|
My blog posts revolve around my interests and vocation as a historian: the intersection of history and contemporary church life, the intersection of history and contemporary politics, serendipitous discoveries in archives or on research trips, publications and research projects, upcoming conferences, and speaking engagements.
I sometimes blog for two other organizations, the Canadian Baptist Historical Society and the Centre for Post-Christendom Studies. The views expressed in these blogs represent the views of the authors, and not necessarily those of any organizations with which they are associated. |
 Looking at an aging congregation, empty pews, lack of leaders, and a growing budget deficit is a challenge for those who grew up with confident affirmations such as “I can do all things through Christ,” “the gates of hell will not prevail,” and “dedicated to the glory of God.” Yet here we are facing possibly massive numbers of churches closing. And based on current stats on the state of things for Christian churches in the West, that day may be sooner than anticipated.
It is a difficult time in the life of any church in the West, and there is no cookie-cutter solution that works for all cases. That said, over the decades I have seen good decisions and bad decisions over the usage of church property in time of crisis. And here is what I see as some guiding principles and convictions to shape a constructive response to such a predicament.
0 Comments
 Like the secular newspapers, Canada's religious periodicals celebrated the end of the war in Europe. There was still the war against Japan to fight, but, for the moment, all eyes were on Europe and the end of a nightmarish bloodbath. Below I post some headlines from three religious papers, one each from the United Church, the Anglican Church, and the Presbyterians. I also post a few pages from the Toronto Daily Star that include advertisements from two of Canada's largest department stores, Simpsons and Eatons (sadly, both are now defunct). My grandfather had saved these papers in an old suitcase, and I ended up unfolding them hanging them in my office at work. What I find interesting is that the commentary in the religious press and the secular press is basically the same. On fact, the imagery of a crusading knight juxtaposed with a Canadian soldier, the invoking of crusading language, and mention of prayer, along with quotations from Judeo/Christian scriptures was something normal in that day (but certainly not to be seen in the Toronto Star today!). I provide these images as a means of time travel back to a week of joyous celebrations, and also a way of remembering and honouring those who made victory possible.
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nikea-arius.png This year the church celebrates the 1,700 anniversary of the Council of Nicaea. The Council of Nicaea (May-August, 325) is generally considered to be the first “ecumenical” council of the church. Although, an argument can be made that the church’s meeting in Jerusalem (Acts 15) was the first and Nicaea the second. But I digress.
Nicaea was a city in the Roman Empire across the Bosphorus and south of the new and strategic city of Constantinople. The usage of the term “ecumenical” simply means that an invitation was made to all bishops of the church – a distinction that makes it different from other common council meetings that were more regional and frequent. We are uncertain as to exactly how many bishops actually attended the all-expenses-paid trip to Nicaea. Eusebius of Caesarea (eyewitness) said 250. Athanasius (eyewitness) said 300. Some modern scholars (not eyewitnesses) say as low as 220. What is certain is that the large majority of bishops were from the eastern part of the Empire (not surprising since there were more churches in the east, and the primary issue of Arianism was, at that time, mainly an eastern problem). There were a number of items on the agenda, the main being heresy (Arianism), but also “church structures, the dignity of the clergy, the reconciliation of the lapsed, the readmission to the Church of heretics and schismatics, and liturgical practice” were on the docket.[1] And over seven weeks those issues were raised, debated, and resolved (or so it seemed). So why does it matter?  Happy to announce a new book co-edited with Dudley Brown!
