IN THIS ISSUE

Time is what we make of it. A social construction, and I can’t help thinking that millennium-fever is a bit like the Frankenstein story. We have constructed a way of living which has the potential to destroy us. It is a powerful myth, and like all myths betrays our social values and aspirations.
Jesus’ teaching and especially his parables are, in a sense, about time. But the time is mostly the present. They expose useless temporal occupations, and demand new attitudes. Worth thinking about. Never easy.

Cam Watts, Pastor of Aylmer Baptist Church, offers us an innovative way of reading the ‘Parable of the Talents’ (Matt. 25.14-30) in a sermon preached to the congregation at Aylmer. It raises some interesting questions about the nature of the parables and their intention - to confirm or to disturb?

Lee McKenna-Ducharme, from her interests and knowledge of economic systems, offers a helpful commentary on the recent dealings of the World Trade Organization, and the relevance of their activities for North American Christians.

Ray Hobbs has some observations on the way in which ‘metanarratives’ shape our understanding of the past, recent or distant, in his article ‘Meta-narratives, History and Spin’. The article was inspired by some recent statements from institutes of Baptist Theological Education.

The demise of the old Canadian Baptist, and its replacement with a glossy ‘news’ sheet, prompted Michael Steeves, Former General Secretary of the Canadian Baptist Federation, and now a Senior Chaplain in Ontario, to write a letter to the Director of Communications of the BCOQ with some concerns. Also included is a response from the President of the BCOQ, Keith Hillyer. Both of these letters, in their own, quite different ways, raise concerns about the nature of communications within the BCOQ.

If one looks for a common theme in this issue there is one to be found. It is the way in which what has come to be known as ‘communications’ try to shape reality, and how such communications need close reading. ‘Caveat lector’.

Cam Watts.
Judges 4.1-7; Matthew 25.14-30

They all began to work at the mutual fund management firm at the same time. Two were graduates of eminent business schools, the third, from a lesser school, still showed promise.
They were trained in-house, and it did not take them long to discover that although the company would never be charged with a crime, that its practiceswere less-than-ethical.

Their goal was to make a pile of money for their investors, therefore a huge commission for their company. Then each was given a portfolio to manage. The first invested heavily in Multinational corporations which paid slavery wages to its third world workers.
He made a bundle.

The second called in some favors from friends at school who had gone into different businesses, to get an idea of which companies to invest in-she too made a significant profit for the company.

The third, unhappy with his employers' business practices, loaned the entire amount of his portfolio to an agricultural co-op, which benefitted from the money and helped a number of people in farming communities. When the loan was called in, the co-op happily returned the
money, but with no profit.

The third manager was fired and black-balled in the investment world.

You take a huge risk when you gamble that people share your morals.

That is not the usual interpretation of the parable of the talents, and it's warnings about how we use our gifts and abilities and money for God.

Try and hear the parable through the ears of Jesus' listeners, almost all of whom were not wealthy nor even middle class. These were the disciples and common folk and the poor and dispossessed.

They would never have the sort of money described in the parable, but they would know of people who could.
A talent was one of the largest values of money in the Hellenistic world. It represented between 28 and 32 kg. of silver. One talent equaled 6,000 denarii, more than fifteen years wages, or in today's money, about $2.5 million.

As Jesus told the story, they would picture a great household-the closest thing in antiquity to the modern corporation. The powerful patriarch would often be away on economic or political
business. His affairs would be handled by slaves, who in Roman society often rose to prominent positions in the household hierarchy as stewards.

These stewards would be expected to follow the common practice of making loans to peasant small holders based on speculations of future crop production. With high interest rates and vulnerability to lean years and famine, farmers often were unable to make their payments, and faced foreclosure. After gaining control of the land, the new owner could continue to make a killing by hiring laborers to farm cash crops.

For the slaves to have made so much money so quickly, they would have had to take advantage of the misfortune of a lot of people in hard times.

Jesus' listeners would have reacted with appropriate disgust to the story, until he got to the third slave. That slave had had enough of an unscrupulous master and his crooked servants who exploited people. He buried the money so it couldn't be used to hurt anyone else.

In their wildest imaginings, those listening to the parable would never have thought of the master as God.

Nor should we.
Jesus would not promote ruthless business practices, usury, and the cynical view that the rich will only get richer while the poor become destitute. If we assume, as does the traditional reading, that the master is a figure for God, it is a terrible and frightening picture: God is a hardhearted, ruthless absentee lord who cares only about profit maximization.

