After the "Gold Standard"

Living in a climate of fiscal uncertainty - which would be a very nonchalant way of describing the current global economic reality - has produced a spirit of reckless fatalism. We may watch the ticker tape on our tv screen show rises and falls in stock prices with detached disinterest (unless of course we understand the mechanics of the market enough to know how fluctuations affect our pensions or other investments).

The stock market is white noise running in the background of our day to day lives. The global economy is a mystery for most of us and we assume that, like other things we don't really understand, the "experts" are doing what needs to be done to keep it functioning as it should. Or, at least in such a way as to not cause us any significant discomfort or concern. The stock market crash of 1929 is a matter of interest mostly for historians... right? If you google "stock market crash" you might, however, be alarmed to see the predictions for a crash in 2014. What? Well, hopefully NOT.

But this post isn't really about the economy. It's about the state of our society when it comes to morality. The connection between the two is the gold standard.

It used to be that gold was a real currency. Many years ago people actually used gold coins, and then, over time gold coins were replaced with a variety of other currencies. But the currencies, whether dollars or yen or pesos, were tied to gold reserves. The money in circulation could not exceed the value of gold that was held in reserve. But that changed with the First and Second World Wars.

By 1946 - at Bretton Woods - a new global economic system was developed based on the US dollar. Since then the tethers between currency and any standard have been severed so that today the economy isn't really based on anything fixed or tangible. There are natural resources and there are currencies and stock markets but it's a system that is really based more on confidence (or, more cynically, fear) than on anything concrete.

The "gold standard" is a relic of the past. And here's the link: in the same way, Judeo-Christian morality is also a relic of the past. Morality in North America and Europe is no longer tethered to biblical principles - or if it is, it's only by the smallest of threads. In Canada the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - though perhaps not its original intent - has been interpreted by both the courts and our Parliament as a tool for cutting the ties that bind. With great determination we have freed our citizens, not just from Judeo-Christian morality (whatever that is, precisely) but from ANY moral standard.

For many people this is something to be celebrated. It could be argued - and it certainly has been the basis of many arguments in the public square, whether stated so boldly or not - that Judeo-Christian principles are, after all, archaic and the source of much "unnatural" restraint. Christianity has been caricatured as a system of "don'ts" that imposes ridiculous limitations on the fun that could be had if we can but overcome our stuffy religious heritage.

Secular humanism, it is suggested, can provide a much more contemporary moral compass. Well - to call it a compass may be a bit presumptive. Compasses have fixed points after all. A compass that refuses to indicate North would be of little value. Even worse would be a compass that gives different readings for North on different days. So in the interest of accuracy, let's not call it a moral compass.

As I understand it, morality which is detached from a faith-based standard, is free-flowing. Right and wrong become fluid categories that follow - and then create - popular opinion in an endless (and pointless) feedback loop. Leadership in such a system becomes a matter of crowd control and marketing. If the pursuit of individual gain and personal pleasure are the aims of a society, who really cares about morality? Right and wrong are arbitrary categories that can be "adapted" according to circumstances and preferences. How is it that we could so readily accept this new way of thinking and actually believe that it's for our good?

The warnings about a 2014 stock market crash are dire and should be taken seriously. But even more worrisome is the state of a society which has proudly -and even defiantly - surrendered its moral bearings.

A Pilgrim's Pause

I’m fascinated by pilgrimage. For me the term connotes earnestness, persistence, solitude, inspiration, a touch of holiness. It’s rising above the mundane, a shedding of the constraints of the banal. Pilgrimage is both dogged pursuit and quiet surrender.

It’s estimated that over 100 million people go on pilgrimage journeys each year. They leave their homes and their everyday lives behind for a week or a month or longer to pursue an elusive goal of peace and balance and connection. They come from diverse backgrounds and they engage in pilgrimage for a variety of reasons, but in every case, it’s by definition a pause in their normal lives.

Some go it alone and others travel with a partner or small group. I know several people who are currently walking the Camino de Santiago – a roughly 800 kilometer route through Spain and France – the Way of St. James. I confess that I’m more than a little bit envious and I’m enjoying their journeys vicariously through Facebook updates and pictures.

But it’s making me think…

A few weeks ago I met a pilgrim of another sort. He was born in Somalia and lived there until he was 8 years old when he left his home and his father (his mother had died when he was a toddler) and struck out for… somewhere else. He was a child. I don’t know who he traveled with exactly but I imagine that it was a group of relatives and neighbours, a group drawn together by desperation and faint hope. In any event, he arrived at a refugee camp in Kenya after a long and unimaginably arduous trek – 800 kilometers of determination and deprivation.

Most people might not immediately think of the flight of a refugee as a pilgrimage, but I do. This young boy then spent 12 years in the refugee camp before winning the proverbial lottery. His name was posted on the camp board listing those who had been selected by the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) to be sponsored by a foreign government to go… somewhere else. A promised land.

He arrived in Canada a few months ago and his pilgrimage continues as he learns how to live in another country and culture and language.

I can’t help but think about the contrast between walking 800 kms. on the Camino de Santiago and walking 800 kms. from Mogadishu, Somalia to Dadaab, Kenya.

Both are pilgrimages and those who walk those well worn paths are pilgrims. Some of them are well clothed and well fed. They sleep each night in modest comfort and security. Others have the clothes on their back and are grateful for whatever scraps of food they can muster along the way. They walk in the company of other displaced souls, with only their prayers for security. The risks along this refugee highway are many.

To be sure, there are many differences between what I’ll call the “pilgrims of privilege” and the “refugee pilgrims”, but what they have in common, I suspect, is that they are all pawns of powers beyond their jurisdiction. They are buffeted by strong winds of anxiety, fear and dissonance and propelled by a glimmer of hope – hope that the life behind them is not all there is.

Refugees are fleeing some kind of oppression or persecution or deprivation: political, economic, physical, spiritual, and now also ecological (“climate refugees”). They are leaving an intolerable situation in search of refuge – a safe place, a sanctuary from the brutal forces that beset them.

Since its inception in 1950 the UNHCR has helped an estimated 50 million refugees start new lives in foreign lands. They come from some 126 countries around the world where life is not just perplexing but impossible. These uprooted and desperate people leave family, friends and all that is familiar behind. Those that make it to UN Refugee Camps are the lucky ones among the many millions more who are displaced and have no safe haven.

It’s pretty easy to imagine that these refugees are pawns of forces beyond their control – those who have fallen through the cracks of a globalized economic world system with its “winners” and “losers”. But what of the 100 million who can voluntarily set aside their responsibilities and routines to embark on a short term pilgrimage?

Here’s what I think. I see evidence of soul-sapping alienation everywhere I look. These pilgrims come from the western world, from countries that have generally high standards of living. In many cases, they have everything that money can buy, but it’s not enough – and from a global perspective it’s TOO MUCH. Our consumer addictions are stripping the planet of its magnificent resources.

Money doesn’t buy happiness. Material things don’t satisfy our deepest yearnings. And though we know it, the undertow of a consumer culture (and the emotional havoc it stirs up) is often too powerful, even for the reasonably prudent. Even for the thoughtful and caring.

A pilgrimage journey – a pause from the rat race of contemporary life – promises a chance to recalibrate, to align body, soul and spirit. To take stock. Many pilgrims are looking for a chance to find a different path, a more intuitive and authentic path. A path that circumvents the riptides and undertows of a globalized world on the brink of absolute insanity.

The fact is, we’re ALL pilgrims if we're seeking a better path, even if our feet never leave the community where we were born. My friend on the Camino understands this. In a recent post here’s what she had to say:

Buen Camino everyone! I have been so encouraged by your notes, thoughts and prayers and I thank you! However I would like to turn the tide and commend each of you on your own Caminos that you trek each day! Wherever you are, moment by moment and step by step, with every paper you write, phone call you make or demand you meet, you also are on the Camino; leaning on the strong arms of God for guidance, wisdom and strength!! Sometimes the road is flat and endless; other times steep and rugged... But you keep going! To you all I say 'Buen Camino' and 'Que Dios te bendiga!' (May God bless you!)

