MINISTERS MATTER

NO TALK OF SEX, PLEASE

When talking about issues of sex, parliamentarians advise caution. There’s a time to accept the will of Parliament – but not always.

by Don Hutchinson

It’s been a fascinating and fast-paced week for Christians in Ottawa. Through a host of overlapping and shared activities, Evangelicals, as well as other Protestants and Catholics, have engaged with Parliamentarians and with one another. Surprisingly, one of the common threads expressed by politicians about our engagement with government was that we talk about something other than sex.

The Canadian Council of Churches (CCC) Commission on Justice and Peace met in Ottawa for the week. On Tuesday, there was a forum on faith and the economy. The politicians present at a lunchtime roundtable, jointly sponsored by the CCC and The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC), represented all four parties present in the House of Commons and provided some helpful advice to Christians on engaging with government. However, departing from the focus on faith and the economy, there was consensus among them – we should not talk about sex!

There were also several private meetings with politicians throughout the week. Again, yes, you guessed it - please stop talking about sex!

Wednesday afternoon the CCC hosted a dialogue with Michael Ignatieff, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, on the place of faith in the public square. Mr. Ignatieff shared a bit about the faith practices of both sides of his family which contributed to his arriving at a position of respect for people of faith, appreciation for the mystery of faith and its deep roots in the lives of believers, and his personal decision to not identify with a belief or practice of any particular faith. Recognizing that people of deep and abiding faith are often the best citizens – both giving financially and engaging personally in meeting the needs of community beyond their faith commitments – he commented on his perception of the claims of faith and the claims of reason in regard to moral issues on which both pronounce strongly. Mr. Ignatieff suggested both may have to be prepared to give ground and live with the decisions of Parliament. Parliamentarians, he noted, serve neither the interests of faith communities or those without faith; those who vote for them or those who do not. Parliamentarians, he noted, are elected to serve the interests of all people in their ridings and the nation. And, we must live with the will of Parliament.

There are certain issues on which faith dictates a moral absolute.

Well, I can’t fully agree with Mr. Ignatieff. Nor can I agree with those who suggest Christians should not talk to Parliamentarians about sex.

I agree with Mr. Ignatieff that the voices of faith-based reasoning and non-faith based reasoning be welcomed together in the conversation of the public square. Each has wisdom to contribute. As an Evangelical, I recognize there are certain issues on which faith dictates a moral absolute. I also recognize that discovering those moral absolutes has required a process of both deep religious understanding and extensive reasoning. Those who draw conclusions based on reason alone are functioning without the benefit of a sacred absolute to act as compass to guide them.

More on the “will of Parliament” later.

On the issue of sex – it is “sex” that is the common thread and key outward indicator of some deep rooted concerns our faith has for the protection of the vulnerable in our society and the recognition of the sanctity of human life.

In 1969, the government of Canada embarked on a national moral social experiment by changing the laws about sex. Abortion was legalized, homosexuality was decriminalized and divorce requirements were minimized.

While abortion was legalized, changing the will of Parliament as originally expressed in 1869, it was still restricted to theoretically limited and identified situations. In 1988 those efforts at control were found to violate 1982’s constitutional amendment which established the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that Parliament could legislate in regard to the unborn children of the nation, but the then existing law was unconstitutional. Parliament engaged. In 1990, the will of the House of Commons was expressed 140 to 131 in favour of a new law limiting abortion but the will of the Senate was a 43-43 tie, so Bill C-43 did not become law. What was the will of Parliament?

Forty years after the 1969 omnibus bill and 20 years after the 1969 law was struck down, Canada faces an on average older population with an estimated need for 2 million more workers over the near future in order to sustain the social safety net required for aging baby boomers. This number roughly equates with the number of abortions that have taken place during the period of lawlessness on this issue.

All four party leaders are committed to not re-visiting the need for limits on abortion in Canada. Of course, those who are intellectually and morally informed on the issue of abortion – which, by the way is the direct result of sex – from a deeply rooted faith foundation will continue to speak out against the expressed will of party leaders and the unexpressed will of Parliament.

