CYOA: Luke 24 - The First Apostles

1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them.5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7 ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ”8 Then they remembered his words.

9 When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. 11 But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. 12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

I just want to reiterate what I heard NT Wright point out last year when he was in town. The first witnesses of the resurrection are women. The first to deliver the message "Jesus is risen!" are women. And the first people to reject the good news are the majority of Jesus' male disciples.

May I forever be humbled before the gender whom God has honoured so highly
May I be blessed to learn from their theological insight and experience
May they be empowered and encouraged to speak boldly and may their words be honoured and accepted
Lest we not receive the good news God has prepared them for and entrusted them with

Egalitarianism!

CYOA: Luke 24 - Suffering

This weeks CYOA is Luke 24, but my head is not totally in it. I have spend the last number of days working on graduate applications in order to go back to school next year. I am also not fully finished thinking about the occupy movements (even though I did not post much). In that strain of thought I just finished watching some of the horrendous scenes of violence and brutality coming out of Oakland. As a result I am in a place of stress and grieving for the world. All of this comes on the heels of Danielle's last post, where she focused on validity of suffering. So as I scrambled tonight to think about Luke 24 I did what all Bible College grad can do, that is go back to what I have previously written about Luke 24 to see if there is something valid to share. I was pleasantly surprised.

I have chosen to share an excerpt from a paper I wrote last year. In the paper I argue the narrative of Luke-Acts contains a clash of worldview, that of Empire vs Kingdom. This segment is a look at the theme of suffering within the text,specifically how suffering can be better understood when viewed through a lens of Empire vs Kingdom. Luke 24 is vital for understanding the shift that occurs in the person of Jesus. Suffering enables a different world to take hold, a world of forgiveness.

"Another theme that assists in understanding the dialectic of Empire vs. Kingdom is that of suffering. Suffering is endured by those in the Kingdom at the hands of those in Empire. Jesus articulated this stating that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, and chief priests, and scribes (Luke 9:22). In other words, Kingdom suffers at the hands of those conspiring with the Empire. Suffering is not in correlation with the sinfulness of the person (Luke 13:2). Rather, suffering is something that needs to take place to those within the Kingdom (Luke 17:25, Acts 3:18, 17:3), as it is inevitable for those who choose to live like Jesus, which Paul depicts through his followership. It is through this life of suffering that one comes to be glorified (Luke 24:26), and once those in the Kingdom follow in suffering they are enabled to usher in the economics of forgiveness (Luke 24:46-47). The way through this suffering is in intimacy and relationship as both are present before suffering (Luke 22:15) and there is the hope of being presented alive after suffering (Acts 1:3). The Apostles rejoice as they join in suffering dishonour for the Name (Acts 5:41). A key attribute of the Kingdom is to suffer rather than be the oppressor like the Empire. Paul was chosen to suffer (9:16) and did so in prisons, shipwrecks, etc. because he, like Jesus, suffered to proclaim the Kingdom to both to Jews and Gentiles (Acts 26:23), and in so doing ensured the Kingdom remained centrifugal. Luke-Acts seems to depict that the hands of another human always cause the suffering experienced, as suffering is not in reference to normal pains like the bite of a snake (Acts 28:5). This understanding of suffering shows that the Kingdom takes a different method to reach out than Empire does, as Empire expands by causing suffering, while the Kingdom expands by persevering through suffering."

Judges Revisited

For those of you disappointed by our #occupy interlude you will be happy to know we will return to regularly scheduled posting this week. There are a number of thoughts in my head that I would like to post such as my penchant for the thrill of deadline chasing, to reading church history through the lens of old testament narrative...

