click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
"Do You Get High?"
by C Michael PattonOctober 20th, 2008
65 Comments
I was watching football with some people this weekend. This is what I do . . . don’t bother me on Saturdays (unless OU is doing bad then I am too depressed to watch any football). I had a fellow whom I have been coming to know over the last few of months join us for the game over at my sister’s house. He is an outgoing guy who seems to be very genuine. He is not a Christian, but comes to me with religious questions each time he and I are together. Once he gets a few too many beers in him, I become the Pope . . . at least to him.
He is different. He is very different. Not so much because he is an odd fellow, but because he has absolutely no knowledge of Christianity beyond the basic folklore you catch on TV shows and the world news. When we talk, I find that I am having to rethink my approach each time. It is not a matter of dumbing things down (for he like to talk deep theology), but it is a matter of making sure that I am not assuming a marraige to the Christian way of thinking that I am so used to assuming. Christianity does not even form the background music to his worldview anthem. I am finding this more and more common.
As we were talking, he said that he needed to get high. He left his pot out in the car so he had to get up to go get it. He asked me with hardly a hesitation, “Do you get high?” I politely declined his invitation and he was back within fifteen minutes.
Maybe it was because I was having some beers while watching the game, but he did not assume anything on me—the religious guy he was talking to—either. We were both building a relationship without any assumptions. I think that this was the biggest shock that I had. Christians and non-Christians alike are losing their stereotypical binding to a passing “Christian culture.” We are starting over and this is not such a bad thing.
Really, many times I feel like I am on a mission trip in a foreign country introducing them to Christianity for the first time. They don’t know me and I don’t know them. And this is in Oklahoma—smack in the middle of the Bible belt of America!
Things have changed. We are in a fresh mission field and we need to be trained for this mission. If we don’t begin to understand this, we are going to have to have other nations sent their preachers here. (Oh wait, they already do).
One of the difficulties in church ministries these days is understanding the dynamics and ethos of those in our culture today. We must ask and evaluate the thinking of those we are trying to reach. This is nothing new. Those who have had studies in missiology understand its importance. Missiology is the study of missions, in which the student is prepared to engage in another culture. In a sense, missiology is cultural prolegomena. We must understand the way people think before we can make the Gospel relavent to them in their own context. This is called contextualization. The missiologist will ask many questions:
- What is the history of this culture?
- How do they think?
- What are their norms?
- What are their taboos?
- What is their communication style?
- What is the best way to get the message of the Gospel across?
Naturally, no one preparing for missions will raise an objection to this need. If they do, then they probably would not make it through the program. Why? Because they would not be prepared to represent Christ, the Church, and the Gospel to this culture.
Ironically, it seems that we have less trouble adopting this incarnational philosophy when it comes to other cultures than we do our own. What I mean is that we fail to do cultural prolegomena within our own context. We live in a world that is changing greatly. While our message stays the same, we must be willing to incarnate that message in a way that is sensitive to the needs and ethos of the day. This means that in our own culture, we must be continually doing missiology. We must be asking the same questions above, being ready at any time to adapt and sacrifice our sacred cows of methodology so that we can have true impact. Let’s take the above questions again and ask them of our culture.
- What is the history of my culture? One of suspicion of authority. The loss of heroes. Post-modern. Post-Christian. Post-fundementalistic. Feels betrayed by religious charlatons.
- How do they think? Critically when it comes to matters of religion. Pessimistic due to history.
- What are their norms? Reality shows and fast paced living. Entertainment.
- What are their taboos? Canned language, salesmen, and dogmatism.
- What is their communication style? Very fast paced and informal.
The last one cannot be answered in a short blog, but it needs to be wrestled with based upon our missiology, not our christian sub-culture taboos and norms. We are not here to transform the culture to look like our local churches or denominations. This is why I have appreciated so much the emerging conversation. They are asking these tough questions. They are doing missiology.
“Do you get high?” Don’t you know? Of course not! In fact, I don’t hang around people who do. Excuse me, but I am leaving. Have a nice life—pagan! I don’t think we would be trained to act this way if we went to a foreign land. Why should we here?
Oh, one more thing. I did not tell the whole story. My friend say, “do you get high?” When I declined, he said, “Do you mind if I do?” I said “no.” How would you have responded?
Similar Posts:
- Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up? Part 3 – An Emerging Definition of “Emerging”
- About The Theology Program's Online Courses
- People Leaving the Church: What Do We Do?
- Culture11
- “True for You, But Not for Me” 2.0: The Newly-Released Revised, Expanded Edition
Loading ...
65 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
Ahhh good post. You encapsulated an idea that has been a large part of my own struggle to understand those around me for many years.
In dliberately multicultural societies (USA, UK, Australia, et al) anyone looking to minister is having to take on these thoughts of the missionary. There may be a shared history (although that ‘sharedness’ may be a short or merely intellectual one, particularly for recent immigrants), but the response to that history is incredibly varied. You only have to look at the different groups around a high school, with their different dialects, norms and taboos to see fairly wide variations in response to shared history.
I know I probably shouldn’t, but I do get a wee chuckle at the expense of colleges offering ‘cross-cultural’ ministry degrees. In my mind, to minister in a church is to be involved in cross-cultural ministry. At least if the church is one that is trying to influence those who are not registered as members. Are we not ‘aliens and strangers in the world’ as Christians anyway?
“My friend say, “do you get high?” When I declined, he said, “Do you mind if I do?” I said “no.” How would you have responded?”
To answer this, I’ll relate an experience from my time ministring on the street in Glasgow (I really should get back to that, and soon!). On one occasion, during an impromptu bible discussion on why Jesus died, the discussion was interrupted with ‘Oh, there’s my dealer. I need to see him or I’ll be stuck tonight. Wait here, I’ll be right back. I don’t want to miss anything.’
How would I respond? ‘Sure, go, but be quick. We’re getting to a good bit. Wouldn’t want you to miss it.’
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael
Just a couple of questions to ask for starters
Pardon my ignorance but what does OU stand for? And when you talk about watching football I take it you mean that somewhat strange phenomena that is American Football rather than the classic soccer of which us Brits are so fond…although I am so sorry that you have had David and Victoria Beckham foisted onto you.. you didn’t deserve that!
“He is not a Christian, but comes to me with religious questions each time he and I are together.”
Can I also just say that I love your approach with this guy. Sounds like pretty good relational mission to me and the fact that he has questions is great but I guess it can be pretty challenging trying to rethink answers and approaches etc
“Not so much because he is an odd fellow, but because he has absolutely no knowledge of Christianity beyond the basic folklore you catch on TV shows and the world news.”