Is Child Labour always bad?

If you're like me the thought of child labour probably makes you cringe. I envision something like this photo shows: a young child spending hours every day in repetitive (and sometimes dangerous) work. This image violates my sense of justice because I believe that the child is being ruthlessly exploited. He or she is forced to work in order to help the family survive, or - more horrifically - because they have no family and are working for their own survival or are the "property" of a ruthless "employer".

I understand that the working conditions for many child labourers are entirely unsatisfactory and even inhumane. I'm shocked by the images I occasionally see on news reports when a factory collapses in Bangladesh or fire rips through a garment factory in Pakistan. I wonder how it is possible that such conditions could exist in the 21st century. Child Labour becomes the catch phrase for that which I despise.

But is the labour of children always bad? The International Labour Organization (a specialized agency of the United Nations) says this:

Not all work done by children should be classified as child labour that is to be targeted for elimination. Children’s or adolescents’ participation in work that does not affect their health and personal development or interfere with their schooling, is generally regarded as being something positive.

They go on to say that "the term 'child labour' is often defined as work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential and their dignity, and that is harmful to physical and mental development." I can't help but think that our understanding of what might be harmful to the physical and mental development of children is heavily influenced by our culture and specifically - in the western world - by our affluence and the way this has fundamentally shifted our view of many things.

In Canada there are regulations that define appropriate conditions for youth labour (see http://www.naalc.org/migrant/english/pdf/mgcanchl_en.pdf). Each province has guidelines that address questions like the age at which youth may legally be employed, the number of hours/day they may work, and the kinds of work they may (or may not) do. In most cases children and youth are expected to be in school until they have graduated and paid work must not affect their school attendance. This all makes sense, right? As a society we put a high value on having every child graduate from high school because we believe that a high school education is a minimum requirement for future employment and, ultimately, for success in the workplace and in life. But it hasn't always been so.

For those who grew up in rural areas of Canada, you may remember (or have heard stories) of children working alongside their parents in factories or fields, sometimes in addition to their schooling or sometimes for a season, instead of being in school. In the fishing community where I live, there was a time when it wasn't at all uncommon for whole families to move to a different community for part of the year and work together at a fish processing plant. The arrangement wasn't necessarily exploitative and one might argue that there was actually some value for the child in being part of this cycle. Or consider children who annually were expected to work in the potato fields or the blueberry fields during harvest time. This work gave them some income and taught them the value of manual labour AND of the connection between work and money.

Sometimes I wonder if my generation - the baby boomers - have overshot the mark. That is, in our efforts to help the next generation - our kids - succeed, we have tried to minimize their struggles. We want to protect them from the harsh realities of adulthood and provide for them a life that is carefree. But what has this approach yielded?

Are we raising children who have dignity and can realize their potential? Are they experiencing optimal physical and mental development? The evidence suggests - despite our very good intentions - that we have missed the mark. We have spared them from exploitation and from "growing up too fast", but I think we have to acknowledge that the current rates of childhood obesity, diabetes, and other physiological ailments as well as various psychological and behavioural disorders are alarming. And in terms of dignity, that's a harder value to measure, but I suspect that many of our kids are growing up in social environments that are extremely hazardous to their sense of who they are. We probably all know of kids in our communities who have been victims (or perpetrators) of cyber bullying of one form or another. Our high schools have too often become war zones where kids are exposed to every kind of temptation and debauchery imaginable and they too - like kids in factories in India or Pakistan or Bangladesh - are fighting to survive. Outwardly they may look like they have a great life - designer clothes, the latest technological gadgets, money to spend on entertainment and the latest fads - but appearances can be deceiving. Their struggles are not the same but in both cases, there are many dangers and pitfalls.

Of course I'm not suggesting that the solution is to put all our kids back to work. But I do think that we need to be careful of following the cultural drift toward ever-increasing self-direction for our children and youth. Kids need direction and guidance and even the occasional boundary. And in a secular society we can't expect or assume that they will get all they need in terms of moral instruction in school. I believe - and I believe it with more and more conviction - that children NEED to learn many things from their parents, grand-parents, extended families, communities and churches. A secular society has its limits.

But perhaps you're thinking that I'm comparing apples and oranges. Surely I can't be comparing the situation of a young child labourer in India today to the labour of Canadian kids a few decades ago or to the challenges they face today. These are totally different scenarios. And I agree that they are.

But here's the thing. We have a tendency to assume that the developing countries should learn from us and follow our example. So for me the challenge is to find the elusive happy medium - to vigorously and persistently advocate against the exploitation of children so that they may grow up with a sense of their value and with dignity. But we should also vigorously and persistently advocate against the conditions at the other end of the spectrum where we mistakenly think that we can keep our kids safe if we protect them from responsibility but inadvertently expose them to a brutal social environment. God help us to create societies where children can truly thrive and grow!

Reflections on Cuba: Is Tourism a Trojan Horse?

In May I went to Cuba with 5 seminary students through Praxis – a scholarship program designed to give students an opportunity to see first hand the work of Canadian Baptist Ministries with one of their international partners - in this case The Fraternity of Baptist Churches of Cuba. The students and I spent 18 days in Cuba, living with Cuban families, studying with Cuban seminary students and pastors, traveling, thinking, watching, worshipping, talking, learning, un-learning, re-learning. It was a truly incredible time!

I’ve been to Cuba before – my husband and I have gone as tourists 5 or 6 times in the past 25 years. In fact, we would both say that Cuba is our favorite vacation destination. But I’ve always wondered how Cubans really see us tourists as we come to enjoy the sun and the beaches. I generally don't LIKE being a tourist, but the fact is, when you book a vacation in Cuba and stay at an all-inclusive resort, you're a TOURIST! And tourists are often pretty much oblivious to the economic and social realities and challenges of the everyday lives of the people whose country it is that they're visiting. As we're transported from airport to resort and then from resort to airport, we pass through towns, villages and the countryside aboard air-conditioned luxury buses, and I always wonder what the Cuban man or woman, boy or girl, thinks of these “foreigners”? I wonder… and I struggle to know whether our tourist dollars are a blessing or a curse. Could tourism be a trojan horse? Do we come to Cuba bearing "gifts" that ultimately could be dangerous? Hm...

There’s an excellent documentary that I’ve used in some of my classes called Life and Debt which contrasts the Jamaica that tourists see with the “real” Jamaica and even though Cuba is not Jamaica (thanks – really! - in large part to the US embargo), I think some of the same principles apply: western tourists come to get away from the stresses and tensions of life at home (and of course in many cases, to get away from harsh winter climates!). The Jamaicans, Cubans, Mexicans and other ethnic groups that serve us in their tropical resorts have no such opportunity to escape their everyday challenges. The all-inclusive bracelet that clearly identifies the “haves” from the “have-nots” is perhaps something that they dream about – a representation of the “good life” - but with little hope that it will ever be worn on their own wrists.

I took advantage of every opportunity to talk with Cubans during the Praxis trip about tourism. I was curious to know how they see it and it turns out that that depends on what they see. In areas where there are no (or very few tourists), like in Guanajay (where I stayed with a local family for a week), I heard comments like this: “we don’t see any benefit from tourism here. The government says tourism is good for Cuba but they just take the money from tourism and invest it in other projects. It hasn’t improved our lives at all.” In other areas – near Varadero, for example - some people were quick to point out that the growth of tourism had actually increased the cost of living for Cubans in the area. For Cubans, work within the tourism sector is far and away the most lucrative employment option – all kinds of professional people have given up work as teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. to work in resorts where they can make a lot more money – or at least that’s what I heard.

Amongst the students and at a pastors’ retreat we talked about the church and her response to tourism. How is tourism affecting Cuban’s understanding of the gospel? When we come to Cuba as tourists, are we bringing with us more than the dollars and the miscellaneous toiletries and clothing that we will leave behind? If Cubans see the all-inclusive bracelet as the symbol of prosperity and a good life, is there a danger that we are spreading the “affluenza virus” (if you’re a regular reader of this blog you will likely remember several references to a book by Oliver James called Affluenza which argues that affluence is like a virus which infects us and produces all kinds of alarming symptoms – things like depression, anxiety, and other mental illnesses).

