Social Media Musings... page 2
Just stuff, posted from time to time, not necessarily in any chronological or topical order, but fitting with the general theme of this website.
PAGES: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
A Lengthy Dialogue
Facebook, December, 2018
On December 12, 2108, my friend, Luisa D'Amato, a columnist with the Waterloo Region Record, wrote this article (found here):
Eternal damnation with your hot cider? No thanks
Why aren’t you allowed to make a speech about Christ, Luisa D’Amato asks.
OPINION Dec 12, 2018 by Luisa D’Amato
It's a Christmas market. So why aren't you allowed to make a speech about Christ? At the popular Christkindl Market that draws massive crowds every year to Kitchener City Hall, pastor Jacob Reaume wondered why the microphone was cut off when a member of his church read a passage from the Bible, and later when he preached a sermon."If I was reading scripture at a Ramadan market, I could understand if people were upset," he told a news reporter later. Then, slowing the words for emphasis, he added: "This is a ... Christmas ... market."
The City of Kitchener has a completely different take on things. Their officials don't want any speeches from the performers, just the music and dancing that was agreed to earlier. For the past 22 years the city has hosted the wildly successful four-day market, which sells German-themed food, drink, decorations and gifts. Local bands, choirs and dancers entertain the crowds. There are Christmas carols aplenty and a live nativity scene with Mary, Joseph and a donkey. The city works with a volunteer committee, which decides on entertainment. That group has decided to "celebrate the traditions of Christmas, including the Christmas story in a number of ways, but not through sermons/scripture or Bible readings (of any denomination)," said Jeff Young, the city's manager of special events.
The band from Reaume's church, Trinity Bible Chapel, was invited to perform this past Thursday, shortly after the opening ceremonies. No one from the church had indicated earlier that there would be any Bible readings or sermons, Young said. After some music, a woman from the church stepped forward to read a Bible passage about the prophecy that Mary would conceive Jesus. City staff cut off power to the microphone. Then Reaume gave a sermon, also without amplification. "The Lord Jesus Christ is going to return and he's returning in judgment," shouted Reaume. "But if you believe in him, you will escape the wrath to come."
It was a bit of a downer, no doubt, to hear about eternal damnation while you're trying to enjoy your mulled wine and hot pretzel. But it just shows that Christmas is a very big tent. On one side of the tent, Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus, their saviour. Right up against the wall on that side are churches like Trinity, which interpret scripture literally. Along with the prospect of hell for non-believers, and unapologetically evangelizing, Trinity says people who engage in gay sex "along with all other sinners," need to be offered the chance to be "cleansed of their filth by the blood of the Lamb." It is part of a very small minority of believers with extreme views. On the opposite end of the Christmas tent are secular people or non-Christians, who disregard all the religious content, but still enjoy the traditions of coloured lights, evergreen trees and exchanging gifts. And in the vast middle area of the tent are most people (and many churches), who take in the Christmas story, and all the mid-winter festivities it has collected around it, and retain whatever is meaningful to them.
There are countless interpretations, and most of us are wise enough to live and let live.
City hall belongs to everyone. If Christmas is going to be celebrated on public property, it has to be done in a versatile and flexible manner, so that almost everyone can be included. That's why the people at city hall are wise to allow singing, but not speeches. It's so much easier to tune out the words when they're set to music.
Eternal damnation with your hot cider? No thanks
Why aren’t you allowed to make a speech about Christ, Luisa D’Amato asks.
OPINION Dec 12, 2018 by Luisa D’Amato
It's a Christmas market. So why aren't you allowed to make a speech about Christ? At the popular Christkindl Market that draws massive crowds every year to Kitchener City Hall, pastor Jacob Reaume wondered why the microphone was cut off when a member of his church read a passage from the Bible, and later when he preached a sermon."If I was reading scripture at a Ramadan market, I could understand if people were upset," he told a news reporter later. Then, slowing the words for emphasis, he added: "This is a ... Christmas ... market."
The City of Kitchener has a completely different take on things. Their officials don't want any speeches from the performers, just the music and dancing that was agreed to earlier. For the past 22 years the city has hosted the wildly successful four-day market, which sells German-themed food, drink, decorations and gifts. Local bands, choirs and dancers entertain the crowds. There are Christmas carols aplenty and a live nativity scene with Mary, Joseph and a donkey. The city works with a volunteer committee, which decides on entertainment. That group has decided to "celebrate the traditions of Christmas, including the Christmas story in a number of ways, but not through sermons/scripture or Bible readings (of any denomination)," said Jeff Young, the city's manager of special events.
The band from Reaume's church, Trinity Bible Chapel, was invited to perform this past Thursday, shortly after the opening ceremonies. No one from the church had indicated earlier that there would be any Bible readings or sermons, Young said. After some music, a woman from the church stepped forward to read a Bible passage about the prophecy that Mary would conceive Jesus. City staff cut off power to the microphone. Then Reaume gave a sermon, also without amplification. "The Lord Jesus Christ is going to return and he's returning in judgment," shouted Reaume. "But if you believe in him, you will escape the wrath to come."
It was a bit of a downer, no doubt, to hear about eternal damnation while you're trying to enjoy your mulled wine and hot pretzel. But it just shows that Christmas is a very big tent. On one side of the tent, Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus, their saviour. Right up against the wall on that side are churches like Trinity, which interpret scripture literally. Along with the prospect of hell for non-believers, and unapologetically evangelizing, Trinity says people who engage in gay sex "along with all other sinners," need to be offered the chance to be "cleansed of their filth by the blood of the Lamb." It is part of a very small minority of believers with extreme views. On the opposite end of the Christmas tent are secular people or non-Christians, who disregard all the religious content, but still enjoy the traditions of coloured lights, evergreen trees and exchanging gifts. And in the vast middle area of the tent are most people (and many churches), who take in the Christmas story, and all the mid-winter festivities it has collected around it, and retain whatever is meaningful to them.
There are countless interpretations, and most of us are wise enough to live and let live.
City hall belongs to everyone. If Christmas is going to be celebrated on public property, it has to be done in a versatile and flexible manner, so that almost everyone can be included. That's why the people at city hall are wise to allow singing, but not speeches. It's so much easier to tune out the words when they're set to music.
Luisa then posted that article to her Facebook page for discussion. The following is my part in that dialogue:
Me:
I have no problem with the City of Kitchenerprohibiting a sermon. There are better times and places for that. Prohibiting a reading from the books that tell the story of the very life that the event is purportedly celebrating is also their right (because it is in their space) but it is, however, a little weird, even a little myopic, a tad ignorant, and probably a dash bigoted.
