whether you yourself are without sin enough to cast the first stone.

And yes, Mennonites do lots of missionary stuff, particularly the Mennonite Brethern which are evangelical. Traditionally Mennonites have believed that the Word was best spread by your actions to others which is how the Mennonite Central Commitee came to be. It does relief work all over the world.

I agree that we are God's hands on earth and that we are made to do things for him. But God's hands on earth have no national identity, no skin color or vote. God does not love the Iraqis less than you or me. So my position is that I help, without thought to where my country stands or doesn't stand politically because I do not identify with it in that way. If my country is at war with another country, my country's enemy soldier is not my enemy and I would not deny him a cup of water.

However, that is not to say that my country does not benefit if I serve at a soup kitchen, give a beggar a dollar, a moment to a child or visit someone in prison, or, like Jesus did, pay my taxes. I pray for my country. I pray for its leaders.

These things do not have the possibility of being contrary to anything God wants. This is the "treasure in Heaven" we are to store, the things that moths and time don't corrupt.

When Daniel and the other captives in Babylon were offered wine but requested water, they did not insist that everyone in Babylon ought to drink water. They obeyed God rather than man, even though they had no way of knowing whether that would mean their immediate execution as enemy captives. Why are so many Christians nowadays not content with drinking their metaphorical water but want to insist that the proper Christian thing to do is to vote in candidates who think that drinking only water should be the law of the land?

Not very free, if you ask me. Neither from the POV of democracy nor from the idea that Christ freely calls men to come to Him.

This article on an anabaptist site is really what answers your questions about me for me, better than I can do. It is the traditional Mennonite position vis a vis Christians and the nation but it is also my personal position.

We just had an election. I did not vote. The country in which I hold citizenship is not here.

Layla

Should Christians take action?

I think we are in agreement that God's will is always done, and that He is in control of all circumstance, great or small. Yes?

Should, then, a Christian take action to pursue what they perceive as God's will in their lives, or in the community at large?

Should a Christian actively participate in anti-abortion work, anti-slavery work, anti-poverty work? Should a Christian become a missionary? A policeman, fireman, soldier?

As I understand it, Mennonites don't do missionary stuff (although actually there are Mennonite communities down here that do - I think?). They don't do evangelism, they don't vote, they don't become firemen/policemen/soldiers, etc. Yes? (I know that you don't hold all the Mennonite beliefs at this point - I am interested in yours more than theirs).

As far as I'm concerned, I pray hard that God's will be done. I pray hard that He show me what it is that He wants me to do. And then I go DO it. God's people are His body on this earth, His hands, His feet, His mouth. Made of clay we are.... and like clay we crumble and stumble and don't do a great job. But we are still made to do things.

And so, I vote. I sign petitions. I evangelize, in my own small way. I've fed the poor, visited those in prison... you get the picture. I don't do that to ensure my salvation, I do that to honor the One who saved me.

Will His will be done, no matter what? YES. But I want to be a part of the doing. I ache to be His servant, active in His business.

Let's dig into this, as it seems to be the core of much of our contention over the course of this discussion. :)

Got it

Yes, it is illuminating. Thank you. But I don't think he sees me as his sister in Christ. I think he thinks I am an unbeliever.

And your other point is well taken, that some Christians are trying to choose between two evils. Of course, that is why I stopped voting about three elections ago. I don't think it is good enough for a Christian to choose between the lesser of two evils, but that we serve Christ and him alone.

Interestingly, on - I believe 60 Minutes, a week or two ago - they interviewed the commander of the US forces in Iraq and asked him whom he was voting for. He said when he'd gotten to a certain level (I am not sure which level that was), he'd stopped voting altogether, as his job was not to take sides but to support whatever government was in power.

Pretty much my rational for why Christians ought not to vote. That Christian loyalty to the Supreme Commander ought to take precedence over earthly rulers, and I can't think of a single earthly ruler who is "worthy", if you want to call it that, of a Christian's vote. Much like the Roman soldier who told Jesus he believed he could heal at a distance just by his say-so, I thought this commander "got" it, even if he wasn't thinking in Christian terms but rather those of his duty to his earthly masters.

Layla

Illumination

I think I can offer light to both of your posts... 1) I know where the "You're not letting people be blessed by helping you" thing came from, it's from a very popular Christian book out called "90 minutes in Heaven". Don't take offense. I've seen his flavor of person many a time, what he's trying to do is just inappropriate familiarity. He figures since he's your brother in Christ, he's qualified to support you and give you counsel, etc. Which is true, to a point... there is a reason we are called to fellowship. BUT I agree, he's over the line. Again, appropriate behavior in a friend or someone who was in your small fellowship group, or even in your church if you had a small enough church. It's not just among Christians that people try inappropriate familiarity to make friends or show that they are friendly people. (Culturally this would be I guess Texan or Southern? It's not really Californian, but I can see as a Canadian/Mennonite that it would freak you out totally).

As for the conservative Christians and Palin, they fall into two camps. One is the camp that is just so happy to see someone living SOME of the morals they say that they live by (and abortion is a huge huge deal here) that they'll ignore the whole "woman in power" thing, if in fact they have it on the radar at all. Mostly I think they don't have it on radar. (On radar-in their awareness field).

The other camp can be found in plentitude here: http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/
They give much the same arguments that you do.

