Prayer:
May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable in your sight o God, our Rock and our Redeemer. AMEN

Today is a day when I am torn to go in two different directions. It feels a little like being a circus performer trying to stand on two bare-back horses running together around the circus ring. Keeping the horses together with one foot on each is no easy task. And there is a lot of risk of falling squarely in the middle between them.

The two horses challenging me today are two themes given for this day. On the one hand we have the series on the Ten Commandments and the 3rd Word: don't make wrongful use of the name of God, or, don't take the name of God in vain.
And on the other hand, we have the Referendum on Treaty Negotiations, which is hard to avoid as an issue - especially when press headlines tell us that Church leaders have been expressing themselves on the issue.

I want to start with the third commandment because it may provide us with a larger perspective that may even be helpful for the immediate concern posed by the Referendum.

One of the ways we trivialize the Third Commandment is by limiting it to swearing. Now swearing covers a lot of language in our day. I would say that a good part of swearing in our time is just vulgar language overused.

Frequently we hear four letter words and we rightly conclude that the person speaking needs a larger vocabulary.
We have here not so much a moral or faith issue, but a learning opportunity. The person needs a larger supply of words to more accurately describe what she or he is feeling or thinking. I suspect we've all been there and shared that need at some point.

Other times, we will hear the name of Christ, or God, or words like "hell" often used in combinations with vulgar language. These again don't really clarify anything, but serve as an indication of feeling.
I find it very easy when I am watching the news and see bodies and blood to say: Oh my God! And for me it is a kind of prayer and an exclamation of outrage and distress - outrage and distress that I feel and which I am convinced God shares with me.

But I also know that too often God and Jesus Christ are used in trivial ways that have little to do with thoughtful conversation. If we knock over a glass and spill the juice all over the floor, some might be inclined to invoke the name of God or Jesus - but this seems out of all proportion to the situation. Perhaps "hell" fits better.

I think it is interesting that the further our society gets away from Jesus and God, the more we seem to hear these names bandied about.
The time may well be coming for Christians to say to those who throw these holy names around - hey! that means something to me and I'd be happy to talk with you about that.
But I would appreciate it if you wouldn't be so flip with what is, for me, Holy. Just let your "yes" be "yes" and your "no" be "no".

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of God is the third commandment. Name!

What's in a name? Shakespeare says "a rose by anyother name would smell as sweet." But we also know that not having a name means you are a nobody - you have no identity. And defaming a name, means destroying something essential in that person.

I think where the Third Commandment really connects is when God's name is used to buttress a cause that really goes against God's essence. We abuse God's name when we claim God's support for causes that run counter to God's will and way.
Victorian explorers, including the ones who came to British Columbia, had no problem assuming that they were subjugating aboriginal peoples in God's name. The white, European man's burden was understood as a mandate from God. It abused God's name.
In the name of God, too many wars have been fought resulting in the slaughter of millions. God was abused.
Too many heinous acts like the World Trade Centre atrocity, and the current bloodshed on both sides of the Israel - Palestine hate line - have been justified in God's name. It is wrongful use.

Wrongful use of God's name is when we know that love is the essence of God and we use God to hate;
wrongful use of God's name is when we know that God demands justice and we invoke God to perpetuate economic and social injustice;
wrongful use of God's name is when we know that God liberates people to be fully themselves and we use God as a club to control people's spirits and to restrict human freedom.
Wrongful use of God's name is knowing God wants all the human family to be fed at the banquet table of abundance, but God is used as an excuse to exclude people who are different from us or who don't agree with us.

God's name is rightly used when we share in God's yearning for deeper and richer community, for a truer sharing of the gifts of the earth, and for just relations between people. And that is our mission as Christians and out determination to honour God's name.

Perhaps after all, there is a link between the 3rd Commandment horse and the other horse I'm trying to ride this morning - the Treaty Referendum.

As Christians we come to the Referendum put before us by the provincial government with a desire to honour the name of God.
In making up our minds about this referendum, we want to listen carefully:
Listen to the voice of God through the scriptures;
the voice of God through the government of the day;
the voice of God through the native peoples most directly affected by the referendum and treaty process; and
the voice of God through commentators and other people of faith seeking a just peace and good relations with BC's aboriginal peoples.

