Clarion: Journal of Spirituality and Justice

Holy Books: Is Religion the Problem? by David Goa

The philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900–2002), in his last essays when he was close to 100 years old, said that what will save us is a conversation between religions and that it will focus on transcendence, on the ineffable. That is the only way of peace. Being part of a tradition we are both circumscribed and open at the same time. Religious tradition brings finitude and the eternal together. Tradition is reiterative. It is not repeated, but the very event again, and again, the inaction again. 

The organizers of “Building World Peace: The Role of Religions and Human Rights” have suggested that the theme “Holy Books: Is Religion the Problem?” “serves to highlight the differences between sacred religious texts and the political practice of their teaching. Since September 11^th, 2001, especially, there has been great debate about the role of religious texts in acts of social and political violence. In order to preserve respect for the diverse religions, cultures, races, and ethnicities throughout the world, we ought to focus on the message of peace shared by a majority of peoples.”

“For They Know Not What They Do” By Andrew P. Klager

“For They Know Not What They Do”: An Epistemology of Obedience, Compassion and Social Responsibility

By: Andrew P. Klager

I. INTRODUCTION

I am an optimistic theoretical determinist. I also encourage freedom of conscience on a pragmatic level. While avoiding the all too ubiquitous and gratuitous theological discussion surrounding election and free-will, I nevertheless contend that the distinction between determinism and freedom of conscience presents a false dichotomy; the latter is merely a practical extension of the former. This is precisely why I can be both at once. I do not find either Calvinist claims regarding election to be persuasive, nor do I feel the utility or even existence of free-will, as it is commonly understood, to be valid. Mine is not a theological concern, per se, however; it is rather a philosophical matter or an evaluation of reality itself.

The Evangelical Sanhedrin and Republicanism: Promises and Perils by Ron Dart

Introduction

George Marsden has suggested that the growth, vision and ideals of the Evangelical movement in the USA after WW II makes it, in many important and significant ways, a informal denomination (‘The Evangelical Denomination’ in Evangelicalism in Modern America). If this is the case, and I agree with Marsden on this point, who are the leaders and organizations that have defined, shaped and guided this denomination? It is the leadership in a movement that is the Sanhedrin, hence the title of this essay. And, what are the promises and perils of the Evangelical Sanhedrin? There is no doubt that leadership is essential for any movement, but what is the relationship between the Evangelical Sanhedrin, Evangelicalism and the republicanism tradition?  This essay will unpack this troubling and perennial dilemma both within the USA and Canada.

War and Hell by Wayne Northey

War and hell are inextricably interlinked in Christian history and theology.  Below are some thoughts about both, with relation to a movie and a book.

I.  The Christian and War: Reflections on “Saving Private Ryan”

“War is hell”, observed Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman.  And Steven Spielberg dipped us right into its fiery midst in his 1998 summer release.

War is indeed hell.  Yet, in the long history of the Christian Church, apart from the earliest era, every war engaged in throughout Christendom has been supported by the Church on both sides of the conflict.  How in the name of Jesus can this be? What, for starters, of Christ’s express words?: “Love your enemies (Matt. 5, Luke 6).”  Further, how can Christians do an end run around Jesus’ explicit teaching by reverting to Old Testament endorsement of war when Jesus flatly said?: “So in everything [except war?], do to others [except your enemies? - see Matt. 5:43ff] what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets (Matt 7:12).”; and “... ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’  This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor [except your enemies?] as yourself.’  All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments (Matt 22:37-40).”   

Islam: A Religion of Peace? by Gord Nickel

-Gordon Nickel has a PhD in the earliest commentaries on the Koran and teaches in British Columbia.

Published: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 in National Post

The problem of Muslim radicalization has been on the agenda of all nations since 9/11. But Canada faces a unique dilemma because the doctrine of multiculturalism is seen as intrinsic to our national identity. The recent disruption of an alleged homegrown Islamist terror plot has caused many Canadians to ask: How can multiculturalism -- which preaches tolerance above all else -- be squared with a militant, intolerant creed that demonizes non-believers? This week, the National Post presents a week-long series of articles examining this question. In today's second instalment, Gordon Nickel examines the claim that Islam is inherently a 'religion of peace.'

"Born Again" by Gareth Brandt

“Born again” is one of the most often used phrases in recent Christian experience in North America. We’ve heard it ad nauseum in sermons and songs. “Are you a born again Christian?” “Ye must be born again.” And the list goes on.