This point you make is so important. Here in the UK, with the sharp decline in church/Sunday school attendance over the last 40-50 years, we can have up three generations of people who have hardly any basic/rudimentary knowledge of Christianity whatsoever. Our approach to mission has to adapt accordingly to take account of this.
“Christianity does not even form the background music to his worldview anthem. I am finding this more and more common.”
Michael this is is true of so many people and you are right in encouraging us to rethink our missional/cultural approach.
“We were both building a relationship without any assumptions. I think that this was the biggest shock that I had. Christians and non-Christians alike are losing their stereotypical binding to a passing “Christian culture.” We are starting over and this is not such a bad thing.”
This is not a bad thing at all, in fact I would contend that it is a positively good thing. We are so good at assuming where people are “at”, without ever really bothering to listen to them and to get to know them to actually find out, which is what you look as though you are trying to do with this guy.
“This is why I have appreciated so much the emerging conversation. They are asking these tough questions. They are doing missiology.”
Absoultely spot on. If there is one thing I would like to add it is that I would like to take the final s off the term missions and talk about mission instead. It appears to me that we often think of mission still in term of mission programmes and mission teams, but what you are doing with this guy over a game of football, (and even when he goes off to smoke pot) is engaging in ongoing mission.
“Do you get high?” Don’t you know? Of course not! In fact, I don’t hang around people who do. Excuse me, but I am leaving. Have a nice life—pagan! I don’t think we would be trained to act this way if we went to a foreign land. Why should we here? “
Couldn’t agree more. This type of negative approach is sadly very prevalent, but also very counter productive.
“Oh, one more thing. I did not tell the whole story. My friend say, “do you get high?” When I declined, he said, “Do you mind if I do?” I said “no.” How would you have responded?”
In exactly the same way as you did. I think it is an inspired approach which accepts him for who he is now and whher he is at now, not what we think he should be or where he shoule be. This kind of mission is a process and takes time and effort and if he feels he can be comfortable around you, even though you know he smokes pot, that will mean a great deal to him I reckon.
At the risk of upsetting a few people I also love the missional approach over a few bottles of beer. Why do I say that, because it is a culture that people understand, feel comfortable in and are less threatened by.
Hope things continue to go well in your continuing missional dialogue with this guy. I guess the discussions you have are something else!
Like or Dislike:
0
Have you lost your gourd?
We have a neighbor who comes down for a visit , brings his own mason jar of dark ale. He’s already had 2 martini’s in him and is usually half lit til he gets here. For 15 yrs this has been going on. We have had many conversations with him mostly while he is drunk. 2 or three when he was cold sober. We drink lite beer and I have no problem with moderation . So rarely has drinking or alcohol come into the conversation other than he feels he’ll have to give it up to be a Christian(the amount that he drinks)But all of that is beside the point this is just being sincere in your witness and understanding that you can not make an unregenerate man behave as if he were . We live our life as sincerely as we can and hope and pray the Lord works in his heart.
But yet on top of all that there is something else at work here.
It is not as much a mission field as it is a battle field. My husband and I started to realize that he is out to trip and win us as much or more than we are out to persuade him (we only cast seed).
There is nothing he would enjoy more than if he could get us to fail and to charge us with serious folly. It would enable him to say “see they testified it was true and look at them”
We need to be very careful that contextualizing isn’t in reality flirting with the devil. That your mission field doesn’t become your play ground and that we never forget that smoking weed in this country is illegal and can get you in some serious trouble with the law and your testimony and might get Lindsey’s house raided the next time your watching football!
Like or Dislike:
0
I have’nt smoked pot/reefer in thirty-six years. Get lost, you pinko, commy, fags.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
1st to Vladimir:
If you have nothing useful to conbtribute, and it appears you don’t, why bother?
To Michael,
Silly you, admitting publicly that you drink beer. Now half the believers who read your blog will think you backsliddin’…
I have one on occasion as well, sometimes two, but in order to keep the static under control, I don’t publish it. I’m not guilty, or embarrassed, mind you, I am just weary of arguing with hard-headed believers.
Some even think that because they can’t drink JUST ONE, without losing control, it is sinful for me to do so. Then it becomes as meat offered to idols…
I struggle with all the “Christian” recovery programs today that embrace the principle of once a drunk, always a drunk. I was once a drunk, but Christ delivered me and I haven’t been drunk for decades, and by his grace never will be again. But I like a glass of red wine and a slab of funky cheese on occasion. One drink tastes good, but has no discernable effect on my person.
However, many labor under the assumption that one drink makes a drunk. Go figure. I’ve even faced the argument that the “wine” in scripture was really water, with a small amount of wine added for sterilization, yuk, yuk.
Oh, well, I’ll leave you to all the nasty emails that must be piling up.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think Cadis raises a good point. How ingrained in the culture do we become to be part of the culture to win people in the culture? I think it’s easy to identify the types of folks that Jesus hung out with. But translated into modern day culture? Not such a simple task when the commands are to be holy. What does that look like in a deeply missional sort of way?
I have a couple of friends at my old job in RI (not believers). For awhile they would ask me to come to the club with them. I declined. Could I make the argument that in order to win them I should go to the club? I could not make that justification.
These are tough issues, I think, with quite a fuzzy line. I do hear your point though and it challenges me to consider how I evangelize.
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes, they are certainly questions of missiology. We really need to have a personal missiology that has been thought through taking into account our own personal struggles and the need to share Christ in the context in which we have been place. I don’t know if the “let’s just hope they come to church and it is a good sermon” is a luxury anymore. (Not that anyone said that).
Like or Dislike:
0
I can really relate to this post. I’ve had a number of friends whose only exposure to, say, John 3:16 is the sign held up to the ESPN camera by a random devout fan in the stands during a football game.
CMP, your approach seems extremely wise in this case, though I would perhaps strive to be a bit clearer regarding the pot-smoking…when my aforementioned friends would say “God damn it!” or the like in my presence, and then apologize to me, I’d respond with “I’m not the one you’re offending.” That defused any potential conflict between us, but it also, on occasion, got them thinking about whether or not Someone Else might have an opinion on the matter. A response along those lines may not only communicate your acceptance of him as he is, but also bear witness to standards that go beyond your personal preferences regarding recreational drug use.
And for what it’s worth, when I’ve been in similar situations, I’ve rarely even been asked if I mind. So it appears your interactions thus far may have at least put some things on his moral radar.
