Live Simply, Give Generously, Practice Hospitality...Act Justly

More on the abortion issue

2011-12-02T08:52:00.000-04:00

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) was a French sociologist who did a fascinating study of suicide. His work is certainly worth looking at in terms of suicide but what was - and is - most interesting in his work on suicide is the observation that changes in rates of suicide say something about society and not just the behaviour of discreet individuals. He said, for example, that if a person commits suicide, that is a personal tragedy, but if the rate of suicide changes in a society, that is a public issue. And it's not just about suicide. The same could be said on a number of fronts. Take abortion.

When a woman decides to have an abortion - regardless of the reasons, the process, etc. - there is a certain sense of emotional response (relief, grief, confusion, etc.). That's a personal issue. And this is the strength of the so-called "pro-choice" movement. It's personal. The woman has the right to choose whether or not to remain pregnant, regardless of the means by which the pregnancy started.

What we often don't think about is the view from a societal perspective. Who can argue that abortion isn't personal. It is, and usually intensely so. But it's also social. If the rate of abortion changes - either up or down - that says something about social forces at work.

After posting my last blog I got thinking about abortion rates in Canada and what they might say about our society. When I started digging a bit, I confess that I was pretty shocked by what I found. In terms of the rate of abortion in Canada today, any guesses as to what it might be? I asked my first year class at St. Stephen's University and they figured maybe 5-10% of pregnancies are wilfully terminated through abortion. Wrong! Let's take 2005. According to Stats Canada, in 2005 there were 342,176 babies born and 96,815 induced abortions. That is, for every 100 live births there were 28.3 abortions! (see http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080521/dq080521c-eng.htm). What?!?! About 25% of pregnancies end in abortion in Canada! Really?????!!!! How has this happened?

There's a very long answer to that question, and there's a short answer. For now I'll stick with the short answer. It seems to me that the abortion issue has generated such passion - on both "sides" (which, as I mentioned in my last posting, is perhaps mis-cast) that it's very hard for us to even talk about it. Maybe our "Canadian-ness" prohibits us from truly engaging in healthy debate on issues like this (and many other social/moral issues!). We don't like to fight - unless of course we're an "activist" and the activists are often viewed with suspicion. Many Canadians would cross to the other side of the street to avoid an activist. We prefer to avoid conflict and confrontation. I get that.

But when a quarter of pregnancies end in abortion - which I think we can all agree is a very BIG number (and note that these are official statistics for abortions legally performed in Canada in 2005, and therefore do not include abortions obtained in other countries or outside of the legal facilities where stats are gathered and submitted to the authorities). One of the sad things about this is that we are not talking about what this means for our society. What's the public issue or issues behind these stats? WHY is it that so many women are choosing this route? What are the personal and public consequences?

Is it possible for us to talk about this without the acrimony that has sometimes characterized the debate? Is it too much to ask that we all take a step back, take a deep breath, set aside our personal convictions and come to the table prepared to work together to find a more sane response to the conditions which perpetuate the demand for abortion in this country?

My students where shocked by the figures. For the most part, these students have been raised in a post modern world where they have a default position that accepts the underlying assumptions behind a rights-based social policy. But they are shocked by the figures and they are dismayed. They don't know exactly what to think about it or what should be done, but they know - intuitively perhaps (which is one of the strengths of post moderns) - that something's not right with this picture. And, in true post modern fashion, they don't want to argue about it. They're not interested in winning an argument. They just want us to find a way forward. Can we do that?

Can we regain our sanity on the abortion issue?

2011-11-23T08:43:00.000-04:00

This morning on CBC news I heard a disturbing story about a woman in western Canada (Calgary) – Meredith Borowiec – who abandoned her new born son in a dumpster last fall and is suspected of having killed two other newborns (for the story see http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2011/11/22/calgary-dumpster-baby-murder.html). The baby boy survived but one can only speculate that the two previous newborns did not. How very tragic! I can’t even begin to imagine the circumstances that surrounded these events.

I know of women who desperately want to have and raise a child, and for one reason or another, simply cannot get pregnant or, if they do become pregnant, can’t carry a baby to term. For so many women – and men – it is simply inconceivable that a mother could throw out a precious life. The CBC report alluded to the possibility that a woman who would do such a thing may be afflicted with some form of mental illness. I have no idea but it certainly doesn’t seem like the sort of thing that a “sane” person would do, or could do. I wonder what Meredith’s story is.

And of course at this time of year, it’s hard not to think of the birth of a baby boy almost 2000 years ago, who came into the world in humility and left it in shame, but is claimed by billions of people around the world to be the fulcrum point of human history. Who knows what the future holds for this one little “dumpster” baby? What plans might God have to redeem his life?

I also can’t help thinking about the way our collective conscience has been shaped – maybe even seared – by advocacy around the abortion issue. Why, oh why, are we so viscerally dismayed by the actions of Meredith Borowiec, and so apparently unconcerned by the actions of thousands of women who every week terminate pregnancies for one reason or another. What’s the difference? Activists have lobbied for a woman’s right to “choose” and by and large, society has gone along with it. A pregnancy that is unplanned and unwanted can be terminated and that’s that. The remains are discarded - perhaps not in a dumpster – but discarded nonetheless. The life that might have been is nipped in the bud. This too is tragic.

It’s curious, isn’t it, that the two scenarios which are so close, have such different outcomes? The actions of Meredith Borowiec not only offend our public conscience, but are blatantly illegal, while the actions of a woman who has an abortion are simply considered to be within the range of a woman’s rights over her own body. I’m not writing this to point fingers or to condemn anyone who has felt that her best option – perhaps only option – was to terminate a pregnancy. Rather, I’m looking at the way public opinion has been shaped around this issue. Life is complex – incredibly complex – and women have often had to make difficult and painful decisions. We make choices all the time – some of those choices are life giving and sacrificial and some of them are perhaps rooted in less noble responses - but I suspect that we all intend to make good, healthy, respectable choices whenever we can. Nobody - well, maybe I should say few people - set out to make bad choices.

I think it’s unfortunate that the debate has been framed around the issue of “choice”. The pro-choice side argues that women should have the right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. The pro-life side argues that every life is precious and every effort should be made to preserve it. I sometimes think that the two sides are perhaps NOT as contrary as the ongoing debate suggests. Does anyone really WANT women to terminate their pregnancy? Does anyone really think that life is NOT precious? OK – maybe the cynics (realists?) among us will argue that the abortion industry is a business that, like other businesses is “for profit”. But I have to believe that the front line people in the debate – on both sides - have different motives.

If one is FOR LIFE, does that mean that they’re necessarily against CHOICE and if one is FOR CHOICE does that mean that they’re necessarily against LIFE? It’s a spurious division.

It seems to me that the goal for all of us ought to be to work together to ensure that the best choice a woman can make is to carry every baby to term. What if we stopped arguing and put all of our efforts and energies into creating a more nurturing environment in which babies can be conceived, born, raised and loved - from birth to death? What if we changed our culture so that women who currently can’t face the prospect of having and caring for a baby were given realistic other options? Has the debate taken on a life of it’s own - at the expense of the many, many lives of babies and their mothers, and even society at large – that should now be terminated? Could we all lay down our ideologies and passions for long enough to get our bearings and figure out who the real enemy is?

If we start from the premise that life IS precious (and for Christians and people of most, if not all, faith traditions - sacred), maybe we could begin to find more common ground. I’m not totally naive. I know that there are fundamental and irreconcilable differences between those who are “pro life” and those who are “pro choice”, but while the debate rages on, the reality of unplanned and unwanted pregnancy continues to wreak havoc on our society at all kinds of levels, seen and unseen.

How many Merediths are out there? What can we do – as a society – to provide the kind of resources (emotional, material, spiritual) that they need? How can we regain our collective sanity on this issue?

Occupying Wall Street (and other Financial strongholds)… Be Careful What You Wish For

2011-10-17T21:36:00.000-03:00

I’ve been following the grassroots movement that has been tagged, “Occupy Wall Street” with interest and some trepidation. The media certainly portrays it as a movement of malcontents – of those for whom the status quo isn’t working. They are the unemployed, the underemployed, the otherwise economically marginalized of our society who can no longer afford to live the American Dream. They significantly include what is perhaps the first recognizable wave of middle class casualties who are caught between the idealism and artificially manipulated appetites of a consumer driven society and the reality of limits in the form of debt – and if we look into the horizon - also the limit of ecological sustainability.

I suspect that many of them are quite baffled as to how this has happened. How is it that they now have the time and the inclination to join a grassroots protest movement? In many cases, they might tell us that not that long ago – maybe a few years ago, or even a few months ago - everything was good. They were employed in jobs that seemed reasonably secure. They had enough money to pay the bills and enough credit to enjoy the latest gadgets and other consumer comforts. They and their kids were busy, coming and going, with all kinds of activities and events. They were part of a culture that thrived on busyness. But then the economy took a nose dive – how did the government and the banks let that happen!? - and they suddenly couldn’t keep it all afloat. Maybe they lost their house, their job, their ability to stay in the game. Literally overnight they lost their position in society and with it, their confidence in the future.

And so, as more and more found themselves on the sidelines, the seeds of protest began to grow. Indignation set in. And puzzlement is giving way to frustration and frustration to indignation and indignation to anger. Maybe not enough anger to do anything rash, but enough to say ENOUGH. It’s not fair. I don't like what’s happening.

But the trouble with protest movements – even ones that start out peaceful – is that it doesn’t take much to unleash the anger that is simmering under the surface. And crowds of people are not rational. Even in Canada we’ve seen compelling evidence of this uncomfortable fact in recent years, most notably in Vancouver the night of the Stanley Cup Final last spring.

Sociologists can tell us that crowds do not think like individuals do. Crowds will bring out the very worst behaviors in people who would never think of doing the very things that they end up doing in the passion of the moment. Crowds are not rational. Crowds are not to be trusted – ever.

But what I really want to say in this post is that the protesters should be careful what they wish for. Most of them feel that the present system is unfair. They chant that they are the 99% and want to draw attention to the fact that the other 1% - the economic elite – are manipulating the system to their advantage. Governments are catering to corporations and corporations are greedy and exploitative. And it’s just not fair. They argue that the rich should not receive the spoils, but that they should be distributed more equitably. They want justice. Or do they?

I suppose that if the world really were only as big as one country – Canada or the US, for instance – then maybe they’d have a point. But the world is not one country and if we’re demanding justice, then we have to ask how far our concern extends. Do we want justice only for ourselves – because we suddenly can’t take for granted the relatively affluent lifestyle we’ve come to expect? I’m sure that I’ve quoted before in a previous blog, the astounding figure that the top 20% of the world controls some 86% of the wealth while the bottom 20% controls only 1%. And as incredulous as we may be, even the protesters in Canada and the US – the 99% in their country - fall in the camp of the top 20% of the world’s wealthy. Where should justice draw the line?

I expect that if the protests become violent – say someone decides that it would be a good idea to trash a mansion or two – the government will intervene swiftly and with the use of force. And who can blame them if they do. After all, no one can afford to allow our society to collapse into chaos and anarchy. These are dangerous times.

And because these are things I think about pretty much all the time, the question I have for people of faith is this: where will WE be if things begin to unravel. Will we be fighting for our rights and to hold onto what we’ve got (or had), or will we – in the worst of times – live out a gospel of justice and righteousness for the poor and downtrodden?

The (Artificial) Tree of Life

2011-10-11T09:41:00.000-03:00

When Adam and Eve had succumbed to the temptation to eat fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God’s punishment was swift and irrevocable. After God confronted the embarrassed pair with the fact of their fateful disobedience, he cursed the serpent and the earth and pronounced a new everyday reality for Adam and Eve. Life would be hard - the price they paid for a moment's surrender to temptation was higher than they ever could have imagined. And then he banished them from the Garden SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE TREE OF LIFE. The picnic was over!

Humanity was thus pushed – literally pushed - out from the place of God’s provision, to a whole new reality where they would need to rely on their own innovation and creativity in order to survive. Humanity was no longer – or at least, so it must have seemed to them – under the protection and provision of a gracious and loving God. Humans were compelled to make their own way in the world. They had to rely on themselves and their resourcefulness. Life was going to be difficult, painful, hard. And God, though "an ever present help in trouble" (Psalm 46:1), was no longer their companion in a well-watered Garden.

Blocked from access to the precious tree of life, they first settled into the labor of food production in an inhospitable physical environment. By the sweat of their brows and the diligence of their hands, they constructed shelters, dug wells, planted gardens, made clothing. They established their lives as refugees from the Garden. But as time went on and they had adjusted to the new rhythms of life, they began a new project. They set to work to construct a new tree of life - an artificial tree – a masterpiece of their own effort and ingenuity.

Of course God was not oblivious to their efforts. I wonder if he was amused – even proud – of their efforts to build abundant and prosperous lives for themselves and to compensate for illness and decay and death by learning anatomy, physiology, the healing power of plants – and much later, synthetic medicines and treatments. To recover some of what had been lost when the gates of the Garden shut behind them.

We know he wasn’t impressed when the peoples of the earth got together to build the Tower of Babel; something, by the way, which has always puzzled me. How I long for a spirit of collaboration and cooperation these days as we consider the state of global economies and ecologies. A little pre-Babel collaboration would go a long way to defining and perhaps attaining a modicum of justice – or at least that’s the way it seems to me.

But I’ve been listening (again) to Viktor Frankl’s 1946 book, Man’s Search for Meaning, which chronicles his experiences as an inmate in German concentration camps during the Second World War. It’s a disturbing book insofar as it examines the primal theme of existence in the face of suffering and inhumanity and addresses the question of why, in such circumstances, some survive and others do not. As a psychiatrist, Frankl favours a scientific answer, though his own experience, one might argue, defies such rational reductionism. He states bluntly, for example, that the “best” inmates did not survive because they were not willing to do whatever it took to ensure their best odds. And yet, in recounting his experience, he describes in convincing detail, the way that “fate” determined his course. He was about to attempt an escape – on several occasions – when some incident thwarted the plan and in retrospect, the aborted plan led him through the door of survival.

Perhaps it was simply fate, or perhaps God protected him. This latter position, however, raises the uncomfortable and unanswerable question as to why God would protect some - and not others - from the gas chambers or from death by disease or starvation. The conviction which I have as I listen to Frankl’s audiobook though, is that despite the distractions of life, what really matters – the only thing that matters! – is our character. Or, put another way, our training in righteousness, a matter which unfortunately attracts little attention in the hustle and bustle of post-Babel life.

So, we may long for a spirit of cooperation and collaboration as we envision an end to human suffering and depravity, but the only thing that we actually have some control over is the state of our own heart in relation to a mysterious God. We can pour our energies and time into the “artificial tree of life” project – that is, manmade efforts to secure eternal life by our own efforts – or we can surrender our heart, mind, soul and strength to this God who promises us that if we will submit to Him in ALL things, He WILL direct our paths (Proverbs 3:5-6).

Can I lay down my plans and ambitions and learn to trust God to show me what to do and what to think in ALL things?

Walking on Water: What kind of leadership lesson is it?

2011-09-26T10:27:00.000-03:00

Thirty odd years ago I was a pretty serious athlete. I had a field hockey coach who would stop a drill with a blast of her whistle and we'd all freeze wherever we were for what she liked to call, "a teachable moment". Teachable moments were opportunities to learn from one another's mistakes. It was never very rewarding to be the one who made the mistake, but we all came to value the teachable moments as vital ways to strengthen the team. I think that Peter provided the disciples with a number of "teachable moments".

I’ve been thinking about the story of the night Peter walked on water (see http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+14%3A22-33&version=NIV). It’s one of those stories that’s so familiar, I wonder what I might be missing. Jesus has just fed the multitudes (thousands of people) with a little boy’s lunch of two fish and five loaves. After everyone has eaten their fill, the disciples gather up the leftovers – twelve baskets full! The crowds wander off, I suppose in different directions to return to their homes and Jesus insists that the disciples set out by boat to cross the sea to Gennesaret. They shove off and Jesus goes off to the hills to pray.

I imagine that they’re tired but maybe energized by participating in a miracle – I think that I would be. And at least some of them – the fishermen among them - would feel at home on the water. But as is sometimes the case on the Sea of Galilee, the wind picks up and before long the boat is being battered by the waves. Even fishermen can be intimidated by rough seas. There they are, hanging on for dear life, trying to keep their fear at bay, senses on alert. It’s dark. There’s water everywhere. They’re soaked to the skin – scared. And now, to top it off, there’s a ghost – or something – coming toward them on the water. I think we sometimes rush through this part, but we need to understand – they are terrified – absolutely terrified.

Jesus is quick to reassure them. “It’s me”, he says. “No need to worry.”

So first question –why didn’t Jesus just meet them in Gennesaret? Why was it necessary for him to meet them in the middle of the Sea? There is clearly something for us to learn from the encounter that follows. Peter – brash, act now - think later - guy that he is – is perhaps anxious to disguise his own fear. Maybe he overcompensates and, as is his nature, gets himself out of the proverbial frying pan and into the fire. Others might be relieved to have Jesus join them in the boat, calm the winds, reassure them - "thank God you're here... we were so afraid!". But Peter has never been content with the easy path. No. He’s a take charge kind of guy. He needs to stand out, make a splash, so to speak. So he challenges Jesus to call him out of the boat so that he might demonstrate his spiritual maturity - teach his fellow disciples a thing or two about real power and faith. Peter wants to walk on water. He wants to defy the laws of nature. For sure, no one could accuse Peter of being timid, or of hiding in the crowd. And when Jesus calls him out of the boat, he doesn’t ease himself over the side – he jumps out!

So the way I’ve always understood what happens next is this: Peter starts out strong - confident. He’s actually walking on water – one step, two, maybe three or four – but then he starts to think about how amazing it is. Or maybe he suddenly realizes how foolish he’s been – sure he’s walking on water but the waves are REALLY big. The fear rises up and he begins to sink. He calls out to Jesus – “Master, save me!” And Jesus does. He grabs his hand and pulls him out of the water and the two of them climb aboard the boat. Only then do the winds subside.

The lesson, I’ve always thought, is that we can do amazing, incredible, miraculous things, when we’re willing to take risks – when we jump out of the boat and keep our eyes on Jesus. But today I’m wondering if that’s a lesson that is culturally biased. Maybe it’s the WRONG leadership lesson to conclude from this story.

Maybe Jesus humours Peter’s request – Lord, it sure would be cool if I could walk on water – or, to get to the underlying principle, a few miracles would greatly enhance my reputation - only to teach him to know the limitations of his humanity. What if Peter had made it all the way to Jesus and then back to the boat – or even to the shore? What if he was able to walk on water any time he wanted to? Would this have indicated his ability or preparedness for pastoring Jesus’ church? Did Peter fail a test that night? Since Jesus ultimately said to Peter “on this rock I will build my church” it seems clear that Peter didn't fail, and yet we tend to think that if we are going to be effective leaders, we ought to be able to walk on water.

Maybe we’ve taken the wrong lesson from this passage – maybe, in fact, we have too many leaders who have learned how to walk on water but have forgotten to call out to God, “save me”.

Self-reliance – something so highly valued in our culture - may actually be one of the biggest hindrances to the growth of the kingdom. When we're looking for the lesson for us in a teachable moment, we need to be careful of our cultural biases and make sure we're getting the intended message. God did not call Peter to walk on water and he doesn’t call us to. We are NOT Messiahs. The miracles - then and today - are God's miracles, performed for His purposes. We may have a front row seat, or even be in the spotlight on centre stage. Heck, it may even look like WE'RE performing miracles. But when it comes to leadership, here's the bottom line: We are not building our own kingdoms, but God’s kingdom and we’d best not forget that.

Choice...?

2011-09-17T18:09:00.001-03:00

Henry Ford once euphemistically said of his Model T Ford that “you can have any color you want, so long as it’s black”. Choice is something we - in middle and upper class North America anyway - take for granted. We make choices everyday: what to wear, what to eat, how to travel, where to shop, what to buy, who to connect with, who to vote for, where to vacation, where to volunteer, charities to support, what job or career to pursue, and so on and so on.

There are other choices too – choices on a deeper level – about who to be, who or what to worship, who to marry, who to trust, how to live and how to die. An unwanted, unplanned, unexpected pregnancy prompts a choice. A serious illness requires that choices be made about treatment and care and in some cases, end of life decisions. We make choices all the time – big or little, easy or difficult, good or bad. As we look back, we can see how these individual choices have become intertwined - creating, as Carole King says, a "tapestry"...

My life has been a tapestry of rich and royal hue
An everlasting vision of the ever-changing view
A wondrous woven magic in bits of blue and gold
A tapestry to feel and see, impossible to hold.

Sometimes we make decisions and will rationalize the choice we make by saying that we had “no choice”. I suspect that it’s rarely (if ever) true that we literally have no other choice, but it may certainly seem that way. And it seems obvious to me that no one sets out to make bad choices… we don’t wake up in the morning and say to ourselves, “I think I’ll see how many bad choices I can make today.” No. We make bad choices because somehow, at the time, it seems like the only or the best option we have. Sure, someone else in another pair of shoes, might know that our choice will lead us into trouble, but we don't see it the same way ourselves. Nor can we.

We talk a lot in this country about having the freedom to choose. We don’t like it when government or church or “big brother” tells us what to do, what to think, what to say, what to believe. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms has enshrined the principle of choice in our legal systems and embedded it deeply in our cultural mindset. But how REAL is our ability to choose?

Are we so preoccupied with making superficial decisions about the daily minutia of our pampered lives that we don't even notice that the more substantial decisions are made for us? One of the parenting tactics that is recommended these days for parents who have been conditioned to think that children must be empowered to "choose", is to offer the child a "choice" - would you like to read a book or play with your blocks? We don't include in the list of options, activities that might be dangerous or inappropriate. It's win, win - or at least that's the theory. The child gets to pick and the parent has the immense satisfaction of seeing the child willingly engaged in an approved activity. It seems like a good idea when it comes to keeping our kids safe and reasonably content. But it's a principle that is played out at all kinds of levels.

Election time. You may vote for candidate A, B, C or D. Or you may exercise your right NOT to vote, or to spoil your ballet. It's up to you. You can live where you want, study what you want, work where you want - so long as you can make it all work together so that your life falls within the lines of social acceptability. By and large we get to choose, but we don't necessarily have any say in determining the available options. But, you might argue, of course it's not possible for us to all be completely free to do as we wish, without regard for the consequences of our choices on other people. We have a system - a democratic system - that takes all this into account. In order for social order to be maintained, we have to accept limitations, We have to entrust someone - those who are smarter, stronger, wealthier than we are - to establish the parameters of our choices. We suppose that they are looking out for us, or at least that they are preserving the "common good". And so we leave the BIG thinking to them.

And if you don't like the way things are, well you can organize a protest, write a letter to the editor, set up a Facebook group, engage in some form of civil disobedience. In this country at least, no one can make you like the options you have so long as your protest doesn't pose a danger to anyone or threaten the stability of the system. You're perfectly free to rant and rave so long as you don't push too hard or too far. And, if you're especially persistent, you may actually make a difference in a law or public policy. But don't hold your breath. The system is pretty tight. It can't and it won't tolerate too much rebellion.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I guess my point - at least what I thought I wanted to say when I began this post over a week ago - is that we need to be patient if we are to live according to kingdom ethics in a world where such ethics truly are counter cultural. If we really want to follow in Christ's footsteps we can expect resistance. But it's ok. At the end of the day, what counts - the ONLY thing that counts - is whether or not we did our very best - our UTMOST - to live out our faith in every area and aspect of our lives. It's the big choice that we affirm or deny with every little choice we make, day in and day out.

"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose"...?

2011-09-06T13:40:00.000-03:00

I woke up the other day with one line from an old song on my mind: "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose". Odd. And it played over and over again, all day long. Just that one line. You may recognize it - it's from a song called Me and Bobby McGee, written by Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster back in the late 1960s. Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. Is this profound social commentary or misguided cynicism?

So I've been thinking about it. As I write, the sister of a friend is very near the end of her life. She has ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease). She was diagnosed just over three years ago and doctors predicted that the disease would progress slowly but surely for about three years before it would take her life. According to the US National Library of Medicine, "Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, is a disease of the nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that control voluntary muscle movement." It's a terrible disease. Cruel. Completely insensitive and inhumane. I wonder if she would agree that "freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose"?

Or, I think of the millions of people in Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Somalia who are literally starving to death. Do they feel free? Or just tired and hungry and hopeless and abandoned? I don't know.

What about someone who has lost his job, spent his savings, watched family walk away - does he feel "free"? Or someone with Alzheimer's? Is THAT freedom? Did the Old Testament character, Job, experience freedom when he had lost everything except his very life?

But before we conclude that the songwriters were just blowing smoke, is there a sense in which what they're saying IS true? What is freedom? I think that there are times when losing something - health, wealth, ambition, dignity - having the proverbial rug pulled from under us - can be freeing. Sometimes we wake up in the morning and the world seems to be pretty much as we left it when we drifted off the night before, but a moment can change everything. Sure enough, the change can be devastating. But it can also be liberating.

Years ago I heard a preacher use an illustration. Sadly I don't remember the exact details, but the gist of it was that things that looked like they were "good" ended up having negative consequences and the things that looked like they were "bad" ended up having positive consequences. The lesson was that things aren't always as they appear. I think he was explaining Romans 8:28: And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.In ALL things, God can work good. No - more than that. In ALL things, God DOES work good... for those who love him and have been called according to his purpose.

But where's the "good" in ALS? Where's the "good" in famine and drought? Where's the "good" in the loss of health, wealth, ambition and dignity? Where's the "good" in broken relationships and family breakdown? What "good" is there in the ruination of lives? Are we fools to worship a God who makes such extravagant claims and yet still allows such misery and suffering?

It's an honest and sincere question. And just to close the loophole that you might be tempted to wiggle through - NO, it doesn't mean that bad things only happen to bad people and good things always happen to good people. Calamity is NOT a punishment for individual sin and health and wealth and happiness are NOT an indication of God's favour.

I don't have the answer. And to be honest, these questions just seem to drive me deeper into the "cloud of unknowing". But through the mist of uncertainty, I have a sense that freedom comes not from losing everything, but from simply letting go. Surrendering our expectations, our demands, our justifications and rationalizations. Laying down our agendas... even our lives, moment by moment. Trusting - despite our tainted ideas and experiences - a God whom we can neither see nor fathom.

When we lay down what we "have", it's quite true that we have nothing left to lose. Jesus laid down what he had and invited us to follow him into a freedom that defies human wisdom and understanding. And Jesus warns that in this world we WILL have trouble... but he then turns the tables with this simple statement: "But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).

No matter how hard the path we're on, and no matter how deeply we may suffer as we make our way through every horrendous hardship, Jesus is present - "our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble" (Psalm 46:1). And I believe that he IS now and forever on the other side of ALS and famine and drought and loss of every kind. Take heart indeed!

Just in case you are reading this as a prescription for inactivity - for simply letting God sweep us along this way or that - be assured that that's NOT what I mean. No - we are to live a life worthy, bearing one another's burdens and living as the incarnational presence of Christ in the world... people-shaped evidence of the coming kingdom!

Good news and bad news

2011-08-30T10:22:00.000-03:00

I have good news and bad news. And since the good news is a kick back from the bad news, I'll start with the bad news. So here it is.

Bear with me. I have a bleak prediction to make. But then it gets better.

I'm not an historian but it occurs to me that the social conditions which preceeded the French Revolution (1789-1799) are remarkably similar to the kinds of things we're seeing on a global scale today. Rising food prices, extreme weather, poor harvests, unsustainable national debt levels, the effects of war, the growing gap between the rich and the poor. Sound familiar? In any event I suspect that over the next decade or so it’s going to appear to us that the world is coming apart at the seams. Here’s what I anticipate:

* increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters

* increasing frequency and severity of social disruption - from organized civil disobedience to spontaneous outbursts of rebellion to all out anarchy and terrorism, even in areas of the world where we would least expect it (like Norway or England or Canada (all spots that have been in the news of late)

* elevated rates of social psychological distress and social breakdown: addictions, mental illness, suicide and crime will all be on the rise

* continued volatility in local and global economies, resulting in downturns of all kinds: unemployment, defaulting on loans, bankruptcies, etc. etc.

* pressures on health care due, in the most "prosperous" countries to the demographics of aging and in the poorest countries to the politics of poverty

* the crash of our consumer culture as economies continue to teeter and one by one, crack and crumble

Imagine the withdrawal symptoms of whole societies that are top heavy with people who are literally addicted to consumerism and then quite suddenly are unable to get a fix! Whatever you think of the tribulation, I'm pretty sure we'll all agree that it will be a period of great tribulation in the generic sense. So, that's the bad news. Things will certainly be worse - chaotic, unsettling, unstable - over the coming years, before they are better.

But there's good news too. While this may be the trajectory for society as a whole, I see strong evidence that there is a prophetic coming of age - individuals and small groups everywhere who are seeing past the coming decay to a deeper and brighter reality that is beckoning us from beyond ourselves and beyond our circumstances. It will be rooted in the freedom that comes from detachment from having and striving and plotting. This freedom will translate into a way of being in the world that complies with unseen rhythms and an orderliness that defies human manipulation. Perhaps it will be the front edge of the new heaven and new earth.

So, when you turn on the news and are accosted by all the bad news of this age, take heart. As we die to old ways, old habits, old ambitions, we will experience new life and new hope. The best is yet to come!

How sacred IS life?

2011-08-10T15:00:00.000-03:00

I think that most people would agree that life is sacred - or, even if reluctant to use the term "sacred", at least that there's something very special about life, and especially human life. To say that life is sacred implies that it has a value that can't be quantified. It's a pretty basic concept, really. At the root of it is an understanding that life is bigger than we are. We may BE little more than a collection of elements - science tells us that 99% of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Incredible! And yet, that tiny undefined part of us that isn't simply a cocktail of elements, has intellect and emotion and desire and can cling to physical life to the very last gasp. Our physical body can stubbornly refuse to "give up the ghost" long after we have lost the desire to live and are even looking forward to the hereafter.

Any number of circumstances and scenarios can remind us of the fragility of life but also just how desperately most of us want to preserve it, for ourselves or for others - to squeeze out every last drop of essence.

A bleak medical diagnosis. A friend who dies in a car accident. A parent or grandparent who dies of old age. A child who drowns in a back yard pool. These are everyday personal crises and even though we can never know exactly how they impact the family and friends of those involved, we know something of the challenge of carrying on. In addition to these very personal kinds of losses there are also images in the aftermath of a natural disaster which evoke tremendous waves of compassion in the face of anonymous suffering. We can relate to loss of life anywhere because we intuitively know the inestimable value of life. Loss of life is a tragedy, regardless of the specific circumstances.

I don't want to get into a debate about when life begins or ends (though for the record I would argue that if life is eternal, it's beginning and end cannot be established on a calendar - or, to put it another way, it begins before birth and extends beyond death, to infinity). The life of our physical body - our three score year and ten - is the visible manifestation of our "being" on earth but is not the whole story. It's a sliver in time and space.

I've always been intrigued by what you can see under a microscope - the magnification reveals a complex and sometimes beautiful diversity that simply isn't apparent to the naked eye. Similarly, we get pretty fixated on our experiences that are tethered to our physical body, and can forget that this is not all there is.

I started this post because I wanted to reflect on the mystery of life and challenge myself - and any who might stumble upon these words - to a renewed sense of awe and gratitude and respect for the incredible (and I think divine!) force which breathes life into each one of us. And to think about the arrogance we display when we act in such a way that we presume to "correct" the "creator's" divine design.

To say that life is sacred is to relinquish our schemes and designs and simply celebrate the life that is. Life IS sacred. And we enter into this sacred tapestry with every breath. Life is also a gift... a gift that ought to be cherished and nurtured and redeemed, day in and day out, in harmony with the rhythms of all of the created world.

Our physical bodies are finite and subject to decay and disease. Ashes to ashes and dust to dust. The elements which give us form and substance will be recycled but something of us - our soul and spirit - is part of the divine order and will never decay. We can speculate about what it is and what becomes of it when it is no longer attached to our physical body, but for now I'm content to simply celebrate the mystery of it all and to proclaim, with every thought, word and deed, that life is more than GOOD - it's sacred!

Shuffling the deck

2011-08-03T09:19:00.000-03:00

As we continue to hear grim reports from eastern Africa, I just can't help thinking - again and again and again - about some of the ironies of our present world. And most of all, I can't help wondering how I should think about inequalities and injustices - the obviously manmade ones and the ones that seem to be the consequence of "natural" disasters. What's going on!!!

More and more I have this surreal sense that we're operating on one plane or one reality - what we see and feel - but that the REAL world is something else altogether. I'm reminded of the movie The Matrix. What IS real? And what does it matter? Is there really some moral imperative to care about inequality and injustice? Is there something WRONG with just enjoying the hand we've been dealt, buying non-essential and luxury items when people next door or around the world live in abject poverty?

A while ago I came across a short video by Dr. Scott Todd. He's Chairman of the Board for North America’s largest network of Christian relief and development organizations and the Senior Ministry Advisor at Compassion International. And, he's also "one of the architects and leading voices of 58: Fast. Forward. The End of Poverty. Through 58:, an action-based alliance of world-class, poverty-fighting organizations have joined together to unleash the power and possibilities of the global Church to end extreme poverty." You can watch a 9 minute video - packed with stats that will make your head swim - that this organization has produced to challenge our conventional understanding of the phrase: "the poor will always be with you" (John 12:8).

You can watch the video and read more about 58 at http://live58.org/.

One of the sets of figures Scott Todd presents in this short video is this: there are 138,000,000 Christians in America who attend church regularly and SAY that there faith is VERY IMPORTANT to them; collectively they earn 2.5 trillion dollars annually; if they were a country, this collective wealth would make these Christians the seventh riches country in the world - a country with a seat at the G8!

The point is that committed Christians - in the US and in Canada - have access to tremendous resources. If we were living and working as the "body of Christ" in the world - living and working to demonstrate the kingdom of God on earth - we COULD not just make a difference - save a life here or there; we COULD really challenge some of the systemic injustices that cause and perpetuate extreme poverty. But it's a big IF. And to be completely honest, this kind of talk makes me a bit nervous. We're NOT a country and there isn't ONE political party for Christians. Christians, in my opinion, should be wary of getting behind political agendas. Being Christ's witnesses isn't fundamentally a matter of bringing about political and economic change. Bob Briner (author of Roaring Lambs and Final Roar warns us not to settle for just making this world a better place. Our GOAL, in other words, should NOT be to end poverty but to fix our eyes on Christ and follow him with singleminded determination. And in so doing, God will perhaps use our obedience to effect political and economic change. There IS a difference!

