Election Reflections

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...

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...

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?

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

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"

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.

FEAR

As I was driving to work the other day I got thinking about life and death and the fact that life is REALLY very fleeting and death can sneak up on us - OR, in the case of those people who die after a "long struggle with cancer" (or some other disease), death can chase you for a long time. I suppose we've all wondered how we'd react if we got the news from our doctor that we had so many weeks or months to live. What would we do differently? How would we prepare ourselves and our friends and family for life without us?

I remember a family vacation we took to Florida when the kids were young - we had a GREAT time but when it was time to come home - back to our regular life - I remember thinking with some amazement that after we leave, all of the activity and wonder of Disney would continue - with a constant shifting of faces and families, Disney WORLD would go on. Maybe it's the same way with death. But what I really want to talk about in this blog is FEAR.

Fear can be a great motivator but it can also be a great inhibitor. Fear of failure drives many people to invest their time and energy into all kinds of things. But fear is complex. It can also prompt people to scurry out of the way of trouble or to avoid situations that might be dangerous, physically or emotionally. Knowing that we can be paralyzed by fear, sometimes we spend our whole lives avoiding situations that might bring the coward in us to the surface.

It bugs me that I'm not a risk taker. I'm cautious. "Err on the side of caution" could be my motto. Why is that, I wonder, and what could I or should I do about it? It seems absurd to think that one option would be to look for risks and throw myself at them. That IS absurd, right? So then I got thinking about all this in the context of the global issues I've been learning and writing about. And it occurs to me that one of the "advantages" of living in THIS part of the world, is that we have all kinds of ways of disguising and hiding from our basic fears. Our affluence can buy us some distance and time from our fears, but - and here's the rub- it can't remove them. They don't go away and every now and then they remind us that we are, in fact, vulnerable and weak.

Think about it. If I lived in some part of the world where simple survival required all or most of my energy - having enough food to eat and enough water to drink and a roof over my head that can withstand even normal weather conditions - in those conditions it seems to me that I'd be pretty well acquainted with my most basic fears. And, maybe I'd learn to deal with fear - to face it head on, rather than hiding from it. Again, not to romanticize the plight of the poor, but just to dig a little deeper...

The decisions I make today - how I think, how I react to the circumstances of my life, how I spend my time, my inner thoughts - all of it, is the result of every day of my life up until today. I am the person I am today because of the decisions and choices I've made in the past. Who I'm becoming is what lies ahead. Ten years from now (if I should live that long!) I'd like to be able to look back and see that I have not spent my time and energy avoiding my fears. Rather, as I look forward to looking back, I hope that I will see that I have lived more courageously in the face of them.

Well - my thoughts are going in a hundred directions as I think about the day ahead. I know that it's all too easy to slip back into old habits - to cruise through life taking the easy path - that very attractive path of least resistance. But seriously, I don't like where that path will take me, so here and now I commit myself to a more intentional life that DOESN'T see erring on the side of caution as the ultimate virtue. I commit to simplicity, generosity, hospitality and justice, wherever they may lead me...

Some Thoughts on SECURITY

I know. It's been a VERY long time since I posted a new blog. It's funny. Whenever I DO write a blog I can think of half a dozen other things I'd like to write about, but I need to wait a week or two and then - well, then I get busy and out of the writing "mood". You know how it goes I'm sure. Anyway, I'm back today with some thoughts on security. Some of these thoughts were triggered by a CBC interview on The Current (May 15) with Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute. If you have a chance, listen to the interview. It's at http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2008/200805/20080515.html - just scroll down to "Feature Interview".

So I'm thinking about the issue of security. We often think of security as all about safety - we want our government to ensure our personal safety in the face of military threats, terrorist attacks, natural disasters, etc. In fact, we're SO committed to security that we're quite willing to give up some of our rights and freedoms (and the rights of freedoms of other people, especially the suspicious ones!) in order to feel "safe". I think the rationale goes something like this: we live in this great country where we have a very good life - we're nice people and we just want to continue to live in peace and prosperity - we don't want anyone to mess with our comforts.

That view is starting to fray a bit around the edges. Climate change, terrorism, the global food crisis, the dramatic rise in gas prices - these are things that the average middle class Canadian can no longer ignore. I'm an average middle class Canadian and I've also had the opportunity to travel a bit in low income countries - specifically Kenya, Bolivia and El Salvador. And I read a lot and listen a lot to the news. I even teach a course on Globalization. So, not that I'm an expert on all of this, but I can't help but notice...

When we think of security we think of personal and national safety - protecting ourselves from threats of all sorts. BUT, security in much of the world is of a more basic nature: having safe water and enough food to avoid malnutrition or outright starvation. When your life is spent simply trying to survive, personal and national safety issues seem to take a back seat.

Maybe it's just that I'm paying closer attention, but it also seems that the number and brutality of incidents of violence in these low income countries is escalating. I'm thinking that people can only be pushed so far before they push back. One could argue that these situations - take the unrest in Kenya after the presidential election in December, for instance - are very complex. On the other hand though, maybe it's quite simple. Maybe it's just a matter of people pushing back against the oppression and injustice which leave them hungry and helpless as their children get sick and die of diseases that CAN be cured or prevented. By the way, UNICEF reports that the number of such deaths of children under the age of 5 is currently just under 10 million per year (see http://www.unicef.org/childsurvival/index_40850.html). That's about 26,000 child deaths EVERY DAY!