I don't think it's as much logic as trying to sell yourself the lesser of two evils, for those who are Christians in politics. And of course we can't be so anti-PC as to say that women can't be in charge... nope. ;)

Insofar as I'm concerned, a woman is free to exercise temporal power over men, but not over her husband. I'm not about to obey some random man just because he's MALE. No thanks. My spiritual concerns with Palin would be more the ethical questions and uses of power that seem to be cropping up. (So she's good on abortion, but what about everything else?). And if she DID end up as President, what about her hubby? (I would be much happier if she was 20 years older, widowed, and didn't have the ethical questions - I think I'd be quite enthusiastic about her in that case).

It doesn't matter who I vote for for President, the electoral college system ensures that all the votes in Cali will be going to Obama anyway. (sigh)

Helpful?

Women in power

From previous conversations, not necessarily on this blog, I know that you believe that a wife ought to be submissive to her husband in accordance with the apostle Paul's words in Ephesians 5: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Or as in 1 Timothy 2: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression

I am not sure what exactly this submitting to the man means to you, but Mennonites also traditionally have believed in the submission of the female to the male. This mean that while, if the men were farmers or something like that, the woman certainly partook and helped wherever she could outside, but that her primary purpose was to raise the children, teach them about God, take care of the garden, and do all the canning and such necessary to survival.

So women worked, but stay-at-home moms' work is often not considered to be "real" work and in my opinion, usually wasn't considered "real" work by their Mennonite husbands. The men did the "real" work.

Growing up in the seventies, I recall listening to many discussions about women in the work force - meaning women working not on the family farm, but in an actual work place. It was heavily frowned upon from several perspectives. One being that the man was seen as not being a good provider for his family, that his wife "had" to work - laziness being almost a capital offence among Mennonites, and then the other being the verses I already referenced - that those women who had a career of sorts were placing themselves in a situation where they were equal to men.

I know this isn't only a Mennonite perspective, but that was the perspective of most Christian denominations at that time.

Which brings me to the current election in the US. Sarah Palin. Apparently admired by many right-wing Christian women, who seem to see no contradiction between in her conservative Christian views, and being a working woman in a position of authority over men.

The women who support her tend to like her because she is against abortion in any circumstances, even rape or incest, and seem to believe that she holds their conservative, small "c" Christian beliefs. And I would assume that one of the fundamental traditional small "c" conservative Christian beliefs would include the belief that the man is the head of the household.

So what's up with that? I don't get it. It's not okay for a woman to have the final say in a marriage but it is okay for a woman to potentially have the final say when it comes to governing a country?

What's the rational here?

I actually heard a Baptist pastor interviewed on CNN some time ago who seemed sincere, not out for the limelight, did not affiliate himself with either candidate and confuse God and Caesar who, in spite of opposing arguments by Christian women on the same show, stuck to the point, which is basically the point I made already. He believes it is clearly written in the Bible that a woman ought not to be in position of authority over a man. He did not mock Sarah Palin. He did not endorse Obama. He made it clear that his duty as a pastor was to remind people what the Bible said, no matter how politically incorrect it might be. And he clearly was of the opinion that in running as VP, or even as Governor, she was not behaving in accordance with traditional Christian interpretation of the Bible.

I was a little relieved that someone made that point since I don't understand how the right wing Christian element, can support her nomination by their own standards, given my understanding of traditional values.

To me it seems clear that either conservative Christians who believe in a wife submitting to her husband, and that the man is above the woman, because he was created first, are playing fast and loose with their own ideas of what constitutes Biblical literalism. In which case it hardly comes as a surprise that conservative Christians lose respect since they don't actually follow any thought through to it's conclusion and then stick by it, come what may.

*I* have no problem with women in politics. But I don't believe that the way in which submission has been interpreted by conservative Christians is correct either. So I'm not contradicting my own views, which they are.

The other point this Baptist pastor made was that while many fundamentalist Christians (this was at the beginning when McCain announced her as his nominee) were ecstatic over her nomination, that actually, Biblically, a woman in power is used as an example of God's disapproval of a nation, not his approval.

Isaiah 3:11: As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

How is this not an example of conservative Christians picking and choosing just how they will interpret the Bible?

If you are interested in a link to the transcript, I could try and look it up on CNN. They have transcripts of a lot of interviews.

So, if you can explain this to me.....

Layla

Well, I'm relieved that you find this odd too. I don't know if he is only targeting me or if he does this to everyone. I just can't see how he could stay in business long if he does it to everyone. So I think that part of how he is thinking, or was thinking originally, was that because I am of Mennonite background, that it would be acceptable. I just can't see that he would do this, in this way, straight off the bat, to someone who isn't identified with a religious ethnic group.

Again, I certainly don't find prayer offensive but like you said, it's usually your friends, people you actually know, who would tell you they are praying for you. I don't object to him praying. But I feel like I'm being pushed into a corner which makes me all the less inclined to say anything at all about my beliefs. I am pretty sure that nothing short of a grand Pentecostal display of emotion, complete with "Praise Jesuses" would satisfy him, that my soul is in the hands of the Lord.

I am not a hugger so I am certainly not someone who is ever going to do some sort of big emotional outburst in the presence of someone I don't know.

It would be easy enough to tell him to stop but the thing is, turning the tables, however gently, and giving him a Bible verse such as Matthew 6:6 in return, would still seem like I was somehow being snotty about it to a man who I think is basically well-meaning. If it came from a place of malice, I could say it. It's just not so easy when a person is basically decent and means well.

I've seen him 6 times, each time he has prayed for my back. I decided to let that go since there was nothing offensive or even overly pushy in his actual out loud prayers. But inwardly I figured that if he starts praying out loud that I will see the light, based on the assumption that I haven't, well, that is more than I think I can be quiet about. But I don't want to be rude either. I don't want to hurt his feelings.

