Saturday, January 20, 2018

Identity theft tips for Canadians: my story part 2

In 2008 I found out that I'd been a victim of identity theft. Now I'm writing about my story and providing some tips. Part 1 of my story is here, and today I'm posting part 2. Tips for dealing with identity theft will come later. As I said last time, my goal is to help you feel empowered to detect and address identity theft yourself.

Repeating my quick disclaimer: All opinions here are my own non-expert opinions. They are informed by personal experience and some reading on the subject. But I haven't discussed this with other people with experience in this, and I haven't studied the subject in depth. Also, I'm Canadian. Different jurisdictions have different laws and customs that could affect how this goes for you. This information will be most applicable to Canadians.

My Story Part 2

The foreign company with a horrible reputation

I received another collection notice, this one on behalf of an American company. I found out the company leases credit card point of sale equipment to retailers, and they thought I'd rented equipment and never returned it. Through a web search I also found out they have an absolutely horrible reputation--people accuse them of fraudulently adding pages into contracts after they're signed making it very difficult to end a lease. I just checked their Better Business Bureau rating today--they have an F rating, and in 2016 the attorney general of New York filed a lawsuit against them.

After a few times contacting them and maybe getting a few collection notices, they sent me an affidavit to fill out. It was fairly detailed, and they wanted me to include copies of a few cancelled cheques that I had written. I felt pretty reluctant to send copies of cheques to a company with a reputation for fraud, so I thought I'd leave that part out.

Also, they wanted the affidavit notarized. When I went to get it notarized, I mentioned to the notary that they had requested copies of cheques, and my reluctance to include those. He suggested blacking out my account information. So I downloaded a few cancelled cheques from my bank website, blacked out my account info on the computer, and printed them to send with the affidavit. (Tip: If you're ever blacking out information on a document on your computer and then emailing it, make sure the recipient can't just move the box out of the way and see what was under it. With some file formats and drawing programs this is possible. I was printing these documents, so this wasn't an issue.)

I received one more collection notice from this company, so I called to confirm they received the affidavit. The person I talked to found my affidavit, compared my signature on the cancelled cheques to the signature on my supposed lease agreement, and confirmed they were quite different. The collection notices stopped.

However, in tracking me down, this company had checked my credit report, bringing down my credit score a little bit. I asked the credit bureau to investigate as before, but this time, the leasing company claimed the credit checks were not fraudulent. I called the same person at the leasing company and she said she'd address it. I eventually called the credit bureau again, they said they'd investigate again, but once again the leasing company replied to the credit bureau claiming the credit checks were not fraudulent.

Once again I called the same person at the leasing company. She didn't seem to be aware that credit checks like this can bring down a person's credit score, and didn't seem to care either. She asked me, in an insulting tone, "Are you bored?" wondering why I was pursuing this. I felt angry, told her not to insult me, and asked to speak to her supervisor. "I am the supervisor," she replied.

I didn't manage to talk to anyone else there about this, and I didn't pursue this one much further. The credit bureau didn't give me any further help in disputing the leasing company's claim. I kind of felt bad about not pursuing this as a matter of principle, but at the same time, I knew the effect on my credit score was small and the credit check would disappear from my file in a few years anyway (maybe even less than a year later by this time). Still, I remain a bit disappointed that I didn't find a way to completely clear this up.
Cost to me: Fuel for a trip to a notary, lower than usual notary fee ($30 or 40, maybe), and some postage stamps.
Emotional cost and inconvenience: Filling out a several-page affidavit, several phone calls, and a visit to a notary. Frustration at dealing with a horrible company and lack of a clear process for me to dispute their claims with the credit bureau.


I've been requesting my free credit report from the credit bureaus almost once per year, and diligently checking my bank statement and credit card bills each month. There haven't been any further signs of fraud. My tax refunds have come on time, and in the correct amount, and I can submit them online now.