Is being “born again” about a particular event that determines our eternal destiny? Is it some sort of measuring stick so we can differentiate between those who are “born again” and those who are not? Is being “born again” about saying the sinner’s prayer, going forward at altar calls, signing decision cards, slipping up my hand with all eyes closed?

Is this really what Jesus was talking about? It sounds more like a nineteenth century American revival preacher than a first century Jewish prophet! I have a sneaking suspicion Jesus was a lot more mysterious than we would like to think.

“Born again” is actually not a common term in the Bible. The most familiar text is from the Gospel of John where Jesus tells the religious teacher, Nicodemus, “you must be born again” (John 3:1-8).

The Greek word ANOTHEN in verse three is usually translated “again” but it has a double meaning and also means “born from above.” In context, “born from above” is a better translation. Nicodemus misunderstands Jesus’ use of the word as “born again” and thus replies, “I cannot enter again into my mother’s womb…” (John 3:4). Then Jesus corrects him by saying, “no, I mean born from above, by the Spirit of God.”

This correction of a misunderstanding is a common literary device used by the writer of the Gospel of John. A person misunderstands a term and then Jesus gives the correct, and usually deeper, meaning. It’s used again with well water and living water in chapter four and physical blindness and spiritual blindness in chapter nine.

It is interesting how most English translations get it wrong just as Nicodemus gets it wrong. But this is a spiritual birth Jesus is talking about. The birth from above, Jesus says, is like water and wind; the two most powerful forces of nature. Water and wind illustrate this one mysterious spiritual movement. Water is cooling, cleansing, refreshing and nourishing. Wind, breath and Spirit all come from the same Greek word PNEUMA. The wind is mysterious, you can’t see it or predict its next move, the results can be seen, but how it happens can’t be explained.

We have trivialized “born again” to be a certain formulaic human experience, when it cannot be labeled or boxed. You can’t box the wind! Then it is no longer wind! The point of this imagery is that this “birth” is entirely different from what the religious teacher perceived, or maybe also what we as modern church people perceive.

I love the way Eugene Peterson says it in The Message:

“So don’t be surprised when I tell you that you have to be born from above, out of this world, so to speak. You know well enough how the wind blows this way and that. You hear it rustling through the trees but you have no idea where it comes from or where it is headed next. That’s the way it is with everyone born from above by the wind of God, the Spirit of God.”

In an interview for a ministry position we were discussing my theology of conversion at length and I was trying to make a point that maybe it was more of a mysterious process than a prescribed event. One of the interviewers, weary of the discussion and wanting to resolve the issue, said in exasperation, “surely you must remember a date when you were born again.” After a slight pause, and with a smile and a twinkle in my eye I said, “Yes, last Thursday” (And in fact I had had a significant “epiphany” kind of moment on that day). Needless to say, I didn’t get the job!

New birth is kind of like the wind, hard to contain and label- “now I’ve got it!” It’s not so much about an experience we have had in the past or need to have in the future.

The Greek word for new, as in “Behold, I make all things new,” is KAINOS. This word does not refer to a point in time but rather a quality of living, a freshness of being.

The new birth is not so much about a prescribed particular punctiliar experience that happens on a specific date in time. It is primarily about a way of living, a quality of being. A way of living that is always in anticipation of what might be around life’s next corner, a way of being that is sparkly-eyed expectant of what the Spirit Wind might surprise us with.

This is adapted from a sermon preached at Point Grey Inter-Mennonite Fellowship on March 26, 2006. For me, a sermon is an art form and it seems entirely appropriate since the Bible itself is a work of art. And this does not at all diminish the truth that a sermon speaks, rather it enhances it.

Gareth Brandt
Abbotsford, BC

The Image of God in the Face of Longing by Derek Weiss

“We have taught our images to be free ; are we glad?
  are we glad to have brought convenient heresy to Logres?”

-Charles Williams, “Bors to Elayne: on the King’s Coins,” in Taliessin Through Logres

A Christian response to popular culture must touch on the all-pervasive obsession of that culture with images, and particularly with the Image: the Image of God – that is, the image of people. Technology, once the respected servant of necessity but now a slave of desire, has allowed an unprecedented promulgation of images in the forms of advertising /entertainment. People tell fewer stories, but consume more images. Films are considered “sensational” and “mind-blowing” because of special-effects. Newspaper and magazine articles get shorter, while the pictures within get larger.