I also think it is fair to question what is meant by "Christmas is a very big tent," on only "one side" of which are believing Christians; and what at least appears to be the implication that it *ought* to be seen that way, and that the other side - presumably, everyone else who wants to celebrate Christmas in their own way, even without reference to the fellow after whom the occasion is named -- is entitled to demand this be so.
I have attended Eid events held by MAC locally for the past several years. I have been part of several aqiqahs, and enjoyed an Iftar during Ramadan. When in Japan, I visited the Shinto Shrines at Shogatsu, and was invited to celebrate O-bon in August. I have enjoyed services at the Unitarian Church in Kitchener, Temple Shalom at the Cedars, and at the Golden Triangle gurudwara. In all those and other cases, I have considered the invitations and inclusion to be an outcome of the generosity of my hosts, their willingness to share with me a celebration or service that is theirs, and, in so doing, to give me a gift of insight and appreciation of something quintessentially meaningful to them. That kind of sharing is an act of love; it is not to be converted, on my part, to a taking. That is, I have never, ever presumed my participation in such things is an entitlement or something owed to me, or that their invitation meant that in some way I get to dictate the manner, content, meaning or focus of their sacred events. Yet, somehow, that is how people seem to think -- and how your article implies -- Christmas should be treated.
Yes, I get that we can talk about how Christmas has been watered down over the centuries to becoming, for many people, more of a secular, mercantile occasion than a genuine, heartfelt celebration of the birth of Christ; but none of that should mean that Christians cannot make some effort to stop, and even reverse, that secularizing and diminishing process. The expectation and assertion that it is somehow more right and appropriate that Christians be expected to mask the meaning of the season by being only allowed to put it to music is, frankly, insulting, and not something that I think would be rightly tolerated as a demand placed on any other faith or culture in our society.
At another time, we can talk more in depth about your characterization of the beliefs of Trinity members, as you describe them in this article, as "extreme" or held by only a minority of Christians. The belief that sinners need to be cleansed by the blood of the Lamb is, rather, quintessentially Christian, and I think you will find it the view of the vast majority of those of us who profess sincere adherence to the faith. As to whether practitioners of "gay sex" are to be considered sinners in such need, yes, that might well be a minority view these days (it wasn't, only a short decade or so ago), but it is far from extreme. The "extreme" label is more appropriately reserved for those whose conduct in relation to such beliefs is itself contrary to other fundamental convictions (regarding peace, love, kindness, etc.), but is not fairly applied to the mere holding of such views. But for today, I am glad to focus primarily on the Christmas issue.
Luisa:
Very interesting letter, Michael. I'll respond in detail later -- but one thing to say right now is: I used the word "extreme" about Trinity because of the intensity and openness of their views. There are plenty of churches that will not perform gay marriages but whose members would never characterize gay sex as "filth" as the pastor of Trinity did in his blog. Here's the link to that part of the blog https://trinitybiblechapel.ca/gospel-preaching-and-gay.../
Similarly, I"d say most Christians believe the way to eternal happiness is through Jesus, but most probably wouldn't take the stage at a Christmas market and yell about "the wrath to come" for non-believers. In a multicultural society it's about one's manner as well as one's belief.
Me:
Yes, it sounds like their behaviour might match the term, although what your article does is give the impression that merely believing (a) that 'gay sex' is sinful and (b) that sinners must rely on the blood of Christ to be saved, are "extreme" positions. This buys into a common prejudice of the day and the same kind of tactic that, for example, links everyone who questions liberal immigration policies to the alt.right. That is, the way you composed this part of the article would lump a whole load of Christians of very ordinary stripe in as "extreme" for merely holding such beliefs. In fact, it is exactly the beliefs, and not the behaviour, that you label as extreme in the article.
Referring to Ruby's reply above, I disagree. Christianity, and Judaism, have referred to all kinds of sin (as does the quotation Luisa uses in her article) in terms relating to filth/dirtiness and the forgiveness of them by God, being absolute, as cleansing. This is a standard and long-standing Judaeo-Christian metaphor. See, for example, Isa 4:4, Isa 46:6 (which refers even to righteousness as becoming filthy because of continuing sinfulness despite it), James 1:21, Rev. 17:4.
The manner in which this is addressed in the article comes across as more or less deliberately derisive and confrontational (if not a tad sensationalistic) in a way that maybe you rightly feel the individuals in question deserve, but that ends up affecting a broad swath of Christians and Christianity and, as I say, plays into and supports some contemporary prejudices.
[Here another friend, Ruby Weber, posted a comment which she later deleted. I had replied:]
Sorry, a second response to Ruby's comment: I believe you have misread me. I did not say that referencing 'gay sex' as sinful is "a recent revelation". Rather, I said exactly the opposite. In fact, the position set out in the link that Luisa provides in her reply to my comment is very traditional and hardly qualifies as an extreme view from the point of view of the majority of the past 2000 years of the faith. What is only recent is the unpopularity of it.
Luisa:
...you raise some very interesting points. Two responses, if you’re not too tired of this discussion: 1) the visits you reference when you are a guest at other religious celebrations take place with a religious group as the host. In this case, the host is the City of Kitchener, not a religious group. That’s a key difference. It’s sponsored by a public group on public property. Personally I’m a little queasy with the state sponsoring a religious-based activity, but this is Canada and people are OK with that. If it’s going to happen, though, it can’t get too narrowly religious or some of us will feel unwelcome for *our* beliefs and that should never happen in a public place that we all collectively own. 2) I never said Christians should mask the meaning of Christmas by being only allowed to put it to music. That would have been insulting if I had said it. Christians are free to do what they like in their own house of course, but this was not their house or their party. This was the city’s party and it has the absolute right to decide the rules. Yes, Christmas has been “watered down “ as you put it, and is celebrated by lots of non- Christians and non-devout Christians. But as Glen Soulis has pointed out, that’s partly because Christmas appropriated other pagan midwinter rituals,making it an attractive festival on many levels other than a religious celebration. And also partly because Christianity has aggressively evangelized itself to the point where even if you don’t believe the doctrine, you can’t avoid the festival. It’s everywhere. You might as well join in.
Immigrants or minorities are keen to celebrate the dominant culture as a way of fitting in. They often take on aspects of traditional European Christmas celebration while also retaining the customs that speak to them of their old home. It’s complex.
Me:
A. I am usually the last one to get tired of a discussion (depending on the interlocutor, perhaps, and you are a fun one).
