Home / Mur 3D /

Vautour Moine - Portrait

20090601112805-04bf30a2.jpg GazéThumbnailsTendresseGazéThumbnailsTendresseGazéThumbnailsTendresseGazéThumbnailsTendresseGazéThumbnailsTendresse

Biométrie : Taille : 100 à 110 cm, Envergure : 250-295 cm, Poids : 7000-12500 gr
Creative Commons BY-NC-NDSébastien TARRAJAT

Author
SNF
Created on
Sunday 31 May 2009
Posted on
Monday 1 June 2009
Visits
5146

3 comments

Add a comment

  • tiji66 - Wednesday 10 March 2010 09:16
    superbe portrait
  • Seb no Fear - Wednesday 10 March 2010 10:22
    Merci Patricia c'est le coté un peu rêveur de la posture qui m'a attiré pour cette image ;o)
  • Shanice - Saturday 5 January 2013 19:38
    Another clarification: the Presbyterian Record is not fudend or governed by the Presbyterian Church, so church polity doesn't really apply.Also and this is just an observation it seems that you are valuing secrecy above all else. We respectfully take a different view.[]PD Johnston Reply:April 27th, 2011 at 8:50 amAnyone who has been trained as a Reverend should have received enough counselling training to be able to distinguish between keeping secrets and maintaining confidences. There are times when the gospel of grace requires us to maintain a confidence. This is not an ethic one learns in the publish or perish world of journalism school. But it is an ethic we learn from Jesus Christ, who calls us to place the good of others ahead of our own.On the other hand, the Record leadership seems to be valuing independence above all else. The attitude seems to be we will publish what we want about whomever we want however we want and we are not accountable to anyone for our decisions so no one can tell us otherwise. Is that the model we want to set before the world for how Christians treat one another?What good purpose was the Record hoping to achieve by publishing this material? How did this publication advance the gospel of Jesus Christ? How did it promote reconciliation in a troubled situation? From what I have read in the editorial comments in defense of the decision to publish, the decision to publish was self-evidently and obviously good in itself and needed no justification. Andrew Faiz hinted, though, there was some discussion about whether to publish the news report. What pluses and minuses did you consider in the choice? How did you weigh the likely harms and the possible benefits before deciding the decision to publish was the best one?[] Reply:May 2nd, 2011 at 10:54 amReally? Our attitude is we will publish what we want about whomever we want however we want and we are not accountable to anyone? Really? You gauge this from this editorial? From the article the editorial addresses? From the online comments about this editorial? Or perhaps from the other 51 pages in the magazine? Or from the other issues this year and last year and the year before?We published the results of a presbytery's discerning, the process of that discernment and comments from a variety of people involved in the process. It is a discomfiting story. But we didn't sideswipe anybody. All involved were aware and participated.And we did have many discussions around this story. We asked the very questions you have asked: how does this advance the gospel, the kingdom, promote reconciliation? We discussed these ideas and many others, and through the discussions we strove to better understand our jobs as church journalists.It is a complicated story. A recovered memory accusation of events that took place before a person entered ministry. Accusations not tested in criminal or civic courts. Still a court of our church took the accusations seriously and considered them seriously.Presbytery is an open court. Even in-camera decisions are public; though not necessarily the discussion.By not publishing certain stories we set ourselves as censors. In much the same way that officers of the court have to deal with the issues brought to the court, we do as well. It is our job to share the significant events of the church. And we do our best to bring those stories to light. For most times this is a pleasant task. Great initiatives, great sacrifices, great workers tending the garden. Sometimes we have to tell uncomfortable, even disturbing, stories. Have to; don't want to, have to, because they are part of the story of the church. We cannot cherry-pick the stories of the church.And, so over 52 pages you get a rich snapshot of the Presbyterian Church in Canada. And in amongst the great stories the cover story is magnificent we have a particularly dark one.And from this one story are many policies, directions, ideas that we can take away. There is a family in great pain. Is there room in our church to embrace that pain and help in healing? Is there room in our polity for reconciliation and healing? Or is our polity only about process and judgement? And so, if I could shift from managing editor to member of the church: This story can, if we want it to, help us as a church of Christ, heal ourselves, understand our own responsibilities.Good comes from sharing stories. No good comes from censoring stories Christ certainly did not choose the prettier corners of the world. He kept dicey company, went to dark places, met with people in trauma. He healed, he helped, he didn't just judge.[]