Like or Dislike:
0
Tom: I don’t want to speak for Vlad but there are at least two ways that I can see to interpret his comment:
(1) He was joking, in which case it was funny (at least to me).
(2) That’s exactly how he would answer.
If #2 then how is that not “useful”? Michael did ask how others would respond, didn’t he? Just because you don’t care for the answer doesn’t mean that the answer was not “useful” (whatever that means in this context).
Michael: To answer your question, I would have responded by saying, “Yes, I do mind if you get high, and here’s why…”
You said: “This is why I have appreciated so much the emerging conversation. They are asking these tough questions. They are doing missiology.”
Yes, but are they lowering standards [in the way they engage people] in doing so? (Honest question).
Like or Dislike:
0
Nick
Your argument related to #2 is pointless. Of course that is exactly how he would answer, that is exactly how he DID answer.
So then how does that answer comply with the command in Acts 1:8? Not at all. I’ll confess that I often fall short there as well, but It certainly isn’t funny when I do.
How do you evangelize a people when you won’t hang around sinners until they stop sinning? Jesus went to them in their homes and towns, had dinner and a cup or two of wine and custom tailored his teaching for the benefit of the specific audience, in relevant stories, that fit within the culture of their lives.
He didn’t blow them off except in the case of the deliberately unrepentant, prideful religious leaders. Even in their case he provided specific teaching to expose their flaws.
If we are to emulate Him, we don’t have the option to take Vlad’s route. It might feel good at the time, but it won’t be doing good.
Like or Dislike:
0
Tom,
“1st to Vladimir:
If you have nothing useful to conbtribute, and it appears you don’t, why bother?”
Thanks Dad, whoooops, it sounded like a lecture (and possible ass whooping coming), but no, just a deja vu similarity.
You may have been a drunk when a teenager or the like when such things were cute and boys, well were boys, but you never were an alcoholic. You simply don’t have the addictive nature and physiological dependency that an alcoholic has or would have.
**Once an alcoholic, always and alcoholic is valid.**
No hard feelings though.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
From a cultural standpoint – right or wrong – the European community does not view the moderate consumption of beer at meals or in the home in the same fashion as many do in America.
Martinus Luther drank beer. In Russia, a 18 year old can have a brewsky at lunch. The water in Europe is contaminated and not as pure as here. Many years of abuse have taken its toll.
I don’t drink, by choice, well, maybe one beer every two years and yes in younger years drunk, flat on my ass and couldn’t get up drunk. But that was yester year and once upon a time….
Be careful though, what St Paul said to us about stumbling blocks is still valid and binding.
Cheers! I’ll lift my pint of milk or cup of coffee. You’re not condemned.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Guys, I think you may be missing the broader point, maybe
. Sure some people should not drink because of addictive behavior and all that. And for others, its cool. We have to know our ticking bombs if you will.
But honestly, this about how we evangelize and I get back to what Cadis said here:
“There is nothing he would enjoy more than if he could get us to fail and to charge us with serious folly. It would enable him to say “see they testified it was true and look at them””
But I wonder about this in context of today’s culture. What is more of a turn off for the unbeliever, a christian with a pint or a christian with a pummel, as in their behavior. Is the unbeliever of today really looking at a Christian who drinks and thinking “hypocrite”? Do we really think they care? (Of course, I’m speaking of the occasional round not falling flat drunk on our faces.) Or are there other things we do or say that would sharply repudiate them? Like maybe insisting that Christians shouldn’t drink.
Like or Dislike:
0
Several people have pointed the line in the sand by stating being a believer vs. a non-believer mentality in regard to the cultural divide. I see no divide we are the same people in the same line. Our experiences are as varied as the lay of the land, i.e. east, wets, north & south. While it may seem a bit queer to openly admit to certain characteristics, they are none the less of whom we are. Every culture partakes in some substance abuse LOL, and we do the same, though admittedly to the extreme as the X-games you know, that is America.
But from one who engaged in such activities way before coming to my senses. I would not be discouraged by my best friend even if the puff was openly in my face so to speak, don’t inhale… I’d rather chance a puff and talk about Christianity on the whole as a world view, than beat him down as my legalistic ancestors did to so many. Hey Johnny while you’re chillin on the buzz, check this out, then I hand him “The Passion of the Christ” and Say catch you later
Like or Dislike:
0
Brian, man that’s just cruel. ‘The passion of the Christ’ while he’s messed up? That’s not substance abuse, but it’s abuse with substance.
Nick:
‘To answer your question, I would have responded by saying, “Yes, I do mind if you get high, and here’s why…”
Would you seriously launch into a sermon? This guy is (hypothetically) a new football buddy who happens to know you have some knowledge of things spiritual. This wasn’t asking if you thought it was right or wrong, but a polite offer to join him. Similar to ‘Hey, want a burger? No? Mind if I go ahead and eat without you then?’
I know, I know. The reality of the situation is that it wasn’t a hamburger, it was an illegal substance but in this guy’s mind it probably wasn’t an invitation to start moralising. If you say ‘Yeah I do mind.’ and THEN he asks you for your reasons, hey, go for it.
Just launching into a monologue on the evils of substance abuse and its relationship to good christian living is, to my mind, an arrogance akin to the colonial idea of ‘taking civilization to the heathens’.
I’m not saying you are arrogant, just to be clear. It’s the idea, that seems to permeate many Christian ‘cultures’, that we have the right, even the duty, to foist our norms on the ‘pagans/secular/unregenerate heathens’, if only they understood WHY they need our wisdom. That’s what I am saying is arrogance.
And it’s so easy to do without realising it. After all, we’ve got a relationship with the creator of the universe! Who wouldn’t want to be a part of that, if only someone would introduce them to Him?
Great intentions. The likes of Carey, Livingstone, and Zinzendorf had a touch of it and achieved much for the Kingdom of God, but the delivery seems to have at it’s base a presumption that they are all just wee kids, lost in the big bad world looking for someone to take thier hand and give them a home. A lot of them aren’t.
Like or Dislike:
0
Tom: But if that’s how he’d answer then that’s how he’d answer. Why is that not contributing to this conversation? You might disagree, and voicing that disagreement is part of the conversation. It is what it is…
John: Not only would I, but I have, and I think you’re reading way too much into my unfinished sentence. It’s not about launching into a sermon, indeed my reasons have little to do with religion or the Gospel. I’d mind because it’s offensive to me and I have no problems telling someone this if they ask (and honestly, even if they don’t). If from there they ask why I’m offended by it then I can proceed to give a list of detailed reasons, but common courtesy and respect should be enough to at least get them to move elsewhere.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think this is also going to depend on who’s “turf” you are on. If they are at my house watching the game and light up, then I am going to do the Christian thing and beat the tar out of them. But if I am on “foreign soil” I will certainly approach things differently. This night was more neutral ground. Beside this, he went out to his car to smoke.