B. The difference between the state-sponsored celebration and the invitations to other events I mentioned is actual, but not essential in regard to the point I was making. Rather, by addressing my comments only from the perspective of city property and state events, you miss or mask the point. The point I made was not about the Christkindl Market, but was a response to your general comment (not limited in its scope to city-sponsored celebration) that “Christmas is a very big tent”. No, it is not. Christmas is a Christian celebration of the birth of Christ. As the word itself imports, it has the significance of a mass: a celebration not just of his birth, but of his atoning sacrifice and the grace/salvation that it brings. Your statement implies that, somehow, Christmas should be left flexibly open to reinterpretation and reapplication by anyone who wants to participate in it. Would you say that Hanukkah, Yom Kippur, Eid (either of them), Diwali and other events of significance to various groups should be treated likewise? Christians may rightly be blamed for the watering down of Christmas and Easter as days of religious significance in our society, but that does not mean that their essential character *should* simply be ignored or sacrificed to (to paraphrase Kipling) the gods of the marketplace.
C. No, you did not expressly say that Christians should mask the meaning of Christmas by music, fair enough; but the implication of what you said was not far from that. Essentially, you suggested that, when in the Public Square, Christians should just tone it down, hide the real substance of the occasions behind jingling bells and choral blends so that others can “tune it out” if they want to. God forbid that anyone should actually understand why the occasion is significant in the first place! But, fair enough as to what you did not expressly say; the question remains, do you think the same is true for other occasions? We live in an age and society where it is neither unheard of nor inappropriate for other religious celebrations to be deemed worthy of public/state recognition. Are you suggesting that we ensure that, though some municipalities display it at Hanukkah, the meaning behind the menorah should never be expressed aloud; that the Koran should never be quoted in the event that either Eid is honoured? As a person steeped in interfaith activity, I prefer to see, learn, know, and have the opportunity to feel, what the occasion really means, and would not want to see such things co-opted for public entertainment devoid of their substantive historic, cultural and spiritual meaning. And, if co-opted, I would support them being reclaimed for the expression of their true meanings by those whose traditions and occasions they truly are.
D. I have not read what Glen Soulis said, so I don’t know the reference, but as it is described by you, it is historically inaccurate. Christmas is not watered down *because* of what it has co-opted from other traditions; it is watered down because Christians have allowed their tradition to be co-opted by market forces, and have themselves forgotten and disregarded what the occasion is actually about. They have allowed family gatherings to displace faith expressions, getting a tree to matter more than getting to church, and filling their bellies to be more significant than feeding their souls. Now, that does not negate the point that Christians borrowed and stole the traditions of other cultures to create the traditions of their own. I neither argue nor deny that point. It is, however, irrelevant to the issue of watering down the event (other than if you or Glen wish to assert that there is something inherently unspiritual about the traditions that they appropriated, such they the mere inclusion of them in Christian activity itself constituted or imported a necessary injury or taint to the essence of the occasion).
E. It is also, I believe, spurious to suggest that aggressive evangelization results in the condition “where even if you don’t believe the doctrine, you can’t avoid the festival”. That is a result of the fact that Christianity is the dominant religion of the people who colonized this land and created the country. There is a difference between these two things. But setting aside that rarefied point, ultimately your position reads very much as “Christians have rammed this Christmas thing down our throats, so we can’t escape it; therefore, it is okay for us to twist it up any way we like”. In response, I’d rather invite you to take the step of detaching yourself from the narrowness of the present context and seeing whether the principles you espouse can survive more general application (a standard and simple test of logic and truth). Consider the example of Eid al Adha in Iran, where it is celebrated in state-sponsored public events held in places such as Tehran University. Millions of Muslims participate. It would be utterly unavoidable if you were in that country. Does that entitle non-Muslims who are there, who must bear the presence of Eid celebrations, to demand that Muslim leaders and faithful, when speaking in the public square, mask the event’s real meaning so that they can just enjoy the accompanying party?
F. As to your last points regarding immigrants and minorities being keen to celebrate the dominant culture and taking on aspects of the traditional European Christmas, the proper response is to ask what you think those facts import.
Are you saying that because immigrants and minorities want to fit in, the real meaning of the event should be hidden? Frankly, that makes no sense at all. What would they be fitting *into* after all? And wouldn’t that merely amount to a form of deception and trickery?
As for immigrants and minorities taking on aspects of the traditional European Christmas, there are a few points to make:
1. First, many immigrants and minorities are also Christian.
2. Second, there are more traditions of Christmas than just the European (and many celebrated here are, in fact, American).
3. Third, it is interesting that you use the expression that minorities here “take on aspects” of European Christian traditions, while Christians (who were, at the time this happened, a distinct minority) “appropriated” the traditions of the then dominant pagan cultures. This choice of words is indicative of the underlying negativity that flows in and through your article. I don’t know that this is deliberate on your part, but I do think it would be worthwhile for you to reflect somewhat on the biases that, to me, very obviously inform your opinions in this case.
Now this is even longer than the first post that Cliff complained about above. :) Thanks for your patience in reading it through. Also, it is written in one-go as I have too much other work to get on with today. Hopefully it is, nevertheless, reasonably clear and not riddled with typos. Cheers.
finis
[Then, despite myself, I added:]
Just saw Glen Soulis' comment. Whether or not he believes that the watering down of Christianity is due to its appropriation of pagan practices, I see now that this is not what he was saying. (That it, he was not making the inaccurate historical point that appeared in the way you reconstructed his statement above.) He simply notes the irony (it is debatable whether, and when, it is an ironic thing) that European Christian traditions are derived from pagan (he references Druidic, but there are other influences as well) practices. He is correct, however, that Christmas celebrations have, for a long time, involved a blend of sacred and secular components or expressions. It is easily argued that what is now wholly secular used to be at least underlyingly sacred, or supportive of sacred intent, but it remains true that there has long been duality of activity. This, of course, begs the question, rather than affirming the point, as to why the sacred aspects must be muted just because the celebration is in the public square,
Luisa:
Michael, you know that I greatly admire you and enjoy your company and conversation, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. It is well documented that certain universal traditions like having lights in the darkest winter days, and bringing in greenery to remind ourselves that spring will return, are not specific to Christians and Christianity, yet they have become thoroughly embedded in the way Christmas is celebrated. There is nothing "watered down" or "wrong" about choosing to enjoy the non-Christian parts of the season -- and because they inherently contain no dogma, it's a way the community can come together in a healthy, egalitarian fashion. That's my first point. My second point: please choose another country than Iran to make your point about what a reasonable state does with its religion. Iran and Canada could not be more different. OK, I am done.
Me:
Ha ha. Yes, Luisa, we can agree to disagree (and I likewise greatly like and admire you); and I will, likewise, make this my last word. (Or not… sometimes I can barely resist the temptation to say more. )
First, I did *not* dispute that there are traditions that are not specific to Christians or Christmas but are part of the array of contemporary and traditional Christmas practices. On this point, we do not disagree. I agree entirely that that certainly is the case. Where we might disagree is in so far as I believe this is not really relevant to this discussion.