Since 1892 the legal age of consent for sexual activity with an adult in Canada was 14 years of age. Children were vulnerable to sexual predators and have become increasingly so with developments in technology. The will of Parliament had been expressed (and quite frankly, 14 was an improvement over 12 which was the age of consent in England prior to a substantial campaign mounted by the Evangelical leader of The Salvation Army, William Booth). Over 16 years ago, the EFC and others engaged in a continuing campaign to increase the age of consent. In May 2008 the age of consent was raised to 16 by Parliament. Two more years of protection were won for our children after a decade and a half long battle to change the will of Parliament. The battle was fought by those with faith-informed reasoning and those with practical experience (police sex crimes units and parents of abused children).

Yes, there are times when one must both challenge the will of Parliament and talk about sex.

Just weeks ago Bill C-268 – a proposal to establish minimum sentences for human trafficking of children – was passed on second reading in the House of Commons by a vote of 232 to 47 with the support of the three national party leaders. The first person convicted of trafficking a child in Canada received a 3 year sentence, was credited with 13 months off that time for 6½ months custody prior to conviction and gained mandatory release after serving 15 months. He made over $350,000 by sexually exploiting a 15 year old girl. This set the standard for Canada.

Despite the horror of identified child trafficking in Canada, the trend set by this first sentencing example, and the overwhelming support of the bill in the House of Commons, the 12 men on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights have decided to postpone the review of the bill until June at the earliest. In a minority Parliament this could spell the death of Bill C-268. What is the will of Parliament?
What if we were unprepared to talk about sex, when clearly trafficking of children, primarily young girls, is directly tied to sexual exploitation?

Finally, some comment on the “sex” issue with which faith communities became strongly identified by politicians at the turn of this century – same-sex marriage. I do not advocate the recriminalization of homosexuality in our “free and democratic society.” The changes occasioned by the decriminalization, however, have radically altered much of the fabric of a nation.

Decades later, when efforts to change the will of Parliament on marriage were unsuccessful by direct approach, representatives of the gay and lesbian community took their initiative into the courts. Ultimately, in 2004 the Supreme Court of Canada decided that this was a matter for decision of Parliament, much like they had in the 1988 abortion case. In 2005 Cabinet ministers were ordered to vote with a government initiative on an otherwise “free vote” bill and civil same-sex marriage became law by a narrow margin.

Here, I will agree with Mr. Ignatieff. Parliament has spoken on the issue of civilly recognized same-sex marriage in a way that has affected the lives of many who have married in accordance with this change. In this area, people of faith need not accept the performance of such a civil ceremony into their midst but rather strengthen the commitments of our communities to our understanding of marriage that takes place within a religious covenant beyond the civil document. This is a case where talking about sex will not be of benefit in talking with politicians, but discussion should be enhanced with congregants.

There is a time to talk with politicians about sex – when it involves protection of the vulnerable and care for the community. And there is a time to know when to accept the will of Parliament and when our moral absolutes require us to engage in further discourse in the public square. There is also a time for the will of Parliament to be expressed on issues of importance to the moral fabric of our nation. Now is that time.

Don Hutchinson is Vice-President, General Legal Counsel with The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Director of the Centre for Faith and Public Life.

INTERESTING WORLD WE LIVE IN

ONE DAY IN COURT: The Importance of Being There

The day was a reminder that the role of the Christian faith perspective remains important in Canadian life, law and society.

by Don Hutchinson

Friday, April 24 was an interesting day. Not that other days are less than interesting, but the opportunity to be engaged with the Supreme Court of Canada on what is literally a matter of life doesn’t present itself too frequently.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) jointly applied and were granted opportunity to intervene before the court in a constitutional challenge brought by the Attorney-General of Quebec to the legislative authority of the Government of Canada to enact certain sections of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. Essentially, Canada argued that the Act had been established under the federal criminal law power as it contained prohibitions, necessary and interrelated regulatory provisions, and penalties for violation. Quebec (joined by Alberta, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan) was arguing that certain of the regulatory sections were within provincial jurisdiction rather than federal because they dealt with the provincial power in regard to medicine.

…our presence … was an encouragement to the lawyers for Canada who faced four tables of opposing counsel…

The EFC’s President Bruce J. Clemenger, myself and Associate Legal Counsel Faye Sonier were in the courtroom for the hearing of the appeal from the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal, hence the designation of the case file as A-G Canada v A-G Quebec.

Sonier and I were seated at the counsel tables, sitting on the Attorney-General of Canada’s side of the courtroom (think along the lines of a wedding when people are seated with the bride or the groom – legal counsel for Canada sat at the first row table on the left side of the courtroom with legal counsel for the EFC seated at the table immediately behind, while legal counsel for Quebec and the provinces sat on the other side of the courtroom). All nine justices were present to hear the constitutional division of powers case in regard to the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. The court hears appeals sitting in odd numbers (as opposed to even numbers) to decrease likelihood of a tie in a split decision but does not always sit “en banc”, i.e. all nine at once.

