Sunday, 29 June 2008

A Couple of New Blogs

There are a couple of new(er) bloggers on the block.

One is my son-in-law, Jon, who has just jumped into the pool, so to speak, with a blog whose name (and the concept thereof) I think is terrific. The name of his site is, But That's Not What Ships Were Made For The title, as he explains in one of his first posts, he took from one of those motivational posters entitled "RISK". The caption says, "A ship in the harbor is safe, but that's not what ships were made for." He explains it further, as well as tells us a little about himself, on his blog... Check it out.

The other blog is by his father, Dave. I'm never sure how to explain our relationship. He is either my son-in-law's father or my daughter's father-in-law. I just refer to him as my co-father-in-law. In any case, he is also my brother (in Christ). Dave is the pastor of a Baptist church in Fort Francis Ontario (and a wonderful preacher, by the way). His blog is entitled, God's Power in My Weakness

Check them both out and I hope you enjoy them.

Take Care

More Unintended Consequences

This article in the Edmonton Journal brought to mind my category of Unintended consequences.

Mr Mew was, I am sure, quite sincere in his desire to see equality for blacks in Rhodesia, as no doubt were all the nations and individuals calling for and enforcing sanctions against the white government of the time. Rhodesia was a prosperous and thriving nation then, the bread basket of Southern Africa.

Now they have Robert Mugabe.

The early years of Mugabe's rule saw killings targeting the Ndebele tribe in the Matabeleland and Midlands areas of Zimbabwe. Since 1998 Mugabe's policies have increasingly elicited domestic and international denunciation. His government pursued a costly intervention in the Second Congo War, expropriated thousands of white-owned farms, printed hundreds of trillions of Zimbabwean dollars triggering hyperinflation, and has been accused of harassing and intimidating political opponents, particularly members of the Movement for Democratic Change. Zimbabwe's economy spiraled downward, with food and oil shortages, and with massive internal displacement and emigration. During this period Mugabe's policies have been denounced in the West and at home as racist against Zimbabwe's white minority (emphasis mine, JK)

Also of interest from the article comes this quote,
Even the World Council of Churches seemed to have lost its sanity when it donated $250,000 to the guerrillas...

Sometimes we just need to mind our own business and not think we can solve every problem in the world. What is our business? As Christians it is to...
...go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything [Jesus has] commanded [us].

Enough said.

Take Care

Saturday, 28 June 2008

Guest Post - Comments From My Brother on "An Anglican Parable"

Hi John: what you are going through is what we went through many years ago with the United Church.

We quickly realized that there was no use in fighting and arguing as neither side REALLY listens to the other.

As you know, we left, started our own congregation along with the minister. It didn’t last as long as we had wished but we have all moved on from there and to my knowledge no one has returned to our beloved St. John United.

We truly loved it there. We didn’t want to leave. Some decided to fight from within. St. John’s actually still preaches the gospel but being there and giving our offerings meant that some portion of the $$ went to headquarters and we didn’t want that.

It was and still is painful to us. We were a family. It was home. I shared pulpit duties, I was the chair of the worship committee, I was the chair of the men’s committee. I led the men’s discipleship group every Saturday morning. I was saved there.

We left. We knew we wouldn’t “win” as we were far out numbered by those who had the vast majority. Those who decided that revenue and attendance was more important than sticking to biblical truths. The big furor was when the same sex issues came to light and the United Church decided that it was O.K.

In my opinion, through many discussions at men’s nights etc., it became apparent to me that many of the membership were against same sex because they were “homophobes” and not because they were following biblical truths.

These were the same people that thought “Dear Heavenly Parent” was an appropriate way to begin a prayer.

These were the same people that even went so far to suggest that God could be a lady because he/she was after all only a spirit.

These people also bought and sang from the new revised hymn book that took classics like Praise My Soul the King of Heaven and made it The God of Heaven.

These and many more examples were taken in stride and in some instances were embraced.

Those who opposed were more likely to be chauvinistic than to be proponents of biblical truths. Folks who were more likely defending tradition than truth.

For us, to stay and debate was and still would be futile. We decided to channel our energies into our new church home. It wasn’t the same, it seems like it will never be the same.