In part that is because, as I suggested before, the mere fact of derivation from prior traditions does not cause the watering down of a religious faith practice or image.
I think a hurdle affecting our communication about this is that you appear to be more focused on externalities and trappings, while I am trying to address was is essential and substantive. (I don't mean this in terms of depth of thinking - I am not insulting your reasoning - but the subject matter of discussion.)
In this regard, did you know that there are pagan sources of Islamic traditions as well? That it incorporates practices and elements of pre-Islamic Zoroastrians and Sabaeans? Does this negate the very Muslim nature of Eid, fasting or the Salat? No. And if I, as a non-Muslim, were to adopt those practices but give them either their pre-Islamic significance, or some other meaning, I think it would be fair to say that I am *not* thereby participating in the Islamic faith, but just doing some other thing that looks like it.
Likewise, yes, of course people may choose to continue or restore the pagan practices adopted by Christians absent the Christian meanings they have been given; but, then, they shouldn’t pretend to be celebrating Christmas. They aren’t. They are doing something else. They are reclaiming or readapting the same symbols, devoid of Christian content – devoid of Christ – and, therefore, like it or not, it ain’t Christmas.
For example, when Christian carollers sing carols door to door – a tradition evolved from wassailing which itself evolved from more ancient pagan fertility rights – they are not celebrating those fertility rights; they have adapted the practice to a new purpose. And if someone else adapts the same practice for a different purpose, well, then, they are doing similar stuff, but they are not celebrating Christmas. It doesn’t become, or remain, a Christmas celebration, if it is no longer in celebration of the Christ child (the Christkindl) and the intent is to follow the pre- (or post-) Christian tradition in spirit.
So, to return briefly to the event that sparks this discussion, if your position has merit, relevance and influence in this context, then it would behoove the organizers of Christkindl Market to hereafter call it by some other name, make it some other thing, and not pretend to its Christianity; or, if it *is* intentionally Christian in essence, then they should own that without equivocation and not fear to have its real meaning shared. (This does not mean necessarily allowing sermons to be spoken there, but it would mean rejecting the position you have suggested.)
Second, in rejecting the example of Iran, I believe you are again letting the externality blind you to the essence.
Yes, Canada and Iran are different… but people are not; and the circumstances, as I described them, in relation to the point we were discussing, are not. But if you cannot escape the image of Iran as it is, then just imagine, for a second, a traditionally Muslim and Muslim majority country that is otherwise as diverse and liberal as ours, or replace Islam and Eid with any other faith and celebration you wish.
Is it your position that, in such a place where the celebration of Eid (or whatever) in the public square is as evident (or more so) as Christmas is here, this imports an entitlement requiring its adherents to diminish or hide its sacred meaning just to make the rest more willing to put up with it, or to help them tune it out? If so, I think you need more reasons to answer "why" than you have given so far. Or perhaps, in the end, it really is simply that you think Christmas, and Christians, should be treated this way?
Luisa:
I'll bite, Michael! If the city is going to sponsor a religious event on its property (a slippery slope, I believe, but whatever...) such as the Christkindl market, then the city should make the rules about appropriate conduct. It's the city's Christmas party, not the Trinity Bible Chapel's Christmas party. Consider that simple fact and Trinity's argument collapses. I think the city's rules are appropriate given that we live in a multicultural society without a state religion, and given that Christmas is a dominant cultural event as well as a religious one (and you and I probably aren't ever going to agree about that). As for the fictitious Muslim majority country "that is otherwise as diverse and liberal as ours" that you asked me to imagine, I can't think of one. I don't think there is one. It is a blessing to live in a multicultural country where all are equal, regardless of belief.
Me:
Luisa - thought experiments are essential to effective reasoning about matters like this. Imagining the fictitious country described is a basic test for your premises. I recommend trying it.
As for the real life matter, it is interesting that the city allowed Trinity to do the reading and, if I understand correctly, sermon last year, but this year (a) alleged they didn't know it would happen, (b) apparently never communicated these rules or policies to Trinity and (c) unceremoniously shut off mics rather than, say, acting politely and treating them in a dignified manner. I've heard the pastor's speech. It was pretty tame in the circumstances. Although I agree entirely that the city has the right to make its rules for its event (I had already said so, so, again, you aren't saying something I didn't already express agreement with), but that does not mean they didn't act inappropriately in regard to them.
[There followed a slight diversion here where I inquired about whether the issues of censorship or governance might be more on point, to which Luisa provided a full answer quoting the event organizers and confirming to me that no such issues were at play. Then, after some kind words of conclusion exchanged by me and Luisa, Glen Soulis joined in thus:]
Glen:
The so-called sacred elements of the narrative are problematic when they include hortatory evangelizing, especially when the underlying assumption is that those who do not heed the call are forever damned.
Me:
Interesting take, Glen.
Which parts qualify as "so-called sacred", by which you mean, I presume, that those elements are not, though called such? And by what definition of "sacred"?
Which "narrative" do you mean? Not the Nativity story, apparently, since it includes no "hortatory evangelizing". On the other hand, the talk given by Jacob Reaume doesn't qualify as "narrative" per se, but did include "hortatory evangelizing". So I am hoping you will clarify which speech you are referring to.
And, yes, I presume that underlying Jacob's message of encouragement to seek salvation is necessarily the warning against the risk of being damned. But it might be helpful (for me, as interlocutor here) to understand what you consider to be problematic about this. In anticipation of where your thoughts might lie (though I would be as happy to find that my expectations are wrong), and to provide some context, let me throw out a thought/question or two:
When a medical professional advises us to eat better, sleep better, and exercise - to embrace the "gospel of good health," one might say, is that problematic because the underlying message is increased risk of disease (e.g., heart disease, diabetes. etc.) and early death for those who don't "heed the call"? That is, is a call to action problematic simply because it is, inevitably, also a warning against the dangers of inaction? If that is what you mean, then, by the example given, I am suggesting that position is also, itself, problematic; but you might have an explanation for that, and I would be interested to hear it.