Although his wife is of Mennonite ethnic background, apparently the family attends a Pentecostal type church, so I think that maybe his behaviour is considered more normal in that setting.

He also suggested to me the first time I saw him that my back trouble and the fact that there are a lot of things that I unfortunately depend on family members to do for me, that I "should" think about the fact that in wanting or trying to do everything on my own and not asking for help, that I am depriving family and friends of the blessings of the Lord, as in the whole "it is better to give than receive" thing.

I didn't say one word but what I thought was he's being a little unreasonable, since I *am* paying him and if he followed the thought through to its logical conclusion, he ought to be treating me for free, on the same grounds of it being better to give than receive. And it kind of hurt me, for him, that he didn't seem to realize what he was saying, if you know what I mean. Someone he is trying to "reach" who doesn't believe in God, would pick up on that right away and his witness would do more harm than good.

He is only a one minute drive from my house so I really don't want to change. It's far more convenient than having to, with my back, drive an hour to get the same treatment elsewhere where a practitioner might be a little more professional.

So anyway, I've been busy with getting ready for winter. Everything is moving in slow motion due to my back and there's so much to do here before winter which could hit any day. It's not unknown for us to have snow for Halloween.

Layla

I was wondering what happened to you!

Ettiquette varies I think, but he was over the line.

Then again, my back guy always wanted to think positive thoughts with his forehead pressed to a hand pressed to my forehead when he was finishing up. (I'm pretty sure he was wiccan or new-age, based on the red-string wrapped herb bundles in the corner). It might be a health-practioner thing to urge religion on you.

I would not find his behavior disturbing in someone who went to church with you - I have friends who like to do the praying on the phone thing. But they're my FRIENDS.

If he did that here he'd be out of business in less than a month.

What would I do in a situation like that? Probably tell him where I went to church and discuss it. He probably WAS trying to evangelize you, so if you're saved, he's going to knock it off. (Hopefully).

But you don't go to church. So he'd probably find that out and urge you to go to church at his church and bury you in fellowship verses.

I'd change practioners if possible (and if it's helping). No reason to be made uncomfortable. My wiccan rolfer didn't make me uncomfortable, I just ignored his mind meld business (at the time, now I'd ask him not to do it). If it's not possible to change practioners, I'd say, "I am saved, but my relationship with the Lord is an intensely private thing, and I would prefer not to discuss it during our sessions. Thank you."

So. Yep. He was a crazy one. You get 'em. They're just like big silly dogs, trying too hard. Try to take them with a grain of salt and recognize that God takes all kinds in His family. :)

Christian witnessing etiquette

Okay, so I have a situation/question about evangelical-style talking about God to strangers in non-religious settings.

I don't want to go into exact details to avoid identifying the guilty, but as you know I have back problems. Recently I started a holistic type of treatment that I'd heard had some positive results for some people. After researching it on the Internet, it seemed like there might be something to it, and I looked for a business near me that might do this sort of stuff.

Lo and behold, there's a guy who does it very near me. I had never heard of him at all. So I called the number, left a message on the answering service and later that day, the guy called me back. I explained what my medical problems were exactly and he gave me an appointment.

Then he asks out of the blue if he can pray for me. Now this is not usual or normal, at least not here, not when you don't know someone at all, and not when you're not calling a pastor. This holistic stuff has nothing to do with any religion.

However, unfortunately, sometimes when people say "I'll pray for you" it has no more meaning than "How are you?" So, I decided, given the largely Mennonite area, that maybe he thought that it (he is not a Mennonite) was good for business to say things like "Can I pray for you." That attitude is certainly not an uncommon one among certain Mennonites. And since he knew my name, he knew I was ethnically Mennonite.

So I was taken aback, and thinking this is weird, but I say "sure" because really, he's put me in an awkward position with that question. What if I was an atheist? Even an atheist might say "yes" out of politeness, rather than feel themselves wrangled into a religious discussion.

I was thinking when he asked me if he could pray for me, that if he in fact prayed for me at all, that he would do it quietly, on his own time. Instead he started praying out loud right on the phone.

So my next thought, although there was nothing wrong with his prayer, it's just that this is so totally odd, is that he's a weirdo, maybe a serial killer. It's just so not normal to do that here. I have serious second thoughts about going to this appointment since it is odd also that I've never heard of him. I call around and find no one who has heard of him.

About 30 minutes before my appointment, I actually do find someone who does have an idea of who he is and he is married into a local family. So I keep the appointment, but I'm a bit nervous. I just do not, absolutely, one hundred percent not, discuss with complete strangers my religious beliefs.

It's a little like if you were to take your car into a garage to have work done, and the mechanic asks if he can pray for you. It's not expected. It's not a specifically religious situation and I do not know this guy from Adam.

Well, during the appointment, he again prays for my back out loud. It's not that I don't appreciate prayer but if he really wanted to pray for me, and be a witness or whatever you call it in church, why not pray quietly to yourself for me until you get to know me better?

I'm all tensed up because I have no idea where this prayer thing is going to lead - if he's going to start asking me if I'm born-again or what. This feels pushy and presumptuous.

On my third appointment, he asks if he can "give me" a Bible verse. I don't even know what that means to "give" me a Bible verse but I do get that he obviously has decided that I am not a Christian and he wants to evangelize me. With a frozen, constipated polite smile on my face, I say, "Of course not."

He then says, "Do you have a Bible?"

So you see where this is going. When I reply in the affirmative, I get a look that says he thinks I'm lying.

I do not like to feel pushed into disclosing personal beliefs before I am ready to do so. Anyway, "giving" me a Bible verse turns out to mean writing a Psalm verse down on my appointment card for me to look up in my non-existent Bible.