It is the third slave who is the gambler, who takes the real risk, telling the truth to his master:
"I knew you were a harsh man", he says, using the same Greek word used to describe Pharaoh's disease of hardheartedness. "You reap where you did not sow, and gather where you did not scatter seed".

The third slave becomes a "whistle-blower," unmasking the fact that the master's wealth is derived entirely from the toil of others. He profits from the backbreaking labour of those who work the land.Unwilling to participate in this exploitation, this third slave took the money out of circulation, where it could no longer be used to dispossess another family farmer.

He repudiates his master's money: "Here, take back what is yours", and admits that through it all "I was afraid." Of course he was. He knows what happens to people who take an unpopular stand for the right.

His master doesn't disagree with him. He simply calls him "evil and lazy", the favorite slur of the rich toward those who don't play their game, then decides to make an example of the third slave,
dispossessing him and giving the single talent to his obedient colleague, in order to illustrate the way the real world works: "For to those who have, more will be given-but for those who have not, even what they have will be taken away".

Jesus told a story about the cost of being different, of taking risks for God's kingdom.

We have tended to read this parable and applaud the risk-takers who took what they had and doubled it. But their courage is only apparent. They did not stand for anything different: they simply did what was expected of them, no matter who it hurt.

When the master returned to settle accounts he commended them: "Well done, good and trustworthy slave-enter into the joy of your master." But they are still slaves whose only joy is their master's! They are more captive than ever to the world controlled by their lord.

If we substitute God for the master and ourselves for the servants, then the "joy of the master" is granted only to those who perform well. Do we believe we can earn God's favor by performing well, or lose it by performing poorly?

Of course God invites us to risk. Love demands risks: marriage, parenting, vulnerability, confrontation, living with our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Our call is to live in the adventure of the grace of God.

Like Barak, and Deborah, who lived in the days of the Judges.

Judges, like Gideon and Samson, were appointed by God for Israel's salvation in a particular situation.

They usually needed to be saved because they turned away from worshipping Yahweh and began to follow the lead of their Canaanite neighbors, worshiping idols and false gods. God is portrayed as allowing one of Israel's pagan neighbors to invade and conquer the chosen people because of this disobedience.
This enslavement and oppression lasted until the Israelites would again turn toward God, cry out in repentance and beg for deliverance. God's response was to call and establish a judge for the Israelite people to be the means of Israel's deliverance.

Deborah was a judge who held court in a special place to settle disputes among the people of Israel. But she became a prophet who heard a word from the Lord.

God called her to get Barak, a leader from Naphtali, to engage in battle with Jabin, a king with a terrifying general and a huge military force. Deborah may have been comfortable issuing the words of the Lord to others, but Barak balked at her message. He wasn't going by himself-Deborah had to accompany him to the battle.

Together they were risk-takers. She left her relatively safe position, and he left the safety of the
dominant patriarchal culture: he took a woman with him into battle.

The Canaanite soldiers were defeated.

We are called to be smart risk-takers. We do well to go into difficult situations with all the friends and help we can. Prayer support is good, having a trusted brother or sister go with you as well, is better.

A mule named Jim was being driven by his owner. When everyone got on the wagon, the driver yelled "Giddyup, Jim. Giddyup, Sue. Giddyup, Sam. Giddyup, John. Giddyup, Joe." As the wagon started to move, one of the passengers said: "When Jim is the only one there, why did you call all those other names?" The owner replied: "If Jim knew he was the only one pulling this wagon, he'd never budge an inch."

Cam Watts is Pastor of Aylmer Baptist Church, Aylmer, Ontario

Ray Hobbs

Historians today talk and write much about ‘metanarratives’ of history. These are the overriding notions of the nature of History, or the subject with which they are dealing. For example, historical ‘progress’ is a meta-narrative, and much history written under this umbrella speaks of the advancement of humanity through the centuries. Many American (i.e. U.S.) historians write history as a history of the individual rebel against the authoritarian centre - after all, that is how their historical origins in the eighteenth century are shaped, or so they say. Another form of this meta-narrative is the western hero, like Shane, who rides into town to ‘clean it up’ (usually violently), then rides off to future, unknown missions. This, incidentally, is a far-cry from classical history writing which tended to dump on those ‘rebels’ who stepped out of line, and disobeyed the cultural and societal standards of behaviour. Think of Icarus, or Prometheus, or Achilles or even Heracles, for example. Here the heroes are those who through trial are either destroyed by the system, or eventually conform to its standards.

