girltheology

This morning's New York Times featured an interesting article in their on-line "Critic's Notebook" section on Houston preacher Joel Osteen.

Without so much as saying it outright, Pastor Osteen seems to be promoting the "gospel of success." I have issues with this. I have a girlfriend who lives in Armenia, and during a conversation we were having last night, she mentioned that she's put her engagement ring in a safety deposit box - a 3 carat emerald cut diamond. She and her husband did that when the first went to Armenia three years ago because no one in that country wears solitaire stones. They purchased a simple plantinum band in LA before they left for Europe on a short term visit to the country of their grandparents.

Three years later, with her husband ordained as an Orthodox Armenian Priest, and she working for the His Holiness Karekin II, Catholicos of All Armenians, they have left the ring where it is - in safe keeping. They decided that it would seem strange, after fitting in so well for 3 years, to pull it out now and say 'oh yeah - and I have this huge diamond.'

We talked about the pressure to have bigger, more, better that fuels our economy in North America. It's so unrealistic. I've made a decision that when I get married (if?) that I don't want a big expensive ring. I'm not sure I want a diamond at all. I saw all of my colleagues from all over the world in Brazil - and the vast vast majority wore a simple gold band.

How can we live more simply so that others may simply live?

In that times article on Joel Osteen, he's quoted as saying: "I don't believe I ever preached a message on money... But I do believe, you know what, God can want you to have a better house. God wants you to be able to send your kids to college."

I must admit I cringed when I read that. God can want me to have a better house? How about God wanting me to see how my behaviour sends ripples through this delicately balance (sometimes vastly imbalanced) life on earth. When I buy my discount bargain items at Walmart - that has a direct and indirect impact on the lives of the BILLIONS of poor peasants in China who are forced to work in manufacturing because there are no other jobs.

Where do these mega-churches call us to be accountable as a generally affluent society for the fact that there are systemic injustices built into our economic system. This may, then, very well be a system which Jesus would ask us to condemn. Just because the market is efficient doesn't make it right.

God can want the poor to have a better house. God can want the children of the poor to send THEIR kids to college - but I'm not sure about the rest of us.

Not that I have any answers - but sometimes I feel like not enough people are asking questions - any questions.

Happy thoughts today. NOT.

I have to admit - since I started receiving the Anonymous Islamic comments on my blog, I've been a little perplexed as to how to handle the situation. I'm all for inter-religious dialogue, and blessed to be part of a church that is committed to it as well.

However, I'm not schooled enough in Hebrew scriptures to be able to get into an in-depth dialogue with my Islamic sisters and brothers about discrepancies in our Christian texts, let alone differences between the Bible and the Quran. Yikes!

While my Anonymous commentator on this blog may have had me fooled, and may be critical of Nate's responses to his comments, what he has to realize is that Nate is a very intelligent, educated political scientist who's read "EVERYTHING." Especially about these kinds of issues. The fact that he could look at the comments posted on my site and tell me exactly where they were plagiarized from was actually quite impressive. I have to mention here that Nate is my cousin.

Anyways - as promised, I got some response from one of my professors, and as promised I will post it here (response from the Rev. Dr. Ted Siverns, VST):

"Carmen ...I do enjoy these little puzzles. You will know of Genesis 16, J and P as part of the mix. The question is not so much "a part of the English language" but about the Hebrew language. Our translators, like the RSV and NRSV attempt to be as literal as possible and therefore these oddities occur from time to time.

So the age of Ishmael has to be at least 14 and obviously too big to be added to Hagar’s shoulder load.

There are a number of translations that attempt, like the NIV, to interpret what is ambiguous in the Hebrew.

The verse in Hebrew reads “…bread and…water and gave to Hagar placing on her shoulder and the child and sent her out…” “The child” is direct object of, here is the problem, of what? “he took”? “he gave”? “placing”?

The translation could read “Abraham took bread and a skin of water, placing these on her shoulder, and the child and gave them to Hagar.” Still not too helpful you say. Let’s try: Abraham took the bread and water (which was placed on her shoulders) and the child (and these) were given to Hagar.