Now if I was the heathen he thinks I am apparently, then the Psalm itself would have no meaning. And if I am not the heathen or as Biblically illiterate as he thinks I am, then he's just insulted me. Because I do not get this "giving" of a Bible verse. I understand the theory behind it, in that some Christians think they are offering comfort, but again, I have a Bible. Several. I read it regularly. I know what comforts me and what doesn't. I don't need anyone to give me a Bible verse.

I resisted the temptation to tell him that he could give me a Bible verse if I could give him one.

What is the proper, Christian, not wanting to insult him etiquette, to gently tell him (I have come to believe he is sincere and well-meaning) to back off a little or to even express my belief that even if he sees his entire life as an opportunity to witness, going about it the way he's going about it with a lot of assumptions, is not really likely to gain him any converts.

I could for instance, shoot him with a Matthew 6:6 in exchange for his Psalm 89. But it all seems so childish.

Layla

Response

Well... we've disposed of niceness, more or less, although we disagree. :)

To answer the "I'm not sure what you mean that there's no segregation by race but by cultural choices. Could you elaborate?"

Sure! Little difficult to explain but I will use the example of Hispanic folks in my area. (Most of the folks in my area are Hispanic). There are the folks who dress in "normal" clothes, have "normal" jobs, and speak Spanish primarily at home. No segregation that I've noticed between those folks and everyone else. There are the folks that wear gang clothes -they pretty much hang out with other gang people (duh). There are the folks who are new immigrants, who do the yucky work, and don't speak English yet - they pretty much hang out with others like themselves.

Does that make more sense? My son's three best friends are three different races. But the kids in his class that fall into the groups that self-segregate don't really hang out as much with the other kids. Of course they don't... how am I going to set up play rules with a mom when I can't talk to her? And later, when the gangbangers take over... well, I know my husband got randomly jumped walking home just for being a big white guy. It happens. /shrug.

On to the next issue... do you have one handy?

Niceness

Sometimes I'm just plain floored because I think that yes, we do live in different worlds and have different mindsets, and I always try to be careful in the sense that people often make mistakes in assuming their "norm" is *the* norm. Some things though are seeing the glass as half full as opposed to half empty. And reading and rereading what you have to say, while there are some cultural differences, I still think it is mostly a different way of seeing the glass.

I haven't ever lived in the States for any length of time and there's only so much you can ever know about another country without having lived there, but the comments Americans living in Canada make, is that Canadians are nicer, and less aggressive, less apt to judge people by their bank accounts.

I have no particular experience to say that that is true or not true. I think Canadians are a lot more worldly in their mind-sets. Americans seem very insular and not given to seeing much beyond their borders or interests, and with an unfortunate tendency to assume the rest of the world wants what they think we should want.

Canada, on the whole, is a very politically correct nation. By politically correct, I mean that generally (there are always exceptions) we are agreed that race, religion and prejudice and hate speech are not things we want in our country. We are generally agreed that each human being has an intrinsic value, and that belief in turn is what gives rise to our social programs, such as national health care.

We work less than Americans, and pay more taxes. We don't wig out about prayer said in our government or our schools. but the nature of that prayer has evolved, mostly without much conflict, into general themes of peace, rather than focusing on that which divides people.

We also want less. We don't believe that the rights of the individual automatically take precedence over the good of society. Which isn't to say at all that we don't have bigots and racists and crime problems. We have less of them than the US, but every country in the western world has less crime than the US.

Some of these things various governments instituted long before the general population was ready for them and caused a lot of vicious debate but you see, I don't see "elitism" as a dirty word. I want people in government who are smarter than I am. I don't want someone who knows no more than me there. And as years have passed, a lot of the things the vast majority of people thought they were against, have grown to be a valued part of our society. Canada had bitter arguments about multiculturalism in the 70s and 80s, and now the children of those most enraged at the time, are learning second and third languages and participating in multicultural events and have friends of many cultures.

On the other hand, people's opinions and view of their society are often formed by their circle of acquaintances, which can skew one's impression of one's country. And I'm not entirely confident that my own view isn't skewed by my circle of acquaintances, which consists in large measure of immigrants from European countries, academics and artists, with hardly a right-winger among them. I tend to think the right-wingers are the aberration, not the norm.

Of course you will find right wingers (by Canadian standards. Our right wingers would probably be considered left wingers in the US) in rural communities or in fundamentalist churches. A lot of that is a matter of education and exposure. Bible schools are not exactly educational. But mostly it is the older generation that has found it difficult to adjust, and their time has passed, for good and ill. The children and the children's children are not the grandparents.

And I am shocked - jaw-droppingly shocked - when I run into someone who makes racists or homophobic comments. People like that are not part of my norm. But the government has also tried hard over the years to educate people against racism and racist "jokes", so I think that even among racists, people here are careful before they said anything like that.

It's not that I believe that for example, there are no racists, but rather that it has become unacceptable for hate-filled comments to be spoken. People assume racists are uneducated, stupid even. I'm cool with that. I don't believe in that kind of freedom of speech. Just by not feeling as free to speak hate, by realizing that chances are good that if you open your mouth, you are as likely as not to be told that your hate is unacceptable, hate-filled people are less likely to open their mouths. Which in turn has an impact on society as a whole.

Among educated people, or artists for example, they are as likely as not to take pride in their second-hand clothes and the small "footprint" their houses leave. It's not that there aren't people who are money or status conscious and building monster houses that are a crying shame to look at, but they are the new-money, no education people. Even they change eventually, when they are trying to get into old money clubs and realize that old money doesn't live conspicuously any more, and that old money is actually concerned about the rest of the world.