It seems to me that tourism IS affecting all of Cuba in that it is bringing a steady flow of western ideas and western cultural values – individualism, materialism, pluralism – not to mention assumptions about the superiority of capitalism and democracy, into a country that many would describe as “deprived”.

Perhaps those who see Cuba as deprived would be surprised to learn that Cuba ranks 59th (out of 187) on the United Nations’ Human Development Index, a ranking based on health, education and income. Cubans generally don’t have access to the Internet and since most Cubans don’t get to travel out of country, it's pretty much impossible for Cubans to have any accurate sense of how life in Cuban compares with life in other countries.

When I asked the Cuban students where they think Cuba ranks on the Human Development Index, they laughed and said that they doubt that Cuba even makes it onto the scale. The reality that they know is so far removed from what they see of the West on TV or in the lives of tourists and other visitors, that they can't imagine that life could be any worse anywhere else in the world. They haven't been to Haiti, or Jamaica, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or Liberia, etc. etc. etc. The truth is that as hard as life is for Cubans, it is a LOT tougher in many, many countries.

In the absence of good quality and well-rounded information, I Cubans naturally evaluate themselves relative to what they see: tourists and the few other westerners that come to Cuba on business or for humanitarian or educational purposes (like the Praxis team and CBM more generally). And here’s the thing that I think we all need to be cognizant of: our perception of reality and our understanding of Scripture are inevitably influenced by our native culture and its norms and values. We can’t help it and even when we’re aware of it, we can’t fully control it or change it. By our very nature, we are ethnocentric (which means that we are biased in our own favour – we judge others based on the assumption that our way of thinking and the way we do things is really BETTER than any other way).

And so, even though there are clear indications that "our way" - our assumption that bigger is better, our perpetual and insatiable desire for economic growth, our propensity to assume that technology can solve our problems - is actually quite unsustainable, both from an ecological and an economic perspective, we continue to think that the rest of the world needs to be more like us. Frankly, it's absurd.

I believe that the wisdom of Scripture can help us all to discern what's needed at this moment in history, but the essential prerequisite for that quest is a genuine hunger and thirst for righteousness and a willingness to submit to the wisdom that we discover. I suspect that we may actually discover that our partners in Cuba (and elsewhere) can help us as much as - or more than! - we can help them.

Everything in Moderation... Really?

I’m beginning to really dislike the axiom, “everything in moderation.” I’ve been on enough diets to know that such “wisdom” can seem to portion out hope and alleviate guilt. Hope that I don’t have to give up things I love; hope that a little bit – even a little bit of something very bad - won’t hurt; hope that my appetites can be tamed and shrunk, managed so that I can be moderate.

Not too big and not too small. Neither hot nor cold. Lukewarm.

This kind of wisdom seems to have settled into my bones. It seems so right… so incredibly rational and sensible. Moderation has such a common sense appeal... But everything? What does that leave out? It’s not a trick question. Everything means EVERYTHING – nothing left out.

So here’s where I take issue. I don’t want to be a little bit generous or a little bit compassionate or a little bit patient or a little bit loving or a little bit forgiving. If I’m honest – and by that I don’t mean moderately honest, but full on, nothing-to-hide or fear, honest – I think that moderation may be a clever trap; in fact, a colossal deception. It numbs and placates us and leaves us bland and passionless.

OK. I suppose that there are SOME circumstances in which moderation is a better option than excess. But at ALL times and in ALL circumstances?

Perhaps moderation is for those who lack courage. There – I’ve said it! Moderation - from this perspective - is an inevitable path to mediocrity and security. It’s settling for not bad, when good, better and best are all possible if we dare to defy the voices within and without which counsel moderation.

I’ve lamented before – and I’ll lament it again! – that I am NOT a risk taker. Moderation comes naturally to me. But I’ve always admired people who live immoderately. So as I think about living as a disciple of Christ – as someone who (to the best of my knowledge and ability) WANTS to be “all in”, I wonder what that really means. What does it look like? And here’s what I’m thinking: maybe there are different ways and means of being immoderate. What if the body of Christ is healthiest and most compelling when we combine our immoderate talents and passions and energies.

Maybe we don’t all have to be reckless and carefree in our physical beings; maybe there’s a need for immoderation in our collective thinking and even in our theology…? I may not be drawn to feats of extreme physical challenge and risk, but I AM drawn to - and committed to - thinking that refuses to conform to the well worn paths. And maybe - as we consider the coming of God's Kingdom, on earth as it is in heaven - immoderate thoughts and theology may actually be helpful in seeing past the obstacles that seem to be blocking the path.

Poverty, pain, persecution... injustices of all kinds can seem to be immovable. They are resistant to so many of our efforts, but I wonder if that could be because our thinking is wrong, or at least a little bit off the mark. And although it may be foolish and unduly rash to engage in a wholesale re-thinking of our basic presuppositions and then careful examination of the layers that have been added, maybe that is just what is needed for the church to fully engage in today's world.

Despite any appearances to the contrary, the fields ARE white unto harvest. God IS faithful and just - he will neither leave us nor forsake us. He is - even as we go about our daily lives - working all things together for our good and for the good of the Kingdom. If we really believe these things, there is no need to fear. God is not moderately good or moderately faithful. When it comes to our faith and our living out of that faith, let's not be moderate either!

To be or not to be...

To be, or not to be, that is the question. So begins perhaps the most famous literary quote of all time. It's the opening phrase of a soliloquy in William Shakespeare's play, Hamlet (Act 3, Scene 1). While interpretations of the meaning of this famous phrase vary, it seems clear that Hamlet is wrestling with profound internal dissonance as he contemplates not just the meaning of life, but the meaning of his life at this particular point in time. What is life for? Where is meaning and purpose to be found? Can one be passive in the face of injustice and suffering? Can one act, or is such action futile or even fatal?

Some 400 years have passed since Hamlet first voiced this most fundamental and wrenching question on stage. 400 years of human achievement and human debauchery. Is it still a valid question for those who contemplate life's meaning?

Actually, it seems to me that the question the Millennial's ask (also known as Generation Y) is whether or not life can be trusted. To be or not to be is a question for an individual; someone who is disconnected and maybe disenfranchised. It's not a question for anyone who loves or is loved. For us it's not so much about physical or material existence but about the quality of our life and the manner of our living and our relationships. Are we real? Do we allow people to see us as we are? Do we struggle in the open and bleed when we're wounded? Or do we cover up? Hide behind the lines? Craft an image that we think we want to be and then manufacture an identity that measures up? Is it all about what things appear to be, or what they really are? Do we even know what they are, or are we so lost in the maze of fantasy that we can't distinguish between truth and fiction?

Social scientists are beginning to investigate the effects of social media and networking on identity. Does Facebook allow us to be "someone else" - a fabrication of an identity that we aspire to? Or does it allow us to be more genuinely "ourself" than is possible in more traditional kinds of face to face networks?

To be or not to be. Hm. Imagine that you are a person with a "disability". Maybe it's a physical disability - something readily apparent, like a withered arm or a hunched back or a scar on your face. You may feel that this feature defines you when you are in public - it's the first thing people notice about you. Or maybe it's an intellectual or emotional disability - a mental illness or a learning issue. Even though it may not be as obvious as a physical condition, it too can become a label that obscures your true identity and value. Social media sites like Facebook may actually allow you to BE who you are in a much more holistic sense.

I came across an article today that addresses this issue: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21084945 - and it's making me think about social media in a new light. I realize that I tend to view social media from one particular vantage point and it's easy to assume that my experience is somehow authoritative. But as I struggle to understand the pain and frustration that people on the fringes of society experience, I'm reminded that my experience is NOT the only gauge.

To be inclusive in a "love your neighbour as yourself" sort of way requires that I don't let my own experience define the boundaries for what is right or just or fair. Certainly there are down sides to technology and social media, but there are up sides too. Fact is, we all struggle to understand ourselves and to find our place in the world. It's not easy. Perhaps it would be fair to say that we all have to negotiate and manage our identities. And social media is just one more venue. When we are truly ourselves - publicly and privately - and when we can see the heart of each person in our network, and not just their appearance or ability/disability, maybe we'll spend less time contemplating Hamlet's question and more time just BEING and encouraging others to also BE.

