Sunday 28 December 2014

Post 30--Christmas--“Let’s Feel Free….”




Christmas 2014 is past; this is being written on December 27. But before we move out of the Christmas mode/mood, I want to return once more for some unfinished business to that Todd article featured in Post 28.  It’s an article well researched and argued and replete with nuggets I want to share with you now, so you can remember it for  December, 2015. 

Todd refers to all kinds of disagreements and perspectives on Christmas and its public manifestations and then offers to help us “sort through the Christmas confusion.”  Well, that’s a noble enough  intent! 

On the one hand we have research from SFU’s school of business indicating that employees talking freely about religion in the workplace tend to be more satisfied than those who don’t, with the reverse being equally true. This research, in other words, suggests that people, Christians and others, will be happier with Christmas trees in the workplace, for it opens the way to religious discussion.  

Strangely, the above report appeared in a news release from SFU that also stated the seemingly opposite. If your employers put up a tree, they “could be sending the implicit message that they value Christian belief… over other religions.”  This could lead to non-Christians hiding their convictions, which can then lead to stress and reduced loyalty. An earlier SFU study alleged that a workplace Christmas tree makes people feel excluded. This latter report, according to the Todd article, “reflected the way…social scientists often view anything vaguely linked to Christianity…as colonialism.” 

The bottom line of the report is the proposal that employers avoid acting as if Christmas is the only religious holiday to be observed by also clearly marking the special days of other traditions. This, writes Todd, “sounds more like something I could embrace” and to which I, the current writer, would add an affirmative “Amen!”

Since my return to Canada after an absence of 39 years, I noticed something peculiar that Todd now brings into the open. “While aboriginal spirituality…is often exhibited in…educational and public settings, some Canadians believe anything vaguely Christian… must be erased from the public square.” I understand Todd to be one of these Canadians. “It is no wonder,” he suggests, that “many religious people…see the process of secularization and multiculturalism as mainly one of ‘loss’ and ‘subtraction’.”

Same with respect to other non-Christian religions. Derryl MacLean, an SFU specialist in Islamic studies, told Todd that “people on the campus ‘bend over backwards’ to show respect to Muslims who wear hijabs and Sikhs who wear turbans. However, “Evangelicals would be ‘looked at askance’ for expressing their religious views.”

We have reached a situation where “openness is rare. Indeed, many Canadians, particularly Christians at universities, are frightened to express their religious beliefs. A former UBC president told Todd “that staff and students made it clear…that they feel the campus is ‘ruthlessly secular’.”  Many people feel that “talking about religion ‘would not be well received’.”  

Todd then suggest that we ought to “truly recognize that this is a pluralistic country with many faiths and secular world views.”  “This means encouraging the expression of virtually all worldviews, religious and secular, in the  public square. (And also being open to criticism of them.)”  He notes that many Muslims, Sikhs, Secularists and even Atheists “merrily put up Christmas trees.”  Research has discovered that by a margin of ten-to-one BC residents prefer “Merry Christmas” to “Happy holidays.”

So, pluralist Canada, let’s go for it. Christ 2015 is just around the corner! Feel free…. 

Friday 26 December 2014

Post 29--Nostalgia and Christmas Faith



                  
There are several columnists in the Vancouver Sun whom I enjoy reading—most of the time.  Douglas Todd is at the heap of the pile, but definitely Pete McMartin is another. There is quite a difference between the two, with Todd writing about religions and ethical stuff, while McMartin often writes lighter stories of human interest. 

McMartin’s column of December 20 is an interesting mix of raccoons digging up his lawn and a walk to the beach leading him and his companion(s)—wife? family?—into a woodlot whose plants and birds he describes in some detail.  All of this is an attempt to get away from it all for just a few moments, “it all” referring especially to the busyness of Christmas. He experiences the season as one “encrusted with obligations” and wonders “why the whole thing hadn’t collapsed under its weight years ago, why we hadn’t tired of the exertion of it.” 

And then comes the real nostalgic part. “A lot has been lost in the distance between the manger and the mall—faith, in particular, for many of us—but what has remained is the yearning for something to fill up that space.”  He is, of course, hardly the only one to suffer Christmas nostalgia. I recall a couple of years ago a downtown preacher introducing the Christmas hymn sing with the words, “the songs which we all used to believe in.”  We may still go through some of the motions, but it is all superficial without real content for many—McMartin’s empty space.

