Making a difference...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith, Politics and Peace...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "right to food"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A "Lost" Generation?

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

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

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

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

So they walk away.

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

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

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

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

More thoughts on evil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem of evil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

World Religions Leaders' Summit in Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For lots of good information on the G8 summits, including specific information on the 2010 summit, see http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/.

The website for the Interfaith Partnership is http://www.faithchallengeg8.com/.

There is an online petition that you can check out - it's pretty brief and to the point - you can find it at http://petition.faithchallengeg8.com/. Those of you who know me, know that I'm not a big fan of online petitions because we sometimes use them to satisfy ourselves that we've "done something" when we actually haven't taken the time to understand the issues or to have an informed opinion. So, I encourage you to sign the petition, but only AFTER you've read it and have done anough extra reading and thinking to be confident that you actually DO agree with it!

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

Olympic Shine... or Shame?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does Jesus REALLY want from us?

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

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

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

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

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

Not about Haiti... thoughts about sprititual rebar

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

Don’t build your house on the sandy land

Don’t build it too near the shore.

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

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

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

Make a good foundation on a solid spot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are exciting days to BE the people of God!

More thoughts on Haiti... and disaster response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haiti... and thoughts on relief and development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sustainable living...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But for the grace of God...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why live simply? Does it make any difference?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lest we forget...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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