God With Us

We’re living in a time of great intensity. I often feel like I’m rushing through life and my senses are seriously over-stimulated. The colors are vibrant – we can see in high def, in 3d. IMAX formats are so "real" that we even feel that we're part of a scene. Did you know that the human eye can detect more than 2.4 million colors?

And yet what we most long to see we still see through a glass darkly.

The sounds are incredible – technology amplifies the most subtle nuances of music and voice. Audiologists tell us that the human ear can hear frequencies ranging from 20 – 20,000 hz.

And yet God’s still small voice is often muffled and muted.

For all of our sophisticated technology, life and faith can be frustratingly out of focus. Those “thin” moments - moments when the distance between our world and God seems so thin as to be almost translucent - are sweet to our souls, but for me anyway, all too rare.

We sometimes multi-task our way through life and miss the richness of the good things that surround us. The beauty of nature, of course, but also the sustenance of friendship and the spectacle of innovation. I wonder if our failure to see and fully appreciate all of the good there is in this world is a sin of omission? Could it grieve God as much as our active sins of character?

Now that the craziness of the Christmas season is behind us (the tree and its trimmings are stashed away and the various indulgences of the season have perhaps left us a bit poorer and heavier!) and the New Year is well underway, it's a good time to reflect – to re-focus.

God with us – what does that mean?

God is in our midst. He's here! He's in our friendships, our stress. God is in our laughter and in our heart ache; our study and our coming and going. God is with us in our hopes and fears and in our doubts. God is with us even when we’d prefer that he keep his distance. God is with us – everywhere and always.

Immanuel. God with us in a world that is beautiful beyond comprehension, but also the scene of unspeakable evil. God with us in the depths of despair, in moments of ecstatic enlightenment, and in the banal events and obligations of each day. It reminds me of the lyrics of one of the songs from the 1971 Broadway musical, Godspell:

Day by day
Day by day
Oh Dear Lord
Three things I pray
To see thee more clearly
Love thee more dearly
Follow thee more nearly
Day by day.

God help me, day by day!

The allure of conspiracy theories

A few years back - five years, to be precise - my son who was then 17 or 18 years old - asked me if I'd seen Zeitgeist, the Movie. I hadn't, I said, and he insisted that I watch it. So, always on the alert for a good movie, and curious about his uncharacteristically enthusiastic recommendation, I did. It turns out that this movie - a 2007 documentary by Peter Joseph - is a 3-part conspiracy theory expose.

In the first part, titled The Greatest Story Ever Told, Joseph challenges the historical claims for the existence of Jesus and then illustrates how many of the Christian stories - from Old Testament accounts of things like the flood to New Testament stories of the virgin birth, the performance of miracles, Jesus' death on a cross, the resurrection, etc. - are not unique to Christianity at all but are variations of the stories told in other ancient religious and pagan systems. Part Two - All the World's a Stage - argues that the US government was actually the mastermind behind the 9/11 Terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, and Part Three - Don't Mind the Men Behind the Curtain - argues that there is a global economic agenda (driven by "international bankers") that promotes and profits from war and war mongering. If you want to watch the movie for yourself, it's available on youtube and vimeo on the web.

I'm only going to refer to the first part of the movie - the part that argues that Jesus never existed and that Christianity is based on a lot of recycled myths (and if you decide to watch it, let me warn you that Part I doesn't actually get started until about 11 minutes in). And I only bring it up at all because back in 2007 when this movie was spreading like wildfire through the internet, something like a million people - most of them young, I presume - watched it in the span of a month or two. I can only imagine that many of them - glued to their computer screens - must have had the sinking feeling that the church, their parents, their youth leaders, even their teachers, were either ignorant or worse, liars.

If they, like my son, had grown up going to Sunday School, chances are they had either assumed or been taught explicitly, that the Christian faith - and specifically the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus - were uniquely ordered events that were the fulfilment of prophecies made in the Old Testament period. Imagine their surprise to find that so many of the precious elements of the Christian story were NOT unique but had appeared in other primitive and pagan belief systems through the ages! That was 2007. I didn't hear many pastors talk about Zeitgeist: The Movie from the pulpit, but you can find lots of response and rebuttal online - just google Christian critique of Zeitgeist the Movie and you'll have lots of material to sort through.

For the purpose of this post I don't want to get drawn into a point by point defence of Christianity. What I do want to draw attention to is the allure in our culture today - especially amongst youth and young adults - of conspiracy theories. The thing about conspiracy theories is that they are almost always a fabrication based on fragments of truth, knit together in plausible ways that inevitably challenge conventional wisdom and see intentionality and exploitation behind every bush. There is always an agenda and there are no bonafide coincidences.

I understand the appeal. In fact, I would argue that Christianity - though not a conspiracy theory exactly - has some of the same elements. The forces of evil - Satan and his demonic army - are loose in the world and will do whatever it takes to undermine the forces of good - the trinitarian godhead (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and their army of angels. A supernatural battle rages but not in real time and space. Things are not as they seem. The kingdom of God is present but not yet fully established. See what I mean? It should have the same kind of appeal as a good conspiracy theory!

So how do we know what's really true and what's a twisted fabrication?

I think the first step is to acknowledge that we will never - ever - be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt any kind of faith claim (or, for that matter, any other kind of claim!). Scientific observation and journalistic inquiry can only take us so far. That's where the faith part comes in. By definition, faith is having confidence in something that we can't prove. That doesn't mean that it's blind or naive or irrational. Many many people (past and present) have been been tortured and martyred for their faith - that would seem to indicate that they had some pretty strong reason to believe that the object of their faith is real and worth suffering for. That kind of commitment should not be dismissed lightly. So, whatever we believe - from Christianity to other faith systems to secular humanism - let's acknowledge that our alignment to that set of beliefs requires a degree of "faith".

After that, I think that we need to be willing to do some homework - I'm all for examining our beliefs with a critical eye and adjusting them when we encounter irrefutable evidence that something doesn't line up. That doesn't mean abandoning a belief system the first time we come across an apparent contradiction. But it may mean digging deeper and it may mean holding some of our specific beliefs loosely. Anne Lamott says, "the opposite of faith is not doubt, it's certainty." I agree! And I think maybe we've done our kids a disservice by not helping them see that we don't have it all figured out. Our Christian faith is not a neatly packaged meta-narrative with all the i's dotted and t's crossed. We see through a glass darkly. Truth is not black and white but wonderfully nuanced, complex and even mysterious.

I have hope that this generation - with all of their skepticism and fascination with conspiracy theories - may give Christianity a second look, not out of a sense of duty or to comply with tradition, but because they are genuinely seeking truth. And doesn't God promise (Deuteronomy 4:29, Jeremiah 29:13) that when we seek Him - who is truth - with all our heart, we will find him?

The Illusion of Prosperity - Who are we kidding?

Statistics Canada released some scary figures on Monday, Oct. 15. These figures indicate - in fact, they make it abundantly CLEAR - that Canadians are in a deeper debt hole than economists had anticipated. And believe me, what they had anticipated was bad enough! The fact is, the ratio of credit market household debt to disposable income has now hit a record high of 163.4%. That means that for every dollar of disposable income we earn - collectively as Canadian households - we are spending $1.63. And just as an aside, since not everyone is in debt - other figures indicate that increasing numbers of Canadians are living debt-free - the reality is that some Canadians have over-spending habits that are way beyond the 163% threshold.

The annual RBC poll for 2012 indicates that 26% of Canadians are now living debt free, not counting mortgage debt. But while that's encouraging, mortgage debt may be a wild card in the light of early indicators that Canada's housing market is softening. On average, Canadians are carrying $13,141 in non-mortgage debt. While the figures can be spun in different ways, surely no one can be completely comfortable with the degree to which we Canadians are living beyond our means... Just last week we heard reports that the International Monetary Fund is sounding an alarm about the twin towers of the softening housing market and debt levels in Canada.

