Hate the sin - Love the sinner

A lot of people on this side of the besetting issue really dislike that old nostrum "hate the sin: love the sinner."

I understand why. There are a lot of people on the other side who trot out that line as a cover for all sorts of hateful blather - much of it directed at the sinner (as they see it) and not so much at the sin.

But the fact that some people misuse it doesn't mean that the nostrum is any less correct.

But it is really difficult for us mere humans to separate our feelings about sin - or more particularly about a given sin - from our feelings about the sinner.

Unless, of course, we are confronted with it at some level.

Like I was today.

There I was, innocently trolling the blogosphere, when I saw an article in Toronto's national newspaper - and article that left me feeling like I'd been punched in the stomach.

A friend of mine - someone I first met nearly 30 years ago - has been charged with possessing and distributing child pornography. The police allege that he had a large collection of very disturbing images.

Well, first, I needed to remind myself that he was charged, not convicted.

But then what?

I guess then I need to contend with the fact that he may be guilty.

And if so, then what?

I guess that is where hating the sin and loving the sinner comes in.

It would be very easy to turn my back and deny him.

But he was my friend two days ago. If I cared for him before this, why should I care any less for him after? Indeed, doesn't he need my care, concern and friendship all the more now?

That doesn't mean condoning what he is alleged to have done.

But whatever he may have done, it doesn't change the fact that he is a child of God - and one whose life stands to be ruined regardless of the legal outcome. Even if he is innocent, the charge will dog him forever. And if he is guilty, his life is irrevocably changed.

So, while I hate the sin he is alleged to have committed, I must love this sinner (for sinner he is, regardless of his guilt or innocence on these charges). After all, I am supposed to follow the example of one who ate and drank with outcasts and sinners.

But mostly, I'm still just feeling like I've been punched in the stomach.

From one anonymous wannabe opinion maker to another

The Jurist over at Accidental Deliberations makes a good point. While he and I were posting that two senior government ministers were clueless (here and here), the mainstream media ignored that in favour of the real issue: that Bill Boyd used a naughty word.

Now, I agree that Bill Boyd probably shouldn't be using the word "bastards" - even under his breath - at a legislative committee meeting. Mind you, no one knows what he was referring to, so he may actually have been talking about illegitimate offspring.

But really. Isn't the fact that Bill had no idea what he was talking about when it came to the borrowing plans of a major crown corporation for which he is responsible more important than his possibly inappropriate use of an epithet?

Misplaced Priorities

The Diocese of Los Angeles has elected two new suffragan bishops. Both are women - which would have been controversial once. What's more controversial at the moment is that one of them, the Rev'd Canon Mary Glasspool, is a partnered lesbian.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, within 12 hours, has issued a statement on the election of Canon Glasspool. He makes it very clear he would like this election simply to go away - if necessary by means of having the confirmation process fail. (When a new bishop is elected in the Episcopal Church, the majority of bishops with jurisdiction [diocesan bishops and some others] and the majority of diocesan standing committees must give their consent within a predetermined period of time.)

Now, I can understand the Archbishop's point that the election of Canon Glasspool "raises very serious questions." Clearly it does. If Canon Glasspool is confirmed and in due course consecrated, there are likely to be implications for the whole Communion and the strength of our bonds of affection.

What's galling about this, however, is the comparison between Cantuar's prompt comment on the election of Canon Glasspool when compared with his utter silence about anti-gay legislation in Uganda - legislation tacitly backed by the Anglican heirarchy in Uganda and explicilty backed by Anglican bishops like Joseph Abura of Karamoja.

Several bloggers and others have commented on this disconnect, including the folk at Changing Attitude, and Times of London religion correspondent Ruth Gledhill. Ruth captures the bizarre disconnect quite precisely:

Critics are understandably questioning why speak out on this so forcefully, while showing such restraint on Uganda. It is probably in vain to point out that one concerns a matter of national governance, in which the Archbishop of Canterbury has no authority to speak, and the other a matter of Anglican ecclesial polity, in which he is perfectly justified in taking a stand.

The fact is, whatever the ecclesiological jurisprudence, it looks bad. Very bad indeed. Changing Attitude does a good job of explaining why.

I wish I could do something, write something, to help the Archbishop get out of this mess.

But it feels impossible. His difficulties I fear are truly manifold.

She is too kind to point out that his difficulties, manifold though they are, are largely of his own making. He has deliberately embarked on a strategy of holding the Communion together by refusing to make the far right accountable for anything at all, ever. Nigeria, Kenya, Rwanda, Southern Cone and, yes, Uganda routinely ignore the call to "gracious restraint" about crossing provincial boundaries and face no sanction at all. Both the Nigerian and Ugandan heirarchies have actively championed anti-gay legislation that can only be described as satanic, and Rowan is silent.

I fear that Cantuar has lost whatever moral authority he may once have had. One cannot buy unity by treating evil with kit gloves.

Guardian blogger Andrew Brown also writes on Rowan's remarkably misplaced priorities. I'll leave you with his closing comments:

Consider the case of two Anglicans of the same gender who love one another. If they are in the USA, the Anglican church will marry them and may elect one of them to office. If they are in Uganda, the Anglican church will have try to have them jailed for life, and ensure that any priest who did not report them to the authorities within 24 hours would be jailed for three years; anyone who spoke out in their defence might be jailed for seven.