That said, I'm thankful for the Scott Todd's and for all the other leaders of all of the relief and development agencies that are encouraging and pushing us to think about injustice and inequality and to believe that the realities we see in places like eastern Africa are NOT what God intends or desires for any of his creatures. It's hard to be part of a movement that insists on re-shuffling the deck, when the cards we're holding are ones that no one in their right mind would willingly discard. Maybe that's what Jesus was getting at when he said (Luke 9:22-26) that we must deny ourselves and follow Him!

Hunger pains

2011-07-22T21:04:00.002-03:00

It's mid afternoon on March 11, 2011 and we - my husband (Dale) and myself, seven International Studies students from St. Stephen's University (http://www.ssu.ca/), our host - Tim Bannister (a Canadian Baptist Ministries global field staff serving with his wife, Diane, in Kenya) and our driver, Mike, are on our way back to "the ranch" - Tim and Diane's place on a game refuge, about 40 minutes outside Nairobi. We're a little tired, but excited, inspired, hopeful, cautious, conflicted. We've just spent several hours with a group of Kenyans at a small African Brotherhood Church (ABC) in the village of Thange.

The African Brotherhood Church is an indigenous African denomination with whom Canadian Baptist Ministries (CBM) has a covenant partnership agreement in Kenya. That means that we - CBM - and they - the ABC - have covenanted to work together in integral mission. Integral mission is an approach to mission wherein that recognizes that humans are integrated beings - heart, mind, soul, spirit, body. To be the body of Christ in the world requires that we respect this integration of the human being.Therefore, it's not possible to be concerned only with the spiritual state of a person, without consideration of their emotional, social, physical and intellectual health.

So, in Kenya, CBM and the ABC work together to serve the needs of individuals and communities. We're partners, providing micro loans, helping farmers develop sustainable agricultural methods, building water catchment systems with local churches, proclaiming and demonstrating the love and grace of Christ in a parched land. We've crossed cultures and all kinds of other man made borders and boundaries - we're partners. To be sure, our partnership has had its ups and downs as we've tried to figure out how to do mission and ministry together. It's not easy but it sure is rewarding on a day like March 11, 2011.

Our visit with the church in Thange has included a number of demonstrations. This vibrant and determined congregation has initiated a variety of projects to benefit their own members and the surrounding community.

1. We've eaten meat that was cooked during our visit in a solar cooker - a small, fairly low tech contraption which uses the sun's energy to cook food slowly but efficiently, without further destruction of the local environment.

2. We've seen a water catchment system that collects rain water from one side of the church roof in a huge cement tank and then makes it available to local residents. In a country which suffers from chronic drought, every drop of water is valued and every innovation which allows water to be captured and used wisely is celebrated.

3. We've seen - and tasted! - water that has been filtered on site, using a Kenyan made water filtration system that is reliable, sustainable, and available. As I'm sure you know, clean water is more valuable than gold for those who need it to protect themselves and their children from the many water borne diseases that wreak havoc in countries like Kenya.

4. We've seen a seedlings project by which this small group of Christians have produced seedlings of various varieties for themselves as well as seedlings to sell to their neighbours as an income generating project. They're using some of the seedlings for reforestation to improve the climate and prevent soil erosion. Some of the seedlings are fruit trees which provide - obviously - fruit.

5. We've been introduced to a few of the goats that they have distributed to local families and we've heard about the many ways that these goats can improve the daily lives of their host families - milk, cash income from selling excess milk, and eventually, as the goat reproduces, the option to sell a goat in order to secure money for a child's education. It's amazing how a goat can change the lives of an entire Kenyan family!

6. And speaking of family, the last "project" that we see is the church's work with AIDS orphans in the community. This small church is caring for 15 orphans - 15 children ranging in age from about 5-15, who are amongst the most vulnerable of the vulnerable.

It's been a full day. And then we sit down together in a shady spot and share a meal together. Meat cooked in the solar cooker. Rice. Vegetables grown locally. Unpasteurized honey, produced locally. Doughy things that are delicious and reminiscent of something we call "fried dough" at home. Filtered water. A genuine 100 mile diet, though in truth, probably a one or two mile diet! And noisy, happy conversation. We're family, sharing - albeit briefly and a bit awkwardly - the bounty of the kingdom.

And then there are the parting formalities. They thank us for coming and for CBM's support. We thank them for their hospitality and their witness to their community through these integral mission projects. And then an old woman - I dare not guess her age - but certainly a great grandmother - presents us with gourds that she has dried and decorated - carefully, lovingly, gratefully. Through a translator, she tells us how much she has appreciated CBM and how much the support that we (as representatives of CBM visiting Thange) has meant to her. The gourds are a gift, a tangible expression of her appreciation. We're moved to tears as we accept them and feel the bonds of fellowship and partnership strengthen.

Amidst hugs and dancing and singing, we gradually make our way to our vehicles and take our leave - one more group of strangers and partners who have made the trek to this fairly remote Kenyan village to be impressed and inspired by the industriousness and vision of a collection of brothers and sisters whose day to day lives are so very different from our own. And yet, they are working together with what (little) they have, to hold back despair and hopelessness and even hunger and thirst.

During the long ride back (3 or 4 hours on a pretty treacherous highway!) to Tim's, Dale is talking with Mike (our van driver) about what we have seen and is surprised to hear Mike describe these folk as "middle class", rather than "poor". And yet, middle class or not, he states bluntly that if the rains don't come to Thange soon, these people will be eating roots and experiencing symptoms of malnutrition before fall. It's a stark reminder of the inherent insecurity of any food production system that relies on nature's fickle rhythms. It's a system that once worked well and perhaps still can, if only there is rain.

We quietly reflect on the lesson we have seen lived out amongst our new friends. Our partners. In Thange, life can be lived and enjoyed - or endured - but one day at a time, for we know not what tomorrow may bring.

We've been back in Canada for over four months now but I still think about the church in Thange. I wonder how they're making out. Tim tells me - and the CBC News tells me - that parts of Kenya (and neighbouring countries) are indeed suffering severe drought conditions. The rains haven't come in many, many areas and the situation is dire. The UN has called it the worst drought and famine in decades (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fDKAnES1S8 for an up to date youtube report from the UN).

As I type this blog, I'm conscious of the fact that we're worlds apart. We hear and read about the famine and drought as we're enjoying our daily high calorie feasts and watering our lawns and flowers and consuming vast quantities of water, rarely thinking of water as a precious commodity. It's sad to think about the situation in eastern Africa, especially when we've so recently been there and can still picture the people we met who generously shared their table with us only a few months ago. But what can we do? The problems are so much bigger than we are and solutions are so far beyond our resources.

Here's a few suggestions:

1. Follow the news about east Africa - on tv, radio, internet. Don't allow yourself to retreat from the pain and suffering. These are real people. They have families. They love and are loved. They have hopes and dreams. So, for their sake, be informed.

2. Use this as an opportunity to take stock of your own habits of consumption. Be honest with yourself. How wasteful are you? How much do you take your daily bread (and water) for granted? How generous are you with those things which are yours to consume (or share)?

Raise awareness amongst family, friends, and colleagues about these things. Be gentle but don't settle for comments like "Isn't it awful." Of course it's awful, but what can be done? Maybe when we start looking for answers, we'll find them... or at least we'll learn something useful from the search.

4. If you're able to (and who among us isn't?), give of your finances, your prayers and your time to organizations that are already working on the ground in east Africa. Support organizations that have already invested in relationships and partnerships. Go to http://www.cbmin.org/cbm/news-archive?news_id=158 and http://www.foodgrainsbank.ca/east_africa_drought.aspx if you want to get involved in this way.

Our partners in Kenya are courageous. They are resourceful and resilient. And they know a God who does not disappoint them. They are not pitiful, but proud.

Malnutrition and starvation are evils that ought not to exist in this world. Hunger is a pity but I wonder who is more to be pitied: those whose mortal body is wracked by the ravages of physical hunger or those whose immortal spirit is wracked by the ravages of selfishness and insensitivity and idle complicity in systems of injustice?

We can no more singlehandedly solve the complexities of global hunger than we could become performers in the Cirque du Soleil, simply by wishing for the strength and agility and talent of those amazing performers. But we can do something about global hunger, even if it's as little as reducing our own waste and contributing to the efforts of those who are more strategically placed to help distribute food to the hungry and implement sustainable practices of food production around the world. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for complacency, indifference or inactivity.

I've just heard that the Canadian government has committed to match - dollar for dollar - all donations made to organizations (including CBM and Canadian Foodgrains Bank) for relief efforts in east Africa. See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-surprises-aid-groups-by-donating-extra-50-million-for-famine-hit-east-africa/article2106550/. Dig deep and give generously, not just for this crisis, but for the long haul. The money will help ease the physical hunger pains for some, but more than that, it will help spread the peaceable kingdom - on earth as it is in heaven!

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Donations made to CBM between July 6 to September 16 for East Africa drought relief will be eligible for matching through the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). An application will be made to CIDA for matching funds concluding the window for donations allotted by the government.

For more info: http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/eng/ANN-72082543-GL5

And here’s the link to CBM's info and donation page: http://www.cbmin.org/cbm/KenyaDroughtRelief

The Risk of Hospitality

2011-07-06T15:54:00.000-03:00

I’m not a risk taker. I don’t buy lottery tickets. I don’t run for political office. I don’t engage in extraordinary life threatening activities. I don’t carry a gun. I don’t negotiate with terrorists. I don’t cheat on my income tax or lie to customs officers. I don’t speed - well, hardly ever. Like I said, I’m not a risk taker. I follow the rules. The most dangerous thing I do is teach. But that’s a subject for another day.

I don’t take risks because I don’t have to. I follow the rules because the rules are made by people like me to protect people like me.

My mother once said that I led a “charmed life” - by which she meant, I think, that things always seemed to work out. She was right. I am educated, financially stable (as much as anyone can be these days), successful, white. Sure, I have setbacks, but they tend to be minor and manageable. They serve to remind me that I'm not God and, more and more these days, that I'm getting older.

It’s not all Hollywood and happy endings, but the reality of my life is unbelievably easier than the reality of the lives of billions of people on this planet. And it's not because I'm somehow better than other people - more virtuous or closer to God. The fact is, I don’t need to offer a bribe in order to secure medical help for myself or a loved one. I don’t need to choose between acting within the confines of a Judeo-Christian morality OR having enough food to eat. I don’t need to lie, cheat, steal, or kill in order to make it through the day. And if I should choose to lie, cheat, steal or kill, it’s not about survival but about justifying a self centeredness that wants to get ahead – to be seen as being “better”, wealthier, more powerful, stronger. A step above those around me.

No, I’ve never had to chip away a fragment of my integrity for a piece of bread, or surrender my good conscience for a night’s sleep. But that doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t or that somehow I’m immune from the sordid, risky actions of the desperate. I haven’t sold my soul for a bowl of soup, because I’ve never been THAT hungry.

I’m comfortable and content. And I – or at least people like me – continue to make and enforce the rules – rules that make sure that the game doesn’t change.

Sure, I can see injustices, and I can speak against them, but at the end of the day I'm still well fed, comfortable and secure. And to be honest, I'm thankful for that. I don't want to be tested. I really don't want God to ask me to give all that up. I might try to convince myself - and you - that IF it should come down to it, I'd be willing to give up anything and everything if it's God who's asking. If I know for sure that it's God and I know for sure that he's asking me to give everything up. When I read the story of the Rich Young Ruler, I tell myself that I wouldn't have gone away sad from that encounter. That I would have done just what Jesus asked - sold everything I have, given the money to the poor and joined Jesus' ragtag band. But the truth is, I'm hiding in the crowd, head down, hoping that Jesus doesn't put me on the spot. I'm certainly not going to do anything so foolish as to march right up to him and ask him what he wants me to do! I'm not going to rock the boat or draw attention to myself. I'm too busy leading my charmed life and justifying myself.

As I write this, I realize that it probably sounds a bit like self-flagellation. Why beat myself up like this? It's not my fault that I'm privileged. And for sure I can think of lots of people who have more to give up - or hold onto - than I do. But that's not really the point.

Where I'm going with this has more to do with my attitude toward those whose reality is far different than mine - those who have to take risks, and make choices, and do things that are shameful. If God calls us into the community of believers - to be brothers and sisters with men and women from all walks and classes of life - the challenge is to adjust my attitude so that I can form good, healthy relationships across all kinds of barriers. I think what is missing in my life - and may I be so bold as to suggest that it may be missing in the lives of many of us? - is a real understanding of the biblical principle of hospitality.

When we are willing to take the risk of hospitality, we extend favour to another - not because they deserve it but because they need it and simply because we have the capacity to meet that need, whatever it may be. And when we do it out of our love for Christ and obedience to his command that we ought to love our neighbours as we love ourselves - no questions asked - maybe that's what evangelism looks like. Hospitality isn't just getting together with friends and family over a meal. It's denying ourselves - even to the point of laying down our lives - so that we can bring the blessing of community to those in our path. I can't help thinking that our faith would have a whole lot more credibility if we become a community that learns to take the risk of hospitality - no strings attached.

I've just watched the movie, Les Miserables. There's a scene at the very beginning when Jean Valjean, a newly released convict, comes into town and is settling in for the night on a park bench. An old woman tells him to ask for hospitality at a nearby home - the home of a Bishop Myriel. Valjean is amazed that the Bishop will welcome him to his table and provide a bed for the night and he reiterates that he is a convict. He says to the Bishop, "how do you know that I'm not a murderer?". Bishop Myriel replies that "we will have to trust one another." As it turns out, Valjean steals the silverware and disappears in the middle of the night, only to be arrested and brought back to have his identity confirmed by Bishop Myriel. Much to Valjean's amazement, however, the Bishop corroborates his story that the silverware was a gift. And thus Valjean is released from custody and Bishop Myriel tells Valjean that he has purchased his soul. He must change his ways. And he does. It's a wonderful and inspirational story of redemption, rooted in the hospitality of Bishop Myriel. What if we all extended that kind of grace - and redemptive redirection - to the scoundrels in our lives?

The Young and the Restless

2011-06-21T19:40:00.000-03:00

The initial assumption that the post Stanley Cup "Vancouver Riot" was primarily the work of anarchists, has now given way to the realization that most of the vandalism and looting was actually done by youth. I've been thinking about that and I suspect that there are a number of factors at play. Of course much has been made of the pictures and video clips that are circulating online and that have been submitted to the authorities as evidence. There are valid questions about the vigilanteism that these events have triggered, the naming and shaming campaigns. And debates are raging about the appropriateness of sanctions for those who participated in the vandalism. Take the 17 year old - Nathan Kotylak - whose dreams of representing Canada as an Olympian (in water polo) now seem to be in jeopardy because of his actions that night. Or people who have lost their jobs. Or people who have received threats to their person or property. To what extent should those who participated in acts of vandalism and looting be held accountable, and how? Where should the vigilanteism stop, and how?

Here's at least a partial list of some of the factors that I think may have contributed to the chaos that night:

1. mob behavior - a mob does not have a conscience and so people will do things in a mob that they wouldn't do on their own;

2. the consumption of alcohol surely played some role in the events. Alcohol impairs judgment. A little alcohol impairs judgment a little and a lot of alcohol impairs judgment a lot. And that's even if there's no crowd effect;

3. although it does seem that youth were the ones doing most of the damage, I suspect that there were those in the crowd that night whose purpose was solely to stir up the crowd and incite them to violence and hooliganism;

4. the emotional state of many youth in our country (and in fact, around the world) these days is a tinder box - in Canada, figures out today indicate that the rate of youth unemployment is 13.9% (as compared with the National average of 7.4%). Combine this with two other facts: youth debt loads and the expectation that a post secondary education is a step to a better - i.e. more financially secure - future. Our youth are frustrated and perhaps it's not that surprising that that frustration should erupt into violence when an opportunity presents itself. Believe me, I'm not looking for excuses for bad behavior - just saying...

5. General sense of instability and anomie - a term used by French sociologist, Emile Durkheim that is roughly translated as "a state of normlessness". That is, the realization that the game has changed and we don't know how to deal with it. Besides the things listed in #4 above, post modernism (with its deconstruction of societal norms and values), the high rate of family breakdown (and I know that this isn't a popular sentiment, but I suspect that we have only just begun to see the impact of divorce on our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren), and the general sense of doom that is conveyed by the media on topics such as the global economy, climate change and environmental impacts, terrorism, etc. all contribute to a deep rooted sense of cynicism. Many youth - from all socio-economic backgrounds - find it hard to be hopeful in the face of all of the global and personal uncertainties;

6. Facebook and the larger world of social networking deserves a mention as well. Facebook gives youth the sense that they can create and maintain a fictitious reality, and at times, the fiction is more powerful - more real - than the actual reality. I wonder, though I'm not a psychologist, if this tendency to live vicariously through the fiction of facebook is perhaps producing a sort of dissociative disorder which affects individuals, but also our society. Capturing images digitally has taken on an immense role in our everyday lives. It's almost as though the image (perhaps doctored through photoshop or other programs) is more important than the experience it is meant to portray. Hm.

7. A culture of impunity where we have systematically protected our children from bearing responsibility for their actions. We have, it seems to me, thrown them into a moral abyss, where they only have to be accountable if they're caught, and not even then if we can figure a way around it. Young people engage in all manner of reckless behavior that endangers themselves and others, but yet we shy away from holding them responsible. We expect youth to have sex, to experiment with drugs, to drink regularly and to excess, to cheat, to lie. In fact, parents who aren't okay with all this are considered old fashioned and repressive - even bad or abusive parents! Have we lost our minds?!

8. A sense of entitlement. Let's face it - we have happily (for the most part) gone along with the business mandate that puts consumption ahead of everything else. Nothing is as powerful - not integrity or character or relationships or self respect - NOTHING is as powerful as our value as consumers. And our kids - that is, the children of the baby boom generation - have grown up expecting to have MORE and MORE and MORE again than their parents. They're entitled. And if they're from the middle class or the upper class, then the culture of entitlement is almost boundless.

Again, I'm not looking to make excuses. But it seems to me that this is a pivotal moment where we can either learn from this event - in all of its ugly dimensions - or we can sweep up the mess and settle for just putting it behind us - and quickly, before it has a negative impact on the tourism industry in Vancouver. This is a wake-up call. Let's not push the snooze button!

For every action...

2011-05-24T15:39:00.000-03:00

There are lots of things that I’ve forgotten from my high school science classes but one thing that has stuck with me is the proposition that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - Newton's third law of motion.

There are lots of everyday examples: you hit a ball with a bat and the distance the ball travels depends on how hard it was hit, the angle, the wind conditions; you ride a skateboard and use your foot to propel the skateboard forward; an airplane pushes back on the air and the air pushes forward on the plane. One thing leads to another in predictable and inevitable ways.

Since 1687 when Newton published the three laws in his work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, these laws have helped us to understand and predict the effects of objects acting on one another.

There is a sort of comfort in the predictability of objects. And as much as I might like surprises and the adrenalin rush that comes from successfully navigating random circumstances - the curve balls of life - I realize that everyday life would be totally overwhelming were it not for a degree of predictability. But having said that, I am so incredibly thankful for the unpredictable and even the chaotic. The things that come at us out of the blue. I suppose that we have an innate tendency to want to maintain balance - or, if thrown off balance, to regain it.

Life wouldn't be much fun if everything was predictable, routine, according to plan. I sometimes worry that heaven - a place where there is no sin or sorrow or suffering - might actually be a little boring. It's hard to imagine a place or time when people will always act with integrity - always do the right thing for the right reasons and in the right way - and the outcomes will always be such that they don't produce pain or suffering, for anyone. I don't actually spend much time thinking about that though, because life at this moment is a long way from that. A very long way.

Life in the present moment is riddled with unpredictability. People act and react out of all kinds of motives - some selfish and others quite philanthropic. Our actions have impacts that we can't possibly even trace, let alone predict.

When the French philosopher, August Comte (1798-1857) first used the term sociology, he had in mind that this new science would identify the natural laws governing social behaviour. The search for these laws, however, has proved futile. When it comes to the social world, Newton's third law of motion - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - is clearly NOT applicable. The reaction may be neither opposite nor equal to the initial action. In the social world, all bets are off. What may seem like a negative outcome, may, in the long run actually prove to be have a positive impact, and vice versa.

The ancient Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, said that "you could not step twice nto the same river." In other words, even though you may go down to a river at the same time every day and step into exactly the same spot, neither the river with it's flowing water, nor you with your ideas and attitudes, can be exactly the same. The social world is always changing!

Another French sociologist, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) argued that society is equal to more than the sum of its parts. Sociology became the social science that is concerned with that nebulous field of the "more" - the ever changing, shifting, sometimes incredibly beautiful and sometimes immensely ugly "more". The interstitial spaces between philosophy, history, economics, psychology, anthropology, political science, etc.

For those who like predictability and certainty - those who like things to be well ordered and neat and tidy - sociology must surely be incredibly frustrating. But for those who thrive on the edges of uncertainty - who love seeing the complex web of uncontrollable, rogue variables - the sociological study of society is immensely gratifying.

I am a sociologist. I'm also a person of profound faith in a triune God who, it seems to me, is also equal to more than the sum of the parts. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not simply three unique beings who share one mind and one throne. And the reality that they preside over is not two dimensional and systematic. As the river is ever changing, so too is our reality as we make our way through the maze of physical, social and spiritual life on a capricious planet. God's grace is new every day because our need for grace is in constant motion.

Many Christians have an uneasy suspicion of sociology. I suspect that they may be the very Christians who prefer to define and defend a God who they have reduced to the level of complexity that they are comfortable with, which frankly, isn't much. They're people who don't like the messiness of a world where it's hard to tell with any degree of certainty what will happen as a result of their actions, or the actions of others. They're likely to be people who will opt for programs with proven results, rather than to boldly (even recklessly) act on the principles of conduct described so eloquently in the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).

This new way of life was taught and modelled by a Messiah who, when the chips were down, overcame the very real temptation to opt for safety and security and as a result, found himself on a cross with only his vision of another world - a more just world - to sustain and comfort him. Greater than the physical agony of a brutal death was the spiritual anguish of being wrenched from the trinity and left on his own - a solitary figure, beaten and ridiculed - but ultimately not destroyed.

If Newton's third law of motion were applicable to the actions of men then we might expect that the crucifixion of Christ would be countered in his resurrection - an equal and opposite reaction. And I suppose that there are those who see it this way. But I believe that the resurrection of Christ has a magnitude of impact that is far greater than we can even imagine, let alone understand. It was a game changer in that it opened the door to a whole new dimension - a reality where the separation between God and man is bridged and we, mere mortals, are invited to live by the principles of a different Kingdom and in the presence of the King, eternal, immortal, invisible (1 Tim. 1:17).

When Christ ascended, he took his place (once again) in the trinity, but more than that, he declared that we are eternally united with him as joint heirs of the Kingdom (Romans 8:17). No wonder Paul urged the Ephesians (and us!) to live a life worthy our our calling!

The elusive happy medium...

2011-05-16T15:13:00.000-03:00

I've always thought that if I were ever to write a book, I would call it The Elusive Happy Medium. Pretty self explanatory. And in my experience, almost a truism that finding that medium (which is purportedly "happy") is inevitably a wild goose chase. I'm not, first of all, convinced that the medium - the middle ground - is particularly "happy". I tend quite naturally to be a pretty middle of the road kind of person - always weighing the arguments and evidence on both sides of an issue - and I have to say that that can be immensely satisfying, but it can also be immensely frustrating.

It might be more fitting to call it the "sober medium" or the "subdued medium". It's certainly not a place of innate passion. It's not a place for risk takers, pioneers or those that like to push the envelope. No, the middle is safe, predictable, cautious, biased toward the status quo. It's warm, tepid, neither hot nor cold. I suppose these things might make some people HAPPY, but as much as I appreciate the importance of those who inhabit this place, I aspire to be the kind of person who thrives on more colour; more excitement; more danger. So I find myself in a paradox (certainly not the first time!). I simultaneously long for stability and instability. Passion and predictability. Excitement and routine. I long for more of the same at the same time that I long for change.

Maybe this is the fulcrum of the pendulum. The pendulum swings back and forth, always pivoting around the middle but never resting there. I wonder if this is even a principle of life as we know it in the physical realm as well as in culture.

As I look out my front window at the Bay of Fundy, I'm very conscious of the extremes of nature. We've had rain for days. The tv news channels are covering the floods along the routes of the Assiniboine and Mississippi Rivers. And yet I just returned from Kenya a month and a half ago and am haunted by the effects of persistent drought in areas of sub saharan Africa. When it comes to rain, the medium between drought and flood would be a happy place, I think! And if we look at cultures and the history of their development, we can usually track a pretty erratic route as excesses in one direction are corrected by excesses in the opposite direction.

On the other hand, there are religious extremists. Surely that's not a model to emulate, but yet neither is it desirable to practice our faith dispassionately, soberly.

What if this whole tendency to think in terms of dichotomies is the problem? What if the reality is that we don't have to choose between extremes but rather that life is more of a kaleidoscope - ever shifting, perpetual, colourful motion - that bids us let go of the impulse to control events, circumstances and possibilities. That bids us to simply enter into the mysteries of life. For me it's not a natural thing. I like to know what to expect.

I like to have confidence that there is a plan and that things "make sense". It's hard for me to let go of those things. Faith in a god who so often seems capricious, is not natural. It requires us to look past the reality that is before us and to trust in a reality that is beyond us. It's not predictable and it's not safe - or maybe it is safe - if, in fact, God is good and to be trusted. But that only is a possibility if this world - with its floods and droughts - it's extremes of all kinds - is not the final story. If what we see is NOT what we get.

The elusive happy medium? I don't know. For now it's all I can do to hold on tight to the pendulum as it swings back and forth!

The girls... and boys... feminism has left behind

2011-05-06T14:50:00.000-03:00

I've often shied away from identifying myself with the "feminist" movement. And yet I'm grateful for many of the changes feminism has brought about in our society. I have no doubt that my life is very different than life was for my grandmothers and great grandmothers. And I'm thankful for that. For many women today, life IS better. We vote, get educated, have careers, juggle family and work, run for political office, enter the ministry, get married - or not, play sports, own property... It may still be a "man's world", but women can hold their own. At least some women.

Having traveled in several developing countries I'm quite conscious of the fact that the majority of women around the globe do not enjoy many of these privileges. Despite the fact that women often draw on deep reservoirs of strength when faced with horrendous situations, enduring unspeakable hardship and abuse, the everyday reality for these women is oppressive on many levels. And yet, development specialists readily acknowledge that women MUST be involved in development initiatives if they are to succeed. The United Nations, in defining the 8 Millennium Development Goals, recognize the critical importance of promoting gender equality and empowering women (goal #3) if the goal of eradicating extreme poverty is to be realized. Stephen Lewis, former UN special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, has often noted - in his passionate and articulate style - the role that grandmothers play in holding Africa together. I've seen with my own eyes the incredible strength of Kenyan women, as they mobilize their communities to engage in community development projects and care for AIDS orphans. I applaud efforts to empower women, but I'm also just a bit uneasy.

I worry about the messages that we are giving to girls - YOU can make a difference! YOU can solve the problems in your society! YOU are the heart of your community! YOU can pull your family out of poverty! These are the messages of the Because I am a Girl campaign (see http://plancanada.ca/becauseiamagirl?WT.mc_id=BIAAGFY11GS18). It's not that I don't believe these things. I DO believe that girls can make a difference. I know that they have enormous potential for good when they're given half a chance. I fully support efforts to ensure that girls have the opportunity to attend school. My concern is this: what do these messages - intended to encourage and inspire GIRLS - say to BOYS? Do they imply that boys can't make a difference? Can't solve problems in their society? Can't be the heart of their community or pull their family out of poverty? Because they are boys, they CAN'T be counted on?

Can we foster gender equality and empower girls and women without DISEMPOWERING boys and men? And another thing: if we look at the ways that the feminist movement has impacted our own society, we have to be brutally open about looking at both the successes AND the failures. There may be some debate about how to define success and failure, but for me the successes are the things I listed above - voting, education, jobs, etc. On the other side of the ledger though, are lots of other things that indicate that girls are still trapped in unhealthy ways of seeing themselves and their role in society. Things like: the rates of eating disorders amongst girls and young women; stories about middle school girls performing oral sex for money at lunch time; accounts of girls - individually and in groups - bullying other girls, either online or in person; the rates of abortion in our society and the way that abortion is defined as a "women's right"; and so on. I can hardly turn on the television and flip through the channels at any time of the day or night without being confronted with reality tv shows that depict women as manipulative, conniving, vengeful, stunningly beautiful but somewhat dull-witted chameleons.

Are THESE women the heart of their community? Are THEY pulling their families out of poverty, making a difference, solving their society's problems? The way I see it, they are products of a feminist movement in our country. I'm not BLAMING feminism. I know that this is NOT what the early feminists had in mind when they sought to empower women. But we need to face the fact that these issues have somehow evolved out of the primordial soup of feminism.

Have these women been left behind by feminism? And what about boys and young men around the world - from the most developed to the least developed countries? Everywhere I look I see young men - boys 14 or 15 years old to men of 25, even 30 - who are restless, angry, dangerous. Males who do not know who they are. Males who have somehow failed to live up to some unwritten standard or code. Males who may seek meaning and an identity by banding together with other lost males, in gangs and militias and (maybe even) armies. Is it possible that these too, have been left behind by feminism?

On a recent trip to Kenya our team encountered a young man of 25. He had graduated from high school - a feat in itself in Kenya - and yet here he was on a Saturday morning, unemployed, drunk and wandering the streets. He had been trying to get into the military for several years but didn't have connections or money to bribe his way in. As hope leaked out of his life, he was giving into the temptation to let alcohol numb his pain.

Later in the same trip we had a meeting with some Christian youth leaders when we attended a networking session around HIV/AIDS awareness. The youth took turns reporting on their activities and discussing the merits of working together. These were all very bright young people, but amongst the young men, there ran a strong current of resentment and anger.

How many angry and resentful young men are there? What kinds of situations or events might cause that anger to flare up?

I can't help thinking that with all of the international attention going to the cause of gender equality and empowering women, these young men may be left behind... and that could prove to be very dangerous for all of us! Development experts recognize the need for engaging women in development efforts, but I would love to see development agencies also find ways to give these young men a purpose and an identity that will channel their ambitions and energies in a positive direction. The challenges facing our world are great and we will need all of the resources and energies and talents at our disposal - from both women AND men - if we are to grapple with them effectively. Yes, we should work for gender equality and empowering women, but not by dismissing or grinding down or disempowering men. Both men and women need to see power, not as a weapon to wield for personal gain, but as a trust to be used in order to create a future where no one is left behind.

Enough!

2011-04-02T12:26:00.000-03:00

People are complicated... and sometimes incredibly frustrating. And ideas are never inert, powerless mental constructs - they always have energy and capacity and incredible power. Sometimes that power is measured and predictable, but often it is erratic, even crazy. If humanity has learned anything over these past 5000 or so years of recorded history, we should know that we need to respect the power of ideas, even ideas that are offensive to us - maybe ESPECIALLY ideas that are offensive to us. Ideas can be deadly.

I'm thinking about the news these last few days of riots in northern Afghanistan that have resulted in the deaths - gruesome deaths by the sounds of it - of a number (perhaps as many as 20!) of United Nations staff, allegedly in protest over the burning of a Quran in the United States. Some could certainly argue that the actions of this one person led to quite predictable results. In fact, this same person was dissuaded from his plan to publicly burn a Quran last September by people who could see where that would lead. They maybe couldn't know exactly where anger would flare up, but they knew it would happen and that it would be potentially catastrophic. And can this pastor and those who followed his lead really feel no remorse for the deadly backlash that his actions provoked!?

Sometimes I think we westerners are completely naive to the fact that the very things we celebrate and flaunt - our "freedoms" to do and be and say and think whatever we please and to do so without regard for anyone else - our "rights" - are inherently and deeply and corrosively offensive to much of the rest of the world. And I'm not just talking about people of other faiths, other ethnicities, other cultures. I think the sad truth is that these attitudes are offensive and disrespectful to people of good conscience everywhere. We are, I would suggest, part (whether we like it or not) of a cultural and economic and political empire that is imploding through the worst kind of social and moral and ethical decay. Those are strong words, I know. But I am ashamed of both the perception and the reality of our me-first, self-centred, individualistic, materialist, consumer-driven society. And I'm not just pointing fingers at "others". I'm ashamed of myself for the degree to which I've allowed my own conscience to be seared by those same attitudes. Enough is enough.

I am more determined than ever to live intentionally - to think creatively and critically about the things going on around me and to humbly stand for what is right and good and true. To live simply, justly and faithfully.

And I will refuse to give into the cynicism of our times. There IS goodness and beauty in the world and even in ourselves. Each one of us - from whatever tribe or nation or language or gender - who strives to live in harmony with God, self, others and the physical world is part of the redemptive vision.

Ideas can lead to hatred and conflict and destruction, but they can also be instruments of peace, justice, hope and love. Let us choose our allegiances to ideas carefully!

Ruined for Ordinary Life.. but then...

2011-01-17T12:20:00.005-04:00

One of the frequent consequences of a Short Term Mission experience - and in fact, one of the most important objectives from the point of view of missions agencies - is that participants will return from the experience, "ruined for ordinary life". That is, the cross cultural engagement will so profoundly challenge the person's everyday assumptions that a return to ordinary life will simply not be possible. It's more than reverse culture shock. It's more than just seeing God in a different light. It's more than confronting the reality of cultural blindspots and biases. It's more than learning about the (usually challenging and often painful) realities of life in a different context. It's more than witnessing a dynamic spirituality growing in, what seems from a western perspective at least, a material desert. It IS all of those things to some degree, but it's more. These things are all somewhat predictable.

The MORE is hard to define. It's impossible to predict or control. It's the way ALL of these things intersect with the person's sense of self and of God and of purpose. But there must be a working out of all of this so that out of the ruins of what was once our everyday life, there can arise... something beautiful and productive and life-giving.