Then he suggests some potential replacements for that Christmas faith of old: compassion, family or “a new religion to replace the old, maybe this one grounded more in earth than in heaven.”  Frankly, I put the onus on our Christian churches for this loss of faith among our general populace. If after all these years they have not been able to teach and demonstrate that the Christian gospel is as much about earth as it is about heaven, then I come close to advising them to just close their doors and sell their real estate. They have wasted everyone’s time and money and misled the people along a dead end trail. The so-called mainline liberal churches have long emphasized an earthly gospel; the evangelicals and fundamentalists, a more heavenly version.  Shame on the whole works!  I saw it happening from afar during my 30 years in Nigeria; now I see it happening close up. I believe some churches, particularly evangelicals, are waking up to embrace both heaven and earth,  but it may well be too little too late. 

Yes, our Christmas season has a way of pushing the nostalgia button in many of us, including yours truly. I remember the Christmases in my birth country and birth family of ten children with all the cheer and joy, but without the gifts since by tradition these came on December 5. I remember the Nigerian Christmas tables laden with delicious Nigerian foods and surrounded by various groups of international friends. Now that we are in Vancouver, we keenly feel the loneliness that characterizes this secular city, what with all our children and grandchildren living abroad.  Yes, there is nostalgia even for me.

However, there is also more than nostalgia; the basic meaning and joy of Christmas remain in tact for me. I am grateful that not everyone has caved in to this nostalgia and that I can still celebrate in the company of believers a more meaningful Christmas of the birth of a Son of whom it was prophesied many centuries earlier:

For a Child has been born—for us!
    the gift of a Son—for us!
He’ll take over
    the running of the world.
His names will be: Amazing Counselor,
    Strong God,
Eternal Father,
    Prince of Wholeness (or Peace).
His ruling authority will grow,
    and there’ll be no limits to the wholeness He brings.
Merry Christmas!

Wednesday 24 December 2014

Post 28--The War on Christmas




My last post introduced the Christmas theme and it won’t let me go. So here’s another one. 

While today’s post has the word “war” explicitly in its title, yesterday’s was also part of the war going on between “Christians and their diverse allies” and “others,” including the “Atheists and their supportive cohort of super-secular multiculturalists.” Strange: Since Christmas is about the arrival of the Prince of Peace, one would expect every one to welcome Him.  Well, we know that’s not exactly the case.

This is how Douglas Todd delivers the first salvo in his spirited defense of  public celebration of Christmas (“Let’s feel free to observe Christmas,” Vancouver Sun, Dec. 6, 2014, p. D6):  

Tis the season to check on which side is winning the war on Christmas. Is it the Atheists and their supportive cohort of super-secular multiculturalists? Or is it the Christians and their diverse allies?

His is a great article that covers the entire range of public opinion on the subject. I am going to just comment on a couple of features of the article. 

 I apologize that I intentionally slipped in a misquote, so slight that it hides its import. Yes, intentionally. I bet you can’t even find it!  Check out the word “atheist” in the quote and in this paragraph. What do you see?  Still not?  Well, here it is: In the quote, the “a” is in higher case, while in this paragraph it is in the lower. That difference, small as it is to the eye, could be expressive of a profound difference in the definition of religion. 

Why, as in Todd’s article, do most people capitalize the names of recognized religions as well as of their adherents like Christianity/Christians, Sikhism/Sikhs, etc., but not of secularism/secularists or  atheism/atheists?  They are all equally worldviews, systems of belief or--dare I say it?—religions; they are all within the one and the same genre of things. So why capitalize some and not others? 

I have never heard a linguist or grammarian explain this puzzling phenomenon, but I believe it is because most people don’t see them as being of one genre. Secularism, atheism and humanism are not in the same genre as religions, their adherents will tell us—and most of us have bought into that. Atheism and its allies are allegedly objectively and neutrally true, while religions are intensely subjective and far from neutral. But you look behind the scenes into Atheist books and you will find every page proposing theses they can never prove, only believe. Yes, they too are faiths; they are no more objective or neutral than anyone else. We’re all the same boat of believers; it’s just that our beliefs are different.  

I readily admit that explanation above does not tell why you secularism and its fellow systems are  put in higher case and those recognized as religions in the lower. Perhaps it is a tradition that developed during the years that secularism c.s. were less popular and considered ineligible for the prestige of a capital letter. I don’t know; just guessing.

But this issue is of huge importance in society, a point we cannot pursue now but will reserve for later. Do note that I am not saying that I have just described Todd’s perspective on this. He may just have followed grammatical convention or, perhaps, his editor changed those letters from lower to higher case.  