At least that is the probable and rational meaning. Ted"

Anyways - I think it's also worth publishing Nate's most recent comment:

"Nice shame play bud. Obviously I’m not deeply disturbed by anything you wrote. For a couple reasons: 1) I’ve read this before. 2) I take the Abraham stories to be tradition rather than straight factual events. Discrepancies don’t bother me.

Regarding civilized discourse, I might be a foul mouthed heathen but you’ve committed the two Cardinal Sins of my universe (academia)
1)Misrepresentation – You’re not a disinterested observer. Participants are supposed to approach the exchange of ideas honestly.
2)Plagiarism – You ripped your entire argument from other sources without citation. A lot of it is word for word.

As a marker, I’ve already assigned you an F.

If you want some informed answers to your pre-packaged proselytization than let me suggest visiting AnsweringIslam.com. This section on Genesis 21:14 includes the comments of two Hebrew professors.

http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/gen21-14.html

They think the discrepancy is simply poor translation. While I’m naturally sympathetic to the multiple authors/multiple traditions explanation for these scriptural anomalies, the professors make an interesting case.

I congratulate you on finding an obscure Canadian blog to try out your refined Dawah skills. Next time don’t resort to simple cut-and-paste techniques. Be sure to build some personal rapport before launching into your Islamic spiel. Also, be honest about your religious background.

Maybe one day you’ll finally catch your fish. And then you’ll be handsomely rewarded in paradise. Allahu Akbar!

Cheers,
Nate (aka “Abu Jahiliyyah”) "

Anyways - Anonymous comments may continue to be posted here, but really, I'm sort of done with this issue and on to the next thing - like finishing my sermon for tomorrow.

Thanks to all who participated in this lively discussion.

C.

I received an interesting comment on my last post.

"Anonymous said...
Dear Carmen

Just read your blog since you mentioned Abraham and Ishmael i would be very interested in your view of the following.

Question - what is the age of ishmael in the passage of the old testament (see below) is he 7 months, 7 years or 17 years old?

This is not a trick question please follow you intellect and not your religious knowledge. It is simply a test of the english language.

Look forward to reply.

Peace be with you.

GENESIS:21:14 - 21
So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-Sheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the child under one of the bushes. Then she went, and sat down over against him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said, “Let me not look upon the death of the child.” And as she sat over against him, the child lifted up his voice and wept. And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him fast with your hand; for I will make him a great nation.” Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the lad a drink. And God was with the lad, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt."

I responded that my answer was 17.

Here is the next comment which came up:

"Anonymous said...
Congratulations your are the first person ever to get Ishmael’s age correct so please read the passage again below this time I have put Ishmael’s age in brackets. As you are aware the description of Ishmael and his age do not fit. He sounds more like 7 months old.

(17 YEAR OLD) carried by his mother, placed in the bushes by his mother, crying like a baby, lifting up the lad? giving him water to drink. At 17 years it should be the other way round. Why is there no verbal communications between mother and (17 YEAR OLD)child????????????????

GENESIS:21:14 - 21
So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the (17 YEAR OLD) child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-Sheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the (17 YEAR OLD)child under one of the bushes. Then she went, and sat down over against him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said, “Let me not look upon the death of the (17 YEAR OLD) child.” And as she sat over against him, the (17 YEAR OLD)child lifted up his voice and wept. And God heard the voice of the (17 YEAR OLD)lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the (17 YEAR OLD)lad where he is. Arise, lift up the (17 YEAR OLD) lad, and hold him fast with your hand; for I will make him a great nation.” Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the (17 YEAR OLD) lad a drink. And God was with the (17 YEAR OLD) lad, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt.




Carmen you and I know that age of Ishmael at this stage is crucial to the Abrahamic faiths. If he is 17 or less the Islamic point of view about the Abrahamic covenant is correct. This has devastating theological consequences of unimaginable proportions.

This makes the conflict between Ishmael and Isaac and there descendants a work of fiction. I would strongly suggest it is clear cut case of racial discrimination and nothing to do with god almighty. The scribes have deliberately tried to make Issac the only son and legitimate heir to the throne of Abraham??

Please can you rationally explain this anomaly?