There's no point in getting stuck in ruination. We must move on! We must get our proverbial act together, re-orient our mindset and our energies so that we can get engaged in kingdom living, here and now - wherever "here" is. Having the opportunity to interact with global partners in their neighbourhoods should be destructive and transformative. If we surface from the process of deconstruction relatively unscathed and unchanged - able to get back to life as we've always known it - we have squandered the opportunity for transformation. Or, if we fail to surface from the process - if we are SO deconstructed that we can't get on with our lives in any positive, constructive or creative way - then we too, have squandered the transformational imperative.

What is needed, I think, is a renewal of vision and of passion for a life which is dedicated to a diligent pursuit of truth, wherever it may lead us. This may require that we make significant course corrections. It may well require repentance. It will most certainly require humility and a heart and mind open to God.

Knowledge and experience and understanding of life amongst the global poor should inspire us to this kind of pursuit and also to layers of action which will demonstrate our commitment to solidarity across geographic and economic and political divisions and boundaries. There IS life after a short term mission experience, but it may NOT be the life we expect!

Collateral damage... collateral good

2011-01-11T12:12:00.003-04:00

You've probably heard the term collateral damage, but we don't often speak of collateral good. Collateral damage is harm that is unintended, but nonetheless a consequence of a particular course of action. That action may be well intentioned and may actually be a good thing in terms of its intended purpose. Or, it could be totally reckless and ill conceived. Either way, the damage or harm that results may or may not be anticipated. It may be deemed unfortunate but unavoidable – the price one must pay to accomplish something of value. Despite the harm to an individual or group, perhaps the (elusive) common good is served. Or so we will be led to believe.

Collateral good, on the other hand, is a benefit that's unintended – a byproduct of something done for another purpose. What man intends for evil, God may intend for good. A silver lining. Something that may not be immediately apparent – and in fact, may only be seen in retrospect. But nonetheless, something good that wasn't the stated objective or the main event.

I consider myself an evangelical Christian in that I want my life to count for something in the kingdom of God. At least I don't want to be a disgrace. I want to live honestly and justly. I want to live out my faith in such a way that others might be stirred to consider their own relationship with God – their faith or lack of faith - and even make a decision to actively and consciously pursue truth, wherever that might lead.

I acknowledge that my understanding of God is limited – pitifully so I think at times. I feel most unqualified to lead anyone into a relationship with Christ, though I believe that such a relationship is the fulcrum of my own life, and of world history, for that matter.

My faith cannot be reduced to a logical and rational set of presuppositions. Faith isn't something we PROVE - rather, it's something that we live. It captures us and carries us in spite of ourselves. It's profoundly personal - a complex tapestry of events and experiences and emotions and - for me, at least - questions and confusion. I DON'T have it all figured out. And I don't regret that - not a bit. Actually, I thrive on the uncertainties. I love the mystery of God. I recklessly - perhaps - accept the sovereignty of God, though I have absolutely no verifiable, incontrovertible evidence that God even exists.

And out of the depths of my being, I am more and more convinced that the entire goal of my faith and of my very being is to live fully and vibrantly within this "cloud of unknowing", with no purpose at all other than to seek God and his kingdom. I'm learning to accept that that pursuit - that effort to catch up with a God who is often illusive and almost always unpredictable - is personal, yes - but there may also be a more public aspect.

There are collateral effects - people around me may be impacted, positively or negatively, by my attitudes and actions. My behavior - my lifestyle - has an impact on the environment and that in turn, affects people around the world. I trust and pray that I am doing more good than harm - that I'm not reckless with other people's lives and beliefs. No matter what my convictions are, I must leave room for God to speak and to act in other people's lives as he will, remembering that he is far better acquainted with their particular questions and issues than I will ever be.

Some people distrust "evangelicals" because they do not wish to be preached at or hounded into any posture of "faith". Life is complex, puzzling and painful for many people and no matter how well intentioned we might be in our efforts to bring them into a relationship with Christ, it seems to me that we often incur collateral damage in the process if we forge ahead with single minded determination to "bring them in". On the other hand, when we are content to live out our faith with a genuine attitude of hopefulness and humility and hospitality, perhaps we do more collateral good than we are aware of.

Perhaps evangelism is the divine fruit of our mundane obedience to the command that we are to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness (Matthew 6:33).

Can we PROVE that religion is a force for good?

2011-01-03T08:11:00.005-04:00

On November 26, 2010 Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens engaged in a serious live debate - at the Munk Centre in Toronto, Canada - concerning the contribution that religion makes to humanity. It was the sixth in the Munk Debate series. These debates feature prominent thinkers and practitioners, debating issues of pressing interest and concern like global security, climate change, humanitarian intervention, foreign aid, healthcare, and now, religion. (see http://www.munkdebates.com/debates).

The resolution that Blair and Hitchens debated was a simple one: be it resolved religion is a force for good in the world. Tony Blair - former prime minister of the United Kingdom (May 2, 1997 to June 27, 2007) and the founder of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation - whose goal it is to "promote respect and understanding about the world's major religions and show how faith is a powerful force for good in the modern world", argued the affirmative. His opponent, Christopher Hitchens is an English-American author and journalist who describes himself as an anti-theist who believes that the very concept of God or a supreme being destroys individual freedom. In 2007 he wrote a book about atheism and religious faith entitled God is Not Great.

The pre-debate poll of the audience revealed that 25% of participants were in favor of the resolution, 55% were opposed and 20% were undecided. When the dust settled, the post-debate results revealed that Hitchens had won over more of the undecideds than had Blair - the final figures were 32% in favor, 68% opposed. In other words, just over two thirds of the audience - an audience that I suspect is skewed significantly towards the more highly educated and informed - could not be convinced that religion does more good than harm. Wow.

A quick recap of the two hour session. The gist of Tony Blair's argument was that while people have done a great deal of harm in the name of religion, they have also done much good. People of faith have been instruments of peace and have served humanity sacrificially in many ways, BECAUSE of their faith. And, although the record of evil (done in the name of religion) is long and indisputable, removing faith from the equation would NOT remove evil. Or, put another way, all of the bad things cannot be blamed on people of faith. Faith CAN BE and SHOULD BE and IS a force for good in the world. The gist of Hitchen's argument was that ALL of the good that has been done by people of faith can be encouraged and done through secular humanism, completely WITHOUT any reference to the supernatural. In fact, Hitchen's quipped that he has no problem with religion if the supernatural aspect is removed - let it BE a force for humane living, for care and compassion, peace and justice - without appealing to supernatural forces. Hitchen's believes that people of faith do good ONLY because they are trying to avoid guilt and shame. Thus any good that they do do, is really self serving. It may be tough to prove otherwise, but it's not a point that I'm willing to concede...

As with all debates, perhaps, this one was engaging but predictable. It failed to pierce through the crust of superficiality. The obvious impasse between an argument that presumes and celebrates the supernatural and one which dismisses the very notion of God or a supreme being was not breached by either side. As I listened to the debate - with a clear bias in favor of the resolution - I found myself feeling a bit frustrated with Blair's failure to challenge Hitchen's basic assumptions. This left him trying to justify faith from a humanitarian perspective. But to be honest, Hitchen's - or maybe the con argument no matter who was making it - didn't allow any room for a serious appeal to the essence of faith - the supernatural. In this context an appeal to that which we know by faith would have been met with disdain and ridicule. Such is the dilemma for those who might wish to argue FOR faith with those who make all of their decisions based on what they can see and understand and measure and prove. In a sense, the debate was lost before it began. In fact, I'm actually a bit surprised that anyone who was undecided going in was swayed to vote in favor of the resolution at the end. I can only conclude that God can override secular arguments, even in a secular setting!

The way I see it, Hitchen's had two major advantages in this debate: he went first and thus could define the parameters for the debate, and he was arguing the side of reason in an audience that has been educated to trust in the mind and the achievements of science. Religious faith is counter-intuitive in this context. It may well be impossible to PROVE the supernatural to intelligent skeptics. And of course if you implicitly agree to leave the supernatural out of the debate - well, let it be understood that faith without the supernatural will be beset by human frailties and folly. And it is THIS kind of faith which should be exposed as a fraud against divine providence. Fortunately God does not NEED us to argue on his behalf or to defend him in the arena of public opinion. This may sound like a copout and that's ok with me.

I admire Tony Blair for his willingness to get in the ring in the first place and I trust that he knows that agreeing to leave the supernatural out of the debate would leave him with an insurmountable deficit when considered from a purely humanitarian perspective. We will not argue people into faith. Transformation from unbelief to belief is the work of the supernatural. And let it be said that the supernatural is not constrained by any rules of engagement that the skeptics might impose.

The failures of people of faith are not an indictment of the supernatural but rather evidence of man's humanity - at best a distorted image of the divine. But on the other hand, the worst of man's humanity is perhaps a hard nosed denial of the divine and thus, a selfish reliance on our own abilities and a manmade call for compassion and justice. When you think about it that way, compassion and justice are a blatant contradiction of the very premise of evolutionary science where the strong survive and the weak perish. People of faith are called to a higher standard by a God who refuses to abandon us to our own devices.

If you want to watch the debate, you can do so online through the Munk webpage at http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/Religion. Watching the debate will cost $2.99. You can read the transcripts for free or you can listen to the debate for free on itunes - just search Munk Debates in the podcast directory. There are two options: a CBC Radio Ideas episode which includes the highlights of the debate (about 53 minutes) or the full debate (Jeff Crouse - 2 hours).

It's ALL holy ground!

2010-11-26T07:08:00.002-04:00

A colleague forwarded a youtube video to me and I've just watched it. Youtube has videos on and for everything under the sun - some good, some not so good, and some - well - horrid. But THIS is so worth the 5 minutes it will take you to watch it.

I don't know a lot about the background but apparently there's an organization - the Knight's Foundation - that has committed to inspire 1000 Acts of Culture across the United States over the next three years - a small variation of the random acts of kindness idea, but in this case it was both culture and kind!

This was one amazing flash event!

The Opera Company of Philadelphia (some 600 voices) gathered at Macy's Department Store - they were dispersed through the LARGE crowd - and at precisely 12 noon on October 30, accompanied by the largest pipe organ in the world, they sang Handel's Hallelujah Chorus. The shoppers - the hordes of them - stopped what they were doing (for the most part) to appreciate this spontaneous concert - to marvel at the acoustical magnificence of this department store, temporarily transformed into a cathedral. Cameras and cell phones came out in an effort to "capture" the moment. I for one am sure glad that this event was video taped and posted on youtube.

I sat at my kitchen table with tears pouring down my cheeks, not only because of the beauty of Handel's masterpiece, but because of the profound way that this "performance" reminds me that it is ALL holy ground... Even Macy's Department Store, an icon of consumerism, can host another kind of worship.

Sometimes we are so intent on our other activities - the day to day tasks, large and small - that we forget that there IS a Holy God and that wherever our feet might take us, is holy space, despite surface appearances.

You can see the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp_RHnQ-jgU.

THANK YOU Opera Company of Philadelphia and Knight Foundation!!!!

If you're interested in reading more about the 1000 Random Acts of Culture initiative, check out http://www.knightarts.org/random-acts-of-culture.

Faith matters

2010-10-12T09:37:00.002-03:00

For the past few months - especially since attending the World Religions Summit in Winnipeg in June - I've been thinking a lot about the place of faith in our private and public lives. I've thought about my own journey of faith - hardly a linear or predictable path and certainly one which I suspect is yet very much incomplete - and I've also been thinking (somewhat obsessively!) about the complexities of work, travel or study across cultures and across spiritual borders.

I remember coming back from my first short trip to Kenya in December of 2004 and thinking that, as much as I'd appreciated and enjoyed the opportunity to see a land and a people that are so very different from me and my home, I would NEVER completely understand the history and culture and people of the place. I felt a stranger - an alien - out of place and out of sync. It was unsettling.

And in my various journeys since then, I have continued to wrestle with this feeling that ALL of our communication - ALL of our efforts to walk with our partners - ALL of our good intentions - are somehow just a little out of sync. It's like a movie where the audio track doesn't quite line up with the video track. And just when we think we've got it right - when we are speaking the same language, both practically and proverbially - there it is again. A subtle disconnect where we're reminded - again - that we don't really get it at all. We are relating through a fog of deeply embedded cultural habits and practices. Even our common conviction that we are united through belief in one God, one faith, one baptism, doesn't protect us from the idiosyncrasies of culture.

And then there are the intentional inter-faith dialogues, where we acknowledge our diversity and our fundamental differences. Some might assume that inter-faith dialogue - by its very definition - necessitates compromise. That listening to the ideas and concerns of those from OTHER faith traditions is somehow a dangerous first step down a slippery slope of indecisiveness and concession. I confess that what I find most disturbing about interfaith dialogue is any tendency to want to bleach out our differences. While it might be helpful to remind ourselves that ALL of our faith traditions are concerned with justice, and at our best we foster attitudes and actions that demonstrate compassion and generosity and peace, these values do not make us the same. So how do we work together around these things while at the same time celebrating and practicing those things which set us apart? How do people of Christian and Jewish and Muslim and Bahai and Hindu and all the rest - including even people of no particular faith - work together to have a positive impact on the social and political and economic and even environmental fabric of our world?

Maybe this is overly simplistic, but I'm thinking that what is most helpful and also most pleasing to God, is for each of us to practice our faith with all of our heart, mind, soul and strength - to pour ourselves into the life of our faith, working with others wherever we can, respecting their spiritual commitments and convictions, and offering ourselves as living sacrifices who serve a purpose and agenda not our own. I think that when we are secure in our faith we can enter into conversation and even relationship with people of other faiths and be enriched in the process. As we learn about other faiths we will understand the things that we have in common and also the things which set us apart. And we will need to pay attention to both.

There is a movement of sorts around a Charter for Compassion which is founded on the idea that "the principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves." Sound familiar? I like the Charter in that it calls us to live together in peace, but I'm just a bit uncomfortable in that it MAY have the tendency to reduce our faith to a social prescription for getting along with one another. I would argue that when we live out our faith fully - with passion as well as compassion and with humility as well as determination and conviction - that we will be offering a full expression of our humanity and not one which has been subtly muted for the sake of appearances. When I live up to my potential as a Christian and encounter someone who is living up to his or her potential as a Buddhist or Muslim, etc. I will have nothing to fear and much to learn.

If you're interested in thinking about these things a bit further, I see that the 6th Annual Munk Debate - to be held at the Roy Thomson Hall in Toronto, Canada on November 26 at 7pm is on the resolution: "be it resolved that religion is a force for good in the world...". Speaking in favor of the resolution will be Tony Blair. Christopher Hitchens will speak against the resolution. For more information see http://www.munkdebates.com/home.aspx.

Gracism and a Theology of Inclusion

2010-09-07T08:58:00.004-03:00

I’ve been part of a small working group for the past 10 years that’s been looking at the issue of racism within our denomination. It’s been an incredible experience - I’ve learned a lot of uncomfortable truths about myself, our denomination and our society. I've learned that racism really does affect us ALL and that we’re participants in racist attitudes and systems, even when we’re not aware of it - even when we don’t have much day to day contact with people of other races or cultures.

I began to notice a lot of points of intersection between the conversations of our working group and observations from other aspects of my work: cross-cultural mission, reducing the stigma of mental illness, helping to protect the vulnerable from abuse... I came across a little book by David Anderson that has helped me to think more clearly about how we might overcome racism, but I think the principles of this book have a much broader application. The title of the book is Gracism - a clever combination of grace - a positive and welcome term - and racism - with all of its negative connotation. Gracism is “the positive extension of favor on other humans based on color, class or culture”. That’s favor, not favoritism. It’s about giving to people what they NEED, not a command to treat everyone the same.

Gracism is not about rights but about authentic love for our neighbor – it requires honesty, vulnerability, sensitivity…

Here are a couple of quotes that will help you see how Anderson defines a gracist:

“This is the heart of the gracist. The one who hears, sees and pays attention to those on the margins – those in the desert – is a gracist.” (pg. 23)

“Are you a gracist? The heart of a gracist extends a helping hand to those who are outside the positive norms of a particular society… gracists build bridges of inclusion for those on the margins.” (pg. 29)

How can you tell if you - or someone else - is a gracist? How can you tell if your faith group or denomination operates out of a gracism mindset? Anderson identifies 7 habits of a gracist:

I will lift you up. I will cover you. I will share with you. I will honor you. I will stand with you. I will consider you. I will celebrate with you.

A pretty impressive list, eh? Isn't that the kind of person we'd like to be? By all accounts, the kind of person that Jesus was when he lived on this earth in human form? The kind of person we are drawn to as we journey through life, with all of its frailties and inconsistencies, its passion and pain?

And just imagine a whole community which embraces and lives out these 7 principles!!! It would be a place of great comfort and healing and a place from which people might be launched into the surrounding territory as ambassadors of hope.

For me, it's a description of what the church - that is, the universal body of believers - ought to be, by its very nature. Gracism creates space for everyone to belong, no matter who they are or what they've done or what they think. It's a place where stones and stone throwers are conspicuously absent. It's a place of great humility. A place where EVERYONE is given the benefit of the doubt - again and again and again. A place of rich diversity and a place where peace passes understanding. A place of great faith. A place of irrepressible hope. A place of unconditional acceptance and love.

Who wouldn't want to be part of a community like that?

If you're interested in finding out more about Gracism, the book, check out this short youtube video with author, David Anderson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEG-TUy0Fqo.

Maybe it's a little TOO well with my soul...!

2010-08-31T14:00:00.003-03:00

The picture shown here is a depiction of the Parable of the Pearl (right) paired with the Hidden Treasure (left) on a stained glass window in Scots' Church, Melbourne.

I've always loved the hymn, It Is Well With My Soul. In case you don't know this hymn, here are the lyrics:

It Is Well With My Soul
When peace like a river, attendeth my way, When sorrows like sea billows roll; Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say, It is well, it is well, with my soul.
Refrain: It is well, with my soul, It is well, with my soul, It is well, it is well, with my soul.
Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come, Let this blest assurance control, That Christ has regarded my helpless estate, And hath shed His own blood for my soul.
My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought! My sin, not in part but the whole, Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more, Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!
For me, be it Christ, be it Christ hence to live: If Jordan above me shall roll, No pang shall be mine, for in death as in life, Thou wilt whisper Thy peace to my soul.
But Lord, 'tis for Thee, for Thy coming we wait, The sky, not the grave, is our goal; Oh, trump of the angel! Oh, voice of the Lord! Blessed hope, blessed rest of my soul.
And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight, The clouds be rolled back as a scroll; The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend, Even so, it is well with my soul.

The story behind this hymn is pretty interesting. The lyrics were written by Horatio Spafford in 1873. Spafford was a lawyer from Chicago who suffered a series of calamities, including the loss of his four daughters when the ship they were on went down at sea. His wife was also aboard the ship (the Ville de Havre) but she survived - miraculously - as a plank floated under her unconscious body and kept her afloat until she was rescued.

Upon receiving word of the terrible tragedy (which claimed the lives of a total of 226 people) Spafford boarded the next ship in order to join his distraught wife. The captain of the ship called Spafford to the bridge as they were passing the site at which his daughters had died and then Spafford returned to his cabin and wrote this hymn. I should mention that this was simply the precipitating loss from which the hymn was written - but there were tragic events both before and after this one which give some indication of the depth of Spafford's faith.

All that to say, this has always been for me a powerful hynn. And I've loved to sing it, always feeling that it is a testimony of my faith, regardless of the immediate circumstances of my life. It is well with my soul... There's something profound in this statement. I like this hymn so much that my husband knows that I want it to be sung at my funeral.

Lately I've been thinking that it's a very good funeral hymn, but maybe it's use between now and then may not be such a good thing. Let me explain.

It seems to me that we - and by "we" I really mean "I" but with the suspicion that what is true of me is also true for many others who have been raised in the cultural context of this era and place - have tended to put perhaps too much emphasis on our "personal relationship" with God. This seems perfectly natural - after all, we are each one made in the image of God and each one of us is of inestimable value to God. The health and vibrancy of our relationship with God is quite naturally something to pay attention to. But I'm wondering how much our cultural promotion of individualism might also be at play.

I think that one of our blindspots in Christian thought and practice in North America is our over-emphasis on the individual at the expense of community. If we think for a minute that there might be a "soul" that is not confined to the individual - a social soul or a church soul or a kingdom soul - then there is a disturbing paradox for me. How can it be well with our collective soul when there are so many injustices in our world? And, to take it a step further, maybe our failure to think or feel or act out of our collective soul is a fundamental reason that the church as we know it is not more actively engaged in promoting justice as an expression of our love for our neighbours.

Perhaps the wellness of our collective soul has lulled us into a sense of complacency - a sense that life is hard and that unanticipated perils await us on our journey through this life, but God is good and faithful and he will neither leave us nor forsake us. All of this I think is perfectly true, but in the absence of attention to our collective soul it is easy to think that there is nothing that we need to DO. And yet, as I read the Scriptures, I struggle with this presupposition. I see in the Gospels and in the writings of Paul and other New Testament authors all kinds of direction for putting our faith in a sovereign and good God to good practical use.

Jesus weeps over Jerusalem (see Luke 19:28-42). In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), Jesus says that those who mourn will be comforted. We often hear this quoted at funerals, but what if Jesus was not talking so much about personal loss and grief, but the grieving of our collective Christian soul over the multitudinous abuses - abuses against the poor and marginalized, against creation, against God, against our own humanity...?

There is a sense in which I long to feel that even in the midst of these kinds of abuse, I can sing to God, proclaiming that I know him well enough to be able to say, it is well with my soul. But I also want to be part of a movement of people who know that God is grieved by the state of our world, and to know him is to share in that grief. Yes - Jesus has shed his own blood for my soul and that gives me great comfort and hope - and one day the trump shall resound and the Lord shall descend. BUT we're in this together.

Let's not kid ourselves. God IS grieved by the socially manufactured poverty and the socially acceptable forms of greed and exploitation that are often the basis for worldly "success". Most of us haven't faced the kinds of consecutive tragedies that Horatio Spafford endured leading up to and following the writing of It Is Well With My Soul and perhaps we are a little too quick to claim this hymn as our own testimony when we are actually guilty of twisting and distorting and diminishing the lesson of the pearl of great price (see Matthew 13:45-46).

I started this post with the assumption that it was the loss of his four daughters that really inspired Spafford to write this hymn, but maybe this really was just one of a series of events that so demanded his attention that he could finally see through the circumstances of tragedy to behold that pearl of great price. As usual, more questions than answers...!

The big question for me is whether we are in error - and if that error is a small error or a very large error - when we default to thinking of the state of the soulas a fundamentally individual matter as contrasted with a more collective sense of soul - the soul of the body of believers (i.e. the church universal). And, almost as an after thought in this post, now I'm wondering anew about the pearl of great price. What is it exactly and how is it attained? Or is it?

Involuntary simplicity...?

2010-08-25T08:20:00.003-03:00

Over the last few years I've been conscious of trying to live more simply. But I have to admit that it's not easy and most of the time I fall short of the mark. And it's a pretty elusive mark. How am I to define living simply in this place of such extravagance and abundance and waste? I have absolutely everything that I NEED and pretty much everything that I WANT. I can honestly say that there is really NOTHING - no consumer product - that I need. As I think ahead even, I'm certain that I could get buy quite nicely - probably for years - without buying ANYTHING except food (well, maybe a few more things like gas and insurance and other "staples"). But I also know that I WILL continue to buy - to keep up to date with the latest electronics, fashions, trends, and my own whims.

So I'm thinking about the concept of voluntary simplicity - the self-imposed commitment to consume less. We may think of this as a modern movement but it actually has roots that can be traced back centuries. Many religious traditions have encouraged simplicity for spiritual, social and ecological reasons. The current voluntary simplicity movement is nothing new and for most of us is likely a quite watered down version of ancient practices. So what is the REAL value of voluntary simplicity? Does it help one connect more closely to God? Does it really reduce our ecological footprint in any significant way? Does it contribute to a more just society? Bottom line, what difference does it make if I discipline myself to leave the things that I don't need on the shelf - or increasingly - out of my various online shopping carts? These are not idle questions. I think about them a lot - almost to the point of obsession!

Here's the line of my thinking:

1. consumerism is a serious addiction and most of us (in the western world) have it to some degree. All addictions affect the person who is addicted - obviously - but also people around them, maybe even to the ends of the earth.

2. this addiction DOES have spiritual, ecological and social consequences. On the spiritual level, any addiction is idolatry - it obscures our view of God and hinders our ability to relate to God. We're much more like the rich young ruler than we like to think. If you don't know about the rich young ruler, check out these passages which all give an account of the encounter between the rich young ruler and Jesus: Matthew 19:16-30, Mark 10:17-31, Luke 18:18-30. From an ecological point of view I think there is no doubt that our addiction to stuff is hazardous to the planet. The earth's resources, as profound as they are, are not limitless and they cannot sustain us - and by us, I do mean all 7 billion of us on the planet - if we continue to plunder and waste them. There really is only ONE earth and - as I've mentioned in frequent previous posts - our current lifestyle is truly unsustainable from a purely ecological perspective. And finally, in terms of social impact and social justice, we in the western world - the one billion of us who control and consume 86% of the earth's resources - are guilty of oppression and exploitation, whether we intend it or not.

So, what to do? Voluntary simplicity is a great place to start, but is it enough? What if one person in one thousand voluntarily reduces our level of consumption? The benefit may be mostly to us - we are freed from the compulsion to buy, to consume, to own, to plunder. We are free to live more authentically - spiritually, ecologically and socially. We find that we have a better quality of life - it's less cluttered by the desires and obsessions that are inherent in any addiction. But at that level - 1/1000 - the ecological and social justice impact may not even be noticeable. I wonder what it would take to get the commitment to voluntary simplicity to a level that IS noticeable - 1 in 100, or 1 in 10 or 1 in 5? What would it take to get to a level of simplicity that humanity is actually able to address the systemic roots of injustice and oppression? And will we ever get there through voluntary commitments?

Moving from voluntary to involuntary simplicity may not be as extreme as it sounds. For instance, there have been times in the not so distant past when gasoline or food was rationed. Compliance was mandated by law and offenders were prosecuted. Nothing voluntary about that. Nobody likes to have their choices restricted, but sometimes it's necessary in order to address the social consequences of our natural bent towards greed and selfishness.

I'll continue to strive for simplicity but honestly, it will be easier for me to comply when public policy forces me to live more simply. So maybe some of my effort should go into supporting public policy that will do just this. In fact, I'd say that we'll know that we're really serious about the simplicity thing when political parties who promise to enforce simplicity measures actually get our votes. This is not a political plug and I'm not an extremist. I know I'm not an extremist because if I were, I'd be much better at leading by example. No, I'm just thinking this through and wrestling with the big picture stuff.

Voluntary compliance is always more appealing than involuntary - or mandated - compliance - but the fact is, the majority world cannot afford to wait for us to coax everyone on board. While we're patting ourselves on the back for taking a few steps towards a simpler life, they are living with the chronic indignities that come with lack of food, water, shelter, sanitation, education and medical care and they are too often dying for lack of these basic necessities.

We can and should and must, continue our individual efforts but we should also support public policy that will force us to live more responsibly and generously. And for those of us who claim to be followers of Christ, this is as much a part of our spiritual discipline and discipleship as prayer and fasting and worship and bible study and compassion.

The Advocacy Stand-Off

2010-07-07T15:30:00.001-03:00

I have to say that I increasingly find my views and convictions around advocacy out of step with emails that find their way into my inbox. I suspect that we are on the verge of a major stand off in Canada between our federal government and all kinds of advocacy groups. CIDA's de-funding of Kairos late last fall (see http://www.cjpme.org/DisplayDocument.aspx?DO=795&RecID=416&DocumentID=675&SaveMode=0 for Kairos' fact sheet on this issue) and the more recent indications that the Canadian Council for International Cooperation (CCIC) will also have their funding slashed - are two important water marks that quantify the chill that is growing between our federal government and prominent advocacy groups.

These groups clearly see it as an important part of their mandate to relentlessly criticize government policy and policy makers for failing to solve the serious global problems which immiserate a billion or more people on this earth. To be clear, I suspect that for many of these agencies the problem begins when the federal government fails to live up to the commitments and promises it makes. The frustration over this - especially as both the leaders and the grass roots members of these organizations literally rub shoulders with the global poor and marginalized whose lives WOULD be made less miserable if governments of the G8 countries would just keep their promises - boils over into a pervasive and seething anger which subsequently influences every advocacy initiative.

It IS frustrating when the failure of so called "wealthy" nations to keep their promises means that the poorest of the world's poor continue to live in abject poverty and without dignity. But let's be realistic. The problems are incredibly complex. Money, though a necessary part of the solution, is only one part, and I would argue, not even the most important part. And when faith-based and other civil society advocacy groups focus on the dollars, we perpetuate the lie that more money can solve the problems. Governments provide a convenient scapegoat but we have to remember that governments are NOT gods. They are not omnipowerful or, omnicompetent (as Bruce Clemenger of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada likes to say).

Governments do what they have to do to maintain their positions of power. They are often hanging onto power by a thin thread. They cannot and will not be able to lead effectively on the global stage if they are vulnerable to a fickle and selfish constituencies at home. The righteous indignation of Canadian advocacy groups - like Kairos, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, the Council of Canadians, the Canadian chapter of Make Poverty History (to name a few) is but one voice that the government hears. And who do these organizations speak for? How representative are their views? Do they have the support of the business sector? Let's face it, if we seriously expect our governments to put their commitments to the Millennium Development Goals ahead of the pressures for economic growth from the business sectors of their own economies, I think we need to change our tactics - and possibly our hearts.

I cringe when I hear the language of rights and of demands and of anger defining our advocacy and our public voice and presence. I think we mean well. I KNOW we do. I understand - and share - the frustration with policies and policy makers and the feelings of helplessness in the face of such horrendous suffering. But let's not spend so much of our time and resources chasing after vague promises of more money - except when it is programming money that we KNOW is being well spent and making a positive difference for our partners. Let's divert THAT advocacy time and those resources to efforts to change our own cultures and our own constituencies.

When widespread public opinion in our privileged countries champions the causes for which we advocates and social activists are passionate our governments will have the moral authority and political capital to keep their promises - and not just promises to provide money but more importantly to design and implement structural reforms. There are lots of addictions in our societies that will need to be confronted if we are to win over public opinion. We have our work cut out for us!

From Starfish to Whales: When Rescue Efforts are Viewed with Suspicion

2010-07-02T21:21:00.005-03:00

In the last post I talked about the little boy who rescued the starfish which had been stranded by the tide. Yesterday I participated in a whale rescue – or I should say, attempted whale rescue. REALLY – I did! My husband and son are commercial fishermen. Amongst other things, they catch juvenile herring in weirs – you would probably recognize them as sardines (an excellent source of calcium and omega 3, by the way!).

Weirs are large stationary traps – they cover about an acre of ocean floor – and they catch herring by being strategically placed in the “fishways” of the herring. That is, over the years, fishermen study the local habits of the herring and then build weirs which are literally “in their way”. According to the tide and the dark and daylight hours, the fish swim in schools into the weir where they find themselves trapped. For the most part the heart shape of the weir keeps them from finding their way out as they circle around and around.

Of course fishermen often catch things in their weirs besides herring – mackerel, dogfish, squid, the occasional blue fin tuna or shark. Seals appreciate the weirs because they provide them with captive meals and snacks virtually 24 hours a day. Rarely, but on occasion, a whale will also find itself inside a weir. They swim in, often oblivious to their surroundings, as they feed on herring or on krill – the small particles for which our area is noted and which make it a productive fishing area.

Years ago fishermen saw a whale in the weir as a minor nuisance and if it didn’t swim out on its own, it was likely to be shot or harpooned and unceremoniously towed out to deep water or to a beach somewhere. That was before whales became endangered and before our fascination with them spawned a cottage industry in whale watching. It was also back in the day before the environmental movement and the emphasis on recycling - back in the day when fishermen threw their pop cans and trash into the ocean. Now, most fishermen most of the time are much more environmentally responsible.

So, a few days ago my husband returned from tending the weir – that is, checking it for herring - with the news that there was a minke whale trapped in the main weir. Minkes are small whales, usually 18-25 feet long when they're mature. The main weir is the part the fish swim into initially. If conditions on the ocean floor permit, the weir will also have a “pound” or holding area. Fish that are caught in the main weir will be “seined” into the pound where they can be held until there’s market – that is, until the one sardine processing company (Connors Bros.) can send a carrier (large boat with a hold for transporting fish to the plant). I realize as I write this that for many of you, this is a whole new language!!

I love watching whales so naturally I was delighted to hear that I would have a chance to visit one at my leisure. My husband was less pleased, having just finished the spring lobster season – two months of 80-90 hour weeks. Nonetheless, yesterday – while others were participating in Canada Day celebrations - we set out around 10am to “free” the whale. My husband and son were in one skiff and my 80 year old mother-in-law and I were in another.

It was a stunning summer day - the kind that makes me wonder why anyone would want to live anywhere else. The weir is only a few minutes from the wharf – it’s REALLY beautiful here by the way! Any hope that the whale might have rescued itself was abandoned as soon as we got to the weir and saw it surfacing.

The rescue plan was for us to encourage the whale to swim out of the mouth of the weir by using a combination of noise – the two outboard motors – and a seine – a net used for getting herring out of the weir when there’s market. The challenge is to be firm but not intrusive. The last thing you want is a panicked whale swimming in a tight space. I won’t go into the blow by blow details. I’ll just summarize by saying that we got the whale out of the main weir – after a tense moment when we were convinced that it had actually drowned on bottom, caught between two stakes. But I neglected to mention that part of the weir construction is what’s called the “wing” and the “wing” is designed to corral the herring into the main weir. Part of the wing is called the “hook” and unfortunately, in this case, the deepest water is in the hook. Naturally that’s where the whale wanted to be.

The next challenge was to get the whale out of the hook, down the wing and to freedom, NOT back into the weir. After several failed attempts at this – we’d get him (or her - I have no idea) out of the hook and once he even got clear of the wing but in order to get to open water he had to swim over a shallow place – a “ledge” – and despite our earnest reasoning, he simply didn’t trust us and was frustratingly persistent in his efforts to return to the hook.