The point of this is to say that, for the reader, it useful to understand the metahistorical perspective from which a writer sees the past, distant or recent. If you think that this is close to the modern notion of ‘spin’ then you are correct. It may strike you as distinctly unhistorical to do this, but what surprises me is that in my recent experience, particularly dealing with Baptist institutions of education, it is the current historians who seem to revel in this approach.
A recent article about Baptist Education in central Europe, written by the current ‘Rector’ of the International Baptist Theological Seminary - who also claims to be a Baptist Historian - is remarkable in what it omits from the very recent past. The article appeared in a recent issue of The American Baptist Quarterly. The crisis which brought about what is euphemistically termed the ‘refocusing’ of the seminary, is interpreted simply as a matter of the questioning the judgment of the president-designate by two members of Faculty. This questioning in and of itself is understood to be wrong, although this is never fully expounded. It was this act of seeming insubordination which sparked off a political storm (or so it is stated) in the churches of Eastern Europe.

The crisis was in fact over that president-designate’s categorical refusal, in writing, to allow women to teach at the seminary, a position which he blamed on the sensitivities of the eastern churches. The crisis, in fact, was a moral one, not a political one. This is conveniently forgotten in the desire to write the history according to a meta-narrative of an intransigent faculty disobeying the orders of the board of trustees. Also conveniently forgotten is the fact that the Faculty were significantly outnumbered on the committee that nominated the female member of faculty. The other members, including the Chair, were from the Board itself, with the exception of a student member!

With the resignation of the current Principal of McMaster Divinity College, some interesting documents have been produced from that institution. In a ‘personal’ letter sent to hoped-for donors, Dr. Brackney lists several of the accomplishments of the past ten years. By way of commentary, I note simply that the claims deserve the most careful scrutiny.

A new announcement appeared in the McMaster University staff journal, the Courier in the November 22nd, 1999 issue, concerning the establishment of a new chair in Theology, funded in large part by a gift from the Bentall family of British Columbia. Let me state very clearly that it is certainly not the gift itself, nor the intention of the gift, nor the motives of the donors that I question. It is the interpretation of the significance of the establishment such a chair. It is stated in the press release that this move ‘Recovers the college’s heritage in the evangelical stream of historic Christianity’. The quotation is attributed to the Principal. Since the word ‘evangelical’ in the English-speaking world used in this political way is a relatively new phenomenon in Christian history, I guess this would take the college back to the end of the eighteenth century!

Incidentally, since the chair will ‘emphasize the teaching in the theological disciplines (theology, ethics, apologetics, etc.) as well as research and publishing,’ it is difficult to determine what the incumbent of the chair will do that is not being done already, and has not been done over the past several decades.

As I see it, this is an interesting interpretation designed to support the meta-narrative of McMaster being rescued from the pit of liberalism and once again being brought into the evangelical camp by the current administration. This overriding theme surfaced recently in an article which appeared in the November issue of the online Anglican Journal where it was inserted into a rather irrelevant story about dialogue between representatives of the Baptist World Alliance and leaders of the Anglican Communion. Into this story, rather incongruously, was the claim that McMaster had been ‘brought into line’ since the arrival of Dr. Brackney as Principal. (What a grotesque metaphor!) It had already surfaced in an unresearched piece of reporting which appeared in the Christian Week in December of 1990.

In such public statements - all of which have a common origin - the balance between ideology, and human concern in this (meta)story of McMaster’s recent past needs to be closely examined. More important, from my perspective is that the story as told implies that certain things had not been done, and in so doing denigrates former instructors in theology at McMaster who were evangelical.

Russell Foster Aldwinckle was a friend of mine and a colleague. He received his education from Oxford University (M.A.) and the University of Strassbourg (Theol. Dr.). After serving as a pastor in Coventry and North London in England, he was invited to come to McMaster in 1947 and to succeed Robert McCracken as instructor in Systematic Theology. He stayed in this position for thirty years until his retirement in 1977.

Russell was certainly a scholar of international stature. His books and articles on Christology, life after death and a reasoned theology are well-known in theological circles, and are characterised by his careful and admirable erudition, and beautiful use of language. During his career in Canada, Russell was a member of theological committees of both the Canadian Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches, as well as an active participant in discussions among Baptists and between Baptists and others. His sabbatical leaves were often spent in teaching at important international Baptist institutions, and long after he had retired he was still in demand as a teacher at Knox College, Toronto, the American Baptist Seminary of the West and Southern Baptist Seminary, Louisville. Until his death at the age of eighty he was still writing, thinking and discussing the things that were dear to his heart.