I have asked many persons including my nephews and nieces (unbiased minds with no religious backgrounds but with reasonable command of the English language about this passage and they all agree that the child in the passage is an infant.)"

In all fairness to the person who is commenting on my blog- I really can't answer the second question without doing some serious exegesis. I have never studied Hebrew, although I am assuming that there may be some contextual editing that has happened to the texts either in translation, canonization or writing that has resulted in the anomaly. I don't have adequate access to biblical commentaries at the moment to attempt to research this on my own, but it is an interesting issue, and I'll see if I can find an answer from a professor of Hebrew Bible. If any other readers have suggestions or better HB exegetical skills than me, please feel free to publish your comments by clicking on the "comment" link below.

Sermon from the second week of Lent this year - still thinking a lot about it, so I thought I'd post it online:



"But turning and looking at his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, "Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things."
He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.
For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it.
For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life?
Indeed, what can they give in return for their life?
Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." (Mark 8: 33-38)

This text is troubling. For me, it is not a life-giving text. It is one of the texts I struggle with in the desert of my faith. It needs to be questioned, and Lent - a time of faith exploration, seems the right time to do it.

Since the focus of our Lenten study this year is water as a living covenant in our faith, I have thought this week about 'barrenness.' It is really the only metaphor in the scripture readings today that can be tired to the idea of water without some long and complex explanation. “Water is essential for life. We are born from water. Without it, we are parched; we thirst, we die. The land is dry and barren without water. Surely the land promised to us is fertile? Fullness of life comes from being faithful to the covenant relationship God calls us to. When we are faithful to that covenant relationship, the whole creation is healthy. Our thirst is quenched and new life is born around us and in us.”1

I want to share with you two stories I read in the New York Times this week, and hopefully it will be possible to consider this Lenten metaphor of barrenness – especially in light of the world in which we live. After reviewing the Hebrew Bible scriptures for today – and reading again that old story of Abram and Sarai's patience and faithfulness as they waited for the promise of a son – the promise to be “exceedingly numerous,” the following headline in the Magazine section (Sunday Mar. 12, 2006, NY TIMES) caught my attention: it posed the question “Wrongful Birth?” It is the story of a woman named Donna Branca – a woman whose family has now become a case study in the study of bio-ethics. Donna became pregnant for the first time at the age of 31. Despite several early indicators of a troubled pregnancy, her Doctors told her she was fine.
“On April 22, 1999, when Branca was 28 weeks pregnant — four weeks past the legal window for terminating a pregnancy in New York — she saw her regular doctor (for what would be the last time) and was reassured that her baby was fine. But three weeks later, while on vacation on the Jersey Shore, Branca began to bleed again. Her husband, Anthony, drove her to the emergency room at Southern Ocean County Hospital in Manahawkin, N.J. Anthony Branca, like his wife, is compact and mild-mannered. When the obstetrician arrived, the doctor got out a tape and measured Donna's belly, a standard procedure to gauge a fetus's size. Although such measurements are a routine part of prenatal medicine and require only a few seconds, Donna had never had her belly measured. The obstetrician on duty that day asked Donna if she had had any prenatal care at all. Then he told her, based on his calculations, her fetus appeared to be only 24 weeks old, not 31. An emergency sonogram confirmed that the fetus was indeed abnormally small, and an amniocentesis later performed at Westchester Medical Center in Valhalla, N.Y., revealed much worse news: Donna Branca's fetus had both a gene duplication and a gene deletion on his fourth chromosome. (It was not until after birth that it would became clear that her baby had Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome, which commonly includes mental retardation, physical disfigurement, inability to speak, seizures and respiratory and digestive problems.) After two weeks of bed rest, during which doctors tried to delay labor, Donna delivered A.J. Branca on June 11, 1999, about six weeks before her due date. He was 15 inches long and weighed two and a half pounds, and he didn't cry when he came out. "One of the first things the attending doctor said to me," Donna told me, "was, 'It's not hereditary, so you should just have another child right away.'"