It also occurs to me that you might distinguish the call to the gospel of health from the call to the gospel of Christ because the one is "scientific" and the other is "religious" and therefore the veracity or reliability of the first is considered greater in comparison with the uncertainty and alleged unprovability of the second. In that case, what you'd be suggesting, I posit, is that the flipside negative warning of an otherwise positive call to action is problematic where the call to action is not grounded in hard, provable, and, ideally, proven science. Or, in other words, risk = bad. I suppose you might already see where this can go. There are many things less certain or provable than science, but to which we could and often should be called, against which there is an opposite negative - sometimes critically dangerous - risk; yet we do those things anyway, and do not see the mere existence of uncertainty as a reason for avoidance or complaint. To seek friendship or, especially, romance, against the risk of harmful loneliness; to undertake an educational pursuit (despite the uncertainty of whether there will be opportunities for employment or whether you will actually enjoy it and/or succeed), against the risk of forever missing out on personal improvements in terms of intellect, reasoning and skill; to risk having a child; to risk a new career path; and so forth. In all these and other cases (in fact, in a great deal, if not most, of our lives and life choices) we take critical chances based on intuitions, hopes, faith, as it were, not knowing beforehand whether the path we are on will work out well for us or others. Sometimes we fail; sometimes we succeed; but always we risk without really knowing, without "scientia" (knowledge) or certainty to guide us. And, ultimately, these are most often the things that make life most beautiful, most exciting, and, most importantly, most enriching. So, if this is what you think is problematic about offering a gospel plan that seeks to help one avoid eternal sorrow, well, I'm not sure I can agree that that is "problematic". I mean, yes, it might be *wrong*, it might not *work*, but, then, that might be true for the vast majority of what many of us try or seek to do in life. That's life.
Lastly, I wonder whether you think it is problematic simply because speaking of "eternal damnation" makes some people feel bad about themselves, because their traits or choices might be amongst the things that the speaker in question suggests are contrary to the path of salvation being proposed. In my mind, it is It is as true as the fact that telling the overweight person who lacks self control that his or her lack of self control is a bad trait that is damaging their health, and that they won't get healthy until they change that, can make them feel bad about themslves; or as true as the fact that someone who avoids commitment in relationships might be hurt by being told that this trait will only make more difficult ever having the experience of a fully enriching romantic life.
Well, so, yes, the gospel message might well make someone feel bad about themselves in the course of pointing them toward the choices and circumstances that (according to that message) will bring the person greater joy; but, if that is your concern, then I would suggest you need to unpack further what is problematic about it and, I guess, what the alternative is. How does one help the person who is burdened to become free, if the only way to do so involves also informing them of things that might make them feel bad about themselves for a while?
Also, I think you'd need to discuss whether, really, the message in question is as negative as all that. After all, underlying the call to action, and underlying the implied risk of eternal damnation, is the most fundamental element of the Christian message, which is that despite all that, despite who and the way you are right now, God loves you; in fact, he loved you before you were even you, and sent Christ to pay the price of your sins, errors and transgressions; he bore the stripes, suffered the wounds, and carried the sorrows that could weigh you down, so that you don't have to, so that you can become free and experience a fullness of joy. Now, one might not *believe* that message, but I'd suggest that one would be hard-pressed (and straining significantly) to recast that as, in and of itself, a "problematic" message.
Or perhaps you mean it is problematic in some way I haven't considered. Again, I'd be happy to hear what you mean by it. And maybe I'll agree, or maybe not.
Sigh. And there, I've been long-winded again. Sorry, Glen. Sometimes the fingers just don't stop typing. Thanks for reading through it all.
I have no problem with the City of Kitchenerprohibiting a sermon. There are better times and places for that. Prohibiting a reading from the books that tell the story of the very life that the event is purportedly celebrating is also their right (because it is in their space) but it is, however, a little weird, even a little myopic, a tad ignorant, and probably a dash bigoted.
I also think it is fair to question what is meant by "Christmas is a very big tent," on only "one side" of which are believing Christians; and what at least appears to be the implication that it *ought* to be seen that way, and that the other side - presumably, everyone else who wants to celebrate Christmas in their own way, even without reference to the fellow after whom the occasion is named -- is entitled to demand this be so.
I have attended Eid events held by MAC locally for the past several years. I have been part of several aqiqahs, and enjoyed an Iftar during Ramadan. When in Japan, I visited the Shinto Shrines at Shogatsu, and was invited to celebrate O-bon in August. I have enjoyed services at the Unitarian Church in Kitchener, Temple Shalom at the Cedars, and at the Golden Triangle gurudwara. In all those and other cases, I have considered the invitations and inclusion to be an outcome of the generosity of my hosts, their willingness to share with me a celebration or service that is theirs, and, in so doing, to give me a gift of insight and appreciation of something quintessentially meaningful to them. That kind of sharing is an act of love; it is not to be converted, on my part, to a taking. That is, I have never, ever presumed my participation in such things is an entitlement or something owed to me, or that their invitation meant that in some way I get to dictate the manner, content, meaning or focus of their sacred events. Yet, somehow, that is how people seem to think -- and how your article implies -- Christmas should be treated.
Yes, I get that we can talk about how Christmas has been watered down over the centuries to becoming, for many people, more of a secular, mercantile occasion than a genuine, heartfelt celebration of the birth of Christ; but none of that should mean that Christians cannot make some effort to stop, and even reverse, that secularizing and diminishing process. The expectation and assertion that it is somehow more right and appropriate that Christians be expected to mask the meaning of the season by being only allowed to put it to music is, frankly, insulting, and not something that I think would be rightly tolerated as a demand placed on any other faith or culture in our society.
At another time, we can talk more in depth about your characterization of the beliefs of Trinity members, as you describe them in this article, as "extreme" or held by only a minority of Christians. The belief that sinners need to be cleansed by the blood of the Lamb is, rather, quintessentially Christian, and I think you will find it the view of the vast majority of those of us who profess sincere adherence to the faith. As to whether practitioners of "gay sex" are to be considered sinners in such need, yes, that might well be a minority view these days (it wasn't, only a short decade or so ago), but it is far from extreme. The "extreme" label is more appropriately reserved for those whose conduct in relation to such beliefs is itself contrary to other fundamental convictions (regarding peace, love, kindness, etc.), but is not fairly applied to the mere holding of such views. But for today, I am glad to focus primarily on the Christmas issue.
Luisa:
Very interesting letter, Michael. I'll respond in detail later -- but one thing to say right now is: I used the word "extreme" about Trinity because of the intensity and openness of their views. There are plenty of churches that will not perform gay marriages but whose members would never characterize gay sex as "filth" as the pastor of Trinity did in his blog. Here's the link to that part of the blog https://trinitybiblechapel.ca/gospel-preaching-and-gay.../
Similarly, I"d say most Christians believe the way to eternal happiness is through Jesus, but most probably wouldn't take the stage at a Christmas market and yell about "the wrath to come" for non-believers. In a multicultural society it's about one's manner as well as one's belief.