OK - I won't go on and on about that - even though I'm tempted! Just notice that SECURITY may look and feel a lot different in that context.

Perhaps you've heard the latest figure for military expenditure - that is the amount of money spent in one year on military budgets globally. It's now at $1.2 TRILLION. Please understand me: I'm not making any political statement here about particular militaries or campaigns. I just think we need to step back and look at the BIG picture. What if we redefined security to include access to sufficient food and safe water for the entire population of the planet? What if that were the number one priority of all of our governments... and their armies? Maybe then we wouldn't need such well armed military forces...

How do we measure "poverty"?

I've been thinking a lot about poverty these last weeks and months. And just when I think I understand poverty, something doesn't quite line up - a new bit of information or a stray thought challenges my basic assumptions. I know that economists and policy makers differentiate between relative poverty and absolute poverty. Relative poverty is a comparative measure. You're poor if your income falls so far below the median income in your setting. Absolute poverty has to do with whether or not you have the things - food, clothing and shelter - necessary to sustain life. You're poor if you literally don't have enough food to eat or adequate shelter. Of course it's pretty obvious that lots of people - both in wealthy nations and in impoverished nations - manage to survive in horrific circumstances.

But I've long argued that poverty isn't just about what we HAVE or what we LACK in terms of material stuff. I'm convinced that there is a direct link between poverty (broadly defined - that is, not just an economic measure) and dignity. I have two observations to make:

First, it IS possible to live in abject poverty - not enough food or water, insufficient shelter and access to sanitation - and still have dignity. And secondly, it IS possible to live in circumstances of incredible (maybe even obscene) affluence, and yet lack dignity. So, clearly, dignity and economic means are not tied together. There is no necessary correlation.

When I was in Kenya last summer with a Short Term Mission team, we were amazed and humbled by the dynamic faith of many women we encountered. These women - poor by any economic standard - have a strength of faith that we admired and even envied. And, there was no doubt that the vibrancy of their faith was somehow a product of the hardships they have endured. Despite the hardships - or maybe BECAUSE of them - these women are full of hope, and they draw on that hope to mobilize their communities to work together to ease some of the circumstances that are at the root of their hardships. They cheerfully and relentlessly organize their communities to use the resources they have to address the needs that threaten their very lives.

Yes - they are poor. BUT, they have dignity and - I think somehow this is the real issue - they have HOPE.

In contrast, I think of so many middle class people in our communities in Canada, who can and do take so much for granted - water, food, shelter, clothing, heat, medical care, education, transportation, recreation - and yet seem to be perpetually unhappy and stressed out. We never seem to be content. I can't give you a source for this so I can't stand by the accuracy of this figure, but I heard recently that one in three Americans is on anti-depressant medication. What's THAT about?

I'm not suggesting that there is no place for, or need for, anti-depressant medication, but one in three? Maybe that says more about our society than it does about individuals... Check out this short video clip from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/07/09/antidepressants/index.html?eref=rss_topstories#cnnSTCVideo.

From a JUSTICE perspective, where should we focus our energies - providing funds so that people have adequate food, clothing and shelter OR seeking to understand and foster the less tangible and elusive objective of supporting dignity and hope? Even as I write this, I KNOW that it's not a question of either/or - one or the other. If you're hungry, your stomach wants food. If you lack dignity and hope, your soul longs for wholeness. Maybe this is what Jesus was trying to teach his disciples and us. Maybe this is what integral mission is really about.

As usual, I have more questions than answers.

Unrest in Kenya

If you've been watching the news over the past few days you've likely seen some coverage of the tensions in Kenya following the December 27th election in which the incumbent, Mwai Kibaki, was re-elected by a small margin. Amidst accusations of corruption and election irregularities, pockets of the country have erupted into a kind of violence which is hauntingly reminiscent of the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Having been to Kenya twice in the last few years and with friends currently living there - several in Nairobi where much of the violence is centered - I've been paying careful attention to news reports.

As we watch the scenes from the safety and tranquility of our comfortable living rooms, it's hard for us to imagine how neighbors can turn on one another so brutally. Many of us may be tempted to conclude that such scenes could never happen here... that we simply are incapable of such brutality... that Canadians are far too reasonable and "nice" to be caught up in such atrocities.

Last week in our adult Sunday School class we talked for a few minutes about the situation in Pakistan following the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. Again, there was a surreal sense that those people are just not like us. And one of the more senior members of the class - a woman who years ago visited her son while he was living in Bangladesh - pointed out very matter of factly that "they have nothing". There were some quiet murmurings of concurrence but I really don't think we can understand what it's like to live - day in and day out - with the uncertainties of poverty. And then, when you add to the mix, tribal or other linguistic or ethnic differences - well - let's just say that it's a powerful mix that can be very easily ignited...

It's become fashionable these days for us to talk about our "tribe". It somehow has the effect of "connecting us" to those from places like Pakistan and Kenya. It's like saying - "yeah, we know about tribes. We're part of a tribe too...". And we are. But maybe our view lacks depth.