What happened next — the years in which the Brancas came to love A.J. deeply and also to file a multimillion-dollar lawsuit claiming that Donna Branca's obstetrician's poor care deprived her of the right to abort him — sheds an uncomfortable light on contemporary expectations about childbearing and on how much control we believe we should have over the babies we give birth to. The technology of prenatal care has been shifting rapidly: sonograms became standard in the 80's; many new genetic tests became standard in the 90's. Our ethical responses to the information provided has been shifting as well. As in many other realms, from marriage and its definition to end-of-life issues, those ethics and standards are being hashed out in the courts, in one lawsuit after another. And what those cases are exposing is the relatively new belief that we should have a right to choose which babies come into the world. This belief is built upon two assumptions, both of which have emerged in the past 40 years. The first is the assumption that if we choose to take advantage of contemporary technology, major flaws in our fetus's health will be detected before birth. The second assumption, more controversial, is that we will be able to do something — namely, end the pregnancy — if those flaws suggest a parenting project we would rather not undertake." 2

While this story focuses on the issue of ethics regarding a particular pregnancy, it also touches on the issue of barrenness. Despite the fact that Donna Branca and her husband were able to conceive and she was able to deliver a child – a child that they grew to love and raise – he was not the healthy, happy baby boy whom they had hoped for. The whole ethical issue around whether or not parents should have the right to choose to complete or terminate pregnancies based on genetic testing is a controversial one. What happens when we are allowed to choose a child because it is genetically more successful than another? If we read further back in the book of Genesis – we will see that Abram and Sarai faced a different, but not dissimilar situation. Faced with the barrenness of his wife Sarai, whom he loved, Abram was unable to produce an heir, so he chose to bear a son – Ishmael – their servant girl Hagar his mother. 13 years later God made a covenant with Abram and Sarai, now calling them Abraham and Sarah – and promised to them their own son Isaac – a promise that was fulfilled.

But later – in Genesis 21 we read that Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, playing with her son Isaac. So she said to Abraham “Cast out this slave woman with her son; for the son of this slave woman shall not inherit along with my son Isaac.” (Gen. 21: 8-10)
Although this troubled Abraham, for Ishmael was his son, he was instructed by God to follow Sarah's instruction and send Hagar and Ishmael away.

This story is pertinent for our times. We consider Abraham and Isaac to be fathers of our faith as Christians. We live in a world that for the first time in centuries there exists a religio-political war, which – although it is described as the war on terror – is designed in a way to demonize the “other religion.” In this case: Islam. Just like we consider Abraham and Isaac to be the fathers of our Christian faith – Muslims consider Abraham and Ishmael to be the fathers of the Islamic faith. The prophet Mohammed of Islam is a direct descendant of Ishmael.

We live in a world that is conflicted and hurting – crying out in pain: we watch as young men sign up to become suicide bombers. Westerners live in fear of a non-specific terrorist threat, and the radical Christian movement demonizes the radical Islamic Jihad – just as the jihad extremists demonize us as “infidels.” For centuries – since the advent of Islam there have been holy wars between Christians and Muslims. In defense of Islam – when the Muslims held control of southern Europe and the Mediterranean world – there was religious tolerance and freedom. The Holy Wars then, as now, were a struggle for economic dominance of a rich land. Despite the fact that for centuries the Arab world were fearless warriors whose expansion into northern African and southern Europe Christians and Jews were allowed to practice their faith and live in community with relatively little interference from the Muslims who ruled over them. The history of our legacy of intolerance began after the Crusades when the Christian world won back the territories of the Roman Empire, and Muslims faced religious persecution. Rather than the life-giving tolerance that was practiced by the Muslims, Christians promoted a barren land which demanded – by force – a world of intolerance and the manditory practice of Christianity. In first year seminary on my oral exam for Christian History my prof asked me if I could go back and change one thing in Christian history what would it be? I answered that I would have allowed for the practice of religious freedom in Christendom – who knows what Christian Islamic relationships would be like now had we not persecuted our Islamic sisters and brothers for their faith centuries ago?

This brings me to a quick summary of the second story which caught my attention in the NY Times this week: Dr. Wafa Sultan is a Syrian-born American psychologist living outside of Los Angeles. Until three weeks ago, she was widely unknown.