However, as I am deadline crashing as we speak, I will provide an insight from my school readings of such brilliance it is incomprehensible to me I have not heard it earlier. The insight is that the narrative in Judges 19 - 21 provide an apology for David and against Saul directed toward the Northern tribes. Note that the Levite is from the North (Ephraim) and that his concubine runs away to Bethlehem (David's home town). When the Levite comes to Bethlehem he is treated with lavish hospitality. On his journey home he doesn't stop in Jebus (Jerusalem)...too bad the Benjamites didn't do a good job occupying the land... it sure would be nice if someone would conquer it... maybe someone nice from Bethlehem will conquer it so nice Levites can stay there and receive hospitality...(DAVID!). So the Levite goes on to Gibeah (Saul's home town), where no one takes him in except a man from Ephraim. We then have the Sodom and Gomorrah episode etc. Rather than Saul providing any sort of redemption to this story, as I suggested in my post, this story rather foreshadows and prepares for the kingship story very directly. As readers, when we hear that Saul is from Gibeah, we should receive the hint that this is not awesome...

Canada Needs Economic Reform Too!

'We are the 99 per cent," the protesters chant, eyes aflame with reformist zeal. It's a compelling slogan, well-suited to the times and to the social-media soup in which we are increasingly immersed.

The wrinkle: It's not true. North America and Europe, geographic epicentres of the Occupy Wall Street movement, are the fattest of fat cats, globally speaking. For any North American, least of all a Canadian, to claim economic kinship with the globally disadvantaged is silly. - 'We are the 99 per cent' is just not true

After reading this article in the Vancouver Sun and glossing over a few more anti-occupy articles, I have some push back of my own to offer.

Firstly I want to point out that the #OccupyVancouver statement of unity is a working document, meaning that it is subject to change as the movement evolves.

This Vancouver Sun article in particular points out the fact that we (Vancouverites) are richer than other nations and therefore have nothing to complain about.

I want to point out that our working statement of unity also includes the sentence "injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere".

This movement is speaks out against the growing global disparity of wealth. Simply because there is a smaller gap between the average Vancouverite adult and the top 1% than the average African adult and the top 1% does not mean we are disqualified from protesting. We have noticed this trend in disparity and do not like it. We want something different to be done for all people!

To be clear, there is a growing disparity of wealth in Canada. So while it is true we are in the top 10% globally, 90% of even North Americans do still qualify as part of the 99%. The idea that since we have it pretty good, we should therefore shut up is unbelievable bullshit. The critique that our complaint must also address our complicit behaviour in exploiting the world is absolutely fair.

I once visited a doctor at a walk-in clinic to talk about anti-depressant medication. This doctor asked me if I was suicidal? If I was ready to jump off a bridge at any moment. He asked if I was imagining things like ants crawling across walls or if I constantly felt like I was being chased. With my negative response he proceeded to tell me that all I need to do is think more positively. He then compared my situation to that of people across the globe who were suffering from natural disasters, drought and war. In my headstrong state I responded fiercely.

"How dare you diminish my suffering based on your incorrect conception of others who have suffered more than I?" "How dare you inflict your prejudice judgement on me!" I was offended to the core. Based on being born and raised in Canada this doctor immediately wrote of all of my life experiences without knowing me or taking the time to inquire and listen and decided that I had not suffered enough to possibly be close to depression.

This is the source of my push back. Simply because we have more of the world's wealth than Africa does not mean that there is not a growing disparity that needs to be addressed here. Yes the disparity is larger elsewhere but that in no way negates the local reality or the validity of complaint. The global reality reinforces rather than undermines the message of #Occupy. Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere! How will this globe change if change is never instigated or supported? We can not leave it up to someone else. We can not leave it up to the other nations.

We have been affected and we need to speak up!

Occupy Vancouver has Found Love

Along with Silas and Duncan, I was also able to visit Occupy Vancouver last weekend and would agree that it was the most hopeful and active congregation that I have witnessed in a long time. We made it in time for the general assembly which I too thought was both beautiful and frustrating. One of the moments I enjoyed most was the reading of the working statement of unity using the human mic.

Occupy Vancouver - A Non Violent Movement for Social, Economic and Political Change

We, the Ninety-Nine Percent, come together with our diverse experiences to transform the unequal, unfair, and growing disparity in the distribution of power and wealth in our city and around the globe. We challenge corporate greed, corruption, and the collusion between corporate power and government. We oppose systemic inequality, militarization, environmental destruction, and the erosion of civil liberties and human rights. We seek economic security, genuine equality, and the protection of the environment for all.