A little over a year ago I happened to be in Vancouver, British Columbia when there was a boil water order in effect. It was pretty inconvenient for people who are used to being able to turn on the tap to get perfectly potable water. Bottled water was hard to come by because the demand went up dramatically, literally over night. There were reports of scuffles breaking out at the local Costco over bottled water. It was pretty bizarre - people in Canada actually fighting over water! A colleague who lived in Africa for a time noted the irony and said something like "we wonder why Africans resort to violence and we're inconvenienced a little bit and we're up in arms!".

I live in a small fishing community and over the last 10 years or so, we've had some "migrant workers" from another province arrive to work at one of the fish plants. At first the newcomers were welcomed. When summer came, however, and the newcomers had all the low-end jobs tied up and it was hard for local students to find work, the atmosphere changed pretty quickly. Yeah - we have our tribes all right, but we really don't know how strongly we're attached to them until push comes to shove - until there isn't enough to go around. Scarcity does strange things to people.

So let's not think too critically of our global neighbors in Pakistan or Kenya - some people may be behaving badly - even brutally - but let's not think our "tribe" is any more virtuous than any other, at least not until we have faced the same kinds of scarcities and insecurities.

Leadership

I'm a real fan of the tv series, The West Wing. I started watching it in the first season and was faithful pretty much to the end (though I have to say that the last season was a bit of a disappointment for me - I watched more out of loyalty than conviction!). I watch the re-runs when I get a chance and I own the first five seasons on DVD. So yeah - I'm a fan.

I've always enjoyed the political content - specifically the issues and the way they're handled - the tensions and energy generated by working in the White House, the "faith and politics" dynamic (though the "religious right" is often hammered), the personalities of the staff of the West Wing and the way they work out of their strengths. I love the way senior staff - Leo, Toby, Josh, CJ, Sam and even President Bartlett can disagree passionately on a particular issue but never take it personally. It's about issues and the way issues intersect - it's not so much about being right or wrong or even gaining the approval of one's colleagues. At the end of the day, decisions are made and whether they agree or not - for the most part - they stand behind the process. For me, it's a study in leadership and most of the time, I'm inspired to imitate principles like working hard, standing up for what I believe, being open to integrating new ideas or information and even changing my mind or my position based on new evidence or old evidence seen in a new light. Most of the time.

But lately I have to say that I've found myself getting frustrated. I'm watching the fifth season on DVD these days. Maybe it's this particular season, or maybe it's got something to do with my own journey, or maybe it's my age (mid-life!!) or my idealism confronting reality - or probably a combination of all of the above. Whatever it is, I find myself feeling irritated. The verbal witticisms and clever put-downs that I used to love are more often these days striking me as arrogant and elitist. The compromises (ENDLESS compromises!) needed to move priority issues ahead are looking more like weaknesses (sell-outs) than strengths and wise governance. The achilles heel of North American democracies - where it's all about gaining and retaining the power to govern - means issues (and that is ALL issues) become politicized. Virtues like integrity, honesty, appropriate loyalty, faithfulness - they all have a shelf life and are often tainted by ambition, pride, fear and plain, old-fashioned poor judgment. I feel like I have a front row seat to watch the demise of principles on the altar of success. Is this leadership that's worthy of emulating?

Actually, my favorite characters in the show are probably Donna and Charlie. Donna is Josh's assistant and Charlie is - hm, I don't know his official title, but he is President Bartlett's personal aide or something. So as I think about it, both Donna and Charlie are in the middle of the action but neither really has any formal authority. Donna and Charlie often provide grounding - a bridge between the real world and the halls of the West Wing where the machinery of government hums along. Like, for example, when none of the senior staff know the price of a gallon of milk, but Charlie does. Or when Donna argues with Josh about Democratic party policies that seem to be out of step with the lives of the little people.

So, I think a lot about leadership as I'm watching The West Wing, and I'm feeling increasingly frustrated. I guess it's because integrity always seems to take a back seat to expediency. The system is built on compromise - give a bit here and there to gain a tiny bit somewhere else. Is this the best we can do?

The Golden Rule - Reframed?

Everyone knows the golden rule, right? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It's so much a part of our consciousness that we rattle it off without too much thought. It's like - what's the expression - motherhood and apple pie? A couple of weeks ago I saw a fridge magnet with a variation. It said, "do unto others as they would have you do unto them."

That got me thinking of a bumper sticker I saw once that had another variation: "do unto others before they do unto you." There are probably other versions floating about. So, it makes me think. What's the best one line summary for how we ought to treat others?

The Christian version of the golden rule - and by the way, there are similar edicts in all of the major world religions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Judaism and Islamism (see http://philosophy.tamu.edu/~gary/bioethics/ethicaltheory/universalizability.html) - comes from Luke 6:31 (TNIV) which says: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." Pretty straightforward. But is this a verse that can be lifted out of it's context and applied to every person in every situation? Is it a universal command? Here it is in the context of Luke 6:27-31 - embedded in a section entitled "Love for Enemies":

²⁷ "But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, ²⁸ bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. ²⁹ If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt. ³⁰ Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. ³¹ Do to others as you would have them do to you."

