Soul Chat is based on a simple concept: Run a one-minute radio spot on stations across Canada. Use the space to cut through the noisy clutter and offer thoughts on the deep questions that every person has. Who am I? Is there more to life than what I see with my eyes? Who is God? Then provide a place online where these ideas can be explored further, where conversations can begin, and where a community can be built. This is our idea.
Welcome.
soulchat.ca
Soul Chat is based on a simple concept: Run a one-minute radio spot on stations across Canada. Use the space to cut through the noisy clutter and offer thoughts on the deep questions that every person has. Who am I? Is there more to life than what I see with my eyes? Who is God? Then provide a place online where these ideas can be explored further, where conversations can begin, and where a community can be built. This is our idea.
Welcome.
soulchat.ca
Soul Chat is based on a simple concept: Run a one-minute radio spot on stations across Canada. Use the space to cut through the noisy clutter and offer thoughts on the deep questions that every person has. Who am I? Is there more to life than what I see with my eyes? Who is God? Then provide a place online where these ideas can be explored further, where conversations can begin, and where a community can be built. This is our idea.
Welcome.
soulchat.ca
Soul Chat is based on a simple concept: Run a one-minute radio spot on stations across Canada. Use the space to cut through the noisy clutter and offer thoughts on the deep questions that every person has. Who am I? Is there more to life than what I see with my eyes? Who is God? Then provide a place online where these ideas can be explored further, where conversations can begin, and where a community can be built. This is our idea.
Welcome.
soulchat.ca
Gospel music artists Andrae and Sandra Crouch did not lead Michael Jackson to the Lord, according to a source close to them.
“It is a rumor,” clarified Dave Nassaney, the administrator for Andrae Crouch’s fan page on Facebook.com.
Nassaney’s statement was backed by one Sandra Crouch issued earlier in the week, in which she said it was “incorrect and absolutely not true” that she and her brother met their “dear friend” so he could accept Christ.
“We loved and respected Michael enormously and we've been friends with him for many, many years, and are deeply saddened by his sudden and tragic death," she wrote Tuesday.
Shortly after Jackson’s unexpected death last week, news spread of the Crouches’ meeting with the troubled music legend, who reportedly asked questions regarding spirituality and even prayed together with the Crouches.
But contrary to what some media outlets have been reporting, there was no reciting of the “sinners prayer” nor did Jackson accept Christ at that time.
“According to Andrae, who was relaying to Verdine (Crouch’s personal assistant) to tell me over the phone just now, Andrae and Sandra did in fact visit with MJ 2 times, once at the recording studio, and once at his home in the last 2 months, as recently as 3 weeks ago, asking for prayer concerning the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and how he could make his music more ‘spiritual,’” reported Nassaney in Crouch’s fan page.
“He wanted to know what makes your hands go up, and makes you ‘come out of yourself,’ and what gives a ‘spirituality’ to the music,” Nassaney continued.
“So Andrae and Sandra explained to him about the ‘anointing’ and about Jesus.”
Afterward, Jackson reportedly asked the Crouches to sing to him his favorite song.
“So they sang that song to him, and joined hands and sang together, and he (Jackson) said, ‘it was beautiful,’” Nassaney reported, according to Crouch’s account of the events.
Nassaney particularly emphasized the joining of hands – something untypical of the “King of Pop,” who was as well known for his eccentric behavior as he was for his musical accolades.
Though Jackson became a dominant figure in American popular music and culture in the early 1980s, he “got weirder, wilder and more erratic in his behavior,” as Lisa Anderson, host of Focus on the Family’s “The Boundless Show,” put it.
Anderson said she prayed for Jackson for years after asking God to help her think of the person who she didn’t think would ever come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
“I followed him casually in the news, and it never looked good,” she recalled a day after Jackson’s death on June 25.
“But I continued to pray. Because that's what God called me to do,” she added.