Beyond the scholarship, Russell cherished his family, his friends, his church and his teaching, His students remember him with a great deal of affection, and, more important, often as the one professor who influenced their thinking in a positive way. He was honest, loyal, and a gentleman.

Incidentally, this is something which I believe demands some serious, and honest historical research. In the years that Russell taught at McMaster, the churches of the BCOQ were fuller than they are now, were more numerous than they are now, and the majority of their pastors were McMaster graduates.

Russell was also passionate about the gospel. In the greatest sense of the word, he was an evangelical. He loved his Lord, studied the scriptures, and what the Spirit had said to the churches through its theologians and thinkers. He was not afraid to debate the Gospel with anyone, and on the campus of McMaster University had an excellent widespread reputation among members of other departments and Faculties as a leading scholar and Christian believer. He was always encouraging others to extend the limits of their understanding of the great truths and experiences of the faith. He was always treated by his academic colleagues at McMaster University with a well-deserved respect.

Proper historians surely are always after ‘full disclosure’ of the past, however much it grates on their pre-planned schemes and theories (their ‘metanarratives’). To suggest that the life and times of Russell Foster Aldwinckle do not represent ‘evangelicalism’ in its best sense, is a tragic misreading of the past. It displays an ignorance of the man and his influence, and also demonstrates a sad loss at not having known his grace, wit and wisdom. Comparison of those times, and that life unfavourably with the present is a travesty. 

It has become an old caveat of readers of history that they pay attention to the source and the ‘pay-off’ of documents. Cui bono? ‘Who benefits?’ should be the guiding critical question. The late Sir Moses Finley, in his book Ancient History: Evidence and Models stated, ‘The first question to be asked about any document is about the reason or motive for its having been written.’ (p. 32). Students of Biblical studies know the value of form-criticism, and this seems to be reflected in the concerns of Finley here. This constitutes a useful guide for reading.
David Lowenthal, in his book The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History in which he laments the demise of historical inquiry in the face of the pragmatic use of ‘heritage’ - a rewriting of the past to suit a modern agenda, i.e. a ‘meta-narrative’ - states the following:

Historians do aim higher than they can reach. They know they
cannot retrieve or recount the past in unbiased entirety or shorn
of anachronism, yet they strive to do so as far as they can. Aware
that such effort is inherently imperfect , they nonetheless cleave to
what seems honest...the past as known is bent, but it is never
wholly broken to the historian’s particular views. (p. 118).

Ah, useful stuff. Too soon forgotten in the service of a political, i.e. an essentially unhistorical agenda. In the midst of a recent journalistic scandal in the Czech Republic, reported in the Dec. 1 issue of the Prague Post, the following comment was made by Professor Milan Smid, of Prague's Charles University. Professor Smid is very concerned about standards of publication. "Reporters often don't check facts, they just follow the lead of public relations agencies ...without asking themselves what the agencies' agenda is," he says. It is nice to know that in some parts of the writer’s world this still matters.

Ray Hobbs is Editor of the GNL, a retired teacher of Old Testament and Hebrew, and a Deacon at MacNeill Baptist Church, Hamilton.

Lee McKenna duCharme

Her name is D'Arcy. At first I think she has a child snuggled in with her among the folds of the sleeping bag. But then a big black nose emerges. D'Arcy tells me her name is Tequila. Out come two big black paws as she tries to wriggle out far enough to investigate the newcomer with some well-placed sniffs.

It is one of the first really cold days of the season and a wind whips its way down the concrete tunnel that is Yonge Street. D'Arcy tells me she is from Peterborough, though I detect the burrs and cadences that never fail to betray the Maritimer. The lightly freckled flesh of her face falls loosely over high cheekbones and an elegantly acquiline nose. Curls of gingery hair peek out from under a well-worn scarf. 

She tells me she's been part of the street off and on for thirteen years and most of that time supporting an expensive cocaine habit. She's been clean now for three months, taking it slowly, finding NA groups unhelpful because all they talk about is their drug of choice. She doesn't even want to think about it.

She's saving for her first-and-last rental payment and confident that once she has an address, a job will follow directly. To my question, she responds, no, she's not on welfare; doesn't believe in it.