In some evangelistic opportunities, it would be like going into a bar and getting offended that everyone is drunk. We are going to have to judge all of these things with great sensitivity. I don’t think that Christ went to the parties and shut down the booze. I think he shared God’s truth and many times the booze was shut down as a result (at least the excessive debauchery which is the issue, not the drink.)
Like or Dislike:
0
britphil,
OU stands for University of Oklahoma (http://www.ou.edu/web/home.html). They’re also called the Sooners. Michael is a big fan of the OU Sooners college football team, which is one of the best in the nation (though they’re not as good as the defending champions – the LSU Tigers, which is my alma mater). Most college American football games occur on Saturdays, while professional American football games are typically held on Sundays.
I hope I answered your question for Michael.
Like or Dislike:
0
GoldCity Dance
Many thanks for the info. I now consider myself duly enlightened!
We do get TV channels that show American Football games and I have tried to watch them, and despite the commentators best attempts, I just haven’t got a clue as to what is going on, so I usually get bored and flick channels.
“Sacrilege” I hear you all gasp in horror Stateside, but ‘tis the truth I’m afraid..
Now here is where I really land myself in water so hot that it is bordering on scalding!
“Yes, they are certainly questions of missiology. We really need to have a personal missiology that has been thought through taking into account our own personal struggles and the need to share Christ in the context in which we have been place. I don’t know if the “let’s just hope they come to church and it is a good sermon” is a luxury anymore. (Not that anyone said that).”
No one may have said that yet, but permit me to do so if I may Michael because I think this approach is a luxury. When are we going to rid ourselves of the mentality that people need to “come to church” and “hear a sermon” ie the “come to us” sacred cow mentality so beloved of us evangelicals. Jesus used the word “Go” to us as often if not more than he used the word “come” to outsiders, and even then it was often in the context of “come to me” and people can be helped to do that outside the context of the church. They may end up joining the church, (how long they stay is another matter), but it possible to meet with Jesus outside the “church service/hear a sermon” mode. This approach also makes no effort to understand how difficult it is for a person who has no or little experience of church (and here in the UK we have third generation families who have little knowledge or no basic understanding of who Jesus is) to cross the church threshold.. We have come across people outside our church who stand there shaking at the prospect of entering, and we are a fairly laid back/relaxed congregation!
“How do you evangelize a people when you won’t hang around sinners until they stop sinning? Jesus went to them in their homes and towns, had dinner and a cup or two of wine and custom tailored his teaching for the benefit of the specific audience, in relevant stories, that fit within the culture of their lives.”
Tom …preach it brother. Spot on. Jesus ate regularly with tax collectors and sinners and it was the religious folk who got a bit hot under the collar about it. Sounds like things haven’t changed too much over the past 2000 years and such attitudes can sadly still be found in certain sectors of the church.
“I have a couple of friends at my old job in RI (not believers). For awhile they would ask me to come to the club with them. I declined. Could I make the argument that in order to win them I should go to the club? I could not make that justification.”
Please bear with me Lisa but I would just like to throw a couple of spanners in the works! Although it is a biblical concept, as with all biblical concepts I think we need to exercise some caution in how we embrace them. Yes we are called to try and “win” our friends for Christ but actually we are commanded to “love our neighbour as ourself” Is it not possible to continue to be Christlike in a club? Could it be possible that it may have meant more to your two friends if you had gone with them and spent time with them doing something of their choosing, where they feel “safe”. And also this ”come to church” business often appears to be a one-way street ie we want you to come onto our patch/our turf.. but there is no way on earth that we are going to venture onto yours!
I dread to think how little would have been accomplished if Jesus had not taken big risks, moved way out of his comfort zone and engaged with people not only on their terms, but quite often on their territory. Eg when Jesus met with the Samartian woman having “entered Samara” how much of a risk did he take when he “entered Samaria” – enemy territory etc. Worse than that he actually had a conversation with a woman, and this woman had quite a history. But quite frankly, if we read that passage it becomes apparent that Jesus did not give stuff about what he was or wasn’t “meant to do” in such circumstances. And at the end of that passage, only AFTER Jesus has taken the risk and engaged with her, on her terms,and more importantly, on her territory, is she won for him and adopts the role of willing and effective evangelist. Sometimes I just feel our well reasoned “justifications” are not as justifiable in God’s eyes as they are in ours.
“I don’t think that Christ went to the parties and shut down the booze.”
I’m pretty sure that he didn’t. Maybe he had a drink himself, in moderation!
“I think he shared God’s truth and many times the booze was shut down as a result (at least the excessive debauchery which is the issue, not the drink.)”
This may well have been the result on occasions but not always so. I am always stunned at Jesus’ first recorded miracle by the events surrounding his changing water into wine. (although I sometimes feel that some of his 21st century followers would have preferred it to be the other way around!).
The wine had run out with the party in full swing. I guess quite a few folk were pretty well oiled if not rolling drunk…and what did Jesus do? Cut off the wine supply..and pronto? No, he provided gallons upon gallons of more wine for them to enjoy so that the party could continue in full swing. Not just that, it was the strongest and best wine they had had all day!
Yes he performed the miracle to display the power and glory of God, but he also did it for another reason. For the wine to have run out at a wedding feast would have been a shameful event which would have been talked about for months. Most of the village would have been at the wedding. Jesus was more concerned with the plight of the bride, groom and their families than the “you can’t give them any more wine….they have had enough already” brigade.
“Yes, but are they lowering standards [in the way they engage people] in doing so? (Honest question).”
Nick.. I appreciate that it is an honest question but I don’t think “they” are lowering standards. There is a further question that also needs to be asked “Are “they”necessarily revising the standards downwards because previously the bar has been raised way too high…ie we expect similar behaviour from non-believers as we do of believers.
It often appeared to me that the one of the Pharisees’ major gripes with Jesus was that his standards were way too low!
Like or Dislike:
0
Did you notice how I didn’t rise to the bait and respond toVladimir’s “pinko, commie fag” jibe. I must be mellowing in my old age!
Actually I felt more sorry for Michael than myself, what with being as self-confessed Republican, being referred to as a “Pinko commie”must have stung a bit!
Like or Dislike:
1
A naughty little thought has just struck me re the “pot smoking” friend scenario raised by Michael, which I feel compelled to share with you good people.