Let me say at the outset that I have no intention of telling you how to vote in this referendum.
But I also reject the strange notion that this is not a valid matter for people of the church to be considering.
I believe deeply in the sovereignty of God and that every matter under heaven has a theological dimension.
How the majority settler population treats the minority aboriginal population of BC is certainly a matter of fundamental concern for any community of faith and not least the United Church of Canada, with its long history of public witness and commitment to social justice.

I want to approach the referendum as my personal struggle and invite you to enter into conversation with me as I speak.
Initially when I received the referendum ballot it was my intention to simply VOID the ballot and the heat of the moment I intended to write "farce" on the ballot and send the BC government leaders a sample of my thoughts about their work.

In conversation with my spouse, Glenys, I was persuaded to re-think this and adopted - at the time - the position that voting "no" to all eight questions would prevent the government from claiming a mandate to negotiate treaties on the basis of the principles implied in the referendum questions.

Well I've had more time to hear opinions on the referendum and to hear what leaders in our own church and others are thinking.
So where have I landed?
First, this referendum has created conversation and people are talking about our relationship with native peoples. That is good. I wish we had spent the entire $9 million dollars on an information / educational process to help all British Columbians gain a deeper understanding of this very complex and fundamental issue. We are simply not well-enough informed to hold a referendum.

Second, I would say that the referendum is fundamentally flawed. Sociologists tell us that the questions on the ballot are ambiguous and leading, not at all designed to elicit from me a clear understanding of my thought.
As well, the referendum does take seriously that we must create treaties or risk further disruption in our society. But fair treaties are made between parties negotiating in good faith.
Three parties have to be at the table.
They are the aboriginal peoples, the federal government, and the provincial government.
The referendum seems to be blind to this requirement.

The referendum ballot is also flawed, in my judgement, because it is motivated by pragmatism and the stated goal of "workable and affordable treaty settlements".
As a Christian, I believe that the goal should be justice - that the treaties we make should provide for a just and equitable resolution of this conflict which has been festering for well over 100 years.
So this Referendum is dangerously flawed, in my judgement.

Third, I believe that the referendum process is unhelpful and unfortunate because it does not do what the Select Standing committee of the Legislature recommended. The BC Quaker Committee on Native Concerns has highlighted this point, namely, that there "should be a process of moral reconciliation between aboriginal peoples and the settler population in BC and that this process must include an expression of regret by the BC government to aboriginal people."
An apology to the aboriginal peoples specifying injustices over the past 150 years could start a process of reconciliation - and that certainly is a goal at the heart of Christian concern.
[Injustices include: refusal to recognize aboriginal title until court decisions confirmed its existence; not allowing aboriginal peoples to vote; not allowing aboriginal peoples to practice certain professions, etc.]

I know what can happen when communities live in perpetual alienation. They begin to fear each other and then hate each other and then treat each other inhumanly. We have only to note media accounts of the Palestine-Israel conflict to find evidence for this.

So what will I do? Will I follow the First Nations' Summit advice and simply boycott the referendum, because it is such a deeply flawed process?
NO I can't do that because it will send an ambiguous signal and the Attorney General has stated that even if only 3 people vote and they vote yes, then the government will be bound by the outcome.

Will I follow the advice of the BC Conference of the United Church in support of the First Nations Summit and collect voided ballots for forwarding to the United Church Conference office and then to the First Nations Summit, where a tally will be made and ballots delivered to the government?
I don't think so. I find that too complicated and uncertain. But if there are some here who wish to go that route, our church office will accept the ballots and forward them.

I intend to vote "no" and seal my ballot in the secrecy envelope. In the return envelope, I will express my deep concern that instead of entering into relationship with aboriginal people and seeking to build trust and good relations, our Government seems intent on a power political solution.
And I know from history and from psychology and above all from theology - from my faith - that such an approach is less than faithful and will not contribute to God's reign of peace, reconciliation, justice, and abundance.
That is, it does not honour God's name and as a Christian I stake my life on honouring God in all aspects of living.

So that's what I plan to do. What about you?

May God help us all to be faithful in walking the talk of faith in Jesus Christ. AMEN