I never did find out how the identity thief found my Social Insurance Number. As I said last time, I've never had my SIN card go missing. (I used to carry it in my wallet, but some time before all this identity theft started, I stopped carrying it.) I don't know if my police reports (I didn't mention all of them in my story) led to any arrests or if they contributed to statistics that motivated law enforcement to take more action on identity theft. I don't know if my information is still out there with the potential to be misused again.

My life is essentially the same as it would be if this had never happened, just with a little more worry and a little more diligence about protecting my information. Meanwhile, life with all of its joys and challenges continues.

Thanks for reading, and I hope this helps anyone who may be experiencing something similar. I'll get into some subjects like credit monitoring, how to clear up identity theft, and identity theft insurance in future posts.

Monday, September 11, 2017

Identity theft tips for Canadians: my story part 1

In 2008 I found out that I'd been a victim of identity theft. Once in a while, I tell some people my story, and a while ago I was thinking I should write out some tips based on my own experience. With the recent Equifax hack, I decided it's time to start posting what I've written. My goal is to help you feel empowered to detect and address identity theft yourself. I plan to cover the following topics:
  • My story
  • How to detect identity theft early
  • How to clear up credit reports and other records
  • Identity theft insurance.
I haven't started writing the last three topics, so this could take a while. The good news is that I've started writing part 2 of my story

Now I'll give a quick disclaimer: All opinions here are my own non-expert opinions. They are informed by personal experience and some reading on the subject. But I haven't discussed this with other people with experience in this, and I haven't studied the subject in depth. Also, I'm Canadian. Different jurisdictions have different laws and customs that could affect how this goes for you. This information will be most applicable to Canadians.

Also, if it comes across like this didn't really bother me all that much and it wasn't all that scary, I would like to mention that memories of how I felt have faded over the years since this happened. Many people have had it worse than me too, but it certainly caused some worry when I experienced it.

Identity theft is a serious issue, but with confidence, calmness, and some basic knowledge of the credit reporting system and your rights, I believe most people can deal with it.

My story


In 2006 I noticed one fraudulent transaction on a credit card bill--a plane ticket worth hundreds of dollars. This was pretty easy to deal with. I called my credit card company. They sent me a pre-filled affidavit for me to sign, and the transaction was removed from my bill. The affidavit was basically a sworn statement saying I didn't make that transaction, I didn't authorize it, and I didn't benefit from it in any way. They also cancelled my existing card and sent me a new one.

They also advised me to contact the two credit bureaus Equifax and Transunion to request a fraud warning on my file. The fraud warning states that I have been a victim of fraud in the past, and that anyone issuing credit to me should call me to confirm that it's really me applying for credit.

The real stuff starts

In 2008 I received a letter in the mail from a collection agency saying I owed a large Canadian bank several hundred dollars. My last name was spelled wrong. I have no accounts with this bank but I deal with their insurance division. I contacted the bank and found out that this letter had nothing to do with my insurance.

Someone had opened a bank account in my name in Ontario (I live in Alberta), deposited a counterfeit cheque at an ATM, withdrew the money immediately, and then closed the account. By the time the bank realized the cheque was counterfeit, the money was gone. The bank or its collection agency sent multiple letters to the address registered on the bank account to demand payment. When that didn't pan out, they looked up my real address on my credit report and sent the letter to me.

After talking on the phone with the bank several times (more than I should have had to), they set up an appointment for me to visit a local branch to sign an affidavit something like the one that I had signed for credit card fraud. In the meantime, I got the occasional voice mail from the collection agency. Each time, I called back and explained the situation. Soon after the affidavit was signed, the calls stopped.

I found out that my identity thief had used a fake Social Insurance card and a fake Canadian citizenship card in signing up for that account. The Social Insurance Number (SIN) is what linked that account to my credit file despite the misspelled last name. By the way, I was born in Canada, so I have a birth certificate, not a citizenship card. And I've never had my Social Insurance card stolen either.

I reported this information to the police. They took a police report and I never heard back from them.
Cost to me: Fuel for a trip to a bank, and a trip to a police station.
Emotional cost and inconvenience: The initial "What's happening to me?!" worry, followed by several phone calls, a trip to a bank, and a trip to a police station.

