Material published in The Gathering Newsletter is the property of its authors, who are members of The Gathering.   If you wish to download the material from any issue, it is polite to ask our permission first.
Editor: Ray Hobbs

Lee McKenna duCharme

In his 1991 book, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, US theologian Michael Novak elaborates on an admission first made in March of 1976 in the Washington Post: 'A closet capitalist confesses'. In it he sets forth a theological argument for the superiority of capitalism over socialism, the 'right' over the 'left'. 'While God's heart may have been socialist, [God's] design was capitalist as hell.' Capitalism is more congruent with human nature; it takes human sin, specifically greed, seriously, while socialism does not. Presuming goodness, socialism never
works, while capitalism, building on greed 'is nearly always a smashing success.'

Novak articulates sentiments that remain widely held. His case for capitalism is both political and theological. The former is about efficiency, productivity and freedom. The second favours the 'realism' of capitalism over the 'naïveté', the 'illusion' of socialism. While capitalism, in its catering to selfishness, produces a creative and productive society, socialism gullibly places its faith in the goodness and wisdom of politicians and social planners.  On both counts, Novak misses the boat. Socialism's case against capitalism does not include a challenge to the productivity of the free market. (The Communist Manifesto itself extols the undoubted
achievements of capitalism.) Socialism's critique lies elsewhere: what use is made of the results of capitalism's production? Capitalism's obsession with profits and an ethic of consumption shape a final use of generated wealth that is all too often irrational and inhumane. The reader can fill in the examples that space limits here.  Driven by profit-making, capitalism's logical outcome is public penury, underfunded and inadequately resourced public institutions and infrastructure. Capitalism has no interest in, is antithetical to, the objectives that socialists seek ? a just and equitable provision of public goods and services. Capitalism is good at production; it is not
inclined to distribute in ways that benefit the common good. 

While socialism must admit to a problem with freedom (tending to favour equity over liberty), to say  that capitalism solves the problem of freedom, as Novak does, is a stretch. Capitalism's freedom is a negative one ? from something or someone, from coërcion. It has little to say
about freedom to ? unless, of course, you like everything the market has to offer, from 27 brands of shampoo and SUVs that suck up a litre of gasoline every ten kilometres to jobs that demoralize, dehumanize, enrich or impoverish, that pollute and alienate. Socialism questions the
tyranny of profits and the anarchy of capitalism, asking: wouldn't it be a more intelligent use of our finite resources if we were to focus our productive capabilities on those things that are conducive to common well-being? While capitalism might say, on occasions designed to elicit
good will, Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! socialism is inclined to ask, what kind of jobs? for whom? paid how much? producing what? having what impact on the environment?

In our day, a concentration of economic power is a reality that is not going to change. The question is: where is the economic power lodged? While capitalism's proponents claim that freedom is enhanced and social goals more effectively pursued when that concentration is located in the private sector, where the interest of the consumer, the wishes of the
investor and the judgments of the market hold sway, the socialist prefers that power held in public hands where citizens, acting collectively through governments, can achieve social goals and a just allocation of resources.

On the theological side of his argument, Novak sees sin as the fuel for both the greater productivity and the greater freedom he claims for capitalism. Socialism is a pretense. But is it? Socialism also takes human sin into account ? but rather than unleashing it, socialism seeks
to restrain it. Knowing our sinfulness, knowing that our selfishness makes it unlikely that we will care for minorities or the homeless or the hungry unless their plight touches us personally, socialism asks of the  collective a higher moral responsibility. Novak's neglect of justice is a serious one for a theologian, but the neglect is also exactly why his argument hangs together. While a capitalist environment inclines people to addictive, greedy, competitive individualism, a
socialist environment wants to elicit a different kind of behaviour.

Socialism does not dream of sinlessness. It recognizes selfishness while also realizing that its force and consequences vary enormously with the context. It recognizes the moral distinction between a system that encourages consumption and greed and one that encourages the acquisition of just enough.