And yet, we somehow believe that we are a prosperous country! Who are we kidding?

I've been reading a report just put out by the Broadbent Institute entitled Towards a More Equal Canada: A Report on Canada's Economic and Social Inequality. As one might expect (given that the Broadbent Institute is really the Ed Broadbent Institute) the paper is a clear and well formulated apologetic for NDP principles. It demonstrates clearly that any benefits of national economic growth over the past 20 years have gone disproportionately to the richest 1% - in fact, it states that:

"Almost all of the income gains during that period went to the wealthiest 20% of Canadian families, with much of that going to the top 1%. In fact, the share of all taxable income going to the top 1% of families rose from 7.4% to 11.2%, and the average income of those in the top 1% of families soared from $380,000 to $684,000."

No wonder the 99% are feeling deprived and angry! But I think there's a deeper problem than this growing gap between the super rich and the rest of us.

The deeper problem is that our economy - and the social order that it finances - is based on a model that presumes growth - perpetual, steady, hope-inspiring growth. And THAT'S a problem. It's not just a matter of dividing the pie up more equitably, with the assumption that the pie can continue to get bigger and bigger. If we're not convinced that there really are ecological limitations - only so many raw materials and natural, non-renewable resources to draw from - then the ill effects of a consumer culture driven by greed and financed by debt should be a hint that what we're doing is unsustainable and blatantly unhealthy, not only for us but for future generations. And I would say that it's really those future generations that are most at risk because they're the ones who will one day have to deal with the most inconvenient truth that our prosperity is actually an illusion.

I think I've mentioned this book before, but it bears repeating - the book is Affluenza by Oliver James. In this book James argues that there is a negative correlation between mental health and affluence - that is, the more affluent a society becomes, the greater is the incidence of mental illness and other social ills. That's the basic idea, but it's well worth the read to get the full impact of his study...

Yes, there is a problem when 30 cents of every dollar goes to the top 1% of the population, but stronger unions - part of the answer proposed by the Broadbent Institute - is not likely to result in a decision to shrink the pie.

To be fair, the vision proposed by the Broadbent Institute is quite appealing:

"There is no single magic bullet. Rather, we need to develop a comprehensive policy agenda integrating our economic, environmental, labour market, social, human rights, and taxation policies. The goal must be sustainable, shared prosperity, measured by a much broader range of indicators than GDP, which values only economic growth and not equity in its distribution."

Sounds good, but can we get there in such a way that a smaller pie to distribute is a vision that can be embraced by rich and poor alike?

I realize that this all sounds pretty gloom and doom. But there is a silver lining. The truth is, we are living in all kinds of ways that are out of compliance with our design and our destiny. Correction is necessary and though it may not be pleasant, I believe it will ultimately be for our good and our delight - and more importantly, it will be good for our neighbour, both rich and poor.

Jesus warns us about putting too much stock in material riches when he says:

"Don’t hoard treasure down here where it gets eaten by moths and corroded by rust or—worse!—stolen by burglars. Stockpile treasure in heaven, where it’s safe from moth and rust and burglars. It’s obvious, isn’t it? The place where your treasure is, is the place you will most want to be, and end up being (The Message, Matthew 6:19-20)."

God is not unconcerned about economic matters. The kingdom of God will not avoid economics. Rather, in the kingdom of God - trite though this may sound! - economics will be redeemed. In his book, God's Economy: Redefining the Health and Wealth Gospel, Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove describes the abundant life that Jesus promises and lays out five tactics that will help us to discover it. The tactics are: subversive service (Mark 9:35); eternal investments (Matthew 6:20); economic friendships (Luke 16:9); relational generosity (Matthew 5:42); and gracious politics (Mark 12:17). This is another book that is well worth the read!

There IS a way forward and I dare say that it is a path that may appear to be overgrown and not particularly inviting, but I think we'll find that more and more pilgrims are re-discovering the beauty of this path less traveled.

Whatever happened to Judeo-Christian values?

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) famously asked "how is social order possible?", the question which laid the foundation for the development of sociology as a distinct field of social scientific inquiry. He speculated that in a state of nature people would always act to further their own interests and this would produce a society characterized by a "war of all against all". To avoid such a state, humans negotiate social contracts and impose on the natural state constraints that produce a "civil society", regulated by governments of one kind or another.

Thus, citizens of a particular society learn to orient their actions according to a moral code. In previous posts I've talked about the difference between shame-based and guilt-based cultures. Canada is an example of a guilt-based culture; China is an example of a shame-based culture. In both cases the point is to constrain the behaviour of individuals so as to ensure that social order is maintained. And both systems presume the socialization of individuals according to the moral standards necessary for the smooth functioning of the society. In guilt-based societies there are clear penalties for breaking the rules. We have sophisticated criminal justice systems to determine the guilt or innocence of anyone accused of breaking the law, and we have other less formal ways of enforcing our moral standards.

And what are the moral standards you ask? Well, simply put, they are a modern articulation of the ten Commandments. We all know that we ought not kill, steal, lie or cheat. We should treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves. We should keep our word and we should tell the truth. We should take responsibility for our actions and we should be fair and just, even in the face of injustice. Such are the things that we teach our children. And when we are successful, our society hums along smoothly.

In shame-based cultures, there is a similar moral code which prescribes "right" behaviour, but the emphasis is on how things appear. What is actually the case is less important than what appears to be the case. Where we - from a guilt-based culture - might argue that it matters less what people "think" than what actually is the case, in a shame-based culture, what people "think" - the appearance - is actually more important. This may seem to be a minor difference but it has significant implications in the nitty gritty of everyday life, especially when people from different cultural orientations are working together.

But what I want to get to is this: what happens when the individual is elevated to a position of being above the moral code? If the purpose of the moral code is to make social order possible, and the power of the moral code to constrain individual behaviour is compromised, what will happen to social order?

A few days ago news broke of evidence that cycling superhero, Lance Armstrong, was not only guilty of using illegal substances to bolster his own performance, but was also the key figure in a sophisticated doping ring that impacted many other riders, including eleven teammates who have now testified against him. Lance Armstrong's accomplishments are legendary: while his most notable claim to fame is winning the Tour de France seven times, he did so while also battling testicular cancer and he has established a foundation which has raised 500 million dollars to fight cancer. Even in the midst of the most recent testimony against him, proponents argue that Armstrong has done a lot of good and should therefore not be vilified because of his alleged doping infractions. In other words, even though it appears that Armstrong has broken the moral code of our society by lying, cheating, and stealing (at least insofar as his cheating has robbed other athletes of success), what happens when a society decides to overlook those violations of our moral code?

Some might argue that we have always done this - that is, make exceptions for people whose net contribution to our society is such that we are willing to overlook their shortcomings. But at what point do we make so many exceptions that the rule no longer holds? I'm concerned that our moral compass has literally lost its bearings. The basics - telling the truth, being who we appear to be, being accountable for our behaviour, etc. etc. - simply do not seem to be "written in stone" any more. Reality tv is full of shows that are re-wiring our moral compass. Coming out on top is what counts. Lying is perfectly acceptable - even admirable - if it helps you win the prize. We have adopted - it seems - a "survivor" mentality. And that's the very mentality that Thomas Hobbes argued would produce a "war of all against all" and social chaos. Hm. Let's check our own bearings and be careful of those influences that might lure us away from them...

Count your blessings, name them one by one...

In the pleasant after-glow of a long weekend focussed on family, feasting and fall colours, my thoughts have been drawn to a philosophy of thankfulness. When I dropped my 4 year old grandson off at preschool this morning, he kicked an old penny that was lying on the ground. I don't think he even recognized it as a penny - it was just something underfoot that had no more value than a pebble. Ever on the watch for teachable moments, I, however, stooped down and picked up the tarnished penny and declared it "a lucky penny". Suddenly his eyes lit up and he was most interested in it. It wasn't worthless, after all but a treasure!