Me:
Yes, it sounds like their behaviour might match the term, although what your article does is give the impression that merely believing (a) that 'gay sex' is sinful and (b) that sinners must rely on the blood of Christ to be saved, are "extreme" positions. This buys into a common prejudice of the day and the same kind of tactic that, for example, links everyone who questions liberal immigration policies to the alt.right. That is, the way you composed this part of the article would lump a whole load of Christians of very ordinary stripe in as "extreme" for merely holding such beliefs. In fact, it is exactly the beliefs, and not the behaviour, that you label as extreme in the article.
Referring to Ruby's reply above, I disagree. Christianity, and Judaism, have referred to all kinds of sin (as does the quotation Luisa uses in her article) in terms relating to filth/dirtiness and the forgiveness of them by God, being absolute, as cleansing. This is a standard and long-standing Judaeo-Christian metaphor. See, for example, Isa 4:4, Isa 46:6 (which refers even to righteousness as becoming filthy because of continuing sinfulness despite it), James 1:21, Rev. 17:4.
The manner in which this is addressed in the article comes across as more or less deliberately derisive and confrontational (if not a tad sensationalistic) in a way that maybe you rightly feel the individuals in question deserve, but that ends up affecting a broad swath of Christians and Christianity and, as I say, plays into and supports some contemporary prejudices.
[Here another friend, Ruby Weber, posted a comment which she later deleted. I had replied:]
Sorry, a second response to Ruby's comment: I believe you have misread me. I did not say that referencing 'gay sex' as sinful is "a recent revelation". Rather, I said exactly the opposite. In fact, the position set out in the link that Luisa provides in her reply to my comment is very traditional and hardly qualifies as an extreme view from the point of view of the majority of the past 2000 years of the faith. What is only recent is the unpopularity of it.
Luisa:
...you raise some very interesting points. Two responses, if you’re not too tired of this discussion: 1) the visits you reference when you are a guest at other religious celebrations take place with a religious group as the host. In this case, the host is the City of Kitchener, not a religious group. That’s a key difference. It’s sponsored by a public group on public property. Personally I’m a little queasy with the state sponsoring a religious-based activity, but this is Canada and people are OK with that. If it’s going to happen, though, it can’t get too narrowly religious or some of us will feel unwelcome for *our* beliefs and that should never happen in a public place that we all collectively own. 2) I never said Christians should mask the meaning of Christmas by being only allowed to put it to music. That would have been insulting if I had said it. Christians are free to do what they like in their own house of course, but this was not their house or their party. This was the city’s party and it has the absolute right to decide the rules. Yes, Christmas has been “watered down “ as you put it, and is celebrated by lots of non- Christians and non-devout Christians. But as Glen Soulis has pointed out, that’s partly because Christmas appropriated other pagan midwinter rituals,making it an attractive festival on many levels other than a religious celebration. And also partly because Christianity has aggressively evangelized itself to the point where even if you don’t believe the doctrine, you can’t avoid the festival. It’s everywhere. You might as well join in.
Immigrants or minorities are keen to celebrate the dominant culture as a way of fitting in. They often take on aspects of traditional European Christmas celebration while also retaining the customs that speak to them of their old home. It’s complex.
Me:
A. I am usually the last one to get tired of a discussion (depending on the interlocutor, perhaps, and you are a fun one).
B. The difference between the state-sponsored celebration and the invitations to other events I mentioned is actual, but not essential in regard to the point I was making. Rather, by addressing my comments only from the perspective of city property and state events, you miss or mask the point. The point I made was not about the Christkindl Market, but was a response to your general comment (not limited in its scope to city-sponsored celebration) that “Christmas is a very big tent”. No, it is not. Christmas is a Christian celebration of the birth of Christ. As the word itself imports, it has the significance of a mass: a celebration not just of his birth, but of his atoning sacrifice and the grace/salvation that it brings. Your statement implies that, somehow, Christmas should be left flexibly open to reinterpretation and reapplication by anyone who wants to participate in it. Would you say that Hanukkah, Yom Kippur, Eid (either of them), Diwali and other events of significance to various groups should be treated likewise? Christians may rightly be blamed for the watering down of Christmas and Easter as days of religious significance in our society, but that does not mean that their essential character *should* simply be ignored or sacrificed to (to paraphrase Kipling) the gods of the marketplace.
C. No, you did not expressly say that Christians should mask the meaning of Christmas by music, fair enough; but the implication of what you said was not far from that. Essentially, you suggested that, when in the Public Square, Christians should just tone it down, hide the real substance of the occasions behind jingling bells and choral blends so that others can “tune it out” if they want to. God forbid that anyone should actually understand why the occasion is significant in the first place! But, fair enough as to what you did not expressly say; the question remains, do you think the same is true for other occasions? We live in an age and society where it is neither unheard of nor inappropriate for other religious celebrations to be deemed worthy of public/state recognition. Are you suggesting that we ensure that, though some municipalities display it at Hanukkah, the meaning behind the menorah should never be expressed aloud; that the Koran should never be quoted in the event that either Eid is honoured? As a person steeped in interfaith activity, I prefer to see, learn, know, and have the opportunity to feel, what the occasion really means, and would not want to see such things co-opted for public entertainment devoid of their substantive historic, cultural and spiritual meaning. And, if co-opted, I would support them being reclaimed for the expression of their true meanings by those whose traditions and occasions they truly are.
D. I have not read what Glen Soulis said, so I don’t know the reference, but as it is described by you, it is historically inaccurate. Christmas is not watered down *because* of what it has co-opted from other traditions; it is watered down because Christians have allowed their tradition to be co-opted by market forces, and have themselves forgotten and disregarded what the occasion is actually about. They have allowed family gatherings to displace faith expressions, getting a tree to matter more than getting to church, and filling their bellies to be more significant than feeding their souls. Now, that does not negate the point that Christians borrowed and stole the traditions of other cultures to create the traditions of their own. I neither argue nor deny that point. It is, however, irrelevant to the issue of watering down the event (other than if you or Glen wish to assert that there is something inherently unspiritual about the traditions that they appropriated, such they the mere inclusion of them in Christian activity itself constituted or imported a necessary injury or taint to the essence of the occasion).