To set up jubilee economics as a plumbline for biblical hermeneutics is to discover similar themes and axioms. There is enough in God's created world for everyone ? as long as human appetites are restrained and limited. Inequities are not 'natural' but the result of human sin and
must be mitigated within the community of faith through the regular practice of redistribution. The prophetic message calls people to the practice of such redistribution and is thus characterised as 'good news' to the poor.

If capitalism is 'right' and socialism is 'left', then maybe the leftis right and the right is wrong.

Ray Hobbs

While one of the most challenging, yet exhilarating sayings of Jesus is 'Love your enemies...' (Matt. 5.43-48), one of the most disturbing sayings is the one about hating one's family (Luke 14.26).  On the one hand, love is to be replaced by hate, yet on the other, hate is  recommended, no, demanded by Jesus.  How does one make sense of this contradiction?

Of course, as with many of the so-called 'Hard Sayings' of Jesus, one can ignore this one.  Not many of us have given everything away in our journeys of discipleship, and not many of us have willingly worn the symbols of a person condemned to death - in our age, the orange jump
suit and shackles.  We conveniently ignore these demands. We can also try and explain them away.  With our western liberal penchant for wanting things to be 'nice', the language of 'hate' does not sit well with us.  So, we are convinced that Jesus did not demand that we adopt this destructive attitude.

Our first obligation of interpretation, of course, is to try and understand what the saying means in its proper context.  We must ask ourselves the question, What would Jesus' hearers have understood when they heard this demand for the first time?  In technical terms this is
called establishing a 'reading scenario'.  In his book, Introducing Discourse Analysis, sociolinguist David Nunan describes 'context' as 'the situation giving rise to the discourse and within which the discourse is embedded.' (p. 6-7).  This is a point developed at length
by Michael Halliday in his book Language As A Social Semiotic.  Now, depicting this context, or scenario, is not easy because of the nature of our society in its post-industrial stage. We are also separated from the agrarian world of Jesus by two thousand years.  We cannot always
assume that the words we use as translations are exactly what the original speakers had in mind.

The most fundamental social value of the world of Jesus was 'honour'. It was a form of public currency, and possession of it gave great social status, whereas the lack of it, or loss of it, made one devalued in the eyes of others.  Honour was a very public thing, and for which men
competed publicly in verbal games (such as Jesus' jousts with the Pharisees), or displays of generosity.  A good family guaranteed inherited honour which was yours to squander. A poor family's reputation, such as that of the family of Jesus, usually stuck with the offspring for life.  Hence the comment of Jesus fellow-villagers when they saw him teach (Matt. 13.55; Mark 6.3).

In this public game of honour, one associated with others who could enhance one's own honour - a leader, teacher, a politician (as in Ancient Rome).  The unequal relationship that was recognised, though not necessarily formalized, demanded a commitment of both partners.  Old
forms of this kind of relationship go a long way back in Near Eastern history, and are seen most clearly in the ancient treaties which kings made with each other.  Kings who wished to enlarge their influence, or ally themselves to another who would be of benefit to them, entered into
what we know today as 'covenants'.  A presupposition of entering into a covenant was the willingness to commit oneself to the other partner.  In the traditional languages of the ancient Near East this commitment is called chesed (Hebrew), or agape (Greek). In other words it is known as 'love'.  Roman Catholic scholar William Moran has shown in several works how widespread the notion of committed love is in the treaty language of the ancient Near East.

Such love is not an emotional attachment.  The language for that is ahabah (Hebrew) or eros (Greek).  It is the emotional attachment which is notoriously imperfect and unreliable, as the Biblical prophets make very plain.  Committed love is an act of the will (i.e. the heart), and
is ideally not swayed by circumstances.  The one to whom one gives such a commitment is one whom one seeks to honour, and whom one deems worthy of honour.  To hate is then to remove this honour, this commitment, and to treat others as undeserving of honour.