After several hours all told, my husband decided to wait until the tide conditions would help us to help him by giving him more water in which to swim over the ledge. Another important detail is that where we live there's about 28 feet rise and fall of tide which means every 6 and 1/2 hours the tide rises or falls 28 feet (which is very impressive!).

The happy ending to the story is that when my husband went back about 4 hours later, he was able – singlehandedly (well that is, with his skiff) to gently push the whale over the ledge by circling behind him. So all in all, it’s fair to say that I participated in phase one of the rescue.

All that to say that I couldn’t help thinking of some similarities and differences between rescuing stranded starfish, this minke whale and humanitarian aid and development in developing countries.

I guess technically the whale didn’t NEED our help. He was just in the wrong place – from the fishermen’s perspective - since a herring weir isn’t going to catch herring when there’s a whale in it. But the fact is, we wanted to help it get out of the trap it was in to open water. We wanted to do it good. To set it free. It, however, had other ideas.

It didn’t trust us, didn’t particularly like us and it wasn’t impressed with our efforts or our intentions. I’m not sure exactly where I’m going with this… but the thing is, it resorted to its instincts for survival. Those instincts might have worked in some circumstances – or even in this circumstance, given enough time. And in a state of nature, there wouldn’t BE a weir in his way. Similarly, if we substitute local knowledge and cultural heritage rather than instinct, people in African countries, for example, have been perfectly capable of solving their own problems – at least when they are in situations of their own making or even when faced with natural events.

But human intervention or “progress” being as it is, we could say that global realities – economic and political and even environmental – have put obstacles in their way. Trade policies, reckless environmental impacts of decisions made by large corporations who don’t answer to African governments (or maybe even to their own national governments!), economic and political strings...all conspire quietly to frustrate their efforts at sustainability. Then humanitarian aid and development workers come into their country and want to help them escape from their poverty traps. Is it any wonder that they might be a bit suspicious?

Is it too much to suggest that perhaps their scepticism is warranted and that resisting our “help” may actually be a prudent course of action?

I’m also conscious – and uncomfortable – as I write this that I am portraying people in developing countries as somehow less advanced than we are. I realize that for the sake of the analogy I am casting US in the role of benevolent fisherman (or little boy in the case of the starfish) and THEM as helpless starfish or confused whale. This is, I’m sure, an unfortunate but almost inevitable bias – part of our ethnocentrism.

I don't want to make too much of this, but again, I'm just thinking through what it means to be engaged in aid and development. I'm not suggesting that we stop trying to do good - only that we do it with great care and compassion and a realization that we CAN do harm, even when we don't intend to. Hey - if it's THIS complicated for me to explain the relatively simple procedure for getting a whale out of a weir, think how much more complicated is the life of peoples in countries and cultures half a world away... or across the street in some cases.

Making a difference...

2010-06-26T09:28:00.004-03:00

I love a good metaphor, a clever analogy, a simple yet poignant story that has a profound meaning. I’m always looking for stories and illustrations that can help an audience quickly grasp a point that is central to what I’m trying to say. When it comes to convincing people that they CAN make a difference, despite the enormity of the problems, there’s a story about a little boy who patiently throws starfish back into the ocean.

The scene is an expansive beach. The tide is going out and thousands – perhaps hundreds of thousands – of starfish have been stranded and will soon die. The boy is patiently picking up starfish, one by one, and tossing them back into the water. The little boy is challenged by someone with considerably less vision – perhaps an older man, or maybe a woman – who asks him why he is bothering with this impossible task since there are SO MANY starfish and he can’t possibly save them all. In fact, the skeptic says, “Why do you bother? You can’t make a difference because there are so many of them that need to be rescued”, to which the little boy replies, as he gently lifts another starfish and returns it to the ocean, that what he is doing has made a difference to THAT ONE. The obvious lesson is that we CAN make a difference, even if we can’t do it all.

We can save some, though many will perish. We need to be persistent in the face of cynicism and misunderstanding and outright opposition. We can make a difference. It’s an inspiring story. Simple, yet powerful. We identify with the little boy, with his innocence and clarity of purpose. We’re reminded of the profound truth that “a little child shall lead them.”

I’ve just returned from the World Religions Summit in Winnipeg, where some 80 religious leaders came as official delegates from a variety of faith traditions and from all corners of the world (as well as a dozen or so youth delegates from Canada), to gather together for a few days to talk about three of the critical issues facing humanity - poverty, the environment and peace – and to finalize a “statement” to be presented to the political leaders of the G8 and G20 countries who have now commenced their meetings in Ontario.

It was a tremendous privilege for me to be there and to participate in the deliberations and discussions. There was really something incredibly moving about being in a room of such diversity and to realize that despite our differences – and they are MANY! – spiritual, ethnic, national, economic and political - we are ALL motivated by our faith traditions and by our own personal faith professions to imagine a future that is different than the present and different than the future towards which our current path is stubbornly leading us.

We had an opportunity to hear various guest speakers who each brought to the table a degree of experience and expertise which would help inform our understanding and our “statement”. It was a truly positive experience…

And yet, I find myself now thinking about the boy and the starfish and asking myself some disturbing questions. See – I’ve always accepted the story at face value. I can picture the beach and the poor, helpless starfish. Since I live on the ocean, the scene is complete with the feel of the ocean breeze and the cry of gulls. The gentle swell of the waves as they wash onto the beach and then recede, each time further and further from the immobilized starfish. I can picture the thin line of rockweed which marks the high water aspiration of the next cycle of the tide. And I believe the narrator who states that these starfish will inevitably die without this one little boy’s intervention.

I’ve also been to the so-called developing countries and it’s not hard for me to understand the intended transfer in this illustration to young children, who, like the starfish, are stranded - but by a tide of indifference and callous exploitation. I am inspired to help as many as I can.

But – and here’s the thing that is now bothering me – what if it’s even more complicated? What if some of our assumptions are a little off? What if there is actually a deeper reality that we have not seen?What if our efforts at aid and development are actually more like a new form of colonialism - despite our truly good intentions?

One of our speakers was John W. MacArthur, the Executive Director of Millennium Promise (see http://www.millenniumpromise.org/). This man has worked tirelessly with a vision of ending extreme poverty and addressing all of the issues defined by the Millennium Development Goals. As evidence of the impact this organization is making, John spoke of the number of mosquito nets that his organization have provided in the fight against malaria. He spoke with passion and conviction and I could picture the distribution of these nets to people in malaria ridden countries and the humble gratitude with which many people would receive these nets.

But in the back of my mind was something that I had heard or read once about the fact that these nets provide only temporary relief – the pesticide coating wears off, the nets become torn, nets are used for all kinds of other purposes and of course, the mosquitoes still carry the deadly virus. In short, the nets help some for a time, but they are perhaps OUR solution to a problem that we don’t totally understand.

As John was speaking, I thought to look to the small African delegation to gauge their response to his words. My eyes fell especially on a woman from Zambia – I watched her and suspected by her body language, that she was uncomfortable with what she was hearing. So, during the next coffee break, I sought her out and asked her to tell me what she was thinking. Basically, she affirmed that it is true that many people in African countries die of malaria and it is true that the mosquito nets provide some protection for a time.

But, she said, it is not a sustainable solution and they do not take into account traditional knowledge or methods. The mosquito nets are bought elsewhere and brought into African countries. They do not contribute to the local economy. They are not an African solution.

Malaria has been an issue in Africa for a long time, and little consideration is given to traditional methods for dealing with mosquitoes. We ASSUME that our solution – our method – is better. After all, we have the advantage of science and technology and modern pesticides. We are HELPING the immobilized and stranded and helpless Africans. We are saving the children. For the first time, it’s occurring to me that we may be so focused on outcomes, that we may have lacked a good deal of sensitivity in terms of approach. Are African children going to grow up thinking that their own parents and communities and governments cannot protect them? That their survival is in the hands of foreign agencies?

I’m sure some of you will be thinking, “well at least with our help they WILL grow up. They won’t die of malaria – or hunger, or some water borne disease, or lack of basic access to food – if they’re fortunate enough to have our help.” I know what you’re saying. But I’m increasingly uneasy with it. I hear youth and young adults utter the mantra of wanting to “help”, wanting to “make a difference” and I commend them for their commitment to get involved. But I think we have to think more deeply.

Maybe in our planning and strategizing we should pay more attention to the "dignity factor" and to the way our actions affect not just our intended outcome, but the less tangible impact on the capacity of a country to care for it's people in the long term. I know that this may sound simplistic and may be overestimating the capacity of leaders in these countries to overcome corruption, not to mention other forces that are far beyond their control. But still, I can't help thinking...

And just to be totally clear, I'm NOT suggesting that there is nothing we can do to make an effective and positive difference. I'm not criticizing anyone who is sincerely trying to make a difference in the lives of the millions of people who have been stranded and are in peril through lack of access to things like safe and nutritious food, water, health care, etc. I'm just thinking that we need to make sure that our contribution is sensitive and empowering and that it is sustainable and builds dignity and doesn't erode it. After all, a starfish is NOT a human.

Faith, Politics and Peace...

2010-06-19T08:48:00.002-03:00

As I write, leaders of diverse faith communities from around the world are making their way to Winnipeg for the World Religious Leaders' Summit. They're coming from every continent - but the bulk of them will be from the G8 countries. The rationale for this is that if the G8 political leaders will listen to any faith leaders, it's more likely that they'll listen to leaders from within their own constituencies - perhaps a bit of a naive hope, but there it is.

These World Religious Leaders Summits have been held just prior to the G8 Political Summits since 2005 and have consistently provided a forum for religious leaders to nudge political leaders to keep the Millennium Development Goals on the table - AND to live up to the commitments that they have already made. As it turns out, that too may be a wee bit naive.

Take the upcoming summit - between the global economy showing distinct signs of serious wear and tear and the BP oil spill - the most recent large scale example of the folly of thinking that nature is a passive slave to human exploitation - the G8 leaders may see sincere efforts to eradicate extreme poverty as a luxury they simply can't afford. And seriously, we can protest and posture all we want but the truth is, the voters in the G8 countries are - for the most part - not prepared to back governments that actually DO make this their priority.

When it comes down to it, most of us still have a "me first" attitude. We want to eradicate poverty so long as it doesn't cost us - our jobs, our conveniences, our standard of living, our access to safe water, food choice, education, medical care... We may be advocates for the voluntary simplicity movement, but we're not likely to be as enthusiastic about government policies that FORCE us to simpler lifestyles. But I digress. What I really want to reflect on is the fact that the faith leaders will be pushing the G8/G20 leaders to invest in peace - the three themes of the draft statement are: address poverty, care for our earth and invest in peace.

Having returned from Rwanda recently maybe I'm just overly sensitive to the failings of faith to be agents of peace in specific moments in history. Talk is easy. And of course the Rwandan genocide is just ONE example. There are SO many others! Examples of war and other forms of conflict, where people and institutions of faith have failed to resist the evil of hatred and have embraced brutality in order to indulge religious partisanship.

Sure, we at the Winnipeg Summit will mean well. And those who gather around the table in Winnipeg will NOT be the extremists from their faith traditions... but isn't it a question of credibility? There is a painful irony - it seems to me - that the first of seven National Events to be hosted by The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) will have just concluded in Winnipeg (June 16-19) as the Religious Leaders Summit begins.

These events are the latest effort of Canadians to come to terms with the horrific abuses of the Indian Residential School system - a systematic effort to eradicate Indian culture through stripping Indian children of their language and culture. The Residential Schools were established as a result of the Gradual Civilization Act passed in Canada in 1857 with the purpose of "assimilating" Indians. In 1920, attendance at these schools was made compulsory for Indian children 7-15 years of age and they were taken from their families by force - by priests, Indian agents and police officers. Once established in Residential Schools, many children were also subjected to physical, sexual and emotional abuse. These schools operated until 1996... but the effects will haunt us for generations to come.

As we think about the cumulative pain inflicted on peoples around the world and throughout the ages - by religious leaders or in the name of one religion or another - the call from the World Religious Leaders to the Political Leaders to invest in peace is not misguided or inappropriate, but it must be made with immense humility and honest contrition and repentance. It's not enough to be peace lovers from within our various faith traditions. We must be peace makers - and that's a whole different mandate.

As we call for the political leaders to rise to the moment and provide inspired leadership and action around peace, let's spend some time repenting of our own past failures, mending our own fences and taking a firm stand within our faith traditions for a peace grounded in justice for all. Nuclear disarmament may be the responsibility of political leaders, but an appetite and a culture of peace can begin in the churches and synagogues and mosques and temples of the world. Let's make some peace!

The "right to food"?

2010-06-16T20:52:00.007-03:00

I need to give a little context for this post. I'm in Winnipeg as a guest at the Board meetings of the Canadian Foodgrains Bank and then I'm staying on for the World Religious Leaders Summit at the University of Winnipeg next week. There are two issues that I've been thinking about these last few days and I intend to talk about one in this post and the other next time - probably in a few days. Just so you know what's coming, the topic for today is the concept of the right to food. Next time it's going to be some thoughts on the role of faith in promoting peace.

So - the right to food. Simple proposition really. Every social activist apparently resonates with the idea that no matter how rich some people are, or how poor other people are, everyone should have the right to eat. From grass roots activists to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the right to food is about declaring that we ALL have the right to eat. Sounds good... fair... right. Who can argue? But the thing is, I think that when we dig a little deeper this proposition is problematic from both a pragmatic perspective and from a Christian perspective. Hear me out.

First, the pragmatic perspective. So what happens? According to the UN,

The World Food Summit in November 1996 reaffirmed the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, and gave a specific mandate to the High Commissioner for Human Rights to better define the rights related to food and propose ways to implement and realize them. (see http://www.fao.org/Legal/rtf/rtf-e.htm)

That was in 1996. See where I'm going with this? It's easy to say that everyone should have the right to have access to safe and nutritious food, but who's responsible? When drought destroys the crops in whole regions of the world, or when scarce agricultural land is used to produce cash crops for rich people a world away, or when a flood ravages the subsistence farmland of small shareholders, or when food is contaminated, or livestock gets sick and dies, who makes sure that all those people and their families have safe and nutritious food?

The right to food campaign may make some sense in a political context - when a layer of government makes a conscious commitment to patrol the distribution of food so that even the poorest have their basic needs met - but let's think a bit about the implications from a Christian perspective.

I'm thinking that we shouldn't take food and water for granted OR see them as entitlements. We also shouldn't exploit them for profit - and certainly not when somewhere around a billion people are chronically hungry. Nope. The way I see it, if God created this earth with the capacity to sustain life, then food and water are actually sacred gifts. Our relationship to food then is not about rights or demands but gratitude and humble stewardship so that there's enough to share - not as a right but as a privilege. And the privilege part is not just that we have the privilege to enjoy safe and nutritious food, but the greater privilege is in the sharing at a common table - having enough for everyone to eat and some to spare.

See when we're not hording the resources there is an amazing multiplication that happens around the table. Five loaves and two fish become both food for the masses AND symbols of abundance. But the minute we start arguing about rights, they're just five loaves and two fish - a snack pack for a little boy's lunch. BTW - if you're not familiar with this bible story, you can read it at John 6:5-13 or just click on this link: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:5-13&version=NIV.

These are tricky times. Sometimes the rhethoric can get the best of us and we get turned around. Sometimes the very thing that sounds fair and just is actually a diversion. Let's be careful about using the language of rights, even when it's someone else's rights we're talking about. This is literally just scratching the surface of the issue, but it's a start.

And speaking of rhetoric, next time I'm going to be talking about faith, peace and politics. Some interesting ironies.

A "Lost" Generation?

2010-06-07T14:27:00.006-03:00

I’ve been noticing something lately and it’s pretty disturbing. I keep running into young adults who have some degree of “Christian” background but now they want absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. Absolutely NOTHING. I’m talking specifically about a sub-set of those who are twenty-something (and certainly not ALL twenty-somethings!). They’ve survived high school and many are in university or have already graduated from university with an undergraduate degree and a pile of debt. Or they're out working and dealing with bills and kids and the realization that there really are limits and life isn't always captured in Facebook status updates. They’re often pretty astute in some things. They have a “survivor” mentality. You don’t have to convince them that it’s a rough world. They’re all about alliances and looking after themselves. They’re hard – they’re into horror movies – the more brutal the better. They’re not like the hippies of the 60s with a culture of peace and love and non-conformity. No – they’re more about brazen cynicism and naked individualism. Whatever Christian influence they had as kids has largely been de-bunked and exposed as a fraud along with Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

I get it that they don’t find Christian churches very appealing. I get it that most expressions of Christian faith offend their post modern values. Christianity’s meta narrative, call for commitment, truth claims, judgmentalism, exclusivity – these are all totally counter cultural in their enlightened and educated circles. I get it that they feel entitled to a good dose of cynicism – after all, there are LOTS of issues that make optimism and faith in a sovereign good God seem more than a little naïve. And I get it that Christianity often seems to be more part of the problem than part of any solution to the injustices that abound. I get it. But it bothers me.

It bothers me because they aren’t just sceptical – they’ve completely closed their minds to Christianity. And In so doing, they’ve broken one of their own values. They will – in fact, they MUST - be tolerant and open-minded about just about EVERYTHING. But for some reason, it’s ok to dismiss Christianity. It’s ok to mock and pity Christians for their foolish faith.

I suppose they think that they’ve given it a chance. After all, they went along to church and Sunday School - when they didn’t know any better – maybe even liked it. They learned the stories about Noah’s Ark, Daniel and the Lion’s Den, David and Goliath, the birth of Jesus, the miracles of Jesus (stories about feeding thousands of people with a little boy’s lunch, or raising Lazarus from the dead, or healing lepers), the brutal crucifixion of Jesus and the claim that he rose from the dead. Those stories were pretty impressive when they were kids, but now they just seem to have lost their lustre.

So they walk away.

I respect everyone’s fundamental right to believe – or not believe – whatever they want. But I’m looking at a generation of young adults who, I think, have shut their minds a little too quickly. I’m sad for them and I’m sad for the church. I’m sad for them because I think that in the midst of their pain – and let’s not even get into an argument as to whether or not they are in pain! – they are turning to all kinds of destructive, toxic influences. They may self-medicate with drugs, alcohol and other addictions – materialism, sex, high risk adventure – all of which may give temporary reprieve to their personal and social pain, but what if these are actually very dangerous idols that have the potential to totally suck the life out of them?

And I’m sad for the church because we desperately need the perspectives and critiques and brutally honest questions of this generation and the more of them that walk away, the less likely we are to get them. As I write this, though, faces flash through my mind – faces of young adults who haven’t given up on Christianity – at least not yet - but who are wrestling with all kinds of questions and issues. I fervently hope that they hang in there – that they keep pushing and keep questioning…

Maybe I’m just getting old. Maybe I’m being a hypocrite. After all, haven’t I closed my mind to certain worldviews? How can I criticize someone for closing their mind to Christ, when I’ve essentially closed my mind to all worldviews that aren’t centred in Christ? But I’ve also argued that certainty can be dangerous. I do recognize that I hold a lot of what I believe to be true fairly loosely – and I might be criticized by some for being TOO wishy washy in my thinking. But the truth is - I don’t have it all figured out. I know that. In fact, I love the uncertainties. I love the questions. I love trying to figure out what I've missed or where my thinking has taken a wrong turn.

And maybe I’m too stressed out about this. They'll figure it out. Or not. Either way, all I can do is keep on trying to put my faith into practice in a way that is real and honest and transparent... and I can pray that God, in his sovereignty, will open our eyes.

More thoughts on evil

2010-05-31T13:54:00.006-03:00

So - writing that last post certainly didn't help me to STOP thinking about the problem of evil! Here are some bits and pieces that may or may not come across as being coherent.

Evil is a perennial problem. It messes everything up. It lies and cheats and steals and mocks and gloats. It manipulates and tempts. It cannot be trusted - ever. It is pervasive and persistent. It is always near - always lurking in the shadows and dancing in the light. And every person and every generation decides how they are going to deal with evil.

The three monkeys who say, "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" embody one attitude toward our relationship with evil (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_wise_monkeys for some background). It may keep you out of trouble, but honestly it's not a very inspiring posture.

I confess that I find it tempting to just stay out of evil's way and sometimes I'm not proud of it. Sometimes I want to have more courage to take evil on. For sure I want to see myself as being on the side of good. I don't want to be naive. I don't want to put my head in the sand and just fill my eyes and ears and mouth with pleasant and uplifting sounds and sights. But I'm noticing a disturbing trend, especially as I watch popular culture and how it appeals to the generation of young people - the teens and twenty-somethings. Always a rebellious age, but it seems to me that as a generation, they have adopted a reckless attitude toward evil. It's like they think they can mock it - toy with it - call its bluff - flirt with it. But still be able to walk away. Still be able to resist entrapment. Still be in control.

The post-modern aversion to absolute truth may have opened this generation up to a dangerous lack of respect for the power of absolute evil.

The truth is, I think, that there is a very fine line between good and evil. But it IS a line and we can't straddle it. We are always on one side of it or the other. We might for a time be able to cross back and forth - but that's a very dangerous game and one that most of us won't win.

There's a term in social sciences these days to describe people who defy the negative circumstances that they're in and manage to survive and even thrive against all odds. The term is positive deviance (see http://www.positivedeviance.org/ for one explanation of this concept). It's a neat thing. It's a woman who, in spite of all kinds of economic, emotional and physical hardships and oppression, has not only survived but also manages to provide for her children. Where others are crushed by life's circumstances, she finds a way. And here's the thing. When it's POSITIVE deviance, she does it without giving into the temptation of evil. She does it without cheating or lying or stealing. She does it by abiding by the rules, not by ignoring them or spitting on them.

In this generation I see an interesting combination of things at work: there is a longing for justice and goodness but it's mixed with a loathing for all pretense and then there is the arrogance of youth that presumes immortality in the face of danger. Danger? Bring it on! They ignore our words of caution and warning as feeble and cowardly and impotent babblings of a pathetic generation which spends most of its time pretending that things are not what they appear. Where I might try to tip toe around evil, they march right up to it and think that they might even beat evil at its own game. They might run with evil - laughing at our cautions - but in the end, they think that they can turn it in. Of course many youth will even laugh at our insistence to differentiate between good and evil. They may think it's all an illusion and that all that matters is the thrill of the ride - seeking out and squeezing every opportunity for pleasure. For a season they may be content with this philosophy of life but there may be moments when disenchantment casts a shadow on the good times. Drugs or alcohol or a good shopping spree might banish the disenchantment for a time, but at odd times you'll find it nibbling at the edges of your carefree contentment.

Evil is real. Hiding from it isn't the solution, but neither is it wise to make it your friend.

The problem of evil

2010-05-31T10:38:00.003-03:00

Over the years many much smarter and much more articulate people than I have tackled this topic. I don't pretend that I have anything new to add to those voices, but I've been thinking about this so much of late that I just need to get something down on paper. So here goes...

A while back I was invited to speak at a pretty large church out west. As I usually do when I'm given the opportunity, I talked about some of the immense challenges facing humanity, and the growing disparity between the global rich and the global poor, and the opportunity and obligation for the "church" to live faithfully and justly and simply and to be a prophetic witness in our world - to live out a "different" way - to be and to offer a creative and positive counter cultural movement.

As the congregants filed out after the service, one agitated man confronted me at the door with the question, "what do you consider to be the greatest injustice in the world?". Now I suppose that I should be well equipped for such a moment with a clear and confident response to this question. It's a reasonable question, after all. But still, it caught me off guard. My mind raced through possible responses and I don't remember exactly what I said but it was something about there being so MANY injustices and all of them serious, but so many of them rooted in power and economic disparity. Whatever I said exactly, I clearly failed his test. As it turns out I think that to pass his test would have required that I simplify the whole thing and identify abortion as the greatest injustice. But I don't want to talk about that here - that's a topic for another day...

The question (of the greatest injustice) has been lodged in my mind and I can't seem to find an answer that completely satisfies me. Since coming back from Rwanda recently, I seem to be more aware than ever of the many big and small ways that humanity abuses and oppresses the marginalized and the weak. But I'm also more aware of examples - large and small - of people who refuse to take advantage of their positions of power and influence to improve their own position. The stark contrast between beauty and hope and resilience and generosity on the one hand and meanness and selfishness and brutality on the other hand has me baffled. I look at individuals who, acting out of some deep woundedness and sense of vulnerability, lash out at those around them in all manner of destructive ways. I listen to the news and feel an immense sadness for people who are SO hurt and disoriented that they truly don't know how to live well. The sadness is profound.

And I'm frustrated when Christians are satisfied with trite responses to the pain and evil that is so pronounced in our world. Years ago when I helped with our AWANA youth program one of the verses that the kids had to memorize was Jeremiah 17:9 - The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? The older I get the more I see our capacity for wicked thought, wicked action, wicked intent... but I also see the possibilities to stare down our own wickedness and do something else - something good and right and just. We CAN train ourselves to resist the evil that comes naturally to us. Maybe the first thing is to acknowledge that wickedness and evil IS our default setting. If we do nothing to change it, we WILL act according to our base nature of selfishness and greed. But it doesn't have to be so. We CAN be different. And as we pursue a different path we become part of a movement that resists evil in all of its forms. As individuals we live in such a way that people not only feel safe around us, but may even seek out our company so that they can find some space to gather strength for their own struggles. This little light of mine, I'm going to let it shine.

I think this is our first step - our Jerusalem. It's being light in the small sphere of our personal influence - our homes, our places of work and worship. It's no small thing. And I truly think that this is ALL that God asks of us. It's the only thing that we have to offer - our own life as we lay it down. What God will do with it beyond our Jerusalem is for him to decide. But as I've said before, this is not an invitation to apathy - rather, it's an acknowledgment that God is in control of ALL things, seen and unseen. He may use us in Judea, Samaria and to the ends of the earth, but if we haven't figured out how to live simply and justly and faithfully in our own skins and in Jerusalem, we won't be much use anywhere else.

Evil is real - no doubt. And we're not going to outsmart it or outmaneuver it or outrun it. But we can - and must - resist evil... and be part of communities that help one another in our resistance efforts - in our own hearts, in Jerusalem, in Judea, in Samaria and to the ends of the earth.

World Religions Leaders' Summit in Canada

2010-05-07T09:16:00.005-03:00

No doubt you've heard that Canada is hosting the political leaders of the G8 and G20 countries this June (the 25-27) in Ontario - the G8 leaders will meet in the Muskoka Region (in Huntsville) on June 25 and 26, the summit that some are already dubbing "the blackfly summit"! For trivia buffs, this will be their 36th annual meeting. The G20 leaders meet in Toronto, June 26-27.

What you may not know is that from June 21-23, just prior to the political summit, religious leaders from around the world will be gathering at the University of Winnipeg in a parallel summit (see http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/index/news-g8) to talk about the challenges facing humanity and to finalize an interfaith statement to be delivered to the political leaders. A draft of this statement, as well as a number of faith-based responses to it, can be found at http://www.faithchallengeg8.com/responses_en.html. This is the 6th Annual Relgious Leaders' Summit.

A Canadian Interfaith Partnership group (led by the Canadian Council of Churches) has been working for the past 18 months or so, preparing to host this event. The countdown is on and plans are coming together nicely. While the event promises to be a good one - with religious leaders representing the major faith traditions in the world, great speakers, a wonderful venue, etc. etc. - what remains to be done is to mobilize Canadians of faith to be effectively engaged in the process, now and in the future.

Political leaders can meet, discuss, strategize... faith leaders can meet, discuss, strategize. But at the end of the day, if the citizens of the world are not informed and involved, all of the plans and strategies may evaporate into thin air as new challenges and new crises demand immediate attention. The Millennium Development Goals are a case in point. When they were established by the United Nations at the beginning of the 21st century, we all felt comforted that problems had been identified, specific targets had been set and there seemed to be the political will to tackle the problems in a coherent and coordinated manner. The G8 and G20 leaders were all on side. But then, at each successive meeting, some new disaster diverted their attention away from the MDGs - 9/11, the tsunami in Asia, Hurricane Katrina, the global economic recession, the ongoing "war against terror", and most recently the earthquake in Haiti (to name but a few) - all big issues, but perhaps all symptoms of more fundamental problems which remain unaddressed and unresolved.

Leaders come and go, whether they are political leaders or spiritual leaders. They have good intentions. But they ALL work within systems not of their own making. There are political (both big "P" and little "p") realities and economic pressures that can be quite unforgiving. The effectiveness of any leader lasts only as long as their tenure, and that can be cut short in any number of ways. Point is, if we leave it to the leaders - whether political or spiritual - we shouldn't be surprised to find that progress has been slow and the good intentions haven't produced the kinds of results that were promised.

I'm absolutely 100% convinced that people of faith - and that includes any and all kinds of faith - CAN and SHOULD be involved in the political processes as informed and engaged global citizens. Working as a member of the Interfaith Steering Committee for the Religious Leaders' Summit has been my first opportunity to work in an interfaith context. And it's been refreshing and encouraging to sit around the table with people from various faith traditions, to talk about issues of global justice.

The Interfaith Partnership began our work together with a devotion that drew our attention to the fact that every major faith tradition in the world has some version of what Christians call the "golden rule" - "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (see http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm). It turns out that we have LOTS in common and when we don't focus on our differences, we have something of significance to say to our political leaders - and they WILL listen when we speak with one voice!

There's been lots of discussion in the media around the agenda for this event, focusing especially on Stephen Harper's intention to make maternal and child health a development priority for the upcoming G8 Summit (that is, Millennium Development Goals four and five - reduce child mortality and improve maternal health). And of course, economic issues will likely steal the stage as well as any current environmental crisis. In fact, the priority issues for the summit are the economy, the environment, and development (see http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/evaluations/2010muskoka/2010prospects090702.html for more detail).

If you want to get up to speed on the Summits taking place in Canada - both political and religious - here are a few good links:

For lots of good information on the G8 summits, including specific information on the 2010 summit, see http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/.
The website for the Interfaith Partnership is http://www.faithchallengeg8.com/.
There is an online petition that you can check out - it's pretty brief and to the point - you can find it at http://petition.faithchallengeg8.com/. Those of you who know me, know that I'm not a big fan of online petitions because we sometimes use them to satisfy ourselves that we've "done something" when we actually haven't taken the time to understand the issues or to have an informed opinion. So, I encourage you to sign the petition, but only AFTER you've read it and have done anough extra reading and thinking to be confident that you actually DO agree with it!

Well, that should give you a good start. Also, a reminder - don't get discouraged thinking that the problems are simply too BIG. You can't do everything, but you can do something, and the first step is to be informed...

Olympic Shine... or Shame?

2010-04-20T18:12:00.002-03:00

I might have been an Olympian. No - really. Back in 1980 (I know – that was 3o years ago!) I was on the Canadian National Field Hockey Squad. I was one of 20 “carded” women field hockey players in Canada - essentially we were on Federal Government Scholarships so that we could devote time to training. Most of us were in university and the financial support meant that we could train instead of working. And if Canada hadn’t boycotted the Olympics that year – well, I might have been one of the 16 chosen to represent our country at the Olympics. And, just for the record, the Canadian Women’s field hockey team did qualify for the Olympics in 1980. But, fact is, that was the year Moscow hosted the Olympics and the cold war was still “on” and we boycotted. I had mixed feelings then and still do. To be perfectly honest, I most likely wouldn’t have been one of the 16, but at least I would have been in the running. So I don’t really exaggerate when I say that I might have been an Olympian.

So, that being said, I watch the Olympics – both winter and summer - with a bit of nostalgia and when the Canadian National Anthem is played, I feel more than a little pride and usually a tear or two. It’s a noble thing to represent one’s country. At least it can be. But I also confess that I have mixed feelings about the Olympics these days. It’s not just that we’ve totally crossed the line that used to keep professional athletes out of the Olympics so that Olympic athletes were really amateurs, unspoiled by huge salaries and endorsements. It’s not just that technology and performance enhancing drugs have made the competitions all about shaving fractions of seconds off of personal best efforts – to an almost ridiculous degree. No – I suppose those things are predictable and pretty much inevitable and for those who have committed their lives to their Olympic endeavours, they make sense (I guess).

My unease has more to do with the fact that there is no such thing as a “level playing field”. Countries invest in their athletes. And for host countries - that's another level of spending altogether as they put millions of dollars on facilities and infrastructure and other expenses associated with staging the games. In fact, the Vancouver Sun reports that the 2010 Olympics actually cost in excess of 6 BILLION dollars (see http://www.vancouversun.com/Sports/Olympics+bill+tops+billion/1207886/story.html). We justify the dollars spent as an “investment”. If all goes well, the argument goes, the investment will pay off – in medals, in money spent by those visiting the event, in good will, in positive press, in National pride, in a boost in economic activity in the host city... It's a marketing bonanza.

The fact is, though, the Olympic Games are really an indulgence for the rich. Rich athletes, rich countries, rich corporations, rich fans. Money flows. People are giddy with the spending rush.

Sure – the Opening Ceremonies celebrate and showcase the participation of athletes and artists from all kinds of countries – rich and poor, north and south, developed and developing, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. And for a moment we can believe that every athlete has a chance to compete and win. And sure enough, there are always amazing athletes who defy all rational expectations and rise above poverty or personal tragedy or injury or illness – and make it to the podium as shining examples of the indomitable human spirit. We celebrate with them and cry tears of joy and pride in solidarity with their effort. But who are we kidding? For every rags to riches story – every success against all odds profile – there are hundreds of thousands, likely millions of aspiring Olympians who don’t make it to the games, let alone to the podium.

And the collateral damage of the event may be more or less invisible to the naive and uninitiated, but it’s very real. While the spotlight is on the athletes and the podium, who’s thinking about the prostitutes, the homeless, the broken-hearted, the hopeless? And, with progress on the Millennium Development Goals lagging behind targets in many countries, is it really ok to spend billions of dollars to bring elite athletes together to push themselves to the very limits of human performance in an effort to “own the podium”? Surely our celebrations are dampened by the fact that the playing field is far from level and the Olympics actually perpetuate and celebrate inequalities.

Maybe you’re thinking that even Jesus said that the poor would always be with us. As I’ve likely said before, I’m an idealist – but even I don’t think that we’re going to eradicate poverty. But we can do a lot better than we’re doing and until we really put our hearts into it, somehow the excesses of the Olympics take a lot of the shine off the medals – at least from where I sit.

Rwanda, ethnic identity, genocide - what can we learn?