And it's not that no Canadian kid ever calls another a "fag" or a "retard" but bullying, when I was in school, was not taken seriously at all. It is now. It isn't perfect, but the more it is hammered into young minds that it isn't acceptable, the more it becomes as you say, the new "cool" but I don't see a good thing being the "new cool" being a bad thing in any way. That's how you get people to do good things. It's no different from the anti-smoking campaign, which succeeded largely in getting kids to think smoking wasn't cool. The health issue alone is never going to stop a kid from smoking if it is considered cool.

I would have shaved my head if that had been cool when I was a kid. (I realize it may be cool now but it sure wasn't when I was a teenager.)

Yes, I expect things are a bit different in California and looks, if you are an actress, are obviously going to be more important because of the nature of the profession. A writer needs a laptop, an actor needs looks - in addition to acting ability of course.

I'm not sure what you mean that there's no segregation by race but by cultural choices. Could you elaborate?

As to swearing and things like kids swearing nowadays, dropping the F-bomb, when people say now publicly words they would never have dared think, I think it's liberating. I think it's a far cry from the air kisses society matrons give each other while they rip each other to shreds behind their backs.

The same moms who in the 50s would never have thought the f-word, are also the same moms who thought blacks were good for servants, the same moms who supported segregation, the same moms who would have disowned their children for marrying outside their race. I'd way rather they let lose with an f-bomb.

I'm way more in favor of the moms who march in peace rallies and disrupt the neighborhood by bringing attention to injustice. I'm all in favour of people who catch cops on videos doing bad things instead of the 1950s way of thinking that the cops were always right.

Life was not anything more than superficially pretty for white middle class people in the days gone by. The days gone by are not the good-old-days for most other people.

When you say you are looked at differently because your car isn't washed or your waistline isn't like Barbies - well I have no doubt that there are people like that, but some of it might also be your own self-consciousness. I have about ten years on you, and I know I was more self-conscious at your age than I am now.

One thing I did notice on our recent road trip, was the large number of brand spanking new trucks and SUVs - jaw droppingly expensive, and all shiny and washed, guzzling gas like there is no tomorrow, even in the smallest one-horse towns. Saw no evidence at all of people taking the gas problem seriously. You don't see much of that here. Having a gas-guzzling, bad for the environment vehicle is embarrassing. The looks you get here are not those of admiration but of disapproval.

I'm totally okay about people doing nice things because they want to look nice even if they aren't nice people. I'd rather they were nice people but if they can't be nice because they are nice, I'm all in favor of them being nice because otherwise they get the nasty looks they've subjected others to for years.

In spite of our freezing cold winters, I gave up wearing a fur coat years ago, due to dirty looks. I should say I never wanted a fur coat to begin with but it was a gift from my husband so I wore it for a while. As someone who experiences -40 degree temperatures fairly regularly, I can say that there is no man made fabric that will keep you warm in that. It is not a matter of vanity or fashion.

However, I now only wear it to walk the dogs and sometimes if it is very cold and I have to drive many miles, I stick it in the van in case my vehicle breaks down and I have to walk or stay there the night. But I don't wear it. People wearing furs do not get admiring looks here, I can tell you. And it's really not quite fair unless the people who started the whole anti-fur movement actually live in the sort of godforsaken cold people here live in for months at a time. Every homeless person in Canada ought to have a fur coat by law. They ought to be as cheap as borscht here, as necessary as bread. (I am no fan of winter.)

I feel bad about our old van, because it is so big but my husband can no longer get into a lower vehicle. But we have only one vehicle, not two. Even so, I'm keeping an eye out for a vehicle that can hold the dogs and my husband that is less bad on gas and the environment.

And I'm mostly amazed, given how incredibly hard life is, that people we love die, sometimes terribly, and people who loved them still find enough hope in them to go on. I am moved to tears when strangers go out of their way to protect another stranger in trouble. I am moved to tears by people who are ordinary, every day people who perform every day acts of mercy and grace, going forward in hope, even when we have no direct current word from God, no visions of angels to comfort us on our darkest nights, nothing but something that may be shadows seen through a glass darkly, that people are still capable of love, of putting their lives at risk for other people, even people who have seen nothing or little of that same grace and love in their own lives.

I am so impressed by how good people are.

Layla

We live in different worlds

That does it, Layla... I'm moving in! You live in such a different world.

I don't know that people are any less or more nice now than they used to be, only that people as a whole aren't very nice. We've just found new ways of being mean than we used to use. No more segregation by skin color, we do it by cultural choices. And not using fag or retard as an insult? Certainly ladies of our age don't use such words - but did *our* moms? I know my pet teenager is forever using terms like that (and getting lectured by his "auntie"). He might not care if you are actually gay - but he'll still use the word itself as an insult. (He's East Coast upper-middle-class/suburban).

Likewise, there is a LOT of label consciousness and outward perfection consiousness here - but duh, I live in SoCal. (How toned you are mostly shows your bank account, likewise your accessories). Money *always* talks! I get fishy looks for my inexpensive clothes when I go shopping outside of my immediate city, and I get fishy looks for my waistline and my car (I don't wash it much) and lots of things that I think are just fine, but folks here don't agree.

PC - I am not at all convinced that PC is anything more than euphemisms updated to the 90s and beyond. I remember my PC lecture with the syllabus hand out back in college. It's about looking like a "nice" person, whatever the current definition of "nice" is. Right now it's "PC" on the coasts/cities. Elsewhere I hear that it's still a church-going person (even if you don't actually have faith). It would be best if everyone attended church and never dreamed of using derogatory terms about anyone, ever.