Is it just possible that the reality is, when everything is stripped away to it’s bare essentials, some of us discover that we actually enjoy the company of such people (after all Michael referred to him as genuine and outgoing) far more than we do some of our more puritanical, somewhat Talebanic church friends? Am I the only one who could gladly spend and enjoy hours in the company of certain non-believers whereas ten minutes in the company of some of my fellow Christians is enough to drive me insane and be planning an escape route asap!
Is it not possible that the reason Jesus ate and drank with tax collectors and sinners was that he enjoyed and preferred their company far more than that of the more religious, “I’m so far up myself it’s untrue” religious fraternity?
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael: You are one conversational apologetist!
Like or Dislike:
0
Vladimir,
You said:
“You may have been a drunk when a teenager or the like when such things were cute and boys, well were boys, but you never were an alcoholic. You simply don’t have the addictive nature and physiological dependency that an alcoholic has or would have. ”
I agree that I was never an alcoholic, because I do not agree with the premise that it is a disease. It is a lifestyle, learned and chosen by the drunk. If a person says, my Father was an alcoholic, and I got it from him, they may be right, but they were not born with a genetic disease, they learned the behaviour by observation, basically Dad taught them how to be a good drunk.
In that I willingly was a drunk for about 15 years, and an intravenous drug addict (actually a junkie in real terms) most of that time, I would have to say your guess about my proclivities being minor and restricted the jr high school went out the window.
You think alcohol is addictive, but I submit that heroin is much worse, and methamphetamine. When Christ saved me, He delivered me from my sin. I don’t have to scamper quivering past a bar, whispering to myself …don’t go in, don’t go in, you aren’t strong enough, you are an alcoholic…
That isn’t because I’m so great, I’ve already told you what I was when left to my own devices. It is because I was freed by Christ. Somebody else said this, and it fits. Jesus doesn’t save you in your sin, He saves you from it.
Check out Romans 6, sin should no longer rule your body. If you are still an alcoholic, sin rules your body, whether you take a drink or not, because you are denying the ability of Christ to deliver you from it, therefore you have no faith in regard to that sin.
I’m not telling you to go drink, I’m telling you you have been deceived by the world’s definitions into slavery to alcohol. It still rules you, you just don’t drink it anymore. I’m not sure which type of slavery is worse.
Like or Dislike:
0
BritPhil,
I hadn’t yet read you comment above when I posted mine related to the “comfort zone”. I thnk the expression may be correct when related to our fleshly side being resistant to confrontation over the word, but still believe that the perfect comfort zone in dead center of God’s will. I hope to find that spot one day.
Regards
Like or Dislike:
0
BritPhil
“Is it not possible that the reason Jesus ate and drank with tax collectors and sinners was that he enjoyed and preferred their company to the more religious, “I’m so far up myself it’s untrue” religious folk?”
Never thought of that, but it certainly makes sense. They people He went to weren’t trying to be self-righteous and who doesn’t like a lively dinner party…?
Like or Dislike:
0
Stan,
“I’m not against the 12 step programs but am quite neutral on them.”
I think the programs help thousands, maybe millions of people. But ultimately, if they don’t cause those people to become dependent on Christ’s sacrifice, they will all live good clean lives and then die and go to hell.
That is the reason for my objection to their philosophy. AA/NA may have Christain roots, but serve the flesh, not the spirit.
Like or Dislike:
0
Stan
You gave a good analysis of the downside of the programs. I have tried several times to stay involved with the recovery type groups in my church, to provide support and encouragement. I can typically only stand it for a short while because it oftens turns into a bragfest of dastardly deeds, and that irritates me.
I’m of the opinion that dwelling in the past, over and over telling about the specifics of your sin is giving glory to sin. I agree with you, give it a rest, man up.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Good for you! If this is your comfort zone, keep working your field. I don’t ascribe to the idea that you have to be out of your comfort zone to be truly serving. In fact a case could be made that when you are doing what God wants, you will be dead center of both yours and his comfort zones,
I hadn’t yet read you comment above when I posted mine related to the “comfort zone”. I thnk the expression may be correct when related to our fleshly side being resistant to confrontation over the word, but still believe that the perfect comfort zone in dead center of God’s will. I hope to find that spot one day.”
Thanks for your comments Tom…No worries! I fully agree that you don’t have to be serving outside your comfort zone to be doing God’s will. There will be times when he keeps us well within our comfort zone to do his will, and other times when he calls us out of our comfort zone to carry out his will. I think the key may be a discerning and a seeking on our part to be right at the centre of God’s will wherever that may take us. We can race out of the comfort zone and God may not be in it, or we may lag behind when God is actually far ahead of us. I still think obedience in terms of the latter is far more difficult for us to implement than the former.
“Never thought of that, but it certainly makes sense. They people He went to weren’t trying to be self-righteous and who doesn’t like a lively dinner party…?”
Absolutely! I think the parties Jesus went to, one thing could be sure…people had a great time and they weren’t boring.. I also can’t help but recall… did not Christ come to save sinners and make them righteous, rather than take the already self righteous to make them even more righteous than they were before.
Like or Dislike:
0
BritPhil
I think you apprehended it perfectly.
I need to do more proof reading. My typing can’t keep up with my thinking.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael: Well if they take it elsewhere then who am I to complain? I thought he was smoking right in front of you. So let me ask, what if you had been driving in his car with him and he pulled out a joint/blunt/bowl and asked if you minded if he smoked? What would your answer have been in that situation?
Britphil: I don’t think that the standards have been set too high, I don’t even think the standards are necessarily Christian. I’ll give you an example:
I used to run a program for youthful offenders, most of whom were kids from gangs that had felony convictions and were no longer in school, and in the program we had expectations. There was to be no smoking, no cursing, no drinking, no fighting, and absolutely no disrespect towards the staff. All of this was behavior that was foreign to them but that didn’t mean that we lowered the standard to suit them and what they were used to. The point was that they had to come up, not that we had to come down.
Or to take a less extreme example, before I was saved I used to curse superfluously, for no real reason other than to curse. But I curbed my tongue around customers on the job, around elderly people (esp. my grandmother), around children, etc. The point being that even as an unbeliever I realized the importance of respect and appropriate behavior.
And I think with regard to Jesus that his standard was way stricter than that of the Pharisees, and it’s a standard that he didn’t lower an inch.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Well if they take it elsewhere then who am I to complain? I thought he was smoking right in front of you. So let me ask, what if you had been driving in his car with him and he pulled out a joint/blunt/bowl and asked if you minded if he smoked? What would your answer have been in that situation?”