2010-03-21T16:11:00.002-03:00

I'm in Rwanda, mostly observing and trying to learn all that I can about the challenges and opportunities for Rwanda in these days with the 1994 genocide of Tutsis now almost exactly 16 years in the past. I've been reading all kinds of accounts of the genocide and watching documentaries and movies and I just can't imagine the horror of it.

How is it possible that any person could do the things that were done? I have no answer for that question, though I know that this was neither the first nor the last time that people will act in such a way. And, to be honest, I have no absolute certainty that I would be incapable of such actions myself. It's clear that simply being a Christian does not innoculate us against participating in evil. After all, Rwanda was, at the time of the genocide, one of the most Christian countries in the world if we are looking at church affiliation and attendance as indicators of faith.

In some ways Rwanda seems to be an example of a country which has, with determination, put the horrific events of those 100 days in 1994 behind it. The government has taken a firm hand and there seems to be a quite remarkable stability here. It's an absolutely stunningly beautiful country, with rolling hills, lush soil, a wonderful climate, and a people working hard to keep a half step ahead of extreme poverty. And yet, it still feels like a fragile and tentative peace.

In fact, just a few weeks ago there were some grenade attacks in Kigali and the military presence now is apparently much more noticeable than is "normal". Still, I feel quite safe. But as I watch and listen, I can't help wondering what we can learn from the Rwandan experience. What lesson is there in all of this for me as an individual Christian, or for the entire family of faith?

The National narrative in Rwanda - that is, the state generated ideology to ensure that such a thing will not happen again (the "never again" campaign) - is espoused in all kinds of ways and in all kinds of places. The explicit claim is that the country is united. People are taught that they are Rwandan, not Hutu or Tutsi (or Twa - the aboriginal peoples). But this raises the question of identity and I wonder if it's healthy to try to eradicate one's ethnic identity...?

Now there are those who claim that the ethnic division between Tutsi and Hutu was quite artificial anyway, so erasing it is an entirely good thing. But I'm not sure that it's that easy to erase an identity, especially once a history and a consciousness has been established and seered into one's very being. Surely it would be good if a person can be Rwandese AND Hutu or Rwandese AND Tutsi or Rwandese AND Twa. We've visited communities that are beneficiaries of Canadian Foodgrains Bank food security projects, where community members (both Hutu and Tutsi, and even Twa) are working together and gradually learning how to trust. But it's not easy.

Sometimes I think we Canadians have put too much emphasis on multiculturalism and pluralism, but as I sit here in Rwanda I have to say that I'm very happy to be part of the Canadian effort to be inclusive and to even celebrate ethnic and religious and cultural and political and linguistic diversity. I know that our acceptance of "the other" among us may not be as deep or as genuine or as optimistic as we might hope, but it seems right that we would allow for diversity rather than suppressing it.

I recognize that our treatment of the First Nations peoples continues to be a signficant stain on our credibility, and an issue whose "solution" continues to elude us, and I know that things are not always what they seem. There are still marginalized and vulnerable people in Canada - lots of them, in fact - but we at least seem to be moving in a positive direction, even if it is painfully slowly for those who feel the sting of racism or other forms of discrimination and stigma.

I guess that the real point of this posting - sorry that I've been rambling! - is that I'm actually quite concerned that the security that we often take for granted in Canada may actually be quite fragile. It's easy to get along when we are enjoying a pretty enviable standard of living and when our economy is holding up pretty well under lots of international pressure. We're not being attacked by foreign armies and our climate, though a little odd at times, is not nearly as extreme as it is in other places. We all like to criticize the government for one thing or another, but all in all, we're pretty pleased with our democratic system - and what we don't like, we're free to advocate to change. We can complain about education but essentially ALL of our kids get to go to school. We may grumble about inefficiencies and delays in accessing our health care, but most of us are pretty proud of our Medicare system. The price of food can make it harder to stretch our food budget, but most of us don't lose a lot of sleep wondering whether or not we will eat the next day or if our kids will die from some complication of malnutrition. Yup - all things considered we have it pretty good in Canada. But that could all change in a heartbeat. I won't bother to spell out the possible scenarios that could turn things upside down - and I'm not being a prophet of doom - honestly!

My point is that we would do well to learn from Rwanda. As Christians, we need to guard our hearts and our minds against all manner of evil, not by making sure that we have everything we need for safety and security, but by living radically counter cultural lives. Being generous, not AFTER we've looked after all of our needs and desires, but off the top. Being an advocate and an encourager for the vulnerable - not just those who are half way around the world, but also those in our own neighbourhoods. Being a person who actively looks for ways to extend peace into our world, even when it's inconvenient or uncomfortable.

Next month is the month of mourning for Rwanda and especially from April 7-15 the country will be commemorating the pain of the genocide. Back in 1994 the world withdrew from Rwanda and left evil to run its course. In the aftermath of the genocide we were shocked, not just by the genocide in Rwanda, but also by our own indifference. The question that continues to haunt me is this: how is my faith equipping me to stand firm in the face of the evil forces which are loose in our world? Or am I choosing to stay clear of evil as best I can so that I will not have to put my faith or my life on the line? Tough questions...

What does Jesus REALLY want from us?

2010-03-01T12:25:00.000-04:00

You know the time that Jesus encounters the rich young man - or the rich young ruler, depending on the translation? And remember how this intense young man seeks Jesus out and asks him what he needs to do to make sure that he’s on the right path? It’s a neat encounter. The way I see it, this guy is honestly searching for moral truth. He really wants to know how he can be righteous. And I believe him when he says that he’s kept the commandments. I used to think that he was being naïve in that he didn’t really know what he was claiming, but I’m starting to think that maybe, he really DID keep them. After all, they were pretty clear and if you were just going by the letter of the law, maybe it wasn’t actually impossible to keep them. So if we think for now that he is telling the truth – that he HAS kept the commandments – the fact that here he is, asking Jesus what more he needs to do implies that he intuitively knows that keeping the commandments is NOT enough. And, possibly – he wasn’t alone. I bet there were lots of pretty righteous Jews who had grown up in families which took the instructions in Deuteronomy 11:19-20 to heart. Families where the rules were taught, modeled, reinforced – where compliance was rewarded and where kids grew up knowing “right” from “wrong”. So here this guy is – a product of his culture and family – I think he would be a young man with a stellar reputation and perhaps his wealth or his social power would be interpreted as the evidence of a life God blesses. But it’s not enough, and he knows it.

So then Jesus unpacks the commandments and sums them up with one thing that this earnest young man lacks. Jesus tells him to sell everything he has, give the money to the poor and come along with Jesus for the ride. Honestly, I’m surprised by the outcome. Bottom line is this: the rich young man turns down the offer – he goes away SAD because HE IS A MAN OF GREAT WEALTH. Ironic, eh? The very thing which could be seen as the indication of blessing for obedience – the wealth, the social power – Jesus says, just give those things up and come hang out with me. But he can’t do it. In fact, it doesn’t even seem that he gives the idea much thought. He chooses to go back to what he knows – what seems safe and secure and comfortable. He goes back to affluence. He goes back to a way of being that he knows is NOT fulfilling. A way of living which he knows is missing something. An empty righteousness.

I’ve thought about this encounter and I’ve even spoken about it some. I’ve never been satisfied that my interpretation of it has been accurate. I usually qualify the clear instruction of Jesus to this young man by saying something to the effect that it doesn’t necessarily mean that Jesus expects US to actually sell all that we have and give to the poor. I say it’s more about whether or not we would be willing to… whether or not we have made our money and our influence an IDOL, which gets in the way of our relationship with God or with other people. I join the majority view which rationalizes and justifies our affluence and lets us off the hook. I say that of course Jesus doesn’t REALLY think we should sell everything. Surely Jesus knows that if we give ALL that we have to the poor, it’s not really going to make any difference. The poor will always be among us. We can’t help them all. Jesus says so himself.

But what if he really DOES mean it? What if it’s not really about the poor and what our small contributions – even if we give it ALL - can do to make their lives better? Here’s the thing: what if the act of getting rid of our riches is not about what it can do for the poor at all but all about freeing US from the temptation to trust in our wealth, our wisdom and our strength? And in case you don’t recognize that reference, it’s Jeremiah 9:23-24 – the prophet clearly tells us NOT to boast in these things but rather, if we’re going to boast we should boast that we KNOW and UNDERSTAND God, who is a God of justice. So what if our perfectly normal and natural participation in the social and economic structures of our society IS the problem? I know. This sounds WAY too radical. This is the sort of thing you might expect from an overly idealistic teenager. From someone who hasn’t yet figured out that you can actually do more good by going along with the world the way is. You know – get an education, get a good job, make lots of money and then you can enjoy a very comfortable life for yourself and still have some alms to give to the poor. You might even sacrifice some hard earned vacation time to go on a mission trip so that you can see first hand how desperately the poor need your help. I know. I don’t like where this is headed either. But I just can’t shake the thought that maybe Jesus really meant what he said. And as I think about it – holding this thought up to the light – it’s actually totally consistent with lots of other things that he said about justice and faith and warnings about money.

Final comment: even if we can convince ourselves that the idea of giving our material wealth away so that we can follow Jesus is ONLY for those who are too attached to their wealth, do we dare to ask God to clearly show us if that means US? Surely not I Lord…?

Not about Haiti... thoughts about sprititual rebar

2010-02-04T09:14:00.005-04:00

I’ve had a chorus stuck in my mind for several weeks. You may know it from Sunday School:

Don’t build your house on the sandy land

Don’t build it too near the shore.

Well it might look kind of nice but you’ll have to build it twice;

Oh you’ll have to build your house once more!

You’ve got to build your house upon the rock;

Make a good foundation on a solid spot.

The rains may come and go, but the peace of God you will know!

This posting isn’t about Haiti. I suppose some of the images of the destruction in Haiti have subconsciously called this little chorus up from my memory banks. And along with the song, there are images of La Paz in Bolivia - a city of over a million inhabitants living at 3660m above sea level - the highest capital city in the world. La Paz is the administrative capital of Bolivia. But the first impression - and pretty amazing geographic reality - is that La Paz is literally built in a crater. As you drive down into the downtown section of La Paz from the airport, you literally wind down and around from the top of the crater to the bottom. There are houses everywhere, precariously perched on bits of land that must surely be hugely unstable. Apparently the poorer you are, the more likely it is that you will have to build your home in the most precarious areas. Areas that are almost sure to give way in the event of a mud slide or earthquake, or even a tremor. Even a good rainstorm could wash away the earth on which your home is perched.

Why do people build there, you might ask? Don’t they realize the danger? Why don’t they build on solid ground? Well – the stark reality is that there’s only so much solid ground to be had and many people – the majority in a place like La Paz – are simply priced out of the market for safety and security. It doesn’t really matter what they’d LIKE to do – that’s not an option. They build where they can. They do what they can. They take risks, not because they want to, but because they must. The winds come – the rain falls – they get knocked down – washed out – and, if they survive, they pick themselves up and start again.

The other image in my mind is of construction projects in countries where I’ve traveled - Bolivia and Kenya and El Salvador and Cuba and the Dominican Republic. Places where cement is often made in small mixers, transported by wheel barrel and poured, small batch by small batch, into crude forms. And the rebar (that's short for reinforcing bar) – the pieces of steel or, in their case, wood – whose purpose is to give the structure strength… Well, let’s just say that I wouldn’t want to place too much confidence in some of those buildings!

But what I really want to talk about in this posting is the metaphorical meaning behind this little Sunday School chorus. It’s not so much about our physical houses, but about our spiritual health and resilience. “Don’t build your house on the sandy land; don’t build it too near the shore…” The message is that we are to build our lives on the solid foundation of Jesus Christ. I totally agree. But here’s the thing. What does this mean? What does it look like? See – we talk a lot about spiritual growth and discipleship, but much of what we DO seems to focus on just helping people find the lot where they can put their foundation. It's not so much about the building that takes place once the foundation is established. We want to “reach people for Christ”, bring people into the family of God, grow our churches. We encourage our youth to reach their friends – and it turns out that, in many cases, they’re way ahead of us. And they are passionate about DOING SOMETHING real with their faith.

How do we know if we’re growing spiritually? What’s our scorecard? Is it how many people we bring into the kingdom? There’s got to be more to spiritual growth than that. What’s our spiritual rebar? How do we BUILD on the foundation that Christ has provided? Are we preaching and teaching people into the kingdom, but then leaving them standing – exposed to the elements of the “isms” of our modern world – consumerism, individualism, materialism, narcissism…

I believe that the people of God are to BE a counter cultural movement. As I've said in previous postings, not counter cultural in the sense of criticizing culture, but rather, creating culture. Not counter cultural in the sense of being dogmatic and legalistic about the forms and doctrines and worship styles and appearance of our faith. These things, I think should be held fairly loosely so that they help us to grow up into our calling as Christians. A calling, by the way, to be the incarnational presence of the servant Christ in a world that often ignores or even despises him.

A Jesus broke down walls and erased lines of division. Sometimes it seems that we're so set on making sure that only the people who think and act like us "get in" - to our churches, our lives, our "mission" - that we stop growing ourselves and spend all of our time tending and mending fences of exclusion.

For me, it's pretty simple. The foundation is our relationship with Christ, who describes himself as the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6). The spiritual rebar is the fruit of the spirit - love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and self control. But the other thing is that the life that we build and LIVE is a communal life - a life of relationship and fellowship, of koininia. We're not on our own in this. We are part of a family, a movement, a wonderfully diverse and eclectic group of people who want to live according to the principles and norms and values of the kingdom. No need for lines or walls or gatekeepers. We are a people on the way.

And the way is marked by simplicity and faith and justice and generosity and vulnerability and hope and transparency and genuine love, one for another. It is, as the bible says, a narrow way (Matthew 7:14), but by no means an exclusive way.

Is this what our society sees in us? Is this the kind of reputation that our churches have in our communities? We may be despised and persecuted for our faith, but it shouldn't be because we are drawing lines of exclusion or defending our rights or criticizing public policy and public officials. God calls us to trust in Him and to live our lives the way Jesus taught us to - as servants. In the end, people turned on Jesus, not because he criticized or condemned them, but because he loved them and they did not understand his love.

These are exciting days to BE the people of God!

More thoughts on Haiti... and disaster response

2010-01-19T10:00:00.003-04:00

I've been thinking more these last few days about Haiti and about "our" response to disaster. I think I've mentioned - probably more than once - a great little book by Sabine Alkire and Edmund Newell entitled What Can One Person Do?. In this book, the authors spell out what they call the spiritual phases of engagement: compassion, responsibility, respect, humility and dependence. A very quick review:

1. compassion is about feeling badly for people who are suffering - it's an important emotional identification, but an entry level response. We watch the news or ads that depict the life circumstances of people a world away and our heart aches for their suffering. These feelings may lead us to pray and to give. We Christians sometimes feel that such actions are part of our Christian duty - that God calls us to be compassionate and so, in praying and giving, we are representing Christ and doing his work on earth. Nothing wrong with this, but remember - it's ENTRY LEVEL...

2. responsibility is about seeing the connection between the suffering of others and the lifestyle of affluence that gives us the luxury of not worrying about where our daily bread will come from, or whether or not our children will have the opportunity to go to school, or whether our house will fall in on us during the night. It's about understanding how the global economy works and how the distribution of resources favors some and exploits others. You may think this sounds like the ramblings of a bleeding heart socialist... Maybe so - but think about it. How else can you explain the incredible disparities between the haves and the have nots of this world? Surely we can't really believe that the billions of people who barely survive on a dollar or two a day, are all just incredibly lazy or stupid?! Responsibility is a tough pill to swallow.

3. respect is really believing that EVERY human being is created in the image of God and is worthy of dignity and life and hope - respect. It's about really and truly loving our neighbour as we love ourselves and doing unto them as we would have them do unto us, if THEY had all the advantages a strong economy provides, and we had the poverty and drought and exploitative market conditions.

4. humility is about realizing that we can't do everything - we can't singlehandedly solve the problem of poverty, or of ignorance, or of greed. We can't do it all, but we CAN do something. We can feel compassion and we can accept responsibility. We can enter into life in a way that respects people as a starting point. We can decide to live simply, justly, and faithfully and we can lean into that decision, content in the knowledge that that is what God expects of us - no more and no less.

5. dependence is about realizing that God is in control. He is building his kingdom. Sometimes we may have a hard time seeing it, but as we learn to train our vision - to look past the immediate and superficial layers of the political, social, economic and ecological order - God is at work. Ok, so seeing it may actually require an a priori step of believing that God IS and that he is good and true to his word. I'm good with that.

So all this is a preface to saying this: I think that we respond to disasters because it lets us slip in, somewhere between phase one - compassion - and phase two - responsibility. You see, an earthquake or a tsunami or a hurricane or even a terrorist attack, is nobody's fault. Natural disasters happen - wrong place at the wrong time and it could be any one of us buried beneath a building or looking for our loved ones in the rubble. Terrorist attacks are a little different, but even so - the victims are random and could therefore be us. So, we rise up - we dig deep into our wallets - we send money - we pray - we talk about it over coffee - we mourn. But here's what I think: we don't feel responsible! We actually let ourselves OFF the hook and focus on just what's in front of us - incredible, heart-wrenching, horrendous NEED.

I just heard the tail end of an interview on CBC radio with a woman who has written a book about disaster responses and she made the point that sometimes the aim of disaster response is to get a situation back to "normal". Normal in Haiti wasn't a particularly good place to be - poorest country in the western hemisphere and all! - so she pointed out that the possibility exists that all of this outpouring of compassion and cash COULD actually aim higher than "normal" and, in the long run, maybe help the Haiti and Haitians that are left to define a new and better "normal". And, come to think of it, isn't that what development is about.

The Sharing Way - and many other faith based development agencies - take our money AND our sense of responsibility - and invest them in the hard and slow work of building capacity, developing leadership, planting and carefully tending seeds of hope, and perhaps most important of all, demonstrating in very tangible ways the love of Christ and the amazing way that his kingdom binds us together across continents and conditions and crises. See http://www.cbmin.org/cbm/hunger-for-change for this year's annual project and for resources to help you understand the need and the response...

So I say again - YES, GIVE TO EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUNDS - but when the media moves on and Haiti fades from our immediate view, keep giving, to the development projects that help the poor find their way out of the rubble of poverty.

And, since poverty isn't just about money and stuff - start weeding your own garden and root out the attitudes and practices that allow you to hide behind your affluence and avoid taking that giant step from compassion to responsibility!

Haiti... and thoughts on relief and development

2010-01-17T20:54:00.002-04:00

I know that I said my next posting would be on my personal millennium development goals - and I've been pondering how to do that exactly (it's not as easy as you might think!)- but I'm going to defer that until "next time".

Like most of you, I can't help thinking about the unimaginable horrors in Haiti following the massive earthquake on January 10/10 and numerous serious aftershocks. I'm receiving emails - a dozen or more every day - from agencies who are gathering money to help finance the emergency relief efforts in Haiti. I stopped to pick up a few bananas at an Irving gas station yesterday and was asked if I would donate a dollar for the Haiti emergency relief fund and Irving will match that dollar. Our Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) is also offering matching grants, up to $50 million, for Haiti. Other groups are organizing fund raising events - from bake sales to benefit concerts - all to help this country which has been touted as the poorest country in the western hemisphere - and that was BEFORE this latest crisis!

So all this fundraising sounds well and good and it really is encouraging to see people respond to the very obvious and critical needs of this battered country. But I can't help wondering if massive injections of money to Haiti at this point is the best response we can give. Yes - Haitians need food and water and medical care, NOW. But there are obviously going to be longer term needs too. And how many points of entry can there be for funds to be used effectively? How can funds be most strategically administered in a country with a severely crippled infrastructure? Will emergency aid, literally dropped into Haiti, cause more problems than it solves? These are not rhetorical questions. And, given persistent and growing concerns about climate change, is there going to come a point when some places in the world are deemed to be "uninhabitable" and rather than rebuilding, efforts will be on relocating survivors to other places? Are we prepared to even think about that?

If we have money to give - and I seriously hope that you do - is this the best option? The best way to give?

PLEASE - before I write another word and before you read the rest of this posting - I want you to promise that you will NOT use this posting as a justification for holding onto any cash that you have thought about donating to Haiti or some other aid or development fund. Seriously. I'm in no way suggesting that Haiti is not a worthy cause. But the fact is, Haiti was a worthy cause BEFORE the earthquake and Haiti is but one of hundreds of worthy causes if we want to invest in initiatives aimed at reducing misery.

The fact is, charitable giving is taking a hit with the current economic uncertainties (as if there are ever "certainties" when it comes to the economy!). At Canadian Baptist Ministries, for example, giving to The Sharing Way (our relief and development fund) is down and sadly, innovative and successful programs that we've supported for years are in danger of being abandoned for lack of funding. These are the programs that rely on consistent, monthly - often small - donations. You won't hear about them in the news and most of them don't get matching grants. They rely on our faithfulness month in and month out. And the sad news is that every time an individual or church decides that they can no longer afford to support these programs, the ball rolls back. Hope - for real people - may dim or even be extinguished. As I've written before, hope is an amazing thing and it's often incredibly resilient, but it's a tragedy when hope is kindled through some innovative program and then funding for that program is cut before the program has had a chance to bear fruit.

I guess the bottom line is this: if we have the ability and desire to give, we need to give consistently and strategically and collaboratively - and my hope is that we will also learn to give sacrificially. That is - we will develop a habit of putting the survival needs of other people ahead of things that we might like to have that would make our comfortable lives even more comfortable. Mahatma Gandhi said it well when he said: Live simply so that others may simply live. We need to give for the long haul. And we need to give for BOTH emergency relief AND ongoing development.

No New Year's Resolutions for me .. just a tweaking of priorities!

2010-01-05T12:14:00.006-04:00

Another New Year's Day has come and gone. Out with the old and in with the new. Even time feels somehow disposable. I confess that this year I didn't even give the making of New Year's resolutions a moment's thought. Just as well - if I HAD made any resolutions, I'd likely be feeling guilty - or at least sheepish - for failing already. Why is it that it's so obvious to us what we SHOULD be doing - with our time, our money, our access to food, our health, our relationships, our faith, our LIFE - but so hard to maintain consistency over the long haul? Never mind. I'm sure there are lots of explanations, none of which will inspire me to a better life.

Somewhere in the shallow recesses of my memory, is the answer a young girl gave to a reporter who asked her what she wanted to do in 2010. Her answer - simply to be "nicer". She went on to say that "I'm already pretty nice but I just want to be nicer". I love it! The simplicity and clarity of youth! What if we all resolved to be nicer, and then figured out what that would mean in our day to day interactions and negotiations? It's a pretty vague goal - hard to measure and pretty subjective - but still a goal worth setting, I think.

In fact, as compared to business models that are based on a results based approach, or even an approach to life that is purpose driven, I'd like to suggest that humanity would be well served if we opted instead for a character based approach to life and all its layers. I'm defining character according to qualities like integrity, trustworthiness, loyalty, honesty, diligence, humility, generosity - and yes, general niceness.

If I were to identify a goal for 2010 - and even for the rest of my natural life, however long that may be, it would be to be more fully human. I want to lean in to life - to live in a way that challenges ALL of my senses and ALL of my potential and ALL of my energy. Not recklessly or sporadically, but consistently and sustainably. I want to embrace life and live it in the company of others who also want to embrace it. Embrace it, not milk it or exploit it or deplete it. I want to take out and give back. I want to make the world a BETTER place - a more just place, a more human place. I don't want to waste time feeling guilty - for the advantages that I have inherited - or sorry - for the disadvantages that others have inherited. It's a luxury to be able to choose how I will live. So be it. I HAVE the luxury and I don't want to squander it. To do so when others are literally dying for lack of it would be inexcusable and wrong.

I have spoken about the United Nations Millennium Development Goals before - a set of 8 goals agreed to by 192 Nations at the turn of the century. Goals with specific targets to be achieved by the year 2015, which, if accomplished, would go a long way toward alleviating the most horrendous manifestations of poverty and suffering in the world. Many of us are working away, trying to hold our governments responsible to the commitments that they have made on our behalf. But it's easy to point fingers - maybe a bit more difficult to figure out a way that WE can adjust our living. A way that we can "live simply so that others may simply live." There's a wonderful book by Yann Arthus-Bertrand entitled Home: A Hymn to the Planet and Humanity (2009) (see http://www.yannarthusbertrand.org/). Yann Arthus-Bertrand is famous for his photographs AND his commitment to raising awareness about the challenges facing humanity. It's a great book and there's also a film by the same name (which you can watch online for free at http://www.youtube.com/homeprojectFR#p/f/1/jqxENMKaeCU). At the beginning of the book, Yann says this:

Every day, we are assailed by bad news: hunger is growing, the climate is affected, species are dying out, resources such as water, oil, and metals are dwindling, and we are on the brink of a worldwide economic crisis. And yet most of us have not changed at all. We read the many reports from the scientists and economists, but still we continue down the same path as if we were suddenly struck by some inescapable intellectual blindness. It is as if, although we know about it, we just don't want to believe it.

One of my students at St. Stephen's University - Kyle Jaster - submitted, as his last journal assignment, a tongue in cheek suggestion for some North American Millennium Development Goals. I think he's onto something! Here they are -

Goal 1- Halve Obesity Goal 2- Halve the number of Chains (Restaurants/ stores) Goal 3- Stop exploiting other peoples land Goal 4- Halve the salaries of top 10% of the population Goal 5- Halve the number of lies told in the media Goal 6- All politicians must take ‘loving my international neighbour 101’ Goal 7- Put on 50% more clothing Goal 8- Think about 2 people a day other than yourself

Ok - so chuckle but then figure out how YOU are going to lean into this life you've been given! And maybe spend a little time coming up with your very own Millennium Development Goals. Some wise (and anonymous) person has said that if you aim at nothing you will hit it every time (or something like that!). Seriously, I'm going to begin working on my MDGs - I'll let you know what I come up with next time!

Sustainable living...?

2009-12-19T12:08:00.003-04:00

For as long as I can remember I've had a soft spot for utopian visions. Or, more specifically, for anyone who dares to imagine beyond where we are now to a world that is MORE and BETTER. More human, more equitable, more celebratory, more free, more just. Better in terms of BEING a community where people live extraordinary lives, but extraordinary is the new normal. A quick aside here - we celebrate people like Ghandi or Mother Theresa, because they live their everyday lives as if the world really were a different place - a better place. Why do we allow ourselves to honour their example, but excuse ourselves for not following it?

Even when I wasn't doing the typical Christian things, like going to church or studying Scripture, or intentionally "fellowshipping" with other "believers", I was drawn to Jesus' proclamation that he had come that we might have LIFE, and more than that - that we might have it ABUNDANTLY. Or, as The Message puts it, "I came so they can have real and eternal life, more and better life than they ever dreamed of." I think that this is what utopian thinkers are after. More and better life than they ever dreamed of. But they DO the dreaming! And, on occasion, they really do rise above the din of mediocrity and they actually live the dream - some for moments and others in a more sustainable way.

That's all a lead-in to what's on my mind today. I confess that as I write, I have a tangle of thoughts and I THINK I've found a unifying theme, but I'm not sure how it will come out. So here goes...

I'm starting to worry that the leaders of the emerging generation will settle for "sustainable living" and forego the vision and effort required to even imagine what it might be like to actually embrace "abundant living". We talk (and talk and talk!) about reducing our ecological footprint - and well we should. But is this ALL we should aim for? I marked a journal entry this week from a student in my Globalization class. It's been a great class, by the way - what a privilege to teach 19 sensitive, intelligent, caring, emotionally and intellectually intricate university students about globalization! But, about the journal entry. This student talked about living in such a way as to do "no harm". It got me thinking.

If all of us would commit to live in such a way to do no harm, what might that look like? Would that produce "abundant life"? More and better life than we can imagine? Would it produce a utopian community or society? A utopian world? Well - honestly, I doubt it, though it certainly would be a step in the right direction. Here's the thing. As we emphasize environmental stewardship, I think there's a danger that we'll settle for a better life - for us and the planet - but not the best life. See, we'll figure out ways to continue to take more than we give. Seriously - the human heart is devious and we are GREAT at justifying our actions.

I listened to a series of podcasts this week by Bruxy Cavey at The Meeting House. The series is called Get Over Yourself. If you're interested you can find the series on iTunes (just search for The Meeting House in the podcast directory) or, you can download the mp3 file at http://www.themeetinghouse.ca/podcast/TMH.rss. The whole series is good but I especially liked the 4th one: Materialism: The Culture of Mine. For a long time I've been thinking (pondering and worrying) about our acceptance of debt as a natural and benign adaptation to a world where our wants outstrip our financial resources. Bruxy makes the point that we tend to hide our debt but we display our "stuff". It's a trap. We are deceived into thinking that the life we see in the ads and the blatantly ridiculous reality shows (ok - so maybe I have a huge bias AGAINST those shows) and in movies and in music - let's face it - the world that we see presented in pretty much every venue - is the life for us, even the "abundant life". We KNOW that this is stupid. We KNOW that money and stuff don't make people happy. We KNOW better! But we are weak. Our desires are stirred by the media. Bruxy talks about the move from aspirational marketing - I WANT that - to affirmational marketing - I NEED that, and even I DESERVE that. We have become a bottomless pit of desire for stuff.

So, into this sad scenario, enter the environmental movement and the disturbing message that all this STUFF is not only using up the earth's resources in quite unfortunately wasteful ways, but is also contributing to the poverty and suffering of millions of people in "poor" countries. I put "poor" in quotation marks because they are poor compared to us when the yard stick is economic growth and access to credit. Whether or not they are "poorer" than us in less tangible ways - like their sense of identity and community - well, that's something for another day... But the environmentalists urge us to live more simply and more sustainably. And I suppose out of that message has come this idea that we should do "no harm".

Like I said, not a bad first step, but PLEASE, let's not think that this is ALL there is. And let's not wait until we can pass some test for doing no harm, to start doing good. The fact is, if we're going to wait until we can be certified with a "no harm" stamp, we may never get around to actually doing good - putting MORE back into life than we take out. And, when I say MORE, I'm not thinking so much about money or planting more trees than we destroy. I mean MORE of the intangibles. When we really LIVE according to a different reality than the one the media portrays - a reality where peace and love and justice and mercy and hope are the norm. A reality where we live up to utopian ideal of true community. Where we really CARE about other people and that caring leads us to sacrificial action - putting THEIR needs and their value BEFORE ours. Where we share, not grudgingly or stingily, EVERYTHING that we have and everything that we are, from our stuff to our character. Where the world around us is a better place because we bring into it the presence and character of the one who said that we should love our neighbours as we love ourselves.

But for the grace of God...?

2009-11-30T10:50:00.002-04:00

There’s an expression that we use in ordinary parlance which has begun to irk me as I work in the area of justice. You probably guessed it from the title of this posting – “but for the grace of God” - or, the longer version, "there but for the grace of God go I." Here’s how we tend to use it. Someone is down on their luck – that is, they’re having a tough time, either due to their own poor choices or because of circumstances beyond their control, and in an effort to avoid an appearance of judgmentalism or hard heartedness, we say “but for the grace of God.” Sounds innocent enough - even pretty spiritual - but what are we REALLY saying?

Well – this is what I’m thinking. We’re actually saying that God’s grace has kept US from harm and hardship but God’s grace has NOT been extended to this unfortunate person. This poor person is suffering BECAUSE they are outside of the range of God’s grace. In other words, if God’s grace was active in their lives they wouldn’t be in the mess they’re in. They wouldn’t be homeless, or suffering from mental illness, or unemployed, or in an abusive relationship, or filing for bankruptcy – you get the picture. Or, they wouldn’t have been born in a country where there is never enough of anything to go around – food, water, shelter, education, money, hope. In other words, the trials and struggles of life are evidence - for both individuals and for entire countries – of living outside of God’s protection – outside of God’s grace.

This is ridiculous! I would argue that God’s grace IS sufficient for ALL people in ALL circumstances. God’s grace is not a magic shield that deflects all hardship and suffering. God’s grace is IN the suffering. Could God’s grace even CAUSE the suffering? Hm. Or does it simply ALLOW the suffering? I suspect that we’re more comfortable with the idea that God allows suffering but does not cause it. I’m not so sure though. Of course this is not a simple thing. If we dissect ANY situation – trying to untangle the various factors that are involved – we discover very quickly that IT’S COMPLICATED. Sometimes it seems pretty straightforward – a bad decision, a bad gene, bad timing – but as we dig a bit deeper, we discover more complex explanations and relationships. Did God cause Job’s suffering? No – you might say – he ALLOWED it but he didn’t CAUSE it? But didn’t God turn Job over? Would Job have suffered as he did if God had not set him up? Now that I’ve mentioned Job, I’ve probably messed up my argument since in his case, suffering WAS evidence of God’s intentional removal of his protection, and then, when the period of testing was over, God restored to Job MORE than he had lost. But that was Job and that was BEFORE Jesus came. What about us? What about God’s grace today?

And what about EVIL? From a Christian worldview, I believe that there is evil and that our life here on earth is only the visible part of a broader reality. But is every “good” thing evidence of the work of good spirits (sometimes called angels) and every “bad” thing evidence of the work of bad spirits (sometimes called demons)? Of course not! Bad things – so called - DO happen to good people – so called - and good things – so called - happen to bad people – so called. What’s “good” and what’s “bad” after all? Doesn’t the bible say that it rains on the just and unjust alike?

God’s grace is not a shield but a force. It can be found in the most inhumane and unjust places and systems and relationships and it can be found in beauty and peace and relationships that honour the image of God in each of us. It cannot be manipulated or contrived. It is God present and persistently working to build his Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven.

But for the grace of God? I think this is bad theology. Let’s stop using this platitude to excuse our arrogance and pride and our inaction in the lives of people who could really use our presence in the midst of hardship and suffering.

Why live simply? Does it make any difference?

2009-11-17T09:49:00.002-04:00

I've just finished re-reading an article by Derrick Jensen called Forget Shorter Showers in Orion Magazine (see http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4801/). In this article Derrick argues that defining the global problems in terms of the individual, or positing that individual actions can really make a difference, is naive and misguided. He says, for instance:

I want to be clear. I’m not saying we shouldn’t live simply. I live reasonably simply myself, but I don’t pretend that not buying much (or not driving much, or not having kids) is a powerful political act, or that it’s deeply revolutionary. It’s not. Personal change doesn’t equal social change.