Thus it is that the first part of Jesus' saying about enemies is about commitment to one's neighbours.  They are deserving of one's respect and honour, and this commitment is steadfast, undiminished by the broadening of one's giving of respect and honour to those outside one's normal 'moral community'.  Conversely, the honour which by social convention is demanded of your relationship to parents (Cf. Deut. 5.16), has now been replaced by honour and commitment given to the most unlikely one, Jesus himself.  He was an artisan from Galilee, who had no permanent home, and was something of an odd-one-out in the social scene of his day.  None of the characteristics that Jesus possessed did anything to enhance his social status at all.  In a real sense, because of who he was, he was 'despised and rejected of men...'  (Isa. 53.3).  He had no honour, save that which is granted him by his followers.  In distinction from parents
and home, he offers no security.  In contrast to the 'honourable' in Palestinian society, the priests and governors, he can promise nothing except treasure in heaven.  The way ahead for him and those who accord him honour, those who offer him committed love, is a via crucis, a way
which leads to Calvary (Luke 14.27ff).

Michael Steeves

Welcoming and affirming people as part of the body of Christ regardless of their sexual orientation is a matter of justice.  Confucius, in addressing injustice said, "A man (person) who knows he (she) has committed a mistake and doesn't correct it is committing another mistake".  For centuries the Christian church has been mistaken in condemning gays, lesbians and transsexuals and it is time to address this injustice as the church has addressed the sins of slavery, colour and barring women from ordination.

Our Faith Group, The Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, seems to be on the wrong side of this issue at this time.  We have adopted a self-righteous and, one could argue, self-serving stance that tries to both condemn and be pastoral at the same time.  The "hate the sin-love the sinner" position is really insincere and appears to be politically motivated to attract disgruntled members from other churches that take a more moderate position on sexual orientation.  Given the current climate in the denomination it is unlikely that this urgent pastoral issue will be fairly redressed anytime soon.  This despite our access to updated scientific research on sexual orientation and enlightened understanding of biblical passages that have traditionally and inappropriately been used to demonize people who are not heterosexual.

A group like The Gathering can help Baptists begin to move to a path of wholeness and healing in this matter by officially declaring what is already implicit in our body.  We can adopt a statement that identifies us as a welcoming and affirming fellowship.  A statement similar to the
public affirmation made by the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America with whom we have intimate ties. 

For some time now a small ad-hoc committee of Gathering folks has been looking at the issue of sexual orientation and how we can accept and affirm our sisters and brothers who happen to be "gay".  The committee has read widely on the subject, talked to Baptist people who are gay and lesbian  and has sponsored two events to look at what the bible says about sexual orientation.  The first event was hosted by Woodbine Heights Baptist church on June 19, 2001 in Toronto and was attended by interested people from several Baptist congregations.  A repeat presentation was a single congregational event held at MacNeill Baptist church in Hamilton on
February 09, 2002.

In both of these seminars Biblical scholar, Ray Hobbs, presented thoroughly researched and docu-mented biblical scholarship on both Old and New Testament passages which have been traditionally used to condemn same sex relationships.  Ray's careful work, much of which is published in his booklet The Bible and "Lifestyles", gave very different and plausible
interpretations of these passages.  His presentation was followed by a pastoral discourse by Rev. Linda Sparks, an experienced Baptist Chaplain. Linda also dealt with the gospel material on this subject. Members of the "ad-hoc committee shared brief book reviews from a wide variety of writers, from many theological traditions, on the subject. 

This helpful seminar is available to other Baptist congregations who wish to explore this issue in a calm and reasoned atmosphere with an open mind. These approaches can help us to move to redress one of the most pressing injustices facing the church today. 

My hope is that "The Gathering" will officially become a "Welcoming and Affirming" body.  This will simply confirm what is already our practice.  We are a "safe place" for gays, lesbians, bi-sexual and transgender people to worship and grow spiritually without fear of condemnation or reprisal.

2nd PATEFO Conference arranged for July in Czech Republic

In July of 2000 Gathering Members Ken Jackson, Jeff Pool and Ray Hobbs were privileged to take part with many others in the first PATEFO Conference in the Czech Republic.  'PATEFO' is an acronym for Pankrac Teologicky Forum, Pankrac being the small Baptist Church in District 4 of the city of Prague. 