Digging for info

What else had my identity thief been doing? I ordered my free credit reports from both credit bureaus by mail. I found that the bank that I had recently been dealing with had checked my credit file for identity verification (not for creditworthiness) in 2007, and another big bank that I don't deal with had checked my credit file (again for identity verification) the same day. (Why hadn't the first bank noticed the fraud warning on my file and called me to confirm the applicant was really me? I don't know. It could have saved me some headache and saved them hundreds of dollars.)

I called this other bank and found out that someone had tried to open an account in my name in Ontario. Sensing a pattern here? I made an appointment to visit a local branch to look into this further. At the local branch, they showed me the file for the fraudulent account.

There was a "Comments" field that said, "Suspected fraud. Do not tip off client." No transactions had ever taken place on that account. The bank closed that account, and I thanked them for being proactive in preventing fraud.

My credit file showed a couple other credit checks that I hadn't authorized, one from a credit card company and one from a cell phone carrier. The credit file shows phone numbers for every company that checks your file. So I was able to call both companies pretty easily. Neither company had called me after seeing the fraud warning, but neither company had actually allowed anyone to set up an account in my name. They recommended that I contact the credit bureaus though.

When someone checks your credit file for creditworthiness purposes (including for credit cards and cell phone contracts), it drops your credit score just a bit, and other companies that check your credit file can see that credit check. But when someone checks for identity verification, only you can see it on your file; others who check your credit report can't. So both of those credit checks were bringing down my credit score a little bit. When I talked with the credit bureaus on the phone, they said they would investigate. They contacted the companies that checked my credit file, confirmed that the credit checks were fraudulent, and removed them from my file within a month or two.
Cost to me: Fuel for a trip to another bank, two postage stamps.
Emotional cost and inconvenience: Filling out credit check forms, several phone calls, and a visit to a bank


After I did my taxes in 2008 or 2009, it took an unusually long time to get my refund. When I finally received my refund, they paid me some interest on it because of the delay (and reminded me that I'll have to pay taxes on that interest the next year--sigh). There was no explanation for the delay.

Later that year I received a letter from the Canada Revenue Agency explaining that they'd received two tax returns in my name from different addresses, and had determined that my address was the correct one. The letter was to inform me that I'm experiencing identity theft.

I called CRA on the phone to discuss it. They said I could apply to change my SIN, but it's optional and doesn't necessarily prevent my old SIN from being used fraudulently in the future.

I decided not to take the time to change my SIN. Several years later, I have not had any further incidents with my taxes. However, for several years I was not allowed to file my taxes online, and they stopped mailing my personal tax package to me for fear of sending my online access code to the wrong person. I just had to go to the post office to pick up the package. I could still use tax software, but I'd have to print my return and mail it in.
Cost to me: Several stamps for filing my taxes over the next few years, but probably more than offset by the interest the government paid to me.
Emotional cost and inconvenience: Phone call, loss of the convenience of online tax filing (which I actually wasn't using before this), and a little bit of annual worry--wondering if it was a mistake to not change my SIN.

Coming soon-ish

Part 2 will discuss what was probably the most aggravating and costly part of this whole ordeal, although I'm pretty sure it still cost me less than $50.

Sunday, December 11, 2016

Kids and religious violence

I haven't written much about my kids in a while. Ok, I haven't written much about anything in a while. And yes, the word "kids" is plural--we have a son now too!

I've been thinking about how we teach kids stories from the Bible and what to do with the violent ones.

Our three-year-old has heard the story of David and Goliath--a shorter, toned down version anyway. One day, she wanted to play David and Goliath. She was David and I was Goliath. Fortunately, she didn't sling a rock at my head; it was just pretend. But after a few times acting out that scenario, she wanted to switch places.

So when I was David I paraphrased a few lines that I remembered from the Bible. When she said I couldn't defeat her, I said, "I have God's help!" Then after I defeated her we switched places again.