Aha!!! This puts a different spin on it - at least it does for me. It's not so much "do unto EVERYONE as I want them to do unto me" as "do unto my enemies, those who curse me, mistreat me, abuse me, steal from me - unto all of them - do unto them as I would rather they were doing to me." So - treat the people who are mistreating me, as if they aren't mistreating me. Treat them with respect, care, compassion - love! Treat my enemies like they are my friends. Lavish them with love.

Luke goes on to say (in verses 32-36):

³² "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. ³³ And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. ³⁴ And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. ³⁵ But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. ³⁶ Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."

So - if I'm to treat my enemies like friends, how should I treat my friends? Should I treat them like I want to be treated? Or, should I treat them as they would like to be treated? Or, is there yet another option: to treat them in such a way as to do them the most good? I think these would all result in different actions on my part.

When I think about it, I realize that the way I'd like to be treated may not always be what is best for me. It follows, then, that the way others like to be treated may not be what's best for them either. Actually, it may be a lot easier to treat ourselves in ways that make us feel good - who doesn't like to be indulged or flattered? But is that all there is to love? Maybe the highest expression of love is to treat others, not as we like to be treated or as they would enjoy, but in the way that does them the greatest good.

I know. Who decides on what's best for any of us? It's not easy and in our society - let's face it - it's a feel good, indulgent culture we live in - there's a good chance we may be misunderstood if we're aiming higher. Teenagers, for example, often don't appreciate parents who make decisions based on what they believe to be in their teens best interest. Our friends and enemies may be similarly skeptical of our motives if we suddenly stop indulging them. Well - think about it and if you're very brave, try it out. Maybe you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Can we change the world without getting "dirty"?

I recently attended a Maude Barlow public lecture. She was great - very articulate, informed, passionate, persuasive, at times comical. The audience was the usual mix of students, academics, activists, members of various advocacy groups and organizations. I didn't notice many pastors there, come to think of it, but there might have been some. Certainly there were people of faith who are concerned about the environment and our stewardship of the planet. All in all it was an interesting and informative evening.

There was a Q and A time at the end and the questions were also interesting, covering a variety of issues and events. The last question has really stuck in my mind. It was a fairly young man asking the question - 20 something - probably late 20s or maybe even 30ish. He had the manner and style of a political activist and his question boiled down to this: "how do you get people to the place where they have the courage to get involved and they're not afraid of getting arrested or tear gassed for the cause?". I should mention that Maude Barlow had made several passing references to protests and actions which resulted in arrests, pepper spray, tear gas, etc. - my mind flashed to the media images of G8 Summit protests and anti-war demonstrations turned nasty. I can't remember Maude's response to the young man's question, but I've been thinking about the issue ever since. And I wonder, can we change the world without getting "dirty"? Without getting arrested, tear gassed, pepper sprayed, etc.? And, are those effective ways of advocating for change within the current Canadian and global context?

In the midst of my ponderings I've recalled a quote by Abraham Lincoln who said: "Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed." I confess that I'm a bit conflicted. On one hand, I admire the Maude Barlows of the world who have been such passionate advocates for social and political change and I think they have often changed the timeline on change. But on the other hand - and maybe this is largely a personality quirk - I'm not convinced that the positive change they're after might not happen - and happen even more effectively - by other means. I know. I know. You're probably thinking of all kinds of cases throughout history where it seems that without the activists things would NEVER have changed. Slavery. Apartheid. Women's rights. All kinds of other "rights". And I've talked about this before (the gist of that post being that we really don't know what would have happened in the absence of a particular action, since social change is a consequence of SO MANY variables).

So back to the Lincoln quote: "Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed." Generally speaking, activists try to force a government to do the right thing. Most of the time - at some level at least - everyone KNOWS it's the right thing but the politicians lack the political will. That means that there's a cost - often the cost of their own position of power and influence - that's at stake. A pretty tough disincentive to doing the right thing. But what if we spent our time and energy as activists, not in doing outlandish things and getting arrested, but in the quieter, less glitzy work of raising awareness and gradually - I admit, often PAINFULLY SLOWLY - influencing public sentiment so that politicians would not be putting their political future on the line every time they might be inclined to "do the right thing."

There MAY be room for both approaches - my gut feeling is that there IS room for both - the political activists putting issues in the headlines and the rest of us coming in behind with the awareness raising stuff. But honestly, as I sat in that auditorium, it really hit me that Maude was "preaching to the choir". She doesn't get to influence the "average voter" because the average voter probably is intimidated by her and doesn't come out to hear her speak, even though she has so much to tell them and she really is a very effective communicator. I suspect that the audience that night already knew much of what Maude had to say because we're already interested and already informed. We probably subscribe to the same magazines and periodicals and have the same podcasts on our ipods. We read the same books and sign the same petitions. We're already trying to reduce our carbon footprint and we're already trying to eat locally produced food. We're sensitive to the negative effects of globalization on low income countries and are ready to vote for politicians who share those concerns.