That difference in case can be seen as expressive of a difference between them that some, including Todd, depict as “war.”  While many people berate Christianity because, among other reasons, of the hostility between western denominations over the centuries, they for some reason fail to realize that Christians have largely come to terms with each other and co-operate, even though the basic differences still exist, especially between Protestants and Roman Catholics.  In addition, the various global religions are also in dialogue with each other; their main streams do not support religious hostilities.  Apart from the fundamentalists, the religious war has shifted from those we describe as “religious” to those who live by the myth of neutrality—atheists c.s. It is they who now seek to force public displays of “religion,” particularly the Christian religion, out of the public square. And that’s what the Christmas fracas is all about. Get rid of public Christian symbols and with them, the religion itself. 

Time to let go for now. More to come, for Todd’s article is loaded with good stuff. Can’t let it go with this.  Have a good one and merry Christmas to all.

Thursday 18 December 2014

Post 27--Divorce, Children, Christmas Celebration



 
My last post introduced the Christmas theme and it won’t let me go. So here’s another one.  While that one talked of the wide-spread and heart-breaking practice of abortion in the context of Christmas, this one deals with an equally wide-spread and heart-breaking practice, namely that of divorce in the context of Christmas.  These are two practices that the church of Christ has for centuries opposed, rejected, but which, due to the influence of secularism on the minds of many Christians, have become common among Christians, acceptable even to many of them.  Many are no longer shocked by these practices. After all, many people do them. My own extended family has been afflicted by it and it has produced deep and hurtful emotions. 

There’s this weekly “Parent Trap” in the Vancouver Sun. On December 16, a divorced mother explained that her son wants his father to be invited to their family Christmas dinner. She commented, “I’m not sure that I am comfortable with this idea. I don’t want to tear my family apart –Boer: You guys have already done that, “mother!”—but I’m not sure I could handle his presence at the table. What should I do?”

As the column works, readers respond to these traps under the rubric, “Your Two Cents.” In this case, both respondents are women. One wrote,

My daughter and (ex) son-in-law each attend one major family celebration per year—he comes to Thanksgiving at our place, and she goes to Christmas with his folks. This is to ensure that the children know they still have a family, and that both parents will always take care of the children’s needs.  The parents never ever allow their own tensions to intrude on the children, and neither to either set of in-laws—we all suck it up because it’s for the children.

Another woman wrote,

Their lives have been shattered by a family split up and you need to get over yourself. There will be many birthdays, graduations and wedding when you will need to show a united front and put your children’s feelings and desires first. I am 60 and still suffer from the effects of my parents’ inability to come together for me even on my wedding day (italics mine).

Then the columnist herself, Michele Kambolis, a family therapist, chimes in. I quote selectively: “While there are no magical formulas for celebrating the holidays after a divorce, we know the goal is and should always be putting the needs of children at the forefront.”  She then offers a few suggestions as the standards to be upheld.

The first of these is that for the sake of the children, “you and your ex are working together and are on good terms.”  If doing the Christmas thing together is too much for you to begin with, for this year invite “your ex-husband over for a pre-dinner visit, a coffee, or even dessert,” something that “is easier to digest than a long drawn-out dinner.” Whether the pun is intended or not, I do not know.  Whatever arrangement you concoct, “reassure your son that holiday celebrations will continue, but they may not always look the same.”  Be sure to avoid “holiday competition” when it comes to gift giving.  You should consider buying gifts together and “focus on your time together rather than time apart and stick to your agreements.” 

Keep this in your mind and heart; you have the strength, flexibility and wisdom to carry you and your children through the many changes ahead. The holidays will come and go…, but with this perspective you can clear the emotional space to make wise and compassionate decisions for years to come.

The thing that stands out in the comments of all three women is the importance of putting your children’s welfare and happiness before everything else.  If you have decided voluntarily to have a family, you have given up the right to put your own happiness ahead of that of your children.

Even if the child is not the result of your voluntary decision, you need to think seriously about its welfare. That child, born under whatever circumstances, bears God’s image and as such s(he) has the God-given right to your love and a wholesome upbringing that will not leave her/him suffering from emotional scars you have inflicted on her/him. As God got over Himself with regard to us in our sinfulness and gave us Jesus, so He expects you to get over yourself and give both yourself and Jesus to your children.

That is the image of God in you as a parent. 


Wednesday 10 December 2014

Post 26--Abortion and Jesus





It’s the 2014 Christmas month. So, our thoughts naturally gravitate towards the birth of Jesus. But today, as soon as you mention birth, many think immediately of abortion. What if Jesus had been aborted? 