I pause to wonder if D'Arcy chanced to read about the recently-concluded Battle of Seattle; was her eye caught by the photos of burning and overturned cars and broken plate glass windows displayed in the Sun boxes?. Did she know or care about what happened, why there was a battle and what it was about?

People who looked, many of them, a lot like her brought their protest to the streets of the setting of the inaugural meetings of the so-called Millennium Round of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Two worlds came together, the globalisers and the globalised, the grey-suited monochrome of the movers and shakers and the rainbow collective of the moved and the shaken. Insiders and outsiders. 

Inside and behind those doors, men, mostly men, with some notable exceptions like Sharlene Barshevsky of the USTR, set the "rules" of trade. Just like the male grammarians who told the male parliamentarians in 1750 that "he" stands for everybody and that this "rule" needed to be statute, no dissent is heard. No dissent is heard. Everyone agrees. Rules-based trade, they say, peering out at the world from the narrow confines of their ideologies, will benefit everyone. Everyone.

Even D'Arcy? The rules say that capital is to be given free rein / reign, the market, alone, the value-free disciplinarian of human economic interaction. The rules require the elimination of the unfit, the non-viable, the uncompetitive, the protectionist; the rules brook no interference from such minor players as government, which continues, in its death throes to insist on its independence. The rules require all human institutions to be run for the unique benefit of its shareholders, with efficiency and the maximisation of profit, though not in that order, to be the sole objectives. Social objectives are considered, within these rules, to be antithetical to the central thrust of these rules, utterly contradictory, immoral, as Freedman himself put it.
D'Arcy doesn't want to be on welfare because, she tells me, she doesn't think people should be forced to support people like her. When people stop and throw a looney into her outstretched hand or cap, they are doing it of their own free will. And that's good.

Score a point for the WTO. They've got D'arcy convinced. With her words, my squat turns into a sit. Oh my. But what if you weren't submitted to drug tests and finger-printing and they paid you enough to cover rent and food and everything else? No. I like it better this way. Oh my. Who's going to connect the dots? What is it going to take to give us pause on this roller-coaster to corporate rules consumer hell? Maybe it's starting. The sneaky drafters of the Multi-lateral Agreement on Investment got their comeuppance. The big noises in Seattle were drowned out. When I stopped to chat with D'Arcy, I had just come from a meeting of "religious leaders" planning an interfaith initiative that will include outrageous public actions and conclude, when his calendar clears, a meeting with Mike. I was a Baptist in disguise as a Presbyterian; the Baptists on the invitation list didn't show. We want to help Mike connect the dots. It's not like he's alone with this problem. He has some very elegant company. But one starts where one is. 

Lee McKenna duCharme is a Member of the Consultancy on Social and Organisational Change

Rev. Dale Soble
Director of Communications
BCOQ, 195 The West Mall
Suite 414, Etobicoke, ON M9C 5K1

We have now received two issues of the BCOQ newsletter which is being called The Canadian Baptist. Although there is no indication that you want any feedback on this publication I have such strong concern about the use of The Canadian Baptist name that I feel I must make a response. On the positive side the newsletter is attractive colourful, slick and positive. On the down side I have the following concerns:
Calling this BCOQ newsletter The Canadian Baptist is really not honest. The Canadian Baptist that I knew and appreciated was a century plus tradition that spanned most of the country. It told the good news but also contained in depth articles that dealt with current important issues. We even had pro and con presentations on substantial issues giving appropriate expression to the diversity that really does exist in our midst but nowadays gets papered over or suppressed by our leaders. This newsletter may be an instrument in that process. So please have respect for the dead! The Canadian Baptist really is dead and until we have a resurrection, in all honesty, this publication should be called what it really is the BCOQ newsletter. Its content is completely controlled by the denominational leadership. It presents only what they wish us to see and read. 

There is no room for discussion and exchange of views via letters to the editor. This point was raised with BCOQ leadership by a number of concerned people at a Gathering of Baptists held at Calvary Baptist Church when The Canadian Baptist was about to be killed because of lack of funding and poor circulation we were told.

The leadership said they hadn’t thought of the need for discussion and feedback and would take this under consideration. You should not be surprised if some of us wonder if silencing dissent was not really the unstated agenda in "pulling the plug" on the real Canadian Baptist. 
Circulation is what makes a newsletter effective. Does the BCOQ newsletter get circulated to all members or just to the clergy? Should it not have very wide distribution? How many copies were printed of the first two newsletters? 