A condition of the EFC and CCCB being granted intervenor status was that we could submit written argument but were not being provided time on the 24th for oral argument. Why then be present in the courtroom, particularly at the counsel tables?

First, we were available should the court have any questions concerning our written submissions.

Second, our presence expressed both our commitment to our submission and was an encouragement to the lawyers for Canada who faced four tables of opposing counsel on this case. There is something significant about being present in person. Counsel for Canada expressed their appreciation for our support and noted some of our public interest argument in their verbal presentation to the court. We also had opportunity to encourage counsel in their presentation and engage in discussion on the break that counsel for Canada noted they found to be of benefit. That, in turn, was something we appreciated, especially considering that one of the federal government’s lawyers, Peter Hogg, literally wrote the book on Canadian constitutional law that has remained the standard through five editions over more than 30 years.

During the course of the hearing, several justices asked pointed questions that reflected the national public interest concerns distinctly raised in our written argument – i.e. assisted human reproduction is an artificial means of pursuing procreation of what is uniquely human life and Canadians have an interest in the morality and ethics of how such artificial procreation is pursued. Justice Charron asked a particularly directed series of questions to counsel for Quebec about the issues noted at paragraph 28 of the EFC’s written presentation, namely that the legislation is about more than a medical treatment and must be concerned with the consequences of not having potential criminal penalties for undesirable behaviour (commodification of human beings; designer babies; sex selection; “saviour” babies) in regard to assisted human reproduction. As counsel for Canada put it at one point, the Act is about dealing with the purity of human genetic material and its use rather than about the regulation of how to make jam. The regulation of how to make jam, by the way, being uncontested by the provinces as federal jurisdiction under the Food and Drug Act.

In his closing remarks, Rene Leblanc (one of the lawyers for Canada), did a nice job of tying up the day’s arguments by walking through the combination of prohibitions and regulations in the Act that would come into play once a medical diagnosis was made to artificially assist a couple to procreate. His brief demonstration gave practical consideration to how the challenged sections of the Act work intricately with the unchallenged sections to prevent potential violations of the unique dignity of human life.

The justices reserved their decision on the matter. This means we wait, usually several months, for written reasons to be issued by the court.

Leaving the courtroom, we felt a good sense of the key issues having been heard and a hopefulness that the court will rule in favour of the legislation remaining intact.

Of course, much more was presented that day but this brief reflection is a reminder that the role of the Christian faith perspective remains important in Canadian life, law and society – especially when voiced in the language of the chosen forum so that it might be heard, in this case through reasoned legal argument with a foundation in Biblical principle.

The one thing all counsel and judges in the courtroom agreed on that day was that criminal law is about the morality and standards of a society. At issue was whether that morality is enforceable in regard to a procedure some regard as simply medical and others, the EFC included, as a matter of life. Uniquely, human life.

Don Hutchinson is Vice-President and General Legal Counsel with The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. He is also Director of the EFC’s Centre for Faith and Public Life located in Ottawa.

Used with permission. Copyright © 2009 Christianity.ca.

INDIA'S CHRISTIANS - The Violence Continues

Religiously motivated violence against Christians in India shows little sign of slowing. Will this year’s national elections bring relief?

by Jocelyn Durston

Imagine this: You wake up in your home, in a neighbourhood somewhere in Canada, on a Sunday morning and go through your regular routine of getting your family ready and out the door to get to church on time. Imagine your shock when you drive up to your church parking lot, only to find your church building a pile of still-smoking embers while congregation members mill around trying to figure out how your church burned down overnight.

Then imagine finding out that three of your congregation members – that lovely young couple and their small child – didn’t make it as far as the church parking lot because they were kidnapped on their way to church and police suspect foul play. On top of that, your pastor just announced that the sweet 86-year-old lady who always sits in the second row was attacked and raped yesterday morning while serving breakfast at your church-funded soup kitchen.

Christians in India, particularly … Orissa, have faced religiously motivated violence for years.

Hard to imagine isn’t it? Who in their right mind would burn down a church, kidnap a young Canadian family and rape an 86 year old woman? What would cause people to carry out such horrible acts? It’s difficult to imagine something like this happening in Canada. It seems unheard of to be so fearful that you have to watch your back every time you head for church.