This time she said "I have God's help!" before defeating me. And it got me thinking...

I want to teach her to trust God. But how will she understand what that means, especially when some important stories of God's people involve God-ordained violence? When she thinks about trusting God, I certainly don't want her first thought to be, "God will help me succeed at violence." So how do we respect scriptures and not sanitize them too much, while guiding her away from this kind of thinking?

Monday, May 30, 2016

Church search: Dietrich Bonhoeffer Quote #2

Part of my "Church search" series...
What might surprise you or perhaps even worry you would be my theological thoughts and where they are leading, and here is where I really miss you very much. I don't know anyone else with whom I can talk about them and arrive at some clarity. What keeps gnawing at me is the question, what is Christianity, or who is Christ actually for us today? The age when we could tell people that with words--whether with theological or with pious words--is past, as is the age of inwardness and of conscience, and that means the age of religion altogether. We are approaching a completely religionless age; people as they are now simply cannot be religious anymore. Even those who honestly describe themselves as "religious" aren't really practicing that at all; they presumably mean something quite different by "religious." But our entire nineteen hundred years of Christian preaching and theology are built on the "religious a priori" in human beings. "Christianity" has always been a form (perhaps the true form) of "religion." Yet if it becomes obvious one day that this "a priori" doesn't exist, that it has been a historically conditioned and transitory form of human expression, then people really will become radically religionless--and I believe that this is already more or less the case (why, for example doesn't this war provoke a "religious" reaction like all the previous ones?)--what does that then mean for "Christianity"? The foundations are being pulled out from under all that "Christianity" has previously been for us, and the only people among whom we might end up in terms of "religion" are "the last of the knights" or a few intellectually dishonest people. Are these supposed to be the chosen few? Are we supposed to fall all over precisely this dubious lot of people in our zeal or disappointment or woe and try to peddle our wares to them? Or should we jump on a few unfortunates in their hour of weakness and commit, so to speak, religious rape? If we are unwilling to do any of that, and if we eventually must judge even the Western form of Christianity to be only a preliminary stage of a complete absence of religion, what kind of situation emerges for us, for the church? How can Christ become Lord of the religionless as well? Is there a such thing as a religionless Christian?...
The questions to be answered would be: What does a church, a congregation, a sermon, a liturgy, a Christian life, mean in a religionless world? How do we talk about God--without religion, that is, without the temporarily conditioned presuppositions of metaphysics, the inner life, and so on? How do we speak (or perhaps we can no longer even "speak" the way we used to) in a "worldly" way about "God"? How do we go about being "religionless-worldly" Christians, how can we be those who are called out, without understanding ourselves religiously as privileged, but instead seeing ourselves as belonging wholly to the world? Christ would then no longer be the object of religion, but something else entirely, truly lord of the world. In a religionless situation, what do ritual and prayer mean? Is this where the "arcane discipline" or the difference (which you've heard about from me before) between the penultimate and the ultimate, have new significance?...
The Pauline question of whether circumcision is a condition for justification is today, in my opinion, the question of whether religion is a condition for salvation. Freedom from circumcision is also freedom from religion. I often wonder why my "Christian instinct" frequently draws me more toward non-religious people than toward the religious, and I am sure it's not with missionary intent; instead, I'd almost call it a "brotherly" instinct. While I'm often reluctant to name the name of God to religious people--because somehow it doesn't ring true for me there, and I feel a bit dishonest saying it (it's especially bad when other people start talking in religious terminology; then I clam up almost completely and feel somehow uncomfortable and in a sweat)--yet on some occasions with nonreligious people I can speak God's name quite calmly, as a matter of course. Religious people speak of God at a point where human knowledge is at an end (or sometimes when they're too lazy to think further), or when human strength fails. Actually, it's a deus ex machina that they're always bringing on the scene, either to appear to solve insoluble problems or to provide strength when human powers fail, thus always exploiting human weakness or human limitations. Inevitably that lasts only until human beings become powerful enough to push the boundaries a bit further and God is no longer needed as deus ex machina. To me, talking about human boundaries has become a dubious proposition anyhow. (Is even death still really a boundary, since people today hardly fear it anymore, or sin, since people hardly comprehend it?) It always seems to me that we leave room for God only out of anxiety. I'd like to speak of God not at the boundaries but in the center, not in weakness but in strength, thus not in death and guilt but in human life and human goodness. When I reach my limits, it seems to me better not to say anything and to leave what can't be solved unsolved. Belief in the resurrection is not the "solution" to the problem of death. God's "beyond" is not what is beyond our cognition! Epistemological transcendence has nothing to do with God's transcendence. God is the beyond in the midst of our lives. The church stands not at the point where human powers fail, at the boundaries, but in the center of the village. That's the way it is in the Old Testament, and in this sense we don't read the New Testament nearly enough in the light of the Old. I am thinking a great deal about what this religionless Christianity looks like, what form it takes, and I'll be writing you more about it soon.
 --Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in his letter to Eberhard Bethge on April 30, 1944, from a Nazi prison less than a year before his execution (Published in the book Letters and Papers from Prison), bold text emphasized by me.