But where are the hordes of people who haven't yet heard that there is great inequality and injustice on this planet, as it spirals on the brink of environmental and ecological destruction? Well, I suspect that they're home indulging in the comforts provided by a consumer capitalist economic and political system - or maybe they're headed south of the border "to shop 'til they drop" while the loonie is soaring above the American greenback (well - soaring may be a bit of an exaggeration!).

I enjoyed hearing Maude Barlow. I admire her and am thankful for her insights and her energy. But as for the question "can we change the world without getting 'dirty'?", I'm more convinced than ever that the answer is YES! So, if you've been holding back because you simply don't want to join in with the activists who have taken to the streets, hold back no longer. There actually is a large and powerful force of people - like you and I - who want to change the world through gentler means. So, let's get to it - let's start influencing public sentiment, even if it's just one person at a time! Who knows what the history books will eventually say...

The Common Good?

Winston Churchill once said that "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Hm. Not very flattering. But I think there's a disturbing kernel of truth in the statement. A definition of democracy that I must have learned somewhere along the way is "government of the people, by the people and for the people."

I've actually just googled that phrase and it turns out that it was part of American President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863 when he said:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. (http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm)

[I LOVE google by the way. I'm so happy to know - finally - the source of that phrase!] Sounds impressive and even empowering. We make the decisions about what to do and how to do it. It's all about freedom and there seems to be an implicit assumption that we are both free AND noble. That we are up to the challenge of governance. That, because we are all equal, we can all have a say and every voice will be listened to and respected. It's a vision worth fighting for and maybe even dying for. From our vantage point in the early years of the 21st Century, it's even something that we have the luxury of taking for granted - at least in Canada, right?

Yet, are we up for it? If we don't have either the time or the interest to find out what's going on around us and around the world and how one decision affects another, are we really responsible enough to be in the driver's seat?

A wise older man who was my mentor for several years before his death was fond of saying that "the leaders are following the followers and no one knows where they're going." Then, he'd add: "it's no wonder we're in such a mess!"

So what are our options? There are those who are valiantly trying to turn humanity around - to put on the brakes and change the course of history. There are anti-globalization activists, anti-poverty activists, anti-climate change activists, etc. etc. Then there are those who are perhaps less ardent but who believe that they can make a difference by attaining positions of power and influence. They run for political office or become business elites in a global economy. Some of them maintain their integrity and their vision for a better future - many do not. Then there are those - the average voter - who try to keep up with current events so that they can be informed and responsible citizens who can use their vote to put in the people and the party who will do the "right thing". But it's hard not to get discouraged when we get a glimpse of our own powerlessness in the face of global political and economic forces. Some of these people eventually fall off the treadmill and join those who are either so busy simply trying to survive that they have no time or energy for the world beyond themselves or who have opted out of genuine participation. The news is too depressing so they don't bother with it. They have a job to do and bills to pay and kids to raise. Nose to the grindstone. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Live and let live.

So who IS looking out for the common good and what is the common good any way? Is it wise to trust our elected officials to look out for our interests? What about any responsibility we might have for the interests of those on the margins of society - those who can't seem to find their voice? Do they fall under the umbrella of "the common good"? Somehow it sounds a little shallow to say that we are committed to the common good when the richest 1/5 of the world's population consumes 4/5ths of the world's resources? That doesn't sound like the common good to me! Who are we kidding?

"Wanting to JUSTIFY himself..."

There's a phrase that's been stuck in my mind for the past few weeks. But first, a little background. I heard someone talk about the parable of the good Samaritan - a story from the New Testament (Luke 10:25-37 to be exact) in which an expert in the Law (that would be a religious scholar who has studied the Judaic law, including especially the 10 Commandments) asks Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life.

As Jesus often did, he answered a question with a question which the man apparently handled with ease, boiling the 10 commandments down to 2: "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all our soul and with all your strength and with all our mind" (from Deuteronomy 6:5) and "love your neighbor as yourself" (from Leviticus 19:18). Jesus himself later brought these two together in answer to the question from His disciples concerning which is the greatest commandment. So, all is well and good. Jesus tells the expert that he is, in fact, correct and that if he does what he knows to do, he's good to go. The conversation could have been over before it really began.

BUT, it seems, the man is not satisfied yet. The text says, "wanting to justify himself..."

That's it. That's the phrase that I can't get out of my mind. So - I've been thinking about it. When do I want to justify myself? How do I do it? It's been an interesting few weeks as I've become PAINFULLY aware of this tendency to want to justify myself. I'm certainly not done thinking about it yet but I've noticed that there are times when the desire to have others think well of me leads me to want to justify myself. It's almost instinctive - I slip in a bit of information that will help them see a situation from MY perspective and with me as the hero in the scenario. I've noticed that there's quite an art to this sort of impression management and I often do it almost without thinking - at a sub-conscious level. It's not like I'm investing a lot of time or energy into this sort of self-justification - it's subtle and clever and effective and the bonus is, I can do it and people will still think that I'm very genuine! Even as I write this, I'm conscious of the fact that I may be trying to manipulate you into thinking that I'm honest and authentic and transparent. And the more I protest that I'm really not, the more convinced you will be that I am!