Yet the one type of image that has grown to dominate others is that type which manipulates the sexual desires of its viewers. Pornography is a source of tremendous damage to Christian men and women, and it is no longer easily avoided: magazine stands feature prominent displays of splayed, air-brushed, nearly-nude women and men. These images lie: the look in the half-open eyes of the woman says, “Come to me, all you who thirst, and I will give you satisfaction. You do not have to work for my love, but will simply have it. I will make you a God.” Yet these images do not produce satisfaction when viewed, but a more deeply consuming desire for more images, or, worse, a desire to be an image of these images: something rather than someone; something other than a child of God: then follows eating disorders and steroid-culture and credit cards maxed-out from spending on “the right look.” We desperately try to shed the Image of God in which we are made in order to be remade in the image of the image of popular culture.

This should concern Christians, for Christianity is, at its Root, about The Image: The Image of the Invisible God, Our Lord Jesus. (Col. 1:15) If Christians claim to follow The Image that is Lord over all other images, and The Image that we ourselves are images of, we must be able to provide thoughtful criticism of popular culture’s use of images, and an alternative.

We can provide better than an alternative: we can point the way to the maker of images, the Image of the infinite and loving God. When Our Lord presented Himself as a human, He re-declared all humans to be essentially good. As the Athanasian Creed states the mystery, Christ is one Christ, “not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God.” Our Lord Jesus is the great re-iteration of the very first thing said about humans in scripture: “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness,” and soon after, “God saw everything that He had made, and indeed, it was very good.” (Genesis 1:26; 31a)

What does it mean to be in the image of God? To the original hearers of Genesis, the terms “image” and “idol” were virtually synonymous (cf. 1 Sam. 6; Ez. 7:20; Daniel 2-3). If you wanted to know what the god Baal looked like, you would go to Baal’s temple and look at his image/idol. Likewise, if you want to know what the Lord God of Genesis looks like, look at His image: humans. In other words, when you look at a human being, you are seeing an image, or a likeness, of God. If you want to see what God looks like, look at another person. “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of mine, even to the least of them, you did it to me.” (Mat. 25:40) This is why St. James points out that it is ridiculous and wrong to bless God while cursing those who are made in the likeness of God. (Ja. 3:9)

--

We see in popular culture, saturated with images, a question and a longing: The question is, “Who am I in the image of?” The question is heard in the chinging of the cash registers of a billion-dollar fashion industry, which is mostly shallow imitation. It is heard in the convulsive vomiting and groaning stomachs of the ten percent of women who suffer from eating disorders in North America. It is seen in the empty eyes of thirty-five year old women and men, in the prime of their lives, who feel completely unlovable because of a few extra wrinkles or pounds, or a receding hairline.

Most of these people choose to make themselves in the image of culture. Since the breakdown of the religious worldview in the west and the rise of Postmodern thinking, many have accepted that there is only culture. I exist in reference to culture and nothing more. My image is therefore not worthy of reverence, but should be consumed by others as I consume others. In the terms of Martin Buber, I am not a Thou but an it. I am a cog in the wheel of cultural consumerism: Marilynn Monroe to Madonna to Britney Spears to who? To another product, but not another person. If I can have the physique of him, if I can have a girlfriend who looks and dresses like her, if I can be like them, I will have an image that I know, somewhere deeper and sacred within me, I must have.

But that image is a lie, for that her, the “perfect woman” with the “perfect look,” does not exist. The image of Jessica Simpson spread invitingly on the cover of Maxim Magazine is not the person of Jessica Simpson: Firstly, because the image does not accurately represent what Jessica Simpson looks like (makeup and perhaps mutilation [plastic surgery] beforehand, lighting and positioning techniques during the shoot, and airbrushing and “trimming” later – all meant to offer an object of desire); Secondly, because Jessica would not, in person, look at me that way, and I not at her with my unabashed, lusting gaze. I am not her husband or boyfriend. The only person whom I have the strength to lock eyes with in that way is my own love, and even then it is dangerous. Images, if they do not lead to a truth beyond them, are destructive. That image of Jessica is mere entertainment and only entertainment: Jessica is not entertainment, but a person.

Or is she? The Christian may answer yes, because Jessica is made, like all of us, in the Image of God. In the image of God a person is freed to be themselves, because they are made in the image of one who is beyond culture, beyond mere reference. All long to relate to the Omnipotence, the Infinitely Varied, the God of Ten Trillion Galaxies, who would have them be who they are to Himself; and also to themselves and to others. This is the image redeemed: the image where we find Jesus.