Christians in India don’t have to imagine this kind of thing because they’re experiencing it firsthand – over and over again. As you read this, Indian Christians are living with fear, mourning the death of family and friends, and trying to make things feel ‘normal’ for their young children who find themselves living in refugee camp tents without a clue as to when they’ll be able to return home; or if they’ll even have a home to return to.

How and why are such things happening to religious minorities in a democratic country? A report by the Religious Liberty Commission (RLC) of The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) issued on February 26, 2009 attempts to answer these questions and recommends actions that India’s state leaders could take to help relieve the tension behind the attacks and protect India’s vulnerable Christians.

Christians in India, particularly those living in the state of Orissa, have faced religiously motivated violence for years. Violence in the country skyrocketed in August 2008 after Christians were falsely blamed for killing Laxmanananda Saraswati, a World Hindu Council leader. Tensions fueled by Hindu extremists who started the renewed attacks inspired escalated violence that has impacted at least seven Indian states, resulted in the death of over 100 people and displaced over 50,000 people, at least 15,000 of whom are now in relief camps. Others have taken shelter with friends or family or are hiding in forests.

The violence against the vulnerable Christian population has been intense enough to attract international media attention as well as condemnation from world leaders. The Supreme Court of India announced on January 5, 2009 that the Orissa government should resign if it is unable to protect Christians who have been targeted in the riots that started last August.

Currently, Christians in India are hoping that the country’s upcoming national elections (held from April 16 to May 13) will provide an opportunity for politicians and political parties to prioritize religious freedom for all people in India. This will take more than just campaign words. Action is needed to protect those who have been persecuted and to hold those responsible for the violence accountable for their actions.

On March 2, 2009, the same day that the government of India announced the dates of the upcoming elections, Christian denominations from across India presented a joint memorandum demanding that political parties guarantee safety for religious minorities, ensure their participation in the upcoming elections, defend freedom of religion and bring to justice those who discriminate against Christian minorities.

Will India’s politicians take the demands brought to them by India’s Christian leaders and those of political and church leaders from around the world seriously? History has shown that a country’s emphasis on freedom of religion is a key factor in the creation of stronger, healthier communities and results in a stability that benefits the nation on many levels, including the economy – a topic that is sure to receive a lot of attention in India’s elections. Let’s hope and pray that India’s leaders recognize the urgency of this matter and that India’s Christians soon experience the peace and safety that all people deserve.

Jocelyn Durston is International Policy Analyst with The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

Used with permission. Copyright © 2009 Christianity.ca.

IS THERE A PLACE FOR CHRISTIANS IN TODAY'S LEADERSHIP OF A NATION?

As Canada walks through its current stages of growth, some have suggested the Christian contribution should either be ignored, eliminated or at best confined.

by Don Hutchinson

We live in a conflicted world. People and nations wrestle over their sense of identity. Patience remains a virtue, but instant gratification propels several industries from fast food to internet pornography. Are there instant solutions to ages old problems? And what about the new problems? In our search for answers, let’s not “throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

The faith perspective added and still adds value to ethical discussions.

Canada is a nation in transition and is often described as being in transition because it is seeking a unique Canadian identity. Our nation has many of its moral and legal underpinnings in Christianity – like much of the Western World – and there are loud voices suggesting this Christian “baby” be disposed of in seeking to refresh the Canadian “bathwater.” In fact, the “baby” should be valued.

The Christian faith’s contribution to the nation’s foundation has supported and encouraged the development of a welcoming, world recognized, flourishing multicultural pluralism. Some would note this contribution as an extension of the original welcome of Canada’s First Nations people. It took time to establish today’s Canada.

As Canada walks through its current stages of growth, some have suggested the Christian contribution should either be ignored, eliminated or at best confined. The reasons are varied but usually note some form of bias that Christians, by virtue of their faith, must have in regard to developments in the contemporary world.

Perhaps the most radical development of the modern world is the artificial ability to create human life. Key members of Canada’s Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies were Christians, and yet that did not inhibit the reasoning of the Commission (Proceed with Care report 1993). Neither does the presence of one of those Commissioners or a pro-life rabbi inhibit the functioning of the resultant Assisted Human Reproduction Agency of Canada board. The faith perspective added and still adds value to ethical discussions.