It was at this church that Ray Hobbs worshipped during his time in Prague, sang in the choir, and met there many dear friends, brothers and sisters in the faith whose vision of  being
Baptist was remarkably close to that of the Gathering.  The Pastor of Pankrac, Ladislav  (Ladya) Meckovsky is a graduate in Theology from the Protestant Faculty of Charles University, Prague.  He is a leader among younger pastors in the Czech Baptist Union.  It was
Ladya's vision which formed the first conference, and his enthusiasm which has arranged the second. Between July 6th and 14th this year, the second conference took place.  It began in Prague, then moved to the small retreat centre at Siroky Dul nestled in the Moravian Highlands.

Participating in the conference were Ladya Meckovsky of Pankrac Baptist Church, Prague; Petr Macek of the Protestant Theological Faculty, Charles University; Hanka Krejckova formerly a Librarian at ITBS, Prague; Ray and Heather Hobbs, and  Ken Jackson from Canada; Jeff Pool from the USA;  Ain and Lembe Riistan from Estonia, and their pastor Kalma and his fiancee,  Marika; Nunzio Loiudice from Italy; Colin Bond of Hillhead Baptist Church, Glasgow, Scotland,  Martin Rothkegel, Anabaptist scholar of the University of Heidelberg; Lydie Kucova, Ph.D. student from the University of Edinburgh.  We shared papers on the general theme of "The Bible as instrument of Judgment and Renewal," and enjoyed each other's company and the many discussion often late into the night, of church life in general  and Baptist life in particular in Europe and elsewhere.

On the Sundays of the Conference (7th and 14th) participants had the opportunity to preach in several Czech Baptist Churches.  This is a wonderful opportunity for fellowship, tough theological discussion and fun.  It also is a demonstration that all over the world 'Gathering-like' organizations are growing in reaction to the 'mangement-style' polity that has been imposed on Baptist Unions and churches.

A third conference is already being planned.

BCOQ Assembly Report

John Furry

There were 568 delegates and 132 registered visitors for a total of 700, with many others attending various sessions. I was happy to greet several other Gathering folk over the course of four days. I also missed many other of our "gatherers" whose reasons for avoiding the Assembly I understand.  I'm not sure how many BCOQ officials yet understand those reasons fully. 

The Assembly heard two helpful addresses on "going deeper" in our love for God and for neighbour delivered by Rev. John Wilton, a former Area and Executive minister of our  onvention.  We were led in energetic worship largely of one particular style by a "worship
team". 

Included in the workshops was a very fine one on peace-making led by bob paterson-watt and Lee McKenna duCharme.  The unfortunately small attendance at this session indicates where many Convention Baptists are at (or not).  As part of the Nominating Committee report, John Torrance, a Gathering supporter was elected to the position of second vice-president of  BCOQ. Business matters included the following:

* The report of the BLEC Management committee was accepted, though a minority still expressed reluctance in terms of the decision not to have a class in 2002-2003 and therefore to lay off the staff as of June 21, 2002.  In terms of the future plan for the youth training programme the response was generally enthusiastic. Though that plan is still incomplete, the vision is for a modular programme to include several components and to involve possible partnering with CBM, BUWC and CAPC. `

* The part of the report, not surprisingly, which led to the most debate, had to do with the present BLEC building. At the end of it all, the recommendation was approved that if and when it is decided that the xisting building is not needed for the new youth training programme,
"Assembly 2002 empowers Council to manage the redirection for the use of the building to an alternative BCOQ ministry such that the legacy of the building will be used for youth and  lay development". 

* The governance document, "A New System for a New Century" was given further discussion and input by the delegates.  A method of  "straw voting" was used on various sections of the document in order to give the Planning Committee members some "read" on whether they are heading in the right direction. A couple of Gathering members to whom I talked, found this process not to be "consulting" but rather "insulting" and to restrict full and open discussion (kudos to bob p-w for his brave speech!). On the other hand, one Gathering member expressed his opinion that this was a helpful way to test the views and feelings of the delegates. 

* The one aspect of the system that was voted on formally and approved was that each church appoint among its Assembly delegates, two individuals who would serve as delegates throughout the year to be channels of information and input.  The rest of the "New System" will be voted on at next year's Assembly.