I’m passing on to you a short article featured on the Denison Forum of today. True, it’s American in orientation, but if you can forget its place of origin, you can just as easily think of it as Canadian.  I plan to do a more Canadian post on this early in the new year. (No, this is not a promise; just an announcement of my intention!  If it doesn’t happen, no promise will have been broken, just a plan aborted—only a plan!)

The Forum’s article is entitled “The World’s Most Famous Baby Bump.” And sorry for the unnecessary borders around and the invisible within the article. That’s how it showed up on the Forum’s website and I don’t know how to get rid of them without hauling in my “expert.” So, here goes:

Thus a reporter described Kate Middleton's pregnancy as she and Prince William arrived in New York City last Sunday for a three-day official American tour.  Kate is about five months pregnant.  At this stage, her baby has a heart, a face, a brain, fingernails, and is growing hair.  Kate may already be feeling her child's movements.

Yet, as journalist Katrina Trinko notes, it would be legal in the United States for Kate to abort her baby.  The U.S. is one of only seven countries—including North Korea and China—that allow elective abortions after 20 weeks.

How many babies are aborted at this stage?  About one percent of all abortions, according to the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute.  However, since more than a million abortions are performed each year in this country, that percentage still translates to 10,000 abortions past 20 weeks.  If you believe that life begins at conception, what can you do about this issue today?

One: you can help others think biblically.  One in five Americans who choose abortion describe themselves as born-again Christians.  According to the American Bible Society, only 20 percent of Christians who view the Bible as the inspired word of God ever think about it during the day.  Clearly there is a disconnect between what most churches teach on the issue of life and how many Christians respond in practice.

Two: you can help those dealing with an unwanted or at-risk pregnancy.  It's not enough to be pro-birth—we should be pro-life.  We should offer the financial, relational, and medical support mothers need.  And we should look for ways to serve the biological father as well.

Three: you can encourage adoption.  BraveLove is "a pro-adoption movement dedicated to changing the perception of adoption by acknowledging birth moms for their brave decision."  They are running a campaign right now to thank birth mothers who made the courageous decision to choose life and adoption.  I believe more Christians and churches should encourage adoption for their members and our society.

Four: you can become involved in the legislative process.  You can run for political office—God is calling more Christians into public service than are answering his call.  You can express your concerns to your governmental representatives, and mobilize others to do the same.

Five: you can extend God's grace to those who have chosen abortion in the past, helping them find the redeeming and restoring love our Father offers all his children.

Imagine this situation: an unmarried teenage girl becomes pregnant.  Her fiancĂ© is not the father.  Her unplanned pregnancy will likely lead to rejection by her family and culture; she could even be executed for adultery.  She may be forced to raise her child alone, in a society where she has almost no means of financial support.  How many in her situation today would choose abortion?

She courageously brought her child to term.  Her fiancĂ© courageously married and supported her.  When the baby was born, they named him Jesus.  "What wondrous love is this, O my soul . . ."

Sunday 7 December 2014

Post 25--The Taxman: A Wild Canadian Bronco (2)




I ended the last post with the promise that there was more to come about this wild Canadian taxman.  So, here goes….

In 2006, Irvin’s Member of Parliament (MP) took up his case with the Minister of National Revenue. The MP was told that the CRA does not have a mechanism to compensate wronged taxpayers!  But if Irvin would file a new lawsuit for damages, the CRA would settle out of court. So he did, expecting a settlement. 

Nope!  The CRA lawyers fought tooth and nail filing applications and appeals to have the case dismissed. It took seven long years to have it reach trial. As the CTF told it:

During these years, Irvin’s ordeal became public, touching off a groundswell of support…. He was overwhelmed by letters from other Canadian who told him of their own horror stories with the CRA and contributed money to help keep his case going. 

It became apparent that this wasn’t a one-off case of taxpayer wrongdoing by the CRA. It was much bigger than that.  It was about reining in the power of a government agency with almost unchecked power.

The Supreme Court of BC ruled that the CRA owed a “duty of care” to Irvin, i.e.” to treat him in a non-negligent manner.”  Now that sounds pretty tame  in this context, but the CRA is appealing this ruling, claiming it does not have any legal “duty” to taxpayers or that it should be held to account when it is negligent!  Can you believe it? In this civilized country?  Can you now understand why I am livid? 

The CTF has decided to take up this case. It intends to fight to protect this “duty of care” obligation on the part of CRA.  This is “about reining in the power of a government agency with almost unchecked power.” It doesn’t have the money and is appealing for donations.  You can contact them at
< admin@taxpayer.com >.  It could happen to you. Irving did not think it ever would to him either.