Which reminds me of another bible verse that has been stuck in my mind for about 20 years now. It's Jeremiah 17:9 which I once memorized in the King James Version: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Now that's uplifting isn't it? Someone should warn us when we memorize those verses that they may haunt us for years! But I've come to the point where I'm wary of my own heart for this very reason - it IS deceitful. It keeps wanting to justify me - to myself, to others, to God.

But wanting to justify myself is not just about personal credibility and reputation. It occurs to me that there are all kinds of levels to this justification project. We want to justify ourselves as families, communities, churches, organizations, societies, ethnic groups - this is BIG. Advertisers play on this when they pitch their products. Political parties rely on it when they formulate election platforms. Governments rely on it when they need support for a particular course of action. Churches use it when they come up with mission and vision statements and five year plans and building campaigns. In previous postings I've talked about the overwhelming evidence that the lifestyles we "enjoy" in North America are exploiting the scarce resources of the earth and are condemning billions of people around the globe to lives of incredible hardship and poverty. But we can look at the figures and carry on - maybe making minor adjustments or giving a bit more to charity - because we are so good at justifying ourselves.

Here's the thing. Just because we can convince ourselves and maybe even those around us that we really are very good people - or good Christians - or good atheists - or good Muslims - or good Canadians - or good Americans - or good Germans - or good Iranians - or good Brits - whatever we are - that doesn't make it so.

Abraham Lincoln said: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." Society does have a conscience - we need to learn to listen to the voices which question our justifications - we need eyes to see and ears to hear.

If you've got a minute, check out the Millennium Development Goals for a quick refresher on some of the big issues in our world which - if you're like me - can be too often "out of sight, out of mind". Go to: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ and open your heart, mind and soul to the big picture... let's not be fooled into thinking that everything's ok or that nothing can be done!

Some thoughts about STRIVING

Well - it's been a while (way too long!) since I've posted and if any of you check regularly you might be wondering what's up. Lots has been happening over the past few months and I've had many ideas for postings, but have just been very lazy about taking the time to put my thoughts down on paper. So - as the "fall" is upon us, my hibernation is over and I'll try to get back on track with postings every week or two.

I used to be quite an athlete. Really - I was. In fact, I was very VERY serious about basketball and field hockey through university and even for a short time was a carded athlete on the Canadian National field hockey squad. In 1980 I ran the Ottawa marathon and finished in a respectable time of just under 3 and a half hours. I tell you this so that you'll believe me when I say I was a serious athlete. Of course that was a quarter of a century ago, but who's counting years? Since then - well - let's just say that my focus has shifted to other, more sedentary pursuits. BUT, the point is, I'm on the verge of making a decision to get in shape. So, just to dip my toe in, so to speak, I went for a run yesterday and have been checking out The Running Room online. I'm actually feeling pulled toward this "get in shape" idea - it's a bit like a magnetic field that's gaining strength. I should also tell you that I was talking to someone on the weekend who went from being a non-runner three years ago, to running four half marathons this year. Pretty impressive! And I'm thinking, I COULD DO THAT.

In fact, I'm starting to get really excited about it. I can imagine myself, once again, as a "runner". Now to be honest, my run yesterday was pretty uninspiring. I covered about three miles in a half hour (that's a distressingly slow 10 minute per mile pace for a former marathoner like myself!) but it did feel good to be done. There's a certain sense of accomplishment when you push yourself to do something hard. And I got thinking about that as I carefully put one foot ahead of the other.

I realize that what I've missed - and I've known I was missing it for a long time now - is STRIVING. It takes a lot of commitment and discipline and energy to strive. From the time I was in grade seven until I was twenty-seven years old (coincidentally the age at which I got married!) I was dedicated, committed, disciplined - maybe even obsessive (okay - definitely obsessive!) about sport and fitness and always improving - faster times, longer distances, better stats, more consistent performances. I loved it. Getting married, finishing a PhD, having kids, working - there's been a certain amount of striving in my new life, but it's not quite the same. So, I wonder, do we all have a built in need to strive?

One of the things I did this summer was participate in a Short Term Mission trip to Kenya. This was my second trip to Kenya. It was a great experience and it has given me lots to think about in terms of justice issues. But it occurs to me that in countries like Kenya where so many people are living in absolute poverty, they STRIVE simply to survive. Life is very hard. Could the sense of satisfaction I might get from pushing myself to do a three mile run be akin to the satisfaction a woman has who has worked hard all day to put some food and water before her children - again?

A few years ago, my husband and I drove through the Rocky Mountains from Calgary to Vancouver. It's amazing terrain and we marveled at the engineering feat and the sheer guts and determination required to build a railroad through those mountains. Many lives were lost in the process and we got thinking about how technology has improved work safety in many areas of our country (at least for those in the middle class!). As a result - that is, as life has become less inherently risky - it seems that the need to strive has turned some people's efforts to things like extreme sport. Wikipedia defines extreme sport as follows: "Extreme sport (also called action sport, adventure sport, and adventurous sport) is a media term for certain activities perceived as having a high level of inherent danger or difficulty and often involving speed, height, a high level of physical exertion, and highly specialized gear or spectacular stunts." It seems that people who are drawn into these extreme sports or activities have a high need to test themselves - to STRIVE for new levels of daring and achievement. And they become part of a fraternity of other like-minded souls.