Friday, August 28, 2015

A Lutheran church

Part of my "Church search" series..

One church we visited met in a school about a 10-minute walk from our house. We'd heard about it through the flyers they occasionally sent out about community events they organized. It turned out that it was a small Lutheran church plant, affiliated with a mid-sized Lutheran church a little further away. It was part of the Lutheran Church--Canada, which is the more conservative of the two biggest Lutheran denominations in Canada. (By the way, this shows just how divided Protestantism is--there are multiple Lutheran denominations, multiple Baptist denominations, several denominations called "Church of God," and who knows how many other subdivided denominations.)

This church used fairly contemporary music in its worship, and followed traditional liturgy, although didn't seem as traditional as Anglican or some other Lutheran churches. (We did visit one more liberal Lutheran church a couple of times too.) It was a small church, but had a decent number of young people. There were also a number of mentally and physically handicapped people that sometimes attended, and it was good to see how they were welcomed.

The first couple of times we visited, we didn't really connect with the people, and we continued visiting other churches or skipping church on Sundays for a while. But then one time we talked with the people some more and started feeling more of a connection there. We began to attend more regularly and even attended a few mid-week Bible studies at someone's house.

Although we were connecting reasonably well with people, I got a sense that this church was a bit too close to what I was used to. I got a sense of legalism (getting too hung up on following the rules) from some people. I also had a feeling that if I expressed some of my doubts or less conservative beliefs, that they may not understand or accept that as well as our previous church, but I'll admit I didn't really test this out.

I looked into some information about this Lutheran denomination and found out they do closed communion--not all Christians are welcome to take communion there; only those that agree with the church's beliefs about communion should participate. I didn't particularly like this, but decided to find out more.

The next time I was there when they had communion, Cathy wasn't there with me. I went forward, but I said to the pastor, "I'm not Lutheran. Is it OK for me to take communion here?"

"Let's talk after the service," he replied, and he said a blessing.

I sat back down, and soon the pastor sat beside me and asked if I would like to take communion. I said yes, so he served communion to me. After the service he gave me a short explanation of their beliefs about communion, that the body and blood of Jesus are really present in the bread and wine, and he explained a bit of the difference between that and Catholic beliefs, for example, that Lutherans don't have to do anything special if they spill the communion elements. (I assume this means Catholic priests need to do something special if they spill the it because it is the body and blood of Christ.)

I was somewhat familiar with this belief before that, and I said that I find it believable but I'm not sure about it. He said I'm welcome to take communion there any time.

Shortly before our daughter was born, the leadership of this church decided to shut it down temporarily while they tried to find a different location and work with other Lutheran churches in Edmonton to get some more people involved. I don't think it ever restarted.

We attended the "parent church" of this little church a few times that fall and winter. That church had the same pastor as this one, but we didn't connect with any others there.