“Today, thanks to an unusually blunt and provocative interview on Al Jazeera television on Feb. 21, she is an international sensation, hailed as a fresh voice of reason by some, and by others as a heretic and infidel who deserves to die. In the interview, which has been viewed on the Internet more than a million times and has reached the e-mail of hundreds of thousands around the world, Dr. Sultan bitterly criticized the Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political leaders who she believes have distorted the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran for 14 centuries. Perhaps her most provocative words on Al Jazeera were those comparing how the Jews and Muslims have reacted to adversity. Speaking of the Holocaust, she said, "The Jews have come from the tragedy and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling." She went on, "We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people." She concluded, "Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them." In the debate [on Al Jazeera], she questioned the religious teachings that prompt young people to commit suicide in the name of God. "Why does a young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up?" she asked. "In our countries, religion is the sole source of education and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched."3

While it is refreshing to hear the words of this incredibly strong woman speaking out against the misappropriation of the Muslim's Holy Q'uran, we have our own journey to look at. If Islam is teaching terrorists to drink from the spring of religion until their thirst is quenched, what does it mean for us as Christians to be the covenant people of a faith whose barrenness caused the casting out of a baby because he was not of the right genetic stock?

Lent is a time of barrenness. It represents the forty days that Jesus went out in to the desert. It is our 'barren' time, so to speak. For Dr. Sultan – her life-giving waters have come from leaving the practice of her ancestral faith in order to question the barrenness of its teachings. While I am not supporting the choice to walk away from this faith into which we are born and baptized, in order for us to have integrity as a covenant people, this type of critical reflection is essential in our faith as well. What happens when we don't look at the shadow side of Christianity? We can celebrate the roots of our faith in God. We can celebrate our ancestry in Abraham and Isaac – but not without the careful discernment and questioning of stories like the ones we heard today. Indeed – if we were to question our scriptures uncritically as the “divine truth” which could not be questioned – our faith is as dangerous as the Jihad which the governments encourage us to fear. Mark 8:35 – part of that troubling text I read at the beginning of the sermon – disturbs me: For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it. What is to separate our faith from the Muslim faith in this barren reading of a troubling text? Not much. But perhaps the hope of our covenant with God – the hope of our celebration of our ancestry and rightful births into this long line of Christian believers – is to follow in the footsteps of our sister Dr. Sultan. It is from the patient study of our barrenness that like Abraham and Sarah we are giving new life. I close with a Lenten prayer of reflection by Keri Wehlander:

You, O God,
sweet water of life
sparkle before me.

Parched though I am
I study you
from the shore of my desert.

Dancing, translucent river
fresh with grace
you open your arms wide.

I watch, filled with longing
but stilled by fear.
Uncertain. Unsure.

You, O God,
wait with tenderness
ready to wash my fear away
ready for me to swim in your love. 4

REFERENCES:
1.Severs, Sandra. Living Covenant: Water as Metaphor in Lenten Worship. p. 15

2. NY Times, Online edition, March 12, 2006

3. NY Times, Online edition, March 12, 2006

4.Poem by Keri Wehlander found in Severs, Sandra “Living Covenant...” p. 15.

It's interesting-

On the plane home, Bishop Bagrat Galstanian (Primate of the Armenian Church of Canada) gave me a book called "Building Bridges: The Ecumenical Journey of Karekin I" It is the life writings of a former Catholicos of the Armenian Apostolic Church, Holy See of Cilicia. In his book he writes about his time studying at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford:

"I must say here that the ecumenical spirit in Christianity has not gained yet its proper place in the thinking of ordinary Christians in the pews. Generally speaking, the ecumenical way of Christian thought and life has not come home yet to many of them. They are not very familiar with it. That spirit has to be fostered in every possible way. Otherwise the whole endeavor of the World Council of Churches may be reduced to an activity of "headquarters" and the concern of "top people" in the Church."

What is really interesting - is that Karekin I wrote that in 1959! Part of me sighed when I read that, because what we accomplished (or didn't) in Porto Alegre aside - coming home it is still like this in my congregation.