In her account, Sandra Crouch provided a little more detail to the one her twin brother relayed to Nassanaey, reporting that she and Andrae had met with Jackson to discuss recording two songs with their choir for Jackson’s news recording project.
“Michael always had a respect and curiosity for spiritual things,” Sandra noted.
“During our meeting, not unlike many other creative/music meetings we've had with him the past, we sang together, prayed together and had a wonderful time,” she recalled.
But, as Nassaney acknowledged, Jackson “definitely had an ‘encounter’ with them (the Crouches).”
What happened between the time of the “encounter” to Jackson’s death last week is anybody’s guess.
“As of today, I have no idea where Michael Jackson stood spiritually at the time of his death,” confessed Anderson, who also serves as a spokesperson for Focus on the Family.
“But God knows. And God will decide what He does with Michael's soul,” she commented.
“It may sound cliché, but it's devastatingly true: The King of Pop will be called to give an account to the King of Kings,” Anderson added.
According to Jackson family spokesman Ken Sunshine, a public memorial was in the works but it won't be at the Neverland Ranch, Jackson's former home.
Meanwhile, authorities are still investigating the circumstances surrounding Jackson's death. Allegations have emerged that the 50-year-old entertainer had been consuming painkillers, sedatives and antidepressants.
Christian Post reporter Eric Young contributed to this article.
Josh Kimball
Christian Post Reporter
The National Congregation Study has been released via Duke University, and it contains helpful information to those of us trying to understand what is happening in and around churches in North America.
The publication gives bullet points of the "most important observations."
Check it out:
You can go to this web site and download the entire article: http://www.soc.duke.edu/natcong/Docs/NCSII_report_final.pdf
A recent study by LifeWay Research in partnership with the Cornerstone Knowledge Network showed a correlation between ministry expansion and church growth.
Seven types of expansion were included in the survey:
Mark Kelly summarizes the findings:
Of these seven types of ministry expansion, the pastors surveyed indicated that adding an additional worship service or venue on site is most closely related to higher growth in attendance, followed by building new or additional ministry space at the same site where the church is located. Churches that expanded in those two ways experienced significantly higher levels of growth in average worship attendance over a five-year period, according to the pastors surveyed.
It's an interesting study worth looking at. Read the study first at Lifeway Research and at The Christian Post.
This study actually includes both opinion questions and the reporting of facts by pastors.
The fact questions included asking pastors if their church had made any of the 7 changes in the last 5 years. We also asked their current average worship attendance and their attendance 5 years ago. The recollection of the church's attendance 5 years ago could be off slightly for some. After all, this was a phone survey, but it should be close in most cases. Overall, we do consider the number of growing churches reported in this study to be a little higher than when annually reported data is available for comparison.
We ran statistical tests on these facts as reported and the first point in the story is related to these tests. The title we released the information with was stated in the negative, "Ministry expansion doesn't automatically lead to attendance growth." The fact is that causality is not something that we can test at all. However, since it is safe for us to rule out causality if there is not even a statistical relationship we felt comfortable stating this as we did in our release.
The opinion questions show that more than two-thirds of Protestant pastors agree (strongly or somewhat) that 5 of the ministry changes we tested "lead to additional growth." Pastors whose churches have actual made that type of change are more likely to agree, and this was true of all 7 we tested.
We wanted to see what the rest of the pastors believe.
It is interesting to note that all pastors did not agree without hesitation. A look at the PowerPoint that is now up on the LifeWay Research website shows that more pastors somewhat agree than strongly agree in all cases. Also, keep in mind our questions did not ask whether the pastors believe this is the only thing that leads to growth. For example, I can understand why many pastors did not want to disagree that you get some visitors when you open a new building and that some stick around.
The statistical tests we ran that showed a real relationship between two of the changes and growth also prove that only a small portion of the attendance growth is explained by the items we tested. There indeed are other things that lead to growth and some of the spiritual things related to growth would never be able to be tested through research.
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.