We are inspired and in solidarity with global movements including those across the Middle East, Europe, and the Occupy Wall Street / Occupy Together movement in over 1000 cities in North America. Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.

We humbly acknowledge that Occupy Vancouver is taking place on unceded Coast Salish territories.

We are committed to an inclusive and welcoming space, to addressing issues of oppression and discrimination, and to creating an environment where all the 99% can be heard and can meaningfully participate. We are also committed to safeguarding our collective well-being – including safety from interpersonal violence and any potential police violence.

Reading this statement aloud reminded me not only of a liturgical church service but also of the statement of diversity which I have argeed to abide by upon accepting a new position of employment.

We are children, youth, adults and seniors.

We are of all races, all religions, 
all cultures, all abilities,
 all sexual orientation, and all economic levels.

We speak many languages.

We value diversity.
We endeavour to reflect this diversity in our volunteers, board and staff. We respect all our neighbours and clients 
and extend our respect to them in all that we do.
Therefore, we will act to promote
 inclusion of all in our agency and in our community.

Something I find interesting about these two statements is that they center on the value of all people.

One of my good friends wrote his protest sign on the back of his jacket; it reads “People before Profit”.

During the general assembly I can recall at least two people calling out to the crowd through the human mic “I love you all”.

Currently, my favourite song is “We Found Love” by Rihanna. Aside from one other verse, the song repeats the words “we found love in a hopeless place” to a sweet techno beat. At the next general assembly I might suggest that we adopt this as the Occupy Vancouver theme song because the protestors are creating love in a hopeless place by committing to inclusion, practicing consensus and hearing all voices. They have me amped!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djHm2ljLYbY&feature=related

#OccupyVancouver - On the ground

Ok so I have attended two general assemblies, went on the march on Saturday and just hung out a bit. On the first day there was 3-5000 people who showed up. Which was both amazing and I think overwhelming. We had great weather and a great march and the village was established. People are learning on the ground why democracy is slow and not everyone is excited. But there was another significant turnout on Sunday as the group continues to work to nail down a consensus process. Part of this process involved breakout groups which allow crowd discussion and ideas to happen and move to the mic. This was the best part of the day. People worked hard at actually communicating - speaking and listening - it was respectful, empowering and effective. There was also an interesting win for free speech when a participant was able to disagree with the movement's non violent position from the microphone reasonably articulately.

I had the opportunity to talk about #OccupyVancouver last night to a friend and failed miserably to communicate the fascinating and inspiring and moral nature of this movement. While in some respects so far it has been a protester convention, everyone with their own pet project and priorities, protesting is not the primary focus of what the group is trying to do. #OccupyVancouver is literally recreating society in microcosm, from scratch. While they are united in discontent, the movement is incredibly proactive. I say movement because occupy camps now exist in 900+ cities globally. By looking at the created microcosm societies in New York and Vancouver (the only two I have significant information on) it is easy to see what they/we want.

Consensus participatory direct democracy is the format in which the community thinks through and decides things. What does this say? I believe it is a critique of partisan politics and Canadian elected dictatorships, which is effectively what a majority government is. Furthermore, it is the demand for greater direct access, control or voice in our communities and countries. I think there is a sense that the ballot once every few years has become an ineffective way of voicing political opinions or communal desires. I think that the successful overturning of the HST is a clear indication that citizens want clear accurate information and a voice and will not have things foisted on them any longer. Regardless of your opinion on the HST, the results demonstrate the power of direct democracy, people's willingness to participate and their distrust of government. Furthermore, the consensus model emphasizes the desire for unity and the good of everyone AND a belief that this is possible. It fairly questions the idea a 51% majority in the house of commons should have the right to make decisions for everyone. Interestingly, the other places where consensus models of governance and decision making exist are the Orthodox Church, a number of First Nations tribes and the Quakers (Please add more that you know of in the comments). There is the political question at stake: Do we just want stuff to happen or do we want the right stuff to happen? And also how do we know or find out what the right stuff is? I think the financial, and environmental crisis highlight the increased perception that taking the time to really make good decisions that really represent everyone and the good of the planet are what is needed, rather than efficient political structures that exempt personal voice or responsibility, encourage passivity and apathy and are influenced by corporate voices more than community voices. Furthermore, the democratic ideals are founded on the belief that together we can make better decisions - if you think that the majority of people are stupid and shouldn't have a voice then go live in China because that's how they run things over there.