I am excited about prophecy right now... :) So of course I'm extra-interested in the OT as a key to NT prophecy/timing. Take it with a grain of salt, yes, but I'll be straight up - the loaf's name is hope.

I am trying to figure out how to celebrate the OT feasts/fasts in a respectful way that's both somewhat public and between me and God. Ideas are welcome! Would you like to join me in celebrating Rosh Hashana? It's trumpets, I don't have a trumpet... but seems like the Jewish folks like to stay up and light candles and generally act like the bride waiting for her groom to show up... I feel like that. Even if my Groom doesn't show *this* year, or even if He doesn't pick a Rosh Hashana to show up on at all... I've still got my lamp full of oil.

Happy!

People: better or worse?

I thought of this when I read your last post about people sucking, and the general idea that things in the world are much worse, not better than they used to be.

First of all I think a lot depends on where you are but generally, in the western world, I find people are much nicer than they used to be. Political correctness is more good than not good, when it means that kids aren't calling each other "retard" and "fag" in the interests of hurting each other's feelings. I think that people are much more sensitive than they used to be to the outsider. The more outside the "norm" you are in school, the more "in" you are these days. These days you can wear anything, and still be accepted. If you wear old clothing, they call it "vintage" and you're still cool.

When I went to school, it was all about the right label on your clothes, and the exact same clothes before they went out of style, and styles used to change every season.

It's now recognized that people aren't cookie cutter shapes and there's a recognition of people's strengths and weaknesses, and people tend to give each other a hand up more, even if that niceness is legislated by the law in such programs as Affirmative Action in the US.

I see more people going out of their way to help people who are poor than they used to, when being poor was just shy of having leprosy, as though people thought you had done something to deserve it.

Going even further back, just 45 years ago, as the speech of Obama's reminded us being the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech, black people in the US were still little better than slaves. And not so far back from that they were slaves.

Back in 1972, the death penalty was abolished in Canada, although the last execution in Canda happened in 1962, a good ten years before it was abolished. And it hasn't been that long either since it wasn't just a a man's "right" to beat his wife whenever he felt like it.

One could argue that there are more serial killers in the world today. I think what has happened is that bad people, have become more bad, while the vast majority of people have become nicer. I don't think people suck at all. I think people are amazing.

Layla

Messianic foreshadowing in the OT

Well, I have a book in that case that you might be interested in. It is called The Fall Feasts of Israel by Mitch and Zhava Glaser, published by Moody Press in 1987. If you can't find it at your library, I'll be happy to mail it to you. You can send me your address privately. It is a very interesting book.

The Glazers are Jewish Christians.

You reference Rosh Hashanah, or the Feast of Trumpets in one of your posts. Now I've always believed that in order to understand what Jesus meant - to truly understand it, one has to understand the OT, the way it was interpreted by the Jews. The themes of Rosh Hashanah are those of judgement and restoration. It's not wrong to call them a foreshadowing of the return of Christ to claim the church, in that I believe that every story in the Bible is there for a distinct purpose. I don't believe the Bible is there as an arbitrary collection of Jewish stories. The stories have a point, and as I've mentioned before, God always has a point. The point of Job, isn't to be a story of God's cruelty or mindless suffering. I think Job was a story that foreshadowed Christ - in telling how the innocent do suffer through no fault of their own.

That idea is a contradiction to "Whatsoever a man soweth so shall he reap" and shows in the example of Jesus' disciples or maybe it was just some on-lookers, who wondered about the blind man whether he was blind due to his own sin or the sins of his fathers.

That's the purpose of the story of Job - to make it clear that there isn't always an easy answer. God never really answers Job, you know, as to why these bad things happened to him. And I don't believe that God is so petty that he thinks another set of children make up for losing the first set. Job may have increased his holdings and had more children, but the scar of what happened to the first must have been there always.

Both the first and second Temples were destroyed on the exact same day - the 9th of Av, on the Jewish calendar.

I don't know that I really like the link that says Christians expect Christ's return on Rosh Hashana. Number one, Rosh Hashana is a period of time. It is certainly a metaphor for Christ's return, for all the reasons mentioned. But why not the Day of Atonement?/ Yom Kippur, whose name in English means "the day of covering or concealing?" Those raptured could be said to be covered or concealed. Or the Feast of Booths or Sukkot, which means "the season of our rejoicing." For surely Christians will rejoice in the day of Christ's return. Or the spring feasts, with their promise of new growth?

In other words, for those wanting to pinpoint a day, things get really blurry really fast. Jesus is said to have been killed before the Passover, which in turn was a remembrance of when the Angel of Death passed over the children of Israel. In retrospect, of course, that fits. But he could have died on the Day of Atonement as well, and we still would have said, "Oh, that fits. He is the scape goat."

If Jesus returns on an Easter morning, we will all say, "Oh, that fits. He rose from the dead on that day." And if on Sukkot, then that fits too.

While I appreciate the way that commentators on this remind Christians that their religion was not born in a vacuum but has a history, I really don't like the attaching of seasons or dates to it. A lot of things can fit. Who would have thought that Jonah spending 3 days in the belly of a whale would be related to the Son of Man spending 3 days in the belly of the earth?

But if on the other hand, your point is about the connection between Judaism and Christianity, Mennonites never lost sight of that connection. We always valued the OT as much as the NT. But I think it might be news to a lot of Christians. I have never been able to understand anti-semitism on the part of so-called Christians considering the Jew from Galilee they claim to follow.