The Government's God-given Right to Bear the Sword by Brad Jersak

Random thoughts on Romans 12-13 with no pretence of cohesiveness...

Romans chapter 13 is often quoted by those who uphold “just war theory” in debates with those who argue for a pacifist position. Pacifists tend to dismiss this passage too easily and militarists often employ it too broadly. I’d like to revisit this difficult passage with a view to reassessing its many layers of context.

Clark Pinnock and Political Theology: A Test Case by Ron Dart

"Clark H. Pinnock is one of theworld’s best-known and most creative and controversial theologians… Since the 1970s Pinnock has pioneered a now widespread school of Christian thought called “open” or “free-will” theism."
—Barry Callen, Clark H. Pinnock: Journey Toward Renewal (2000)

Corporatism or Commonweal by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo

The concept of the “common good” is one that has fallen out of favour in recent years. Over the past two decades, it has become increasingly common to dismiss the notion that we all share an interest in the broader community, that society is more than simply a collection of individuals all pursuing their own individual material self-interest.[1]

In Socrates’ Apology, he tells a story that illustrates the tension between corporatism and commonweal.

Zeus, Socrates relates, decided to help mankind create a human society. He sent Hermes to distribute the necessary technical and managerial skill to certain people. The result was a society based on self-interest and expertise. Such a society was centrifugal and fragmented. As philosopher John Ralston-Saul observes, Zeus had created a society based on the corporatist model.[2] The economic and social structures were based on professional self-interest. People were defined by what they did. In more contemporary terms, this would be the corporatism of consumer capitalism, also based on self-interest and self-centeredness: defining people by what and how much they consume.

Zeus sees the error and decides to remedy it by having Hermes distribute social reverence (aidos) and right-mindedness (diki) to every person. Social reverence signifies a sense of “community,” a shared awareness, a shared knowledge of self-constraint and belonging. Right-mindedness relates to a sense of social justice, integrity, freedom, and social order: a shared sense of responsibility. This is what we refer to as “commonweal.” It defines people simply as “fellow human beings,” as members of a community that we call “humanity.”

Corporatism, which is a fundamental aspect of our modern consumerist economic system, is essentially inimical to Christianity. It is also contrary to God’s Law, as anyone who has studied the socio-economic decrees of the Bible’s Book of Deuteronomy is well aware.

Corporatism reorganizes society with the reduction of the individual to his status as a consumer. To consume is patriotic; to consume in excess is to raise the level of one’s social status. This new economic world order presents us with intense moral and ethical contradictions, arguing that greed, self-gratification, and excess consumption are simply aspects of human nature. This argument, taken from the doctrines of Social Darwinism, is certainly questionable. As author Linda McQuaig observes:

“The rapaciousness of certain business leaders has been much in the spotlight recently. In the wake of the ENRON scandal, even conservative pundits appear shaken by the astounding greed and dishonesty at the heart of... corporate culture. Still, some shrug it off as simple human nature, saying that we are inherently a competitive, acquisitive species, naturally inclined to push our own self-interest as far as we possibly can. But is this the whole picture? Is our society really nothing more than a loose collection of shoppers, graspers and self-absorbed swindlers? Perhaps we are in danger of becoming such a culture, but it is important to remember that culture itself is a learned set of rules.”[3]

And yet, as Paolo Virno has suggested:

“At the base of contemporary cynicism is the fact that men and women learn by experiencing rules rather than ‘facts’... Learning the rules, however, also means recognizing their unfoundedness and conventionality. We are no longer inserted into a single, predefined ‘game’ in which we participate with true conviction. We now face several different ‘games,’ each devoid of all obviousness and seriousness. Only the site of an immediate self-affirmation—an affirmation that is much more brutal and arrogant, much more cynical, the more we employ, with no illusions but with perfect momentary adherence, those very rules whose conventionality and mutability we have perceived.”[4]

At this point we may examine the corporatization of morality and, to some extent, of the Christian Church.