I expect that the Anglican Church will go ahead and do what they wish. The voices of the dissenters will fall on deaf ears. Some of the faithful will stay because it is “their church” – they built it, their kids grew up and married there. Some will stay because they will think about both sides and their arguments and decide that its O.K. to stay and to accept the change. Some will stay because they want to “fight” from within.

Some will recognize that all the energy expended on arguing with the majority is no longer worth it and will move on.

No matter what, it will never be the same. Not for those who stay, not for those who leave and just stay home, not for those who go to alternate churches and not for those who break away and begin their own fellowship.

(But) through all this I am sure Jesus wept.


PS: One last thought – if you stay for ANY reason – you have compromised.

Take care

Wednesday, 25 June 2008

An Anglican Parable

Th faithful within the North American Anglican church are being accused of schism and divisive behaviour. They are being called upon to 'dialogue' with the liberal faction who are determined to change the Christian faith from within. They are being urged, "Wait, let's work this out. Let's find a compromise," which is really to say, "Let's keep talking and delaying until you get used to and accept what we want. (Because you are the most generous givvers and we need your tithes, or if you leave, we need your real estate to sell off to make up for the money we will lose by not having you.)"

Here is a parable from Stand Firm...
There was a man who lived in a very small village with his wife and his son. The man had a thieving friend. One day, after his friend had left his home, the man discovered that his ring was missing.

The next day, his friend came over. The man’s ring was on his finger. “That’s my ring.” “It was your ring. Now it is mine” “No. It is mine and you have stolen it.”
“I did not” said his friend, “It has always been my ring.” The man was not going to back down. “Listen here, if you look on the inside, you will see my name engraved on it.” “So it has,” replied the man’s friend, “that’s very nice” “It’s not only nice, it’s my ring, now give it back.” “No”

The man was in a difficult spot. His friend, though a thief, was important and powerful. It was an honor to be associated with him, an honor that brought the man a great deal of influence and prestige not only in the village but even in his own home with his wife and children. How could he break fellowship?

“The ring is mine,” the man said finally. “I will not agree that it is yours. I will always lay claim to it. But for now, I’ll let you wear it.” “Thank you,” said his friend.

The next day the thieving friend came over for a visit. The man was not home.
When he returned he found that his wife was gone. He waited for her to return. She did not. His son said, “Your friend came over while you were away. When he left, mother went with him.” “What? That can’t be,” exclaimed the man. “It is,” said his son. “I was here. I saw it. Will you bring her back home father?” “Yes. I’ll see about this tomorrow.”

The next day the man found his friend walking through the village. His wife was with his friend. They were holding hands. “What are you doing?” asked the man. “I’m taking a walk with my wife.” “She’s not your wife. She’s my wife.” “No. She is mine.”
The man looked at his wife. She smiled. She was happy. The man was filled with anger. He was enraged. “This man is not my friend,” he thought to himself. “I must do something.” But what? “If I break fellowship with my friend, I lose everything I love most. If I do not, at least there is a chance of one day getting it back.” “You may keep my wife for now,” the man said, “but she is my wife and I will always lay claim to her, but you may walk with her and take her to your home. One day I will reclaim what is mine.” “Thank you,” said his friend, “I will always hear your claim.”

The man went home burdened. His son asked. “Where is my mother?” “I’ve let her stay with my friend for a while. It is best. Trust me my son.” “But she’s my mother. She’s your wife.” “I know. Do not fret about this. She will return one day, but I am not in a position to do anything about it now,” said the man. But he could see that his son was not satisfied. You are too young to understand.” “No father. I am not.”

The next morning, the man rose from his bed. He called for his son. There was no answer. He went to his son’s room. It was empty. He walked to his friend’s house and knocked on the door. “Have you taken my son?” he asked. “No. He is not here.” And he was not. “But I have seen him," said the friend. “Oh, good, where is he?” “He came to say good-bye to his mother this morning,” answered the friend, “He is gone.”
“But where did he go?” “He said he would no longer be known by your name.”

The man returned to his house alone. "But," the man consoled himself, "at the very least, I still have my friend."

Take Care

Common Sense in the Fight Against AIDS

GAFCON pilgrims spent time on Tuesday, June 24, exploring how two Anglican provinces, Uganda and Nigeria, are working to limit new HIV/AIDS infections and care for those affected by the disease.