That got me thinking about the penny and the way we attach value. In Canada, we stopped producing the penny on May 4th, 2012 and circulation of the penny as a unit of regular currency will cease on February 4th, 2013. Ironically, this will likely mean that the value of the penny will actually increase (over time) as it eventually becomes a relic of a bygone era. And I've noticed that lots of people are gathering up the soon-to-be "worthless" coins so that they can cash in before the toll rings on February 4th. Surely lots of coins will be left behind - stashed away in drawers, lost in the creases of couches, rolled up and ready to take to the bank but forgotten in the rush of more pressing matters. Over time they will somehow be dispersed, ending up in landfills or buried in the rubble of a restless age.

It's tempting to do a bit of research on the history of the penny, but that's not really where I want to go just now. Suffice to say that the penny will fade into the recesses of our collective imagination as well as becoming an artifact for archaeologists of some future age to un-earth. Sayings like, "a penny saved is a penny earned", or "a stitch in time saves nine" will perplex our great great grandchildren. How will we describe someone who values frugality when the term "penny pincher" is rendered obsolete? How will we describe something that is expensive when we can no longer say that it "cost a pretty penny"? Thoughts will clearly be worth more than a penny, but to say "a nickel for your thoughts" doesn't seem quite right. Ok - I'm chasing another rabbit trail...!

What I really want to talk about is the fact that we attribute value to all kinds of things - in fact, it may be fair to say that we attribute value to virtually every kind of thing: from coins to art to "stuff" to people. I suppose we could say that every thing that we can attribute value to, already has some value of its own - some intrinsic value. After all, if it's something that we can name - whether an object, a person, a thought, an experience, a relationship - it has identity and therefore value. But it is the value that we add that really counts.

After dropping my grandson off this morning, I had a half hour drive. Much of that drive was on a brand new highway and I marvelled at the engineering ingenuity that has gone into carving this new highway through forest, field and rock. On another level I marvelled also at the amount of money that has been invested in this project, but that's another rabbit trail and I shan't run down it today.

Even though it's a damp day, I also was completely awe struck by the beauty of the fall leaves - a canopy of yellows, reds, oranges. But then my mind went to friends, colleagues, and the countless people that I don't even know, who are today so burdened down with worries and concerns of all kinds that they can't even take note of the beauty around them. My heart and mind are filled with thankfulness and as I think about it, I realize that I am (and most certainly should be!) thankful for that. That is, I'm thankful that my life right now allows me space and time to think such thoughts.

One of the headlines on the news this morning is the story of the 14 year old Pakistani girl who was shot in the head by the Taliban for her thoughts and actions that promote education. That's a jolt! A startling and unwelcome intrusion into my reverie of thanksgiving for highways and fall vistas...

The fact is, life is all about shifting perspectives and cultural landscapes. We are thankful - or resentful or angry or self-absorbed or outraged - in a particular context. I'm sitting at my desk watching leaves fall from an especially beautiful maple tree. And I'm thankful that I have the luxury of even noticing such a thing. I realize that most people in the world have other things - more pressing and more practical things - on their minds today. For a great many of them the first priority will be to find the means to get enough food together to feed themselves and their families. For some, the priority is nurturing their failing health so that they will see another day. For some - like Malala Yousufzai in Pakistan, or so many other young and old activists - it may be how to advance a particular cause. I'm reminded that we see through a glass darkly (1 Cor. 13:12). And I'm thankful that in the blur that is life, I'm granted brief glimpses of a beauty and a value that transcends space and time.

Here's a quote that sums it up:

If you have food in your fridge, clothes on your back, a roof over your head and a place to sleep, you are richer than 75% of the world. If you have money in your bank, your wallet, and some spare change, you are among 8% of the world’s wealthy. If you woke up this morning with more health than illness, you are more blessed than the million people who will not survive this week. If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the agony of imprisonment or torture or the horrible pangs of starvation, you are luckier than 500 million people alive and suffering. If you can read this message, you are more fortunate than 3 billion people in the world who cannot read at all.

Count your blessings, name them one by one... and be thankful! And then, share what you have with those who have less...

Christianity, China and Capitalism

In preparation for a trip to China last spring I read David Aikman's book, Jesus in Beijing: How Christianity is Transforming China and Changing the Global Balance of Power (2006). It's a fascinating book, based on Aikman's first hand journalistic travel and work in China and his study of christianity in China over several years.

On the very first page of the first chapter, Aikman quotes a scholar from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in Beijing who essentially says that Chinese academics are convinced that the principle reason for the success of the West is not a more powerful military, nor a superior political system, or even a more robust economic system. Rather, the conclusion that these scholars has drawn from their study is that the pre-eminence of the West - the key thing that underlies the emergence of capitalism and democratic politics - is the Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life. This is remarkable and profound. In other words, the best minds in China are convinced that what has made countries like Canada strong and prosperous is our adherence to Christian faith and practice. Interesting...

Max Weber (1864-1920), a German sociologist, philosopher and political economist, wrote an essay entitled "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism", in which he argued that Protestantism prepared the way for the development of capitalism by creating a culture that promoted hard work and austerity. In order for capitalism to develop as an economic system, it needed to legitimate the rational pursuit of economic gain. The Protestant ethic (rooted in Calvinism) encouraged believers to work hard and to reinvest their profits in the development of their businesses, rather than spend money on frivolous pursuits. Weber noted that those countries in which this ethic was practiced were quickly gaining power through the development of capitalist economies. And what's more, Weber even anticipated that this ethic, though necessary for the initial development of a capitalist economy, would not be needed once a capitalist economy was firmly embedded. Indeed, we might say that presently, much effort goes into legitimizing and promoting a "buy now - pay later" consumer culture in order to keep the wheels of capitalism turning.

One might argue that obscene amounts of capital have funded the very "frivolous pursuits" that the Protestant ethic once warned against. What happened to austerity, we might ask? Has a more "mature" form of Protestantism loosened the purse strings and turned us into compliant (greedy) consumers?

If the Chinese scholars are correct in their assessment of the role that religious culture has played in the prosperity of the West, is the shift in public policy in China towards Christianity essentially a strategic effort to re-create conditions of prosperity within a Chinese context? And if so, can it work? In other words, will the growth of Christianity within China create the conditions for economic (capitalist) growth? And what kind of Christianity is needed?

It occurs to me that there is a danger that the form of Christianity that is embraced may be the form that is currently practiced in the West, rather than the form which Weber identified as the "Protestant ethic". It occurs to me that in an effort to give their citizens the "good life", the Chinese government may inadvertently create a culture of consumption that could precipitate a sudden plunge into ecological nihilism.

Just as the West is beginning to realize that we have been living beyond our means and perhaps putting the planet at risk (through our mis-use and over-use of natural resources), what might happen if China - currently representing about one-sixth of the planet's population - embraces a deviant form of Protestantism (a "prosperity gospel")?

Maybe this is an alarmist view and perhaps it doesn't fully credit the authentic movement of God's Spirit in China. And who knows what the future holds given that economic and political and ecological and spiritual predictions and trajectories are always based on incomplete information. But as the theologians in China develop a uniquely Chinese theology, maybe they can learn from our mistakes. And maybe the church in China will help us to adjust/correct our theological understanding so that we can work fruitfully together to promote the revelation of the kingdom of God on earth. I hope so!

Beauty, Beast... and Brokenness

Sometimes I wonder how it's possible for human beings to do the things we do - the horrible, mean, cruel, inhumane, despicable, evil, almost unimaginable deeds that humans do. You know the things I'm referring to - those things that we hear and read about through the various news media on a regular basis. And for most of us - thank God! - that news coverage is as close as we get to that kind of action.

How is it possible that human beings, created in the image of a good God, can become so de-railed and disoriented from their very design that we actually commit such acts of darkness? I wonder what the mechanism is that somehow restrains or even shuts off impulses for good and self-giving and sacrifice and turns on, instead, impulses for evil.

But maybe even more disturbing than the extreme instances of violence - the guy who guns down people in a movie theatre, or the sexual predator who rapes young children, or the family man who participates in a genocide, or the businessman (or woman) or politician who intentionally capitalizes on a system that is set up to exploit the vulnerable - are the everyday violences that simmer just under the surface. I'm talking about the capacity we have to inflict pain and shame and suffering on people for no more provocation than that we disagree with them or we feel threatened by their opinion or we are envious of their place in life. Why do we lash out at people in both subtle and obvious ways?