Recently, the Minister of Science and Technology was criticized, partly because of his Christian faith. It was heartening to see a letter to the editor from a Member of Parliament from another party noting that the Minister might be criticized for his policy but should not be criticized for his faith. There are Christians on all sides of Parliament. Christians have served as cabinet ministers and as Prime Ministers. Christian service has added, and still adds, important value to public policy debate and development.

Can Christians be trusted to decide fairly in matters of judgment? It has been estimated that over 200 million Christians suffer or are at high risk of persecution on today’s planet Earth. This is the most persecuted identifiable group in the world. Yet, in recent weeks it was front page news that a Christian who was previously engaged in the public square had been appointed to Canada’s Immigration Review Board. Somehow, there were people who felt that someone who follows Him who said “love your neighbour as yourself” would be incapable of fair and reasoned assessment of applicants because of earlier statements about the rights of Christians to hold beliefs based on the Bible. Would an atheist be a better adjudicator of Christian applicants? The IRB is composed of people of many cultures and faiths, including Christians who by reason of the basic tenets of the Christian are inclined to respect the opinions of others and care for their needs.

Can Christians be counted on to be practical in their actions? Last week, it was my privilege to attend a gathering of 400 “street workers” – people engaged in ministering to the poor and homeless on the streets of our nation’s cities and towns. The Street Level conference was an uplifting experience for those who work with the downtrodden. A pre-event meeting with Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff was a significant step in what will hopefully be a beneficial journey, but so were important words of greeting brought to the delegates by the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Secretary, Pierre Poilievre, along with greetings from Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quebecois representatives. Poverty and homelessness are national issues felt at the local level. The MPs in attendance expressed true appreciation for ... Christians on the front line working across denominations – and with people who do not share their faith but have a similar heart – in pursuit of a common goal. Christians have long taken the lead with the poor and continue to provide valuable love and service to people who are otherwise “faceless” to many in our nation.

Poverty, homelessness, immigration, scientific research, human reproduction – these are age old issues being faced in contemporary ways in today’s Canada. There’s no quick fix for any of them. Let’s recognize the contribution to ethical consideration and practical solutions being brought to the table by all representatives of Canada’s multicultural, multi-heritage and multi-faith communities, but let’s not tear down strong foundations in the hope of building a stronger future. Let’s build on those foundations to secure that stronger future.

Christians have been and are still engaged in building our Canada and should not be marginalized simply because we might have “religiously informed minds” (see paragraphs 3 and 137 of Chamberlain v. Surrey School District). Our foundations are strong. Let’s continue to build on them together.

Don Hutchinson is Vice-President, General Legal Counsel and Director, Centre for Faith and Public Life with The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

Used with permission. Copyright © 2009 Christianity.ca.

IT MATTERS WHAT OTHERS THINK

The Global documentary, Hip 2 B Holy, presented a “kinder and gentler face” of Evangelicals than generally is portrayed by the media.

by Aileen Van Ginkel

The mirror held up to Canadian evangelicalism, as presented by Global TV news anchor Kevin Newman in the documentary, Hip 2 B Holy, broadcast on May 25, shows a kinder and gentler face than the one often seen in other media portrayals of the evangelical movement. The program suggested that Canadian Evangelicals are friendly folk – “quintessentially Canadian” really – and could be good neighbours after all.

It’s unusual to see a documentary like this that lets Canadian viewers see the compassionate heart of Evangelicals…

Or are they? The answer hinges to a large extent on Newman’s perception of the “voice” of Canadian Evangelicals. It’s shown to be less strident and politically charged than that of their noisy cousins to the south, but, says Newman, “the race is on to define a Canadian evangelical voice before the American voice takes over.”

Comments like this demonstrate an ambivalent undertone to Hip 2 B Holy. After all, despite how nice the Evangelicals featured in the program might be about it, it’s clear they still want to change you into “one of them.” On the other hand, the documentary does suggest that the evangelical voice is one that deserves to be heard among the plurality of voices in Canada.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has engaged in that plurality in many different ways over its 45-year history. It has done so not so much with a sense that it deserves to be heard but out of the belief that God’s love for the world can be expressed through careful articulation of scripturally-based principles that relate to God’s concern for those who are most vulnerable in our society. The desire to see justice done for all people, not just us, is our answer to the question posed to Jesus: “Who is my neighbour?”