* Clearly the most heated and vigorous discussion at Assembly was around the recommendation not to grant extended health benefits to future retirees, which had prompted much negative reaction earlier not just from Gathering members but others as well.  The Convention Treasurer recommended that an advisory group be established to look at alternatives. A motion was made from the floor and carried pretty well unanimously that the whole matter be referred back to Council for reconsideration.

* The budget for 2003 was passed with no significant changes but ongoing
concern about deficits and the level of givings.

MDC ('MacDiv') Watch

A recent e-mail message from Lois Crowfoot, Chair of the Board of Trustees of McMaster Divinity College ('MacDiv'), has indicated that, in addition to the title 'Principal', Dr. Stanley Porter will also work under the title of 'President' of the College.

The reasons for this are vague.  Legally the College is headed by a Principal, and unless the McMaster Act is changed this will continue to be the case.  The suggestion in the e-mail that this change brings McMaster Divinity College into line with other similar institutions accredited with the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada, is also confusing.  Acadia, Wycliff, Emmanuel, Vancouver School of Theology, Altantic School of Theology, Queen's Theological College, to name a few in Canada, are all headed by Principals.

Corporations, of course, are headed by Presidents and CEO's, so perhaps this is another indication of the corporate mentality infecting Baptist institutions. 

A former student colleague of mine who had 'gone far' in his career as a Baptist minister and bureaucrat once told me his position was that of 'Chief Executive Officer of the Senior Management Team of the Baptist Union of...'  Looked good on paper, but made me smile. (TRH)

Correspondence

This letter is a response to the comments about worship two issues ago.
[Ed.]

Ray,

I thought I might add my penny's worth to the discussion in the Gathering's newsletter on worship and what is permissible in worship.

The Book of Psalms has been central in the life of the worship experience from the time of ancient Israel's temple worship, through Jewish synagogue worship, and throughout the history of the Church. It has much to say about the content and means of worship. The titles of
individual psalms indicate directions to choirs and choir directors, as well as possible names of tunes to which the particular psalm is to be sung.

 Most importantly for the present discussion are clear statements in the body of the psalms as to what may be included in the worship experience:

Ps. 150 : "Praise the Lord . with trumpet . lute and harp . timbrel and dance . strings and pipe . sounding cymbals . loud clashing cymbals ."

Ps. 24 suggests we can worship God through liturgical processions and antiphonal responses.

Ps. 47 exhorts the worshipers to worship with clapping of hands, shouting with loud songs of joy: "Clap your hands, all peoples! Shout to God with loud songs of joy!"

The Book of Psalms also indicates that the worshiper can bring the entire gamut of human emotions and experiences into God's presence in worship. The Book of Psalms expresses all the human emotions and has something in it with which all the experiences of one's life can
resonate ? from utter despair and depression (Ps. 88) to pure elation, excitement and joy (Pss. 145-150).

Cheers,

Malcolm Horsnell

Fall Gathering

The Fall 2002 Gathering Meeting will take place in First Baptist Church, Oshawa on October 26th.  Our topic will be 'Living as Baptists', and our day will be spent looking at three important ways of living, [1] The Creation and Sustaining of Community; [2] Being Hospitable and
Welcoming; [3] Being a Pastoral Community.  Our leadership will be drawn from within the Gathering community.

In the Spring of 2003, we shall meet on Saturday April 26th at Dundas Baptist Church.  That day we shall be led in reflection and discussion on issues of contemporary ethics.  We have invited as our speakers Dr. Elizabeth Boetzkes, Director of the Women's Studies at McMaster
University, and Dr. Travis Kroeker, Associate Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at McMaster with special interest in ethics.  At the time of publication these have yet to be confirmed.

As usual, the day begins at 9.30 with registration, coffee and chat. Please book these dates.

ISSN 1499-111X
©The Gathering of Baptists

Editor: Ray Hobbs
Editorial Committee: 
Barbara Bishop, 
Daphne Hunt, 
Bert Radford

Gathering Web Page: http://www.gatheringbaptists.ca/

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

or to

Ray Hobbs
35 Dromore Crescent
Hamilton, ON L8S 4A8
Canada