So - I've wrestled with this myself - for months. And I think I've come to a slightly different conclusion. I agree with Derrick that individual acts of kindness, simplicity, generosity, justice, etc. aren't going to fix a broken economy or suddenly resolve the moral confusion that has us so befuddled, or reverse the ravages of climate change, or even feed the hungry or cure the ill. Kindness, simplicity, generosity, and justice are NOT a sufficient response to the ills of humanity and our collective home. They are not, in themselves, political ENOUGH. But they are a first step - an important - no, more than that, a critical step. And I would argue that even if they do not lead to a second step of strategic political activism, they have inestimable value.

Here's the bottom line: we should ALWAYS live the life that God calls us to, no matter what it's outcome in human terms. We should NEVER live selfishly, greedily, wastefully, rapaciously - even when we can. Even when we have enough to waste - food, water, money, time, people - just because we CAN does not mean that we SHOULD!

I know that Derrick Jensen is not suggesting that we NOT live simply - he says so quite clearly. It's just that we're kidding ourselves if we think that this is a sufficient response. But I guess that depends on what our fundamental purpose is. He's right if our purpose is to "save the world" but if our purpose is simply to please God, maybe we're making it too complicated. I know that may sound like an over-spiritualization and a cop out. But let's leave room for God to act. I'm thinking of a quote by Abraham Lincoln that says "Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed." You see, we can invest our time and energy into all manner of political activism. We can attack shoddy public policy and pester politicians to enact legislation that is more humane, more fair, more responsible. But the places where opinions are formed - at the coffee shops, over dinner tables, on facebook, in class, through the media, in our places of worship - that's where the real work is to be done. Bob Briner says that "when we try to change the world using the ways of the world, we will always fail."

Definitely, BE POLITICALLY ACTIVE! But don't make the mistake of thinking that politics - or any strictly human response - is going to make everything right. Can we be content to do our part - to take shorter showers and drive less and give more and consume less and invest in people rather than profits, and encourage others in our sphere of influence to do the same? Can we be responsible citizens - being and staying informed about the issues which are before our legislatures and parliaments and working with and through our elected officials to make good policy decisions? And then - when we're doing our part - can we leave room for God to use our obedience - as small as it may seem in the scheme of things - and take those small acts of kindness, simplicity, generosity and justice - and perform the miracle of transformation... again and again...?

Lest we forget...

2009-11-12T12:46:00.004-04:00

It was a stunningly beautiful fall day yesterday as a hundred or more of us gathered for the Remembrance Day services in my small community. I think that it was perhaps the largest gathering I can remember in the 24 years I've lived here - and it seemed that there were more kids in attendance too. That was encouraging. I know that as the veterans of the "war to end all war" have gradually passed from our midst, there has been some concern that we will fail to take seriously our responsibility to remember the sacrifices they made on our behalf.

I suppose that at every service in every community in every corner of this country, someone recited the poem, In Flanders Fields, written by a Canadian - Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae on May 13, 1915. Yesterday - as I pictured the row on row of crosses and the poppies bowing in the breeze, I was struck anew by the words:

To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high.

It's a powerful image... But I got thinking about exactly WHAT the torch is and how we are to hold it high. There's the Olympic torch, triumphantly making it's way to Vancouver for the opening of the 2010 Winter Games, but that's a different matter. Is this a torch of freedom? Of hope? Of justice? Of victory?

What exactly is it that we are to remember? At the service I attended there was only one World War veteran in attendance - he's the only one left in our community. He placed a wreath on behalf of all veterans, walking carefully but with simple dignity to the monument, wreath in hand. He laid it - the first of many - took a step back and saluted - and wiped tears from his eyes as he returned to his place among us. I can only imagine the "remembrances" that were stirring in his heart and mind...

I always think of my grandfather on Remembrance Day. He too was a veteran. I can remember - as a child - asking him questions about the war as we did dishes together. I was standing on a chair, wiping the dishes as he washed. And I asked him innocent, childish questions, about the war. And you know, he never wanted to talk about it. I know that he was an ambulance bearer. Though I suppose this is my own image - filling in the blanks, so to speak - I suppose that meant that he would go onto the battle field to pull the wounded out of the fray and to the relative safety of a make shift first aid station. It must have been both dangerous and gruesome work. I really can't imagine. Probably it's no wonder he didn't want to talk about it. Maybe he worked hard to erase those images from his mind.

My husband tells me that years ago, when there were 30 or 40 vets still living in our community, most of them didn't attend the Remembrance Day service. Hm. Were they too, trying to forget?

A young man from our small community - 21 years old - is now serving in Afghanistan. We pray for his safety every week in church and I add an urgent plea that God will protect not only his body, but also his mind and his heart. And even as I pray, I confess that I have doubts that even God can protect him from images that he will want to forget.

I confess that in an ideal world, I would be a pacifist. Of course, in an ideal world, there'd be no need for war! But still, I long for peace and justice and a world where we all look out for one another. But that's NOT the world we live in and I suppose my pacifist ideals are naive. But as I look at the injustices - which I've spoken of often in these postings - I wonder if this is what the veterans of the 1st and 2nd World War really had in mind. Did they sacrifice themselves - their physical and emotional health - so that the victors might use economic carrots and sticks to dominate and exploit weaker countries to the point of intense suffering?

It seems to me that victory - and the passing of the torch - carries with it a responsibility to ensure that the ideals for which these battles were fought, are not lost in the shuffle. YES - by all means - let us hold the torch high, but let it be a torch of hope and peace and freedom and justice!

Fear

2009-10-26T08:38:00.002-03:00

I recently watched a BBC Documentary called The Power of Nightmares, a three part series directed by Adam Curtis. In the first part Curtis (who also narrates the film) explains that people have lost faith in ideologies, and in order to maintain (or regain) power and authority, governments have shifted tactics. Where once they sought to inspire their citizens with "optimistic visions", they now have become mere managers of our public life. So - in order to get back the power and authority, they promise to protect us from "nightmares" - "dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand". If you want to check out the first couple of minutes of this film, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk1WkmioQvA.

As I think about it, I have to say that it DOES seem like there are a lot of things to be afraid of these days - terrorism/militarism, global warming, the economic "crisis", climate change, the H1N1 virus, to name a few of the big ones. Then there are issues that the more sensitive among us might lose a bit of sleep over like human rights, food shortages, water issues (from drought to contamination), human trafficking, child labour and the use of children as soldiers, and so on. Of course these are perhaps less attractive - or less useful - to governments because they are not dangers that our governments can claim to protect us from and most of us can, if we choose, live our entire lives in North America, without ever seeing these issues up close. This is not to say, of course, that we don't have lots of issues right here at home that rob people of dignity! We do!!

But just when we're beginning to feel overwhelmed, weak, fearful - we can turn on the news and refocus on the things that threaten our own livelihoods and safety and health and prosperity - we seem to be "hemmed in" on every side! And who can help? Well - don't we expect our governments to step in and take care of us? Of course people of faith may proclaim a confidence that their God will look after them, but sometimes it's hard to completely abandon ourselves to God's provision and protection when the dangers are encroaching... Perhaps we have more confidence in God when things are going well.

Adam Curtis claims that people have lost faith in ideologies, but what I think he means is that we've lost faith in the ideology that says we can rely on our own devices - our intelligence, our ingenuity, our resourcefulness, our democratically elected officials - to create a world where humanity and society can be perfected. Where we can achieve the adolescent dream of having everything and giving nothing. Where self-centeredness and narcissism are actually virtues. Where economic growth has no limits and no casualties. Where the good guys (us!) always win and the bad guys (them!) get what they deserve. Where the environment provides us with inexhaustible resources. But who are we kidding!!! That ideology has ALWAYS been a sham.

So what are we to do? Well - we can get caught up in the fear of the day - chasing after cures and correctives and coping strategies for the dangers that lurk around every corner - or we can intentionally distance ourselves from the hysteria and take a sober look at the BIG picture. Those who study trends and generational tendencies tell us that those with a "post modern mindset" do not subscribe to any meta-narrative - a consistent, unified story line that explains diverse events and ideas and conditions. But I disagree. I think that post moderns have rejected certain meta-narratives because they have failed - but that doesn't mean that they have abandoned the hope that there IS a meta-narrative to be discovered that is valid.

As I've been writing this blog I've been thinking about a passage in second Corinthians (verses 7-9) which says:

But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed.

There IS hope! As for me, I would argue that the Christian meta-narrative has never been fully understood. We have our ideas and our interpretations, but we "see through a glass darkly". We have taken liberties - filled in and developed themes according to our own wisdom - and have created a system which aspires to know truth, but which sometimes forgets that truth is elusive and multi-faceted.

An alternate reality

2009-08-29T10:03:00.006-03:00

I'm a huge (and hopeless!) idealist. So if you find idealism frustrating - well, maybe you should skip this post. Don't say I didn't warn you! If you're a hearty realist, well, this one may be a bit frustrating...

When I was a teenager (many, many years ago!) I was intensely disappointed in the church. It seemed to me that if what the bible had to say was really true - and I believed that it was, albeit based on a somewhat limited understanding! - that the church wasn't living up to it's potential. It seemed that human frailties of various kinds - pettiness, ambition, intolerance, selfishness, pride - all conspired to undermine the church's integrity and effectiveness. Like many other young idealists, I suspect, I became quite disenchanted with the church and left, in search of a more authentic spirituality.

Fast forward about 14 years - the approximate length of that phase of my spiritual pilgrimage - and I had come full circle (including ups and downs and lots of spiritual experimentation) back to a pretty orthodox Christianity, including regular church attendance and even employment in the denominational office! And now, many years later again, I find myself STILL critical of the church as an institution. The difference is that as frustrating as I find the "church", I'm convinced that even with its flaws and foibles, it's the "body" of Christ. It's the "body" in that we Christians - still a motley crew - ARE the incarnational presence of Christ in the world. That is, we are the ones entrusted to carry on the work that Jesus began - the spreading of the good news that the kingdom is near.

What exactly did Jesus mean when he said (repeatedly) that the kingdom is near? If we don't have a clear understanding of this, how can we live up to our purpose? Here's where my idealism comes in, but it's also going to sound pretty critical. See, I think that Jesus intended for us to live and think very differently from the world around us and, bottom line, very differently than what we think and how we live today. I think that we've got caught up in all kinds of currents that have way more to do with how the "world" operates than how the "kingdom" operates. And to the extent we conform to the world, we're basically ineffective as witnesses.

So, you may be thinking that this doesn't sound like an idealist rant... quite true. But my point is simply this: if we are followers of Christ we should live as if we are already living in the Kingdom of God. We should live UP to what the vision is. We shouldn't live DOWN to what the world expects. The problem these days - or at least ONE of the problems - is that Christians are way too busy thinking about the future rewards and we're spending way too little time and effort living up to what we believe. I think we should live as if we are already IN the kingdom, which of course, we are!

What does this look like in practical terms? It means that we treat people as if they are honest and compassionate and hopeful and full of the fruit of the spirit - even when - and especially when - they don't act that way. We get past appearances and we fix our eyes on Christ and live the way He taught us to live, no matter what! That, I believe, is what it means to BE an incarnational presence of Christ in the world. We deny ourselves... we take up our cross (whatever burdens we bear)... and we FOLLOW CHRIST into the mundane, messed up, everyday world as a beacon of light.

This little light of mine, I'm going to let it shine. This little light of mine, I'm going to let it shine. This little light of mine - I'm going to let it shine, Let it shine, let it shine, let it shine!

See, the thing is, we forget - we mean well and we are sincere when we think it's more complicated than this, but ANY effort on our part to do God's work ourselves, is doomed to fail. The battle is not against flesh and blood but against the powers of darkness. But we forget. We think we can take on the enemy. We think we know what we're doing. But we don't. Like Peter when he stepped out of the boat and was literally walking on water, we forget who's in control and we focus on our circumstances, our frustrations, our problems, the failures of others to be good people - the waves that threaten to pull us down...

If we are going to live in the Kingdom, we must live according to the principles of the Kingdom, even when they seem inadequate for the challenges of the day. Faith is believing in things not seen... rememmber? When we live by faith, and not by sight - well, then we will see the alternate reality. The realist - poor soul! - will never see past the reality that is to the reality that could be. The realist is trapped in the kingdom of this world and will live and die according to its principles.

Why not give it a try? Here's what I challenge you to do - give God a chance to prove that he's actually way bigger than your mind and imagination. Make a point of living idealistically - living as if the kingdom of God IS the reality in the here and now. And pay attention - you just might be in for an amazing ride!

Waste not, want not - really?

2009-08-19T10:43:00.001-03:00

We live in a disposable society. Most of us recognize the strains that disposability are placing on our environment, but we sure hate to give up on our own convenience in order to be good stewards of our shared "nest". I remember visiting Cuba for the first time over a decade ago and being impressed by the resourcefulness of people in re-using and recycling just about everything. It seemed to me that nothing was wasted. Everything could be redeemed and refashioned and re-engineered. My husband, a commercial fisherman, who is always "rigging something up" was in his element.

An old adage reminds us that necessity is the mother of invention and I remember thinking how true that is in contexts where there's never enough. Rigging something up means using things and parts of things in ways that are non-traditional, or at least non-commercial. It's making do with something that may not be shiny and new, but which does the job. It's a useful art form for people who are creative or on a budget.

Another old adage is waste not, want not. Did you ever wonder who comes up with these pithy sayings? What purpose do they serve? Whose thinking are they meant to shape and condition? How might they distort our understanding of the realities of other people?

Wouldn't it be nice if it was universally true that those who are frugal and avoid waste and wastefulness, could be assured that they would want for nothing - or at least nothing basic, like food, water, sanitation, health care, education... It's ironic, don't you think, that this old adage can roll off our tongues even though we live in a society that has built whole industries - a huge economy, in fact - out of waste? And yet - for us - we want not whether we waste not or not. And, sadly, many people who know no other way than to waste not seem to be condemned to a prison of perpetual want.

Jesus said that he came to set the captives free. Hm. I wonder if he might have been anticipating THIS kind of captivity?

So - the writing of this posting was just interrupted by a fire alarm in the residence building where I'm staying. I'm on the top floor of a 5 story building. The alarm sounded and this is how my thinking went: it's probably a false alarm but just in case, maybe I should get outside. I am, after all on the top floor and even though I don't smell smoke or see any evidence that there really is a fire, it might be stupid to wait and take a chance. Take my key - find the stairs (I meant to figure out where the closest stairs are, but hadn't done it yet) - done the stairs and outside with the 4 other people already there. Thinking on the way down the stairs that I should have brought my car keys and laptop, just in case - rejected the thought of going back for them. Outside - looking at the building and seeing no evidence of a fire. Someone arrived to say we could go back in - they were just testing the alarms (yup - they work!). On the way back upstairs, reflected that if it really WAS a fire, the truth is that all that I'd really NEED to salvage would be my car keys and my laptop. Hm. I have filled this tiny (or so it seems) residence room with the comforts of home and yet, when it comes down to it, it's pretty much all disposable... and frankly, replaceable. If I lost everything in that room, I could be up and running in no time. A few quick shopping sprees and I'm good to go. I could probably even upgrade - that is, get newer models, more stylish clothes... My insurance would likely even pick up the tab. Waste not, want not?

Somehow I can't help but think that it's an adage from an era when frugality and thrift and humility and gratitude were more valued and it gave people something to aspire to. Now, it's like looking at an old photo. But I'm not suggesting that we go back. Nope - not an option. We need to go forward, but with eyes open. The new adage is this: live simply so that others may simply live.

Intellectual Property: Thoughts about Property and Profit

2009-08-06T18:35:00.002-03:00

Have you ever thought about the way we attach an economic value to just about everything and then scheme and fight and maneuver to get more of whatever it is? We become downright obsessed with having things and defending our right to do as we wish with what is ours. The value of things is determined by how badly other people want them. The value of things goes up and down according to demand. Land, food, water, oil, energy, precious metals, "collectables", antiques - they are all bought and sold and we have developed elaborate legal systems to protect all of these things from thieves and to make sure that transactions are done properly, or at least legally. Well - that's the idea, anyway, wars and invasions and our treatment of First Nations peoples aside.

But there are things that it's a little more difficult to establish clear "ownership". Intellectual property, for example. Who "owns" ideas? Every now and again we hear about a legal battle where one artist - a songwriter, a writer, a comedian - claims that someone else has "stolen" their idea. There are very strict penalties for students who use someone else's ideas or words without giving proper credit - it's called plagiarism and it can be grounds for expulsion. I love ideas and I'm passionate about the pursuit of understanding and truth. I wonder - have I ever had a truly "new" idea? Have I ever thought anything that hasn't been thought before?

I love to read books of all kinds but I confess that I especially like to read books by authors who's thinking is consistent with mine. But it's humbling - and exhilarating - to realize that some of my favorite authors have written extensively on ideas that I've arrived at after much intense "thought". Whatever the topic or the particulars, they have arrived at the same intersection of idea fragments. Like travelers in a desert who come across a well, we - thinkers from across the ages - arrive at the same insight even though our path to that insight has traversed through different ages and cultural contexts. There is nothing new under the sun!

The pursuit of truth and of understanding is perhaps something that we should pursue corporately and collaboratively, rather than competitively and as individuals. Maybe if we were less concerned about making a name for ourselves, or using our ideas as a means of securing our own financial security, we would discover a deeper sense of elation - one that can't be measured by dollars and cents - when ideas hit the mark. I wonder if God finds it amusing that we go to such lengths to stake our claim to ideas that have some market value. Or does he find it sadly pathetic when we're more concerned with getting credit or making money than we are with sharing and helping and building and discovering for the sheer joy of it.

I love to think. I love those moments when I gain a glimmer of understanding that's new for me. But I am realistic enough to know that I haven't had a single "original" idea. Every idea is a moment in time when bits and pieces - fragments - of the ideas of other people come together in some coherent form in my mind and join with other ideas and fragments of ideas. It's a bit like a kaleidoscope - those tubes that turn and provide endless configurations with the same bits of color. None of the ideas are "mine". They don't "belong" to me. I have a moral obligation - it seems to me - not to hold onto ideas and try to extract all value from them, but to "catch and release" - to appreciate insights as they come and to give them back from whence they came.

Maybe if humanity's most clever minds were content with the intangible benefits of thinking and were willing to work with other clever minds, we would gradually see understanding, not through the grid of the market economy, but through the grid of truth, the realization of which IS the pearl of great price.

The power - and politics - of HOPE

2009-07-29T09:27:00.004-03:00

We have all heard inspiring messages about the transformative power of HOPE. Anyone who has visited a developing country and spent time with people who are courageously facing hardships and challenges on every side, can testify to the incredible power that hope can generate in even the most oppressive of circumstances. I remember clearly the day when I was in Kenya, visiting a Guardians of Hope group (see http://www.cbmin.org/cbm/hiv-aids) and the light came on. Guardians of Hope - what an absolutely perfect description of this approach to caring for orphans of the HIV/AIDS virus!!! These groups are literally guarding and also nurturing HOPE!

But that's just one example of hope. In general, the image that comes to my mind as I think of the power of hope is that of a solitary vibrant flower persisting gloriously in the heat and barrenness of a desert. Brilliant hues of purple, orange, yellow, red and blue set against a dreary canvas of sand and wind. Flowers that can thrive in desert conditions have apparently honed their adaptive capacity and cheerfully defy all of the challenges of nature that conspire against them.

Perhaps it's pushing the analogy too far to suggest that similarly, people who are able to rise above oppressive political, economic and environmental climates and conditions, have found reservoirs of strength that are not apparent on the surface. Is that romanticizing the poverty and oppression experienced by as many as three billion or so people who struggle every day to simply survive? Perhaps. But maybe we can honour the struggle without condoning the conditions which cause the struggle. Resilience IS beautiful.

And about those "reservoirs of strength" that the oppressed, the marginalized, the downtrodden, may tap into - I'm reminded of the scene, recorded in Matthew 4:31-33 where the disciples are concerned because Jesus hasn't had anything to eat. Surely he must be hungry and weak. But Jesus says to them, "I have food to eat that you know nothing about." Hm. Our physical bodies need nourishment or we die. It actually happens every day to tens of thousands of human bodies (many of them CHILDREN under the age of 5!) who die of starvation. But there is more to life than the physical body and the food that fuels it...

Most of you reading this posting live in a land of plenty. Our challenge is not to find enough food to eat to keep the body going, but rather to limit our intake of fat and salt and sugar and the host of things that manufacturers ADD to our food to make it hard to resist. Enough said! But what of the spirit? Is it possible that our obsession with physical food - carbs and fats and protein and fiber and fruits and vegetables - has actually resulted in a shriveling of our spirits? Are we well fed but spiritually dry? Speaking for myself, I'd have to say YES. But it's NOT too late. I can learn. I can tap into those reservoirs that Jesus opened up and filled (and keeps filling!). I don't want to get all sentimental about this, but there it is. That's the way I see it.

I came across another book by Paulo Freire - this one is Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1992). I'll close this posting with a quote from Friere:

The idea that hope alone will transform the world, and action undertaken in that kind of naivete, is an excellent route to hopelessness, pessimism, and fatalism. But the attempt to do without hope, in the struggle to improve the world, as if that struggle could be reduced to calculated acts alone, or a purely scientific approach, is a frivolous illusion. To attempt to do without hope, which is based on the need for truth as an ethical quality of the struggle, is tantamount to denying that struggle is one of its mainstays. The essential thing...is this: hope, as an ontological need, demands an anchoring in practice. As an ontological need, hope needs practice in order to become historical concreteness. That is why there is no hope in sheer hopefulness. The hoped-for is not attained by dint of raw hoping. Just to hope is to hope in vain.

In case you're wondering, ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being. And - final thing! - a preview of the Pedagogy of Hope is available FREE, as an online edition at http://books.google.ca/books?id=wVXNl2s915cC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=ontological+need&source=bl&ots=5v2axsliv4&sig=1_1zrYZKxNUZXY-k3kNKDV-2HhI&hl=en&ei=CVBwSp6uAsKRtgfMyuH9DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6.

Beware optimism, pessimism, cynicism... and complacency!

2009-07-24T11:29:00.003-03:00

According to the Canadian National news, the recession is over. Really? Well - the jobs that were lost may not come back for years, but Canadians seem to be spending which the optimists among us interpret as evidence of renewed confidence in the economy. And since that seems to be all that keeps the economy going - confidence, that is - that's a good thing. Right?

And, the H1N1 pandemic seems to be more or less under control, though there are warnings that a second wave may be much worse. But the optimist rests easy knowing that some of the best medical minds on the planet are working on a vaccine and there are some pretty intelligent people even now figuring out how many doses of the vaccine are needed to protect us from this nasty bug - so that's all good. Right?

The environment continues to be a cause for concern, but the sun keeps coming up in the morning and going down at night - of course if you live in Atlantic Canada where we haven't actually SEEN much of the sun this summer, we're still pretty sure it's still up there somewhere. The climate change forecasters of doom and gloom are still issuing pretty dramatic warnings, but at least they seem to have captured the attention of the G8, so they'll figure something out to get us out of this fix, right?

The food crisis that was so much in the news last spring seems to have receded somewhat. The poor are still poor, of course, and the hungry are still hungry, but we haven't seen any food riots lately, so that's good, I guess.

There are still lots of problems but, hey, no one ever promised us a rose garden after all. Struggle is what makes us strong. No pain, no gain. Even the bible says that we shouldn't worry about tomorrow so, let's carry on. Nothing like a trip to the mall or a few bids on ebay to help us forget our troubles or the troubles of people we don't even know but who are rumoured to be suffering hunger, ill health, exploitation, persecution and all kinds of other unpleasantness. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot that we can do about all the problems, so maybe the best thing is to find some way to enjoy life as best we can.

So - I think I've covered it all - optimism, pessimism, cynicism AND complacency. And here's the warning - each of these basic attitudes is a trap. So what's the alternative? Well - here goes. It may sound incredibly simplistic, but I think that we need to open our eyes and see things as they are - the good, the bad, the ugly. As humanity presses on - whether by our own design or by the momentum from the past - we will need all of the resources of science and of faith and of good will if we are to have anything of value to pass on to the next generation. Or even if there is to BE a next generation!

I can't help thinking about Solomon - the author of Ecclesiastes - who asked that God would give him wisdom. God apparently granted his request and he wrote the book of Ecclesiastes as a sort of journal of his discoveries. He sought to understand the meaning of life and, as you probably know, everything he tried - wisdom, pleasures, work, advancement - it is all, in the end, he says, meaningless. Pretty depressing, eh? But this is how Solomon concludes his writing:

Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. (Eccl. 12:13)

This is where I'm at. There are times when I'm drawn to optimism, pessimism, cynicism and complacency - but I know that they are all dead ends, if I stay on any of these paths too long. Sometimes I find God's commandments pretty obscure and when I'm really honest, they are often counter intuitive and definitely counter cultural. But I'm thinking that counter cultural is probably not a bad thing and maybe it's just what we need. Even from a purely human point of view, it's pretty evident that our materialistic, narcissistic, consumer-driven culture and our confidence in humanity's ability to solve our own problems hasn't actually worked out all that well. Which isn't to say that we should stop trying - just that we should try something else. As for me, I think that trying to do things according to God's commands is certainly worth our best effort. And if we're going to try to live by them, it's going to take some effort to figure out just what they are and to separate them out from our cultural biases.

Hans Rookmaaker, a Dutch Christian scholar once said that "Jesus didn't come to make us Christian; he came to make us fully human." Interesting. More thoughts on that for another day!

Oh - one more thing - and I think I've likely said this before but I'll say it again - the biggest challenge for us in seeking to obey God OR in applying ourselves to science, is to acknowledge our limitations and to tackle the challenges with humility...

Band wagons and climate change

2009-07-17T10:29:00.002-03:00

I confess I'm feeling a bit uneasy these days with all of the advocacy initiatives around climate change. There are all kinds of quick and easy ways that we can pester our governments into at least making a show of understanding the urgency of political action on the environment portfolio. We can sign petitions, send letters, join demonstrations - the usual array of citizen tools for voicing our collective concern.

Some might say that these activities are needed in order to badger our politicians into effective policy decisions and that they are consequently worth the little bit of effort they require. The implicit argument is that our governments can't be trusted to act responsibly if we don't keep at them. Hm. I confess that as I write that statement, I realize that it may not actually be that far-fetched! Others might have less confidence in the effectiveness of these forms of advocacy but may adopt a "what can it hurt?" attitude. But - let's think this through...

Here are some basic assumptions that I'm working from:

1. Climate change is nothing new. I have no idea of all of the variables that may possibly impact on the climate of this planet, but I'm pretty sure there are TONS of them. I suspect that the climate fluctuates and changes daily but that there are also significant shifts and trends. I think I've heard that scientists can identify 7 distinct climate "ages" in the earth's known history.

2. We humans are part of the ecology of the earth. Our actions affect the planet and we, in turn, are affected by our environment.

3. I think James Lovelock (the guy who originally proposed Gaia Theory - for more on that see my post of June 2/09 entitled Gaia Theory: A CBC Interview with James Lovelock), is onto something really significant when he posits that the earth is a self-regulating organism with its own survival agenda and that we should perhaps be more concerned about saving ourselves than about saving the planet (since it will likely outlast us, at least from a scientific perspective). When push comes to shove Mother Earth may not be so much "nurturing" as vindictive!

4. Presuming that we are, in fact, the highest life form (and most intelligent), we ARE to be stewards and caretakers of the earth. In other words, we should know better than to pollute our nest or exploit resources for our short-term selfish gain. That sounds so self evident that it makes me wonder how we ever got where we are in terms of our very obvious abuses of a marvelously complex - but not infinitely forgiving - natural system. I suppose each little encroachment and denial of common sense and common courtesy seemed innocuous enough and it's only now sinking in that we have been crass and stupid as stewards.

5. No credit to us, but it does seem that the earth has been incredibly resilient, despite our short sightedness and bad manners. Doomsday forecasts have - at least in the past - tended to overstate the case and underestimate the earth's capacity to survive our assaults. This is not to presume that we can carry on as we have in the past.

6. If the current observations of climate change do, in fact, indicate a trend of global warming, the predictions of what will happen if the planet continues to heat and the ice caps and glaciers continue to melt, are VERY daunting and certainly SHOULD cause us to take the warnings of impending disaster very seriously.

7. This is much MORE than a simple environmental issue. After all, if we dig even a bit into the pit of explanations for WHY the climate is changing, we will discover that the impact of human activity has largely been fueled by a combination of greed, selfishness, a perhaps naive and uncritical embrace of technologies which have enticed us to forfeit sound judgment for comfort and convenience. Environmental issues cannot be neatly separated from political and economic issues. Therefore, we will not overcome environmental impacts of political and economic policies WITHOUT addressing the flaws in those political and economic policies.

8. It seems to me that a basic bottom line observation is that environmental advocacy will simply be a lot of hot air (pun intended!) if we are not willing to challenge the underlying systemic injustices of our international political and economic structures and assumptions.

All this to say that it may be that the band wagon of environmental activism is actually a diversion that is distracting us from the more critical issues. To the extent that we get drawn into the debates about climate change and how the actions of the G8 countries are addressing environmental issues (or not!), we run the serious danger of diverting attention away from the root CAUSES of both the current climate issues AND the injustices of globalization as it is currently managed.

The solution, I think, is not to ignore the monumental environmental challenges facing humanity, but to understand them in their broader context. And, to beware of simple environmental advocacy efforts which may contribute more to political smoke and mirror antics than to effective strategies for managing not only the environment, but global issues of social injustice as well.

Please be assured that my intention is NOT to discourage advocacy on these issues, but rather, to encourage us all to be a bit wary of a band wagon mentality that MAY oversimplify the issues in order to gain momentum. Let's keep checking our bearings and make sure that the band wagon is actually heading in the right direction before we hop on.

Pedagogy of the Oppressors!

2009-07-10T10:38:00.003-03:00

I came across a book this morning that I've been thinking about lately but haven't read for years - Pedagogy of the Oppressed, by Paulo Freire. In fact, I used to mark on the inside covers of books the date that I read them and this one is marked March, 1983. But it's one of those books that really made an impression on me - and, as I said, I still think about it. Lately though, my thinking has taken a turn - I think not so much about the "pedagogy of the oppressed" but the "pedagogy of the OPPRESSOR". How do WE - the affluent, privileged, entitled, global minority - learn how to be oppressors? How do we perpetuate structures and systems that continue to grant us privileges while consigning millions and even billions of our "neighbors" to abject poverty?

Here's a quote from a review of Freire's original writing:

The method of learning of Paulo Freire requires that students do more than simply reproduce the words that already exist. It requires that they create their own words, words that allow them to become aware of reality in order to fight for their own emancipation. Without this, some people acquire a kind of naive consciousness in which they are aware of their situation but don't make any effort to change it; they take a conformist stance and consider their situation something normal, even to the point of supporting it themselves. Other individuals construct their own reality and liberate themselves from oppression, only to go to the opposite extreme and become the antithesis of what they were fighting against.

Now - read that quote again, thinking not of the oppressed but of the oppressors. I'm thinking especially of this line:

...some people acquire a kind of naive consciousness in which they are aware of their situation but don't make any effort to change it; they take a conformist stance and consider their situation something normal, even to the point of supporting it themselves.

Ouch! I have been troubled by this thought for months and maybe I've even tried to express it before in one of my postings. The thing is, what if - deep down - I know that I can be opposed to the injustices that have accumulated over the years to allow me to enjoy the enormously privileged way and style of life I have - but that my opposition is really no threat to my comfort? I can speak out against injustice, and yet still enjoy its fruits.

I had an email yesterday from a colleague who lives and works in Kenya. He mentioned a conversation he had with a Kenyan pastor about books. The gist of it was, this pastor has to save and save in order to be able to afford to buy a book - no extravagant book allowance for him! Once he's got the book, it's a cherished thing. My mind went to my appetite for books which has resulted in bookcases full (overflowing!) with books, many of which I haven't had the time (or inclination) to read. I buy books spontaneously. I love books. I always INTEND to read them, but seriously, am I ever going to read ALL of the books I've bought? It may seem like a small thing, but for me it's an indication - one of many - that I have a long way to go in debunking the pedagogy which allows me to sit amongst the oppressors.

By the way, if this hits a nerve with you and you'd like to do something about it, I've got a suggestion. Canadian Baptist Ministries has partnerships around the world and one of our strategic drivers is leadership development. I've met some of the leaders who have had access to opportunities through CBM's commitment to leadership development. They are an inspiration. Interestingly, when it comes to giving though, way more people prefer to give goats and chickens and rabbits than books or funding for continuing eduction. Interesting, eh? Why is that?

Well, here's a link if you want to look into this further: http://www.cbmin.org/cbm/leadership-developme. Giving for leadership development in a developing country may not seem like much but for the person on the other end, and for those whose lives he or she will ultimately touch, it's a big deal. Maybe some day the oppressed and the oppressors will sit down together and learn from one another and MAYBE, when that day comes, we will have the courage to create a new order... or at least to live with dignity in the midst of the present order, whatever it may be.

Christianity: a religion or a way of life?

2009-07-04T08:47:00.002-03:00

I had an interesting conversation a few weeks ago. It was at a Father's Day bbq and my sister-in-law was updating me on the whereabouts and activities of some of her family members. One of her sisters has struggled with various chronic illnesses and, largely as a consequence of inactivity and frustration with her limitations, had put on quite a bit of weight. But then she get involved in some "new" eastern practices. I don't remember the name of the eastern system - but that doesn't matter. What I've been thinking about since that conversation is my sister-in-laws description of her sister's involvement.

Apparently, after just a few months, her sister had experienced an amazing transformation. Aha - that kind of language always heightens my interest! My sister-in-law went on to describe this "thing" - it involves some meditation but it's really a whole way of life. It affects EVERYTHING! Hm.

OK - so here's three other strands of thinking that converge at this point. First - last year I read a book by Bruxy Cavey called The End of Religion: Encountering the Subversive Spirituality of Jesus. BTW - if you want an audio overview of the book - basically it's an mp3 file of Bruxy talking about the book at a book release party - go to http://www.theendofreligion.org/podcast/theendofreligion_bookrelease_128.mp3. The gist of it is that although people these days are getting very frustrated with Christianity as a RELIGION, something about the person of Jesus still intrigues them. So the question is, did Jesus ever really intend for us to reduce our practice of the things He taught to the system we now call Christianity? Have we somehow missed the forest for the trees? Is Christianity - the form that we have developed and defended - all there is?