Then spring came, daylight saving time started, and after the time change our daughter started waking up from her morning nap around 10:30, the same time that services started at that church. That didn't leave us enough time to get there without trying to change her nap schedule. And since we weren't feeling any sense of attachment to that church...

To be continued...

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Church Search: Dietrich Bonhoeffer Quote #1

Part of my "Church search" series...
Innumerable times a whole Christian community has broken down because it had sprung from a wish dream. The serious Christian, set down for the first time in a Christian community, is likely to bring with him a very definite idea of what Christian life together should be and to try to realize it. But God’s grace speedily shatters such dreams. Just as surely as God desires to lead us to a knowledge of genuine Christian fellowship, so surely must we be overwhelmed by a great disillusionment with others, with Christians in general, and, if we are fortunate, with ourselves.

By sheer grace, God will not permit us to live even for a brief period in a dream world. He does not abandon us to those rapturous experiences and lofty moods that come over us like a dream. God is not a God of the emotions but the God of truth. Only that fellowship which faces such disillusionment, with all its unhappy and ugly aspects, begins to be what it should be in God’s sight, begins to grasp in faith the promise that is given to it. The sooner this shock of disillusionment comes to an individual and to a community the better for both.

A community which cannot bear and cannot survive such a crisis, which insists upon keeping its illusion when it should be shattered, permanently loses in that moment the promise of Christian community. Sooner or later it will collapse. Every human wish dream that is injected into the Christian community is a hindrance to genuine community and must be banished if genuine community is to survive. He who loves this dream of a community more than the Christian community itself becomes a destroyer of the latter, even though his personal intentions may be ever so honest and earnest and sacrificial.

God hates visionary dreaming; it makes the dreamer proud and pretentious. The man who fashions a visionary ideal of community demands that it be realized by God, by others, and by himself. He enters the community of Christians with his demands, sets up his own law, and judges the brethren and God Himself accordingly. He stands adamant, a living reproach to all others in the circle of brethren. He acts as if he is the creator of the Christian community, as if his dream binds men together.

When things do not go his way, he calls the effort a failure. When his ideal picture is destroyed, he sees the community going to smash. So he becomes, first the accuser of his brethren, then an accuser of God, and finally the despairing accuser of himself.
--Dietrich Bohoeffer, Life Together

When I first saw this quote, I only saw part of it (and yes, there's even more than I've quoted here, so look it up if you want to read more). It started from almost the middle of the third paragraph: "Every human wish dream that is injected into the Christian community is a hindrance to genuine community..." This and other things I read affected my concept of what church should be. As I've talked about before, I found it so tiring when pastors would come up with one idea after another of how to reach out to the community and hopefully grow the church. It seemed like there should be a better, simpler way--something that is better at welcoming people in various places in their faith and practice, yet manages to unite without insisting that people need to get with the program.

This is still what I hope for. That hasn't changed, at least not much.

But eventually I read a bigger chunk of this quote. I hadn't seen the first couple of paragraphs before. That turned my attention onto my own wishes for a church community. If I find a church that seems alright but doesn't quite match what I hope for, do I leave? Do I insist that the church change? Or as Bonhoeffer said, a church that doesn't meet my expectations could be exactly what I need.

There's a time to leave a church and a time to stay. I'm not trying to say people should always put up with whatever church they happen to be in. I'm not even going to try to lay out a set of rules for deciding whether to stay or go. Certainly, I think people should leave churches that are toxic environments, but how do you define a toxic environment? And I left a church that I don't consider a toxic environment.

But I will conclude this post by repeating myself because I can't come up with a better ending: a church that doesn't meet my expectations could be exactly what I need.

Sunday, February 02, 2014

Church search: United church and liberal Christianity

Part of my "Church search" series...

One Sunday, we decided to visit a United Church. (The United Church is a Canadian denomination formed in 1925 by a merger between a few denominations including the Methodist Church and most of Canada's Presbyterian Church. I don't think there's an exact equivalent in other countries, although I'm sure there are similar churches. It's one of the largest and most liberal Protestant denominations in Canada.)