There are times when I feel an incredible sense of peace. I feel connected to all that is good. But too often these moments are fleeting and that sense of harmony can be shattered in a moment by a thought, an image, an action, a word. I live, it seems, in a constant tension between the beauty and the beast in me and in those around me.

The story of Noah and the Ark (Genesis 6-8) is a disturbing account of God's judgment and punishment of His amazing creation gone bad. Genesis 6:5-7 says:

The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.

I can't help but think that God must have been heart-broken and/or simply outraged by the way humanity was behaving. Speaking of "impulses", it seems that God's impulse to wipe the slate clean by destroying all that He had made (with the exception of a tiny remnant that could start over) was pretty extreme. Just enough DNA to start anew. To literally re-build from the ground up. But surely God knew that the fatal flaw - the capacity for evil - had not been eliminated. The human creature was still free to choose evil over good.

As I look at myself and around the globe at the violence and selfishness that seems to have the upper hand, it makes me wonder, how close are we to reaching the same level of wickedness? And even though God promised not to destroy the earth by flood again, what other consequences of wickedness might lay ahead of us? Sometimes I fear that society as we know it will implode if we remain on the course that we're on. We are quite literally, I think, on a collision course with utter anarchy and chaos.

But when despair threatens to overtake me I think about God who I believe to be the original and pure essence of the fruit of the spirit - love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). Will He repay evil with evil? Or will He - somehow - overcome evil with good?

I become lost in the maze of these thoughts.

This is what I know: I have the capacity for beauty and for beastliness and so, I expect, does every single person on this planet. I am broken and I often operate out of my brokenness, but I'm not broken beyond repair, and neither is anyone else. I don't know exactly how it will happen or when it will happen, but I believe that God will pull it off. If He's not going to destroy His creation again, despite the fact that that may be exactly what we deserve, He will provide a way forward. In the meantime, there's no time for lament and despair.
This may sound very naive, but despite all appearances to the contrary - all the bad stuff I started this post with - there is also a lot of good. And maybe - NO, certainly! - as in the days of Elisha (the Old Testament prophet), there are forces at work that we do not see (see 2 Kings 6:1-23).

Every person has their story. There is none - no matter what they think or what they do - who is beyond the reach of God. Love will triumph over hate, good over evil. And God's justice may surprise us.

Hospitality: Loving one another as if our life depended on it...

I love Eugene Petersen’s translation of 1 Peter 4:8-9. In the NIV it reads, “Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling.” But in The Message, Petersen puts it like this: “Most of all, love each other as if your life depended on it. Love makes up for practically anything. Be quick to give a meal to the hungry, a bed to the homeless—cheerfully.” Love each other as if your life depended on it! I can’t help but wonder what our churches might be like if we loved one another as if our life depended on it.

Hospitality – the generous, spontaneous sharing of who we are and all that we have – flows out of this kind of love. In its purest form, hospitality is the divine mechanism by which God demonstrates his love for all creation, through us. In Making Room, Christine Pohl says that hospitality isn’t so much a task as it is a way of living our lives and sharing ourselves. It’s not just a matter of providing shelter or sharing a meal. These are entry level steps – important practices but small first steps. Pohl suggests that we learn how to practice hospitality in small increments of daily faithfulness. First a sharing of what we have but ultimately a sharing of who we are and of the love that God has invested in us for the good of others.

In our society and even in our churches, this kind of hospitality is rare. We are conditioned to be prudent in our sharing, to maintain proper boundaries between our lives and the lives of others. Our cultural milieu is one of distance and distrust. Openness, transparency, vulnerability and honesty are often seen as childlike qualities that must be overcome as a matter of safety. We need to take care of ourselves after all – and above all. Really? But this is a clever deception and not at all what God intends for us or for those – strangers, foreigners, friends – who he places in our path.

The parable of the Good Samaritan is a case in point. We ought not to be too hard on the priest and Levite. They did what was expected of them – in the hierarchy of rules, best to give a half dead man a wide berth. The Samaritan, on the other hand, was not constrained by purity rules. He was free to show mercy, to treat the helpless and wounded man as he himself might want to be treated had he been the one to fall into the hands of thugs. The kind of compassion he demonstrated is rooted in a spirit of hospitality.

Compassion may compel us to look after someone who is in need – to provide medical care, food, clothing, shelter, encouragement. But hospitality is about giving AND receiving. Hospitality transforms us. As it turns out, sometimes the needs we don’t see – the attitudes and prejudices and ethnocentrism and arrogance – are actually MORE debilitating than the needs that we do see – the poverty, addictions, wounds, lack of opportunity. These are lessons that our global field staff learn quickly as they live among people groups around the world. They soon discover that people with pressing material needs have much to teach us about hospitality and the state of our hearts.

Who is our neighbor? Well, in Canada, the neighborhoods are often diverse, especially in the larger urban centers. But diversity is spilling out into the rural areas as well, as governments at all levels and businesses are recruiting immigrants to work in their factories and to populate our towns and villages. There are challenges and opportunities for churches. And the way forward must, I think, be rooted in an understanding of, and commitment to, the practice of biblical hospitality – loving one another – whether family, friend, foe or foreigner – as if our life depends on it.

The Politics of Choice

As I was driving to work this morning I listened to CBC's show The Current, and one of the topics was a review of the impact of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms (http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/coming-up/2012/04/17/tuesday-charter-of-rights-freedom---30th-anniversary/). We're now 30 years in and the discussion was around the question of whether or not the Charter has been a "good thing" for Canada. It got me thinking...

Do you suppose that efforts to bolster "individual rights and the freedom to choose" may actually be a symptom of a society's inability to provide conditions for its citizens to live the life that they might prefer? Here's the thing. We've been conditioned to think that the promotion of a culture that favours individual rights and freedoms - to live as we wish, so long as we're not hurting someone else in the process - is a way of limiting the state's control. In other words, the state can't tell us what to do. We're free to do what we want. We're free to make "bad choices" - choices that might negatively affect our physical, emotional, relational or spiritual health, or the health of the environment - and it's nobody's business but our own. But what if a relaxation of conventional moral codes (our collective conscience of what is "right" and "wrong") is really about diverting our attention away from the fact that the state is not providing the levels of support necessary for us to choose what we might most want to do or be?

On The Current, the two issues that seem to have generated the most public debate in the last 30 years under the influence of the Charter, are abortion and same-sex marriage. Supporters of the Charter cite these two issues as "successes" that indicate that the Charter is protecting individual rights and freedoms. But maybe - if we dig a little deeper on these and other issues - we'll discover that there are more profound realities at stake. I've talked a bit about the abortion issue in several previous posts, but let's think about it for a minute from the perspective of the Charter and the perspective of the woman who determines that terminating a pregnancy is the best option in her particular circumstance. Does anyone ask if she LIKES the circumstances that she's in? And by that, I don't mean the fact that she's pregnant. I mean the fact that she - perhaps - doesn't have the financial and/or social support she needs to have the baby. So - in a Charter-based, individual rights and freedom driven society, the state has no obligation to address THOSE issues. If she can't afford to have and raise a child, or doesn't have the kinds of supports in place that would make having a raising a child a healthy option (for herself and the child), no problem. She can CHOOSE to have an abortion. But is it really a CHOICE? If her circumstances were otherwise, would an abortion still be the thing she'd choose to do?

There's no doubt in my mind - now that this thought has taken root - that it is far easier and cheaper (at least in the short term, and from a political perspective, that's what counts!) for the state to give people the opportunity to do things that are neither best for them nor for the broader society, than it is to provide the infrastructural supports that make it possible for them to truly choose what they would most desire, if all options were truly available.

I wonder what Screwtape would say to Wormwood on the human aspiration to "make a difference"?