Under Williams, the church that marries two women who love each other is to be thrown out of the Anglican Communion. The church that would jail them both for life, and would revile and persecute their defenders, stays snugly in his bosom. Not even the Archbishop's remarkable gift for obfuscation can conceal these facts forever.

Rod Gantefoer needs a Sir Humphrey Appleby

The Saskatchewan Municipal Finance Board is a provincial government agency which can lend money to municipal governments in order to support civic improvements such as infrastructure. As of today, not yet in the fourth quarter, the Board has exceeded it's budget by 100%.

Here is Finance Minister Rod Gantefoer answering questions in committee. Both Trent Wotherspoon and Pat Atkinson are opposition MLAs.

Trent Wotherspoon: So what's up with this 100% overrun?

Rod Gantefoer: Yeah, that's a problem. But it is all due to one big project that cost $40 million, if it wasn't for that everything would be fine.

Pat Atkinson: When did you find out about this 40 million?

Rod Gantefoer: I'm not sure. Let me check. [confers with officials] I'm informed at mid-year.

Pat Atkinson: After the money is spent?

Rod Gantefoer: I take the member's point. That's probably not a good thing.

Trent Wotherspoon: But who is actually on the board? Who approves spending the money?

Rod Gantefoer: I don't know who is on the board, let me ask. [confers with officials] I'm informed that the two members are the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Trent Wotherspoon: You probably should have known about all of this then, right? How will we know this won't happen again.

Rod Gantefoer: I'm taking notes tonight, we will have to look at some stuff.

Let me just repeat one line.

Rod Gantefoer: I don't know who is on the board, let me ask. [confers with officials] I'm informed that the two members are the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

That's right. Saskatchewan Finance Minister Rod Gantefoer does not realize that he is one of two people on the Saskatchewan Municipal Finance Board. Neither does he remember what he has done as a member of that board.

It leaves me almost speechless. Thank goodness for YouTube.

First, Sir Humphrey Appleby shows how to deal with diffcult questions in committee.



And here's Chumbawumba with the song Amnesia, with it's chorus of "Do you suffer from long term memory loss? I don't remember."

In praise of Stephen Harper

It isn't often I get to say this, really. Good for Stephen Harper. Well done.

Today, the Times of London (among others) reports that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown showed real leadership at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, condemning the horrific anti-gay legislation currently before the Ugandan parliament.

Good for Stephen Harper.

Curiously, some of the bravest Canadian stands against international injustice have come from Conservative Prime Ministers - John Diefenbaker and Brian Mulroney led the Commonwealth charge against racist apartheid in South Africa. Despite their pretty talk, Liberal Prime Ministers have been pretty much a bust on that score. It was Liberal Mackenzie King who refused to admit Jewish refugees from Naziism into Canada, for example.

The Times article also quotes UN AIDS envoy (and former Ontario NDP leader) Stephen Lewis, who spoke to the conference. According to Lewis, "Nothing is as stark, punitive and redolent of hate as the bill in Uganda."

Now if only the Archbishops of Canterbury and York (the latter a former Ugandan judge) could rise to the same level of moral insight as these three politicians.

Torture is still wrong

I must admit, at times Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his political instincts baffle me. I swear, the man has the political equivalent of Tourette's Syndrome.

Recently, the hot news story in Canada has been the accusations of a Canadian diplomat that Canadian troops had been handing prisoners over to the Afghan government without taking adequate measures to ensure that such prisoners were not tortured.

To their credit, the Harper government have actually taken some steps to address this problem. They may not have done enough, but they had done something.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, which (unlike most other NATO countries) had decided to leave Afghan nationals to the tender mercies of a government known to engage in the torture of prisoners. That would be the same Liberal Party now led by "regulated" torture advocate Michael Ignatieff.

The part I don't get is why the Conservatives have decided to get defensive on this file, and have started attacking the credibility of this diplomat. It was on the basis of his reports that the Harper government changed the terms under which prisoners were turned over - and on at least three occasions, suspended such turnovers in response to reports of torture and abuse.

The Tory record on this file may not be perfect, but in the words of a former Conservative Prime Minister from my home province, "don't compare me to perfection - compare me to the other guy."

Seems to me the smarter (and actually justifiable) response would have been for the Conservatives to say something like this:

"Yes, there was evidence that prisoners turned over to the Afghan authorities were being tortured. That is why our government changed the terms under which such prisoner transfers happened. We are prepared to further tighten our conditions if necessary. Unlike the former governing party and their current leader, we find torture to be abhorent."

In fact, had I been advising the Prime Minister, I'd have told him to appoint a well regarded Canadian whose reputation was above reproach - possibly former federal NDP leader Ed Broadbent or former Ontario NDP leader and UN Ambassador Stephen Lewis - to conduct a review and report back to the government in 90 days about how such prisoner transfers should be managed.

Instead, the Conservatives have become (in the eyes of most observers) defenders of the transfers and de facto defenders of torture.

And they've pretty much left Count Ignatieff and the Liberals off the hook.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

Torture is still wrong.

People who don't understand that are either wicked or stupid (or possibly both).

For the egregiously dimwitted, here's a former professional wrestler to explain it to you.

Green is the Colour

No one in Canada will need an explanation.

For my non-Canadian readers, the Saskatchewan Roughriders have won the Western Conference Championship and will play in the Grey Cup next Sunday.

The Grey Cup is the Canadian Football League Championship.

Canadian Football is not the same as that silly four down game the Americans play on that tiny field, with wimpy rules like "fair catch."