The second strand is simply a quote someone brought to my attention just a month or so ago (sadly I'm not sure who brought it to my attention OR even who the original author of the quote is!). But the quote is this: "Jesus didn't come to make us Christians, but to make us fully human." Well - you can think about that - maybe until the proverbial cows come home! I think maybe it's a concise way of saying the same thing. And of course that reminds me of a book by Jean Vanier called Becoming Human. And, while I was checking to make sure I had that title right, I discovered that Jean Vanier and, another of my favorite authors, Stanley Hauerwas, have a new book (published October 2008) entitled Living Gently in a Violent World. Sounds good. But those were just sub-strands...

The third strand is a brief conversation I had just a few days ago with the 21 year old son of one of my best friends. I haven't seen him for a few years and he came for a visit. In the course of conversation, he made reference to the fact that he had decided when he was in grade 11 that he should check out Christianity for himself (having been raised in a home that is certainly not explicitly "Christian"). So, he went to youth group for 2 years and, since that didn't seem to lead to any prolonged commitment to Christianity - or, at least the institutional form - I'm assuming that he found it lacking in the kind of depth he was looking for.

So, those are the 3 strands that lead me to this thought: being a follower of Christ is NOT about accepting and perpetuating a system of beliefs and the practice of religious rituals. It IS - or ought to be - a way of life that affects everything. It's who we are, it's what we do, it's what we think, it's how we spend our money and our time and our talents, it's what we eat. But it's all this, not in some narrow, legalistic manner, but in absolute and total FREEDOM. To be a Christian isn't to be confined to a narrow set of beliefs and practices. It's to be free to grow and learn and love - to be fully human, as Jean Vanier puts it. The early Christians called it "the way". How sad that we, safe and sound in our sanctuaries, have often hidden "the way" from view and reduced Christianity to a mere "religion"!

Heroes and Villains

2009-06-22T14:53:00.005-03:00

I have a tendency, when I find a novelist that I like, to read everything that he or she has written. Ayn Rand, Leon Uris, James Clavell Jodi Piccoult, Maeve Binchy, James Michener, Margaret Atwood, Chaim Potok - these are some of those authors. It's been years since I read the James Clavell books, but I've been reminded recently of one that really made an impression: King Rat (1962).

Set during World War II in a Japanese prisoner of war camp, King Rat depicts the struggle for survival in the camp. I suppose as a budding sociologist, the book really intrigued me because the camp was basically a microcosm of society. The prisoners and guards formed a social system and developed a culture, with it's own norms and values. There were rules - and consequences for not following the rules. There were those who prospered and those who did not survive. There were those who maintained an admirable degree of integrity and those who made no pretense at integrity. I don't remember any of the details, really - just the discomfort in reading this book and thinking about how I would act under similar circumstances. Would I be noble, honest, kind, compassionate, generous? Or would I be devious, manipulative, selfish, cruel? Would I try to stay out of the way - inconspicuous, inconsequential? Would I part with my integrity for the sake of comfort, or even more basically, safety?

King Rat is a novel and like any worthwhile novel, it raises questions for the reader. I often think about King Rat when I'm watching the news and I hear reports about some event - a natural disaster, a crime scene - where some people respond as heroes and others as villains. I wonder, what is it that causes some people to run into a burning building to rescue someone else - or even a pet or piece of property - and others to take advantage of a breach in security to loot and plunder? Why will one person jump into the water to try to rescue a stranger who is drowning, while another person will stay safely out of the way even as they watch that person drown?

Is there any way we can know how we'll react to these kinds of situations? Is it enough to hope that when the chips are down, we'll be revealed as heroes rather than as villains?

I mentioned recently listening to a discussion of Gaia Theory and James Lovelock's prediction that the global population may actually shrink to about 1 billion people. What kind of society will we live in if the population starts declining rapidly? How will we respond? Will we be heroes? Villains? Is there anything we can do to prepare ourselves?

I actually am more and more convinced that we CAN prepare ourselves to respond to any kind of situation. But it will take some time and intentionality. This may sound pretty bleak and not the kind of thing you want to think about on a gray and damp day, but I honestly think that preparing ourselves for the various temptations which may one day come our way, is a key to living fully and freely. If I really WANT to be a hero, the training is now, NOT when the chips are down, so to speak. I may not have time to think, let alone plan. I may not have an opportunity to consider the pros and cons. I will simply react. In that instant of decision, what I REALLY believe about myself and about God will be revealed.

I know it's probably a bit lame, but I do think about stories from the book of Daniel - the one where Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego get thrown into the fiery furnace - and the one where Daniel is put into a lion's den. Were they tempted at the last moment, to back down? It's easy to SAY that "my God can deliver me" but when the heat from the fire is so intense that guards are dying or when hungry lions are circling - did they waver? Sure - God rescued them. The stories would be a whole lot less impressive if he hadn't. But God doesn't always deliver us from evil - or at least he doesn't always do it in such a way that we live to tell the tale. Don't forget the disciples and the hundreds of thousands since then, who have been martyred for their faith. Deliverance may look a whole lot different than it does in the book of Daniel.

So the real question is, do I trust God with my life, or, when it comes right down to it, will I have more confidence in myself than I have in God?

"How do we know what we know?"

2009-06-13T12:07:00.002-03:00

Years ago I remember hearing about a group known as the Flat Earth Society. I don't want to spend any amount of time talking about this society - though if you're interested, you can check out the webpage: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm. What I remember is that this group challenges conventional wisdom by asking the question, what do we REALLY know and how do we know it? I remember thinking that no one in their right mind would actually believe that the earth is flat - and that got me thinking, what do we KNOW and how do we know it and which is more important: the way something REALLY is or the way we THINK it is?

So fast forward about 20 years and there's the popular movie The Matrix - a movie about layers of reality. There's the world as we experience it with all of its drama and intrigue, but then there's the "matrix" which is the engine or blueprint for the experienced world. Or - come to think of it, maybe the children's book, Alice in Wonderland, was an earlier attempt to capture the same thing. And then there's The Truman Show, about a guy whose entire life is a reality tv show and everyone knows, except him.

These, and probably many other artifacts of popular culture, have challenged our thinking about what's real. We watch the movie, read the book and are momentarily intrigued by the mystery of knowledge - a "cloud of unknowing" (to quote an anonymous 14th century author). Although maybe the cloud of unknowing had more to do with the cloud between humanity and divinity rather than the distortions within humanity... a topic for another day.

The point that I'm trying to get to is this: there seems to have evolved a whole genre of thinking (and probably it has a name - please advise...) that is based on this idea that things are not only NOT what they seem, but the "what they seem" is actually a massive hoax, perpetrated on ignorant, somewhat dull-witted and unsuspecting humans, by a force of ambiguous origin. There are various conspiracy theories but it seems to me that it goes even deeper than this. For instance, some of the titles I've watched that would exemplify this genre are Zeitgeist, The Movie, a couple of BBC documentaries - The Century of Self and The Power of Nightmares. Even some of our mainstream North American documentaries might fall into this category: The Corporation and Who Killed the Electric Car?, for example. Some of these examples are really just exposes - they look at something very much rooted in the world as we know it and expose the layer that is often just beyond our vision. But, if that layer has a sinister, manipulative quality, maybe there are darker layers below that one...

I'm a Prison Break fan, and "the Company" is another exmaple - or take Lost - here again there's a well coordinated and complex plot. So - I'm just saying, this genre is interesting and I'm starting to see it's imprint in a variety of places. And, I'm also beginning to suspect that the people who are most likely to be knowledgeable and drawn to this genre are highly intelligent and very articulate young adults. Interesting. I actually think that we may be on the verge of a new era of "enlightenment" (does that mean that these years of incredible, obscene affluence have actually been a "dark age"?) - and that's pretty exciting and maybe more than a little frightening at the same time. For you Matrix fans (and here I'm only talking about the FIRST movie), red pill or blue pill?

Act Justly

2009-06-10T23:06:00.002-03:00

I've been thinking about the "act justly" part of the Micah 6:8 verse - it's the one where the prophet Micah asks, "what does God require of us" and he answers his own question by saying that we should "act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with God." So, WHO exactly, acts justly? Is not acting justly effectively to act against one's own self interest? Isn't it putting the needs and rights and dignity of other people ahead of your own? Isn't it surrendering one's opportunity for advancement so that someone else might be lifted up?

There's a quote a heard a while ago - I've thought about it a lot over the last few months and I may even have mentioned it in a previous post. The quote goes something like this, and I'm sorry that I don't even remember who said it or where I first heard it: "We don't always act according to what we profess, but we always act according to what we believe." In other words, profession - saying what we believe - is relatively easy. But the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. It's what we DO that counts and what we do reveals what we REALLY believe.

We can make impressive speeches and pronouncements about the way things are and the way we think they should be, but what do our actions say? Here's something I've wrestled with for a long time - I increasingly SEE the suffering and injustice caused by greed and economic systems built on a mentality that says "to the rich [or winner or victor] go the spoils." By this line of reasoning the West deserves to be rich and the poor of the earth - well, they're the poor. They don't have what it takes. They don't measure up. God must somehow be withholding his blessing. I can protest that I don't believe these things. I can say that I understand that God grieves over the plight of the poor of this world. I can even say that I believe that God calls me to love the poor and to provide for them as best I can. But the thing that haunts me is the fact that I still benefit from the system that makes me "rich" and others "poor". What do my actions say about what I believe?

Sometimes, when I'm especially honest - or perhaps, cynical - I think that I'm actually worse than those who intentionally and blatantly set out to exploit other people in order to secure a better position for themselves. There actions may be despicable but they are at least acting in a manner consistent with their beliefs. Can they actually be more honest than I am? Here's the bottom line: is it safe for me to play around the edges of justice, secure in the knowledge that the really greedy people will ensure that my security and privilege are maintained? And if I don't want that to be my legacy, what ought I to do? Must I sell all that I have, give the money away and literally follow Jesus? Is there any other way? A truly more effective way?

Some thoughts on Karl Marx... a tentative defense

2009-06-08T15:49:00.004-03:00

As an undergraduate student and later throughout my graduate studies in sociology, I really enjoyed studying the classic social theorists, especially Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Karl Marx and Herbert Spencer. I loved reading about the historical context and the development of this fledgling social science which was so intrinsically appealing to me. These were philosophers and social analysts who defined the parameters for the field we now call sociology. I don't hear much these days about them, except for the odd awkward reference to Marx - usually by someone who is quick to clarify that he is "not a Marxist"! Interesting...

Though it's been MANY years since I first encountered the thinking of Marx, I still vividly recall the images that my reading produced in my mind. To this day, whenever I hear any reference to Karl Marx I see Marx and his friend, Frederick Engels (co-author of The Communist Manifesto published in 1848) and others in a smoky, noisy pub, engaged in intense conversation about the state of the world, the oppression of the masses, the injustices of an economic system that strips people of dignity. I sense their passion for the poor and their indignation over the evils of industrialization and the factory system. I agonize with them over the alienation of labour, whereby people quite literally become cogs in a machine of mass production, churning out "stuff" to appeal to a nascent materialism - now, incidentally, in full bloom or perhaps even a little past it's prime.

The themes of their writing, frankly, are similar to the things I spend a lot of time thinking about today in the context of global issues of justice and injustice. We talk about micro entreprise in countries like Kenya and Rwanda and Bolivia and the fact that it incredibly small loans can help people have dignity - they are "business owners" and they're able to provide for their families and send their kids to school. I've presented workshops on the global food crisis where we emphasize that the problem has less to do with the production of food and more to do with the fact that food is a commodity and poor people are priced out of the market.

It occurs to me that Marx's "bourgeoisie" have banded together to form massive corporations that control the means of production and siphon and squeeze profits from both land and labour.

So why are we so quick to distance ourselves from Marx? I think of some of the fundamental tenets of Marx's thinking - it was Karl Marx who said, for instance, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". This, in fact, was to be the motto of socialism, which Marx believed to be the ideal form of governance. That's right - socialism, NOT communism. According to Marx, communism would be a transitional form of governance which would be replaced by socialism. Marx was not a "communist" and Marx even declared that he was not a "Marxist"! Those "labels", I think, miss the whole point.

I've often thought that my biggest criticism of Marx (at least as I understand him) is that he underestimated the power of human selfishness and greed and the presence of evil in the world. In the end, Marx was an incurable optimist. He thought that humanity could and WOULD work for the common good and in so doing, everyday people would enjoy the dignity of their labour.

The other thing that people might have against Marx is his reported disdain for religion. You might have heard that Marx described relgion as the "opiate of the masses". Actually, the fuller quote is this: Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.Perhaps we shouldn't be quite so quick to assume that Marx intended this as a slam against religion. Maybe it's more a description of a role that religion was playing in a heartless world. Honestly there have been times (lots of them!) when I have felt that many of us - even people with deeply held faith beliefs - have settled for a watered down, complacent faith that makes us feel better, but fails to engage the world in any truly transformative way. So - I'm prepared to say that I appreciate Karl Marx and he's stretched and stimulated my thinking.

Peter's Sword: The Sequel

2009-06-07T23:43:00.004-03:00

This is going to be quick but I want to add this before I forget or get distracted. I met someone today who had read the "Peter's Sword" entry and said that she'd looked into it and discovered that in Luke's gospel, Jesus actually tells the disciples to BUY swords. So I've just looked it up myself and sure enough, it's right there! If you want to check for yourself it's in Luke 22:36.

It's right after the Last Supper, after the disciples argue about which of them will be the greatest (now THAT must have irked Jesus!), after he has revealed to them that one of them will betray him, after he tells the boastful Peter that he will deny him three times before the rooster crows. Maybe it's just my imagination, but I get the sense that Jesus is a bit tense. He asks them if they have ever lacked anything in the time they've been with him and then he tells them that if they don't have a sword they should sell their cloak, if need be, and buy a sword. That's weird. Why would he tell them to buy swords? In fact, they say that they have TWO swords (again, I wonder why they have them!) and he says that two swords isn't enough. Isn't enough for WHAT? And is Jesus suddenly wanting to support the local economy? If he wants the disciples to be armed, why not just provide what they need?

So you see, I'm absolutely no further ahead. Why in the world would Jesus - the Prince of Peace - the guy who could call on the services of 10,000 angels - the Lamb of God who is about to be crucified by Roman soldiers - why would he instruct a bunch of fishermen, a tax collector, and the other 7 (whose occupations seem to be unknown) to buy swords? Especially in light of the fact that he apparently didn't intend for them to use them? If any of you have any ideas on this, PLEASE, feel free to share them. I hate loose ends!

For those of you who might be Chronicle of Narnia fans, do you suppose there's any connection between Peter the disciple and his sword and the sword of Peter in the Chronicles? And, if you want to see what Saint Peter's sword actually looked like, check it out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_of_Saint_Peter. Not exactly a precision instrument! I'm thinking it's no wonder Peter (or whoever it was swinging that thing) lopped off a guard's ear!

Gaia Theory: A CBC Interview with James Lovelock

2009-06-02T14:14:00.003-03:00

Just when you think you've got your head around some of the pressing environmental issues and their impact on humanity, you read or hear something that turns it all upside down. At least that's been my experience of late. Just last week I happened to have CBC radio on during The Current and Anna Maria Tremonti was doing an interview with James Lovelock. The show started out with the promo CBC's been doing for "a million acts of green" and went on to say that all of the energy and hype that's going into encouraging humanity - at least those of us who are accustomed to living recklessly and carelessly in the developed world - to live more responsibly and with respect for environmental stewardship, may not make that much difference. What? That got my attention.

James Lovelock, it turns out, is the originator of what's called the Gaia Theory. The basic idea behind the Gaia Theory is that the earth is a self-regulating organism which has it's own survival agenda. If James Lovelock is right, we should perhaps be less concerned about saving the earth from US and more concerned about saving US from the earth! According to him, the earth WILL look after itself but it may not look after us. In fact, he believes that the population will dwindle from the current nearly 7 billion, to only 1 billion. You can read more about Gaia Theory at http://www.gaiatheory.org/synopsis.htm . Oh, and it's not that we shouldn't reduce green house gas emissions and look for greener ways of living, but he argues that it may be too late to reverse the earth's adaptation to our carelessness. And, he suggests that we'd do well to focus instead on our own adaptation to the effects of climate change on our habitat.

Well! That's interesting, and frankly a bit frightening - if he's right. As I listened I was reminded of a situation in Vancouver a few years ago. They'd had heavier than usual rain in Vancouver [in my experience, it's ALWAYS raining in Vancouver!] and the city was under a "boil water order". Now note that it wasn't that they didn't have access to water - residents were just warned that they needed to boil the water before ingesting it. An inconvenience to be sure, especially for those who are used to unlimited quantities of clean, potable water at the turn of a tap - on demand, so to speak. You can imagine that demand for bottled water went through the roof. And here's the thing. There were reports of people - normally NICE people, good citizens - coming to blows at the Costco over bottled water! A colleague I was visiting at the time - who, by the way had lived for a number of years in Africa - remarked wryly that these same people very likely would say of Africans, "I don't know why they keep killing one another!"

My point in all this is to say that many of us who have had the incredible privilege to live in Canada all of our lives, and especially those of us who are 55 years old or so or younger, really don't know what it's like to live with scarcity. And consequently, we may not know how we would (or WILL) deal with scarcity when it arrives on our doorstep. I don't understand all the science behind Gaia Theory or other perspectives on climate change, but I think a lot about our responsibilities to our neighbors - whether they live around the block or across the globe. I note the news reports of violence around the world - food riots and riots over access to water and political instability and terrorism and attacks on humanitarian organizations trying to deliver aid - and I wonder what it will all come to. Mostly I wonder how I will respond if and when my comfortable life is disturbed by scarcity. And I think that if I want to respond well and out of a generous spirit, I'd better start cultivating a generous disposition now. If you'd like to listen to the interview with James Lovelock, just click on the title of this post and scroll down to Part 2.

Peter's Sword

2009-05-25T17:06:00.002-03:00

Just so you’re clear from the start, this blog entry is about two things. The main thing is an observation about how we read and understand the bible. The secondary point is a question about Peter’s sword – which is really an illustration of the first point.

So – about reading the bible. I guess I should begin by stating the obvious – even BEFORE we might read the bible, we have different views ABOUT the bible. Some believe – and believe very passionately – that Scripture is the inspired and inerrant (that is, completely accurate) word of God. Not that the bible CONTAINS the word of God but that the bible IS the word of God, in its entirety. On the other end of the continuum are those who dismiss the bible completely as being irrelevant to contemporary life or, even worse, an intentional pack of lies meant to deceive people – people, by the way who are by definition, not very intelligent - into believing all kinds of foolishness. And – clearly – there are lots of stops or points in between these two continuum “ends”.

As for me, I grew up going to a Sunday School that was structured around a catechism. We “learned” through repetition and memorization, basic Christian truths as presented in the Scriptures. It was pretty straightforward and, I have to say, pretty effective in laying out a basic framework of the Christian faith. I actually have fond, though somewhat indistinct memories of my early days in Sunday School. In terms of my view of the bible, the bottom line for my young mind was an understanding that the bible is God’s word. My vision of God was fairly limited and any questions I might have had about the likelihood that ALL Scripture – that is, every word of the 66 books (written by dozens of authors over thousands of years) that comprise the Old and New Testaments – is precisely as God intended it – would only surface later, long after I had completed the catechism and moved onto more interesting and dynamic methods of learning.

My current view – still somewhat under construction by the way – is that a lot of people in this day and age have dismissed the bible because of a caricature of the extremes on the ends of the continuum. And that’s unfortunate – no, it’s worse than unfortunate. It’s actually a tragedy. Maybe I’ll pick this thought up in another entry, but for now I want to get back to my thinking for THIS entry.

My first point, then (so far I’ve just given the preamble!) is that we read and understand and interpret Scripture based on all kinds of things, many of which we’re not even conscious of. There’s our culture, of course, and our own personality, and our experiences – as varied and thought-provoking or pain- provoking as they may be – and, in my view, the tutelage of the Holy Spirit. This is a critical point but I’m not going to even attempt to explain it here.

The point is, we read or hear Scripture and it interacts with us at a point in time and place. Many people over the years have marveled at the way Scripture can take on slightly (or radically!) different nuances and meaning on different days. The Psalms, for example, can speak to us a message of comfort and hope and then – on a different day or in a different place – the same Psalm can make us angry or can bring us to tears. Sometimes we have read or heard a certain passage dozens or even hundreds of times. Maybe we’ve even memorized it and think we’ve squeezed every bit of meaning out of it. And then, seemingly out of nowhere – there’s yet another nuance we hadn’t previously noticed.

Here’s where Peter’s sword comes in. The scene is the Garden of Gethsemane. The Roman soldiers, alerted by Judas as to Jesus’ whereabouts, have come to the Garden to arrest Jesus. Jesus, knowing the suffering that lies just around the corner for him, has gone to the Garden with his disciples to pray. He takes four of them with him, deep into the Garden and asks them to keep watch. Now, come to think of it – that’s odd. What were they watching for? Hm. Well – as you may know, the disciples aren’t very good at keeping watch. In fact, not once but twice, Jesus returns to them, only to find them asleep on the job. Now THAT must have been a tad discouraging, considering that Jesus was about to complete his “assignment” on earth and leave the ministry in their hands. But I digress.

Jesus has prayed – so intensely, in fact that he has sweat drops of blood (hm – is this where the expression “blood, sweat and tears” comes from?). He’s come to terms with the fact that the time has come for him to shed his blood at the hands of the Romans but due to the agitation of the religious leaders of his own chosen people – that must sting more than a little! The disciples have caught a little shut eye in the peace and quiet of the Garden. Then – somber and threatening music – the soldiers arrive, led by Judas who (boldly or reluctantly?) identifies and betrays Jesus by kissing him on the cheek.

So – here’s the thing. Peter – impulsive, passionate, decisive Peter – draws his sword and cuts off the ear of one of the soldiers. Wait a minute. Peter’s sword? Do you remember any scene in all of Scripture where Peter is bearing arms? Why does a fisherman turned disciple even HAVE a sword? He’s been following Jesus around the country for three years. JESUS: Miracle worker. Teacher. Son of God. Carpenter. If you’ve read the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) which chronicle Jesus’ three years of teaching and living amidst a pretty oppressive and even violent society, you may remember various examples of Jesus’ non-violent nature and teachings. Remember that he’s the one that said we should love our enemies, turn the other cheek, repay evil with love. So what’s up with the sword?

When I have some time I’ll check out what’s been said about this – even though I’ve never heard anyone mention it in the various sermons I’ve heard on this scene from the Garden (and since we hear sermons about his every year on Good Friday, that’s a lot of sermons) – still, I’m sure commentators who dissect every verse, will have something to say. But in the meantime, I raise it for you to think about – or even better, if you have heard something or have some thoughts, PLEASE, feel free to post a comment! But more than that, I bring it up so we can reflect on the way we tend to reduce Scripture to our own limited experience and understanding. It’s one thing to interpret Scripture through the lenses we have – after all, what else can we do? – but it’s totally another thing to presume that that’s ALL there is, because that’s ALL we can see at this particular time.

Through a Glass Darkly

2009-05-15T16:01:00.002-03:00

There’s this image from Scripture about seeing through a glass darkly (1 Cor. 13:12). In other words, the idea is that we can’t see clearly – it’s like there are shadows and distortions and smudges that prevent us from seeing things as they really are. It’s an image that has always frustrated me, because I love to think things through and put things together to gain a deeper and clearer understanding. And it’s like, no matter how hard I try, I’m never going to really get it. So, it’s frustrating, but there are moments when it’s also liberating.

I just watched an episode of Numb3rs – it’s a show about two brothers. One brother – Don - is an FBI agent and the other – Charlie - is a brilliant mathematician. Charlie is always getting involved, helping the FBI solve cases by applying mathematical models to the investigation. In the episode I just watched, Charlie has convinced Don that he can actually anticipate the next drug to hit the streets and can manipulate the market by “dirtying the brand”. The idea is that by buying up the limited early supply, the market will respond by increasing the price and actually cutting the quality in an effort to meet demand.

Charlie’s actually so confident that his plan will work that he is giddy with success. Ah, but wait! He hadn't figured on the intelligence of one of the bad guys to also anticipate the effect on the drug market if the brand became "dirtied" by high cost and low quality. So - being unscrupulous, he foiled Charlie's plan by murdering a couple other bad guys and seizing their drug supply.

Anyway, the point is that the model - which looked good on paper - failed to take into account ALL of the variables. The result was near disaster for one of the FBI agents, but also a reminder to me - to us - that no matter how smart or clever we are, we need to be careful of arrogance. Life is wonderfully complicated!

Actually, it reminds me of a workshop my husband and I went to many years ago (about 23!) at Memorial Univeristy in Newfoundland. It was a workshop about fisheries and some economists presented a model to explain why a certain course of action should be followed in the Newfoundland groundfish fishery. As we listened, my husband - himself a commercial fisherman with an astute grasp of the complexity of life in general and of fishing in particular - noticed that the economic model seemed to be missing something. More specifically, it didn't take into account the fact that fishermen often are involved in fisheries for more than one species. When he raised the issue, the economists dismissed his concern, noting that the "model" couldn't allow for that. Bottom line was this: they were presenting information and suggesting strategies based on information they knew was inaccurate and incomplete. And yet the model looked very persuasive - scientific, rational, sophisticated. I think it fooled them and they forgot that, in all areas of human endeavour, we look through a glass darkly.

Some people may find that discouraging or disconcerting. But I love it. I love the fact that God is smarter than we are and he puts understanding just beyond our reach. I embrace the mystery and accept - sometimes a bit grudgingly - my limitations. For me, that helps me to "walk humbly" with God...

Protectionism and Poverty

2009-02-05T08:45:00.002-04:00

Since my last blog there have been some interesting and historic political drama and intrigue in both Canada and the United States. In Canada, Stephen Harper's Conservative minority government has avoided defeat on a confidence motion - the budget. They have Michael Ignatieff, the new Liberal leader, to thank for that. Ignatieff prudently (and predictably) decided to support a deficit budget which will see Canada spend over $60 billion dollars (that we don't have!) over the next couple of years. Political analysts say that the budget is actually more of a Liberal than Conservative budget anyway, reflecting the view that we must "spend our way" out of the current financial instability and recession. Seems a bit counter-intuitive to me - especially given current concers for environmental degradation, but I'm not an economist...

South of the border, Barack Obama has been duly inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States of America. In a fairy tale-like story of epic proportions, Obama has captured the hearts and hopes, not only of many Americans, but of people of assorted nationalities around the world. He is, I suppose, the great BLACK hope - the first African American President and a man of apparent integrity with a refreshing grasp of the unpleasant realities of the challenges facing his administration.

However, a proposed $800 Billion stimulus package which is tied to "buy American" protectionism, has drawn criticism from economists and politicians from around the world. It seems to me that this is a critical moment for a global economy which has produced an enormous gap between the rich and poor of the world. If the United States slips into a protectionist mode - well - the results could be beyond catastrophic for the poor. And, desperate people are prone to do desperate things. Of course there are many, MANY variables involved, but I believe it's more realism than alarmism to say that any hope of global stability will be lost if protectionist policies are adopted in the US.

I've been reading a book by Paul Collier (a Professor of Economics and Director of the Center for the Study of African Economies at Oxford University) entitled The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It. Collier identifies four poverty traps which characterize the 58 or so countries that comprise the bottom billion of the world's population: the conflict trap, the natural resource trap, being landlocked with bad neighbours, and bad governance in a small country. He then goes on to identify components of a global approach to rescue the bottom billion and reverse the marginalization that has occurred through globalization. Trade policy is a key component of this strategy, along with aid, military intervention and laws and charters.

Protectionism - especially from within the US - is a clear and present danger to world peace and to any hope that the bottom billion might one day enjoy such things as adequate food, clean water, universal primary education, basic health care and the opportunity to dream and plan for a future. The challenges before President Obama are enormous. Is he a man - THE man - for such a time as this? I sure hope so!!!

Freedom or Discipline?

2009-01-16T09:14:00.004-04:00

Last weekend I spent some time with a friend who is my accountability partner for the Live It Out challenge. If you're not familiar with this challenge, check it out at http://www.cbmin.org/cbm/live-it-out. So - in our desire to live more simply, justly and faithfully, we spent a bit of time setting some specific and more or less measurable goals in different areas of our lives: financial, social (that is, family and friends), physical, intellectual, spiritual, work, etc. It was just a bit like making New Year's resolutions and maybe that's why it made me a little bit uneasy - you know what happens to most New Year's resolutions, right?

So I've been thinking about the whole approach to Live It Out and wondering if my admonition that we must avoid "legalism" is going to work if we make lists of dos and don'ts to help us move in the direction of greater simplicity, justice and faithfulness. Hear me out. I'm not abandoning the idea, just wondering. It seems that we have a stubborn resistance to exercising our freedom in healthy ways. For example, when I think about past efforts to lose weight without being obsessive about it, I must confess that, as sensible as my thinking is (that is, eat healthy but in moderation, get plenty of good exercise) I invariably GAIN weight rather than lose it! It's only when I get serious (aka LEGALISTIC and OBSESSIVE!) about keeping track that I start to lose, and that only as long as I stay focused. As you MAY know, it's a frustrating TRAP...

This same friend - my accountability partner - was telling me about an audio lecture she'd been listening to by a Catholic theologian, John Shea, who said something to the effect that our objective in our relationship with God is not KNOWLEDGE so much as WONDER. As I think about the way my mind works, I realize that I LOVE knowledge. The pursuit of TRUTH is a huge motivator for me. There's nothing like having some new insight or learning something that helps put other things, previously learned, into a new and clearer perspective. I love learning and thinking. But yet, there was for me an immediate resonance with this notion that it's the WONDER of God that nourishes the soul. That, as rich as knowledge is, it can - if we're not careful - get in the way of wonder. Child-like wonder. Child-like simplicity. Child-like delight.

Maybe I just need to live with the tensions - between freedom and discipline, between knowledge and wonder. And just one other quick thing. I've listened this week to an audiobook, Abandoned to God which is a wonderful biography of Oswald Chambers (perhaps best known for the devotional book, My Utmost for His Highest. I REALLY enjoyed listening to this inspirational and very well narrated story of the life of one of my spiritual heroes. It tied in very nicely with my thinking about freedom and discipline, though you'll have to read it or listen to it for yourself to understand the full impact. Oswald Chamber's motto for everyday life could be summed up as follows: Trust God and do the next thing! So - in addition to my specific Live It Out goals, I'm intent on applying this principle in my own life. It occurs to me that Oswald Chambers was a man of great insight and knowledge, but it was a knowledge rooted in wonder. By the way, you can download Abandoned to God for free from www.christianaudio.com. You'll need to create an account, log in and then go to the free download section. This book is the free "book of the month" for January. Enjoy and pass the word...

Ultimately I want to be the kind of person who naturally lives simply, justly and faithfully. I know I'm not there just yet - I'm easily distracted and all too often give into temptations to indulge my appetite for "stuff" and the complications that invariably come with the stuff (reminded just now of Jonathan Wilson's article in the most recent Mosaic magazine called "Consumed: Faithful Discipleship in a Society of Consumption". I'm not there yet, but I'm on the journey. And for now, if it helps to set specific goals and be accountable to a friend for how I'm doing, so be it. Freedom beckons!

Political Craziness in Canada

2008-12-04T09:26:00.003-04:00

I don't think I've ever really weighed in on the political maneuverings in Canada on this blog and maybe I should wait this one out too. But with current global economic conditions, the political scene in the US and all of the justice issues that are swirling just below - or at - the surface of our daily lives - it sure makes you think about the BIG picture. It sure feels like life as we know it is going to change - but then, maybe not.

Apparently US shoppers (and Canadians crossing the "free trade" border) on "Black Friday" defied economic realities and actually spent MORE of their hard earned cash (or more likely their easily accessed credit!) on this one day shopping frenzy. Still, the markets are bouncing up and down - though more down than up - and the image that comes to my mind is a smartly dressed business executive dangling helplessly on the end of a bungee cord.

And in the midst of all this, our politicians in Ottawa are acting even more like poorly disciplined pre-schoolers - actually, I'd have to say I can't imagine ANY pre-schoolers acting as badly as our political leaders, but maybe that's just me. I do tend to have a low tolerance for name calling and bad manners and posturing, not to mention the folly of making governance a political game with the spoils going to the most cleverly manipulative and deceitful "leader". Do ANY of our political leaders care more about the stability and future of our country than they care about their own political careers?

It's been many years since I studied Karl Marx, but I've been thinking a bit lately of some of his analysis of capitalism. I often think that Marx has been demonized quite unfairly and some of his insights - incredibly astute insights - have been dismissed for fear that any association with Marx might somehow make us "communists". But that's a blog for another day. For now, I just want to say that Marx believed that every economic system contains within it the seeds of its own destruction. Hm. What's really incredible for me is that Marx was writing about capitalism years and years before those seeds would germinate. I wonder what he would say today about the current economic situation - dare I say, crisis? Forget the labels: capitalism, communism, socialism - and let's just think of the economics that are in front of us. Maybe the current crisis is the natural outcome of a world where the gap between the rich and the poor just keeps getting bigger. Maybe we have reached a "tipping point" when society cannot any longer maintain order in the face of profound injustice. Maybe we have reached the limits of an economic system's ability to adapt and avoid total chaos.

It seems to me that the future of our society - and in fact of the global community - depends on world leaders - politicians, economists, scientists, businessmen and women, faith leaders - the whole kit and kaboodle - to set aside self interest and greed and all kinds of imperialist agendas, to sort through the persistent questions of how we live together on this planet without destroying it or ourselves.

So this is why I'm more than a little concerned by the shenanigans in Ottawa. As I write this, I'm listening to CTV Newsnet and Prime Minister Harper is about to meet with the Governor General. I've listened to dozens of people speculate about what Governor General Jean can do and will do in the face of this political mess. My guess is that she agree to suspend Parliament until late January. Then, I think Harper will be forced to adopt a more conciliatory approach and will, in the process, give into some of the pressures from the opposition parties to spend more money to avert further immediate economic distress. In the meantime, the opposition leaders will mill about in increasing confusion as Canadians express their frustration with their efforts to pull off a political coup. The fact that the Liberal party is in the block, preparing for a leadership race this spring and that public opinion of Stephane Dion seems to be pretty low and falling - well - it's a bit of a stretch to think they can really convince anyone that they are "ready to govern". I suspect that no matter what happens in terms of the coalition, the relationship between Quebec and the rest of the country will be even more strained and may even move the separatist agenda further along. All in all, it looks like rough waters ahead for all of us.