E. It is also, I believe, spurious to suggest that aggressive evangelization results in the condition “where even if you don’t believe the doctrine, you can’t avoid the festival”. That is a result of the fact that Christianity is the dominant religion of the people who colonized this land and created the country. There is a difference between these two things. But setting aside that rarefied point, ultimately your position reads very much as “Christians have rammed this Christmas thing down our throats, so we can’t escape it; therefore, it is okay for us to twist it up any way we like”. In response, I’d rather invite you to take the step of detaching yourself from the narrowness of the present context and seeing whether the principles you espouse can survive more general application (a standard and simple test of logic and truth). Consider the example of Eid al Adha in Iran, where it is celebrated in state-sponsored public events held in places such as Tehran University. Millions of Muslims participate. It would be utterly unavoidable if you were in that country. Does that entitle non-Muslims who are there, who must bear the presence of Eid celebrations, to demand that Muslim leaders and faithful, when speaking in the public square, mask the event’s real meaning so that they can just enjoy the accompanying party?
F. As to your last points regarding immigrants and minorities being keen to celebrate the dominant culture and taking on aspects of the traditional European Christmas, the proper response is to ask what you think those facts import.
Are you saying that because immigrants and minorities want to fit in, the real meaning of the event should be hidden? Frankly, that makes no sense at all. What would they be fitting *into* after all? And wouldn’t that merely amount to a form of deception and trickery?
As for immigrants and minorities taking on aspects of the traditional European Christmas, there are a few points to make:
1. First, many immigrants and minorities are also Christian.
2. Second, there are more traditions of Christmas than just the European (and many celebrated here are, in fact, American).
3. Third, it is interesting that you use the expression that minorities here “take on aspects” of European Christian traditions, while Christians (who were, at the time this happened, a distinct minority) “appropriated” the traditions of the then dominant pagan cultures. This choice of words is indicative of the underlying negativity that flows in and through your article. I don’t know that this is deliberate on your part, but I do think it would be worthwhile for you to reflect somewhat on the biases that, to me, very obviously inform your opinions in this case.
Now this is even longer than the first post that Cliff complained about above. :) Thanks for your patience in reading it through. Also, it is written in one-go as I have too much other work to get on with today. Hopefully it is, nevertheless, reasonably clear and not riddled with typos. Cheers.
finis
[Then, despite myself, I added:]
Just saw Glen Soulis' comment. Whether or not he believes that the watering down of Christianity is due to its appropriation of pagan practices, I see now that this is not what he was saying. (That it, he was not making the inaccurate historical point that appeared in the way you reconstructed his statement above.) He simply notes the irony (it is debatable whether, and when, it is an ironic thing) that European Christian traditions are derived from pagan (he references Druidic, but there are other influences as well) practices. He is correct, however, that Christmas celebrations have, for a long time, involved a blend of sacred and secular components or expressions. It is easily argued that what is now wholly secular used to be at least underlyingly sacred, or supportive of sacred intent, but it remains true that there has long been duality of activity. This, of course, begs the question, rather than affirming the point, as to why the sacred aspects must be muted just because the celebration is in the public square,
Luisa:
Michael, you know that I greatly admire you and enjoy your company and conversation, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. It is well documented that certain universal traditions like having lights in the darkest winter days, and bringing in greenery to remind ourselves that spring will return, are not specific to Christians and Christianity, yet they have become thoroughly embedded in the way Christmas is celebrated. There is nothing "watered down" or "wrong" about choosing to enjoy the non-Christian parts of the season -- and because they inherently contain no dogma, it's a way the community can come together in a healthy, egalitarian fashion. That's my first point. My second point: please choose another country than Iran to make your point about what a reasonable state does with its religion. Iran and Canada could not be more different. OK, I am done.
Me:
Ha ha. Yes, Luisa, we can agree to disagree (and I likewise greatly like and admire you); and I will, likewise, make this my last word. (Or not… sometimes I can barely resist the temptation to say more. )
First, I did *not* dispute that there are traditions that are not specific to Christians or Christmas but are part of the array of contemporary and traditional Christmas practices. On this point, we do not disagree. I agree entirely that that certainly is the case. Where we might disagree is in so far as I believe this is not really relevant to this discussion.
In part that is because, as I suggested before, the mere fact of derivation from prior traditions does not cause the watering down of a religious faith practice or image.
I think a hurdle affecting our communication about this is that you appear to be more focused on externalities and trappings, while I am trying to address was is essential and substantive. (I don't mean this in terms of depth of thinking - I am not insulting your reasoning - but the subject matter of discussion.)
In this regard, did you know that there are pagan sources of Islamic traditions as well? That it incorporates practices and elements of pre-Islamic Zoroastrians and Sabaeans? Does this negate the very Muslim nature of Eid, fasting or the Salat? No. And if I, as a non-Muslim, were to adopt those practices but give them either their pre-Islamic significance, or some other meaning, I think it would be fair to say that I am *not* thereby participating in the Islamic faith, but just doing some other thing that looks like it.
Likewise, yes, of course people may choose to continue or restore the pagan practices adopted by Christians absent the Christian meanings they have been given; but, then, they shouldn’t pretend to be celebrating Christmas. They aren’t. They are doing something else. They are reclaiming or readapting the same symbols, devoid of Christian content – devoid of Christ – and, therefore, like it or not, it ain’t Christmas.
For example, when Christian carollers sing carols door to door – a tradition evolved from wassailing which itself evolved from more ancient pagan fertility rights – they are not celebrating those fertility rights; they have adapted the practice to a new purpose. And if someone else adapts the same practice for a different purpose, well, then, they are doing similar stuff, but they are not celebrating Christmas. It doesn’t become, or remain, a Christmas celebration, if it is no longer in celebration of the Christ child (the Christkindl) and the intent is to follow the pre- (or post-) Christian tradition in spirit.
So, to return briefly to the event that sparks this discussion, if your position has merit, relevance and influence in this context, then it would behoove the organizers of Christkindl Market to hereafter call it by some other name, make it some other thing, and not pretend to its Christianity; or, if it *is* intentionally Christian in essence, then they should own that without equivocation and not fear to have its real meaning shared. (This does not mean necessarily allowing sermons to be spoken there, but it would mean rejecting the position you have suggested.)
Second, in rejecting the example of Iran, I believe you are again letting the externality blind you to the essence.
Yes, Canada and Iran are different… but people are not; and the circumstances, as I described them, in relation to the point we were discussing, are not. But if you cannot escape the image of Iran as it is, then just imagine, for a second, a traditionally Muslim and Muslim majority country that is otherwise as diverse and liberal as ours, or replace Islam and Eid with any other faith and celebration you wish.
Is it your position that, in such a place where the celebration of Eid (or whatever) in the public square is as evident (or more so) as Christmas is here, this imports an entitlement requiring its adherents to diminish or hide its sacred meaning just to make the rest more willing to put up with it, or to help them tune it out? If so, I think you need more reasons to answer "why" than you have given so far. Or perhaps, in the end, it really is simply that you think Christmas, and Christians, should be treated this way?