I wonder what percentage of humanity experiences some form of this desire to strive. What if we all have it in some degree - that it's part of our humanity - but that it gets expressed in various ways? But then, as I look around our post-modern, often selfishly materialistic, narcissistic, sometimes slothful (overweight, underactive, self-destructive) North American society, I wonder if this is what happens when we squelch our god-given desire to strive and give in to self indulgence?

I wonder at our ability to accept a lukewarm existence where we avoid anything that is hard. Is this really living? I don't want to trade places with those who have to strive to survive, but I'm thinking that it might be better to strive to survive than not to have to strive at all. And since my normal life is really pretty easy, maybe joining the fraternity of runners who are willing to be disciplined and committed enough to train for half marathons and marathons is actually a portal to a deeper spiritual life. I wonder...

Making a Difference

Over the past few weeks there have been countless graduation ceremonies in high schools across the country. Our son graduated this year so it's all very fresh in my mind! As we attended the Grad Banquet, the Grand March and the graduation itself, I found myself thinking about these kids and their future. Graduation is certainly celebrated as a rite of passage, but passage to what?

The valedictorian (like valedictorians pretty much everywhereI suspect) commented on the journey these students have been on from elementary school to middle school and finally to high school. She talked about things that have shaped this graduating class and about the contributions they might make to society as they continue on from here. It was pretty inspiring and it got me to thinking about the ways we make a difference in our world. Here's some of the things I've been thinking.

We all make a difference in one way or another. In fact, we all make a variety of differences, some positive and some negative. Is the measure of our life the net difference we make? Or is that a cop out? Imagine one of the 2007 grads ends up discovering a cure for cancer. Big difference, right? But let's say he or she has a personal life that causes lots of pain and suffering for family and friends. The net difference may be positive, but that doesn't undo all that pain and suffering does it. Or let's say that someone who is a great humanitarian causes an accident that kills a mother of three young children. Does the humanitarian good outweigh the personal cost to that family?

So, the point is, the decisions we make all have an impact on those around us. And we make hundreds of decisions every day.

As I think about the thousands of high school graduates that are being "released" into society, I wonder if they have been prepared to be good citizens, good employers and employees, good husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, friends. Years ago an elderly gentleman was a mentor to me. He was fond of coming up with pithy statements containing profound fragments of wisdom - his own proverbs if you will. One of his favorites (and mine!) was this: "Learning isn't all from books. It depends what you bring to the books."

Have we, as a society - through our educational system - invested in the character development of our children and youth? If we have, then I think the future is bright. But if we have failed to focus on character, opting to just teach the academic subjects, then I'm afraid there may be some rough waters ahead.

Life jackets, anyone?

"I can only imagine..."

A few years ago I was at a retreat and the soloist sang a Mercy Me song called "I Can Only Imagine". It's about heaven and it brought tears to my eyes. The song is about trying to imagine how we'll respond when we go to heaven and are in God's presence. The chorus goes like this:

Surrounded by Your glory, what will my heart feel? Will I dance for you Jesus or in awe of you be still? Will I stand in your presence or to my knees will I fall? Will I sing hallelujah, will I be able to speak at all? I can only imagine.

Lately though, I've noticed that when Christians talk about heaven, there's a bit of hesitation - a little squirming in our seats. On the one hand, we've been taught to think that heaven is great - perfect, in fact! What's not to look forward to? After all, there will be no more pain or suffering or tears. No more sin. Evil will apparently be completely absent from heaven. We'll be free to worship God 24/7. It seems a bit heretical to even think that such an existence may be, well - a bit boring.

Sure, we joke about sleeping in and eating all the chocolate we want, but what's heaven REALLY going to be like? As I ponder this, I have a bunch of questions:

• will we still have free will in heaven?
• if we do, what will our choices be and what will prevent us from making the same mistakes humanity has always made?
• if we don't, will we really be human?

Come to think of it, if Adam and Eve had obeyed God and resisted the lure of knowing good and evil (and thus, being like God), would they have lived on in the Garden of Eden in ignorance? Would we be innocent today, not knowing the difference between good and evil? Will heaven be a return to ignorance - I mean, innocence?

Or, will the context have shifted so dramatically that the only reality we know on earth - the perpetual battle between good and evil - will be transformed into a totally different reality? One beyond our knowing or even our imagination. But if this is possible, why have we had to go through all of human history with its injustices and abuses, greed, corruption, selfishness, etc.?

Will being "like Jesus" mean that we will choose not to do evil, even though we could? But how is that a fair scenario, if evil has been removed that is, if evil is absent, we can't really choose it and if we can't choose it, can we really be like Jesus in resisting evil and being obedient? So you see - lots of questions!

For the sake of this posting, the key one is this: will we have free will in heaven? Any thoughts? Until I hear from those who are wiser than I on this topic, I can only imagine...

The Triumph of Evil?