The concept of commonweal—the common good—is fundamental to any authentic Christianity. A clear and profound doctrine of commonweal permeates the Old Testament. It is made law in the book of Deuteronomy and constantly enjoined by the Holy Prophets. Jesus Christ reaffirms this “law of commonweal” with his great moral imperative, “love your neighbour as yourself.” Elevating it above its original statement in the book of Leviticus, Christ makes this moral imperative (together with unconditional love of God) the very foundation and essence of the Law and the Prophets. The fulfillment of such a moral imperative certainly requires a direct encounter and interaction with culture and society. Unfortunately, this is an encounter that has been either abandoned, corporatized or reduced to outbursts of moralism by many Christian bodies.

Contrary to this trend, the Christian community must address society and interact in the shaping of our culture. However, this interaction must consist of something more than merely scolding politicians and demanding the law enforce on all citizens the sort of behaviour we consider to be correct. We must avoid the inner contradictions of moralism and address the whole scope of true morality.

Morality or Moralism?
How can Christians consider it to be an authentic expression of morality to oppose the killing of unborn children while ignoring the killing of children who are already born? Is it truly moral to protect the lives of unborn children but ignore or trivialize the fact that they will have to grow up in a world where, because of our own excess, they may not have sufficient food and many of the necessary natural resources will have been squandered and climate change will have made their lives precarious and uncertain? Is it actually moral to demand that governments enforce the sort of correct personal behaviour that our own ideologies demand while turning consumer capitalism into a religious doctrine that cannot be subjected to critique and criticism?

One fatal flaw in the preaching of Christianity, which has had especially negative effects in North America, is the failure to distinguish between morality and moralism. From an authentic Christian point of view, true morality has to do not only with salvation but with every aspect of our inter-human relations; it is not simply a system of correct behaviour.

True morality is not a system of law which, if obeyed, makes one a moral person. It is necessary to have such laws for the sake of society, but that has little to do with the change of a person’s heart and an inner transformation into the image of Christ’s love. Morality is not a form of bondage but a path of liberation. When we speak of “the law of God,” we are not speaking of an ordinary, worldly notion of “law.” God’s law is not given to repress us but to protect us. If we are driving along a dangerous highway and the signs warn us to slow down because there is a dangerous curve in the road, that is a “law.” The speed limit is set by law. If we disregard that law and crash over a cliff because we are driving too fast, we do not claim that the government punished us by making us crash. On the contrary, the government tried to save us from serious injury or death by making that law. This is precisely the meaning of the “law of God,” of our system of morality. God has revealed to us a manner of life that can keep us from much pain and suffering and from many disasters. He has called upon us to realize that his law is a law of love, and that we should obey it out of love and trust in him, not from fear of punishment. Moreover, such true morality constrains us to imitate God’s love in our dealings with the world. This is the essence of true morality.

We cannot equate morality with behaviour that is acceptable to a given society, because often a society accepts behaviour that we know is contrary not only to our salvation but is also inimical with the concept of commonweal. If we preach only a legal morality that does not encompass the two moral imperatives of Jesus Christ,[5] then we are mere moralists. Moralism is cold, unforgiving, full of hatred, and spiritually destructive. It is self-centred, and it deforms the idea of morality for the advantage of one or another class in society to the detriment of others.

When we speak of true morality, we are not referring to simple obedience to a system of law but a free accord with a system of spiritual healing. The authentic Christian spiritual life really does provide us with the means for moral healing, but even among our own people, we see so many who never experience such healing. This is because they encounter only moralism: “Obey this law or God will do something bad to you.” Moralism does not take into account what is necessary to actually heal a person and deliver them from the bondage of their inner suffering so they can lead a moral life; it thinks only about condemnation and punishment. But let us indicate how these ideas have a direct bearing on our subject. Our modern consumerism inclines a society not only to excess but also to self-centeredness and indifference. One can opt to blame such attitudes on Satan, but when one does, let him remember that the power of Satan in our lives can be defeated only by means of unselfish love, by adopting a sincere sense of commonweal—to love your neighbour as yourself—in place of a desensitized self-interest. There is no such thing as Christian morality without an inner struggle toward unselfish love, self-constraint, and a sincere concern for the welfare not only of those around us but even for future generations.

Moralism condemns, usually with arrogant self-righteousness, while a spirit of true Christian morality seeks one’s own moral healing and the moral healing of those around us so they might be liberated from bondage. This is the concept of morality that can keep us alive spiritually in our consumerist and secular culture; this is the image of morality that will attract others to Christ and to authentic faith, a concept that can help form in us a truly Christian sense of commonweal.