Luisa:
I'll bite, Michael! If the city is going to sponsor a religious event on its property (a slippery slope, I believe, but whatever...) such as the Christkindl market, then the city should make the rules about appropriate conduct. It's the city's Christmas party, not the Trinity Bible Chapel's Christmas party. Consider that simple fact and Trinity's argument collapses. I think the city's rules are appropriate given that we live in a multicultural society without a state religion, and given that Christmas is a dominant cultural event as well as a religious one (and you and I probably aren't ever going to agree about that). As for the fictitious Muslim majority country "that is otherwise as diverse and liberal as ours" that you asked me to imagine, I can't think of one. I don't think there is one. It is a blessing to live in a multicultural country where all are equal, regardless of belief.
Me:
Luisa - thought experiments are essential to effective reasoning about matters like this. Imagining the fictitious country described is a basic test for your premises. I recommend trying it.
As for the real life matter, it is interesting that the city allowed Trinity to do the reading and, if I understand correctly, sermon last year, but this year (a) alleged they didn't know it would happen, (b) apparently never communicated these rules or policies to Trinity and (c) unceremoniously shut off mics rather than, say, acting politely and treating them in a dignified manner. I've heard the pastor's speech. It was pretty tame in the circumstances. Although I agree entirely that the city has the right to make its rules for its event (I had already said so, so, again, you aren't saying something I didn't already express agreement with), but that does not mean they didn't act inappropriately in regard to them.
[There followed a slight diversion here where I inquired about whether the issues of censorship or governance might be more on point, to which Luisa provided a full answer quoting the event organizers and confirming to me that no such issues were at play. Then, after some kind words of conclusion exchanged by me and Luisa, Glen Soulis joined in thus:]
Glen:
The so-called sacred elements of the narrative are problematic when they include hortatory evangelizing, especially when the underlying assumption is that those who do not heed the call are forever damned.
Me:
Interesting take, Glen.
Which parts qualify as "so-called sacred", by which you mean, I presume, that those elements are not, though called such? And by what definition of "sacred"?
Which "narrative" do you mean? Not the Nativity story, apparently, since it includes no "hortatory evangelizing". On the other hand, the talk given by Jacob Reaume doesn't qualify as "narrative" per se, but did include "hortatory evangelizing". So I am hoping you will clarify which speech you are referring to.
And, yes, I presume that underlying Jacob's message of encouragement to seek salvation is necessarily the warning against the risk of being damned. But it might be helpful (for me, as interlocutor here) to understand what you consider to be problematic about this. In anticipation of where your thoughts might lie (though I would be as happy to find that my expectations are wrong), and to provide some context, let me throw out a thought/question or two:
When a medical professional advises us to eat better, sleep better, and exercise - to embrace the "gospel of good health," one might say, is that problematic because the underlying message is increased risk of disease (e.g., heart disease, diabetes. etc.) and early death for those who don't "heed the call"? That is, is a call to action problematic simply because it is, inevitably, also a warning against the dangers of inaction? If that is what you mean, then, by the example given, I am suggesting that position is also, itself, problematic; but you might have an explanation for that, and I would be interested to hear it.
It also occurs to me that you might distinguish the call to the gospel of health from the call to the gospel of Christ because the one is "scientific" and the other is "religious" and therefore the veracity or reliability of the first is considered greater in comparison with the uncertainty and alleged unprovability of the second. In that case, what you'd be suggesting, I posit, is that the flipside negative warning of an otherwise positive call to action is problematic where the call to action is not grounded in hard, provable, and, ideally, proven science. Or, in other words, risk = bad. I suppose you might already see where this can go. There are many things less certain or provable than science, but to which we could and often should be called, against which there is an opposite negative - sometimes critically dangerous - risk; yet we do those things anyway, and do not see the mere existence of uncertainty as a reason for avoidance or complaint. To seek friendship or, especially, romance, against the risk of harmful loneliness; to undertake an educational pursuit (despite the uncertainty of whether there will be opportunities for employment or whether you will actually enjoy it and/or succeed), against the risk of forever missing out on personal improvements in terms of intellect, reasoning and skill; to risk having a child; to risk a new career path; and so forth. In all these and other cases (in fact, in a great deal, if not most, of our lives and life choices) we take critical chances based on intuitions, hopes, faith, as it were, not knowing beforehand whether the path we are on will work out well for us or others. Sometimes we fail; sometimes we succeed; but always we risk without really knowing, without "scientia" (knowledge) or certainty to guide us. And, ultimately, these are most often the things that make life most beautiful, most exciting, and, most importantly, most enriching. So, if this is what you think is problematic about offering a gospel plan that seeks to help one avoid eternal sorrow, well, I'm not sure I can agree that that is "problematic". I mean, yes, it might be *wrong*, it might not *work*, but, then, that might be true for the vast majority of what many of us try or seek to do in life. That's life.
Lastly, I wonder whether you think it is problematic simply because speaking of "eternal damnation" makes some people feel bad about themselves, because their traits or choices might be amongst the things that the speaker in question suggests are contrary to the path of salvation being proposed. In my mind, it is It is as true as the fact that telling the overweight person who lacks self control that his or her lack of self control is a bad trait that is damaging their health, and that they won't get healthy until they change that, can make them feel bad about themslves; or as true as the fact that someone who avoids commitment in relationships might be hurt by being told that this trait will only make more difficult ever having the experience of a fully enriching romantic life.
Well, so, yes, the gospel message might well make someone feel bad about themselves in the course of pointing them toward the choices and circumstances that (according to that message) will bring the person greater joy; but, if that is your concern, then I would suggest you need to unpack further what is problematic about it and, I guess, what the alternative is. How does one help the person who is burdened to become free, if the only way to do so involves also informing them of things that might make them feel bad about themselves for a while?
Also, I think you'd need to discuss whether, really, the message in question is as negative as all that. After all, underlying the call to action, and underlying the implied risk of eternal damnation, is the most fundamental element of the Christian message, which is that despite all that, despite who and the way you are right now, God loves you; in fact, he loved you before you were even you, and sent Christ to pay the price of your sins, errors and transgressions; he bore the stripes, suffered the wounds, and carried the sorrows that could weigh you down, so that you don't have to, so that you can become free and experience a fullness of joy. Now, one might not *believe* that message, but I'd suggest that one would be hard-pressed (and straining significantly) to recast that as, in and of itself, a "problematic" message.
Or perhaps you mean it is problematic in some way I haven't considered. Again, I'd be happy to hear what you mean by it. And maybe I'll agree, or maybe not.
Sigh. And there, I've been long-winded again. Sorry, Glen. Sometimes the fingers just don't stop typing. Thanks for reading through it all.