I was skeptical about the possibility of a universal church before I went to Brazil - but I saw such potential for love and unity, at the same time as I saw equal potential for hatred, division and intolerance. When I saw the latter most clearly was interestingly enough at a regional level. I think the global goals of ecumenism are much easier to achieve in some sense than the local or regional. One thing the Canadian delegates and I talked about in the last days of the assembly was the lack of accountability of member churches to take action on any of the recommendations of the WCC. It is a problem, because the WCC should not have "jurisdiction" over any member organization. Yet - at the same time - it is the actions of the member churches and the regions which give power to the WCC. How do we resolve this problem?

Just my thoughts this morning as I sift through the mountain of paperwork I brought home with me.

I went to Porto Alegre to the 9th General Assembly of the World Council of Churches as a delegate for the United Church of Canada. Two years ago Marion Best approached me and asked me to submit an expression of interest to the General Council nominations committee, which I did, and I was selected (along with Wendy Evans and Janet Sigurdson) after a long process. It's been almost two years, and for the most part, I hadn't hear much about the assembly... it was just off in the distance somewhere.

In the summer of 2005, I was asked to contact the national church's travel agency to start booking travel and was also informed there would be an orientation session in Toronto in October. While in Toronto we met some of the other delegates from the other Canadian member churches, learned a little about the Orthodox member churches and what the special challenges of the WCC are regarding Orthodoxy, and learned about consensus decision making. Marion Best also made it clear at that time that there was a possibility that any one of the three of us (UCC delegates) could be elected to the central committee of the WCC, and that if selected to do that, there was also a possibility of being elected to the executive committee.

In November I sent my passport away with my visa application. I also received a letter from the Rev. Dr. Samuel Kobia, General Secretary of the WCC, asking me to participate in a panel of speakers during a plenary on the theme of the Assembly, "God, in your grace, transform the world." Specifically, I was asked to speak on a sub-theme, "God, in your grace, transform the earth." In December I found out that I was nominated to be on a Public Issues Committee to work on statements to the world about public issues (i.e. responsibility to protect in times of genocide, nuclear disarmament, the cartoons which depict the Prophet Mohammed of Islam), but that all committee membership had to be elected by the general assembly in the first days of Porto Alegre. In January things really started to pick up - I received a package of 4 books from the WCC which I was asked to read carefully before I arrived in Brazil.

The Assembly was Feb. 14-23, 2006. I arrived on the 10th of February in Porto Alegre after a loooooooooooong journey (Saskatoon - Calgary - Toronto - Sao Paulo - Porto Alegre). On the 11th & 12th I participated (along with two other Canadian delegates - Wendy Evans and Katie Aven, a Quaker from NS) in the Pre-Assembly Youth Event. It was a time to connect with other youth delegates, get to know stewards, and get oriented to the campus and things like the fact you always have to speak into a microphone to say anything for the simultaneous translation to work. There seemed to be too much scheduled into too little time, and several projects that were started didn't get finished, and it sometimes felt like there was no time to discuss the real issues that were going to come up in the Assembly, but in the end we still had an advantage over the delegates who arrived the night of Feb. 13th! On Feb. 13 I attended a half day of the Pre-Assembly event for Indigenous Peoples, and got to be a small part of a process which worked on writing statements to the different committees asking that Indigenous Peoples be given more solidarity from their member churches, as well as that the WCC work with the UN to protect Indigenous Languages, which (according to UNESCO) are being lost at a rate of 1 every 2 weeks across the globe. That issue in particular hit home for me, because I can't speak Heiltsuk'wala, the language of my people.

Once the assembly actually started, it was a LONG two weeks. Breakfast was between 6:30 & 7:30, then it was off to the PUC campus for morning prayers, bible study, plenary sessions, committee meetings, checking in with the youth and with Indigenous Peoples, more plenary session, and evening prayers. By the time we got home at night, it was often a struggle to decide where/what to eat for supper before crashing into bed. I was grateful to have high speed internet access in my room so I could keep in contact with friends/family back home.