Despite its ambivalence, it’s good to see a documentary that lets Canadian viewers see the compassionate heart of Evangelicals. Do I say this because I want us to be seen as nice people, because I want us to be well-liked? Does it matter whether or not we are perceived as being good neighbours?

While I don’t mind the idea of Evangelicals being well-liked and considered good neighbours, the important thing here is our mission to join in God’s work of reconciling all people to Himself through Jesus Christ. Fair-minded media portrayals matter because they help to till the soil for the good news about God’s love. If the perception is that Evangelicals are mean and unkind people, then the message of God’s love has a much harder time getting through. If Evangelicals are shown to be willing to listen to non-Christians and to engage in conversation with them, then a really significant barrier to communicating the good news of new life in Jesus has been removed.

David Haskell, author of Through a Lens Darkly, makes the point well in an interview about his book, scheduled to appear in the upcoming issue of Faith Today magazine: “It’s like a farmer preparing a field. The media prepare people’s hearts, making it easier for some ideas to grow and other ideas to be rejected. If Evangelicals are concerned about sowing and growing the seeds of the Gospel in the hearts of others, they should be concerned [about the generally negative media images of evangelicalism].”

After all, the reason why younger people in particular are connecting with Evangelicals is because of the human factor: they know they are being listened to, rather than talked at. The success of the Alpha course, for instance, isn’t due to smart packaging; it’s because each individual person is valued for the story that they have to tell – a story that, as their evangelical friends listen and respond with Holy Spirit-tuned ears and hearts, will reveal ways in which God has already been at work in their lives.

God can get past negative media images, of course, but having barriers to conversation removed is a big help to those who are listening with humility to non-Christians and drawing them into the Christian journey by helping them to understand their own stories.

Aileen Van Ginkel is Vice-President, Ministry Services at The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, and a member of the board of Alpha Canada Ministries. For more information on the evangelical movement in Canada, see the Centre for Research on Canadian Evangelicalism webpages on the EFC website.

Used with permission. Copyright © 2009 Christianity.ca.

HARPER VOWS CANADIAN SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL

Last Updated: Thursday, October 19, 2006 | 9:36 AM ET

CBC News

Canada will not remain neutral when Israel is involved in a fight to defend itself against extremists, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in a speech to the Jewish community on Wednesday.

Speaking at a B'nai Brith dinner in Toronto, Harper made no apologies for the stance of his government on Israel, saying the Jewish state can expect the full support and friendship of Canada.

"When it comes to dealing with a war between Israel and a terrorist organization, this country and this government cannot and will never be neutral," Harper said.

"Those who seek to destroy the Jews, who seek to destroy Israel, will … ultimately seek to destroy us all. It is why Canada's new government has reacted with speed and spoken with clarity on the recent events in the Middle East."

Harper quickly sided with Israel in July after it launched an offensive into Lebanon to fight Hezbollah, which had captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid.

Harper said, however, that the Palestinian people need a future that is fair and just and he hopes that a two-party solution, in which the Palestinian people have their own state, will one day have Palestinians and Israelis living side by side in peace.

"Issues of human dignity, of giving people the opportunity to build their community, to realize their own dreams — as long as they respect the rights and dignity of others — are values we also share."

Harper's remarks resonated with members of the Jewish community at the dinner.

Michael Mostyn, a member of B'nai Brith, said Wednesday night that the strong pro-Israel stance of the Conservative government has not gone unnoticed by the Jewish community.

"Certainly foreign policy has an impact, as it would with any other immigrant group here in Canada," he said.

But Mostyn added that support can shift and the Conservative party should not take support from one group for granted because there are many issues of concern to all voters.

"I think Jewish voters are like all other Canadians. There are a multitude of issues that concern them. They are concerned about taxes and security," said Mostyn.

Last week, Harper said the federal Liberal party leadership candidates are anti-Israeli after Michael Ignatieff had said Israel's bombing of the Lebanese town Qana in July, which killed dozens of civilians, was a war crime.

Ignatieff, who describes himself as a "lifelong friend of Israel," said Harper's response was inappropriate and Harper was trying to gain politically by commenting on Middle East issues.

With files from the Canadian Press

JERSUALEM DAY 2009

Address by PM Netanyahu on the occasion of Jerusalem Day, 21 May 2009

United Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It will never again be divided or cut in half. Jerusalem will remain only under Israel's sovereignty.