Not sure how helpful these hypothetical scenarios are, although I accept that it could and may happen, and it is always far easier to say how you would react when you have had time to think it through.
I think I might say something respectfully along the lines of “if you don’t mind I would rather you didn’t” and then try and ask him a few open questions to try and find out why he needs to take the stuff. And I hope that I would do far more in the area of listening to him than I would talking. I get the sense Nick that there is quite a lot that you would want to say to him, I only hope that some careful listening would be in there too.
“Or to take a less extreme example, before I was saved I used to curse superfluously, for no real reason other than to curse. But I curbed my tongue around customers on the job, around elderly people (esp. my grandmother), around children, etc. The point being that even as an unbeliever I realized the importance of respect and appropriate behavior. “
Nick. I agree with you on this point, but I think there is a tendency for us to manipulate this to expect too much from ungenerate people and is it any wonder they may feel uncomfortable when in our company. Perhaps they have good reason too.
“And I think with regard to Jesus that his standard was way stricter than that of the Pharisees, and it’s a standard that he didn’t lower an inch.”
Nick that’s a bit naughty, because you are only telling half the story Of course Jesus’ standard was much higher than the Pharisees but there were many occasions in the gospel writings where Jesus did not insist on people meeting the standard before he would lovingly engage with them. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to “go and leave her life of sin” i( raise your standards) right at the end of his encounter with her, he did not rush in right at the beginning and lay down the law (ie this is how it is going to be, lady) which he could so easily have done.
Like or Dislike:
0
I don’t think that the standards have been set too high, I don’t even think the standards are necessarily Christian. I’ll give you an example:”
With regard to Nick’s comment, I would contend that the principles enshrined in the conversational encounter Jesus had with the woman caught in adultery is a Christian standard, because it was one that was set and endorsed by Jesus himself. This kind of attitude should be the norm and not the exception, surely.
Like or Dislike:
0
“I used to run a program for youthful offenders, most of whom were kids from gangs that had felony convictions and were no longer in school, and in the program we had expectations. There was to be no smoking, no cursing, no drinking, no fighting, and absolutely no disrespect towards the staff. All of this was behavior that was foreign to them but that didn’t mean that we lowered the standard to suit them and what they were used to. The point was that they had to come up, not that we had to come down. ”
Nick
You didn’t make it clear whether the youth offender program had a Christian or secular basis as its core foundation. The reason I ask this is, and this may well astound you, I wouldn’t have a problem with all the boot camp stuff as I guess in certain circumstances it is a necessity.
Where I would be less happy would be, if there was a Christian ethos, that the tough regime does not allow for the more human stuff – given that these guys are I guess the product of largely broken home drug-related, crime-ridden environments.
Where there is a disciplinary regime that leads to young people sensing that there is someone who genuine cares about them enough to discipline them and opens up opportunites for them to share something of their lives for the power of Christ to begin a healing work in their lives, then that is great. I am all for it..
The nightmare scenario for me would be (if the program was Christian in its foundational basis) was if the gospel is presented in the same formulaic boot camp manner ie dos and donts stuff, which would be a real temptation I would imagine.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael: Too many long replies above to sort out if my thought has been expressed already, so, if it has, my apologies.
Your friend asks, “do you mind if I get high?” You said “no.” You ask how would we resond. I know it is easy for me to say when I was not in ‘your moment,’ but I would hope that I would say “Yes, I do mind.”
Irrespective of our individual views on the legality of pot, it is still an illegal subtance for both possesion and use. I have to wonder if the granting of what amounted to being an implied approval of his conduct, was appropriate? Would your answer have been the same if he said that he wanted to go out to his car and do a couple of lines of cocaine? Was your tolerance of his getting high more of a reflection of your own personal views of marijuana? Or, does contextualizing and missiology and all the other post-modern tactical jargon so easily allow for the a diminishing of the teaching of Romans 13. Do we believe that we rebel against God when we rebel against authority (in this case the the laws of the state of OK regarding marijuana possesion and use.)
I believe you said that your friend is not a Christian, so perhaps he is not bound by that teaching, but would you not be? I’ll concede that you did not break the law established by the authorities yourself, but what about your permitting him to?
Like or Dislike:
0
“Or, does contextualizing and missiology and all the other post-modern tactical jargon….”
Come on Chuck..isn’t this a bit rich…what about all the doctrinal theological jargon Conservative evangelicalism has foisted on us down the years and told us is absolutely imperative for our salvation and survival…including the more wackier of the Rapture doctrines.
Sounds a bit like “jargon is OK…when it suits” to me.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’m going to continue to be a downer and spoil the ride.
Pot is ILLEGAL. The pot of today is not the pot of yesterday. It is mingled with stuff and it is much stronger. The are really cracking down on marjuana use because it is showing up at the elementary school level.(think on that for a minute)
It is no stretch of the imagination if you spend too much time around a user your probably going to find out he is a dealer too. To what degree is he dealing is the question, and is there a possibility the police could be watching him? Does Michael know him this well?
I think what happened to Michael he had no control over and I would have responded the same way. But in the future I think he needs to be careful how he is with this fellow because it will be difficult to continue to witness with the accusation of drug dealing , pot smoking , party boy hanging over your head like smoke.
I’m not saying we should not witness or be in contact with drug users, but you better have a plan and have your eyes open is all I am saying.
And if you have a real compassion, then get yourself trained, get your self known by the police, drug tested weekly and get out on the streets and the biways and have a ball! I would be behind that 100%
Like or Dislike:
0
I have got a confession to make. Unlike some contributors I have never been down the drug use road at all, though some of you may well be under a different impression having read my postings.
I also think we need to tread just a bit carefully. I guess some of you may well be of the belief that Michael should have called the police to report this guy or frog march him down to the nearest Sherriff’s office. What possible long-term benefit would this have? What view would it give this guy of the church? What negative stereotype would it only serve to reinforce?
Aam I right in saying that adultery was highly illegal punishable by death under the Jewish penal system. Should not Jesus’ reaction on coming across a woman caught in adultery, to do the right thing by the law, and join the others in hurling gleefully away at this undoubtedly guilty woman or at the very least hand her over to the authorities for them to punish her?
And although I understand where Cadis is coming from, I personally subscribe to the opposite approach. When Jesus intervened to save her from summary execution what was the effect on his reputation. I imagine it dipped severely in certain quarters.
“But in the future I think he needs to be careful how he is with this fellow because it will be difficult to continue to witness with the accusation of drug dealing , pot smoking , party boy hanging over your head like smoke.”