Keeping the Gospel message of transformation central is key to Uganda’s approach, said the Rev. Canon Aaron Mwesigye, provincial secretary for the Anglican Church of the Province of Uganda. Almost every diocese is directly engaged in fighting HIV/AIDS and its affects, he added.

Their efforts, with the efforts of many others, have been very successful. During the mid 1980’s as much as 30 percent of Uganda’s total population was infected with HIV/AIDS. By 2005 that figure had fallen dramatically to 6.7 percent.

Uganda achieved this significant decrease by focusing on supporting abstinence, said Canon Mwesigye. (emphasis mine, JK)


Of course, the more "enlightened" of the world could never admit that morality should ever be raised as part of the solution (or the problem).

Take Care

Monday, 23 June 2008

"Progressive" Arrogance

Al Mohler posts on the impending breakup of the worldwide Anglican Communion. There is a conference underway in Jerusalem by conservative Anglican bishops called tha Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON). A good place to start finding information on it, for anyone who is interested, would be Here

Dr Mohler quotes from Archbishop Peter Akinola,
"Having survived the inhuman physical slavery of the 19th century, the political slavery called colonialism of the 20th century, the developing world economic enslavement, we cannot, we dare not, allow ourselves and the millions we represent to be kept in a religious and spiritual dungeon."

"We will not abdicate our God-given responsibility and simply acquiesce to destructive modern cultural and political dictates."

And this gets precisely to the point. "Progressives" in the Anglican, or any other church, who are now seeking to take their thinking past traditional Scripture-based authority, possess an incredible arrogance that, although they themselves seem to be blind to it, anyone thinking or observing impartially, should be able to recognize clearly.

It is the attitude that we white people know better than those ignorant little brown (or red) people. I say, "red" people, because here in Canada we have recently had an apology issued by our government over the abuse suffered by our Native people under the residential school system. This system was at the time seen as the right and progressive thing to do, but in hindsight, any honest person should be able to see the cultural arrogance of white Canada behind it. This attitude is the same as we see now in the North American liberal churches who see it as their God-given right to change the Christian faith according to their own whims and opinions, regardless of what the rest of the non-white world thinks or says. Because it is now the "third world" churches who are holding to the faith they received, ironically through white Europeans, while modern western society seems determined to depart from it at 90 degrees, as quickly, blatantly and deliberately as possible.

It is, once again, the attitude that, "we know better" than the "savages." Oddly enough, these so-called progressives would probably be the first and the loudest to condemn the injustice in this thinking if they suspected it in others, if only they could see it in themselves.

Take Care

Monday, 16 June 2008

Our Apology, Matthew Coon Come's Response

Last week the federal government issued an apology to the aboriginal peoples of Canada over their treatment by the residential school system. I have touched on my thoughts of this unjust and ill-conceived system, the paternalistic attitudes that were responsible for, and experience with its lasting disastrous legacy in other posts, but what I wanted to link to here was Matthew Coon Come's very touching and elequent response to the government's apology.

This was part of a special edition of 100 Huntley Streey. Unfortunately, I cannot link directly to the exact portion, but links to the program are below. Matthew's testimony, in which he declares his personal relationship with Jesus Christ, begins at the 36:48 mark. It will take a while to download, but I hope you will have the patience to wait for it.

Here are the links,

Take Care

Eric Liddell's Personal Creed

I have blogged regarding Eric Liddell before. Here, courtesy of 2 Worlds Collide is a little more...

"After the Olympics, Liddell returned to China, serving as a missionary from 1925-1943. He married Florence Mackenzie (the daughter of Canadian missionaries) in 1934, and the couple had three daughters: Patricia, Heather and Maureen. The 1930s were dangerous in China, especially for foreigners, yet Eric served in Siaochang with his older brother, Rob. In 1941 the British government advised its citizens to evacuate the nation. Florence and the girls departed for Canada, but Liddell remained in Tientsin between 1941-1943. He was forced to enter a prison camp in Weishien. He lived out his faith courageously at the camp, caring for the sick and elderly, teaching the youth Bible studies and other subjects, boosting morale through arranging sporting events, and feeding the enemy by preparing meals for the Japanese guards. Liddell died in the camp in 1945, just months prior to the end of the war, from a brain tumor. His last words were, “It’s complete surrender.” After his death his remains were later interred in the Mausoleum of Martyrs in Shijazhuang, a great honor for a non-Chinese individual. His passing was mourned deeply not only by those at the internment camp in Weihsien, but by all of Scotland.