State Ceremony, Ammunition Hill, Jerusalem

Honorable President, Mr. Shimon Peres,

Honorable Speaker of the Knesset, Mr. Reuven Rivlin,
President of the Supreme Court, Justice Dorit Beinish,
Ministers, Members of Knesset,
Chairman of the Opposition,
Israel's Chief Rabbi, Yona Metzger,
Chief of the General Staff, Maj. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi,
Dear Bereaved Families,
IDF Fighters and their Families,
Distinguished Guests,

Last night I returned to Jerusalem, our capital, from a very important visit to Washington, capital of the United States. It was very important for me to come back to participate in this ceremony and say the same things I said in the United States: United Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Jerusalem has always been - and always will be - ours. It will never again be divided or cut in half. Jerusalem will remain only under Israel's sovereignty. In united Jerusalem, the freedom of worship and freedom of access for all three religions to the holy sites will be guaranteed, and it is the only way to guarantee that members of all faiths, minorities and denominations can continue living here safely.

Distinguished guests,

For nineteen years Jerusalem was a wounded city; a city at the heart of which were barbed wires and minefields, firing posts and "no-man's lands"; a city whose main streets were covered with defensive walls against snipers; a city whose residents could not move freely from place to place. In June 1967, this situation changed forever. It changed in this place, on Ammunition Hill, and in other heroic battles inside Jerusalem.

You, fighters for the liberation of Jerusalem, with your bodies and with the blood of your comrades, pried open the chokehold, united the city together, and allowed Jerusalem to be reopened once again as a lively, vibrant city.

I enlisted shortly after the liberation of Jerusalem and I met with one of the fighters, who is here with us today, Nir Nitzan. He did not voluntarily tell us; we had to repeatedly ask him to tell us what happened here, in that battle. Ultimately, quietly, shortly, dryly even, he told us a little of what took place here on that day, and we, as youngsters, stood in awe of the greatness of spirit, solidarity and sacrifice of those fighters who fought here, and the many others who fought in other places.  The fighters who fell instilled pride in our people and gave us back our capital.  As a boy, that day was etched in my memory.  I remember the elation following the words of Motta Gur, when we heard the news on the radio and Motta Gur announced: "Har Habayit is in our hands!" The excitement we felt was something neither we nor any other Jew experienced for generations. It lifted the hearts of Jews all over the world.

Another remarkable thing happened: thousands, thousands of Israeli citizens, not only from Jerusalem, but from all over the country, rushed in masses into the Old City, passing through roads that were previously blocked, places we were never allowed to set foot in, through barbed wires, along the now shattered separation walls, climbing rocks and entering into back alleys - all of us heading towards the same place: the Western Wall. I remember that the square was narrow - in fact, there was no square at all - and the place was too narrow to contain the large masses, and each of us waited our turn to arrive at that ancient wall. I remember the beating of my heart and the exhilaration I felt when I first touched the stones of the Western Wall, thinking about King David, King Solomon, Israel's prophets and kings and the Maccabim. I thought about the people of Israel throughout the generations, as did the thousands of Israelis who arrived there.  The liberation of Jerusalem and the Western Wall marked for all of us the deep connection to the roots of Jewish history.  We felt that the dream of generations had finally come true.

Thousands of years ago, a Psalms poet wrote: "built-up Jerusalem is like a city that is united together". It is as if this song was written now about the events of our generation.

Look around you and see how Jerusalem is built, how it is connected, how it grows and develops to the east and west, north and south. Jews, Muslims and Christians, religious and secular, ultra-orthodox and conservatives live here in peace and good neighborly relations.

Look around you and see how vibrant and full of life Jerusalem is, during the day and night. The houses of prayer and synagogues are filled, as are the cafes and recreational places.

But Jerusalem is not only a city of the day-to-day or night life.  It is first and foremost a city of sanctity, a city of vision, a city of prayer; the eyes of the entire world are fixed on Jerusalem. As Isaiah prophesized: "it will happen in the end of days: The mountain of the Temple of the Almighty will be firmly established as the head of the mountains, and it will be exalted above the hills, and all the nations will stream to it… for from Zion will the Torah come forth, and the word of the Almighty from Jerusalem".

Since the unification of Jerusalem under Israel's flag, this prophecy has been gradually coming true. Never, in the thousands of years of its history, has Jerusalem been so great and remarkable, never did it have such freedom of worship for members of all faiths and such free access to all places of worship. Pilgrims, believers and visitors from all ends of the universe visit Jerusalem every day.