There's a quote that's been dogging me for some years now. Often attributed to an Anglo-Irish philosopher and statesman, Edmund Burke (1729-1797), the quote goes something like this: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". It often appears as a tag line in emails from people who are very committed to a particular "cause" which they perceive to be unjust or immoral. Perhaps it's just me, but I've come to feel as though it serves as a wagging finger. The text of these emails has outlined a particular issue and the "triumph of evil" quote is a benediction of sorts - the ultimate raison d'etre for rolling up our sleeves and taking a stand against the forces of evil at work in our world.

So, I've been trying to figure out why this quote irks me. After all, it has a certain inherent wisdom, doesn't it? Slavery is often cited as an evil which was brought down by the actions of good men - most especially William Wilberforce, about whom a movie (Amazing Grace) has now been released to bring historical account to popular culture. Let me say unequivocably that I do not for a second wish to diminish the efforts of Wilberforce (or any other social or political activist) who has courageously taken a controversial stand and effected change in society. These men and women are rightly regarded as heroes. So, what's the problem?

Well, I guess there are two things. First, since we can never undo the intricate web of human action and inaction on any particular issue, we can't say with any certainty what the outcome would have been in the absence of the action or inaction of a certain person at a certain time. Had Wilberforce not challenged the British Parliament when he did, would the institution of slavery have persisted to this day? [As I say that, I'm quite conscious of the fact that the institution of slavery DOES exist today - in fact, National Geographic had a feature article on 21st Century Slaves a few years ago in which they reported: "There are more slaves today than were seized from Africa in four centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The modern commerce in humans rivals illegal drug trafficking in its global reach—and in the destruction of lives." (see http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/index.html?fs=www7.nationalgeographic.com for a taste of the article or go the library and look up the Sept. 2003 issue of the National Geographic). What would have happened if Wilberforce had not acted as he did? Well - we really don't know, do we. Again, let me stress that this is not a criticism of Wilberforce. Far from it! Rather, it's a plea for careful reflection.

The other thing has to do with this "triumph of evil" business. There are some details of my Christian faith that I'm not absolutely, totally, 100% sure about. I recently heard someone say that most of us might have our theology 80% correct. The problem is, we're not sure which 80% is right or, more importantly, which 20% is wrong!

What I want to say is this: the way I understand it - at the very heart of my faith - evil does not win, no matter how badly we behave or how inhumanely we treat one another on this earth. No matter how courageously we stand for justice or how meekly we watch injustices unfold. Certainly, if we do nothing when we could act or speak, we may fail to deliver someone from pain and suffering. But let's be clear on this one thing: Evil has already been defeated. Wasn't that the point of the cross? Really, if the only hope we have against evil is our (puny) efforts - our schemes, campaigns and strategies - we're in big trouble.

This is not a prescription for doing nothing, but a reality check. Let's not think of ourselves more highly than we ought. If we really want to be followers of Christ - disciples, apprentices - God doesn't expect us to save the world or even fix it. He does expect us to do the things Jesus taught us to do - to be faithful witnesses of the life that comes from obedience. To live according to the ethics of the kingdom and thus create a dynamic, life-embracing, counter culture. And then! When we Christians get this part down - and I mean, REALLY get this down, in spite of the push and pull of our culture of materialism and me-ism, then we will see what God can do with our systems and institutions of injustice!

The triumph of evil? I think not.

How do we know what we know?

There's a dinosaur on my desk at work - a tyrannasaurus rex - the king of the dinosaurs! It's there to remind me to be humble and not to get so attached to my understanding of truth that I don't continue to seek understanding. Truth, I firmly believe, is complex. You just think you get something figured out when new information surfaces. Something doesn't quite fit. That's what makes the pursuit of truth so exciting.

I have this image in my mind about the way we tend to claim "truth". It's like climbers who have scaled a mountain, or astronauts who have landed on a distant planet - they proudly plant their flag, claiming the "conquered" territory. We do the same sort of thing when we arrive at a deeper level of insight or understanding. We plant our flag. Problem is, too often we tend to camp out there - protecting our territory. This is TRUTH - maybe even THE TRUTH and we're ready to defend it. The climb, the search, the flight is over. We've arrived. Of course, while we're tied up defending truth, we stop looking.

So what's this got to do with the dinosaur on my desk? When my son went through a dinosaur phase, we had movies about dinosaurs, books, various dinosaur figures - the works. In the course of our "research" I can still remember the shock and disappointment I felt when I discovered that paleontologists really have to fill in a lot of blanks in order to give us the finished product. The fierce tyrannosaurus rex, for instance, is a composite of a few bones and a lot of imagination. Did you know that? On the basis of a few bones, paleontologists have re-created this amazing creature - they've fleshed him out, all based on a few bones. Shape, size, color, temperament, habitat, diet - all from a few bones!

We have this great book. It's a coffee table size - Dinosaur Skeletons and Other Prehistoric Animals by Jinny Johnson. On the cover flap it says this: "No one was around millions of years ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth. So how do we know about these amazing creatures? From discoveries of fossilized bones, scientists have pieced together a picture of how these incredible animals MAY have looked, and how they moved, fed, and fought." I added that emphasis on MAY... hm. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

So, the dinosaur sits quietly on my desk, watching me work and reminding me to keep thinking, keep searching, keep seeking - even when where I'm at feels pretty right.