Layla

Next up?

I can be happy with calling them "talents". :) And yes, I would call your "people come ask me for stuff" vibe to be a talent or a calling, because that gives you the opportunity to minister Christian kindness to them, which you do. Not much kindness left in this nasty ol' world... sigh.

But! Onward!! :) I am *geeeking* out on this: http://messianicfellowship.50webs.com/wedding.html
and http://bibleprophesy.org/introtrumpets.htm

So what do you think?

The first link makes me all swooooony, 'cause you know I'm a very romantic girl. :) And the second link makes me EXCITED!

Gifts and callings

I wasn't very happy with my last two posts - it was like there was a word or an idea on the tip of my tongue but I couldn't articulate it. It occurred to me the other day just what it was.

You speak of "gifts." And I think what you call "gifts" I would call "a calling."

As far as I know, I have no gifts that I would attribute to the Holy Spirit. To me, the word "gift" implies something that isn't evident in non-Christians when I look around me. And I just don't see that at all.

For many years and until this day, people who are a little "off" - maybe they have mental health issues or there's something about them that doesn't fit well into the mainstream society, have been coming around my house. Maybe you would call it a gift? I have no real idea why these people feel comfortable in my house. Obviously I try to make them feel comfortable but I would do that for any guest. Even though these unexpected visits maybe don't come at the right time.

I've also had people who are outsiders come to my house and mistake me for a complete fool, presumably for having them over and getting very angry when I wouldn't get involved in things like welfare fraud, ie, wanting to use my address and my name to verify what isn't true. Won't do it. Period. Or people who end up putting you in a position where you are in danger of losing your faith for some reason. I don't feel I am obliged to do what I cannot do, what might put my own immortal soul in jeopardy. It's that avoiding temptation thing. I also have to consider those who are or might be affected by these guests.

If a person somehow causes division or confusion or might lead my husband in a direction that is clearly not a direction to go, then that person is no longer welcome. I am responsible for the souls in my house to a certain extent, just like one would or should not, even in the interests of forgiving, invite a child molester into a house with a child. So my hospitality is conditional. I might not say it, but most people, even ones without mental health issues, understand instinctively that when someone says mi casa su casa, it is not meant literally. It is conditional upon behaviour that is hardly ever spelled out (who greets guests with a long list of what is acceptable and what is not?) but still generally understood.

My parents' house is also a place for misfits to gather. Most of them have their "season," in that they aren't necessarily permanent fixtures but move on after a while.

In one way I can look at this strange attraction I have for outsiders as a "gift" but since it isn't always about good guys, bad strange people are also attracted to me often enough for me to wonder if I have "sucker" printed on my forehead. I can't ever walk down a street, even with a group of friends, and I will be the one the panhandler seeks out, or the kid selling chocolate bars for school fundraisers. I never say no.

But given that I attract con men as well as genuine hurting people, how can this be a gift? I feel I am "called" to give money to whoever asks me, in accordance with Jesus' instructions to "if he asks for your coat, give it to him." I do it because that is what I, as a Christian, am supposed to do, without worrying about where I will get another coat, as the lilies of the field.

So it's intellectual, not that I'm such a good person. Not because I hear the voice of God whispering in my ear. I give what I have, inwardly, to give, not what I don't have.

Other than one of my sisters and one of my brothers, I don't know anyone, Christian or non-Christian who not only gets approached as much as I do, but also gives. I don't worry about being mugged. That seems to be everyone who is freaked out about what I do, their main worry.

When my husband was in the hospital, and I would take breaks by sitting outside in a not very good area of town, homeless people would come around and furtively look for half-smoked cigarettes that hospital visitors had thrown away.

Cigarettes here are very expensive - more than ten dollars a pack. It bothered me, the shame I saw on the faces of many as they tried to act casual about rummaging through the ashtrays or picking cigarettes off the sidewalk. Many were Native Canadians. Tobacco is a part of their culture and religion. As well as an addiction of course.

So I would say, "Excuse me, sir/ma'am. Would you like a cigarette?" And give them whole, unsmoked cigarettes. One man asked for an extra one for his grandmother. I gave him that. These people have way bigger problems than dying of lung cancer. I assume many Christians would have a problem with me doing that, and see cigarettes as sinful.

When my husband was several hours in surgery, and I couldn't stand it any longer, I went for walks because I could not sit still. In retrospect, I think the cigarettes I had been handing out where the reason I wasn't hurt or mugged. It is not a nice area of town.

There were also a lot of people in the hospital - I spent so much time there I got to know regular faces. Some of them needed their shoes tied and nurses wouldn't stop. So I tied them. Others needed to have their wheelchairs pushed to another area, so I did that. One man who had a brain injury and couldn't speak and was in a wheelchair needed a hug. I thought so anyway. So I hugged him and kissed him on the cheek whenever I saw him. It made him feel like a man. (He was a young man. People can get starved for the touch of another human. And as sexual creatures, I think also young men who are in what this man's condition was, he wanted a woman's touch. So I touched him.

I was rather busy at the end of my husband's stay and I still think of all those people.

But this is my duty as a Christian. I wouldn't ever think of it as a gift. I never once preached Christ to them. I tried to act like Christ who touched the lepers and made the blind see, and who saw through to the emotion behind a scarlet woman anointing him with oil bought with presumably with funds earned as a prostitute. A light on a mountain can't be hidden.

I know that there are verses upon verses about gifts, but there is nothing that I read that indicates these gifts are meant for the church today. And even if they are meant for the church today, I think Paul meant "gifts" with a much smaller "g". I think he meant talents. That every person has different talents. But this is true for Christians and non-Christians alike. It is how the world functions.