And, come to think of it, that can't be good news for the global poor because we'll be so focused on our own miseries, it will be hard to remember that thjavascript:void(0)ere are millions of people who would like to have enough food to eat, safe water, basic medical care, access to primary education for their kids. The drama continues... as for me, I'll be watching and hoping that our political leaders will snap out of it and take their responsibilities seriously, whatever that means for their own political careers.

The Advent Conspiracy: A Cautious Embrace...

2008-11-28T10:28:00.005-04:00

Well - I've received emails from far and wide referring me to The Advent Conspiracy and I made very brief mention of it at the tail end of my last blog. I'm going to say right up front that I think this is a great idea - a movement with sincere good intentions. And who can argue with the outcome when the bottom line is a shift away from self-indulgent consumerism to an emphasis on compassion and relationship? So why do I have a sense of unease in the pit of my being? It's probably not a big deal, but it's a persistent sense that something could be a little amiss. I certainly don't want to be the Scrooge of Advent Conspiracy, but here's the thing - or things:

1. Christmas may be as good a time as any to call people to a more authentic and accurate representation of their faith, but is there a danger that the goodwill that the Advent Conspiracy generates may dissipate when the trees come down and the turkey settles? After all, come the first of January the Christmas glow often fades and we go back to life as usual - the hustle and bustle of the holiday season is replaced by the more mundane hustle and bustle of our frantic lifestyles - getting the kids to the rink and the pool and the gym and putting in our own 40+ hour work week, plus keeping up (or down!) with the Jones's, the housework and yardwork and - well - you get the picture. We may have done a little bit of good for the global poor, by providing safe water or a bit more food or even houses that won't wash away or blow away, but what if lack of access to food and water and safe housing are only symptoms of much bigger and deeper issues?

2. And, what if we participate in the Advent Conspiracy as a way to alleviate guilt - our own, that is. Maybe it's just me, but I find it's really tempting to fall in line and celebrate the euphoria of our wonderful generosity as we scale back a bit and then use a bit of the money we didn't spend on ourselves to help others. Again, maybe it's just me, but I struggle constantly with this tension between wanting to really live simply, justly and faithfully and the very strong urge to have the things I want that make my life comfortable, productive, safe. I sincerely hope that this is a reflection of MY selfishness and that YOU are actually far more genuinely generous than I am.

OK - so what's the point of this blog? Perhaps it's just me, confessing my struggle with consumerism and thinking on paper about the deeper, darker issues of the global economic and political systems and the injustices that are perpetrated by those systems so that the richest 20% of the world controls 86% of the planet's wealth and the poorest 20% control only 1%. I don't want to rain on the Advent Conspiracy parade - honestly! I seriously DO think it's a good start and I encourage you to check it out, but be careful. Don't let it be a quick fix or a passing fad. Let it be an entry point into a a whole new relationship with people - both near and far - and stuff and the environment and God.

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this. (Isaiah 9:6-7 TNIV)

Be part of the Advent Conspiracy but know this: we may be a whole lot more tied to our consumer culture than we realize and as we follow this path, we will - I predict - discover that the rabbit hole is WAY deeper than we thought! But it's ok - we're not alone and I believe that whatever trouble we find on the way, God will not leave us or forsake us!

Oh - and by the way, if you're looking for a good place to put some (or better still, ALL!) of the cash that you're not using to buy obligatory and often frivolous gifts for family and friends, check out the CBM gift catalogue: https://www.cbmin.org and /cbm/giftcatalogue and the Kids Care Catalogue - http://www.cbmin.org/cbm/kids-care and give a gift in their names.

The Coronation Grow Project

2008-11-26T08:04:00.004-04:00

As promised at the end of my last blog, I'm going to tell you about the Coronation Grow Project that raises money - LOTS of money - for the Canadian Foodgrains Bank (CFGB). It's a story about some farmers in Alberta - in Coronation, to be precise - who share CFGB's vision: a world without hunger.

These farmers plant a 270 acre field and the entire harvest is donated to CFGB. Not only that, but through a 4:1 matching grant from Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), that money is multiplied. Last year, the Coronation Grow Project was able to raise almost $3,000,000 for CFGB - all money that is used to fund food security projects in low income countries. In this case, the money was deposited in Canadian Baptist Ministries' (CBM) account with CFGB and used by CBM for projects with partners in Africa, India, Central and South America.

But let me back up a bit and tell you about CFGB. This year is CFGB's 25th anniversary. Here's how the website describes CFGB:

Canadian Foodgrains Bank is a partnership of Canadian church-based agencies working to end hunger in developing countries by: · increasing and deepening the involvement of Canadians in efforts to end hunger; · supporting partnerships and activities to reduce hunger on both an immediate and sustainable basis; · influencing changes in public policies necessary to end hunger.

Check out the website at: http://www.foodgrainsbank.ca. But there's more to the story. Last year, Lorne Park Baptist Church in Mississauga, Ontario, partnered with Brownfield Church in Alberta. As I understand it, the farmers - many of them from the Brownfield Baptist Church, near Coronation - provided the knowledge, labour and equipment to make the harvest a success, and the Lorne Park Church provided cash for input costs. So - an urban church (Lorne Park) partnered with a rural church (Brownfield) - each contributing what they had in order to raise an enormous sum of money so that people in distant lands might have access to funds that would help them develop projects to ease hunger and food insecurity.

Just think of all the players involved in making this happen: the farmers and the local community folks in Alberta, the Lorne Park folks, CFGB, CBM and The Sharing Way (CBM's relief and development arm), CIDA (which contributes money through matching grants - that's money gathered from Canadian taxpayers), our partners in Kenya, Rwanda, Angola, India, Bolivia and El Salvador. That's a lot of people, working together, to ease hunger!

Now - before I leave you I want to mention a website you might want to check out as the Advent season begins: http://www.adventconspiracy.org/. Enjoy!

Hunger for Change

2008-11-14T09:22:00.002-04:00

For the last two weeks of October I had the incredible privilege of traveling across the country with two of our international partners - Sam Mutisya from Kenya and Dr. Judson Pothuraju from India. We - along with several others who varied from venue to venue - were presenting a workshop we called: Hunger for Change: Responding to the Global Food Crisis. What an amazing journey it was for me!

I heard Sam and Dr. Judson present their material on how the global food crisis is affecting people in their communities a total of eight times - and each time the picture got a little clearer. But it wasn't just the presentations that stretched me - it was also the opportunity to get to know these two gracious men as we traveled across this land of plenty to try to help people understand that there really is a link between our relative affluence and the abject poverty so many people experience every day BECAUSE of global forces which favor us and not them. Sometimes it's hard for us to really believe that there IS a global food crisis since our grocery stores continue to carry an amazing array of food - fresh, frozen, processed, modified, transported - it's all there waiting for us when we zip into the grocery store to stock our own shelves.

After extending Kenyan greetings, Sam began his presentation by noting that "world hunger and a food crisis are a contradiction in our time." There's an irony that we musn't miss that while the diet industry in North America is booming because we have and we eat TOO MUCH, about one billion people (that's about one in six!) are chronically hungry and many of them are seriously malnourished and literally on the brink of starvation.

It's pretty easy, actually, to see that there's something terribly wrong with this picture, but the more difficult issue is understanding the causes of the food crisis and - tougher still - working through possible solutions. There seem to be two competing and maybe even contradictory camps on this. On the one hand there's Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, who heads up a pilot project which has seen the creation of 12 "Millennium Villages" in an effort to provide a model for the eradication of poverty and hunger. Sounds like a good idea, but the catch is that they are based on some assumptions about development that may ultimately be counter- productive. Like, for example, as I understand it, agricultural production will be heavily reliant on commercially manufactured seeds, fertilizers and pesticides. See http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/ for more details.

Michael Pollan is a spokesperson for a different approach. He advocates a development model that harnesses natural inputs. He's written an open letter (published in the New York Times - see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/magazine/12policy-t.html) to the next president of the United States (who we now know will be President-elect Barack Obama) concerning the global food crisis and the way forward. Quite a different way forward than the Millennium Villages model for agricutlural production, mind you.

So - what I've been pondering is this question: is it possible for us (humanity at its best, that is) to produce enough food to feed the growing world population, without relying on genetically modified food and chemical fertilizers and pesticides? I don't have the answer to that question, but I'm guessing that in the immediate short term it may be necessary to combine philosophies and approaches in order to get food - and that is, food of any kind at this point - into the bellies of hungry and starving people around the world. That's the first priority. But in the long term decisions must be made about what kind of food we want and need. We need to consider the costs of artificial inputs and of a whole series of assumptions that we make about food production and distribution. Perhaps the "answer" will lie in a dynamic balance between two models....

In my next posting I'm going to talk about a Canadian Foodgrains Bank (CFGB) grow project in Coronation, Alberta, where farmers donate their time, equipment and labour to harvest grain which is donated through CFGB, along with matching grants (up to 4:1) from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and is invested through The Sharing Way of Canadian Baptist Ministries with our partners in countries like Kenya and India - to improve food security. It's a great story and an inspiring example of mustard seed faith!

World Food Day and the Global Food Crisis

2008-10-16T10:27:00.008-03:00

Well - it's October 16. Whatever else is on your plate today, please take a little time to reflect on the fact that it is World Food Day. Your cupboards may be full and your clothes may be a little snug, but the reality is that access to food is a major issue for at least one in six global citizens - that is, the "bottom billion". And actually, rising food prices are affecting MANY more, both here in Canada and around the world.

The global food crisis is a pretty complex topic and I'm not going to take time in this blog to talk about the various factors that have directly or indirectly contributed to the situation we are now facing. My purpose today is simply to share with you some thoughts about what YOU can do to make a difference as you seek to live out your faith through living simply, justly and faithfully.

First of all, if you haven't already done so, check out the Live It Out challenge at www.cbmin.org/cbm/live-it-out. It all starts with a decision to change your lifestyle! Then, get informed. There are LOTS of websites with really good information on the global food crisis. Here are a few you could start with:

www.foodgrainsbank.ca

www.makepovertyhistory.ca

www.micahchallenge.ca

http://www.kairoscanada.org/

www.myfootprint.org

If you're a reader, there are also many great books. Here's a sampling - some of them are about food specifically and some are about simplicity more generally:

The End of Food (Paul Roberts)

Animal, Vegetable, Miracle (Barbara Kingsolver)

In Defense of Food (Michael Pollan)

The 100 Mile Diet (Alisa Smith & J.B. MacKinnon)

Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (Ron Sider)

Simpler Living Compassionate Life (Michael Schut, ed)

30 Days to a Simpler Life (Connie Cox & Chris Evatt

Serve God, Save the Planet (J. Matthew Sleeth, MD)

Freedom of Simplicity (Richard Foster)

Now - it's not just about reading and thinking and understanding. All of that is well and good, but what really counts is what you do with what you know. So, here's a few suggestions that might prime the pump as you settle on some things you can begin to DO today!

Eat local – support local farmers, reduce travel costs (shop at Farmer’s Markets, etc.)

Know your food producers

Eat fair trade when possible

Use cloth bags

Avoid excess packaging (shop cooperatively…)

Eat food (not reasonable fascimiles!)

Reduce food waste and compost

Avoid use of stryofoam (byod - that is, bring your own dishes!)

My guess is that as you start doing some of these things, you'll have an impact not only on yourself but on those closest to you - your friends, families, co-workers. How can you make sure that influence is a good one? Keep these things in mind:

Set an example – change starts with you Encourage others to eat responsibly and live simply and justly Influence food decisions made at home, work, church…

Finally, how can you get more involved in working for food justice?

Support The Sharing Way (http://www.cbmin.org/cbm/hunger-for-change) and Canadian Foodgrains Bank (http://www.foodgrainsbank.ca/)projects

Support food security policies and sustainable agriculture, locally and globally

Encourage politicians to live up to Canada’s international commitments (MDGs, international development, etc.)

Pray – for wisdom, for our leaders, for God’s kingdom, for the poor, for organizations like CBM/TSW, CFGB, etc.

So - why not observe World Food Day by getting started. Start wherever you want. These are just suggestions - start somewhere and see where it goes! We live in a world of plenty, but not everyone has enough...

Election Reflections

2008-10-06T17:15:00.005-03:00

When the Canadian election was called (September 7/08) I confess that I was momentarily relieved that the campaign itself would be relatively short (if not sweet!). I got a bit weary of the long and winding campaign trail in the States months ago, and felt a certain Canadian smugness that we could call and hold an election in a fraction of the time (and I presume cost!) of the American system. But, with only 8 days left until the votes will be cast and counted (on October 14), I'm beginning to wish that we had a bit more time.

The pollsters and the media have quickly risen to the challenge of a short campaign. Each of the parties has hastily formulated platforms and signs are ornamenting private lawns and public spaces. The leaders have had their televised debates. All of the necessary bits and pieces are falling into place. But who to vote for? Beyond all the rhetoric and innuendo, the party politics and the smoke and mirrors, who is worthy of understanding these times we live in and providing the kind of leadership that is required? Can I trust one party over another? Which leader would make the best prime minister? Which of the local candidates in my riding is most likely to serve his or her constituency with integrity

I'm on the email lists of a number of organizations that have sent out election guides to help people like me talk to the candidates about a variety of issues. Most of them are tastefully and tactfully done - giving suggestions concerning the kinds of questions we might ask candidates - about poverty, the Millennium Development Goals (specifically Canada's obligation to honor our commitment to give 0.7% of our GNP for development), the right to water, homelessness at home, services for seniors and single parents - and so on. Some of the emails I've received though, have been intensely partisan - one organization was fund raising for an anti-Harper ad campaign. In fact, come to think of it, there has been a lot of anti-Harper sentiment (even a facebook movement to engage young adults in vote swapping in order to wrest key ridings from Conservative candidates!). It all makes we wonder if any ONE political leader can really be an authentic hero or villain - is Harper to be "blamed" for the policies that I find problematic? Could another leader "solve" some of those problems?

I find it interesting that we can so quickly "blame" our political leaders for all of our woes and - it would follow - that we presume that our political system can somehow be counted on to "fix" the problems it has caused. It seems to me that elections often bring out our true colors - that is, we want to support candidates that can do it all: make life easier and better for us and also do something about the really big issues like climate change, the global food crisis, the impending global economic recession, the war in Afghanistan, terrorism, poverty, etc. But do we REALLY expect them to do anything about those global issues? That might be asking too much, so we settle for what they can do closer to home - our home. What will they actually do in my community, in my province, in Canada? Let's not kid ourselves - politics is about power and the way to have power is to get elected and re-elected. The way to get elected is to give people what they want.

The way I see it, global issues won't be priorities for our political leaders until they are truly our own priorities. Until we can say - with total sincerity - that we want our government to put the needs of the global poor AHEAD of our own comforts. Until we release our governments from the expectation that the measure of their success is improving our economy and our standard of living. Until the MAJORITY of Canadians will actually VOTE for a candidate who promises to REDUCE our standard of living and invest instead in the economies and infrastructure of low income countries.

I know - I'm naive. Who's going to vote for that kind of candidate? In fact, how would that kind of candidate even get into the race? But seriously - we are living WAY beyond our means (currently spending $1.25 for every $1.00 we earn and with a national consumer debt load of $1.17 Trillion dollars!). [For a comprehensive look at debt in Canada, see http://www.cga-canada.org/en-ca/ResearchReports/ca_rep_2007-10_debt-consumption.pdf]. Doesn't anyone else feel like we're on a massive roller coaster and nearing the peak - we don't know exactly what's on the other side of the peak but we know it's going to be a wild ride. We can only hope that the structural supports can keep the cars on the track!

So, having said all this, despite wishing we had more time, I'm off to the advance polls to cast my vote (since I'll be on the road next week). The option I really want isn't one of my choices but I will vote nonetheless because, the way I see it, living out my faith means participating in the political process, flawed though it may be. And then, after I vote, I'll continue to work at transforming my own attitudes and encouraging others to keep examining our lives in light of global realities. It's all part of living simply, living justly, living faithfully!

The Live it Out Challenge: It's all about living simply, justly and faithfully...

2008-09-22T10:50:00.003-03:00

Well - the Live It Out Challenge has now been officially "launched"! This challenge is based on an idea that began to germinate about a year ago. If I had to say when the seed was planted, I'd probably go with four years ago when I went to Kenya for the first time on a short term mission trip with Canadian Baptist Ministries. In reality, I think it may be more accurate to say the seed may have been planted way back when I began to take sociology courses in university and those courses began to trigger a "sociological imagination". The trip to Kenya was just one of many opportunities to reflect on "big picture" ideas and observations. It tilted my thinking...

I also need to mention that way back when I was 13 or 14 years old, I - like so many teens - became pretty dissatisfied with "the church" - actually I was intensely CRITICAL. It just seemed to me that the church wasn't what it ought to be, if Jesus really IS who he said he is and if the church really is meant to carry on his work. If we're actually to be some sort of INCARNATIONAL presence of Christ in the world - a world that is indescribably beautiful (yet sometimes ugly), complex (yet simple), messed up (yet orderly) - in other words, a place of contradiction and paradox.

I was so disappointed in the church when I was a teen that I set out on my own to search for "truth" or "god" or something, ANYTHING authentic. At that time, if you'd asked me, I would have said that I believed in God but not much in any religious institution. As it turns out, even though I'd been to Sunday School and church pretty much every Sunday since birth, and THOUGHT I knew what Christianity is all about, there were actually some pretty significant holes in my theology. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

So - I spent about the next 14 years in a very diligent search - a spiritual journey that involved exploring other major world religions, practicing TM (transcendental meditation - it seemed like something a "self-actualizing" person would do - thank you very much Abraham Maslow!), dabbling in yoga, and so on. Somewhat to my surprise, that search brought me pretty much full circle back to Christianity.

Without going into detail, I found myself in 1992 with a husband, two young children, a PhD in Sociology, a renewed interest in Christianity and, surprisingly for me - the "church", and some time on my hands. From about 1992 to 2004 I became increasingly involved with our regional baptist Convention and then with Canadian Baptist Ministries in the whole area of public witness.

I guess I figured that if the church really IS supposed to somehow represent Christ on earth, rather than criticize it for its (many) shortcomings, I ought to roll up my sleeves and use whatever insights/resources/talents I might have to help out - to make the church more effective. Hm - as I write that it sounds pretty arrogant. Hm.

Anyway - in 2004 the trip to Kenya was a really important factor in my learning curve. And it was followed by trips to Bolivia, El Salvador, back to Kenya, then back to Bolivia and back to El Salvador. And in between all of these forays to low income countries, I was reading and thinking about justice issues and global realities and how Christians in countries like Canada and the United States should be living out our faith in the context of these realities.

It seemed that we often WANT to be totally committed to following Christ, but we've maybe lost our way a bit or the culture of affluence that is OUR reality, has blinded us to the fact that "our world is not THE world" (I think Rob Bell makes this point in his Nooma, Rich). Bottom line, as I've said through numerous entries in this blog - we can't continue to live the way we live and assume that there are enough resources to go around - it's NOT POSSIBLE for the whole world to live as we do and, if we REALLY want to love our neighbors as ourselves, it's time we figure out a way to stop using way more than our share of the earth's resources. I hasten to add that I am totally convinced that reducing our STANDARD of living does not mean that we will reduce the QUALITY of our lives. In fact, I suspect that we'll discover that reductions in standard will actually improve quality. But you can test that for yourself!

All of this to say that the LIO challenge is simply a tool to help you get started. The idea is that you: 1. make a commitment 2. figure out where you are now (that is, your starting point - the whole idea is to start where you are but not stay there!) 3. set some personal targets in the areas of living simply, living justly and living faithfully, and 4. find an accountability partner or small group - a person or people who will hold you accountable to stick to your commitment and to follow through on the targets you've set for yourself.

There's really just one rule: Don't get legalistic about it! This isn't a magic program - it's just a simple tool to help you take the next steps to a life this is more simple, just and faithful. So - what do you think? If this sounds like something that will help you, PLEASE, sign up. Just go to http://www.cbmin.org/cbm/live-it-out. Not only can you sign up online, but there's LOTS of resources here to help you get started and keep going.

By the way, if you wonder how any little changes you might make in your lifestyle could possibly make ANY difference to the global justice issues, think about this: you know have gas prices have been going up lately? Well, many people are making small adjustments in their driving habits - driving less, driving slower, etc. In the August 9-15, 2008 issue of The Economist (in a short article called Buttonwood, Fuel for Thought), it says this: According to the Department of Transportation, Americans drove 9.6billion fewer miles in May than they did last year." Wow! Maybe we CAN live more responsibly!

On the edge of a precipice...

2008-07-28T12:21:00.005-03:00

I've been reading an incredible book over the past few months. I'm savouring it, really - reading a few paragraphs or pages at a time and not wanting it to end. The book is Simpler Living Compassionate Life, a collection of essays edited and compiled by Michael Schut (ISBN 1-889108-62-6). Originally published in 1999, it's now on its thirteenth printing. That says something, right?

The articles are challenging, inspiring, provocative, gentle, insistent. I feel that I'm being drawn closer and closer to a precipice. One minute, I want to stop - I don't want to get any closer. But then, I'm lured on by my own sense of curiosity - like a moth to a flame. My gut feeling is that if I continue, the consequences are going to be unavoidable and significant - not bad but scary. Not to carry the imagery too far, but the feeling might be similar to being next in line to go bungee jumping. There's the gut wrenching fear but also the breathless anticipation. You probably know me well enough through these blogs to know that I'm not likely to be in a line for bungee jumping, but still - I think the feeling I have as I read this book must be something like the feeling I WOULD have, if I were the adventure seeking type.

I'll try to explain very briefly why this book is so compelling. This blog has often been the place where I've commented on global statistics as I become more and more aware of the disparities between the global rich and the global poor. As a sociologist I can't help but be impressed by the statistical evidence in all kinds of areas that the "good life" as defined by our secular North American society, is totally unsustainable - not only for us in the long run but very obviously for the globe, even in the relatively short run of the next 20 or 30 years. There are ecological limits, and social, cultural, economic, political and even spiritual consequences of exceeding those limits. BUT, this is not a doomsday forecast.

As it happens, I don't think it's too late for us to change our ways and, as much as I don't have a lot of confidence in our ability to FIX all the problems we've created, I DO think that governments, industry, science, academia, and even faith communities can make a HUGE difference, especially if we work together to address problems. There are so many good quotes in Simpler Living Compassionate Life - but consider this one, from an article entitled "Christian Experience in a World of Limitis" by John B. Cobb, Jr. (pg. 118):

"Some Christians may elect to live now in terms of what they envision as quite new possibilities for human society even when they do not know how to get from here to there. We may not know how to bring about a society that uses only renewable resources, but we can experiment with lifestyles that foreshadow that kind of society. We may not know how to provide the Third World with space and freedom to work out its own destiny, but in the name of a new kind of world we can withdraw our support from the more obvious structures of oppression. We may not know how to shift from a growth-oriented economy to a stationary-state economy, but we can work out the principles involved in such an economy."

This gives me great hope! I don't have to have it all worked out, but I can take small steps to live more justly and to encourage a sense of optimism that there is a truly BETTER way for us to live. Even as I think of changes that I can make (and am making!) in my everyday life, and as I am more sensitive to the creative ways that some other people are living, I'm convinced that reducing our standard of living is not the same as reducing our quality of living. In fact, I'd argue that reducing the standard of living will actually serve to enhance the quality of our lives - exponentially! And, not only that, but by consuming less we will begin to see how the global economic systems are actually very exploitative. And once we see and understand that, well - here's another quote by Cobb (pg. 121):

"... in a world in which global poverty is here to stay, we are called as Christians to identify with the poor. That has always been Christian teaching, but when we thought that our own affluence contributed to the spread of affluence around the world, we could evade that teaching. Now we know that riches can exist in one quarter only as the expense of the poverty of others. In a world divided between oppressor and oppressed, rich and poor, the Christian cannot remain identified with the oppressor and the rich."

See what I mean about the precipice? I'm being drawn on to a deeper level of understanding of this amazing world AND, by the way, of a vision for God's Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. It's pretty exciting, but it's not easy or obvious what my next steps need to be. OK - just one more quote - this time from the conclusion of the article (pg. 123):

"Perhaps for affluent Christians [that would be me and perhaps you!] the deepest level of response to the awareness of limits is the recognition that we cannot free ourselves from guilt. We are caught in a destructive system, and we find that even our will to refuse to identify with that system is mixed with the desire to enjoy its fruits. None of us is innocent, either in intention or behavior."

Hm. What does this mean? How often do we seek out a "good buy" without giving a moment's thought to all of the contingencies and relationships that move that item from production to our consumption? How sure are we that we have not endorsed or participated in the inhumane exploitation of workers - maybe even children - in a distant factory or sweat shop? In our enthusiasm to stretch our hard earned dollars further and further and our vulnerability to a consumer culture and advertising campaigns designed to make us WANT things that we don't actually NEED... Well, enough said. I could go on and on - and on!- but I'll stop here for now.

Did I mention that it's really a great book?

Is necessity really the mother of invention?

2008-07-14T12:20:00.003-03:00

I was listening to an audio version of The Economist magazine the other day - a special feature on the future of energy (an article called "The Power and the Glory", June 19/08)- and my mind snagged on a comment made early on. I looked it up to be sure to get it right and here it is: "The pressure to innovate has been minimal." The gist of it is that until recently, energy has been pretty cheap so there hasn't been a lot of incentive to innovate. Of course we all know that's changing - at least the part about energy being cheap.

So then I was watching a documentary called Who Killed the Electric Car? - a 2006 film that explores the birth and subsequent "euthanization" of General Motors' electric car called the EV1 - and I got thinking of this popular maxim: necessity is the mother of invention. Hm. IS necessity the mother of invention? Who defines necessity? Who pays for invention? I think sometimes we imagine innovation as being the simple product of a creative or clever mind, imagining what could be and coming up with some innovative solution to a problem, whether big or small. But is that how it really works?

Let's look at necessity. Who decides what's a necessity or what's not? We might theoretically agree that having access to safe and sufficient food and water, adequate shelter and sanitation, basic health care, clothes appropriate for the season, primary school education - these could be considered basic necessities. But what about other things like dental care, secondary and post secondary education, running water, things like telephones, computers, appliances? Or, to notch it up even further, vacations, cars, jewellry, hobbies like golf or tennis or water skiing, extensive wardrobes? It's pretty clear that necessity can wear different hats!

But wouldn't you think that we would ALL agree that everyone on the planet should have those things that really ARE basic necessities? Shouldn't that be the starting point? I'm not so naive as to think that we would agree that everyone really should have equal access to the "stuff" that adds spice (and sometimes a wee bit of stress!) to our lives, but who can really argue that food and water, health care, education, shelter and sanitation should be reserved only for those who can pay? You've seen the stats. Currently there are millions of people on the planet who lack these things. So, by definition, is that not necessity? Is this necessity spawning invention?

I think it is, partly - at least it is sparking the impulse to invention. Many smart people are trying to solve global issues of poverty, hunger, etc. but the challenges prove to be quite significant. There are political issues (for example, should the global community help countries who violate human rights standards?), economic considerations (i.e. who pays for innovation, especially if the innovation is very expensive OR if innovation will have negative economic repercussions for someone higher on the "food chain"?), environmental challenges (can a "solution" to one environmental or ecological problem cause new and maybe even MORE serious problems like using biofuels to take some pressure off our reliance on fossil fuels but then diverting agricultural land away from food production?). When it comes to invention it seems that there may be a number of mitigating factors.

In Who Killed the Electric Car?, the film makers build a pretty compelling case that the production and presumably subsequent improvement of technology for electric cars was short circuited (pun intended!) by unseen forces or interests. Someone REALLY didn't want the EV1 to succeed in providing an alternative to fossil fuel based transportation. Sure, the EV1 had some limitations, but it was a pretty good beginning and - one might reasonably argue - would only improve with further developments and modifications.

I'm not usually a big advocate of conspiracy theories, but it occurs to me that most of us can be easily fooled into thinking that someone is making good and honorable decisions on our behalf and that we are, after all, good guys. We're not like those "other" people - those people from Africa or India or Indonesia or the Middle East or wherever - those people who resort to violence or other criminal behavior when they are hungry or sick or frustrated by political corruption or inaction. We, we like to think, are mild mannered, polite, even generous. And yet, I wonder. Maybe we're kidding ourselves. Maybe we'e like the guy Jesus talked about in Luke 18:10-14 - the Pharisee who was so proud of not being a publican (sinner) because he could boast of all kinds of outwardly spiritual practices.

Sometimes I think we are in a collective state of denial, aided and abetted by financial interests far beyond our conscious level of awareness who have dulled our senses so that we participate in global acts of barbarism without any sense of participation, let alone responsibility. Necessity IS, I think, the mother of invention, but invention can be thwarted by unscrupulous forces.

The Inner Game

2008-06-27T16:11:00.002-03:00

I suppose my thinking for this blog has something to do with the fact that I've been watching some of the Wimbledon tennis matches on tv. And, I've been watching as much of the Euro Cup Soccer as I can - where all of the pre-tournament favorites have been knocked out of competition! This has put my mind to thinking about the importance of focus, concentration, positive energy, momentum - all those kinds of things - on performance in sport and, come to think of it, in life generally.

Way back in 1972 a book came on the market called The Inner Game of Tennis by Tim Gallwey. Athletes in all kinds of sports found Tim's thesis that there are actually two games going on in any competition: the outer game (what observers SEE) and the inner game (what goes on in the mind of each competitor), transformative. And of course there's often a connection. Players can defeat themselves by allowing their mental state to interfere with peak performance. We've all seen it - dramatic shifts in momentum in key hockey games or obvious lapses in concentration in tennis or golf. You can almost see the mind straying from its target. Maybe it begins to think of what success is going to feel like or maybe the mind starts to analyze the "victory" before the competition is over, or maybe the mind begins to doubt the outcome.

A few days ago I heard a report about a study that tested the actual advantage gained by athletes taking so call "performance enhancing drugs" compared with those taking a placebo. The result of the study was that even many of the athletes who were taking the placebo had noticeable improvements in their performance! And just today I heard about a new development in the material used in swimwear and a discussion about the competitive mental advantage that athletes get from having a perceived "edge" when it comes to gear or equipment. It all has to do with the mental side of competition.

So, I'm thinking that this isn't just about sport performance. Who we are as individuals has an awful lot to do with who we THINK we are and with our ability to set and stay true to our goals - whatever they may be. There is an inner game - and we are wise to pay attention to it! Not to reduce relationships to the status of a "game" or to suggst that life itself is simply a "game", but really, it's about perspective.

I also wonder if somehow the fact that many of us live pretty comfortable self-centred lives has made us both mentally and physically "soft". OK - I'm speaking for myself and maybe it doesn't apply to you - but I keep thinking that I am coasting through life and that someday I'm going to realize that I missed LOTS of things along the way. You may notice this theme has cropped up in my postings from time to time!

Let me be more specific and link this to my faith journey. Let's say that I am (or want to be) a fully devoted follower of Christ - a disciple. What's the inner game of discipleship? What kinds of things might distract me from my goal? How can I train myself so that I'm on top of my game ALL the time? I can't help thinking about Peter, one of Jesus' disciples. Scripture and tradition paint him as the impulsive, brash one - a fisherman by trade. On one occasion, for instance, he's said to have stepped out of a boat into turbulent water and actually taken a few steps ON the water before the realization of what he was doing caught up with him and he focussed on the water and the storm - and sank! Don't you wonder what things we might be capable of if we could just keep our inner game in line?

Numbers and elusive "solutions"

2008-06-18T09:47:00.003-03:00

I am fascinated by numbers and math. That's not to say that I particularly LIKE math or that I have a mathematical mind. No - I respect math but from a safe distance. In fact, a few years ago I probably would have claimed indifference when it comes to math and numbers, but lately I seem to be drawn to the inevitability of math. Looking back, I think it probably started with the movie A Beautiful Mind, a 2001 Ron Howard film starring Russell Crowe as the brilliant mathematician John Forbes Nash. Then, I started watching the tv series Numb3rs, an FBI detective show based on the application of mathematical principles to solving crimes. Then, it was the book, The DaVinci Code and just a few days ago I watched a movie called Pi, in which Maximillian Cohen, a numbers theorist, searches for a key number that will unlock the universal patterns found in nature.

Way, WAY back, I remember watching an episode of a tv show called A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in which computers were assigned the task of determining the answer to the question of the meaning of life. The answer? 42. That helps a lot, right!

So, here's the thing. math IS everywhere. It's in the beauty of a flower, the sharp angles of a cliff, the rythm of the ocean, the organization of human genes and skeletons. It's in economic transactions and political systems. Math, numbers, geometry, formulas - they describe and ARE the stuff of life on this amazing planet. But, is there life beyond the reaches of math? Or, to put it differently, can we ever reduce life to mathematical propositions and formulas? Can we understand ourselves, the universe, God, the past, the future - through numbers?

Well, I wouldn't be much of a sociologist if I said YES to that question! After all, a fundamental premise of sociology (identified by French sociologist, Emile Durkheim) is that society is equal to MORE than the sum of its parts. In fact, it was Durkheim who posed the question, "how is social order possible?" that really provided the framework for the development of sociology as a distinct social science.

I think it's the unknown factor which intrigues me - it's the elusiveness of solutions, or even of understanding that gives me passion for life and learning. I love watching life unfold - the spectacular dance between reason and faith, certainty and mystery, what is and what may yet be. I love being both spectator and participant in the incredibly complex and multi-faceted reality of life with all of its beauty and absurdity. I love pursuing truth and understanding, even knowing that truth is much too clever to stand still long enough for me to catch it.

I wish the mathematicians and other scientists well in their quest to capture life in an equation or formula. I will contrbute money for medical research so that they can unlock mysteries that are well beyond my own understanding. I will cheer them on with great enthusiasm - for they are most certainly the underdog in their cosmic quest - and it is no doubt very disheartening to be reaching for that elusive goal that is always just beyond your reach.

But as for me, I will revel in the complexity and mystery of life and in the goodness of a God who has given us this amazing gift.