Visiting that church was my idea. We both come from the more conservative / evangelical side of Christianity (conservative in beliefs, not necessarily in worship style), and I wanted to understand and experience the liberal side of Christianity more. I consider myself somewhere between conservative and liberal. In my experience, conservative Christians are quick to dismiss liberal Christians as "not real Christians." I don't want to be quick to do that, so I wanted to see what these churches are like. I had been to United Churches before (for cousins' baptisms and that sort of thing), but not for years.

I'm not sure if Cathy was all that interested, but she came along. We walked in the church and found that some singing had already started, and I don't think we were late. Almost everyone there looked like they were over 60 years old. The minister might have been one of the youngest people there, probably in her 50s. But the place was packed. People say the United Church is in decline, but this church seems strong for now. However, with its demographics, it certainly will be in decline in the next decade or two unless something changes.

Cathy asked if I wanted to stay. I was hesitant, but I wanted to see what the actual service would be like.

The service that day had a theme of friendship, related to one of the lectionary readings that day, from the book of Ruth. Through the songs and sermon, I don't think I ever heard of Jesus referred to as anything more than a supreme example of friendship. It left me wondering, do they believe that Jesus was the son of God? Do they believe that in some sense Jesus has redeemed us and overcome death? (There are varying ideas among Christians on how Jesus redeems us and I don't want to be too picky about how they understand it, but I have a problem with throwing out the idea of redemption entirely.)

I realize there are people who call themselves Christians, and even some priests / ministers / pastors, who don't believe in God at all. Today I'm not interested in getting into a debate about whether they should be considered Christians or not. My point is that these people still find meaning in Christian practices and worship, even if they believe there's nothing supernatural behind it. While I don't want to disrespect what they find meaningful, personally I don't find much meaning in religious practice without some sort of belief behind it. I'm not talking about complete certainty--God knows I don't have complete certainty myself. This gets into what I mentioned in my previous post about the Anglican Church, rising above doubt.

I appreciate worship that gives me a sense of something greater than myself, greater than the people around me, greater than any human institution. Hearing reflections on friendship with some mentions of Jesus thrown in doesn't do that for me. As I said in that Anglican Church post, I can appreciate a church that can understand and appreciate doubt. That said, doubt can't be the last word. In what the church says and does, it needs to lift us up toward something greater, not sit at the lowest common denominator. This may not be easy to do, but in my experience, liturgical and evangelical churches tend do this better than mainline non-liturgical churches such as the United Church (and yes, my mainline experience is pretty limited). Evangelical churches on the other hand can be less understanding of doubt.

Maybe we visited that church on an off day. Maybe a lot of other United Churches are better at rising above doubt (and maybe have more varied demographics too). Maybe I just haven't been exposed to this form of faith enough to see the beauty in it. But I don't see myself practicing my faith in this way. We haven't been to a United Church again and have no plans to go again. I'd still like to understand liberal Christianity better, and I'm not sure where to look.

One more experience I'd like to share, this one from an Anglican Church:

The Anglican Church tends to vary between liberal and conservative beliefs, but it is one of the churches that many evangelicals would consider overly liberal, kind of like the United Church. A while back, the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton passed some sort of motion about wanting to bless same-sex civil marriages, although without considering them church marriages. That motion probably needed approval at the national level before it would have any effect on their practices, but still, most conservative Christians would consider the blessing of same-sex unions to be a bad thing. (I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this issue. Politically I'm in favour of allowing same-sex marriage, but in the church I'm not sure what should be done given differing interpretations of the Bible.)

The Sunday after this motion passed, I happened to visit an Anglican church. The priest talked about it, didn't really give his opinion, but he acknowledged it has been a contentious issue in the church for a number of years. But what stuck out to me is this: he said the recent decision was made with grace. And though the liturgy of that service, I always had a sense that this church honours Jesus as savior, redeemer, and Lord. Maybe they are overly liberal, I'm not sure, but they still give me a sense of a living faith in a real God.