Isn’t that exactly what Jesus’ opponents said about him? Thankfully he held very loosely to his own “reputation” (the sacred cow, and idol almost, of evangelicalism if ever there was one) shrugging off the accusations while continuing to be a “friend of sinners”. And how loaded is that phrase. Friendship implies commitment, time , love, mutual benefits etc.
Pretty challenging and provocative stuff if you ask me.
…and yes, …I am going to say it…I actually I think Jesus was a bit of a party animal….remaining sinless but, as Son of Man enjoying life to the full, indeed imparting the fullness of life that, as Son of God, he came to bring.
So Michael “party boy” Patten carry on the great work is what I say….I shall now stand back and prepare yet again to don my protective armour! I think I am going to need it somehow!
Like or Dislike:
0
Cadis,
“And if you have a real compassion, then get yourself trained, get your self known by the police, drug tested weekly and get out on the streets and the biways and have a ball! I would be behind that 100%”
Huh…? Trained by whom? Jesus said go. Known by police…Are you saying we should not evangelize drug users until we notify and are trained by the authorities? Your municipality must have a generous police budget, mine struggles to pay OT. Isn’t God’s word adequate for our training? How does a policeman who may be an unbeliever train a believer to take the Gospel to the lost? Remember this
1 Tim 3 (NASB)
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
“We don’t need no stinking badges…” (no offense here to all tha hard working cops out there, this is a spiritual point)
Drug tested weekly???? Why? Does it rub off?
Our command and authority is from God Almighty, what trumps that?
You also said:
“It is no stretch of the imagination if you spend too much time around a user your probably going to find out he is a dealer too. To what degree is he dealing is the question, and is there a possibility the police could be watching him?”
I have to tell you that I have years of experience as a heavy drug user, and NEVER was a dealer. Most users aren’t. You have formed an opinion without really understanding the issue. You can go on with the old saying, beer leads to pot, leads to pills, leads to heroin and in some cases you would be right.
However it isn’t the drugs we are fighting, it is sin itself. Sin leads to sin, name your sin, it all has the same source and in the end the same effect. What is the difference if your sin is meth or adultery, lying or stealing, gossip or pride? The level of your torment in hell?
If you insist on sinlessness in your presence, you’ll never have an opportunity to present the Gospel to a sinner, or in fact have it presented to you. Again, Jesus said “GO”, there was no sub-paragraph saying we didn’t have to go to someone under the influence.
In fact there would be millions who would never hear the truth under those conditions, because they live under the influence. Is it OK to witness to a drunk, because their drug of choice is state approved and taxed, but not the junkie, because the low-life has the nerve to break the law in my presence?
They both need the Word. By disposition you may not be able to go to them, OK then go to those you are comfortable around. Encourage others who accept the harder task of reaching those who may not be so “nice,” but don’t consign them to hell because they offend you. We all offend God, and He loved us enough to live among us and bring us the message. That is the example He expects us to follow.
Like or Dislike:
0
Tom
We may part company slightly here my friend….but not too much I hope!
In Cadis’ defence I actually believe that individual Christians and churches would do well to think about partnering with police forces, drug/alcohol agencies etc where that is possible and appropriate (which is not always the case I agree). I believe that although he has entrusted us with the gospel, God can and does use the most unlikely people at times, yes even secular agencies, to accomplish his will, which is especially good given our predisposition to mess things up so much in our attempts at mission/evangelism.
If someone is venturing out to minister on a regular basis to those caught up in alcohol or drug addiction/abuse I feel that it is imperative that they are firstly, gifted to do so and that they have a support structure/prayer network. I must admit the “drug tested weekly” bit seemed a bit weird/OTT but I am sure Cadis will enlighten us. I guess she may be of the view that those who have previous experience of drug/alcohol abuse prior to their conversion may be somewhat vulnerable to temptation, but blanket drug testing does seem a bit extreme to me.
Without meaning to sound patronising, I feel that what they need is the Lord of the Word. not just to “the Word”. They need to be introduced to the One who inspired its writing and whose love is for “them” as much as it is for “us”.
“Is it OK to witness to a drunk, because their drug of choice is state approved and taxed, but not the junkie, because the low-life has the nerve to break the law in my presence?”
Very good point.
I”f you insist on sinlessness in your presence, you’ll never have an opportunity to present the Gospel to a sinner”
Again, well said! After all, isn’t it meant to be about one beggar sharing with another beggar where to find bread?
Like or Dislike:
0
BritPhil
Glad to meet you. I like the way you think. You are now my 2nd favorite Brit, next to Maggie. Don’t worry about the blasting you might get, we live in a time where the church at large is comfortable with legalism, and only just beginning to realize what it has been missing.
The legalists of biblical times hated Christ in part for not consulting with them or seeking their authority to represent God to the people. Didn’t stop Him, shouldn’t stop us.
Like or Dislike:
0
BritPhil,
No drugs? I thought I had you pegged
My point is there are ways to do things without the risk of accusation. I did not for a second mean that Michael should have been a Narc . But there is no need to put himself at risk with this guy. He can meet with him at 2 in the afternoon over coffee in a public place. He can make it known to other pastors or leaders that he is meeting with this fellow. And if he can make sure he has someone else with him when he does.
We are not called to bring to task the authorities. Jesus brought to task the religious authorities and he had the authority to do it.
Tom,
Don’t get so upset with me. I’m not saying I’m offended and find drug users a lesser class of people Again I am saying there is no reason to put your self in jeporady with the law. Trained would mean not by the police but by a local rehab center, make yourself KNOWN to the police that you are working for the Lord not the pushers. Volenteer to be tested so that they (the police) know you are not toying around and last but least, you never sold any of your stash to a friend?
Now if you and Brit Phil would rather do Jail time be fined or labeled hey that’s okay with me too. I’m just wondering why you would feel it is nessecary. I never put down the drug user! or said I was above him or that I required perfection. I just require that you don’t ruin a man’s ministry for the sake of an illegal doobie!
It is unnecessary to witness in a dark smoke filled corner when you can do it in the light of day. Pot smokers eat lunch don’t they?
Like or Dislike:
0
Tom
Extremely glad to meet you too my friend.
But before we go any further can we just get something sorted out.
Please…., please… please…. PLEAAAAASSSSSE don’t tell me that when you say that I am runner-up to Maggie “there’s no such thing as society” Thatcher in your Brit Poll I really hope and pray it is another British Maggie you are alluding to!
But if it is MT, have no fear, it may send seismic reverberations around our newly found friendship but it can survive it. I once shared a house as a student with a fellow Christian who adored Maggie Thatcher and our friendship has survived to tell the tale!