I've always been a fan of C. S. Lewis and especially of his book, The Screwtape Letters in which a senior demon - Screwtape - mentors his nephew - Wormwood - advising him (and cajoling him) in the ways of tempting "the Patient" to sin. Such a clever way to help us see and think about our assumptions concerning sin and faith and righteousness. These last few days I've been thinking about what Screwtape might say to Wormwood when it comes to our human ambition to "make a difference" in the world.

On first thought, "making a difference" seems like an honourable - maybe even an altruistic - ambition. I think of the assorted people throughout history who have made a (positive) difference in their time and place and I'm grateful for their impacts. In fact, I've so admired people who have made a difference that I've imagined myself as someone who might someday and in some way, make a difference too. And I love to surround myself with people of all ages and abilities who also think that way. Not that I - or any of the people I'm thinking of - have grandiose schemes or plans, but I love it that we can aspire to something that goes beyond ourselves. It IS noble, I think, to have that kind of mindset and to take steps that move us in that direction - whatever it is. But even as I say that, and as I've been thinking these last few days about it - a yellow flag is raised.

There's been lots of cyber chatter this past week about the Kony 2012 campaign - for one example see http://www.facebook.com/groups/faithandjustice/316861761701783/ - and while you're there, feel free to join this Facebook group. I don't want to reiterate that discussion, but I do want to acknowledge that it's been a big part of my thinking on this issue of "making a difference". Jason Russell - the filmmaker who made Kony 2012 - wants to "make a difference". I quite honestly think that all of the people at Invisible Children are involved so that they can be part of the solution to the problem of the abuse and exploitation of children by the LRA. I've just watched a short video that they've put together to respond to some of the criticisms that have been directed their way since Kony 2012 hit the internet. You can find it here if you're interested: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/invisible-children-defends-kony-2012-film-video-224446367.html. I can just imagine how hard it is for them to hear and read and see the kinds of attacks that have been issued. But this is all a bit beside the point of this posting...

All I really want to say is that maybe we need to be cautious when we talk about "making a difference". Maybe having the kind of "make a difference" mindset can actually set us up for some unhealthy distractions. I can just hear Screwtape telling Wormwood that it's a good idea to have us think that we can take on the enemy by having a good strategy that will make a difference. Mind you, I can also hear him advising Wormwood that if he can get his Patient to feel that nothing he does will make a difference - that's also a win for the bad guys. What Screwtape and Wormwood DON'T want to hear is the Patient committing to a life of faithful obedience to the commands and instruction of Christ in the way of kingdom living, come what may. I think THAT'S what we ought to be aiming for, most fundamentally.

I'm thinking of scenes from my childhood when we used to pick teams on the playground. Imagine that we're all assembled and the teams are being picked. Believe me, if I'm doing the picking I'd far rather pick those who are itching to get involved so that they can make a difference, than those who don't believe they can or will or should even be involved. But I also think that a team full of people committed to making a difference can be a pretty unruly bunch. Likely the first thing to be done is to have them all lay their plans and ambitions for making a difference down in order to be formed in the character of Christ.

I'm re-listening to Dallas Willard's book, Renovation of the Heart, and I'm reminded of Willard's emphasis on character - the inner being who is being shaped and formed by the Holy Spirit... for good works. It's not enough just to contemplate the character of Christ. But nor is it wise, it seems to me, to take matters into our own hands - to devise clever plans and strategies to accomplish good ends - and to plunge ahead with our campaigns for making the world a better place. Rather, if we can seek God and His righteousness - with all of our heart, mind, soul and strength! - maybe the changes we so desire will be the icing on the cake.

Human Rights... or the View from the Top?

In this post I'm going to do something which is most likely ill-advised. I'm going to speculate about the concept of "human rights" and I'm going to do so on the basis of a hunch. I haven't done any amount of serious research or even focussed thinking on this issue. But it's something that's occurred to me more than once in the last few years. On diverse occasions - moments when traveling in foreign lands, a thought in mid-sentence while teaching, a gut response when listening to CBC radio on assorted topics - I have an increasingly persistent sense that much of our talk (rhetoric?) about human rights may actually be more the product of an egotistical and ethnocentric sense of cultural entitlement than some sort of divine mandate for the proper and appropriate "rights" of all humanity.

Just this morning, for instance, when I turned on the radio I heard the tale-end of an interview with a plastic surgeon from Pakistan who does facial reconstruction (amongst other things) for Pakistani women who have been intentionally burned with acid by members of their own family. I suppose it's some sort of punishment for behaviour and attitudes considered inappropriate or shameful. It's horrendous and who could think otherwise!? But then - again - this thought crosses my mind: who decides what is appropriate or shameful? Surely every nation on earth has it's legacy of shame. Who among us is without sin? In every country in the world - including, of course, our own - an honest history will expose principles and practices that we now find hugely offensive. Acts that are, today, clearly defined as criminal, were once - in our very own cultural context - applauded as being right and honourable and in keeping with the common good. Women were not considered "persons" in Canada until October 18, 1929, for goodness sake! See http://canadaonline.about.com/cs/women/a/personscase.htm for the background on this story.

Please, believe me when I say that I am NOT writing this post in defence of acid burning or domestic violence in any form or in any place. Truly, I am not.

What I am calling into question - or at least, for consideration - is the idea that any universal declaration of human rights is going to contain an inherent bias in favour of those who consider themselves the cultural and ideological elite. Such "rights" are akin to a view from the top, passed down to those below, with the expectation that they need not discover these "fundamental rights" for themselves but should rather except the wisdom of those who now see themselves as having "seen the light" in terms of their own past abuses. Canadian law once did not recognize women as persons, but now that we do, it is clear that women truly ARE persons and so other countries should forego the painful path to that realization and simply accept our perspective. After all, should it not now be self-evident that women are and were persons all along?

And I wouldn't necessarily object to this practice, except it doesn't seem to work very well. The path to personhood for Canadian women was not an easy one - IS not an easy one. It could certainly be argued - in fact I WOULD ARGUE - that the path to personhood for women in Canada is far from complete, especially if we consider indicators such as social, economic and political equality as the measure of success. Women have come a long way in this country, but they are still way too often the victims of domestic violence, sexual exploitation, economic injustice, etc. etc. And sometimes women have failed to live up to the challenges and opportunities of "equality".

And none of this happens in a vacuum. There is a growing awareness that the peoples of this world are connected through the political, economic, technological, and social forces of globalization. For some, globalization is inevitable and welcome. It opens new markets, new frontiers, new opportunities. For others, however, globalization means uprooting old ways of life and threatening livelihoods and cultures. The fact is, no matter where we live, we are not immune from the collective forces of globalization and these forces sooner or later impact the very fabric of family life and the role of women in both family and society. They affect life at its very source. These forces of globalization are not neutral. Nor can we assume that they are designed to promote the "common good". Globalization seems to be, most fundamentally, about dominance by the "fittest" - or at least by those with economic and military and ideological power.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948. Fifty nations participated in the final vote - 42 voted in favour and 8 abstained. On the one hand, in the post war context I'm sure it was a remarkable accomplishment to have this much consensus on a template for human rights. But on the other hand, if we look at the Declaration itself, I can't help but wonder how this document must have been perceived by those who had no part in its design. The final portion of the preamble, reads as follows:

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/).

The 30 Articles contained within the Declaration make perfect sense from the point of view of the western world, but is it even fair or rational to expect all of humanity to subscribe to THIS particular view of what is right and good? I suspect that anyone who has worked or lived for any prolonged period of time in a very different cultural context has, at some point, understood that OUR culture and OUR understanding of human rights is a reflection of our biases and perhaps NOT as transferable as we might have assumed.

So, as I observe and read and hear about human rights abuses around the globe, it causes me to question the process. I have no solutions and I need to reiterate that I am not suggesting that we ought to turn a blind or indifferent eye to those abuses. But perhaps it will help us to battle them more effectively if we at least acknowledge that they are rights that we have arrived at through much trial and painful error ourselves. Forced compliance - through military and economic and political sanction - simply doesn't seem to be a very effective strategy.

Well - this seems to be a not very satisfactory conclusion, but it has been my attempt to articulate this hunch that disturbs and challenges me.