https://wipfandstock.com/9781666704334/the-black-baptist-experience-in-canada/  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HM_King_Edward_VIII_unveiling_the_figure_of_Canada_on_the_Vimy_Ridge_Memorial.jpg This week marks the Battle of Vimy Ridge, a battle for a German-held elevated ridge on the Western Front. Initially captured by the Germans in the opening months of the war in 1914, it had withstood a number of Allied attempts to recapture it. However, in April 1917 Canadians stormed the ridge, and, much to the surprise of many who were used to years of futile frontal assaults, they quickly captured it. The victory of Vimy came to be seen as sign that Canada had grown up and could act on par with the other nations of the world. Soon it eclipsed and even replaced the Battle of Paardeberg (1900) as Canada’s “nation-building war” (after all, who has heard of the Battle of Paardeberg?).[1] In the post years there was a massive building project to memorialize and make sense of the war, and part of the Canadian focus was to build a monument in Europe to one of its most well-known victories; or perhaps the monument made it so well known, since the Canadian veterans of the Battle of Amiens (1918) certainly could claim that their victory was at least equally impressive. The monument was unveiled in 1936, and that unveiling started a tradition of pilgrimage to remember the feat, honour the lost, comfort the grieving, and make sense of the carnage. Recently I was browsing through the Presbyterian Record and came across the article below. It details a Canadian pilgrimage to the opening. It provides us today with a sense of how the monument was understood a few generations ago and also provides a sense of what was intended for us today when we make our own pilgrimage to that hallowed site.
 Who would you vote for in the two pictures? The gun-toting violent looking guy or the child loving family man? (I hope your answer is the violent looking guy!) My reason for this brief blog is simple – I am seeing so many snapshot pictures posted online for the sole purpose of swaying voters. And it is troubling. Such snapshots are unflattering pictures, intentionally making a person look angry, mean, hateful, stupid, incompetent, violent, clumsy, and so on… Stated simply, I expect propaganda machines, political party hacks, or passionate keyboard warriors to be active in such nefarious postings. After all, the reason people post such uncomplimentary (sometimes openly distorted by AI or other means) snapshots is that such pictures can actually work and influence public opinion. Of course, some photos of leaders need to be published, for some contain vital information necessary for voters to consider. But that is not my issue. My point is simply that Christians are supposed to be held to a high standard of political discourse. And that includes what they post online. I am taking issue with dishonest snapshots intended to sway voters – photos without context, photos manipulated, or photos that misinform at best and slander at worst. The church’s history when it comes to such shenanigans is not very stellar. A brief glimpse at some of the images in the Reformation debates shows that Christian charity and concern for truth can easily be lost in the heat of battle.
My students are often appalled when I show them such images (and these ones are tame compared to others) – often asking how those Christians of a bygone era could circulate such mean caricatures.
Sadly, not much has changed for we seem to be no different. The human condition remains the same, and common sense, concern for truth, and Christian charity continues to be lost in the battle. My hunch the current political heat will continue – and perhaps even worsen – in the coming months. My hope is that Christians will aspire to engage in a different type of discourse and avoid taking part in snapshot propaganda. The negative reason for doing so is perhaps not so obvious but compelling nonetheless; posting such things usually says more about the one who posted than the one portrayed in the snapshot. The positive reason for doing so is perhaps more obvious, it is an act of charity and clarity and witness.  To my Christian friends on the right and left who constantly make doomsday references to either Hitler (Trump) or Stalin (Kamala), please learn from the example of Hal Lindsey (1929-2024).
 The comments made by President-Elect Trump about Canada becoming the 51st state may sound bizarre to some. But a quick journey back in time to the late-nineteenth century reveals that such rhetoric is not all that unique.
 Just when does a protest become a pogrom? Increasingly the dividing line between the two has become blurred. And, if ongoing protests against Israel are any indication, Canada’s Jews face a fearful future in coming years.
Dissenting from the decisions of government is not a crime, nor should it be. Peaceful public protests are also a legitimate and necessary right in Canada, protected by law. Yet when does a legitimate protest descend into a pogrom?  Just over a year ago, my wife and I and another couple were out for a walk in Toronto and found ourselves having to escort a Jewish woman back to her office building. It was too dangerous to let her navigate her way back on her own through the large groups of people chanting for the genocide of Jews.
|
Archives
October 2024
|
RSS Feed