Cost is always a concern. That’s the reason The Canadian Baptist was trashed was it not? We were told that The Canadian Baptist was to be replaced by this newsletter with wide circulation and a more "in depth" publication of thoughtful material aimed at pastoral leaders. I assume "Perspectives" is addressed to that audience. Another piece totally controlled by denominational leadership and not by a more impartial editor with an independent board. What is the cost of these two publications? Is there a significant difference between this and the subsidy required to make the real Canadian Baptist viable?

While the new BCOQ communications strategy may look good on the surface the bottom line result is that we have actually taken a step backwards and have deepened the alienation and suspicion that a significant number are experiencing because communication is being "managed" rather than being allowed to "happen" with openness and freedom.

In fact I will send this letter to "The Gathering Newsletter" in the hope that a few people will learn of my concerns. There is no other forum in the BCOQ for such exchange.

Sincerely,
Rev. R. Michael Steeves

CC: Mr. Keith Hillyer
The Rev. Dr. Ken Bellows
Ms Nancy Bell

Keith Hillyer’s Response

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your thoughtful letter about the current version of the Canadian Baptist and the recent issue of Perspectives. I happened to be on my computer when it arrived (both of us at our e-mail at 9:00 am - wow). I know that you will be receiving a more complete response from both Dale and Ken, but I did want to assure you that this version of the CB is intended to receive a much wider distribution than was possible through the subscription process for the former magazine. This version is available to all churches in sufficient quantities to be distributed to every one in the pew or on the list of adherents and members at no cost.

Also, regretfully perhaps, we live in an age with too much information. Even at my exalted age, I find myself going through the daily newspaper reading only the headlines. Discussion amongst my own church's membership about the former version of the CB revealed that very few read the "in-depth" articles, and thus were really not interested in the magazine. Short, pithy soundbites are the current style; and if we want to get information across to our members about the outreach efforts undertaken by our churches or the growth of the Kingdom in our region, we need to use the current "language" or medium which catches their attention.

Just those two quick responses; I would like to give some more thought to your other concerns, and I am sure that both Ken and Dale will be reflecting on your ideas over the coming days. 

Thank you for your letter.

May God provide you and yours with the richest blessings in the Season celebrating God's greatest miracle; Emmanuel - God with us.

Keith Hillyer 

The faculty dean at Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond (Va.) has been named as president of American Baptist-related Colgate Rochester Divinity School/Crozer Theological Seminary.

Trustees of the school in Rochester, N.Y., named Thomas Halbrooks as president-elect at a
called meeting Dec. 17. Halbrooks, 59, will assume the presidency July 1 when the current
president, James Evans, steps down after 10 years.
A search-committee document described Halbrooks as a leader who has "demonstrated a
commitment to excellence in scholarship and church leadership throughout his career."
***

Also on seminary appointments: Dr. Richard Vosburgh, former Professor of Consumer Studies at the University of Guelph, has been named Interim-Principal of McMaster Divinity College. Vosburgh has been a member of the Board of Trustees of the College, and active in IVCF. The announcment makes no mention of the Interim-Principal’s theological education. That reminds me of a story... But that’s for another time!
***

The BCOQ has produced a new document called Perspectives, which is intended to encourage theological discussion. The editor is Dale Soble, and the contributors of the current issue are all, save one, employees of the BCOQ or its affiliated agencies. 
***

Quote of the quarter - the ‘No-Comment’ Department:
"Tolerance is not a virtue. It depends what you're tolerating. Some things should be tolerated. Other things, if you tolerate them, you are being very irresponsible."
Dr. Dan Heimbach, currently Professor of Christian Ethics, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, NC, announcing his candidacy for the US Congress. 

Not a new book this issue, but a very good one. L. William Countryman, Dirt, Greed and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1990. In the current debate on sexual orientation, lifestyles, and family values, this is refreshing study on the use of the Bible. In my opinion, this is the best book available on the subject[s]. It would be an excellent study guide for the adventurous congregation.
Neil Postman is always worth reading, and his latest Building a Bridge to the Eighteenth Century: How the Past Can Improve Our Future, New York: A. Knopf, 1999, is a gem. At a time when history as a discipline is debased, and the eighteenth century rejected as holding any meaning, this book is a welcome attempt to swim upstream. You will not always agree with it, but it will make you think, which is, after all, the purpose of education.

Feedback can be directed to:  The Gathering Newsletter c/o Ray Hobbs e-mail ray.hobbs@sympatico.ca