While in the camp, Liddell wrote a small work intended to teach others basic doctrine and the importance of personal devotional - The Disciplines of the Christian Life. Within the pages of this small work, Liddell wrote his “personal” creed. It didn’t supplant his affirmation of the historic Christian creeds, by any means, but was intended to demonstrate verbally the importance of living for God with every fiber of one’s being. Eric Liddell, whose life demonstrates the reality and importance of living out one’s theology, confessed:

I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Creator,
infinitely holy and loving,
who has a plan for the world, a plan for my life,
and some daily work for me to do.
I believe in Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God,
as Example, Lord, and Savior.
I believe in the Holy Spirit who is able to guide my life
so that I may know God’s will;
and I am prepared to allow him to guide and control my life.
I believe in God’s law that I should love the Lord my God
with all my heart, and with all my soul,
and with all my mind, and with all my strength;
and my neighbor as myself.
I believe it is God’s will that the whole world
should be without any barriers of race, color, class,
or anything else that breaks the spirit of fellowship.
To believe means to believe with the mind and heart,
to accept, and to act accordingly on that basis.

Take Care

Monday, 9 June 2008

A Rockin' Bob Dylan Revival

Third Day covered this song on their first 'Offerings' CD. I have it but I didn't realize it was written by Bob Dylan.

I was blinded by the devil,born already ruined,
Stone-cold dead as I stepped out of the womb.
By His grace I have been touched,by His word I have been healed,
By His hand I've been delivered,by His spirit I've been sealed.

I've been saved by the blood of the lamb,
Saved by the blood of the lamb,
And I'm so glad. Yes, I'm so glad,
I'm so glad,so glad,
I want to thank You, Lord,I just want to thank You, Lord,
Thank You, Lord.

By His truth I can be upright,by His strength I do endure,
By His power I've been lifted,in His love I am secure.
He bought me with a price,freed me from the pit,
Full of emptiness and wrath and the fire that burns in it.


Nobody to rescue me,nobody would dare,
I was going down for the last time,but by His mercy I've been spared.
Not by works,but by faith in Him who called,
For so long I've been hindered,for so long I've been stalled.


Take Care

Saturday, 7 June 2008

Another Shot at Explaining my Position on Calvinism.

I am a partial Calvinist. I used to call myself a consonant Calvinist, but I'm a little more than that now. My Calvinist friends might say I'm making headway, but it's only because I interpret Unconditional election and irresistible grace a little differently than they.

The main point of Calvinism I really can’t accept is the position that God, before the foundation of the world, set apart a great number of people, individually, fore-ordaining that He would allow none of these people the opportunity to come to faith in Christ and therefore be saved.
For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, (Colossians 1:13)

There are two kingdoms; the kingdom of darkness and the Kingdom of Light. Each of us are, or will be, in one or the other of them. There is no middle ground. There is a line separating them, as it were, a line in the sand. Now, it’s not up to us, as some might picture it, to step across that line from one kingdom into the other by making a decision or by saying a prayer. We can’t. God Himself, and He alone, pulls us across that line. We cannot, nor could we possibly ever, step across it on our own.

But I believe that God calls us, from His side of the line, to approach it. He calls us to come toward Him. Without His call we would not, in our depraved state, even know it was there. But I believe God has given everyone a sense of His existence and presence. I believe that Romans 1, Psalm 19 and Acts 17 indicate this. The only way we can have that sense is because He gave it to us. That is His call. And I believe that if He can make a spiritually dead person alive, He can also cause a spiritually dead person to be aware of Him and turn towards Him and seek Him.

In the OT, God commanded Moses to lift up a bronze serpent on a pole and decreed that all who looked to it would be saved. This is a direct picture of faith in Christ. Those who turn in faith to Christ will be saved. Those who don’t, won’t. That I believe is the sovereign choice referred to in Romans 9.