The plenary sessions were interesting, and gave a lot of insight into the recent work of the WCC. Sometimes it was difficult to remember that part of what were we there to do as delegates was to ratify the work of the WCC over the past 7 years, and to set guidelines for the next 7 years, but that we wouldn't be making decisions about specific issues or programming. Again - I have to thank Marion Best for clearly outlining the mandate of the general assembly - I saw a lot of delegates around me, especially youth, you were frustrated at not getting any "real work" done. I do feel like there was sometimes too much information coming all of the time - there was really no chance for Sabbath or meditation. Even now it's hard to write about my experience because I'm still processing everything that happened.

The second week of the Assembly saw the majority of the business sessions. After trying to balance the slate of nominees to Central Committee, there was an error according to the constitution, so elections to Central Committee took place a couple days later than hoped. I was elected to Central Committee along with the Rev. Will Ingram (Presbyterian Church in Canada) and the Rev. John Steele (Anglican Church of Canada) to represent Canada. We will be responsible for representing our own churches on central committee, but it is really important for all of us to remember that our names were put forward by the Canadian churches as a group to represent Canada as part of the North American region. We are also responsible for representing the voices of the Disciples and Religious Society of Friends in Canada (Quakers).

The best part of the assembly for me was meeting people of different faiths from around the world. I had engaging conversations with friends from Rwanda about human sexuality - a topic on which our cultures differ very much theologically (and sometimes in practice). I learned a great deal about Orthodoxy from my friends of the Armenian Apostolic Church (both those in Armenia and the Armenian diaspora) as well as the Syrian Orthodox Church in Jerusalem. The mainline protestant churches of the Pacific Islands (Samoa, Fiji, Tahiti, Kiribati, etc.) truly set the bar for inclusivity of the younger generation, and are dedicated to the training of new leadership and ensuring the future of the Pacific churches. I have also connected with my Indigenous sisters and brothers from all over - Norway, Sweden, the Pacific, New Zealand, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Greenland, Germany.

At the first Central Committee meeting (Feb. 22) we elected a new nominations committee, and they met 4 times over a 24 hour period to give us a slate of nominees to Executive Committee. Thursday the 23rd, during a marathon 4 1/2 hour meeting, we managed to elect the new moderator, vice-moderators, and executive committee. I was one of 5 people ages 30 and under elected to make up the executive committee for the next 7 years. We also have representing people under thirty: Graham McGeoch (Scotland), Nerissa Celestine (Carribean), Outi Vasko (Orthodox, Finland), Iyabo Olekola (Africa). We left that meeting at 11:30pm, with little time (for me) to get back to the hotel and pack before leaving for the airport at 4am the next morning. It was truly exhausting.

I would have to say that as I reflect on my experience at the WCC General Assembly, I realize that I saw the best of people, and I saw the worst of people. People's best intentions came out along side of their worst behaviours - and it was both a time full of hope and full of struggle. What struck me as most crucial going forward, is that there really seems to be very little accountability built into the work of the WCC. While the mandate is to work for Christian unity, there is little incentive for member churches to work towards unity if they don't like the process or if it seems to be too painful to change. This should improve somewhat with the deepening of the consensus model of decision making, but I think it will take some time for the parliamentary culture to truly leave the WCC. In the past churches have been justified by not taking action because they voted "against" a particular direction of the WCC. Now that is more difficult because in order for their to be consensus, they have to agree to live with the decisions being made, or try to change things enough to have more compromise. While that should bring member churches more on board, it will take the next seven years to tell if it is working or not.

What I learned is that it is important, no - essential, for us as Christians to always remember to balance the practice of Christianity with our talk of the ideals of Christianity. As someone who sensitive to inter-faith relationships, I was uncomfortable at times with the celebration of the ideal of Christian life, while sometimes there were was blatant silencing of voices which would expose hypocrisy or behaviours inconsistent with those ideals. The report of the message committee, written in the form of a prayer, stated "may our prayers never be empty words, but an urgent response to your living Word." That is my prayer also - we still have so far to go in ecumenism to reach the goal of Christian unity. When every member of every congregation knows something about ecumenism, when congregations can work together across the world to enact the goals of the WCC, and can celebrate that their sisters and brothers in Christ around the globe are working to the same ends, then we will have achieved our mandate as the WCC. Until that time, there is always a danger for the work of this great global body to be "empty words" for it is always the member churches who must put it into practice.