The Corporatization of Morality
The corporatization of morality may be a product of radical individualism. It arises almost automatically when Christianity is transformed from a living faith into an ideology informed by such categories as “liberal,” “conservative,” “leftist,” “right wing,” and so forth. Morality then becomes corporatized into various categories of correct behaviour, defined by an essentially political mindset of one or another religio-political ideology. This narrows the concepts so clearly stated in the Old Testament down to “horror at those things condemned” with little regard for those things enjoined: social justice, non-condescending care for the poor and all those in need, and a powerful sense of mutual responsibility for the common good of the nation, of all the inhabitants of that nation.[6] In the Old Testament law, there are clearly ecological provisions for the care and nurturing of the land: a Sabbath for the agricultural land is just as much a part of the Law as a Sabbath for man (Leviticus 25:4-6). This care of the land, which must be cherished and nurtured, is surely as much a moral law as any in the Old Testament. Just as surely, it shows a deep concern for the common good of the whole population which must be fed from that land. This concern so obviously extends to future generations.[7]

Organizing and spending large sums of money to protest and lobby against certain forms of personal behaviour may be useful, but there is an inner contradiction that is inexcusable when the same organizers refuse to condemn corporate immorality or organize and finance lobbying about environmental issues that relate to the very survival of whole populations and the health, welfare, and survival of future generations. The destruction of the environment is every bit as immoral and kills just as many children as abortion. Any truly Christian concept of morality will encompass corporate and environmental immorality with the same fervour that it addresses personal morality.

We may have a “fallen human nature,” but it is clear that humankind is essentially good and, as the image and likeness of God, has an innate inclination toward virtue. We will all live in the new world order of consumer capitalism and secularism. We will all partake of the benefits of consumer capitalism and enjoy its positive aspect. But as Christians, we will also have to face the moral challenges of its negative side. It is urgent for us, as moral human beings, to recognize that future generations will pay a terrible price for the excess and overindulgence of our era. We cannot separate spirituality from moral responsibility and here, consumerism poses yet another challenge. Since consumerism thrives on over-consumption, not only must products not be durable, as we mentioned before, but they should not be reasonably “upgradable” either. Computers, for example, are discarded and replaced regularly. People are shocked to learn that, in our monastery print shop, we are still using a computer that we purchased in 1988, yet it is perfectly adequate for our typesetting needs. Let us look at the moral tragedy of this problem.

In Canada alone, 140,000 tonnes of computer equipment, cell phones, and other types of electronic equipment. are discarded into waste disposal yards every year. That is the weight of about 28,000 fully-grown adult African elephants. This results in 4,750 tonnes of lead, 4.5 tonnes of cadmium, and 1.1 tonnes of mercury being leached into the water system and food chain every year.[8] These toxic heavy metals are already creating havoc on people’s health and causing a loss of drinking water reserves. Future generations will pay a devastating price for all this. Whether we care enough to do something about it or to resist this aspect of consumerism is a moral issue. It is also a barometer of our spirituality.

Yet we need not succumb to what Habermas calls “personality systems without any aspiration to subjective truth nor secure processes for communal interpretation.”[9] This is why it is so important for us to consider the role authentic Christian morality can play in this unfolding drama of our present era. We cannot have such a role if we opt out of the political dialogue and refuse to engage culture and interact with the society around us in a creative and healing way.

Archbishop Lazar Puhalo is abbot of the Canadian Orthodox Monastery of All Saints of North America in Deroche, British Columbia, Canada.

 

[1]. Linda McQuaig in All You Can Eat: Greed, Lust and the New Capitalism, (Penguin Books, 2000)

[2]. In Queen’s Quarterly, Spring, 2002, p. 38.

[3]. Lost in the Global Shopping Mall, Queen’s Quarterly, Spring 2002, p.43.

[4]. “The Ambivalence of Disenchantment,” in Radical Thought in Italy: A Potential Politics, eds. Paolo Virno and Michael Hardt (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1966), pp. 17-18.

[5]. The second is “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

[6]. See Deut.24:19-21, for example.

[7]. See Deut.20:19, for example where destruction of trees that produce food is forbidden even in time of war, for the sake of future generations.

[8]. Source: The Globe and Mail newspaper’s financial magazine, Report on Business, Vol.20, Nr.8, February, 2004, p.13.

[9]. Jürgen Habermas, Legitimation Crisis (Boston: Beacon Press, 1975). This not a direct quote, but given as nearly as I remember it from the text of the book.