This snake would have been visible to all. All would have at least seen it, noticed it. But only those who followed God’s command to turn to it and look to it for healing would be saved. There would have been those who noticed it (it would have been hard not to) but turned away and perished as a result.

Yes, we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone and not by our works, but I believe there is a difference between a work and a response.

God has promised that all who seek will find. Our seeking is our approaching that line in the sand in response to His call. And God Himself, in His own time and at His sole prerogative, brings those who will be His children into His kingdom, making them brand new people, filling them with His Holy Spirit, and giving them eternal life to be with Him forever.

That is what I believe.

Take Care

Sowing and Reaping (Bumped) or (What a Tangled Web)

I was going throuth some of my blog history and came across this one. I think it bears seeing again.

I found this interesting, from Doug Wilson's blog.
"In the event, President Carter secretly authorized $500 million (closer to a billion in today’s money) to help create an international network that would spread Islamism in Central Asia and ‘destabilize’ the Soviet Union. The CIA called this ‘Operation Cyclone,’ and in the following years poured over $4 billion into setting up Islamic training schools in Pakistan (hence the ‘Taliban’ movement, which means ‘student’). Young fanatics were sent to training camps paid for by the U.S. taxpayer, where future members of Al-Qaeda were taught ‘sabotage skills’ (i.e. terrorism). In Pakistan they were directed by British MI6 officers and trained by the SAS" (Serge Trifkovic, The Sword of the Prophet, p. 211).

America has dug themselves into a quagmire in Iraq, one mistake following another in a series of foreign policy blunders trying to patch over previous gaffes, each one driving them deeper into the pit from which they cannot escape without complete disaster for someone, either themselves or their victims.

And now they are making noises like they want to go after Iran. Heaven help us!

Take Care

Are All Religions Equally Valid?

It strikes me that saying that all religions, or "faith traditions" as some liberals like to say, are equally valid paths to God, and criticizing those who say that Christ is the only way, is like saying that those who know that the earth is round are being unfair to those who think it is flat.

Take care

Thursday, 5 June 2008

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Interviewed by Avi Lewis

Watch this interview from last year by Avi Lewis on his Television program. Lewis is the son of famous NDP'er Stephen Lewis, and the apple does not appear to have fallen very far from the tree. He is a pathetic ultra-liberal apologist with a forum, in my opinion, solely because of the name and postion of his father. This is ironic, because during the interview he blurts out that one can only become somebody in America through money and connections.

Ms Ali owned Mr Lewis in this piece. She was patient and soft-spoken, but perceptive and intelligent, and quick to answer all of Mr Lewis' attacks. Lewis comes across as a cliche-spouting left-wing hack. The interview takes a minute or so to begin and there is a brief introductory bio of Ms Ali.

In my opinion, the highlight of the interview is her final statement to Lewis,
"...I lived in countries that had no democracy... so I do not find myself in the same luxury as you do. You grew up in freedom and you can spit on freedom because you don't know what it is not to have freedom..."

This is not a Christian peice. In fact, Ms Ali, at one point, calls parts of the Christian and Jewish faiths "obsolete." What it is, in my opinion, is an example of the expression of certain shallow and narrow-minded liberal doctrine and how clearly it can be refuted, at least as it was presented in this interview.

Take Care

Tuesday, 3 June 2008

Joe Boot on the Michael Coren Show

Unfortunately, I can't link to the show I want to. The other day on the Michael Coren Show on CTS TV he had a panel discussion involving a Roman Catholic, a Jewish rabbi, a "humanist" and Christian apologist Joe Boot

Joe boot, I have come to believe, is a very accomplished and persuasive defender and explainer of the Christian faith. There was one point in the show when the subject turned to polygamy and whether it can now be condemned in light of the acceptance of gay marriage. The humanist representative voiced the opinion that polygamist marriage should inded be accepted, as long as it didn't result in harm to the women or children involved in such a marriage.

Joe Boot asked a question that I wish the humanist would have been pressed to answer. Unfortunately, Mr Coren cut him off and pressed his own point. I have forgotten what Coren's point was, but Mr Boot's was a killer to the humanist position.

His question was this, "Define harm."