You are going to mail me back now and inform me that I am behind Maggie Thatcher in the “Tom’s top Brits of all time” list!
I shall now retire in trepidation to await your response!
Like or Dislike:
0
BritPhill,
No argument on the point that it is good to have the support, and lend support to authorities. What Cadis described appeared to me as the formula for intervention in the USSR.
I used everything I could find from my early teens until I got saved, then stopped immediately. No urges, or sweats, but I do drink a beer or glass of wine now, usually less than once a week. Didn’t even do that for over a decade just because my conviction said NO. I don’t see it as a compromise now, or sin at any level.
Drugs, only by Dr’s order thank you. No fear or sweats there either, just obedience to the law and no interest in what they offer.
I feel a thread drift coming on, better stop now…
Like or Dislike:
0
Cadis,
Sorry if I mis-characterized your intent. The local police know me very well, some are so old, they arrested me as a teenager…some just took my beer and let me go. I live in my ancestral digs.
They know I am straight, I have redeemed my reputation over the 26 or so years I have been a believer, or perhaps better to say Christ has done that. If someone wants to think I am using because I witness to users, shame on them. Unless I break the law it isn’t their business.
As to training in a local rehab center, I have observed that those are the places you are most likely to find pretenders acting like counselors. I don’t need their training, I have the Word and Spirit, and probably at least as much personal experience on the issue.
Like or Dislike:
0
Cadis
“We are not called to bring to task the authorities. Jesus brought to task the religious authorities and he had the authority to do it.”
In this instance I am not suggesting we do, however I would have to challenge the premise as a whole. There are other instances, and this is a different road altogether which I think we need to avoid travelling down on this post (ie aparthied etc) when we are called and required a mandate to bring the authorities to account and and challenge injustice.
“I just require that you don’t ruin a man’s ministry for the sake of an illegal doobie!
You are not going to like this…not even a little bit…but what I liked about Michael was that in this isntance he sat lightly to his reputation and was willing to risk it, although I do think it has been blown a bit out of proportion.
Anyhow given that he has posted this so openly on this site, I guess his fellow pastors are by now aware as to what the scoundrel has been up to! We surely need more risk taking for the Kingdom, and not less.
“Now if you and Brit Phil would rather do Jail time be fined or labeled hey that’s okay with me too.
I must admit Cadis I am a bit confused about this, Maybe your own state authorities are a bit draconian ,but I do not think I run the risk of being arrested for merely talking to a drug or alcohol addicted person? If I was dealing drugs to him or buying drugs off him that is a wholly different story, but I am surely free to talk to him or her without fear of arrest? What kind of society would that be?
If it meant am I to “do time” for merely talking or associating with such a person,then yes..I would be willing to do so if it ever came to it. It would be something I would be a civil right I would be willing to fight for and challenge the authorities over.
Like or Dislike:
0
BritPhil,
Don’t be offended, you have not been smeared, but complimented. I realize that your take on MT may be different than mine. You would have to see it from the perspective of a US citizen at the time.
Here is another zinger for you. My top politician of all time is Ronald Reagan. The work the two of them did together to stand against the evils of the world at the time makes them more like real life Batman and Robin to me.
My view of the time uses Jimmy Carter as the measuring rod. His work with Habitat for Humainty is to be commended, but everywhere else he rates as the worst ever. After the dark times of Carter, Reagan was like a sunrise, and MT complimented his strengths
Holding that place on my list is a great honor, and doesn’t hold you to any particular politics. It indicates a level of common ground.
Like or Dislike:
0
Brit Phil,
I agree with the first part of your post there are times to challenge authorities.
I also agree this is not one of them.
Your right I probably should subtract jail time but I don’t think I exaggerate to the amount of harm and accusation you can bring yourself into by not being careful.
This fellow only has had to have sold to a friend on the street before arriving at Michael’s sister’s house to be arrested for drug dealing. The paper I’m sure would give the address maybe even his sister’s name as the location this man was heading to by invitation.
And I’m sorry but you do not need to make the papers and or cast doubt on yourself to get the job done when a little thinking ahead could prevent it.
But yes the Jail time should be retracted. Unless of course Michael caved and toked up with him
But now that I think about it you guys were the ones who were saying you were willing to take on the authorities and do the time
Like or Dislike:
0
Tom
You need to know that I am now weeping bitterly into my coffee!! I am thinking of declaring a day of personal mourning!
Funny you should mention it, but I thought you were going to reply along the lines you did regarding viewing her more from an American/internationalist perspective. as the one who embraced perestroika and glasnost and are looking at it from a mainly American view.
It is the same as with Tony Blair. Many people in the UK found his tendency to make Britain a 51st state of the Union just going a tad too far! You all love him over your side of the pond, whereas we Brits couldn’t wait to see him go!
Permit me if I may to attempt (unsuccessfully I am sure given the way she has so effectively wormed her way into your affections) ) to dislodge her ever so slightly from her lofty pedestal!!…
Whilst in power here, she presided over the decimation of the British manufacturing sector, created a North-South, have/have not divide, not to mention championed a rampant “me-first” consumerism which was in its own way, every bit as corrosive as Soviet centralisation.
You mentioned your dislike of the false counsellors you often encounter at these training session. I still remember the terrifying shiver I felt go down my spine on the day when she was first elected , when she used the prayer of St Francis of Assisi as her mantra for how she was going to run our country Ie “Make me a channel of your peace…where there is hatred..let me bring your love…where there is discord, bring your peace etc and then to preside over the most divisive government the UK has probably ever known! And she delivered it in a tone of voice which was so “humble” and “pious” that I almost wanted to vomit.
Still I can accept and understand that on the international stage she is held in far higher esteem than I hold her in.
I would have to say that, from my knowledge of her policies, she would have been far more sympathetic to say, Nick’s approach, than yours or mine or Michael’s on the drugs issue.
I shall now leave you. I need time to grieve!!
Like or Dislike:
0
Brit phil now that I look back I was exaggerating , because I know better than to think you could be arrested by assosiation . You and Tom were making it sound as if you would recieve any penalty for going in to be on the drug users turf. I was saying you don’t need to if you think ahead
Like or Dislike:
0
“But now that I think about it you guys were the ones who were saying you were willing to take on the authorities and do the time”
Cadis
I get the impression that there’s a slightly mischievous part of you quite likes the idea of me and Tom locked up. (Not before time…I can hear some posters to P&P muttering). You could always pay our bail fee!
More Comments:
1 2 Next »