Our connection to Jerusalem is thousands of years old. As a people, we have never relinquished "the apple of our eye", the object of our prayers, our nation's capital, Jerusalem. Today, as a state, we are fulfilling this age-old yearning, this ancient wish.

The greatest hardships, exiles and difficulties in history could never dissuade us from pursuing the realization of the Jewish people's dream of generations - the establishment of a state in the land of Israel, with Jerusalem as its capital. This was the wish of every Jew in exile, at every community and in every prayer: "next year in built-up Jerusalem". I believe that only the reuniting of Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty would enable us to quickly fulfill the second part of Isaiah's prophecy: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares… nation will not lift sword against nation and they will no longer learn how to wage warfare".

This is our prayer, and this is our hope here in Jerusalem.

MISSION 2.0

Missions 2.0

by Caleb on 04/28/09 at 9:06 am

How are you involved in international missions? In the past, mission agencies gave you three options: pray, give, or go. Hopefully, you’re doing at least one of these things.

I’d like to invite you to a fourth way to participate in what God is doing around the world. You may not be aware of this, but there is a way for you to build a personal relationship with an unbelieving person from an unreached people group that is free, requires no training or time off work, and doesn’t require you to learn another language.

You can be a pen pal.

Thankfully, the internet has taken the old idea of corresponding with a complete stranger on another continent and made it, well, faster, cheaper, and more fun. Here’s how you can get started:

1. Visit an international classifieds website like kijiji.com, craigslist.org, or tribe.net or a social networking site like facebook.com, myspace.com, or any of the hundreds of similar sites listed here.Classified sites tend to be a bit easier to manage (London’s gumtree.com, for example, actually has a section titled “pen pals.”) and are especially good if you already have an idea of what people group or city you’d like to connect with. For now, let’s assume you’re using kijiji.com.

2. Scroll to the bottom of the site, and select the local site of your desired country. Many countries have classified ad sites, but it people in Western Europe are so web-connected, these countries are a great place to find someone who is likely to correspond with you.

3. Register a username and password, if necessary.

4. Search through the classified ads to find someone with whom you have something in common. Amateur authors in Wales? A guitar player in Spain? How about moms in Dublin?

5. Post a response to an ad. Or, post an ad of your own. Maybe you’d like to swap recipes with someone in Basel or find a pen pal in Berlin who likes NASCAR. (Good luck with that one). Just be yourself! Remember: for you, this may be a strange and frightening way to make friends, but for them, meeting people online is a pretty normal thing to do.

6. Wait for someone to answer your ad. Many of theses sites will email you when you receive a response. Be sure to keep security in mind as you introduce yourself and get to know the person. Don’t make promises you won’t be able to keep.

7. Share life with your new friend. Don’t treat this as a confrontational evangelism tool- let the person get to know you. For many Western Europeans, you may be the only practicing believer with whom they’ve had contact. Even those who know about Jesus are unlikely to have seen life in Christ lived out before them. They need to hear what a follower of Jesus thinks about all sorts of things. Tell your stories. Listen to theirs. Send photos. Have a voice conversation on Skype. You may eventually get to meet your pen pal in person some day.

Now, this isn’t for everyone. If you’re the type who can’t stand to talk with someone with whom you disagree, please don’t bother. If you’re not willing or able to personally invest in a “virtual friend,” this isn’t for you.

I think there are a lot of believers out there who didn’t even know this is an option. I imagine many of you that don’t have the time or money or desire to go on a mission trip may be intrigued my the idea of meeting someone online for the sake of sharing life intentionally.

Who knows? God may use you to start an online church planting movement.

REVERSE MISSION TRIP - Part Two

Reverse Mission Trip, pt.2

by Caleb of The Upstream Collective. First posted on April 28, 2009

theupstreamcollective.org

To keep going on my reverse mission trip theme.

I wonder if this would work. I have never tried it and I am sure someone has so I would be interested in how did it work?

Instead of you bringing your church to “do” a basketball camp or soccer camp that you could bring a group of people to “attend” a soccer camp in Europe? What if you were able to equip your participants to come and live life side by side with a European and be able to share your faith with them in some natural ways? Not to mention learn some pretty good soccer skills.

You see most of the time we want to go on a mission trip and and “Do” something so that someone can attend it and thus hear the gospel. What if we simply get involved in something that is already going on and find ways to tell our story in that way? To me this is the more natural way to share our faith. It is being the salt and light to a group of people.