This is where the humanist or atheist does not think through to the logical extension of his worldview. Because, what indeed is, "harm?" And why indeed is ,"harm" by anyone's definition wrong? In other words, without an objective basis, a basis outside of ourselves, to define what is right and what is wrong, it merely comes down to opinion. A humanist, for example, may be disgusted by the pictures I linked to a few posts below of Warren Jeffs kissing a 12-year-old child passionately on the mouth, and think it wrong. But obviously Mr Jeffs would have a different opinion. What makes one opinion any more valid than the other? Even if the humanist argues that the child is harmed, it is only his opinion that harming a child is wrong. Even if many other people share his opinion that it is wrong, is it then merely majority opinion that defines right and wrong?

If so, I would ask whether, in other times and other cultures, would things like slavery and human sacrifice have not been wrong, because the majority of people in those times and those places thought that there was nothing wrong with them? Would the naturalist accept that female genital mutilation is acceptable in some Muslim countries, even today, because it is part of the culture? If he argues that it is against women's rights, still I ask, on what basis is it wrong, other than merely his opinion?

Without God, it's all just a matter of somebody's opinion, even if it is the majority.

Take Care

B.C. seeks legal opinion on polygamous sect

From Here...
VANCOUVER–For the third time in a year, the B.C. government has asked for outside expert legal opinion on whether polygamists who have thrived for decades in the province's interior can be criminally prosecuted.

B.C.'s Attorney General Wally Oppal said he disagrees with two previous legal opinions by other special prosecutors appointed by the government that charges would be unfair and likely fail.

It would be interesting to see the result of such a case being taken to the Supreme Court. I would think the law against polygamy might just be struck down. What, after all, is the difference between someone with a homosexual orientation indulging his orientation and someone with a polyamorous orientation indulging his. Or, for that matter, a member of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association)?

The finger has been pulled out of the dyke. It's only a matter of time before people of every sexual persuasion demand their rights to equality under the law.

Take Care

Monday, 2 June 2008

York students to ban clubs opposed to abortion

From last Thursday's National Post
TORONTO - In response to a series of controversies over abortion debates on Canadian campuses, the student government of York University has tabled an outright ban on student clubs that are opposed to abortion.

Gilary Massa, vice-president external of the York Federation of Students, said student clubs will be free to discuss abortion in student space, as long as they do it "within a pro-choice realm," and that all clubs will be investigated to ensure compliance.

However, at least one student has things in perspective, even if he is on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate,
"I think it's outrageous that they do this when students are away for the summer and when they can't really do anything about it," said Michael Payton, a York student who argued the pro-choice side of the March debate. "This isn't the right of the student government to be deciding what students are allowed to hear."

He said it is "very much an open question how in line they are with what students really think and feel."

"It would be one thing if the YFS were doing polls on this. At least then they would be able to justify the claim that most people would be on board. But even if most people were on board, if 90% of students were on board, I would still think it's wrong in principle," Mr. Payton said. "When the YFS says they believe in free speech, they believe in free speech for them, for the positions they hold, not for freedom of speech for positions they disagree with."

Sunday, 1 June 2008

Malachi 2:17

We are all familiar with Jesus' words according to Matthew,
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

I would not presume to declare who will be among that literally God-forsaken group. That will be up to only the Lord Himself. We only know there will be some.

But this particular bit of teaching stuck out for me during our Sunday morning adult class on the book of Malachi. In the 17th verse of the second chapter the prophet says,
You have wearied the LORD with your words. "How have we wearied him?" you ask. By saying, "All who do evil are good in the eyes of the LORD, and he is pleased with them" or "Where is the God of justice?"

One day we will all have to stand before our Lord, Saviour and King. I believe that many who seem to have discounted the word of God in favour of feelings and experience, might respond, "How have we wearied him?"

And they will hear,
By saying, "All who do evil are good in the eyes of the LORD, and he is pleased with them"

The meaning of the next few words
"Where is the God of justice?"
are more difficult to discern, but let me give my own possible interpretation as it might apply to all of the Body of Christ. Perhaps it refers to the fact that we all tend to turn to God and demand justice when we feel persecuted. Perhaps we should rather get past all that and be concerned solely with doing God's will. Perhaps both sides in the current disputes in the Canadian Anglican church are dwelling too long on bricks and mortar. Perhaps one side needs just to walk away and get on with doing what God has commanded us to do -- making disciples.

Take Care