These talents may include healing by doctors, Christian or not, the ability to take apart cars and put them back together in a working order, or painting wonderful paintings that make people think. Or the ability of the waitress to stand on her feet hour after hour, carrying food to the restaurant's customers. Everything works together to make the whole. Take out any one thing and there' s no society.

I'm not sure if I've explained my position any better?

Layla

Gifts post, with verses (KJV)

Mark 16:17-18 And these signs shall follow those who believe: In my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

1 Corinthians 14: 22 Wherefore, tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not; but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them who believe.

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

1 Corinthians 12:7-11 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit. For to one is given, by the Spirit, the word of wisdom; to another, the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another, faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, discerning of spirits; to another, various kinds of tongues; to another, the interpretation of tongues. But all these worketh that one and the very same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

Let’s start with the basics. Layla, I know that you are a believer in the inerrant Word of God. It’s the Bible that sets the foundation to all our conversations. Spiritual gifts aren’t just given the odd verse here and there, there are CHAPTERS about them. So, therefore, they exist. No ifs, ands, or buts – God says that He gives us gifts through the Holy Spirit, so He does.

I think one of the things that is key here is the “dividing to every man severally as he will” (my Bible doesn’t capitalize pronouns – but I’m thinking the “he” here would be the Spirit not “each man”. Otherwise we could pick our own gifts and what a mess that would be). God gives us what He wants to give us, and He gives it to us for whatever season He chooses to. Perhaps a day, perhaps a year, perhaps a lifetime. My church gets into identifying those gifts, both as a reassurance and to identify where you should be ministering and serving. I’m good at mercy and counsel – so I counsel people. I’m geeking out more and more about learning, is that the gift of knowledge? LOL. Is this conversation we’re having not being posted *as* a ministry attempt? Of course it is.

I pulled different subjects out of your last two posts and discussed them in paragraphs, I don’t think they flow particularly well from paragraph to paragraph. Sorry! :P But onward…

The popular understanding in my church is that the snakes and poison gifts were specifically given to the apostles, and are known as the apostolic gifts. Since we don’t have apostles anymore, those gifts are given only as it suits the Lord and fall under the category of miracles. I would say that the folks that drink poison and handle serpents certainly have the gift of FAITH – more than I do. (Paul had those gifts – remember the snake who bit him on that island?)

Faith as a mustard seed – well, if we had more faith, why would we *try* to move mountains? That would be mean. Not to mention kind of testing… you know if you had the faith to know you could do it, why would you do it except to test it, and if you needed to test it, you wouldn’t have that much faith. Better to plant that mustard seed and let it grow into a plant big enough that birds can sit on it (and it does, we have wild mustard on the hills here – a good wet year will see it over my head). The church of today, in the West, has about as much faith as a soggy breadcrumb. (VERY sadly, we do live in the time of the apostate church).

As for tongues, I don’t believe in a spirit-language. Tongues are given “for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not…” well, babble isn’t a sign to anyone. However, I had a pastor who said he’d once had an experience of genuine tongues – he’d been preaching in English and a few members of his audience had heard him in other languages, and grabbed their friends and said, “He’s preaching in xxx?” “No – he’s preaching in English!” Those folks didn’t speak English, but heard the sermon in their own language. Now, that qualifies as both the spirit of order and the laws of tongues, that there be someone to interpret, etc.

Do Christians have more mercy/love/kindness than non-Christians? The closer we get to the Holy Spirit, the more we see the fruits of His work in our lives. (Those are fruit as well as gifts). But it’s not a zero-sum game. We don’t all start out at the same spot on the nice-o-meter. I have a friend who is a very unpleasant person to hang out with. She’s irritating. She’s a believer, she goes to church, she has real faith. But pleasant? No. But where did she start? Oh … well, her life’s been so bad that it’s a wonder that she’s not homeless and talking to the voices in her head. She manages kindness to the people around her *even though she’s not “nice”*. Why? Because she has God. *I* am a nice person from a nice family, and I know how to play the nice game. Without God I’d still play it on the face… and be a selfish wench following my own desires in private. God knows, and He’s the only judge. (This is where we’re not supposed to be judges. You don’t judge a stranger on their walk with God).

I guess the comment about doing good things as a part of our natures might follow here. I’m glad that you live in a nice part of the world, where people still are nice. I don’t. And it’s getting worse coming up behind us. You see, folks were *taught* how to behave nicely, that it was just “something you did”. No more. Do you know that I get startled praise from shop owners because my kids say “please” and “thank you”? No, this isn’t inbred. People SUCK. The old nature is nasty and horrible, diseased at its core. YOU have a new nature, the Holy Spirit inside of you expressing His gifts of love and mercy and kindness through you. Of course you do good things. It would be against your (new) nature to do otherwise. And hey – I think that it’s great that you have kicked your old nature to the curb to the place that you don’t notice the battle. I could wish the same for myself!

Maybe that’s where the difference we are having here come down. Cultural – Mennonites don’t do self-absorbed “what am *I* good at?” things, evangelicals do. But are you gifted, my sister? Oh YES. Yes you most certainly are. J

On to the next topic, and a crunchy one. What do you think of the practice of celebrating Biblical feasts (aka Jewish) instead of the current lot that the Christian west celebrates? I’ve been reading up on Rosh Hashana in the Messianic Jewish pages (It comes next)… very interesting. I have always thought that Judaism is the most beautiful religion on the planet – ‘course it should be, since God put it together. J

Happy Saturday! :D

- Hearth