To the end of creating a community that is safe and inclusive and takes care of everyone, #OccupyVancouver provides free food - everyone is fed, everyone is kept warm, everyone has a voice, everyone participates. They claim they are the 99% and they offer a vision of what society could look like if the 99% re-evaluated their goals of wealth and luxury, continually chasing that 1%. #OccupyVancouver, minus some prayers and songs, looks more like the Acts 2 church than any church I know of...

The #Occupy movement has successfully imagined the possibility of imagining a better society with economic and social justice. They are actively working to not just offer ideas and suggestions, which there are lots of, but to also actually create it on the ground. This is exciting and inspiring I encourage you to find out more and get involved.

#OccupyWallStreet - "the right to peaceful assembly"

As I am intending on going to the art gallery tomorrow to visit/participate in #OccupyVancouver I thought I should check into some of the legal issues at stake in protesting. As Canadians we have the right to peacefully assemble. Note that we do not have the right to assemble as such, only peacefully assemble. In fact even the right to peaceful assembly may limited with "good reasons." The way all this is written up in both the charter and related legal documentation results in the reality that the police have HUGE amounts of discretion in both their interpretation of the laws regarding protests as well as the physical situational realities.

Laws regulating protests in Canada give the police a lot of discretion in deciding, first, what assemblies are peaceful, and second, when peaceful protests are not allowed. Police discretion contradicts the values of accessibility and precision that gave rise to the s. 1 requirement that limits on Charter rights be prescribed by law. The idea is that citizens should have a “reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited” (Peter W. Hogg,Constitutional Law of Canada, Student Ed. 2007 at p. 798)—that’s accessibility of law, and that officials must not engage in discriminatory and arbitrary breaches of rights—that’s precision of law.

But in R. v. Hufsky and R. v. Ladouceur, the Supreme Court held that as long as police discretion comes from law, it meets the s. 1 standard of “prescribed by law,” even if the discretion is unfettered. - lawiscool.com

Does anyone else find this disconcerting? Throughout the related legal documents the ambiguous terms like peace, reasonable, justified, tumultuous, are used repeatedly. The result of Canada's failure to more specifically define words like peace and tumultuous is that the police have all the power in protest situations because it is at their personal and corporate discretion whether your actions and language are peaceful... The bottom line is that they can effectively disperse a protest or assembly whenever they want because they are granted enough discretion under the law to be able to act first and explain later. The result is that they may be influenced significantly by personal or government or even corporate influence rather than the public or social good or opinion. When in doubt the police enforce "peace" not freedom but peace without freedom is no peace at all, it is soulless mandatory order. Real peace, the peace that we want and need, must be more than a lack of physical violence.

The final analysis by lawiscool.com:

Canada is not a police state—far from it. Our ideal is the rule of law and protection of civil liberties. But just like with ideals, we shouldn’t take our eyes off frightening possibilities. In a police state, armed agents of the state are free to limit freedoms and rights as they please. Their discretion is completely unfettered, almost like the discretion our laws grant to the police in dealing with street protests.

Our police forces are professional, highly trained, and generally honest. But it is not their job to determine the content of the Charter freedom of peaceful assembly. Provincial legislatures and the federal parliament must step in and give clear guidance to the police when they can break up street protests. The police can make mistakes and may have its own institutional interests that are not necessarily the same as the public interest. The people have a right to clear notice of what is lawful, and we all have a fundamental freedom of peaceful assembly. Our legislators must set out with much greater precision what the police powers are in regulating street protests.

All of this is particularly interesting due to recent Vancouver riots and the Toronto G20 fiasco... Tomorrow will be interesting. I'll be out there in the morning, Silas and Danielle are hopefully driving in after work, let us know if you will be there. Get your church involved.